To: dogbyte12
Why not 86? Why not 88?
To: Senator Pardek
Odd numbers are more palatable.
To: Senator Pardek
Is that all? Well, 86 billion less for new welfare and mediscare programs... oh way, we'll just run up deficits and have BOTH!
4 posted on
09/07/2003 5:41:36 PM PDT by
ambrose
(Fight The Real Enemy...)
To: Senator Pardek
The number 88 was retired a few years ago, during a pre-speech ceremony.
To: Senator Pardek
why not 100 billion...............??
56 posted on
09/07/2003 7:27:51 PM PDT by
KQQL
(^@__*^)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson