I really liked it, plus most of us know that theme song well enough to follow along. It points out something important. Is this the way the office of the Presidency should be treated by the President? Or is there still that old saying "Boys will be boys"? Paghhh! I don't know what is in HER book, but the fact that she's not running for President...nuff said.

All 2s achieved on merit. Besides, how many of us have written a song titled "The Shady Bunch"? I know I have. It was about the 1998-99 Republicans, but I'm not sure where it is now, and it would be pointless to try to reconstruct it from memory. But if memory serves me correctly... Hillary was married to a guy who had sex with lots of women, but Laura is married to a guy who's "screwed" anybody who ain't rich. And Georgie's tax cut will barely pay for our breakfast in the morning, which he doesn't even have the decency to make himself. Tax cut? Not tonight, Georgie, I got a headache.

Your shady bunch song has most likely been flushed down the crapper along with the democratic platform. It's pretty lame to base a party platform with mud slinging and finger pointing. You're boy Kerry better get himself an upgrade to a higher class on his ticket if he even thinks he has a chance. I'm giving this parody 5 by 5 for a good parody on a bad book. I think I'll wait for the movie and see how many thumbs go up the dem party's butt. They all seem to be running around in that condition.

Oh thank you, Mike. I'm so glad you thought enough about me to give me a vote. I never did like that TV show anyway. I mean what kind of a father figure example would the actor who played the dad on that show set anyway? Anyway, I thought we based the votes on how well the song kept pace, how funny and then an overall rating. I didn't know the title was considered in the voting. Guess I'll have to watch how I title stuff from now on. And, oh what were Clinton's tax cuts like? I can't seem to remember.

Clinton didn't cut taxes. You see, he understood that tax cuts cause deficits to go up, while tax increases on those who can afford to pay cause deficits to go down. Clinton was a smart man. Yeah, I know, JFK cut taxes, but he didn't have a $300 billion deficit, and with a 91 percent top rate, it made some sense. Having just seen the record surplus become a record deficit, one would think that Al Gore was right... No, Audrey Meadows had it right: It wasn't a "risky tax scheme," it was a "crazy harebrained tax scheme!" Another tax cut now would really sock it to those who still have jobs.

Mike - Where did you get your advanced degree in economics? I'm really impressed. I am sure I could have never thought of it in these terms - in fact quite sure. I never thought of the advantages in passing up a free check until I realized that I could actually give more of my money and let someone else look out for my welfare. It could be just like being a kid again and having mom and dad look out for me. THANKS!!!

Not bad, but it is not as creative as and doesn't come together as well as most of your other parodies. I did like your responses to Michael Pacholek, though. It is clear that private enterprise spends money more wisely and is more responsive to consumer needs than government bureaucrats, so the economy will definitely benefit from the tax cut.

" It is clear that private enterprise spends money more wisely and is more responsive to consumer needs than government bureaucrats" --Can't argue that (Republican or Democrat), but my problem is that the government will STILL spend the money it doesn't have =)

If you think private enterprise spends money more wisely and is more responsive to consumer needs than government bureaucrats, well, since 2001 you may be right. But if you think it did so from 1993 to 2000, then the only enterprise you've been paying attention to is a starship. Or have you so soon forgotten Georgie's boys at Enron?

I have not forgotten Enron, but were its leaders friends of Bush? Of Enron's campaign contributions, 73% went to Republicans and 27% went to Democrats. Of the total of $2.5 million contributed in 2000, $1.8 million went to Republicans and $0.7 million went to Democrats. It didn't seem to do Enron a lot of good; but to the extent that it did, you can probably find corruption in both parties. When a company in the private sector fails, this harms only the shareholders and employees. Of course, in the case of Enron, this harm was significant, but employees and investors (1) have the opportunity to influence the company’s performance, (2) have the ability to diversify their risk, and (3) have recourse against perpetrators of crimes, such as Kenneth Lay. On the other hand, when a government organization, such as the Department of Education, Amtrak, etc., fails, taxpayers are required to continue funding these failures. There is no way for taxpayers to minimize their exposure to these problems. So, yes, like Jeff Reuben, I am disappointed in the Bush administration for not discussing ways to cut wasteful government spending which should be implemented concurrently with tax cuts. But I do appreciate the tax cuts as a step in the right direction.

Maaaaaaan Guy! LOL I don't know what was more entertaining,you're parody-or the messages here?! I'm giving you all fives 'cause it's pretty funny! :- ) Naturally,your pacing is an A+ as usual.What's kinda sad here,is the fact that everyone picked apart the topic, & you're the only one to mention pacing,etc.Sad.Well,I think you did a great job.Now I'm hittin' a few of your other songs.I can't sleep.lol