Tracy;

Good article. Going back to the LBJ days and the “Great Society”, republicans were against it. Republicans are against social welfare. Every dog takes care of himself! Bite hard and deep, be first and you will succeed. Everyone else is potential food.

Some time ago I gave an example of a Stanford graduate (Herbert Hoover) who later became president. He was a republican and worked during the Wilson war years as head of the Food Administration, and did much to help the European people – especially the French and Belgium people. In fact he won humanitarian awards for his efforts to help feed the hungry of those war-ravaged areas.

When he became president he accomplished nothing to help Americans who were hungry and out of work. Why the change of heart? I have always wondered? His comment, “while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility”, did not solve the issues the nation faced. To be honest congress did not help either. It took a man like FDR to attempt to get the nation back on its feet, while fighting congress.

Looking back at the depression we did not leave it’s throngs until the end of world war II, when we entered a economy closely tied to the Military, and now tied to the great unknown.

Imagine if the federal government began projects as FDR did, to rebuild our nation? Reduce unemployment, and rebuild our infrastructure at the same time.

I can see it now – tours to Iraq in the future. Our tour guide will show us an infrastructure that is modern and works! Wow! What a great sight and inspiration.

By adhering to the philosophy of Hoover, our infrastructure should be cared for at the local level. The federal government is there to care for other nations. Just keep paying your taxes and vote for the same bastards over and over. There is something elementally wrong with our system.

Tom

>Very well put Tom. You may find this interesting:
>
>http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/988079/posts
>
>
>>>To be fair over 100 million will go to building the infrasture for a few cities (schools, town halls, housing, religious structures, sewer, water, electricity, etc) that are now slums (like Saddam City I believe).
>>>
>>
>>Tracy;
>>
>>There are people that think that the recent episode with Iraq will cost at least $200 billion. Not to fear as that is only a number 2 with a few zeros after it! The zeros refer to nothing of value. If we do not have the money we print it anyway. That is the American way. Print money and call yourself rich and powerful.
>>
>>It has been stated that the war with Iraq, which ended in May, cost $79 billion, which amount was approved by congress. An additional $87 billion has been requested.
>>
>>Concerning the $87 billion, by spending $100 million on Iraq's infrasture, that leaves $86,900,000,000 to be spent. Now that is as you termed it "fair".
>>
>>We are indeed a benevolent people. By the way how much has the federal government spent on our own infrastructure? I think I can suggest a few basic improvements based upon several recent events in this country.
>>
>>Tom
>>