On 6/4/2011 1:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


That's a good observation, and pretty close to being spot-on. The "left
libertarian" type that David described, and as Curly describes himself,
would be interesting to observe in terms of their voting patterns.

In the election last fall, I voted for Scott Walker for gov because he's
likely to sign a CCW law for Wisconsin, which his opponent would never
have done.

For Senator, I voted for Russ Feingold because he's a pro gun Dem, while
his Rep opponent, Ron Johnson, showed he was clueless on gun rights
issues. The NRA endorsed Johnson.

David

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:34:42 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



" wrote:

and a national debt that is approaching the
GDP, which is almost always fatal to a country.

Except when it isn't

The last time the debt equaled the GDP
It was followed by the greatest period of economic growth
and prosperity in the entire history of the USA?

So you think it will be exactly like WW2? Who are we going to be
unindating and then destroying?

Nope, it won't be anything like any of your fantasies

Looking at the claim that "national debt that is approaching GDP"
is going to be fatal to the US --
History has already proven that to be wrong

When the debt reaches 100% of GDP again
it will again prove not to be fatal
And it doesn't much matter who gets elected in 2012
Even if Ron Paul gets elected
The National Debt will continue to climb

Because at this point it is already water over the dam

Here is a graph that illustrates
what has been happening in the US for the last 30 years

http://tinyurl.com/3ptqvq2

The huge trade deficit (the blue)
has been financed by consumer credit (the red)

In 2006 Consumer debt was accelerating
at the astounding rate of 1 trillion dollars/year

and then as if by magic it ended...

Now this is the reality
Washington understands

Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall
And all the kings horses and all the king's men
can't put Humpty Dumpty
back together again

On Jun 2, 1:33*am, "
wrote:
Generally, occupations, where the final arbiter of truth is
aesthetics, are dominated by liberals.
Generally, occupations, where the final arbiter of truth is replicable
measurements, are dominated by conservatives.

I would assume that most dance choreographers are liberal.
I would assume that most machinists are conservative.

But here on rec.crafts.metalworking, I am reading some posts by
liberals who are interested in metalworking.
What gives here?
Are liberals just looking for forums to argue?

Wot, the ones working in the trade, NOW, or used to work in the trade
ONCE , or some involvement with metal and machines? - ....Argh...back
in the Old Days, right?

The rest is just collecting stats, waving a red flag, all the usual
suspects will come up with some totally unprovable theory as to why
today is Monday......rededed somewhere, your life-views are set by age
18 - after that, just better quality bull**** to justify or advance
ones chosen philosophy....
Decided to take Ulysses off my bucket list - if I was going to read
it, would have done it by now. Besides, its a crap read. (first lot of
it, anyway) That statement is true of a lot of the worlds "great"
literature, theres gotta be something there. Hurled

Gunner - buy cheap import open ended spanners, grind them to the
weirdo English size you need. Being able to grind them flatter is
sometimes good as well - weird english mechanical devices.... The
previous 15 owner's ever had a 8 inch shifter anyway.......that bike,
bad choice for long term, will always be high maintenance. But a great
project, go for it mate!





Andrew VK3BFA.

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2011 1:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


That's a good observation, and pretty close to being spot-on. The "left
libertarian" type that David described, and as Curly describes himself,
would be interesting to observe in terms of their voting patterns.

In the election last fall, I voted for Scott Walker for gov because he's
likely to sign a CCW law for Wisconsin, which his opponent would never
have done.

For Senator, I voted for Russ Feingold because he's a pro gun Dem, while
his Rep opponent, Ron Johnson, showed he was clueless on gun rights
issues. The NRA endorsed Johnson.

David

That makes you sound close to being a centrist, possibly a Radical Centrist
(not a "moderate"), which is what I suspected all along. g "Libertarian"
is freighted with so much Austrian School philosophy, and with a romantic
yearning for 19th century proto-anarchism (without knowing what they're
really yearning for), that it has a distinct crackpot edge to it. To be a
centrist civil libertarian is a very different thing.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Help me out hee, Andrew. Sometimes you write like the most level-headed guy
on this NG. Other times you write like you're in a fog of Foster's.

Tell the truth -- do you sometimes write when you're drinking?

Or maybe the audience that he is writing for...




Curious.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 07:59:18 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:34:42 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



" wrote:

and a national debt that is approaching the
GDP, which is almost always fatal to a country.

Except when it isn't

The last time the debt equaled the GDP
It was followed by the greatest period of economic growth
and prosperity in the entire history of the USA?

So you think it will be exactly like WW2? Who are we going to be
unindating and then destroying?

Nope, it won't be anything like any of your fantasies

Looking at the claim that "national debt that is approaching GDP"
is going to be fatal to the US --
History has already proven that to be wrong

So the Great Depression that lasted from 1929 to 1940...didnt happen?

Really?

You dont get out much ..do you? That school thingy...you didnt even get
to do recess didja? Pity. Which explains your simplemindedness.

Gunner

--
Threee days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the
tea party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that
has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of
lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse,
Dean smeared tea partiers as racists: They oppose Obama's
agenda, Obama is African-American, ergo...

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation
of liberals whose default position in any argument is to
indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left
-- devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data --
is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding
engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for
the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing
liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral
weakness and bad sociology. --George Will 14 JAN 2011
Article titled "Tragedies often spark plenty of analysis"

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 06:18:26 -0700 (PDT), Andrew VK3BFA
wrote:


Gunner - buy cheap import open ended spanners, grind them to the
weirdo English size you need. Being able to grind them flatter is
sometimes good as well - weird english mechanical devices.... The
previous 15 owner's ever had a 8 inch shifter anyway.......that bike,
bad choice for long term, will always be high maintenance. But a great
project, go for it mate!


