I seem to recall a mythical time when the liberals ran the country with the consent of conservatives and the nation was about to move into surplus.

But, at just that time a conservative came to power and ended the surplus but lined the pockets of his wealthy conservative croonies. And in so doing managed the greatest transfer of wealth in history.

Then all of a sudden there was a collapse of the economy and exploding debt. There was great debate about the world and Europe decided to cut to the bone and went still deeper into debt even with the draconeon cuts, while the US under the brief leadership of a democrat controlled house and senate and Presidency spent and did not cut and is now on the rise while Europe still founders.

The problem seems to be that when right wing ideology meets reality, ideology fails!

A house divided will not stand and the role of the federal government was settled in a bloody war. The clock will not turn back. The interrelationship between the states and the federal government if deep. The call by the states for help when diaster befalls one only reiterates the role of the federal government in the salvation of our union.

There was debate at the founding of the nation between Jefferson and Hamilton and it goes on. I do not think that Jefferson would not endorse Hamilton in light of the urbanization of the nation. We are no longer a nation of individual farmers but rather one of industrial farming and industrial manufacturing. We are urban not rural.

Our current debt is not tied to government spending but to a lack of employment and the accompanying revenue it brings to the treasury in taxes.

The right wing in this country was against the New Deal and the post war fair deal including the GI Bill. They were against the building of highways, dams, electrification, public health, and any and all federal programs that have made us the greatest, wealthiest, and most free nation in the world.

So to my right wing adversaries I say spend now and get our nation back to work. Invest in infrastructure, education and R&D.

To think just 4% growth over a 5 year period eliminates the national debt.

Let it happen in short either lead, follow or get out of the way, but cease and desist from this mythical balooney you espouse as some sort of truth! It is not so!

I seem to recall a mythical time when the liberals ran the country with the consent of conservatives and the nation was about to move into surplus.

But, at just that time a conservative came to power and ended the surplus but lined the pockets of his wealthy conservative croonies. And in so doing managed the greatest transfer of wealth in history.

Then all of a sudden there was a collapse of the economy and exploding debt. There was great debate about the world and Europe decided to cut to the bone and went still deeper into debt even with the draconeon cuts, while the US under the brief leadership of a democrat controlled house and senate and Presidency spent and did not cut and is now on the rise while Europe still founders.

The problem seems to be that when right wing ideology meets reality, ideology fails!

A house divided will not stand and the role of the federal government was settled in a bloody war. The clock will not turn back. The interrelationship between the states and the federal government if deep. The call by the states for help when diaster befalls one only reiterates the role of the federal government in the salvation of our union.

There was debate at the founding of the nation between Jefferson and Hamilton and it goes on. I do not think that Jefferson would not endorse Hamilton in light of the urbanization of the nation. We are no longer a nation of individual farmers but rather one of industrial farming and industrial manufacturing. We are urban not rural.

Our current debt is not tied to government spending but to a lack of employment and the accompanying revenue it brings to the treasury in taxes.

The right wing in this country was against the New Deal and the post war fair deal including the GI Bill. They were against the building of highways, dams, electrification, public health, and any and all federal programs that have made us the greatest, wealthiest, and most free nation in the world.

So to my right wing adversaries I say spend now and get our nation back to work. Invest in infrastructure, education and R&D.

To think just 4% growth over a 5 year period eliminates the national debt.

Let it happen in short either lead, follow or get out of the way, but cease and desist from this mythical balooney you espouse as some sort of truth! It is not so!

richard, your response citing 2 examples was revealing.social class and different world/times is the classic response of the living/ progressive proponents. on a simplistic unexamined level they seems to make sense. only problem is they do not apply. these two premises do lend to the points progressives want to make and the ends they want to achieve, so i understand why you bring them up.try to imagine the world/times then. tell me what you see. and as far as their social class is concerned instead of using it against them to suit your purpose , i suggest you look at the founding fathers in the light of this: thank god, yes i said god, they were educated enough, learned enough, wise enough to see the shortcomings of human nature and the problems of all previous forms of government throughout history and were facing the reality of the ineffectiveness of the articles of confederation. on top of that they had just lived through all the trials and tribulations of war,and nobody wanted to see all that come to naught.combine that with the various motives, experiences, and abilities of any sizable group of men from any age, and then try to envision the profound sense of commitment to succeed that overrode any objection (regional financial interests/slavery) that had the potential to tear the goal apart, and i submit anyone who does not appreciate these circumsstances and give them credit for perserverance ,is discrediting their efforts and detracting from the accomplishment. ............... if i also may ask sarge a question... how can you possibly mention a surplus without mentioning the contract with america... without which there would be no surplus... and don't get all argumentative and miss the real message of compromise.

richard, your response citing 2 examples was revealing.social class and different world/times is the classic response of the living/ progressive proponents. on a simplistic unexamined level they seems to make sense. only problem is they do not apply. these two premises do lend to the points progressives want to make and the ends they want to achieve, so i understand why you bring them up.try to imagine the world/times then. tell me what you see. and as far as their social class is concerned instead of using it against them to suit your purpose , i suggest you look at the founding fathers in the light of this: thank god, yes i said god, they were educated enough, learned enough, wise enough to see the shortcomings of human nature and the problems of all previous forms of government throughout history and were facing the reality of the ineffectiveness of the articles of confederation. on top of that they had just lived through all the trials and tribulations of war,and nobody wanted to see all that come to naught.combine that with the various motives, experiences, and abilities of any sizable group of men from any age, and then try to envision the profound sense of commitment to succeed that overrode any objection (regional financial interests/slavery) that had the potential to tear the goal apart, and i submit anyone who does not appreciate these circumsstances and give them credit for perserverance ,is discrediting their efforts and detracting from the accomplishment. ............... if i also may ask sarge a question... how can you possibly mention a surplus without mentioning the contract with america... without which there would be no surplus... and don't get all argumentative and miss the real message of compromise.

richard, final post on this topic from me. we are on opposite sides of this " constitution" issue. this is not a debate. this is not an issue to compromise on. i will boldly state you are wrong. i guess you will not accept that now. the only hope i have that you will ever open up your mind is if you try to explain to yourself what the authors had in mind for the concept of limited govt. and more importantly why they designed it to try to achieve that. i would encourage you to earnestly and honestly define limited govt. and evaluate what you see happening today. Bob