Mike Castle
Paul Anderson
Delaware, who will be our advocate for coins in the Senate?
I fear this is bad news for supporters of coins and coin issues.
Paul
Bremick
"Paul Anderson" <paulra...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:paulranderson-28F...@news.charter.net...
What about the concerns of the majority of Delaware voters? I doubt coin
issues were high on their list. Too bad though, I hate to see Sarah Palin
favorites come out on top. ;>(
Paul Anderson
"Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> What about the concerns of the majority of Delaware voters? I doubt
> coin issues were high on their list. Too bad though, I hate to see
> Sarah Palin favorites come out on top. ;>(
Not living in Delaware, I am not aware of the important issues in that
state. Whoever wins the general election in Delaware will probably not
have the clout and interest in coins as Senator Castle and I wanted to
keep that as the topic of conversation here.
That said, I don't understand the thinking that all incumbents should
be voted out of office.
Paul
Relayer
> "Paul Anderson" <paulrander...@charter.net> wrote in message
Ditto on that. This is just a replay of 2006, except the teams have
changed.
shreadvector
Any chance that Castle will push through a bill or amendment during
his last days to finally eliminate the rag dollar?
Drago the Wolf
I was wondering the same thing.
Why would it be a "bad" thing for Castle to go. The guy was always
saying over and over again "The general public is not ready to part
with the dollar bill" some many times, it made me sick. Well, if the
general public was not ready then, and has not been ready since, then,
when? WHEN will the general public "be ready to part with the dollar
bill"?
Oh, and by the way Fred, I can see you have no idea when the $1 bill
will be phased out. Looks like your "Secret Plan" buddy was talking
out the other end.
mazorj
"shreadvector" <fred.e....@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:d1b03ff4-aafe-40cc...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
About the only thing that most Congressional lame ducks can push through is
the rest room door.
Peter
> "shreadvector" <fred.e.shec...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
And a boondogle or 2 ...
Jerry Dennis
> In article <i6pb4l$qh...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Stagnation and "business as usual" thinking. Fire ALL incumbants and
the "inductees" will be forced to reset the playing field.
I like the idea of the Tea Party as it's regular folks banding
together to let their elected officials know (to coin a phrase),
"We're mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!" The "we
know better than you" mentality of government is about to come to an
end.
Jerry
mazorj
"Jerry Dennis" <JDen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:646fe8a4-7702-41e1...@m1g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Jerry
======================
That may be a satisfyingly simple approach, but...
Let's say you are running a large factory that manufactures and assembles
all the components for an automobile. (I know, no such thing any more, but
this is hypothetical. It's a good analogy to Congress.) You need and have
a large range of expertise on a wide range of knowledge under your roof,
from the new hire who is learning how to install tail lights as the cars go
rolling by, to experienced production heads who know everything about
specialized areas such as making doors or brake assemblies, to mechanical
and electrical design engineers who are current in the state of their art,
not to mention floor supervisors and department heads who coordinate
everything to keep it all moving. Every year you lose a few to attrition
and promote from within to fill these spots.
Most of your workers are highly motivated and productive but a certain
percentage are ineffective or just counting the days to retirement, and a
few are actively stealing time and/or stock behind your back. They are an
obvious drag on productivity and quality control.
So this morning you woke up in a bad mood, said "I've got to get rid of the
dead wood and thieves," and your solution was to fire everybody from the top
on down to the bottom, and in one fell swoop, hire replacements off the
street for all positions.
How well do you think your factory is going to run?
oly
> "Jerry Dennis" <JDen1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The ideas of a professional Congress and lifelong Congressmen are
silly.
Didn't Henry Clay get elected Speaker of the House on his first day as
a Congressman?
I know Abraham Lincoln served only a single Congressional term, over a
decade before his election to the Presidency.
One suspects that the U.S. Congress was more far far more effective
(in a positive sense) on its first day of session back in 1789 than it
is today.
Those were back in the days when this Nation was headed ever upwards.
You can't justify what we've got in D.C. today, compared to the
intentions of the Founding Fathers. You can't justify Robert Byrd
(Ted Kenned, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, ad infinitum); you can't
justify Nancy Pelosi, and you sure as hell can't justify Barry
Soetoro.
It might all be better than what's going on in Pyongyang, but by just
how much is dicey.
However, they should have a Government program where all lobbyists are
forced to devour four all-you-can-eat meals each and every day at Fogo
da Chao on Pennsylvania Avenue. It would ensure turnover in that ilk
via heart attack!
