What Right-Wing Governance Does For Cycling

Per Frank Krygowski:
I don't disagree with much that you've said, but I notice you didn't
mention "defense" spending at all. I think it's quite pertinent to any
budget discussion.

Seems to me like beeeeg money in various legislators' districts.

Witness how hard it was to kill that extra fighter jet engine
-that the military even explicitly said they did not want - from
Boener's district, IIRC.
--
PeteCresswell

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
[...]
I don't disagree with much that you've said, but I notice you didn't
mention "defense" spending at all. I think it's quite pertinent to any
budget discussion.

Defense is one area of spending we never want to cut back on. That is what
defeated the Soviet Union under Reagan. It is only the ever cowardly liberal
Dems who want to cut defense spending.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Edward Dolan:
Both Reagan and Bush were big spenders, but they can't compare to liberal
Dems and Obama. Clinton wanted to be a big spender too, but was
constrained
by Congressional Repubs.

Assuming it was congress and not the president, why was Bush not
similarly constrained?

Has it ever occurred to you that only divided government works in this
country?

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Per Edward Dolan:
Defense is one area of spending we never want to cut back on. That is what
defeated the Soviet Union under Reagan.

There are those who would say the plunge in global oil prices,
the rise of the internet, and loss of control over the media
under glasnost had something to do with it too.

--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Edward Dolan:
Defense is one area of spending we never want to cut back on. That is what
defeated the Soviet Union under Reagan.

There are those who would say the plunge in global oil prices,
the rise of the internet, and loss of control over the media
under glasnost had something to do with it too.

Nope, it was only how the US under Reagan was able to out spend them on
defense that ultimately defeated them. The Soviets, like all totalitarian
regimes, never had any regard for what anyone ever thought of them. Without
Reagan, there would still be a Soviet Union today.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Per Edward Dolan:
Assuming it was congress and not the president, why was Bush not
similarly constrained?

Has it ever occurred to you that only divided government works in this
country?

Many would agree.

But that does not address the question: If the Clinton surplus
were due to a Republican congress' sense of fiscal responsibility
and resulting pressures on The President, why did the same party
let Bush and company run amuck? Or, perhaps, might they have been
key players?
--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Edward Dolan:
Assuming it was congress and not the president, why was Bush not
similarly constrained?

Has it ever occurred to you that only divided government works in this
country?

Many would agree.

But that does not address the question: If the Clinton surplus
were due to a Republican congress' sense of fiscal responsibility
and resulting pressures on The President, why did the same party
let Bush and company run amuck? Or, perhaps, might they have been
key players?

Did not the same scenario play out with respect to the Obama health care
plan? Clinton also did not want welfare reform, but was forced into it by
Repubs. Clinton was essentially as liberal as Obama, but he was saddled with
a Repub Congress. Obama also needs a Repub Congress in order to achieve
anything. Unfortunately, he still has a Dem Senate.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 3/17/2011 8:22 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
Per Edward Dolan:
Defense is one area of spending we never want to cut back on. That is what
defeated the Soviet Union under Reagan.

There are those who would say the plunge in global oil prices,
the rise of the internet, and loss of control over the media
under glasnost had something to do with it too.

Nope, it was only how the US under Reagan was able to out spend them on
defense that ultimately defeated them. The Soviets, like all totalitarian
regimes, never had any regard for what anyone ever thought of them. Without
Reagan, there would still be a Soviet Union today.

Hey Ed,

Just want you to know I get the joke.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

We have discussed so many issues here, but I remember that we
discussed stupid design in the engineering of bike lanes and city
planning...

Well, a smart listener called in NPR and reminded the experts that
"Tsunami" is a Japanese word and they could have placed easily the
reactors on higher ground expecting such events. That would have been
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Wherever we turn though we see stupid design, particularly when it
comes to bike facilities, a very low priority in safety since we are
the only casualties. We have mixed paths that mix people, dogs and
bikes and we have bike lanes that disappear. The issue is --more than
an oversight-- that we live in a hierarchical system --forget
democracy-- where decisions are taken without the feedback of the
people, who must shut up and accept what they get.

That's a recipe for disaster for the whole species as we sit back and
watch the catastrophic blunders such as the nuclear plants in Japan,
or the less dramatic, but much more catastrophic events associated
with Climate Change unfold.

The other day a kid got loose from his mom and darted across this
mixed path where cyclists can go very fast and I went, "Oh my God!"...
Nothing happened though. The Wise TibetanMonkey was going nice and
slow on his beach cruiser --Revolutions for the Planet, by Sun--
predicting events.

Per Edward Dolan:
But that does not address the question: If the Clinton surplus
were due to a Republican congress' sense of fiscal responsibility
and resulting pressures on The President, why did the same party
let Bush and company run amuck? Or, perhaps, might they have been
key players?

Did not the same scenario play out with respect to the Obama health care
plan? Clinton also did not want welfare reform, but was forced into it by
Repubs. Clinton was essentially as liberal as Obama, but he was saddled with
a Repub Congress. Obama also needs a Repub Congress in order to achieve
anything. Unfortunately, he still has a Dem Senate.

But the question remains unanswered.
--
PeteCresswell