[Rhodes22-list] Win the GWOT

[Bill Effros]

"win the GWOT"

Brad,

You can't win a metaphor!

Bill Effros

Brad Haslett wrote:
> Dave,
>
> One of the first primaries is in Iowa. No politician in his/her right
> mind is going to tell farmers that ethanol isn't cost/energy effective
> or that they (farmers) are the largest welfare recipients in the
> country.  Both parties pander to this issue.  As to who spent the most
> money in the past, or, who will spend the most money in the future
> will be meaningless if we don't win the GWOT.  The left has moonbats
> and the right has nuts.  It is up to us in the middle, the silent
> majority to raise our voices.
>
> Did I just quote RMN?  Is that the guy who opened up China?  Isn't he
> the guy who signed the EPA into law?  Let's raise the bastard from the
> dead so we can impeach him.  If for nothing else, he was too square to
> get a blowjob.
>
> Brad
>
> On 7/3/06, DCLewis1 at aol.com <DCLewis1 at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Brad,
>>
>> Thank you for correcting me regarding the Freedom To Farm act, Wild 
>> Willie
>> was Pres when the legislation was enacted.  I apologize for my  
>> error.  In
>> researching who was in charge I ran across the blurb below that  may 
>> be of
>> interest.  You'll note Republican principles, or lack thereof,  are 
>> cited - but what
>> did you expect?
>>
>> "Freedom to Farm Washington
>> by James Bovard, January 1999
>>
>> Nothing better symbolizes the collapse of Republican principles than the
>> multiple farm bailouts that Congress enacted late last year. 
>> Agricultural
>> subsidies are skyrocketing, and the 1996 "Freedom to Farm Act" - 
>> ritually  invoked
>> as a triumph of the Republican Revolution - is as much in ruins as a  
>> Sudanese
>> pharmaceutical factory. "
>>
>> see:  _http://www.fff.org/freedom/0199d.asp_
>> (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0199d.asp)    for the full article.
>>
>> Regarding no non-guilty parties, I agree both political parties are 
>> guilty
>> as you have pointed out.  What is different is that the Republicans 
>> play a
>> charade where they are the righteous responsible wardens of the 
>> taxpayer's hard
>> earned $ - when in fact they are actually quantitatively much worse 
>> than the
>> Democrats, and in addition they have the egregious chutzpah to lie to 
>> the
>> electorate with at straight face and claim that unlike they Democrats 
>> they  are
>> responsible wardens of the taxpayers $.  The performance of the  
>> Republican
>> party, beginning with Reagan, is in the numbers, and the numbers say  
>> they are
>> world class borrowers without historic equal, they have never  
>> remotely had a
>> balanced budget - they don't even try, and (for Philips benefit)  
>> they are big
>> government - they don't even try restraint.
>>
>> Regarding adjustments for inflation in the numbers I cited:  I've  
>> explored
>> doing that but the numbers I've used in the basic study go back  to 
>> 1900 and I
>> know of no consistent inflation indices over that time  span. Consistent
>> inflation data, or indices, back to 1900 may exist and I  would be 
>> grateful for
>> that information if you know of it. Clearly, the  effect of inflation 
>> over 100
>> years is huge. In the interim I think it is  sufficient to note that the
>> average level of indebtedness in Carters Presidency  was $69.2B/yr, 
>> the average
>> level of indebtedness in Reagan's presidency was  $217B/yr, that's 
>> roughly a x3
>> (i.e. 300%) increase in average debt between  contiguous presidents - 
>> that's a
>> huge increase, far beyond any realized level of  inflation.
>>
>> Regarding my statement "I don't doubt FDR had such a program" and your
>> statement that there is no need to doubt: I think we're in agreement 
>> -  hey, it
>> could happen.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>