Perpetual Notions

So Gingrich Won South Carolina With…

2012-01-23T09:33:00.000-07:00

… A flawless record? A history of business success? An unblemished political career? Exceptional debating abilities? Maybe on the last one; one could argue that. But is that why he won? No. I don’t think so.

I hate this, but I need to throw in a caveat here: I don’t support any of these guys. Not Romney, because of his record of flip flopping. Not Santorum, because… well… I should spend some time on that, but suffice it to say that ideologically, I can’t support him. Not Paul, because to probably most Americans, he’s about half way ‘round the bend.

But this is about Gingrich, and his win in S. Carolina.

Gingrich, in my opinion, is not a charismatic person. He can argue well. He’s politically cunning. He’s an historian and it shows. And he has a quick mind together with all of the previous attributes, makes him a great debater. And, like all of us, he has a past. He ushered in the contract with America that most people on the right think was a good thing. It certainly won him the speakership of the house.

But he also was the first and only Speaker of the House ever to be reprimanded by congress – and for ethics.

Again, I hate this, but I have to point out again that I am not for anyone – yet. And I am certainly not for Gingrich – yet.

A little more than a week ago, Gingrich led the charge against Romney that many, many people on the right, pundits as well, said was tantamount to an attack on the soul of the right - capitalism. Perry, and Perry supporters especially, were disparaged everywhere for their attack on “the foundation of conservatism” capitalism. How it happened I don’t know, but the one who led the attack this dastardly attack on capitalism, Gingrich, managed to survive his anti-capitalist bent virtually unscathed and he began to beat the drum for Romney to open his tax records.

This, to me, is astonishing. What are Romney’s tax records going to reveal about Romney? That he’s rich? That he successfully manages his money according to the tax law that allows people at his level of wealth to do? And this is an indicator of his being bad for the right in what way exactly? Is this not just another attack on Romney for being a… gasp… capitalist?

When it comes right down to it, even we on the right don’t like rich people. We are just as envious of them as people on the left. The main difference between we on the right and they on the left, is that we are less hypocritical about our hope to one day be one of those people that both the right and the left hate – rich.
So, Gingrich knocked Romney back on his heels and leveraged everybody’s envy of the rich by clanging the gong of tax returns. But is that why he won S. Carolina?
Everybody knows why Gingrich won S. Carolina, but not everyone is going to emphasize too heavily the reason. Gingrich won S. Carolina because of a one and a half minute verbal slamdown of the CNN debate monitor who, like other debate monitors in this primary campaign have done, wanted to be the memorable event of the debate. He acted the idiot and got what idiots deserve.

And we on the right awarded that slamdown with S. Carolina.

For the third freaking time; I do not support anyone. But I really don’t support Gingrich. I don’t support Gingrich because he is the first and only Speaker of the House ever to be reprimanded by congress. For ethics.

I was a Perry supporter. Was – keyword - dammit. I read in many places to the effect that Perry had a good record, he just couldn’t articulate it. You know, I disagree with that assessment a lot. There’s a truism in our culture that a record speaks for itself. Perry’s didn’t for some reason.

But neither is Gingrich’s record speaking for itself, not because it is out there, like Perry's, but because it isn't. It's hidden.

It’s possible that I could be brought around to supporting Gingrich, but not until his record is laid on the table. Not until I know what it was in those ethics – repeated – ethics hearings that caused him to be reprimanded by Congress and to go down in history - you know – like Clinton – second President in history to be impeached. Gingrich was the first in history in his position. Until Gingrich can say what it was that he did to deserve reprimand, I will not support him.

So what was it that won S. Carolina for Gingrich?

I think that the talent of the collective left is their ability to first sell, and then to believe with passion, a losing argument. I believe that by-in-large, the entire philosophy of the left – that those with less are inherently entitled to that which those with more have eventually impoverishes everyone, in many ways – is the epitome of a losing argument that the left through history, has been able to sell to a relatively large segment of society. Snake oil.

But if S. Carolina is any indicator, then we on the right have our own unique demographic locked up.

Gingrich won the debate, and then S. Carolina because of a sound bite. And with that, we’ve cemented our lock on the coveted ‘fickle’ demographic.

Oooo Baby, That Was Awesome!... Now What?

2012-01-20T09:31:00.003-07:00

Really, admit it. That's kinda how it was, right? Fiery debate. Get the juices flowing. Almost a sexual afterglow... Now what?