(you know who)
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
We have 308 million persons in the U.S.A. today.
To say that the present 535 members of Congress are the best qualified
to run your "factory" is a bit daft.
America could stand quite a bit of frequent turnover.
oly
Jerry Dennis
> "Jerry Dennis" <JDen1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maz, you're comparing apples and oranges here. Yes, the factory would
probably fail. But Government was never intended to be run by
professional politicians. The Founders intended for "citizen
politicians" to run the country. Serve a term or two, then go home
and work for a living.
Regardless of your affiliation, let's seriously consider one of the
most obvious individual professional politicians, the late Senator Ted
Kennedy. All he ever did his entire adult life was to be a
politician. He knew nothing else. Sadly, Congress is overwhelmingly
FULL of them, both parties. If it weren't for their abilities to lie
convincingly, they'd be out of jobs. And let's also consider former
Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota. He served a term as Governor and
went his merry way. He embodies what the Founding Fathers intended.
The worst offenders are those that ignore the will of their
constiuents and do whatever they please to further their own personal
agendas. Those are the ones that really need to go. Then there are
those too weak to stand up against their collegues' pressure to do the
will of the people. If you're that weak, you're not a leader. Get
out! One of the many sayings we had in the military was, "A flock of
sheep being led by a wolf is far more dangerous than a pack of wolves
being led by a sheep." It works the same in government.
There was ONE congressman that I'm aware of who voted against his
personal feelings and voted as his constiuents wanted (I believe it
was Joseph Cao of LA on the Health Care Reform Bill), He would be the
ONLY incumbant I would endorse.
And the government mentality of "if we need money we'll just tax the
people" has gotten so bad, cleaning house seems to be the only way to
force them to understand. I'd always said, if it weren't for the
legalized form of theft called "taxes," the government would go out of
business. Now if government were run like a business by effective
businessmen and women, we'd have a lot more efficiency, lower costs,
and a lot less waste. Donald Trump said this morning, "I could give
you ten names right now, and this country would start making a lot of
money." Quote at about 4:38.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4339727/donald-trump-on-fox--friends
As O'Reilly would say, "I'll give you the last word."
Jerry
Loving CIVIL political debates.
mazorj
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9231c392-ca73-4d94...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 2:29 pm, oly <oly2...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:52 am, "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
...
> > "Jerry Dennis" <JDen1...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
See below.
> Didn't Henry Clay get elected Speaker of the House on his first day as
> a Congressman?
>
> I know Abraham Lincoln served only a single Congressional term, over a
> decade before his election to the Presidency.
So we won't hear you whining that Obama only served roughly the same time in
the Senate before being elected president, right?
> One suspects that the U.S. Congress was more far far more effective
> (in a positive sense) on its first day of session back in 1789 than it is
> today.
To the extent that this might be true, it's because with few exceptions,
everything was _far_ more simple than today's modern complexities.
> Those were back in the days when this Nation was headed ever upwards.
That's because our starting baseline on July 3, 1776 was pretty low compared
to today.
> You can't justify what we've got in D.C. today, compared to the
> intentions of the Founding Fathers. You can't justify Robert Byrd
> (Ted Kenned, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, ad infinitum); you can't
> justify Nancy Pelosi, and you sure as hell can't justify Barry Soetoro.
First, you forgot the right side of the aisle, which is just as "guilty" of
whatever it is you are accusing Democrats of.
Second, what do you mean by "justify"? Nothing of the sort has to be
"justified" under the Constitution. If the founding fathers had wanted a
perpetually novice Congress, they would have included term limits in the
Constitution. Logically, they knew that absent such limits, there could and
would be representatives serving for many terms, and that the longer the
service, the more powerful the individual would become.
While the ordinary citizen merchant or farmer serving as representative for
one or two terms may have been one noble ideal model of public service at
the time, it was just that, a noble ideal. It had no more bearing on
logical realities than the ideal Roman farmer/general Cincinnatus had for
our new republic's model of a small but well-commanded standing professional
army and navy. If we could call on a vast corps of Cincinnati-like
civilians who could drop their ledgers and plowshares and assume command of
vast armed forces, then we've been wasting our money on West Point,
Annapolis, and the Air Force academies. Likewise, you don't hire newbies to
run your factories or your Congress.
And don't try to duck out with the old wheeze that "they never envisioned
long-term holding of seats." They were well aware of such practices under
the Crown, including powerful individuals who held on to their seats in
Parliament for decades through "conventional" power politicking, not to
mention party sinecures, "rotten borough" seats in Parliament, blatant
nepotism in offices of all sorts, full-time "professional" court advisors,
and the corrosive effects of back-room lobbying. They left it up to the
people, not you or me or Jerry, to decide who represents them and for how
long.