I believe that you are right. And Ive got boxes of wrenches that I can
grind..though Id really like to have some box end wrenches. Hard to
grind them to the right sizes. Particularly since the bike hasnt had a
lot of the fasteners undone since the late 1960s...cringe

Ive got a BMW for a long range bike...but its has 18x,000 some miles on
it..and Im going to have to put rings in it one of these days.

Now Ive just got to get off my ass and start working on it...

Sigh

Gunner

--
Threee days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the
tea party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that
has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of
lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse,
Dean smeared tea partiers as racists: They oppose Obama's
agenda, Obama is African-American, ergo...

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation
of liberals whose default position in any argument is to
indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left
-- devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data --
is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding
engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for
the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing
liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral
weakness and bad sociology. --George Will 14 JAN 2011
Article titled "Tragedies often spark plenty of analysis"

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 07:59:18 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:34:42 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



" wrote:

and a national debt that is approaching the
GDP, which is almost always fatal to a country.

Except when it isn't

The last time the debt equaled the GDP
It was followed by the greatest period of economic growth
and prosperity in the entire history of the USA?

So you think it will be exactly like WW2? Who are we going to be
unindating and then destroying?

Nope, it won't be anything like any of your fantasies

Looking at the claim that "national debt that is approaching GDP"
is going to be fatal to the US --
History has already proven that to be wrong

So the Great Depression that lasted from 1929 to 1940...didnt happen?

Really?

The great depression happened and the national debt
was quite small when it happened

The Large National debt in the forties
didn't cause the Great Depression
any more than the debt today
caused the economic meltdown of 3 years ago

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:02:42 -0500, jim
wrote:


Nope, it won't be anything like any of your fantasies

Looking at the claim that "national debt that is approaching GDP"
is going to be fatal to the US --
History has already proven that to be wrong

So the Great Depression that lasted from 1929 to 1940...didnt happen?

Really?

The great depression happened and the national debt
was quite small when it happened

The Large National debt in the forties
didn't cause the Great Depression
any more than the debt today
caused the economic meltdown of 3 years ago

You mean the Ongoing economic meltdown...doncha?

Or do you think its all over and things are going back upwards again?

If you think that..you have been away from the news.....

http://www.futuresmag.com/News/2011/...sibility-.aspx

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w..._robert_reich/

http://heraldbulletin.com/business/x...les-confidence


Just because the Whitehouse claims its not happening..doesnt mean
its..not happening....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...9365df1b65.2a1


Seems like..its already happening...

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...mer&id=8169621

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- They're not trained economists, but they sense
the country is headed for a double dip recession. They're average Bay
Area residents who are seeing a vicious cycle that can't be broken.

San Jose resident Jim Mielke was gassing up his work van this morning at
a Shell station on The Alameda, which set him back just over $90. He's
deferring some home improvements because of the rise in gas and food
prices. By not spending money, he realizes he's hurting the home
improvement store or the materials supplier, which impacts their ability
to keep employees on the payroll.

"If everyone's playing the same game, there are people that I would
maybe purchasing these materials from who are not receiving the income
that they're looking for because they're in the same boat that I am in,
and it's kind of a vicious cycle," said Mielke.

Related Content

Story: Employers added 54K jobs, rate ticks up to 9.1 pct
On the other side of the pump, contractor Dave Caputo confirms that work
has been slow because of people cutting back on non-essential spending,
not to mention the slowdown in real estate sales and the related drop in
repair and remodeling jobs.

I've noticed it picking up slightly, then all of a sudden it seems like
it's flattening out, and quite frankly I'm ready for a double dip
myself," said Caputo.

That cycle is contributing to the unexpected drop in job creation in
May. The Labor Department said only 54,000 new jobs were added last
month. That's the lowest number in eight months. Economists had been
projecting double that number.

Professor Mario Belotti, Ph.D., an economist at Santa Clara University,
said it's not just a downturn in consumer spending that's causing
employers to throttle back. It's also the impact Japan's earthquake and
tsunami have had on the auto industry, economic turmoil engulfing
several European Union countries, and on-going civil strife in Northern
Africa and the Middle East.

Job seekers -- many of them out of work for two or three years -- have a
tough road ahead.

"It just makes me work a little harder in researching what is actually
growing and try to hone my skills a little bit more towards that
direction," said Palo Alto resident Claudia Reimann.

Still, there are companies like Suvolta, a high tech start-up, that plan
to hire.

"Today's start-ups usually end up being tomorrow's big companies, but
often those big companies spread out across the country," said Suvolta
CEO Bruce McWilliams.

The biggest impact when there is a downturn in hiring is how it will
affect those who have been looking for jobs for a long time. There are
currently six million Americans who have been out of work for over six
months.

(Copyright ©2011 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)


Im not going to LA until late next week....as my work load has just
about disappeared as well. My clients are scared to death things are
going to go bad.

Way to go! Hows that Hopey/Changey thingy working out for you?
And your neighbors? And your friends?


Gunner


--
Threee days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the
tea party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that
has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of
lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse,
Dean smeared tea partiers as racists: They oppose Obama's
agenda, Obama is African-American, ergo...

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation
of liberals whose default position in any argument is to
indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left
-- devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data --
is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding
engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for
the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing
liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral
weakness and bad sociology. --George Will 14 JAN 2011
Article titled "Tragedies often spark plenty of analysis"

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:02:42 -0500, jim
wrote:


Nope, it won't be anything like any of your fantasies

Looking at the claim that "national debt that is approaching GDP"
is going to be fatal to the US --
History has already proven that to be wrong

So the Great Depression that lasted from 1929 to 1940...didnt happen?

