Tom wrote:
"Might be educational for you to discuss "Clinton's military" with anyone who has been on active duty during the past ten years. Like my brother."

It is interesting that you assume that I have not! Well, I have not talked to your brother, but I have talked to many people, including a lt. Colonel from S.Forces who happens to be a very close friend.

There is an institutional rift between military and policy, anyone who has spent a lot of time in-and-around the military I think is aware of it. Rank commanders in the military grouse in that wonderful, respectful and completely righteous way about how the Gov't either under-funds the military or over-uses it (or both). Lower ranks pick up on this and echo it in a more loud and boisterous way. I have NEVER met a military man who is pleased-as-pie with the relationship between policy and military. I think this is a great tradition, and I won't criticize it. However, at the end of the day, command ranks understand that they are the *implement* of policy...

The point is, our military is kick-ass, regardless of how much the soldiers grouse about the state of the military. The only 'fuck-up' in A'stan was the hope that the local 'ant-taliban' militia would help us more aggressively than they did. Although I don't agree with it, we will kick ass all over Iraq, too.

tom wrote:
""Defining up" government benefits is what has us in the fiscal hole we have now."

Again, Tom, run the numbers. What is screwing our budget right now is (1) the economy and (2) lost tax revenue. Social programs peaked back in Johnsons Great Society (and then Nixon pulled the plug on the funding).

The last time I looked at the average Social Security income was in the early 90's/Late 80's, and I think it was about $680/month/wage earner. Now, you and I both know that ain't enough (now, in the naughts) to get by in this world and not eat dog food and live in a box. So should we NOT 'define-up' social security? I don't get that argument if so. Thats the deal, folks, you pay the tax you get a 'decent' benefit back when yer old.

Also, 20 years ago, knee replacements really were not perfected. So, now that they are, and Aged Medicare folks want one, are we to say "Nope, we can't define-up benefits that way, go lay in bed and die in pain cause you can't walk". This is a reasonable "Defining-up" of social benefits. Are we going to keep handing out nitro tabs for chronic heart failure just because better medecines constitute a "defining-up"? These folks paid their dues.

Tom wrote:
". Combine this with the fact that a small minority of the citizens pays most of the taxes, and that they get no more votes apiece than the vast majority of people who pay little or no taxes, and I think any reasonable person can see how this is going to end up."

Tom, this 'end of wealth' argument is older than taxes. While the wealthy don't get extra votes, they DO get extra influence. I know a few venture-cap and .com millionaires, and they live really, really well... And the less ethical ones pay nearly no taxes because they shell out big $$$ to shelter their cash. And its the lobyists they buy thats make those shelters possible. If we were doomed for the welfare state you lament about, we'd have been there a looong time ago.

IMHO, if you make it big in the USA, you owe your dues back to the system that made it possible. I'm not saying yer not entitled to the 5Million dollar home and the Viper in the garage... They are (and they have it), but you owe the system and the electorate that helped make it happen.