Good evening, Frank! > > Three points. (1) Much better the catastrophe never occurs. It must be > the > > shits to wish catastrophe on your own country for political gain. > > That is a point that you seem to have twisted very badly. I > doubt anyone 'wants to see' such a catastrophe occur, but it is > certainly inevitable given the direction of our economics. > Simply put, with a greater and greater burden placed upon the > productive sector, there is less and less incentive for American > business moguls to invest here. They'll go elsewhere and invest > in infrastructure and industry with less regulation and less > demanding labour costs. > > I, as one of those you probably straight jacket as wishing a > catastrophe for political gain, I want you to know that I really > wish people might wake up on their own accord and do the right > thing. Which brings me all the way back to #2 in my leading > paragraphs.
Since you left out the paragraph to which I was responding, I quote it here: >>> On the other hand, I've also gone on record suggesting that probably >>> nothing we do will come to pass until such time arrives that the >>> majority of Americans awaken to a giant catastrophe in which there is >>> no immediate excape with the common mechanisms in place that we have >>> trusted and relied upon for a long, long time that will take us >>> through. So. Nothing will happen (which I interpret as "no progress will be made on the issues I [Frank] care about") until there is a catastrophe. Since I presume you want progress, it's rather logical to presume that you would want the only thing you think will bring it about. But I'll take your word for it that you really don't wish catastrophe and I apologize. > > (2) If > > there's no groundwork laid for solutions and trustworthy leaders ready > to > > implement those solutions, in a catastrophe, no-one is going to turn to > > them. (3) In case of catastrophe, the overwhelming urge is to turn to > > government to "fix it" regardless of how much government contributed to > the > > catastrophe in the first place. As Exhibit A, I give you the Great > > Depression. > > Yes. And I sense you are backpedaling here, because I already > gave you THAT one, didn't I? No backpedaling, just presenting more arguments. > I also gave you Exhibit B, of > Ronald Reagan when Americans overwhelmingly voting for change to > get government off their backs given Reagan's rhetoric! I didn't > say it WOULD work, only pointed out that Americans can vote > anti-government sometimes when government, as it did under Jimmy > Carter, didn't work very well at all in both economic and foreign > policy matters. > > If you remember that far back, as I do, Ronald Reagan asked > Americans directly to sacrifice for a while in order to fix > things. Americans did that, even demanding their liberal > Representatives in Congress give his administration what it > needed to fulfill its mandate! This was so very unique in my > lifetime of observing politics in America. It was the ONLY time > that I can remember of a President really setting an agenda and > going directly back to the American people to protect his mandate > of campaign promises made prior to his election. > > The early Reagan era was a seascape of change in American > Politics. It was knows and the 'born again Conservative' era. It > was a time when conservatism came in vogue. Damn, even liberals > were trying to convince their constituency that they were at > heart, conservatives! Yup. That was the greatness of Reagan. However, Reagan was not the one who was asking Americans to sacrifice the most. It was Carter who was broadcasting from the White House wearing a sweater and telling people to turn their thermostats down and put on more clothes. Also, note that Reagan was a well-known quantity, a proven leader, and was really only promising relatively incremental changes in government. > I previously wrote: > > > I was raised by my parents to believe that principle means > > > everything. You're as good as your word. If you believe > > > something strongly enough, it's worth fighting for! > > And, you replied: > > Did they also explain to you that sometimes you have to work with people > you > > don't entirely agree with on issues where you do agree? > > No, thank God, I don't believe they tried to teach me that. If > they tried to, it didn't sink in. My mother in particular taught > me to hold my ground when I believed I was right, and do the > right thing. It was my TEACHERS in the public government run > schools that tried to teach me the 'art of compromise', and they > failed miserably to accomplish that. > > I wrote last time: > > > One thing however that I was never brought up to believe or > > > practice was the art of compromise, or to put that a bit current > > > in this conversation, the art of what is possible, or political > > > expediency. I understand this is a popular notion today both in > > > politics, and in American society in general. We're stuck with > > > that, I guess. > > To which, you replied: > > Uhm. It's been part of the political scene in this country since the > very > > beginning. You know, things like the Electoral College? the House > > representation based on a state's population size? the Senate consisting > of > > two Senators from each State? Those were compromises! When we get that > > bland, boring world where everyone agrees with everyone else about > > everything, we won't need compromise anymore. But until then.... > > Until then, what? Politics as usual? I believe you'll have to > admit that there was far more consensus to the things you > mentioned just above, like a near unanimous fear of totalitarian > government if one branch has a way to control the whole > enchilada. What you are really talking about above is such > things that give virtually no propriety to any branch of > government and yet represents the interests of all. Everyone, > they thought at the time, would be protected by these constraints > that they placed within the framework of the new government. I'm not so sure. There were plenty of people who DID vote against ratification. The thing is that now we are so used to it that we don't even think about it. Back then, some people in the small states voted against it because of the makeup of the House of Representatives. And some people in the large states voted against it because of the makeup of the Senate. And going in, representatives were coming with what they wanted and were going to try to prevent the "other side" from getting what it wanted. They worked out a compromise so that both sides got part of what they wanted from the deal. My point was that compromise was necessary just to get our US Constitution! What makes you think you can get ANYTHING done in politics without out it? Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