Really?

The great depression happened and the national debt
was quite small when it happened

The Large National debt in the forties
didn't cause the Great Depression
any more than the debt today
caused the economic meltdown of 3 years ago

You mean the Ongoing economic meltdown...doncha?

Or do you think its all over and things are going back upwards again?


That's right the economic crisis is ongoing.

For the last 30 years the private sector
has gone deep into debt
in order to finance the growth in the economy


For 30 years they took on more and more debt
at a faster and faster and faster pace
and then bang ---- it stopped
and they aint gonna do it no more

Judging from the last time this happened
It will be 15-25 years before you can milk that cow again

http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/w...petition24.png

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25 last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:14:33 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:02:42 -0500, jim
wrote:


Nope, it won't be anything like any of your fantasies

Looking at the claim that "national debt that is approaching GDP"
is going to be fatal to the US --
History has already proven that to be wrong

So the Great Depression that lasted from 1929 to 1940...didnt happen?

Really?

The great depression happened and the national debt
was quite small when it happened

The Large National debt in the forties
didn't cause the Great Depression
any more than the debt today
caused the economic meltdown of 3 years ago

You mean the Ongoing economic meltdown...doncha?

Or do you think its all over and things are going back upwards again?


That's right the economic crisis is ongoing.

For the last 30 years the private sector
has gone deep into debt
in order to finance the growth in the economy


For 30 years they took on more and more debt
at a faster and faster and faster pace
and then bang ---- it stopped
and they aint gonna do it no more

Judging from the last time this happened
It will be 15-25 years before you can milk that cow again

http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/w...petition24.png

So things are NOT getting better as your first post seemed to indicate?


--
Threee days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the
tea party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that
has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of
lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse,
Dean smeared tea partiers as racists: They oppose Obama's
agenda, Obama is African-American, ergo...

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation
of liberals whose default position in any argument is to
indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left
-- devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data --
is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding
engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for
the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing
liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral
weakness and bad sociology. --George Will 14 JAN 2011
Article titled "Tragedies often spark plenty of analysis"

On 6/5/2011 2:18 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 6/4/2011 9:16 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 6/4/2011 1:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


That's a good observation, and pretty close to being spot-on. The "left
libertarian" type that David described, and as Curly describes himself,
would be interesting to observe in terms of their voting patterns.

In the election last fall, I voted for Scott Walker for gov because he's
likely to sign a CCW law for Wisconsin, which his opponent would never
have done.

For Senator, I voted for Russ Feingold because he's a pro gun Dem, while
his Rep opponent, Ron Johnson, showed he was clueless on gun rights
issues. The NRA endorsed Johnson.

David


That makes you a "single issue" voter.

In those two elections, yes. In other cases, other"single issues".

Many gun rights people fit that
category.

And Walker gets elected and will likely sign a CCW bill. After that, he
can fall of the face of the Earth for all I care.

Pretty much only one thing is responsible for your choice in
who you vote for. In the big picture single issue voters don't usually
amount to much in any election.

I'm hoping to vote for Russ again now that Establishment Left hack Kohl
isn't running.

David

On 6/5/2011 8:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R. wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2011 1:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


That's a good observation, and pretty close to being spot-on. The "left
libertarian" type that David described, and as Curly describes himself,
would be interesting to observe in terms of their voting patterns.

In the election last fall, I voted for Scott Walker for gov because he's
likely to sign a CCW law for Wisconsin, which his opponent would never
have done.

For Senator, I voted for Russ Feingold because he's a pro gun Dem, while
his Rep opponent, Ron Johnson, showed he was clueless on gun rights
issues. The NRA endorsed Johnson.

David

That makes you sound close to being a centrist, possibly a Radical Centrist
(not a "moderate"), which is what I suspected all along.g "Libertarian"
is freighted with so much Austrian School philosophy, and with a romantic
yearning for 19th century proto-anarchism (without knowing what they're
really yearning for), that it has a distinct crackpot edge to it. To be a
centrist civil libertarian is a very different thing.

Sometimes I fancy myself a "Constitutional Revolutionary". Sam Adams and
Trotsky had it right, revolution isn't an event, it's an ongoing process
that needs an occasional kick in the pants when guvmint goes astray.
That kick is long overdue, we are too far along the road to oligarchy.

David

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2011 8:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R. wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2011 1:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


That's a good observation, and pretty close to being spot-on. The "left
libertarian" type that David described, and as Curly describes himself,
would be interesting to observe in terms of their voting patterns.

In the election last fall, I voted for Scott Walker for gov because he's
likely to sign a CCW law for Wisconsin, which his opponent would never
have done.

For Senator, I voted for Russ Feingold because he's a pro gun Dem, while
his Rep opponent, Ron Johnson, showed he was clueless on gun rights
issues. The NRA endorsed Johnson.

David

That makes you sound close to being a centrist, possibly a Radical
Centrist
(not a "moderate"), which is what I suspected all along.g
"Libertarian"
is freighted with so much Austrian School philosophy, and with a romantic
yearning for 19th century proto-anarchism (without knowing what they're
really yearning for), that it has a distinct crackpot edge to it. To be a
centrist civil libertarian is a very different thing.

Sometimes I fancy myself a "Constitutional Revolutionary". Sam Adams and
Trotsky had it right, revolution isn't an event, it's an ongoing process
that needs an occasional kick in the pants when guvmint goes astray. That
kick is long overdue, we are too far along the road to oligarchy.