Indeed.

This will not set well with almost anybody, but it's the truth... maybe.
Republicans have almost forgotten about the campaign of 2008, except for that faint, yet ever so disgusting aftertaste. Still there. This one promises to be every bit as bad, probably worse.

Why? Because last time we were left with a choice when everything else percolated out, a choice between a hero and a flip-flopper. This time what we are left with is a choice between a person who will be able to beat Obama in the debates and the person who would, in all likelihood be the better President.

The truth is that Newt is a great debater, but another truth is that he isn't a good leader. Several of his peers have said so and others have sharply intimated that. I know that people will point to the contract with America and to that I would respond, "Yeah. And your point is?" Newt is an opportunist. He read the tea leaves of voter sentiment and he became Speaker of the House. And that is the same thing that he is doing now.

But the wrinkle in the story this time is that Newt has a lodestone around his neck that will eventually bring him down - potentially. Newt has done things. Newt has repented of those things and has been forgiven. And that makes things ok. Clean slate. Alz cooool.

The reality is, alz not cool. For many people these flaws aren't forgiven. For many, especially women, who have been betrayed and abandoned by those they trusted and relied on, he’s not forgiven and never will be. Their children maybe feel the same way. How big of a demographic is that? You know people like this. Guess. My bet is that it is less insignificant than we allow ourselves to think it is.
Here we are then; the party that was revolted to our core by Bill Clinton’s philandering as President and now we are going to give a pass to Newt because he repented and was forgiven. How very Christian of us. Problem is, not everyone buys into that. For some, this might appear to be just a touch… a little more… no just a bit mo… come damnit! A lot hypocritical.

And there is other “stuff”. Nancy Pelosi alluded to it. Come on, really? This is not going to get out? And how much stuff is out there, anyway?

The truth is that Newt is a crapshoot with an IED for the winner.

With Mitt, his problem is that he is viewed as a flip flopper. And he is. And what does this reveal to us?

Mitt is a very successful man. How did he get that way. He got that way by working with people, people who didn’t necessarily agree with him on everything, so he compromised. Everyone wins. In business, when everyone wins, everyone is happy. Sometimes, rarely, it’s even like that in politics.

Take Romneycare for example. We on the right look at Romneycare and we see Obamacare light – Obamneycare. The people of Massachusetts look at Romneycare and they see something they like. Something they want to keep.

But we on the right still hate that. The same way we continue to hate the Texas version of the dream act, notwithstanding the fact that the vast – let’s say that again – vast majority of people in Texas wanted it - liked it - advocated for it.

We on the right say we are all about states rights. We’re all over it! Come on, you can admit it! That’s not really true - is it? The truth is that we know what we know and we believe what we believe and if you have a problem with that…

So there we go. Guy who will wipe the floor with Obama in the debates, the guy whose presidency will likely be every bit as controversial as Clinton’s, with the possible exception of an utter lack of charisma; or a guy who people refuse to accept because he’s the establishment candidate, who we refuse to like for a lot of reasons, but who, of the two, would very likely be a much better President. *Probably not the President we need in these times but who ya gonna pick?

Santorum? Paul? We tossed the others already – remember?

Yeah. Unfortunate that.

Oh. And by the way, I'm not a Romney supporter. The sentence above, the one with the *. That's why.

Why Do You Support Him?

