Republicans are currently in power, not the Democrats. So if anything goes wrong in the next four years, you will now know who to blame.

I'm a red-blooded, flag-waving, gun-rights conservative... and this is about the stupidest piece of trash I've read. It's unthinking trash like this that the liberal media latches onto to make us all out to be hateful ignorant mad dogs. Shame on you.

If it weren't for liberals, America would be indistinguishable from the corrupt theo-monarchies of the Middle Ages. I say thank God for Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln (too liberal to be elected by today's Republicans), FDR, Truman, the Kennedys, LBJ (yes, LBJ) and the Clintons. Or perhaps you don't want your money protected by the FDIC, your food protected by the FDA, and your retirement protected by Social Security and Medicare. And recall that the last three Presidents to balance the budget (Clinton, LBJ & JFK) were all liberals, while the ones who bust the budget are "conservatives" (Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes). Roll that in your joint and smoke it! Pete: What liberal media?

As another reader who opposes most of the agenda of modern liberals, I agree with Pete Robertson's take on this parody, but MP's thoughts and "facts" also call out for a response.

Balanced budgets did NOT occur during the terms of LBJ and JFK. The last fiscal year without a budget deficit prior to the Clinton Administration was 1960 (the last year of the Eisenhower administration). Some people claim that there was a surplus in 1969 (Nixon's first year � but you could attribute it to LBJ, his predecessor), but that "surplus" resulted from the accounting gimmick of including off-budget items � primarily Social Security cash receipts.

Giving Clinton credit for balancing the budget is like giving the rooster credit for the sun rising in the morning. The Clinton surpluses were primarily due to the strong economy, which was more a result of the business cycle than government policies. The three government policies that might have contributed to the strong economy were #1 NAFTA (and Clinton deserves credit for supporting this sound economic policy that John Kerry and most other liberals now oppose), #2 NOT implementing a socialized health care plan (which he favored but couldn't get passed), and #3 welfare reform (which Republicans in Congress forced upon him).

Then, was Lincoln liberal or conservative? He was probably both, but what would those who condemn the Patriot Act (and I acknowledge that some of their arguments are valid) think about Lincoln suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War?

And finally, MP, I do not find any constitutional basis for the FDIC, the FDA, or Social Security, and I believe the nation would be much better off restoring their functions to the private sector.

Just a side note.... Michael Moore directed a video for System of a Down. I guess that's too bad for you, Narrow, because that means they must be "stupid extremist liberals."

John: You got a problem with my balanced-budget facts? Blame "The World Almanac." They say Fiscal Year 1969 -- Johnson's last budget -- was in surplus. I reported. You denied. Boo ya. Clinton had a Democratic Congress his first two years, and got absolutely ZERO Republican votes for his budgets, and cut the deficit in half in two years. WIth a Republican Congress, it took four years to get the other half... twice as long. The Newtoids were a drag on the deficit-cutting process. And the deficit-cutting and job-creating done by Clinton is what CAUSED the great economy, not vice versa. So Clinton gets the credit whether you like it or not. As for Lincoln, I can tolerate suspending habeas corpus for the reason that we were fighting a bunch of goddamned traitors and terrorists who called themselves the Confederate States of America. Constitutional basis? How about "...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility... promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"? It's right there in the beginning! You "conservatives" always say, "Let the private sector do it." History has proven time and time again that the private sector will NOT do it. They choose not to do it. If they had, FDR would been a gentleman lawyer in Dutchess County, JFK would've been a semi-contented journalist, LBJ would've been a country schoolteacher and, to paraphrase Martin Sheen (as Chief of Staff in "The American President" before becoming President in "The West Wing"), if the private sector had done what you think it should do, Bill Clinton would still be, to this day, the most popular professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

I find it interesting to note that not one single person has talked about how good this song parody is. Oh people have mentioned (myself included) just how bad it is, but nobody wants to defend the song (not even right wingers). Now that's pretty bad, when left and right seem to dislike the same thing. Be careful "Narrow but Deep" write enough songs like this and you may bring left and right together. Perhaps somebody even might parody the song "Ebony and Ivory" and call it "Left and Right." That just might be your worst nightmare.

Mr. Pacholek, thank you for addressing the issues that I raised. Let me respond again. I did not “deny” that some people claim that there was a balanced budget in 1969, but I accused those people of using an accounting gimmick. There are two ways of determining whether there is a budget surplus or deficit. One is to look at budgeted items and one is to look at budgeted items and add in off-budget items, primarily social security. In 1969 (according to the Office of Management and Budget, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf), there was a surplus in non- budgeted items of $3.7 billion, which when added to the budget deficit of $0.5 billion gave a total surplus of $3.2 billion. If you want to give President Johnson credit for producing that budget “surplus,” feel free to do so, but I really think that is using the word “surplus” loosely.

Perhaps President Clinton deserves some credit for creating jobs and cutting the deficit, as you claim. I give him credit for supporting NAFTA, which did help stimulate the economy and create jobs, but most liberals no longer support this policy. Another one of his policies that helped reduce the deficit was cutting spending for military and intelligence gathering, which did not leave the nation in the best defensive position for 9/11/01. Can you share any other specific policies or programs he implemented or cut that helped create the surplus?

While you might find it appropriate to quote Martin Sheen for your criticism of the private sector, I prefer to quote Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman for my support of the private sector. “The United States today is more than 50% socialist in terms of the fraction of our resources that are controlled by the government. Fortunately, socialism is so inefficient that it does not control 50% of our lives. The really fascinating thing is that our private sector has been so effective, so efficient, that it has been able to produce a standard of life that is the envy of the rest of the world on the basis of less than half the resources available to all of us.”

I thought is was f*cking hilarious! I think you are just just a bunch of cry babies!