[Rhodes22-list] Politics and discussion between Slim, Brad, et al.

[Brad Haslett]

Dave,

I'm not ducking anything but the circle jerk is over for me today (the
Missus has plans).  You'll have to play with yourself.

I wish I had written this but didn't:


 "Dear Mr. [guy who blames Republicans for everything]:

How wonderful it must be right now to be you. Most of us, if not all of us,
go through life with some misery and pain, and we do not have an exact
entity in which to blame all the world's troubles on. You, however, have
managed to find this paradise, and for this I am extremely jealous.

How nice it must be to have found your own personal Satan, and name it the
Republican party.

It seems to me that you are forgetting one of the most universal truths in
all of mankind when you rail about the GOP. That truth is balance. You
cannot have light without dark, good without bad, and Ben without Jerry.
Suppose you get your wish and everyone votes for the Dems (because they are
not Reps) and suddenly there were no more Republicans? Ever?

Oh, I imagine you would dance and cheer and clap and for a short, brief,
time have a grand party. But then it would slowly dawn on you. All of the
items you railed about against the GOP...are still...there.

There would still be unjust war. There would still be corrupt politicians.
There would still be government agencies that are inept to levels beyond
comprehension. People will still lie, people will still cheat, and people
will still steal.

Brad

On 11/12/06, DCLewis1 at aol.com <DCLewis1 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Brad,
>
> I continue to think you are ducking the big-spending/borrowing issue with
> neocons.  Your point regarding the economy when Reagan came in to office
> is  on
> the mark.  Carter and the economy were stuck in the mud.  So by all  means
> goose the economy in 1981 - but things were going again by 1982,
> the  goosing
> should have stopped.  Want to stretch things, OK goose the economy  in
> 1982.  But
> the US economy was not in recession in 1983, 84, 85, 86, 87,  88, and 89
> and
> Reagan just kept goosing the economy.  You state the reason  he did that
> was
> the Cold War; well, the Cold War's over after 1989, if you're  doing this
> because of the Cold War you surely stop overspending after
> 89,  right?  Nope, the
> borrowing continues 1990, 91, 92.....until Clinton in  93.  I've heard
> neocons
> complain that government programs never end, let me  give you an example:
> the
> neocon borrowing and spending profile that continued  LOOONG after the
> Carter
> recession and LOOONG after the Cold War is over.   What Reagan and BushI
> really did over 12 years is constantly goose the economy,  debt be damned.
>
> And now Jr is at it again.  Your point about the dot.com bust and 9/11  is
> on
> the mark, but as you point out, they are history (and have been
> history  for
> years);  Jr's borrowing/spending isn't history, it's still  on-going.  The
> fiscal problem we have now is that the Fed responded to the  dot.com and
> 9/11,
> and then Jr also responded, result we've had 2 economic  stimuli going and
> now
> inflation is a concern.  Jr could have stopped his  overspending 4 to 5
> years
> ago, if he were really focused on dot.com and 9/11;  what Jr is really
> focused
> on is goosing the economy, debt be damned.
>
> In my view, anyone that takes a debt be damned approach to things is not a
> fiscal conservative.  The hard facts and analyses show that the "liberals"
> have been a lot more conservative than the "new conservatives".  And the
> problem with neocon overspending didn't start with Jr, it started with
> Reagan  and
> it's just kept going.
>
> Dave
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>