tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post3913838426866870161..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: No Representation Without Taxation!... Yea...(blink)... WTF?!Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-53050666347017752982010-04-21T10:59:00.787-05:002010-04-21T10:59:00.787-05:00"There can be no Right to not support that wh..."There can be no Right to not support that which makes the defense of Rights possible, and that is Government."<br /><br />Choice by the people themselves is not generally distinguished for it’s wisdom, so it is that we attempt a republican form of government in which you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. But the natural progression of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground when one precedent in favor of power is stronger than a hundred against it. Most bad government results from too much government. <br /><br />It is a melancholy reflection that liberty would be equally exposed to danger whether the government has too much or too little power.xlbrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931950075332608449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-25438509932241512102010-04-18T11:12:12.880-05:002010-04-18T11:12:12.880-05:00John, thanks. I did read your post, and through th...John, thanks. I did read your post, and through the links and several of their links, which I think can be boiled down to,<br /><br /><i>"Individuals have rights which do not depend on the outcome of elections. Majorities of voters cannot vote away the rights of a single individual or groups of individuals."</i><br />,<br /><i>"Voting is implicitly a coercive act because it lends support to a compulsory government."</i><br />,<br /><i>"Voting reinforces the legitimacy of the state because the participation of the voters makes it appear that they approve of their government."</i><br /><br />, which I was not surprised to discover, and which go hand in hand with the "all taxation is force" arguments of the radical libertarian anarcho-whicheverism of Rothbard and the like. <br /><br />As I said, this is the very issue which sparked the series of posts I'm still working out, and I can't, especially as longwinded as I am, give a quick sound bite answer that makes the full argument against such ideas. But the direction from which the answers can be found, are that as pro-property rights as such libertarians think themselves to be, they in fact fundamentally undermine property rights, as can be seen in their opposition to intellectual rights (copyright, patent, slander), their lack of understanding of the full nature of Rights, and of the fact that the Individual, though an individual, is still part of society. I don't mean to be insulting, but can't think of another way of stating it within the time my 10 yr olds impatient stare ('you promised to make sausages & hash browns this morning!') is going to allow me, but their 'me me me' refrains are more akin to 'wah wah wah' to my ear.<br /><br />There can be no Right to not support that which makes the defense of Rights possible, and that is Government. The fundamental laws which outline the boundaries of conduct within society are not the proper basis for transactions, they must be the outcome of reasoned discussion and decisions of agreed to in a manner which gives all concerned a voice, and which requires civil and adult willingness to abide by those decisions (themselves made within a respect for broader Rights, such as outlined in our original Bill of Rights) made according to reasonable rules, and the manner which best describes that schema is our constitutional representative Republic, wherein some representatives are elected, and some decisions are made, by the the defined scope of Voting.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-70338191694758508482010-04-18T10:45:25.973-05:002010-04-18T10:45:25.973-05:00Not that it matters, much but the above quotes fro...Not that it matters, much but the above quotes from Adams can be found whole, at <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s10.html" rel="nofollow">my fav site here.</a>Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-35801944876837087322010-04-18T10:41:09.351-05:002010-04-18T10:41:09.351-05:00Xlbrl "What I see is that there is little tha...Xlbrl "What I see is that there is little that we have to learn that has not already been learned once, and forgotten. How could a people who do not know the past be expected to invent ideas for the future?"<br /><br />We can sure agree with that. And at least hope (combined with effort) on this,<br /><br />"A small but growing number of people seem to understand, but that number does not include politicians. I wonder if it can, given how far this thing is out of hand."Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-49479599280689679702010-04-18T10:37:37.694-05:002010-04-18T10:37:37.694-05:00(cont)
but he immediately follows that with,
