"....as long as the deficit rises more slowly than economic growth."
Borrow from the Chinese, the Saudis....and anyone else we can....and
pretend that this does not have monumental foreign policy ramifications.
Assume that we will always have economic growth exceeding the rise in the
deficit. Then, as Borrow-and-Spend Bush is pushing now, when the growth
slows, dismiss the growth/spending relationship as insignificant, and
borrow BIGGER, to "stimulate" the economy.
Deeper and deeper. Would it be a good thing, for today's children and
grandchildren, to experience a GreatER Depression? When you're in a hole,
stop digging.
--- Terrance Bushard <[address removed]> wrote:
> OK
>
> On Jan 30, 2008, at 5:09 PM, phil fuehrer wrote:
>
> > Terry:
> >
> > No smearing meant at all - just what I see to be
> > possible reservations or qualms of the "regular
> > citizen" that might run across your group.
> >
> > But let me try to clarify my points: I know who you
> > are (at least a little) - but for some schlep in
> > Alaska (ie.- elsewhere than MN or even here if they
> > have no idea who you are) you're not only a complete
> > unknown, you're a complete unknown asking for $8/yr
> > for some esoteric, ethereal or ephemeral-like good
> > government group. The guy in Alaska is as likely to
> > think "scam" (probably more likely) than to think "oh,
> > that's a great idea. I'll sign up".
> >
> > As for the other ideas - I still see very little (if
> > any) practical difference between the AVA, a political
> > party or a PAC (or what these organizations could be
> > pushed to accomplish). You want accountability and
> > will interview candidates/officials
, but so what? I'll
> > interview with you (hypothetically) tell you one thing
> > and do another. What are you going to do about it?
> > Tattle on me? The answer is vote me out (or try to,
> > or shame me, etc.) - and that's the same thing that
> > parties, PACs and other special interest groups work
> > to do.
> >
> > And, ultimately it comes down to politics and ideology
> > anyway - your pork barrell project is, for me,
> > integral to solving some hugely important issue. You
> > need to have a balanced budget and no debt, I don't
> > care if there is deficit spending as long as the
> > deficit rises more slowly than the rate of economic
> > growth and may even think that's better fo us than a
> > balance budget. These are all just simple examples,
> > but show that holding officials "accountable" is not
> > so easy as saying it.
> >
> > I'm not saying don't pursue your goals - I'm only
> > saying that if you're frustrated that it isn't
> > catching on like a wildfire it may be that others may
> > not see the problem you do or may believe that other
> > groups, ways, or strategies are better ways to get to
> > the solutions. Frankly, that's the reason you don't
> > have my name on your comittment list - I'd rather the
> > IP serve the role (or similar role) that the AVA
> > proposes.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > --- Terrance Bushard <[address removed]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Doug,
> >>
> >> Communication is easy in the sense that we all know
> >> one or more of
> >> the world's languages. However, despite a great
> >> amount of redundancy,
> >> there is a high probability of ambiguity and
> >> misinterpretation in any
> >> communication process. As in, messages sent
> >> commonly are not
> >> messages received. Which is yet another way of
> >> saying that effective
> >> communication is difficult and it is very
> >> frustrating when messages
> >> sent are not messages received.
> >>
> >> Perhaps Phil wasn't smearing me, but that is the
> >> message I received
> >> by the wording of his questions. Phil, if I
> >> misinterpreted your
> >> message, I apologize. Perhaps, when Peter replied to
> >> Tim's original
> >> message yesterday, "The choice is between giving up
> >> on the country
> >> and the state or doing something.", I received the
> >> message that the
> >> leaving the IP was the equivalent of giving up on
> >> our country and
> >> state. If I misinterpreted the message, I apologize.
> >>
> >> To the point of your e-mail.
> >>
> >> The commonly used word, "vetting" is not in my
> >> dictionary. I assume
> >> it means some kind of screening process, as in
> >> screening potential
> >> candidates for political office for the purpose of
> >> determining if the
> >> "party" wants to endorse and support their
> >> candidacy.
> >>
> >> The current situation is that U. S. Senators and
> >> Representatives
> >> have no obligation to account to the people for
> >> their financial
> >> management of our government, because "the people"
> >> are not organized
> >> for the purpose of imposing an obligation upon them
> >> to do so. The AVA
> >> is about imposing an obligation upon them to account
> >> to us, on a
> >> continual and timely basis, and in an organized
> >> manner, through the
> >> monthly interview process. I hope the difference is
> >> clear.
> >>
> >> PAC. Political Action Committee. I think it is a
> >> group of people
> >> organized for the purpose of promoting a certain
> >> political action.
> >> They form a committee, screen politicians and
> >> support politicians who
> >> will promote their preferred political action. Often
> >> times, with
> >> financial support. AVA members are organized for the
> >> purpose of
> >> getting answers and explanations about the financial
> >> management of
> >> our government, not to give money to politicians. I
> >> hope that is clear.
> >>
> >> The $8.00 per person is to finance the mission of
> >> the AVA. BTW "they"
> >> have already put over $30,000.00 on every Americans
> >> credit card,
> >> "they" are spending at a rate which will put an
> >> additional $1,750.00
> >> or so, on every one's credit cards this year, and
> >> that is before they
> >> put the "stimulus package" on our credit cards.
> >> $8.00 is as close to
> >> free as I can make it, and still envision making it
> >> happen. I hope
> >> that is clear.
> >>
> >> Mission creep? I can't imagine any reason to change
> >> the mission.
> >> Furthermore, I think there would be serious legal
> >> ramifications for
> >> doing so.
> >>
> >> Would I maintain control of the AVA? I've tried to
> >> get Ross Perot to
> >> take it, but I can't get through his gate keepers. I
> >> have no idea if
> >> he would even be interested. I've tried to hand it
> >> to Citizens
> >> Against Government Waste, but can't break through
> >> the gate keepers. I
> >> don't think imposing an obligation to financially
> >> account upon
> >> politicians is in their mission statement anyway
> >> I've talked to the
> >> Concord Coalition. Same thing. So the answer is, at
> >> least for the
> >> foreseeable future, yes. Tomorrow, I will be 59
> >> years old. There is
> >> no one in this world I trust to do the job more than
> >> I trust myself.
> >> I will maintain control until such time as I find
> >> someone I trust
> >> enough to hand control over to.
> >>
> >> Doug, I hope I have answered your questions. As you
> >> say, "I'd like to
> >> see it done." I hope to see your name on the sign up
> >> list soon.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Terry Bushard
> >> http://www.americ...
> >>
> >> On Jan 30, 2008, at 7:35 AM, Doug Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>> Terry,
> >>>
> >>> The differences you speak of in #2 are not that
> >> dissimilar from a
> >>> vetting process of a political party. I don't
> >> believe you are
> >>> starting a Pac, but the money aspect of it does
> >> kind of sound like
> >>> one. Maybe a different way of stating your intent
> >> for $8 per person?
> >>>
> >>> I won't speak to what organization does what,
> >> since most get
> >>> started for the best of reasons and then change.
> >> By the way, what
> >>> would make the AVA different this way? Would you
> >> always maintain
> >>> control of the AVA?
>
=== message truncated ===
Speak truth to power, analyze responses....and vote.
www.fairvote.org; www.FairVoteMN.org;
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.sear...