2012-01-13T09:13:00.002-07:00

Many on the right view Obama and what he has done and what he is attempting to do as an existential threat to this country, but not all of them or even maybe most of them. For many on the right, this is just another election – a chance to replace a Democrat President with a Republican. I believe it's easy to see this by looking at the Republican candidates and their standing in the polls. To a certain extent, you can tell by what you see in the primaries, from the TV coverage and to a degree, by how the candidates conduct themselves.
By in large, there is no discernable sense of urgency or depth of concern perceptible from the voters interviewed on TV. Those TV commentators who aren’t openly hostile to all Republican candidates, have accepted that the nominee is going to be the “establishment” choice. Hell, even the term “establishment” candidate is thrown around as if it were a totally passive term. Rush freaking Limbaugh, for crying out loud, has even joined the parade.
So my thought is; maybe the existential threat that I'm afraid of doesn't really exist. Maybe the direction this country is headed won't really lead to decline and fall. Perhaps the $15 trillion plus debt isn’t unsustainable at all. What if all of the DOOM crap that we have been hearing is really just so much hysteria?
If this is the case, then of course, the candidate whose life and professional record is reflective of a person who will say anything and do anything to whomever and whenever as long as it results in a win for him, this candidate is a harmless choice. We know that he will work with the other side to get things done that both sides want and that the labels conservative or liberal in the grand scheme of things are really not that relevant. In the end, we are members of a group and he is the choice of the ‘establishment’ of that group. Going along with the establishment makes the group more cohesive. As long as the country isn’t in any danger, what's the harm?
So things are pretty bad, but not that bad. We didn’t get here through any fault of a single party, after all. So a candidate who was a member of the institution that got us here – an insider if you will – that candidate wouldn’t be a bad choice either. Even if he used his connections to that institution as a basis for enriching himself wouldn’t be that bad. That's how the system works. The problems have evolved over time and it will take time to fix them. We should just let the system work.
So what if we were to choose a social conservative with a less than conservative history of voting in congress? As long as there is no need to focus on existential problems this person would fit right in. Many people feel that a return to traditional values is long over due and would be good for this country and like I said, if the economic future of the country isn’t at stake, this would be a good thing.
But what if those who think that this nation truly faces an existential threat are correct? What then? Would choosing any of those candidates still make sense?
Look, I don’t pretend to be absolutely right about this, but to me, given the circumstances this country and the world find themselves in, we should be certain that we have a solid basis for selecting the candidate who would have the best chance of saving this country or at least preventing its continued decline.
It’s obvious if you have read up to this point, that I am a Perry supporter and I believe I have a strong basis for that support. But let me go down the list of candidates and give, what I believe to be, a fair assessment of each candidate's strengths and weaknesses.
First Romney. Romney possesses some strong attributes such as the fact that he turned the Olympics around when they were facing really catastrophic economic circumstances. This, by anyone’s standards, was a major feat. He has also had stellar success as a venture capitalist and he was Governor or Massachusetts. One might include that he is very wealthy if that is a criteria that makes sense to evaluate. That to me is pretty much it. Now for the negatives: Many people would give Romney credit for being a successful Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state. But how did he do it? He did it, in my opinion, by giving his ‘opponents’ everything they ever wanted. I would have to say that Romney was one of the most successful Democrat governors that state has ever had. From this, and his work as a venture capitalist, Romney appears to be all about success – his success – and damn any other consequences or considerations. It is clear that Romney will work with the left to get things done, but would he work against the left to undo things if it meant that he wouldn’t be able to put a ‘W’ up in the win column? I have my doubts. He is the establishment candidate. Most people see that term as neutral, at worst. I don’t. I think that the establishment thrives in the status quo and to me, the status quo, at this point in time, sucks.
Gingrich – Newt, regardless of how he wants to portray himself, is an insider. He is student of history and political genius, in my mind. He knows how to operate within the system because he helped make it what it is. With Newt, it’s harder to separate his negative attributes from his positive ones. The fact that he wants to portray himself as an outsider tells me that like most politicians, he has no issue with deceit. Being a student of history, the fact that Newt recognizes this time as historically significant could work to his favor. He might actually do the things that need to be done so he can go down in history. Newt also knows how to work within the system. He made a lot of money out of politics by leveraging that knowledge. My fear of Newt is whether he’s in this for history; for going down in history as President, not necessarily a good or a bad President. Is he in this for the benefits that accrue to the holder of the office? We all know that win or lose, Newt will write a book about this experience. If he is elected, he’ll have material until the day he dies. There is some good and some bad in all of this, but for me, the fact that Newt’s character and his ethics have been called into question on multiple occasions, I simply can’t bring myself to trust that he will do the right things.
Santorum – Santorum was a liberal Republican senator from a highly Democrat state. He’s also a strong social conservative. Santorum bills himself as the conservative choice. That’s good – as long as you think that we need a strong social conservative as President and as long as you think that social conservatism will cure the ills that face us. His voting record as senator was liberal. Santorum to me, is the candidate that I like least in this election. As a liberal Republican, he lost in a landslide to his rival in PA which to me signifies that even the moderate Democrats had serious issues with the way he represented them. For me, Santorum is the wrong man, with the wrong record, at the wrong time.
Paul - Ron Paul would be my second choice in this election. He has a reputation as being off the rails on a lot of issues. For anyone who has really researched his positions on issues, they will know that his positions are significantly mischaracterized. Let me give you an example: His position on Israel. For me as a Jew, this is more important than it may be for many non-Jews. His position is that we should not be giving Israel the more than $3 billion annually that we give them in aid. From his critics, this is all that you know about it. What they don’t tell you is that he believes that giving this aid to Israel at the same time we are giving $20 billion a year to Israel’s enemies, is screwy policy. To me, it's hard to find fault with that. He has other more Libertarian positions on issues that appeal to me as well that make him a better choice than any of the other candidates except for one.
Perry – I’ll start with his negatives. Gardasil – most people fault him as a big government interventionist on this issue. Maybe he shouldn’t have sought to make it manditory. But I, and I think many others who have seen how cruelly cervical cancer kills women, can understand why he might have taken this position. The next negative is that people see the Texas version of the dream act as a program totally at odds with Republican doctrine. That position is indefensible in my opinion. The people of Texas, a huge majority of them, wanted it. Anyone supporting state’s rights should not be at odds with it. Oh - I almost forgot. Perry can’t debate. Perry can’t answer largely irrelevant questions from moderators who for the most part, want to portray all Republican’s as either radical, out of the mainstream, or kooks. I would have liked him to have performed better, but the truth is, Perry, speaking extemporaneously about relevant issues, without practice and without the aid of a teleprompter, is unrivaled in his ability to speak to them. Nobody in the field, with the possible exception of Gingrich, can touch him. Perry has had more than a decade of “vetting” by the media and by his rivals, and he is unassailable. Period. His character is unimpeachable, as are his ethics. The most important consideration to me is for this time especially, his record of success governing Texas, a state with a world class economy that is performing extraordinarily well while the economies of states and nations around it flounder.
That’s it. That’s my assessment of the candidates and that is my basis for my selection.
What’s yours? Is the basis for choosing your candidate sound? Is it fair? What is influencing your decision?
All I am saying is this: If you truly believe this country is at a crossroads in its history, then it’s my opinion that you owe it to yourself and those that come after you to have a sound basis for supporting your candidate.