David

Yeah, Che and Fidel were big on that continuous revolution idea, too. g

The oligarchy, or plutocracy trend, is disturbing. The Citizens United case
didn't help, either.

My son interned with a lobbying firm in DC last year, and the stories he
brought home made my skin crawl.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25 last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger. Does the local population want to
front up the costs of the education of their kids? Or, the highway? Or
all the other things that people say "the government should take care
of it".

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:54:52 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 6/5/2011 8:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R. wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2011 1:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


That's a good observation, and pretty close to being spot-on. The "left
libertarian" type that David described, and as Curly describes himself,
would be interesting to observe in terms of their voting patterns.

In the election last fall, I voted for Scott Walker for gov because he's
likely to sign a CCW law for Wisconsin, which his opponent would never
have done.

For Senator, I voted for Russ Feingold because he's a pro gun Dem, while
his Rep opponent, Ron Johnson, showed he was clueless on gun rights
issues. The NRA endorsed Johnson.

David

That makes you sound close to being a centrist, possibly a Radical Centrist
(not a "moderate"), which is what I suspected all along.g "Libertarian"
is freighted with so much Austrian School philosophy, and with a romantic
yearning for 19th century proto-anarchism (without knowing what they're
really yearning for), that it has a distinct crackpot edge to it. To be a
centrist civil libertarian is a very different thing.

Sometimes I fancy myself a "Constitutional Revolutionary". Sam Adams and
Trotsky had it right, revolution isn't an event, it's an ongoing process
that needs an occasional kick in the pants when guvmint goes astray.
That kick is long overdue, we are too far along the road to oligarchy.

David

"The (-) ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and
model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world
has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the
ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in
the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an
instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's
motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we
should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be
all, & always well informed.

The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the
importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under
such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the
public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has
been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half
for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half
without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their
rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon
& pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The
tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."



--
Threee days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the
tea party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that
has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of
lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse,
Dean smeared tea partiers as racists: They oppose Obama's
agenda, Obama is African-American, ergo...

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation
of liberals whose default position in any argument is to
indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left
-- devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data --
is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding
engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for
the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing
liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral
weakness and bad sociology. --George Will 14 JAN 2011
Article titled "Tragedies often spark plenty of analysis"

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2011 10:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I have no clue how you made such a silly conclusion. And,
you are writing to (wrongly) tell me what I'm thinking. Do
you enjoy being badly mistaken?



I'm just trying to understand how you figure. You do work that pays less,
requires less intellectual capacity, takes less time to learn, and is
considered to be on the lower end of the scale when it comes to jobs. Yet
you think yourself superior to a "liberal" who is highly educated, is
mentally superior to you, has a higher paying job, and is near the top
when it comes to his job status.

You really have to explain that. Because to most people you are the loser
in that contest.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

--

On 6/5/2011 5:28 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25 last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger. Does the local population want to
front up the costs of the education of their kids? Or, the highway? Or
all the other things that people say "the government should take care
of it".

What do you think the people created the government to do? Originally,
it was not much. But as time passed and times changed people learned the
government could do a lot more than they could on their own.

When the world changed from an agrarian society where everyone could at
least provide food and shelter for themselves, to an industrial one,
people learned they needed the government even more. They also found the
government did a much better job at many things than they could
individually. So they learned to rely on it more and more. Now the place
you find the experts and professionals is in the government. They are
supposed to be there to provide for the people's needs. For the most
part it does a pretty good job.

The problem with today's government is that it is captured by monied
interests. So the government is doing for those who donate to the
politician's political campaigns not for the average person, like it was
supposed to. If we can ever get the money (bribery) out of the process
of elections we'll have a government that is far better and will be far
better appreciated by the public than it is now.

Hawke

On 6/6/2011 7:14 PM, ATP wrote:
"Stuart wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2011 8:28 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25 last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger.

Previous experience shows that when America is attacked, Americans turn
out to defend her in record numbers (Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could find),
but when the interests of corporate America are attacked or when America
sticks her nose into places she might not belong (Vietnam, Iraq II), the
people do not all jump up to run for the recruiting station.

Why would you attack Bob Dole's military service record?



Does stating an uncomfortable fact cause you distress?

On Jun 6, 6:00*pm, Stuart Wheaton wrote:


*(Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could find),


Do you have any references for that statement?

I can understand why he might not want to drop out of law school to
join the military, but you make it sound as if he tried many ways to
avoid military service.

Dan

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:03:55 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/5/2011 5:28 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25 last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger. Does the local population want to
front up the costs of the education of their kids? Or, the highway? Or
all the other things that people say "the government should take care
of it".

What do you think the people created the government to do? Originally,
it was not much. But as time passed and times changed people learned the
government could do a lot more than they could on their own.

When the world changed from an agrarian society where everyone could at
least provide food and shelter for themselves, to an industrial one,
people learned they needed the government even more. They also found the
government did a much better job at many things than they could
individually. So they learned to rely on it more and more. Now the place
you find the experts and professionals is in the government. They are
supposed to be there to provide for the people's needs. For the most
part it does a pretty good job.

You are saying that modern man is not capable of taking care of
himself? That he needs a nanny to change his diaper?
I guess that Orwell's "1984" was more apt then we realized, with the
proletariat sitting dumbly in front of their television and all
decisions made by the government.

Well, you may be right. I'm just glad that I'm old enough not to have
been born into the helpless, pablum fed, generation.

