correction: it should be stressed that I "drew a line" from the specific application of Keynesian fiscal policy in the 1960s (which itself was largely a result of the war against Viet Nam) to _stagflation_ in the 1970s. The US hasn't seen hyperinflation since the 1860s.
>Shrinking the Fed govt. If we define this as
>spending/GDP, the government hasn't shrunk all that
>much, if at all.
the article I mentioned used statistics about government _employment_.
>> Clinton's been protecting us from the Gingriches and Chernoweth's of the
>> world. But he also helped create them and their power. He instituted "more
>> moderate" versions of their program. But the definition of "moderate" has
>> shifted far to the right, with Clinton leading the way.
>
>You could also say they created him.
why? he hasn't any principles that I can see (except that it's good to preserve one's political base). Why would he ever be upset by Gingrich, rising in righteous anger the way that Newt did? Or do you mean that the GOPsters created Clinton as a right-wing hack? but you'd have to add his lack of back-bone to the equation.
>As I said previously, if the R's get veto-proof majorities
>in Congress, you ain't seen nothin yet.
yeah, maybe people will start actively opposing both wings of the Republicrat party. I noticed that it was people _outside the beltway_ who got most upset by the "Contract On America." It was this that caused the GOPsters to be more subtle in their machinations.
now it's guaranteed that Doug will send me a message telling me I'm over quota...
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html