Now Why, and What Did He Mean When He Said That?

2010-10-14T11:48:00.000-06:00

I was commenting on another blog the other day and I said something to the effect that the problem with this administration is that they want to do big things. Radical things. Things that nobody has been able to successfully do before.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with doing big, radical things. The majority of the problems though, start seeping in when one attempts to do things that nobody has ever been able to do successfully before.
There are typically reasons why people have failed in implementing big, radical things like socialism and why they are likely to fail again and there is a metaphor for the likelihood of that failure, and that is N. Korean military parades.
The big radical thing that leftists want to eventually implement world-wide is Socialism. In their minds, the rationale of the fairness of socialism is inescapable, but just as inescapable to them is what is required for it to succeed – unanimity. Everyone must participate for it to succeed. Everyone must share the vision. And that is where the metaphor comes in – everyone must march, in strict lockstep, unwaveringly, inexorably toward the goal of universal fairness. No exceptions!
Makes sense.
For a universal idea to succeed, participation must logically be universal. And contained within that phrase is the word which virtually guarantees its failure. Must.
Look at the countries where governments have created the illusion of the success of socialism. What is it that they have tried their best to convey to the world? Uniformity. Unanimity. The metaphor of the perfectly choreographed, one organism, military parade.
But everyone looks at these countries and recognizes their seeming success to be an illusion. Even the leftists of this country see that while the parade is in unison, not everyone is at the parade. Yet the leftist in them remains convinced that somewhere, someone will make socialism work – that universal fairness must be achieved. And they are convinced that they are the ones to do it.
That they are the ones they have been waiting for.

Obstinance?

2010-06-18T01:12:00.002-06:00

Why the obstinance? Why resist doing the things that can be done - that should be done - that there are constitutional imperatives to do, and that, relatively speaking, would be easy to do? Why not do these things instead of doing the things that don't have to be done - that have no urgency to get done - that are so expensive and so potentially harmful to do?

What is the agenda? No - not the superficial agenda, you know the one that causes that spurt of instant anger. I'm talking about the underlying agenda - the hidden agenda, the one that ignites the flame of anger in you that can't be extinguished. There are obviously reasons for the choices to do, or not do these things. What are they?