The problem with today's government is that it is captured by monied
interests. So the government is doing for those who donate to the
politician's political campaigns not for the average person, like it was
supposed to. If we can ever get the money (bribery) out of the process
of elections we'll have a government that is far better and will be far
better appreciated by the public than it is now.

Hawke

You don't really believe that, do you? With all the examples that have
been reported around the world?

The Russian revolution - to free the Worker and kill the Kulaks The
Chinese revolution - eliminate the rich? And what is the major problem
in these countries? The emergence of a favored class.

Of course the democratic system is different - it glorifies the
tyranny of the proletariat and as Churchill once said, "the best
argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average
voter".

As for the rich taking over, I am reminded of a news item from the
weekend prior to Ms. Clinton resigning from the primary - it compared
her money raising efforts with Obama's and concluded that as Obama's
was greater that Ms Clinton didn't have a chance to be selected as the
Democratic candidate.

What do you believe is better? The original Greek democracy? That
excluded women, slaves, the poor, and foreigners?

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:00:20 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

On 6/5/2011 8:28 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25 last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger.

Previous experience shows that when America is attacked, Americans turn
out to defend her in record numbers (Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could find),
but when the interests of corporate America are attacked or when America
sticks her nose into places she might not belong (Vietnam, Iraq II), the
people do not all jump up to run for the recruiting station.


And America has been attacked how many times? Once in 1812, Pearl
Harbor, and perhaps 9/11 can be called an attack, Are there more?

In 1812 the government faces the same problems that they had in 1776,
people didn't want to join the army and frequently just went home. WW
II saw a draft imposed to ensure the build-up of the military, the
draft had previously been imposed during the civil War with anti-draft
riots in New York as a result.

After 9/11 the country attacked Iraq twice, who had never attacked the
U.S., Afghanistan who had never attacked the U.S. You may well call
Pakistan a war as the U.S. as we seem free to "invade" the country and
rocket who we want to. They had never attacked America.

Does the local population want to
front up the costs of the education of their kids? Or, the highway? Or
all the other things that people say "the government should take care
of it".

On 6/6/2011 8:45 PM, wrote:
On Jun 6, 6:00 pm, Stuart wrote:


(Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could find),


Do you have any references for that statement?

I can understand why he might not want to drop out of law school to
join the military, but you make it sound as if he tried many ways to
avoid military service.

Dan


He was in his sophomore year of College at Kansas when the Japanese
attacked. A year later, to avoid being drafted, he Joined the Army
RESERVE. He managed to stretch things out as far as he could, but
eventually was sent to Europe, in April of 1945, he was in his first
combat when he was wounded.

Tens of thousands of Americans were lined up to enlist on December 8th 1941.

On Jun 6, 10:31*pm, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 6/6/2011 8:45 PM, wrote:

On Jun 6, 6:00 pm, Stuart *wrote:

* *(Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could find),

Do you have any references for that statement?

I can understand why he might not want to drop out of law school to
join the military, but you make it sound as if he tried many ways to
avoid military service.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

He was in his sophomore year of College at Kansas when the Japanese
attacked. *A year later, to avoid being drafted, he Joined the Army
RESERVE. *He managed to stretch things out as far as he could, but
eventually was sent to Europe, in April of 1945, he was in his first
combat when he was wounded.

Tens of thousands of Americans were lined up to enlist on December 8th 1941.

So what are the other many ways he tried to avoid military service?

Dan

" wrote:

On Jun 6, 12:03 pm, Hawke wrote:


What do you think the people created the government to do? Originally,
it was not much. But as time passed and times changed people learned the
government could do a lot more than they could on their own.

Our government was founded on the principal of limited government.
That is, the first and most important function of our government is to
limit government.

So here is a quiz
Which presidents have made government bigger?

The all time champions for the last 5 presidents are
George W Bush and Ronald Reagon.

Federal spending

last Carter Budget = $ 0.68 Trillion
last Reagon Budget $ 1.14 Trillion + 68%
last Bush1 Budget $ 1.41 Trillion + 24%
last Clinton Budget $ 1.86 Trillion + 32%
last Bush2 Budget $ 3.52 Trillion + 89%

2011 budget $ 3.83 Trillion + 9% so far

And if you want to go back a bit more
The Federal spending more than doubled during
The 8 years under Nixon and Ford

On Jun 7, 11:51*am, jim wrote:

So here is a quiz
Which presidents have made government bigger? *

The all time champions for the last 5 presidents are
George W Bush and Ronald Reagon.

Federal spending

last Carter *Budget = * $ *0.68 *Trillion
last Reagon *Budget * * $ *1.14 *Trillion *+ 68%
last Bush1 * Budget * * $ *1.41 *Trillion *+ 24%
last Clinton Budget * * $ *1.86 *Trillion *+ 32%
last Bush2 * Budget * * $ *3.52 *Trillion *+ 89%

* *2011 * *budget * * * $ *3.83 *Trillion *+ 9% so far

And if you want to go back a bit more
The Federal spending more than doubled during
The 8 years under Nixon and Ford

Why do you avoid including Obama? I am under the impression that he
is one of the last five presidents.

Dan

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:51:02 -0500, jim
wrote:

" wrote:

On Jun 6, 12:03 pm, Hawke wrote:


What do you think the people created the government to do? Originally,
it was not much. But as time passed and times changed people learned the
government could do a lot more than they could on their own.

Our government was founded on the principal of limited government.
That is, the first and most important function of our government is to
limit government.

So here is a quiz
Which presidents have made government bigger?

The all time champions for the last 5 presidents are
George W Bush and Ronald Reagon.