&quo...(cont)<br />but he immediately follows that with,<br /><br />"<i>But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest… <br /><br />... What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification. <br /><br />The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents… <br /><br />Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons. <br /><br />Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level....</i>"<br /><br />There does need to be a general rule, and I think it should be restricted to a general rule of maturity - which should at least be back to 21 - and to having 'a stake in society', I think history has proven out that Adams was right, again.<br /><br />As hopeful as I am on our ability to roll back other measures, 16th & 17th amendments, etc, I don't think it's likely that we'll ever be able to return the age or property restrictions to the vote - I think that'd require some crisis to occur, the size of which I'd rather not think of.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-73404667412044335392010-04-18T10:37:14.749-05:002010-04-18T10:37:14.749-05:00Yep, you said "Of course for my idea to work ...Yep, you said "Of course for my idea to work at the Federal level, you'd have to reform the tax code. By which I mean simplify it with a flat tax. Anyone who gets a paycheck pays. Anyone who gets welfare, or doesn't work, doesn't pay, and doesn't vote. Simple."<br /><br />Which I do still tend to want to allow... except that it would restrict the vote to those who'd pay an income tax, which would exclude those who are rich, who have a great stake in society, but who are paid no income... which is what sends me back to reinstating, in and by the states, property qualifications to the right to vote.<br /><br />And speaking of "...I can now see why using only ONE comment word-allotment, is a misery for you...", here I go again.<br /><br />In addressing the question of standards for voting, <a href="http://vindicatingthefounders.com/library/adams-to-sullivan2.html" rel="nofollow">John Adams said</a>,<br /><br /> "<i>It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? ...</i>"<br /><br />and the slippery nature of where the right comes from and who it applies to and why it carries,<br /><br /> "<i>...a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey?...</i>" <br /><br />and, this which is often taken as his opinion that women weren't fit to vote, but was more showing the slip by slip nature of the issue, not particularly as it applies to women, but why it should exclude some men,<br /><br /> "...<i>Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own...</i>"<br /><br />(break)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-4771311793733129002010-04-17T20:47:12.630-05:002010-04-17T20:47:12.630-05:00Van...I can now see why using only ONE comment wor...Van...I can now see why using only ONE comment word-allotment, is a misery for you...<br /><br />Great Post!<br /><br />I might add that I did say (in a comment)that my idea was dependent on reforming the tax code to a flat tax that everybody with an income paid.<br /><br />Just sayin'The Gunslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09875467049527347640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-39140061008401315682010-04-15T22:18:15.577-05:002010-04-15T22:18:15.577-05:00I've never doubted that my very occasional dis...I've never doubted that my very occasional disagreements with a point you've made are not terribly important. <br />What I see is that there is little that we have to learn that has not already been learned once, and forgotten. How could a people who do not know the past be expected to invent ideas for the future? The Left wishes to erase the past because it is a drag on their fantastic intellects and ability to invent; it will not do for the Right to not truly understand the lessons of the past, and then expect to have ideas that will compete in an environment that they are strangers in. <br />A small but growing number of people seem to understand, but that number does not include politicians. I wonder if it can, given how far this thing is out of hand.xlbrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931950075332608449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-15342777424809720752010-04-15T14:57:19.978-05:002010-04-15T14:57:19.978-05:00John, thanks - I probably won't be able to loo...John, thanks - I probably won't be able to look at it today, got some TEA to put on the boil, but I look forward to it and will reply asap.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-45228239485455144822010-04-15T14:55:42.752-05:002010-04-15T14:55:42.752-05:00Xlbrl said "Now, new ideas do not evolve out ...Xlbrl said "Now, new ideas do not evolve out of our custom, because we have lost it and spend all our energies dealing with the wreak of new ideas."<br /><br />I'd say that new ideas do not evolve out of our custom, because, number one, they are false and bear no relation to reality. Two, the dead stupidity of our intellectuals ideas have been so driven into the top levels of our people, and have now worked their way down even into the upper middle class, that those lingering areas where the original wisdom is still recognized, are less and less able to shove them aside, and it is sapping more and more of their time and energy to do so.<br /><br />But those smothering ideas are in fact, false, they are dead weight, and having ready access to true, tested, tried and true ideas, those intellectual zombies are able to be dispatched with a crystalline shot to their virtual foreheads.