Why the resistance to policing the border? Certainly there are the obvious and really pretty petty and irrational reasons such as expanding the voter base for the left, or maintaining a cheap labor pool from the right.

But these can't be the real reasons, can they? It makes no sense.

Why isn't there an environment being created to foster the creation of jobs? This is striking! Strikingly cruel. Millions of people who, by the way, we hear virtually nothing about, are having their lives utterly destroyed. Family units are being destroyed. There is significant reason to believe that people are being subjected to a level of poverty so abject that they may be going hungry - in this country. I am not over dramatizing this. What is the reason for this? Are they purposely trying to create a class of Americans that will live in abject poverty? Surely, this can't be the plan, can it?

Why the urgency of subjecting this country to such profound debt? What will be gained from this? Why is capitalism under such assault? Why are markets being destroyed and why are the markets being mined for the wealth of the investors? Why are peoples' savings being destroyed? Why are large corporations and investment banks being allowed to totally ignore their fiduciary obligations to their investors?

Why is it necessary that this country be deminished in standing in the world? Why is it suddenly necessary for the U.S. to abandon historic, trustworthy and faithful allies in order to embrace radical, oppressive regimes that would welcome our disintegration as a world power, and who would eradicate billions of people who do not share their beliefs without a second thought? Why neuter the only force for good in the world and why the urgency to do so?

Why aren't all of the forces available to this country from within the country and from around the world being brought to bear to solve the oil disaster in the gulf. What will be gained from destroying this ecosystem and this way of life? And why are clearly unconstitutional remedies being carried out with the collusion of the company that was the principal player in the disaster that seems to be so obviously detrimental to that company?

Why aren't these unconstitutional acts being more vigorously resisted by the opposition?

These are questions that require some thought. They are some questions that require some answers and the answers are obviously not the superficial ones.

Look at these questions. Think about the answers. What do they lead you to believe about where we are in the lifecycle of this country? What do they lead you to believe about the people who are behind what is going on that lead you in the direction of answering the questions?

What do these questions, and possibly the answers to these questions say about what time it is? For this country? For you and your family? For the fate of billions of people? For freedom?

How much longer you will wait before taking action? What is necessary for you to take action?

Speak out! Support those who oppose the leftist movement that is undermining this country! Pressure your representatives with your anger! Do not stand for representative who will not resist the destruction of freedom and perhaps the very existence of this country!

Failed Idiotic Utopian Plans Disguised by Lies

2010-05-15T22:55:00.003-06:00

This week is Shavuot, when Hashem confounds the "supernal accuser" of Israel. What a coincidence. Now this is just amazing. Rahm Emanuel was sent to say what we all know Barak Obama could never bring himself to say, “We acted stupidly.”
But the real message here I think is that the Obama administration let things get away from them with their 'Smart Diplomacy' and they are desperately trying to back track and re-calibrate their relationship with our historic dependable allies because they’ve come to realize that making allies out of our enemies isn’t working out so well.
Of course the message from the MSM will be, “See! He wasn’t trying to destroy relationships. He was just misunderstood.”
No, in fact he gambled with our security and now he is having a hard time covering his bets. Let's hope the payoff is not in blood.

Link from Israelly Cool

Congress: Hey People, Thank You For Being Stupid

2010-04-27T17:34:00.005-06:00

     Once again, our politicians are proving that they think we are stupid. With the congressional hearings on Goldman Sachs role in the economic meltdown, our elected officials are banking on their belief that we are, as they perceive us, stupid. They want us to believe that the entire global meltdown was the fault of Wall Street in general, and Goldman Sachs in particular.
     Congress, by focusing on further demonizing institutions that they have already vilified for *gasp* making money, hopes to annoint a scapegoat for the world's economic mess while deflecting blame from themselves. They hope to lay a cause for the meltdown for history on a symptom instead of the cause and thus maintain their all important legacies. Goldman, having made their windfall and certain to benefit even more from any future "regulation", and looking at most a mild slap on the wrist as punishment is showing itself to be quite the resigned sacrificial offering.
     Our elected officials caused the global meltdown. Not the ones in Europe or the far east, but American politicians. They with their towering economic intellects, contrived and then crafted the perverse model that European politicians copied that led to the debt - the unperforming debt - that caused the global economy to collapse. Debt that continues to grow, by the way, at an astronomical pace and for which an illusion was created to dupe everyone into believing is under control. That illusion will fade, but no-one knows when. Here’s a nice synopsis of our debt condition - http://tinyurl.com/2ct5pym.
     Was Wall Street innocent in the unfolding of the events that led to the collapse? Was Goldman Sachs?
     Not by any stretch of the imagination. Wall Street and the players who made out like (pardon the pun) bandits in the economic disaster of 2008 merely fanned the flames of the collapse by taking advantage of what for them was a once in a lifetime business advantage that they were fortunate to see arising and those like Lehman and WaMu didn't. What they did that fueled the fire was almost certainly the most selfish and worst example of collective greed run amok, but was also probably not illegal and in the end they can claim, and rightly so, that they were only servicing the interests of their shareholders.
    Our elected officials think we are stupid. And when they see polls that show that the people want them to punish Wall Street, they smile inwardly knowing they have dodged the bullet that they themselves inadvertently tried to shoot themselves with and once again, they are proved right.
     The people who elected them are stupid.

