# Where's the outrage from fiscal conservatives over Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180 "2009-07-25T01:11:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/101 "2009-07-28T20:16:33Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Bush cut the top rate in 2001 and we were told the usual supply-side snake oil about how well it would work. Instead tax revenues fell catastrophically causing huge long term problems and the weak economic growth petered out very quickly, creating the need for something to give us economic growth to hide the failure of the tax cuts. And lo and behold we got the biggest asset bubble in history. That’s funny. My data shows something different. Here’s something I found in 10 seconds of googling. Especially interesting is that the signatory is someone from the current Obama administration. [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/102 "2009-07-28T20:19:42Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Right. So 90% marginal rates, correlating to your strawman assertion of some time when ‘conservatives’ claim there was a ‘real America’ (whatever that is) is your proof. > > That’s great. I might also note that it was also an extremely unusual time in modern world history, when the rest of the industrialized world’s productive capacity had been bombed into oblivion during WWII, and GDP was coming off an artificially low base to begin with. > > But other than that, I accept your premise. > > Tell you what…there is a little common area out back in our Homeowner’s Association. I’d like you to spend the rest of your life there, cleaning up, and tending to some chickens and a garden. I’ll promise we’ll feed you and put a roof over your head. We’ll even pay you minimum wage, and we’ll take 90% of it. > > What do you say? It certainly won’t be ‘dangerous’ to you, just like your claim above. So why would you resist? After all, your bar for government intervention and expropriation of resources seems to be that if ‘isn’t dangerous’, then the burden of proof is on the individual citizen to show it shouldn’t be done. > > I am now putting that burden on you. Since I’m sure you agree with me that it isn’t dangerous, I’ll expect you to show up tomorrow morning and get to work. Thanks. I’m pleased you agree with me, other than quibbling about things like “artificially low bases”. The economy was running at full capacity thanks to the huge government spending program known as World War Two and the end of the forties/start of the fifties saw the biggest economic boom in the history of economys, so I’d disagree with that artificial thing. Obviously taking 90% of minimum wage is silly. That’s just a silly scenario altogether, not worth replying to. Taxes will have to go up eventually, the next ten or so years we’ll see both sides try everything but raising them but eventually circumstances will dictate. And when they do I’ll be one of the people paying more, but over the long term it’ll mean that I’m better off. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/103 "2009-07-28T20:21:00Z")
Because it’s off-topic for this thread, but an interesting enough topic to merit debate, I created [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11386859) about the Laffer curve. Please contribute your arguments there. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/104 "2009-07-28T20:37:03Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > That’s funny. My data shows something different. Here’s something I found in 10 seconds of googling. Especially interesting is that the signatory is someone from the current Obama administration. > > [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf) Here are some actual numbers to help you understand how tax revenues have gone recently and the historical context. These numbers are all in hundreds of billions : 1990 1,032.1 1991 1055.1 1992 1,091.3 1993 1154.5 1994 1,258.7 1995 1,351.9 1996 1,453.2 1997 1579.4 1998 1,722.0 1999 1,827.6 2000 2,025.5 So you can see the 35% increase over the Bush year in the thing you linked is totally disastrous. Historically tax revenues roughly double every ten years, something you can see at the link below. Clinton’s would have increased another 30+% had he not cut taxes for the middle/lower earners to (slightly) make up for the redistribution of wealth from them to high eaners over the previous decade. Anyway Bush took office in 2001 and enacted tax cuts which were backdated to the start of that financial year. If the Laffer curve and increased-revenues-when-the-top-rate-is-cut-under-50% is correct then tax revenues should be on target to roughly double _plus_ we see some of that Laffer increase on top of the doubling, right? Here are the numbers, again in hundreds of billions$ : 2000: 2025.5 _Bush tax cut_ 2001 : 1991.4 2002 : 1853.4 _Bush tax cut_ 2003 : 1782.5 2004 : 1880.3 2005 : 2153.9 2006 : 2407.3 2007 : 2568.2 And the official 2008 number isn’t out yet but it’ll obviously be below the 2007 number due to the recession, financial meltdown etc. [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache%3Awb6jwq--MYYJ%3Awww.cbo.gov%2Fbudget%2Fdata%2Fhistorical.pdf+cbo+historical+tax+revenues&hl=en&gl=uk](http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache%3Awb6jwq--MYYJ%3Awww.cbo.gov%2Fbudget%2Fdata%2Fhistorical.pdf+cbo+historical+tax+revenues&hl=en&gl=uk) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/105 "2009-07-28T21:04:21Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > And the official 2008 number isn’t out yet but it’ll obviously be below the 2007 number due to the recession, financial meltdown etc. You do realize there was also a recession in 2001-2003, do you not? And that tax revenues 2003-2007 increased rather markedly? You alleged - > [@](#): > > Instead tax revenues fell catastrophically causing huge long term problems and the weak economic growth petered out very quickly So I am afraid that, far from falling catastrophically, tax revenues increased by more than a third to their highest levels in history, Rather than petering out, the economy grew faster than at any time since Reagan. [Cite.](http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm) The tax cuts signalled the start of another boom. [Cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html), [cite](http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html), [cite](http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-307897.html), etc. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/106 "2009-07-28T21:11:25Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > And when they do I’ll be one of the people paying more, but over the long term it’ll mean that I’m better off. So you’ll be paying more of your money to the government, but you’ll be better off as a result? Why not just give it to me? I’ll give 50% of what you gave me to the government, and give you 50% of it right back. Wouldn’t you be better off then? ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/107 "2009-07-28T21:24:13Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Obviously taking 90% of minimum wage is silly. That’s just a silly scenario altogether, not worth replying to. OK. So you think my scenario is silly, and I think your scenario is silly. We’ve pinned down the ends of the argument. Now we need to find where the pendulum flips, somewhere in the middle. I will repeat: Your language in the post above suggests that the burden of proof is on the citizen, not the government, to prove why a certain level of taxation is ‘not dangerous’. I highlighted that fact by illustrating another ‘not dangerous’ example, which in theory replicated the same boundary conditions, constraints and conditions of satisfaction in your example. Then you replied it was silly. That was exactly my intention. To show why it’s silly. So I’ll ask again…why won’t you show up for work at my house tomorrow? 1. I’m taking 90% of your income, same as in your example. 2. Your life will not ‘be dangerous’, same as in your example. So something else must be different than the 2 points listed above for you to regard my example as silly. What is different? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/108 "2009-07-28T21:33:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You do realize there was also a recession in 2001-2003, do you not? And that tax revenues 2003-2007 increased rather markedly? > You alleged - > So I am afraid that, far from falling catastrophically, tax revenues increased by more than a third to their highest levels in history, Rather than petering out, the economy grew faster than at any time since Reagan. [Cite.](http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm) The tax cuts signalled the start of another boom. [Cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html), [cite](http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html), [cite](http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-307897.html), etc. > > Regards, > Shodan There wasn’t a recession from 2001-3. There was a shallow eight month recession in 2001. From the NBER, the generally accepted arbiters of recession : > **[Business Cycle Dating](https://www.nber.org/research/business-cycle-dating)** Tax revenues are roughly $1200 billion a year short of where we would currently expect them to be had the recession not occurred. Look at the numbers, Jesus, it’s in black and white. Tax revenues only jumped 2003-7 on the back of the biggest asset bubble in history. We’ll get a true reflection of what they would have been in the 2009-10 numbers, as the Bush tax cuts will still be in place but we’ll have come out of recession. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/109 "2009-07-28T21:35:41Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > So you’ll be paying more of your money to the government, but you’ll be better off as a result? > > Why not just give it to me? I’ll give 50% of what you gave me to the government, and give you 50% of it right back. Wouldn’t you be better off then? Yes in twenty years with a stable economy with a balanced budget, not prone to booms or busts, I’ll come out ahead. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/110 "2009-07-28T21:58:28Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Read the post I was responding to. You were advocating the military as a benficial domestic entity, countering **Beware of Doug** ’s point about using it as an instrument of foreign policy. > > You did not attempt to justify the current military by advocating that it’s necesary for national defense and such, but you specifically tried to identify it as a useful domestic institution because of the economic benefits of paying people, and of businesses supporting people, etc. > > I’m saying that the economic argument is irrelevant to the point. Whatever we did with that spending, if we chose to stop spending it on the military, would go on to create jobs in other areas. It’s not a defense to say “military spending is fine, it creates jobs” where if we cut the military budget and instead built bridges, funded research, or cut taxes it would also create jobs. Probably more, since there’s more economic value to be had in the latter than the former. > > Which is not to say that I’m against funding a military or even advocating military spending cuts. I’m just saying the defense “military spending creates jobs!” is irrelevant to the discussion. Well, I understand you better, but I still disagree with your general point, only insofar as I was replying to **Beware Of Doug’s** post regarding why the military is “revered by conservatives” and is viewed as a “beneficial and necessary institution domestically”. I don’t get the beef (hee-hee) with the assertion that the military is in fact an institution, a large one, does in fact promote employment, and is as ingrained into our makeup as Americans as apple pie and Chevrolet. I was refuting his point that we shouldn’t view the military in such a light, or that only conservatives feel that way about the military. I suppose I kind of thought that it was a foregone conclusion. I do agree with your “building bridges” analogy, but I suppose the point of all this is that as long as we are the country we are, we’re always going to have a strong military and it will always be a domestic institution. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/111 "2009-07-28T23:32:58Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Clinton raised the marginal rate to just under 40% in 1992. The entire GOP voted against it and we were warned of economic catastrophe, huge drops in GDP, tax revenues etc. Instead we got the best economic growth for decades, record investment and balanced the budget. Was listening to a brief interview with Arthur Laffer on the BBC business program the other day. Clinton was probably his favorite president in economic terms of recent memory, with Ronald Reagan running a close second ( he actually referred to Clinton as being “disgusting” as a human being, but thinks from an economic POV he was, overall, aces ). Not that the above means that much re:this debate - I don’t intend it as an appeal to authority. Just found it an interesting anecdote. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/112 "2009-07-30T00:57:14Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Yes in twenty years with a stable economy with a balanced budget, not prone to booms or busts, I’ll come out ahead. Then why don’t you give them more of your money right now? Even if there aren’t higher tax rates, there is nothing stopping you from cleaning out your bank account, selling a bunch of your goods, and writing a big check to the ‘US Treasury’. Why don’t you do that tonight? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/113 "2009-07-30T01:04:18Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Oh, what a surprise, the usual suspects are out in force, making up bullshit to slander fiscal conservatives with. Let’s just cut to the chase. Fiscal conservatives are bad people who hate our freedom. And they are hiding weapons of mass destruction. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/114 "2009-07-30T01:15:24Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > I’m pleased you agree with me, other than quibbling about things like “artificially low bases”. The economy was running at full capacity thanks to the huge government spending program known as World War Two and the end of the forties/start of the fifties saw the biggest economic boom in the history of economys, so I’d disagree with that artificial thing. It was running at ‘full capacity’, but government was 43% of GDP in 1945. It was producing airplanes and tanks, which of course no one wanted when the war was over. So private investment (and exports) indeed grew off an artificially low base to satisfy private demand, for which their was no other real productive capacity. [http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1940&LastYear=1960&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid](http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1940&LastYear=1960&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid) Your posts are amazing. You honestly believe that government officials will invest and spend your money more wisely than you, and create a more ‘stable economy’, whatever that is. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/115 "2009-07-30T01:28:17Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Then why don’t you give them more of your money right now? Even if there aren’t higher tax rates, there is nothing stopping you from cleaning out your bank account, selling a bunch of your goods, and writing a big check to the ‘US Treasury’. > > Why don’t you do that tonight? Because one person paying more would have negligible effect. For the effect I’m looking for, balanced budget, lower federal debt levels etc. it would require all high earners to pay more. I’m sure you can work this out yourself. Why do you keep on making fifth grade arguments like this where you keep asking me to pay more tax? Is it class envy? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/116 "2009-07-30T01:33:37Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > It was running at ‘full capacity’, but government was 43% of GDP in 1945. It was producing airplanes and tanks, which of course no one wanted when the war was over. > > So private investment (and exports) indeed grew off an artificially low base to satisfy private demand, for which their was no other real productive capacity. > > [http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1940&LastYear=1960&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid](http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1940&LastYear=1960&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid) > > Your posts are amazing. You honestly believe that government officials will invest and spend your money more wisely than you, and create a more ‘stable economy’, whatever that is. 1950 5.3 1951 3.3 1952 3.0 1953 2.9 1954 5.5 1955 4.4 1956 4.1 1957 4.3 1958 6.8 1959 5.5 1960 5.5 That’s the unemployment rate in the fifties, as boomers got married, bought cars and homes and generally created the biggest economic boom in history. I’d say three percent employment means you’re running at as full capacity as you ever see, no? A stable economy is one where there isn’t a huge chunk of national earnings concentrating in the hands of a small number of people. The only two times we’ve had the distribution of wealth with such a huge chunk of overall wealth going to a relative handful of people it’s caused economic catastrophe, the 1920s and the 2000s. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/117 "2009-07-30T02:14:09Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > A stable economy is one where there isn’t a huge chunk of national earnings concentrating in the hands of a small number of people. The only two times we’ve had the distribution of wealth with such a huge chunk of overall wealth going to a relative handful of people it’s caused economic catastrophe, the 1920s and the 2000s. And the '90s, a time of unprecedented growth in GDP, living standards, and economic inequality. And need I remind you who was in charge? (Likewise the '30s and '40s were a time of greater income equality, and good times they were!) ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/118 "2009-07-30T02:31:04Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > And the '90s, a time of unprecedented growth in GDP, living standards, and economic inequality. And need I remind you who was in charge? (Likewise the '30s and '40s were a time of greater income equality, and good times they were!) It definitely wasn’t unprecedented economic growth under Clinton. It was fractionally better than Reagan but worse than other post WW2 presidents. But yes, the income inequality thing has been building for some time now. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/119 "2009-07-30T02:31:29Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > And the '90s, a time of unprecedented growth in GDP, living standards, and economic inequality. And need I remind you who was in charge? (Likewise the '30s and '40s were a time of greater income equality, and good times they were!) The 1930s were good times? What? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180/120 "2009-07-30T02:45:51Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The 1930s were good times? What? Bonnie and Clyde had fun (for a little while). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-outrage-from-fiscal-conservatives-over-iraq/504180.md?page=5)