Reply #65: No, sorry, I didn't get past the Friedman part.

[fla nocount]

He must have wrote that in the morning because he goes home for lunch, puts on a skirt and comes back in calling himself Kathleen Parker, you knew that, right.

However, upon further review, I don't know why we must go through the mistakes made by the Cleveland, McKinley and Hoover administrations of enabling this nag that refuses to work for the common good of us all. I say hobble it now and just jump directly to a "New Deal."

Many Americans don't use credit all, might benefit from others using it, but personally don't use it at all. Many can't, bad credit, too young, some are horrified by the concept itself. Many have tried
and have fallen afoul of it's usurious and predatory nature and look at the present situation with glee hoping the sorry bastards will finally get theirs. Now we're telling them that they are being forced to fund what can only be called a stop-gap measure and that their grandchildren will finally pay it off, unless more is needed of course.

Let's face it, credit and it's liquidity benefit those who handle it and those in retail who see the public as marks, general statement I know. Taxes give them the benefits they need, credit gives them the hassles they don't. Far too few have far too much and it's becoming apparent to even Joe that tax and spent and tax and lend are cut from the same cloth.

Don't look for Joe to vote and support any of this or a candidate who does and Joe will vote because I registered him and will give him a ride to the polls if he needs one.

A poster in another thread made the observation that this is polarizing as a battle of philosophies, Libertarian vs. Populist, crossing party boundaries. I agree and I welcome it.