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

[Brad Haslett]

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
>