.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Sandwich Shop

These are my thoughts. They are based on what I see going on around me.

Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

I know very little about myself. If I did know myself better, I probably wouldn't be doing this.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Today's FYI's :
* Life is a positive, no matter how negative it gets.
* No amount of negatives can cancel out a positive. However,
one positive can cancel out an unlimited number of
* The need to ask questions is not a flaw. However, not
feeling the need to ask them is.
* Having knowledge and using it is called power; having
knowledge and not using it is called an elected official.
* Television is the only learning tool that teaches more
the less it is used.
- George -

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

In the closing scene of the 1933 classic "King Kong", as the giant gorilla lies dead on the street,someone in the crowd says, "The planes got him". The man who captured Kong and brought him to civilization responds, "It wasn't the airplanes; it was beauty killed the beast".
If someday America finds itself in the same position as King Kong and someone in the crowd says, " The enemy finally got them.", the response very well might be, "it wasn't the enemy; it was evaporation that killed America."
The 2005 movie, "Good Night Good Luck" tells the story of legendary television journalist Edward R. Murrow's taking on of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and McCarthy's obsession with Communism's foothold in America's culture during the 1950's. The movie tends to portray Murrow as a one-of-a-kind journalist whose style of looking out for the "average Joe" is all but obsolete.
Not only was Edward R. Murrow not the only journalist of his kind back in his day,but in just about every corner of society there were popular icons that were closer to the "average Joe" than there were those living high and mighty above the "average Joe" looking down on them and considering them to be beneath them and there to serve them.
In Murrow's time, for instance, it was not unusual for professional baseball players to mingle on the streets after a big game ( there are documented stories of ballplayers riding the subway home after a World Series game).
Across the board from newscasters to entertainers to professional athletes to politicians that closeness in identity and lifestyle with the "average Joe" has all but evaporated in our culture. That is why so few are left and why the few who are left are looked upon as novelties, not mainstream.
In the process, the rest of us have let the feeling of us "all being in this together" evaporate. That feeling could also be called our "common bond".
It was the common bond of knowing that this country requires constant vigilance and hard work to work at all that kept Murrow and the rest of his generation anchored in the reality of knowing that they all needed each other. This knowledge has evaporated in our society.
They knew that if one of them got robbed, they all got robbed. If one of them got cheated, they all got cheated. This awareness has evaporated in our society.
They also knew that, in the big picture, government was a necessary evil that they had to keep in check or it would eat its own tail. That knowledge has evaporated in our society.
When something evaporates, it turns into a vapor; and a vapor is something without substance. In short, where once the label
"average Joe" was a medal of honor, it now is considered a synonym for "second-class citizen".

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

"The dumbing down of America" is a phrase that probably rings a bell in most people's heads, but probably doesn't connect to anything in particular when it does.
While the posturing of Tom Delay's statements to the press concerning his indictments may seem absurd, it would be very educational to even Delay's worst enemies to ponder why he is using them without batting an eye.
If Delay is convicted, his statements will be looked back on by history as a "last desperate attempt by a desperate man". Coming to this conclusion would be a case of making the crime fit the evidence.
There is another old saying, "Go with what works". In the past
"simplistic finger pointing accusations" have worked very well for Delay. However, Delay is not alone in having great success with "simplistic finger pointing accusations". The cynics in the crowd will say, "I agree; all the Republicans use them".
Sure they do, but what about our friends the Democrats ? Do they not simply point at the Republicans and yell, "bad,bad!"? And, doesn't it work pretty darn well for them when they do ?
"Simplistic finger pointing accusations" are the cornerstone of both parties' policies. Why ? Because they work ! Dig up a copy of "The Bride Of Frankenstein" and see if scene where the villagers are chasing the monster up the mountain while they wave their torches doesn't accurately reflect today's political culture. And, darned if that scene doesn't start out with good ol' "simplistic finger pointing accusations".
Every politician knows that the quickest, easiest way to get the crowd on their side is to convince the crowd that they better go get the monster before the monster gets them. Once the crowd buys into that message, they ask no questions, and they throw anybody who does ask questions into the same boat as the monster.
It used to work for Delay. It may not work for him any more, but the practice itself of using "simplistic finger pointing accusations" as a fast track to the good life politically is alive and well and doing better than ever.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Would You Vote For This Guy ?
At approximately 4 P.M., on Thursday, August 27, 1931, at the Lexington Hotel, located at the corner of Twenty second and Michigan in Chicago, Illinois, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. interviewed one of the most famous Americans of his time.
Mr. Vanderbilt had this to say about the subject of his interview, "He was taller than I imagined, and much broader;a fellow with a winchlike handshake, a banker's bay window, and the winning smile of all the Latin races. And yet, instead of the usual line of talk that emanates from gentry of his kind, he had been giving me a discourse the like of which ht has never been my fortune to hear."
In 1931 the Great Depression was in full swing, and the man Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. was interviewing had these things to say about it.
"This is going to be a terrible winter. Us fellas has gotta open our pocketbooks, and keep on keeping them open, if we want any of us to survive. We can't wait for Congress or Mr. Hoover or anyone else. We must help keep tummies filled and bodies warm.
If we don't, it'll all add up with the way we've learned to live. Why, do you know sir, America is on the verge of its greatest social upheaval? Bolshevism is knocking at our gates. We can't afford to let it in. We've got to organize ourselves against it, and put our shoulders together and hold fast. We need funds to fight famine."
The subject of Mr. Vanderbilt's interview had this advice for how President Hoover should deal with the Depression:
" We must keep America whole, and safe, and unspoiled. If machines are going to take jobs away from the worker, then he will need to find something else to do. Perhaps he'll go back to the soil. But we must care for him during the period of change. We must keep him away from red literature, red ruses; we must see that his mind remains healthy. For, regardless of where he was born, he is now an American."
So spoke the famous American interviewed by Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr. on August 27, 1931. A pretty impressive example of insight into the state of America at the time by the interviewee considering he had much more pressing personal matters on his mind that day. The very next day he would be facing a federal judge as he went on trial for federal income tax evasion; a trial that would find him guilty and send him to prison, a prison term that he would never fully recover from. Too bad it all ended that way. Who knows what may have happened if Al Capone had gone into politics instead of crime.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Don't Need No Gas!
So much has been made about the amount of advance warning those devastated by hurricane Katrina had ( and how they had no excuse for being caught off guard by the storm, because of that warning ) that many now assure us that we will never be caught off guard by a disasterous event that we have been warned about again. *
When I first heard the news that we can expect heating oil prices to jump a good 50% and natural gas prices to jump a good 70% this winter, my first thoughts were, "Oh No! What will we do ?".
Then I thought to myself, " No, we have thirty, maybe sixty days, before the really cold weather hits, and we have been warned. Surely, everyone who has heard the warnings will gear up and deal with the increased heating costs that will average about 60%".
We've also been repeatedly warned that gasoline prices could be four or five dollars a gallon by winter. Add that to a 60 % rise in heating costs, and we could easily be paying 70 to 80 % more, on average, to heat our homes and drive our vehicles.
That could be an economic disaster! But, that would only happen if we hadn't been warned in advance, right ? That's what I thought. Nothing beats a good plan, especially when you have plenty of advance warning to build your plan around.
I'm still working on the fine details of my own personal plan, but the plan is in motion. So far, I've drafted a plan that calls for burning "extra" furniture in the fireplace, and running my car on that generic mouthwash that looks like Listerine. I know my plan requires more depth, but I feel good about what I've got so far.