Yom HaShoah

2010-04-11T20:55:00.000-06:00

I posted this as a comment on a blog I enjoy reading - Boker Tov Boulder - in regards to a post she had on her site about 2010 Holocaust Remembrance Day. I said:

You sound frightened. Yeah... me too. Not for me, but for my children. I’m frightened for the children of other Jews and for Israel and the children there, and for other Jews.

In my weak mind, Jews have been the target of murderers for a lot of reasons, but one main one has been that when it became inconvenient to be constrained, or at the very least restrained by standards of conduct and morality, there stood the Jews, a human signpost placed by G-d to warn against straying from the road to humanity when all other roads lead to freedom from restraint and immorality and eventually inhumanity.

Another reason was that when certain people needed something, normally someone to blame, there were the Jews - always a minority and nearly always without a fallback position. Convenient.

And that is the state that we find ourselves again – a minority, with not our interests, but the importance of our existence it sometimes seems, being weighed against things like the interests of Islam, or Europe or even the U.S.

If I were but fortunate to know the mind of G-d, but in my mind (weak mind remember) it is such an irony to me that possibly the main reason that humanity still exists at all is what so much of humanity wants to see destroyed and that we find ourselves today, so soon it seems after haShoah contemplating whether or not it is possible again in our day.

But we have a fallback position. Israel. And they want to take it from us. And it is heart breaking that so many of us don’t seem to care all that much.

Healthcare Observers - Wrong On Many Accounts

2010-03-22T20:33:00.001-06:00

I was watching a news program where the hosts and the guests, from both sides, were commenting on the recently passed healthcare.

They're wrong about healthcare - the reasons for it and the why it was so urgent to implement it. They're wrong on why the two sides disagree.

Healthcare has nothing to do with healthcare whatsoever. It has to do with a well of money that is running dry. The well I am referring to is a number of programs that had become bottomless pits of money to politicians. Unfortunately, they weren’t bottomless, and when the bottom was reached, there literally was nothing left.

I’m talking about programs such as Social Security and Medicare that were like fire hoses of money to the government that politicians grew accustomed to having at their disposal to use basically to bribe states, corporations and individuals into doing whatever they wanted them to do. There were also semi-governmental entities like Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac that operated as essentially as political slush funds for funding re-election campaigns for politicians on both sides of the filth filled capital isles.

The reason why the two sides disagree is that on one side, you have people with a common belief that the end justifies the means in achieving their ideology. On the other side, you have people with a common belief that honesty has disappeared from the exchange of information between politicians and the people.

On one side you have an ideology that focuses on empathy for who they consider the downtrodden to the absolute exclusion of consideration of any expense that this focus may incurr. On the other side you have an ideology that focuses on ownership and self sufficiency and a set of rules that protect those ideals which, because of its focus is portrayed as being ambivalent at best, toward those who have less or who are judged to be suffering.

With the advent of socialized healthcare, there is a new firehose filling the well. A well that might not run dry for a decade or more, but when it does, because 1) the money will almost certainly be spent, and possibly multiple times as it flows in, and 2) the outflow money will be, at a minimum, triple the inflow after that time limit has expired. And instead of an official debt of $12 trillion, the debt will be much, much more and it will be growing at a rate that will be impossible to comprehend let alone manage.

My new first post

2008-12-03T21:13:00.000-07:00

This is my first post since 2004.