[Rhodes22-list] To DAVE about Virginia and in reply

[DCLewis1 at aol.com]

Philip,
 
I have not adjusted for inflation, all $ were nominal.  I tried to  adjust 
for inflation, but I couldn't find any consistent inflation data that  went back 
to 1900.  However, even without inflation adjustments it is  possible to make 
Republican/Democrat comparisons in those cases were one party  immediately 
succeeded the other.  For example, Reagan succeeded Carter, and  his average 
borrowing per year went up x3 (tripled), Nixon succeeded  Johnson and his average 
borrowing per year went up x2 (doubled).  But to  compare Clinton with Warren 
Harding, or even Herbert Hoover,  is a great  reach.
 
I didn't break out Soc Sec, Medicare, etc, they don't borrow.  The  numbers 
reflect borrowing as per the National Debt which can be found in  ustreas.gov.  
The National Debt is a result of the gap between income  and costs.  Soc 
Security in particular is not in a debt position - yet - so  there is no borrowing 
to report, income has covered program costs, for the time  being.  Actually, 
Soc Security holds IOUs from Dept of Treas, that is, they  are a lender.
 
Regarding "entitlements" becoming "untouchable" - that's crazy.  Any  program 
can be changed at any time.  It may be hard to change, it may be  politically 
unpopular to change it, but  it can be changed.   Republicans have controlled 
the House and Senate for much more than a decade,  there is no bill 
whatsoever that they couldn't pass, no legislation they  couldn't change - if they were 
united and wanted to do it.  If a  program hasn't been changed it's not 
because of FDR, Andrew Jackson, John Smith  and the Jamestown Party, the Battle of 
the Boyne, the fall of the Roman empire,  or the Persian invasion of the Greek 
city states, it's because the majority  party (i.e. the Republican's) in the 
current Congress didn't want to make the  changes.
 
Regarding the razor thin Republican majority, see 
_http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS22007.pdf_ 
(http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS22007.pdf) 
There are 232 Republicans vice 201 Democrats in the House for an excess of  
31 votes - that's not razor thin.  Razor thin is 1 or 2 votes, we're more  than 
x10 away from that.  There's 55 Republican Senators vice 45  Democrats - 
again not my idea of razor thin.
 
Regarding are we at war: Yeah we're at war, we invaded a sovereign state so  
we're at war. It's got nothing to do with terrorism.  It was a slow day,  the 
president was ticked off, so we invaded a sovereign state - a slam dunk,  
right?  Nation building as it were.  The citizens were going to love  us as 
invaders - children dancing in the street, young ladies throwing  themselves at our 
soldiers, we were bringing "the answer" that they all had  longed for for 
literally thousands of years - you remember all that?  Yeah,  we hit that 
tar-baby.  
 
Good judgement by our leaders?  I don't think so.
 
As for the GWOT, I'll bet we do get hit again, and we're going to have to  
respond again.  But a little intelligence and perspective would go a long  way.  
If 19 bad guys hit you, each armed with $4.95 box cutters for a  total 
invested cost of less that $95, and you respond with 500,000 soldiers and  spend 
$2,000,000,000 on the response, you'll go broke-you'll lose from economic  
exhaustion.  The GWOT is a long term deal, there is no short term climatic  battle, 
whatever you do has to be sustainable over the long term.  So you  need 
restraint, you need perspective, and you need to mount an intelligent  
defense/offense that you can carry for the long run - which appears to be a  foreign 
concept.  But then, I don't think the current administration has  been accused of 
over-thinking this or any issue.
 
Your notion about not providing retirement benefits for Congressmen and  
Senators is novel.  I can think of no better way to ensure the  Congress is 
controlled by, and populated by, rich people and moneyed  interest.  That's your 
goal, right?
 
Good to know that the Democrats are corrupt from too many years in power -  
and when would that be?  Not in a long long time. Don't think slogans,  give me 
the most recent date they were the majority party, now subtract  that from 
the current date, how many years has it been?   And that's a  big part of the 
problem, it's been a one party show for a long time - and that  majority party 
has gotten carried away.  I think we need some  balance.
 
Regarding the Dems and higher taxes, I think you're exactly right -  really.  
The Dems come up with hair brained programs that will raise taxes,  and they 
get voted down.  No one wants the higher taxes. The  Republicans come up with 
hair brained programs - spread the cost over 30 years  via borrowing - nobody 
thinks to ask about the total cost, it's a free  lunch, and their programs are 
passed.  If you don't believe me, track the  national debt, the numbers don't 
lie.  The problem is the Republicans are a  lot more devious and it's taken 
John Q. Public a long time to catch on to the  Republican debt game (many still 
have not figure it out), but it's  real.  
 
Dave