Re: REALLY OT: News Flash
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:32:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> That was my point. I just don't understand why Californian voters don't
>> get this, especially after catapulting Reagan into a 4 trillion dollar
>> spend-a-thon, and his successor's son into a 6 trillion dollar
>> spend-a-thon. Or on a lighter note, that they're still even allowed to
>> participate in federal elections after making a 10 trillion dollar
> Reagan had good reasons for spending as much as he did.
> - military needed rebuilding (Vietnam had taken a heavy toll on
> equipment and he had to fix Carter's ridiculous parity mistake)
OK, that's believable.
> - he decided to outspend the Soviets to bankrupt them
Never mind that the Soviet Union would have collapsed with or without
Reagan. The average Soviet citizen wasn't exactly living the dream, after
all, and happy people don't grow suspicious. Glasnost was inevitable and
had far more to do with the Russia's withdrawl from the Soviet Union
causing it's ultimate collapse.
> Of course, nobody faults FDR for spending massive amounts of money on
> the New Deal.
Because nobody complains when everybody's getting a fair share of the deal.
It's not the amount of money involved, it's how it's used.
> That said, I am still waiting to hear reasons from W and the rest of the
> republicans in congress for spending money like it is going out of style.
The silence is utterly deafening, especially in the echos of their "tax and
spend democrat" rants. I didn't get that wonderful tax cut Bush was
touting, in fact, my taxes went up. And Oregon and Idaho gets kicked in
the teeth when it comes to federal expenditures. Washington also largely
does, Puget Sound manages to get it's fair share, but only because of Fort
Lewis and there's rumors *that* might close...