> It might all be better than what's going on in Pyongyang, but by just
> how much is dicey.
Now you're just being silly, oly. (Either that or deliberately mendacious -
you pick 'em.) Name me one party official there who can be replaced by the
will of the people in free elections. We have 537 federal officeholders in
America, plus thousands of state and local leaders, who can be replaced on a
regular basis without resorting to the extraordinary measures that also can
be lawfully applied between elections. We have a guaranteed right of free
speech and peacable assembly to air our grievances, plus protections against
unlawful entry or arrest, the right to habeas corpus, plus a boatload of
other rights and privileges that the mere mention of in North Korea would
get you arrested, gulagged, or shot.
> However, they should have a Government program where all lobbyists are
> forced to devour four all-you-can-eat meals each and every day at Fogo
> da Chao on Pennsylvania Avenue. It would ensure turnover in that ilk
> via heart attack!
Well, here, my personally satisfying simplistic solution would be to just
shoot them. Like throwing out the entire Congress, it's quicker and
guarantees results. And if lobbyists could get themselves certified as a
minority, it even would rise to the level of a hate crime on my part. ;-)
However, given the First Amendment and other rights, your approach may be
more feasible.
Seriously, though, they're a necessary (or at least unavoidable) evil under
our system. (Insert here Churchill's famous comment on democracies.)
> (you know who)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
<
< We have 308 million persons in the U.S.A. today.
<
< To say that the present 535 members of Congress are the best qualified
to run your "factory" is a bit daft.
<
< America could stand quite a bit of frequent turnover.
<
< oly
==================
First, my post was not meant to endorse "a lifetime professional Congress."
My analogy was directed at Jerry's dictum that we should throw every last
one of them out and elect 535 newbies off the streets. That way lies
madness and chaos, as would happen at my hypothetical factory.
Second, oly, you really stretched the truth again when you said that I said
or even implied that the current 535 are the best qualified 535
representatives to be had. You'd have to equally distort what I said about
the factory to conclude that I even implied that about the factory
workforce, and hence by analogy, about the Congress. Which is ludicrous. I
was speaking of the superior, not the superlative.
I've been as guilty of the following as the next guy, but... if you're going
to critique what I say, please critique what I actually did say, not what
you think you saw in what I said. The best response would be to ask "Did
you mean to say or imply that..." before going off at the poster for
"saying" or implying something that you don't like. Whether you used them
as dodges or not (I'll say "not" in this case, even though it's a common
evasive tactic), responses like these are strawman arguments.
Regarding "America could stand quite a bit of frequent turnover," I agree to
the extent that incumbents have too much of an advantage over challengers.
But IMO there are ways to make the field more level besides shoving all the
current office holders over a cliff. And we both know that a large part of
the reason for the long-term terms of congresscritters is Pogo's famous
observation. We all need to look in the mirror first before complaining
about government. Politicians who truly speak and act their own minds -
especially in today's environment - are voted out when they don't give what
a majority of their electors what they want. So the "yes man" behavior is a
symptom, not the disease. The "disease" is that Americans as a whole have
unrealistic expectations of what they should get from government and/or what
price they have to pay for the services they use. That's true on all three
sides of the aisle - Democratic, Republican, and Tea Party/libertarian
types.
Which is why every poll I've ever heard of has most people saying "We don't
approve of what Congress is doing, throw the rascals out so we can get good
government." But the majority of them then add "Oh, except *my*
representative. He/she is doing a great job of representing my interests
and bringing money in for vital, legitimate federal projects. That's why we
keep re-electing him/her." (Which, not coincidentally, is why he/she has
risen through seniority to such powerful committee positions where he/she
can bring home your bacon.) So to the vast majority of voters, "It's all
those others on the Hill who are keeping Congress from doing the right
things while perpetuating waste and fraud and pork."
Yeah, right.
mazorj
On Sep 16, 12:52 pm, "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Jerry Dennis" <JDen1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:646fe8a4-7702-41e1...@m1g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 10:55 pm, Paul Anderson <paulrander...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <i6pb4l$qh...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> > "Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > What about the concerns of the majority of Delaware voters? I doubt
> > > coin issues were high on their list. Too bad though, I hate to see
> > > Sarah Palin favorites come out on top. ;>(
>
> > Not living in Delaware, I am not aware of the important issues in that
> > state. Whoever wins the general election in Delaware will probably not
> > have the clout and interest in coins as Senator Castle and I wanted to
> > keep that as the topic of conversation here.