Federal spending

last Carter Budget = $ 0.68 Trillion
last Reagon Budget $ 1.14 Trillion + 68%
last Bush1 Budget $ 1.41 Trillion + 24%
last Clinton Budget $ 1.86 Trillion + 32%
last Bush2 Budget $ 3.52 Trillion + 89%

2011 budget $ 3.83 Trillion + 9% so far

And if you want to go back a bit more
The Federal spending more than doubled during
The 8 years under Nixon and Ford

So where iare Reagans numbers?
Dont forget that he approved $1 in increases, for every $3 in cuts..and
then the Democrats backed out of the deal..and didnt cut anything.


Why not go back a bit more..to say...JFK?

And dont forget FDR......

Now about the Obamassiah......?

I Strongly suggest you review the Obama numbers a bit harder....

VBG

I knew you would leave a bunch out....a very big bunch....
Here..let me help you out...

http://www.rense.com/general92/234.htm

Gunner

The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

" wrote:

On Jun 7, 11:51 am, jim wrote:

So here is a quiz
Which presidents have made government bigger?

The all time champions for the last 5 presidents are
George W Bush and Ronald Reagon.

Federal spending

last Carter Budget = $ 0.68 Trillion
last Reagon Budget $ 1.14 Trillion + 68%
last Bush1 Budget $ 1.41 Trillion + 24%
last Clinton Budget $ 1.86 Trillion + 32%
last Bush2 Budget $ 3.52 Trillion + 89%

2011 budget $ 3.83 Trillion + 9% so far

And if you want to go back a bit more
The Federal spending more than doubled during
The 8 years under Nixon and Ford

Why do you avoid including Obama? I am under the impression that he
is one of the last five presidents.

I included the projected budget spending for the current year.
So far that represents a 9% increase.
I believe the projected budget (CBO)
if Obama completes 8 years would be
federal spending will grow to 4.6 trillion
so adding that to the Table

Federal spending

last Carter Budget $ 0.68 Trillion
last Reagon Budget $ 1.14 Trillion + 68%
last Bush1 Budget $ 1.41 Trillion + 24%
last Clinton Budget $ 1.86 Trillion + 32%
last Bush2 Budget $ 3.52 Trillion + 89%
last Obama Budget $ 4.6 Trillion + 31%

On 6/6/2011 6:43 PM, john B. wrote:


When the world changed from an agrarian society where everyone could at
least provide food and shelter for themselves, to an industrial one,
people learned they needed the government even more. They also found the
government did a much better job at many things than they could
individually. So they learned to rely on it more and more. Now the place
you find the experts and professionals is in the government. They are
supposed to be there to provide for the people's needs. For the most
part it does a pretty good job.

You are saying that modern man is not capable of taking care of
himself? That he needs a nanny to change his diaper?

No, man is perfectly capable of taking care of himself but he does it
differently now than in the past. We have learned a lot about working
together and about the division of labor over the years. In the past
people worked by themselves and did things individually. They made
everything by hand. Now we do everything collectively because it is all
that works in a world with 7 billion people in it.



I guess that Orwell's "1984" was more apt then we realized, with the
proletariat sitting dumbly in front of their television and all
decisions made by the government.

We send our representatives to Washington to do our bidding. We don't
want them to tell us what to do we want to tell them. The problem is
they are not representing the voters. They are representing the donors
way too much.


Well, you may be right. I'm just glad that I'm old enough not to have
been born into the helpless, pablum fed, generation.

It's just that now people understand the world is very complex and
difficult and technical. They know they need experts more than ever
before to get by. So they depend on the organization they created
(government) to work for them so they can do their own work.

The problem with today's government is that it is captured by monied
interests. So the government is doing for those who donate to the
politician's political campaigns not for the average person, like it was
supposed to. If we can ever get the money (bribery) out of the process
of elections we'll have a government that is far better and will be far
better appreciated by the public than it is now.

Hawke

You don't really believe that, do you? With all the examples that have
been reported around the world?

All you have to do is look at the disparity in wealth in the country and
the maldistribution of wealth and it's obvious who is paying the way for
the government. Only 1% pay anything in political campaigns. Those who
pay get their way.


The Russian revolution - to free the Worker and kill the Kulaks The
Chinese revolution - eliminate the rich? And what is the major problem
in these countries? The emergence of a favored class.

It's the same everywhere. The problem is inequality. Why was the U.S.
the envy of the world when we had the largest middle class of any
country? We were shooting at having the most people in the middle and
less in the poor and rich classes. We did better than anyplace ever but
we have backslid to where we're looking much more like the rest of the
world where there are only two classes, rich and poor.


Of course the democratic system is different - it glorifies the
tyranny of the proletariat and as Churchill once said, "the best
argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average
voter".

I'd agree. Most people know very little of what is going on. Nowadays
they don't have the time to be up on what is going on. That's why we
have professionals to deal with things that are beyond our knowledge and
ability to do ourselves.


As for the rich taking over, I am reminded of a news item from the
weekend prior to Ms. Clinton resigning from the primary - it compared
her money raising efforts with Obama's and concluded that as Obama's
was greater that Ms Clinton didn't have a chance to be selected as the
Democratic candidate.

I don't understand your point. If you're talking specifically about
campaigns then that's one thing. If you're talking about how the wealthy
are in control of our country that's another. In the Democratic primary,
whichever candidate appears to be the eventual winner will eventually
draw most of the money to himself. That leaves the others without enough
to continue, unless they can find other sources of money. They usually
can't because once you find one person that looks like the winner
everyone donates to him because they want the favor of the eventual winner.


