-=> bob klahn wrote to Dave Drum <=-

 DD>> CONCLUSION: The US should pull out of Washington.

 bk>>  My conclusion.

 bk>>  All the residents of DC should have jobs.

 bk>>  All the residents of DC should have military training. And serve
 bk>>  in the National Guard.

 bk>>  The Swiss system.

 bk>>  The first part of the answer is the hard part.

 DD> But, not the second. I have stated before (not in this
 DD> particular forum) in FIDO discussions that a term of
 DD> National service should be a pre-requisite for voting
 DD> privileges. If you didn't serve you don't get to help
 DD> choose the leaders/policies/etc.

 bk>  I want it to be military service. A "term of service" leaves too
 bk>  may opening for unreal service. The need to be willing to put
 bk>  themselves on the line.

Sort of disagree. Nothing wrong with a "peace corps" type
service. Done this
way - a (future) citizen offers himself for service, listing his preferences of
things to serve as. But, if the gummint has no need for spoon sorters at the
beach in Malibu the (future) citizen might wind up in the military.

This would offer those with physical impediments - blind, deaf, amputee,
paraplegic, etc. a chance to serve their country and *earn* their right to
vote. OTOH, basic military training should be required of all who are
physically able ... using the Marine Corp's philosophy that everyone is a
rifleman first and a (whatever) second. Those who have gone through the
training would then keep their basic weapon for the rest of their lives ...
ready to spring to action at a moment's notice. Latter day Minute Men as it
were.
 
 bk>  Even conscientious objectors can serve.

Yup.
 
 bk>  And it should not be a pre-requisite for voting, but simpley
 bk>  required.

Nope. There should be some extra (potential) reward for putting your arse on
the line. Those not serving and just along for the ride are automatically
second-class citizens and last in line for ALL perks and privileges of living
in this country.
 
 DD> It would be no guarantee that the electorate would be any
 DD> more informed or better able to make wise choices. But, it
 DD> would insure, at the very least, that the voters had
 DD> actually invested *some* effort in supporting the system in
 DD> which they are participating.

 bk>  Yep. And be prepared and trained should it be necessary in the
 bk>  future.

 DD> That, coupled with a two term limit for *ALL* elective
 DD> offices would help ensure that this noble experiment in
 DD> which we are enmeshed will continue ... at least long

 bk>  The two term limit sounds good, and I used to favor term limits.
 bk>  Though I favored a time limit, not a term limit. Twelve years
 bk>  for congress, six for president and VP.

 bk>  After I saw the disaster term limits caused in Michigan I got to
 bk>  doubting the principle. As the Toledo Blade's ombudsman, who is
 bk>  in Michigan and a prof at a journalism school there, as well as
 bk>  a long time journalist wrote, when the Michigan budget was
 bk>  practically impossible to balance there was not one single
 bk>  member of the legislature who had been there just 6 years before
 bk>  when a lot of those programs and tax cuts had been voted in.

So what? If they were responsible and in tune to the needs of the job they
should have done what was necessary and screw the special interests and their
lobbyists.
 
 bk>  Nobody was responsible for the looming disaster. Nobody was
 bk>  facing responsibility for fixing anything they passed in that
 bk>  legislature.

My state (without term limits except for those imposed by the U. S. Attorney)
is facing a budget crisis. And none of the politicos are will to even utter the
word "taxes". It's clear to anyone who has the sense to put one
foot in front
of the other and walk forward that taxes will have to be raised if only to pay
off the bills already run up by the last two governors - one in the Federal
lam
at Terre Haute and one on his way to a similar fate.

I don't like taxes any better than anyone else. But, hell, I don't like paying
bills either. I do, however recognise the needs to do so ... and if it takes a
tax increase, then gaddmit raise the bleeping taxes.
 
 DD> enough for our descendants to pay off the huge bills the
 DD> Bushies and the Obamites have run up.

 bk>  If Obama does not run up that debt our decendants will likely
 bk>  inherit a country without an economy to speak of. A country in
 bk>  economic collapse.

 bk>  After WWII the national debt was 122% of GDP. On the level of
 bk>  Greece today. Yet we managed to pay it down to 32% of GDP by
 bk>  1980. Through war and peace, republican and democrate, liberal
 bk>  and conservative, prosperity and recession, the debt load went
 bk>  down.

 bk>  Oh, and don't just blame GW Bush and Obama, blame the real
 bk>  culprits, Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush. Reagan trippled the debt
 bk>  and Bush I turned that into a quadruple debt over their 12
 bk>  years.

 bk>  I had thought GHW Bush was not so bad, but recently, when
 bk>  researching it, I discovered he was much worse than I thought.

 bk>  Under Reagan and Bush I the debtload went from 32% GDP to
 bk>  66% GDP.

 bk>  Under Clinton it went down to 57% GDP. Under Bush II it went to
 bk>  near 90% GDP. Under Obama it's not projected to go much above
 bk>  that. However, retreating from a growth policy could result in
 bk>  another recession. That would almost certainly mean another
 bk>  spurt in debt growth.

 bk>  If we tip over into depression the economy will contract
 bk>  significantly. A 30% contraction in GDP would mean the debt load
 bk>  would instantly jump to 128% of GDP. A 50% contraction would
 bk>  jump the debt to 180% of GDP. I doubt any country has ever
 bk>  survived a debt load like that.

 bk>  And we can't even start a war to get us out of it.

Ain't no easy answers, are there?

ENJOY!!!

From Uncle Dirty Dave's Kitchen
Home of YAHOOOOAHHHH Hot Sauce & Hardin Cider 

 

... It is good to be without vices, but it's not good to be without temptations
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49