>
> > That said, I don't understand the thinking that all incumbents should
> > be voted out of office.
>
> > Paul
>
> Stagnation and "business as usual" thinking. Fire ALL incumbants and
> the "inductees" will be forced to reset the playing field.
>
> I like the idea of the Tea Party as it's regular folks banding
> together to let their elected officials know (to coin a phrase),
> "We're mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!"
There was an interesting segment on NPR that showed an important rift within
the Tea Party. Tea Party founders and leaders want to stay on their
original libertarian TEA message: "Taxed Enough Already." However, there
is a large faction of self-professed Tea Party members who are coming in
with a decidely non-libertarian agenda of enforcing their religious and
moral views on all Americans. The "moral America" advocate in the interview
claimed that unless the Tea Party supports in some fashion their social
agenda, 80% of all tea-baggers will revolt and head for the door. To her
credit, the head of a local Texas Tea Party stood her ground in the face of
this threat, saying that taking up a fight to enforce social mandates would
run counter to libertarianism; and that having the Tea Party engage in, say,
anti-abortion lobbying would be like demanding that the NRA also do the same
when its core issues and strengths clearly are firmly rooted in, and limited
to firearms advocacy. If sticking to your guns means losing 80% of your
supporters, "so be it."
So... not all of those bodies we see at Tea Parties and Beck rallies are
marching to the same drummer. According to the moral majority advocate in
the interview, the vast majority of them have the attitude of "Yeah, okay,
whatever you say about taxes, but I'm jumping on your bandwagon strictly to
lobby for Christianity and against sins like abortion and gay marriage."
OTOH, the Tea Parties seem to have had an impact in the primaries. Whether
that turns out to be a gift to the Democrats remains to be seen. As one
pundit put it, the Republicans may want to put their Tea Party candidates
into the witness protection program until the elections are over.
> The "we
> know better than you" mentality of government is about to come to an end.
Does that include demise of the opposite faction, i.e., the ones who vow
that "once we gain sufficient power, we will use the government to enforce
what 'we in government know better' about religion and morality in America"?
They already have enough political clout to do some of that, you know. In
fact, they've already influenced public policy in many areas to reflect
their religious beliefs.
Your proof for this is what? The *absence* of term limits in the
Constitution? (Not! See my reply to oly.)
< Regardless of your affiliation, let's seriously consider one of the
most obvious individual professional politicians, the late Senator Ted
Kennedy. All he ever did his entire adult life was to be a
politician. He knew nothing else. Sadly, Congress is overwhelmingly
FULL of them, both parties. If it weren't for their abilities to lie
convincingly, they'd be out of jobs. And let's also consider former
Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota. He served a term as Governor and
went his merry way. He embodies what the Founding Fathers intended.
1. Sez you about what he embodies (beyond what his nickname embodies as
Jesse "The Body" Ventura). :-) Because,
2. James George Janos didn't bail after one term because of any professed
belief in term limits. According to Wikipedia, "Ventura later told a
reporter for The Boston Globe that he would have run for a second term if he
had been single, citing the media's effect on his family life." That's a
valid and honest explanation that goes to family values, but it's hardly an
endorsement or even proof of your claim. Furthermore, Ventura's slippage in
popularity and political clout by his fourth year in office probably played
some role in his decision.
< The worst offenders are those that ignore the will of their
constiuents and do whatever they please to further their own personal
agendas. Those are the ones that really need to go.
Oh, come on, now. If they really "ignore the will of (the majority of)
their constituents and do whatever they please" then eventually they'll lose
the next election. They may be ignoring the will of the majority of
constituents in your state or district, but not theirs. If they're even
just perceived as ignoring their electors' will, they might be voted out
regardless of their actual record. Just ask the moderate Republicans who
were eaten alive by neocon factions.
< Then there are
those too weak to stand up against their collegues' pressure to do the
will of the people. If you're that weak, you're not a leader. Get
out! One of the many sayings we had in the military was, "A flock of
sheep being led by a wolf is far more dangerous than a pack of wolves
being led by a sheep." It works the same in government.
First, let me observe that this also is a two-way street, and IMO it's
Republicans who are more guilty of caving to party pressure. We have any
number of conservative Democrats who oppose many different Obama proposals.