What do you believe is better? The original Greek democracy? That
excluded women, slaves, the poor, and foreigners?

It's not that our democracy is bad it's just that it has been corrupted
by the influence of money so that it doesn't function like it is
intended to. If we had public financing of elections and they went on
for a few months instead of years most of the problems would be fixed or
greatly reduced. When Bill Gates has the same voice in government as you
or I then we have real democracy. I don't thing we're there yet.

Hawke

On 6/7/2011 7:30 AM, wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:03 pm, wrote:


What do you think the people created the government to do? Originally,
it was not much. But as time passed and times changed people learned the
government could do a lot more than they could on their own.


Our government was founded on the principal of limited government.
That is, the first and most important function of our government is to
limit government.
Over the centuries, th US has become more and more perverted, until
our government's claim is "more limited that those other oppressive
governments".
This limit to government has made our country, with low average IQs,
the most prosperous nation on earth.
Why have other countries not copied our freedom from government?
Why have we not maintained our wonderful freedoms?
Because of liberals like Hawke have infiltrated the educational and
media systems.
Much like an AIDS virus invading the immune system.



Actually the problem is from people filled with misconceptions and have
a propensity to believe in mythology. I never go to an engineer to learn
about history or government. They don't know about those things.
Measuring and weighing and doing math I ask them about. Not about
government, because they are as ignorant about that subject as I am
about higher mathematics.

That said, try to understand the circumstances that led to our founder's
strong belief in limited government. They came from a time when the only
government they ever knew were absolute monarchies, tyrannies.
Governments like this did nothing for anyone but itself and for it's
aristocratic allies. It's purpose was not to serve the needs of the people.

With that idea of government it's natural to think the best government
is one with strictly limited powers. But men of the 18th century never
understood what a modern government, that is only there to provide for
the needs of the public, would be like in the future. So they only saw
the government in a negative way and as something that had to have
severe limitations on it. I don't disagree with this thinking in
general. But modern western governments like Germany, the UK, Canada, or
the U.S. are not like 18th century monarchies.

So times have changed and so has the way we think. While we all see the
potential of abuse by government we don't see it as the enemy. We need
it too much. It is an asset that we want under our control and doing
what we want it to do. People today in general, except for the old
fashioned conservatives, like government. They use it all the time for
their benefit. They allow it in all aspects of their lives because it
makes life better for them, not worse.

Americans have as much or more government in their lives as any country.
Would we do that if we didn't like government? Everything we do from our
schools, our infrastructure, our safety, our health care, just about
everything you can name we want the government involved. Did 18th
century men? No. But then they wanted to be able to kill someone in a
duel if they felt insulted. So you see, they thought a lot different
from what we do today. Except for you conservatives. You still think a
lot like 18th century folks.

Hawke

On Jun 7, 1:11*pm, jim wrote:
" wrote:

On Jun 7, 11:51 am, jim wrote:

So here is a quiz
Which presidents have made government bigger?

The all time champions for the last 5 presidents are
George W Bush and Ronald Reagon.

Federal spending

last Carter *Budget = * $ *0.68 *Trillion
last Reagon *Budget * * $ *1.14 *Trillion *+ 68%
last Bush1 * Budget * * $ *1.41 *Trillion *+ 24%
last Clinton Budget * * $ *1.86 *Trillion *+ 32%
last Bush2 * Budget * * $ *3.52 *Trillion *+ 89%

* *2011 * *budget * * * $ *3.83 *Trillion *+ 9% so far

And if you want to go back a bit more
The Federal spending more than doubled during
The 8 years under Nixon and Ford

Why do you avoid including Obama? *I am under the impression that he
is one of the last five presidents.

I included the projected budget spending for the current year.
So far that represents a 9% increase.
I believe the projected budget (CBO)
if Obama completes 8 years would be
federal spending will grow to 4.6 trillion
so adding that to the Table

Federal spending

last Carter * Budget * * $ *0.68 *Trillion
last Reagon * Budget * * $ *1.14 *Trillion *+ 68%
last Bush1 * *Budget * * $ *1.41 *Trillion *+ 24%
last Clinton *Budget * * $ *1.86 *Trillion *+ 32%
last Bush2 * *Budget * * $ *3.52 *Trillion *+ 89%
last Obama * *Budget * * $ *4.6 * Trillion *+ 31%

Interesting. Because all of these presidents did not serve 8 years
the tabular data does not show the data as well as a graph. I graphed
the data and the rate of budget rise is about the same for the first
four presidents. But the rate of rise for Bush II and Obama is
distinctly higher. And although the tabular data would suggest that
Bush II had a much higher rate than Obama, on the graph it looks like
there is little difference between Bush II and Obama. Bush II is a
higher rate, but if the numbers were 3.2 for Bush II then it would be
pretty much a straight line from Clinton to the end of the projected
last Obama budget.

Dan

On Jun 6, 11:29*pm, " wrote:

He was in his sophomore year of College at Kansas when the Japanese
attacked. *A year later, to avoid being drafted, he Joined the Army
RESERVE. *He managed to stretch things out as far as he could, but
eventually was sent to Europe, in April of 1945, he was in his first
combat when he was wounded.

Tens of thousands of Americans were lined up to enlist on December 8th 1941.

So what are the other many ways he tried to avoid military service?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Still waiting for those other ways that Bob Dole tried to use to evade
military service.

Dan

" wrote:

Federal spending

last Carter Budget $ 0.68 Trillion
last Reagon Budget $ 1.14 Trillion + 68%
last Bush1 Budget $ 1.41 Trillion + 24%
last Clinton Budget $ 1.86 Trillion + 32%
last Bush2 Budget $ 3.52 Trillion + 89%
last Obama Budget $ 4.6 Trillion + 31%

Interesting. Because all of these presidents did not serve 8 years
the tabular data does not show the data as well as a graph. I graphed
the data and the rate of budget rise is about the same for the first
four presidents.