<br /><br />There are swarms of them shambling towards us however, and it is difficult to see how we put them all down without getting infected in the process.<br /><br />I am, however, about to head out to a rally of people who haven't lost those customary American ideas, or for those who had let them sleep into simple custom, are and have been actively resuscitating them. Their numbers and energy are enough to give me hope that all is not yet lost.<br /><br />We shall see.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-91233671856294373382010-04-15T14:55:26.547-05:002010-04-15T14:55:26.547-05:00Xlbrl said "... it would be the Puritan settl...Xlbrl said "... it would be the Puritan settlers of New England that would set the tone for the commercial republic that became America..."<br /><br />Oh I agree (with the partial exception of the Virginians), I didn't mean to 'dis' them, was only pointing out that they and the Pilgrims weren't the first ones on the block.<br /><br />"The tenant with which Puritanism managed to evangelize the world of English-bred civilization is its tenant of work. This erection of work into a Christian virtue was an invention of Puritanism. It was something never heard of in England before the rise of the Puritan State. "<br /><br />True, but as I tried to point out in <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-never-was-and-never-will-be.html" rel="nofollow">What never was and never will be...</a>, I think what gave to their intent a solidity and follow through which they otherwise would have spent in laudable spiritual aspirations and pretentions, was the fact that there was no buffer between them, and reality - as the disaster of the initial Mayflower settlement soon displayed. There was no one available to lend a hand, no one to appeal to that they were in any way "too big to fail" - they obeyed reality, or they died.<br /><br />That gives a certain emphasis to the praise of hard work which the words themselves can easily lack.<br /><br />"That had become custom in the New World, and new ideas evolved out of that."<br /><br />I suspect our views on this won't find an agreement without a steady stream of Sam Adams brew and at least a weekend to argue and worry it back & forth over face to face... if even then - or maybe because we see the same point from different angles... let's see if this can serve as an 'agree to disagree' point, <br /><br />By custom, I mean that which is done out of tradition and habit and for the most part without intellectual attention. When the Greeks and Romans colonized new lands, they set them up in particular fashions because that was the way it was done, it was customary with them.<br /><br />What the original settlers of America brought with them were much that had become customary, but which was also challenged and derogated by their home countries (primarily England), and which they were very much intellectually aware of and still actively discussing and expounding upon. Their ideas were still actively ideas, even though much of their meaning had become customary to them.<br /><br />And because those ideas were still active and alive to them, they were able to further shape and refine them, they were in a position to see that some thing's worked well, and some things were better served otherwise - Hooker's establishment in Connecticut were examples to all, much of which was picked up on because their ideas were not only frozen into the actions of custom, but still alive and open to further development.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-88978054433240531632010-04-15T13:44:40.660-05:002010-04-15T13:44:40.660-05:00Afternoon, Van.
Read through your post and have p...Afternoon, Van.<br /><br />Read through your post and have posted my comments at my site. Mostly because of the number of links in my response.<br /><br />I agree with you about the importance of ideas, they are <i>vital,</i> but disagree with you about voting.<br /><br />I titled my post on this subject <a href="http://www.improvedclinch.com/index.php/weblog/slaves_cannot_vote_themselves_free/" rel="nofollow">Slaves Cannot Vote Themselves Free.</a>John Venlethttp://www.improvedclinch.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-31257524413769646282010-04-14T20:16:42.467-05:002010-04-14T20:16:42.467-05:00Since we are speaking of Paul Johnson, he makes hi...Since we are speaking of Paul Johnson, he makes his opinion clear on this--it would be the Puritan settlers of New England that would set the tone for the commercial republic that became America, while those English settlers in the South would come for different reasons, and pay the price for that. <br /><br />Alfred Nock-<br />The tenant with which Puritanism managed to evangelize the world of English-bred civilization is its tenant of work. This erection of work into a Christian virtue was an invention of Puritanism. It was something never heard of in England before the rise of the Puritan State. <br />Richard Tawney--<br />Puritanism was the schoolmaster of the English middle classes. It heightened their virtues, sanctified, without eradicating, their convenient vices, and gave them and inexpungable assurance that, behind virtues and vices alike, stood the majestic and inexorable laws of an omnipotent Providence, without whose foreknowledge not a hammer could beat upon the forge, not a figure could be added to the ledger.<br /><br />That had become custom in the New World, and new ideas evolved out of that. Now, new ideas do not evolve out of our custom, because we have lost it and spend all our energies dealing with the wreak of new ideas.xlbrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931950075332608449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-84836625639749118422010-04-14T15:08:42.019-05:002010-04-14T15:08:42.019-05:00Van,