That's why he's had to compromise greatly on many issues to get bills passed
despite Democratic "control" of both houses. It's the moderate Republicans
who are scared spitless of being chewed to bits by the neocons for not
marching lock-step with their ultra-right agendas.
Second, your "military" analogy here is the apples and oranges. Eisenhower
himself lamented on the fact that unlike the military where his commands
were immediately carried out without question, being president required a
whole different set of skills, including the ability to navigate and accept
compromises just to get partial agreements on your proposals. Who are the
wolves and who are the sheep becomes irrelevant, especially when you can't
tell whether you're looking at a sheep or a clever wolf in sheep's clothing.
(The more relevant animal here is the cat, as in the classic observation
that trying to move the Senate in any direction is "like herding cats".)
Most of what you are describing is not weakness but old-fashioned political
horsetrading, which was ancient, time honored, and yes, publicly disavowed
even in 1776. It's giving up something you want in order to get support for
an even bigger something you want. It's the grease that allows the
machinery of government to work. Every political leader, large or small,
left or right, has to practice this to some extent in order to be effective.
It's only when it was your ox that got gored in the trade-off that you the
voter cry "Foul!" Replacing 525 people with newbies off the street won't
eliminate the need for them to cut deals with each other to get many of the
things they want. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
< There was ONE congressman that I'm aware of who voted against his
personal feelings and voted as his constiuents wanted (I believe it
was Joseph Cao of LA on the Health Care Reform Bill), He would be the
ONLY incumbant I would endorse.
Remember Paul Tsongas, the former Massachusetts Senator (D) who ran for
president in 1992? He spoke the truth to voters: While avoiding the
Republicans' standard conservative mantras to shrink taxes and governent, he
did look us in the eye and tell us we must lower our expectations, tighten
our belts, and be prepared to pay for whatever government benefits and
services we want. I would have driven to the New Hampshire primary in a
blizzard to vote for him.
His reward for being truthful and accurate? He tanked after his initial
primary win. Who the hell wanted to hear that kind of message in an
election year, especially when "It's the economy, stupid"?
< And the government mentality of "if we need money we'll just tax the
people" has gotten so bad, cleaning house seems to be the only way to
force them to understand.
You may be right, in the sense that Obama came in with a clear mandate to
clean out the Bush White House ("Anyone But Bush!") and the
Republican-controlled House and Senate, and then get government back into a
pro-active mode. What remains to be seen is how many voters in November
will renounce what they voted for in 2008 and demand another House & Senate
cleaning.
IMO Obama's problem is not the spending per se. That just PO'd the tea
partiers. It's jobs - and even on election day I was thinking "It'll be a
miracle if he can save and restore enough jobs to satisfy voters in 2010."
Without going into who's to blame, by Nov. 2008 the economy just wasn't
going to revive to that level no matter what was done or not done. The
spending programs helped but not enough. If, OTOH, we were looking at a
robust and growing jobs market right now, Obama would be a hero. (At least
to those whose mantra isn't "Anyone except a Democrat" or worse.)
< I'd always said, if it weren't for the
legalized form of theft called "taxes," the government would go out of
business.
"Legalized theft"? I thought we were keeping our debates civil and avoiding
ridiculous exaggerations.
It's the same as if I were to call all supporters of tax cuts "tax evaders".
Which I wouldn't do because it's wildly inaccurate. "Tax evasion" is a
specific term for demonstrable, statutorily defined illegal activity. So is
"theft". Adding the modifier "legalized" doesn't change the intent of the
euphemism.
> Now if government were run like a business by effective
businessmen and women, we'd have a lot more efficiency, lower costs,
and a lot less waste. Donald Trump said this morning, "I could give
you ten names right now, and this country would start making a lot of
money." Quote at about 4:38.
<
< http://video.foxnews.com/v/4339727/donald-trump-on-fox--friends
<
< As O'Reilly would say, "I'll give you the last word."
<
< Jerry
< Loving CIVIL political debates.
It's an inconvenient and undeniable truth that no government can be run with
anything approaching the same efficiency and costs of the private sector.
That's like expecting the tortoise to outrun the rabbit. In the end the
tortoise does get to the finish line, although usually behind the hare
because it has to move in its own fashion with lots of constraints that
don't apply to the nimble rabbit. OTOH it has powers and assets that the
rabbit could only dream of.
For example, why is so much of government bound up in red tape? Because we
demand proper use of, and accountability for use of public funds, plus proof
of adherence to statutes and rules and procedures. Woe to the bureaucrat
who can't prove all of the above when challenged.