Sure spending per year dollar amounts increased
about the same for Clinton as Reagon.
But the US GDP had doubled in that span of time also.


But the rate of rise for Bush II and Obama is
distinctly higher. And although the tabular data would suggest that
Bush II had a much higher rate than Obama, on the graph it looks like
there is little difference between Bush II and Obama. Bush II is a
higher rate, but if the numbers were 3.2 for Bush II then it would be
pretty much a straight line from Clinton to the end of the projected
last Obama budget.

Sure you take 400 billion of the increase from Bush
and assign it to Obama and
then ignore any growth in the economy
and those 2 combined
makes it look like what you want it to look like

Looking at it that way,
Roosevelt hardly increased spending at all
Spending under Roosevelt increase from 6 billion/yr to 55 billion/yr
That is a 900% increase

By your logic
That is only 49 billion increase for his entire presidency
Bush2 increased spending 49 billion every 3 months
that he was in office






Dan

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:07:24 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

then ignore any growth in the economy

WHAT growth?


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:03*pm, Hawke wrote:

What do you think the people created the government to do? Originally,
it was not much. But as time passed and times changed people learned the
government could do a lot more than they could on their own.

Our government was founded on the principal of limited government.
That is, the first and most important function of our government is to
limit government.
Over the centuries, th US has become more and more perverted, until
our government's claim is "more limited that those other oppressive
governments".
This limit to government has made our country, with low average IQs,
the most prosperous nation on earth.
Why have other countries not copied our freedom from government?
Why have we not maintained our wonderful freedoms?
Because of liberals like Hawke have infiltrated the educational and
media systems.
Much like an AIDS virus invading the immune system.

Nah, it's a metastizing cancer.

I don't believe in AIDS. You can't acquire _anything_ unless you _already
have_ an immune deficiency.

Cheers!
Rich

On Jun 7, 4:07*pm, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:

Interesting. *Because all of these presidents did not serve 8 years
the tabular data does not show the data as well as a graph. I graphed
the data and *the rate of budget rise is about the same for the first
four presidents.



Sure you take 400 billion of the increase from Bush
and assign it to Obama and
then ignore any growth in the economy
*and those 2 combined
makes it look like what you want it to look like

That is not what I said. What I said is that if you graph the data,
you will have a better understanding. Starting with Bush II the
budgets increase at a much higher rate and continue to do so using the
projected figures for Obama. Since the figures are projected for
Obama, I do not trust them a lot. But a graph shows that Obama is
very close to Bush II as far as budget increases.

Dan

"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
On 6/6/2011 7:14 PM, ATP wrote:
"Stuart wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2011 8:28 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25
last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings
of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show
you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we
agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger.

Previous experience shows that when America is attacked, Americans turn
out to defend her in record numbers (Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could find),
but when the interests of corporate America are attacked or when America
sticks her nose into places she might not belong (Vietnam, Iraq II), the
people do not all jump up to run for the recruiting station.

Why would you attack Bob Dole's military service record?



Does stating an uncomfortable fact cause you distress?

I was not a Dole supporter, whether he got deferments or not he eventually
served and paid a fairly heavy price. What's the point of attacking him?
Attack the republican chickenhawks who never served at all.

" wrote:

On Jun 7, 4:07 pm, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:

Interesting. Because all of these presidents did not serve 8 years
the tabular data does not show the data as well as a graph. I graphed
the data and the rate of budget rise is about the same for the first
four presidents.



Sure you take 400 billion of the increase from Bush
and assign it to Obama and
then ignore any growth in the economy
and those 2 combined
makes it look like what you want it to look like

That is not what I said. What I said is that if you graph the data,
you will have a better understanding.

If you understand it
you can explain it adequately in words.


Starting with Bush II the
budgets increase at a much higher rate and continue to do so using the
projected figures for Obama. Since the figures are projected for
Obama, I do not trust them a lot. But a graph shows that Obama is
very close to Bush II as far as budget increases.

If you are expecting the increase
to be the same rate as economic growth
Then you would expect the increase to be half
as much for Reagan than Clinton
You would expect Reagan to be more than Roosevelt
And the rate of increase for
Obama to be more than Bush2 not less



Dan

On Jun 7, 8:49*pm, jim wrote:
" wrote:

On Jun 7, 4:07 pm, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:

Interesting. *Because all of these presidents did not serve 8 years
the tabular data does not show the data as well as a graph. I graphed
the data and *the rate of budget rise is about the same for the first
four presidents.

Sure you take 400 billion of the increase from Bush
and assign it to Obama and
then ignore any growth in the economy
*and those 2 combined
makes it look like what you want it to look like

That is not what I said. *What I said is that if you graph the data,
you will have a better understanding. *

If you understand it
you can explain it adequately in words.

Starting with Bush II the
budgets increase at a much higher rate and continue to do so using the
projected figures for Obama. *Since the figures are projected for
Obama, I do not trust them a lot. *But a graph shows that Obama is
very close to Bush II as far as budget increases.

If you are expecting the increase
to be the same rate as economic growth
Then you would expect the increase to be half
as much for Reagan than Clinton
You would expect Reagan to be more than Roosevelt
And the rate of increase for
*Obama to be more than Bush2 not less




i am not expecting anything. I was just looking at data you presented
and noted that the tabular form does not present the data well.

Dan