I see you've gotten the post, posted. I...Van,<br /><br />I see you've gotten the post, posted. I can't get at it today, but I will.<br /><br />Thanks.John Venlethttp://www.improvedclinch.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-64953470585335151512010-04-14T13:22:16.619-05:002010-04-14T13:22:16.619-05:00(cont)
The old fashioned colonization templates o...(cont)<br /><br />The old fashioned colonization templates of the Greeks and Romans transplanting age old customs onto new shores, didn't apply here, the printing press was the internet of the age, and everyone was 'online', and we are the result of them explicitly putting their ideas into practice (look at the charters for the original colonies), testing, and refining them into what the Founders produced.<br /> <br />Many, such as the Virginia settlers, came partly for adventure, partly for commerce, but again, they were led by people who explicitly held their ideals, and vocally acted upon them - and in the conflict between explicitly held ideals, and implicitly held customs - as the proregressives have proven out to our detriment here - the explicit ideals will triumph, <i>even if they are wrong</i>.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-29141445157779193552010-04-14T13:22:05.341-05:002010-04-14T13:22:05.341-05:00Xlbrl said "I'll quibble you back, and ra...Xlbrl said "I'll quibble you back, and raise you a quibble."<br /><br />Lol... I Call your quibble and raise you three points!<br /><br />The Puritan settlers were neither the only early settlers, nor the first - that'd be Jamestown, and the Pilgrims who tried to establish a colony on new religious customs alone, collapsed, abruptly, there was no careful transition there, the new Puritan 'customs' collapsed, and were hastily replaced by, and were rescued by, the more reasoned Liberal inclinations of Winthrop, regarding freedom of association, speech and property. <br /><br />Thomas Hooker, and many, many others, left England specifically because of the English idea that the state had a say in religious practices, which Hooker, and many others, had no problem explicitly tying to early ideals on free markets, speech, and private property, etc. One fellow, Vernon L. Parrington (a progressive historian and not inclined towards many of my views), I think gets it right in Volume I of his "MAIN CURRENTS IN AMERICAN THOUGHT, 1620-1800" (1927), puts <a href="http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/Parrington/vol1/bk01_ch04.html" rel="nofollow">it this way,</a><br /><br />"<i>OTHER ideals than those of Winthrop and Cotton, fruitful or feculent according to the special bias of whoever judges them, came out of England in the teeming days of the Puritan revolution to agitate the little settlements. A Hebraized theocracy could not satisfy the aspirations of advanced English liberals who were exploring all the avenues to freedom, and who, now that the old feudal bonds were loosening, were projecting a more generous basis for the reorganization of society. The democratic elements were beginning to make their voices heard in England; the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was bearing fruit in the minds of obscure Independents; and the eventual outcome would be the shouldering aside of a snug Presbyterian order, and the clarification of a program for a democratic commonwealth. In those excellent words commonweal and commonwealth-words much on men's tongues in the creative later years of the Puritan revolution was fittingly summed up the political ideal of Independency. English liberalism had come to believe that social conformity, established in the practice of coercion, with its monarchical state and hierarchical church, must give way to an order founded in good will, that conceived of the political state as a public service corporation, concerned solely with the "respublica," or public thing, careful of the well-being of all, allowing special rights or grants to none. The state, it was coming to be argued freely, rightly understood, was no other than society organized to further the great end of the commonweal; no longer must it remain a private preserve for gentlemen to hunt over.</i> "<br /><br />Roger Williams, who established the colony of Rhode Island, espoused Natural Law and Free Will and finally left England under ridicule about his ideas that English government should be subject "to the free will of the promiscuous multitude", historian Paul Johnson "The creation of Rhode Island was a critical turning point in the evolution of America. It not only introduced the principles of complete religious freedom and the separation of church and state, it also inaugurated the practice of religious competition". These ideas, were already rife in England when Milton published Areopagetica in 1644, having a gotten a good start with people like Erasmus's Free Will from the early 1500's... the Reformation, Machiavelli, Bacon, through John Lilburne who fought for private property, free trade, association, speech... the ideas were hot and loud in the coffee houses and pubs and many who had the energy, early on tired of being persecuted in an England which wasn't going to embrace them, and so came to America to explicitly start afresh under their ideas of how society should be structured.