Why are there so many restrictive regulations on private enterprise?
Because the free markets have shown over and over that left to their own
devices, at least some corporations will put profits ahead of fairness and
public safety. Woe to the administration and the Congress that has a
catastrophe occur on their watch without post-event rule tightening aimed at
preventing a recurrence.
Why do we complain that taxes are higher than we want to pay (which BTW are
among the lowest for industrialized nations)? Because we foolishly vote in
representatives who cunningly promise to give us everything we demand at
election time - and then we foolishly expect government to somehow fund all
our mandates without collecting the necessary level of taxes to pay for it
all. (Note that all of these are bi-partisan. It applies to candidates and
advocates and watchdogs on both sides of the aisle.)
To finish up on government vs. free enterprise: Granted that there is waste
and fraud and inefficiencies in government, but show me a private
corporation that doesn't have its own waste and fraud and inefficiencies.
It's not as thought government holds the patent on that.
More to the point, in virtually all of the cases that I know of where some
hot-shot private sector guy was appointed to "clean house" and run
government offices like they ran their companies, they either gave up after
realizing it couldn't be done due to the nature of the beast, came to that
realization years later (e.g. McNamara) or they did what a lot of CEOs do in
private enterprise: Conjure up a bunch of impressive sounding changes and
gains that turn out to be either overblown, short-term and minor, or are
outright smoke and mirrors.
No one knows this until AFTER the replacement CEO or new administration gets
to look at the books. And this of course is long after the slick talker had
punched up his resume and/or collected his bonuses and stock options and
golden parachutes and then moved on to more green pastures to play his shuck
and jive act - leaving it to the next guy to clean up his mess.
Occasionally when the chicanery (private or public sector) can be shown to
be blatantly illegal, the BS artists get punished. However, these are in
the minority. In most cases the miscreant just laughs all the way to the
bank or the next election's polling booth.
Back to politicians: If voters were realistic enough to *really* want lower
taxes along with a *fair* apportionment of the necessary resultant
reductions in benefits and services, they'd vote for candidates who
*actually* do *both*. (Eliminating waste, fraud and inefficiency can only
nibble at the edges of the funding needs.) But we don't, because we expect
the pols to fund their promises by cutting the *other* guy's programs.
Unless your seat is so secure that at the next election you can just phone
it in, you cannot afford to blow off "those people" (and we know who "those
people" usually are). You're going to need at least some of their votes.
Politicians being nobody's fools, they won't stop saying "yes" to everyone
for most of our demands for benefits and services even as we whine about
taxes. Being realists, they aren't going to cut taxes if it means cutting
their promised programs and risking their next election.
So yes, in an ideal world where everyone voluntarily is a 1-termer (NOT even
a 2-termer!), representatives could just vote their convictions. If it
means screwing Peter to help Paul or vice versa, no matter. But the halls
of Congress have quite a few multi-term inhabitants who have shown the true
nature of human nature. They earnestly campaigned on not being a
long-termer, and when their time was up, said "Hmm, wait a minute. If I
leave now... <insert any of many possible rationalizations for running
again, some "noble," some purely selfish>"
- mazorj, now passing the Talking Stick back to you
Jerry Dennis
<everything snipped to save bandwidth (and there is a lot of it>
> - mazorj, now passing the Talking Stick back to you
I offered you the last word, and I'm sticking my it. I appreciate the
lively debate.
Jerry
Tony Clayton
> On Sep 15, 8:01 am, shreadvector <fred.e.shec...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 6:57 pm, Paul Anderson <paulrander...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Now that Mike Castle has been defeated in the Republican primary in
> > > Delaware, who will be our advocate for coins in the Senate?
> >
> > > I fear this is bad news for supporters of coins and coin issues.
> >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Any chance that Castle will push through a bill or amendment during
> > his last days to finally eliminate the rag dollar?
>
> I was wondering the same thing.
>
> Why would it be a "bad" thing for Castle to go. The guy was always
> saying over and over again "The general public is not ready to part
> with the dollar bill" some many times, it made me sick. Well, if the
> general public was not ready then, and has not been ready since, then,
> when? WHEN will the general public "be ready to part with the dollar
> bill"?
In the UK the public was not ready to lose the pound note, but they did,
and now the pound coin is part of everyday useage.
When I was in Canada in 1962, the dollar bought a lot (I had to work over
an hour to get one). The dollar now is equivalent to 10-20 cents then,
and we used 50c coins a lot....
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
... 1st we shoot all the lawyers, 2nd we strangle them, 3rd..