<br />(@#$!!#& blogger size break)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-34320481244822485282010-04-14T11:16:39.415-05:002010-04-14T11:16:39.415-05:00I'll quibble you back, and raise you a quibble...I'll quibble you back, and raise you a quibble. <br />The English settlers came here with settled ideas based on custom. They were largely Puritan ideas based on a custom that was still young. They were not experimenting with ideas, as we are now; they were forced to evolve carefully, and had the opportunity. <br />This custom may have been overwhelmed by the great immigration of the nineteenth and twentieth century, and more so by the plans of European socialist intellectuals. <br />Custom is what you do automatically, without having to think or consider. Classical liberal conservative ideas are always superior; it is our custom that is in question now. We hold a winning hand in a game that is no longer being played.xlbrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931950075332608449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-60599284052927120612010-04-14T10:24:23.082-05:002010-04-14T10:24:23.082-05:00Ex-D said "There is so much money being waste...Ex-D said "There is so much money being wasted today, that no matter what government replaces these progressives will be unable to overcome this debt. The future republican or conservative president will be forced to collect ridiculous taxes to pay for this spending spree."<br /><br />I don't think that's avoidable, but if we can do so After doing away with the canker's on the Constitution, it will be worth it.<br /><br />To let my gloomy side out a moment, I hope we can do that, otherwise I don't see avoiding the type of situation which brought Solon to power - and such a case would be the best case scenario if it comes to that point.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-84675660023540442912010-04-14T10:19:52.541-05:002010-04-14T10:19:52.541-05:00Xlbrl said "American was not a nation of idea...Xlbrl said "American was not a nation of ideas, America has become a nation of ideas. America was a nation of custom."<br /><br />Gotta quibble with you on that one. America developed its customs based upon the ideas which those who came here, came here for. <br /><br />60 years or so before John Locke's Second Treatise, Rev. Hooker helped break away from Massachusetts to establish the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut because he, and many others, disagreed with the ideas of near theological rule which had come to power in Massachusetts. Coolidge noted this in his speech on the <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2009/07/inspiration-of-declaration-of.html" rel="nofollow">Inspiration of the Declaration</a> with,<br /><br />"<i>Rev. Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that:<br /><br />The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people<br />The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.</i> "<br /><br />, and which I noted more in <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2008/08/liberal-fascism-spiral-of-knowledge-and.html" rel="nofollow"></a>.<br /><br />We <i>are</i> a nation founded upon ideas, tempered, tested and refined by experience in to custom, over the course of nearly two hundred years prior to the Founding Fathers, and then clarified even further by James Otis, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, etc and expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.<br /><br />Hayek wouldn't like it either. But it is true all the same.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-21448728876941772832010-04-14T09:27:13.583-05:002010-04-14T09:27:13.583-05:00American was not a nation of ideas, America has be...American was not a nation of ideas, America has become a nation of ideas. America was a nation of custom. Because the custom was so good, Americans could occasionally see things for the first time that no one had seen before.xlbrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931950075332608449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-56161657042750176922010-04-13T20:18:32.391-05:002010-04-13T20:18:32.391-05:00Van, I made it through 1/3 of your post....I will ...Van, I made it through 1/3 of your post....I will try reading the rest later....<br />Always inspiring and full of hope, but here is my concern. There is so much money being wasted today, that no matter what government replaces these progressives will be unable to overcome this debt. The future republican or conservative president will be forced to collect ridiculous taxes to pay for this spending spree.Ex-Dissidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837109472357860889noreply@blogger.com