* Since hurricane Wilma hasn't reached shore yet, lack of response to advance warnings figures are not available.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Where Does Hope Come From ?
Hope is the desire to succeed in the present, while working toward succeeding in the future. This may sound like a no-brainer, but lack of this appraoch is a real problem these days, especially within our two-party system.
Both parties currently represent what happens when you only want to succeed in the present and totally ignore the future. The cause for this approach is the selfishness, greed, and jealousy, that is triggered by immature people in positions of power ( read, " Lord Of The Flies " ).
The key to stopping this abuse of power is realizing that not only do politicians of both parties operate this way, but so do most of us out there who vote.
Of the three; selfishness, greed, and jealousy, the most destructive and dangerous is jealousy. The reason for this is apparently because it is our own future generations that we are jealous of.
Both voters and politicians seem to resent the idea that future generations might have more than they have. How else do we explain why planning for the future is all but obsolete by both voters and politicians ?
Just like a parent should want and plan for their child to have a better life, we should want and plan for future generations to have a better country. This is the only way succeeding in the present, while working toward succeeding in the future has ever worked in the history of mandkind. In other words, this is where hope comes from.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Oil Future = Oil Past
Let's say you're a twenty-six year old mom or dad, you've been married for six years, and have a son or daughter in first grade. You are just beginning to feel comfortable with the job you've been working at since you were married and are beginning to feel like you are moving ahead. You think a lot about keeping the whole thing going, while at the same time you think a lot about your first-grader's future.
One day while you are sitting in the doctor's office waiting for your appointment, you walk over to the table full of magazines and pick up a Time. The cover story grabs your eye. With all the talk lately about rising gas prices and the increasing impact those rising prices are having on your budget and future plans, how could you ignore a cover story in Time Magazine about the grip the big oil companies have on all of us ? There on page 70 is the lead article, "Inside the Big Oil Game". You're not surprised at all when you read,

" According to a recent CBS-New York Times poll, 69% of the public still believe that gasoline prices are rising not because there is an energy crisis but merely because the oil companies want to make more money. In a sentiment that is widely shared, Margaret Dadian, vice president of an Illinois sales company, complains: "There is a shortage all right, but not as serious as we are told it is. It is more a question of oil companies holding back until they can get higher prices. We have Arabs of our own in this country."
All around the U.S.,the lament is the same:in ways both devious and sinister, and too mystifying to understand, Big Oil is somehow out to rip off the public. says Irene McMckin, a Milwaukee public relations consultant: "I just don't feel the crisis is real. I don't trust the oil companies." Adds William Meier, an Indiana insurance agent: "My emotional response is that oil companies are trying to do a number on us." Even a high-ranking General Motors executive in Detroit remarks:
"The whole thing smells funny to me."

Boy, can you identify with what these folks have to say,or what ? All your friends are saying the same things. However, even though misery loves company, it sure would be nice if you could somehow know how all of this oil shortage mess was going to play itself out. With so many things riding on the future of oil,gas, and energy in general, if you could somehow look into the future and see how all of this was going to turn out, life would be a whole lot less stressful.
Well, maybe you can. If you are twenty-six years old in the year 2005, all you might have to do is pick up your cell phone and call your own mom or dad and ask them how it turned out for them. The article,"Inside the Big Oil Game" appeared in Time magazine on May, 7, 1979. Twenty-six years ago the oil/gas/energy crisis loomed as large as it does today.
By the way, whatever did happen to the oil shortages that justified the price hikes twenty-six years ago ? I'll leave you with two more quotes from that 1979 article:
1. "Fifteen of the nations largest oil companies released first-quarter profit figures, and they showed an acceleration of winter-long earnings surge."
2. "Profits are shooting up because tight supplies worldwide have allowed oil companies to raise their prices."
What's that you say Yogi? It really is deja vu all over again ?

Saturday, October 15, 2005

44mpg in 1981 !
Any male over the age of thirty who drives a car has heard some version of the urban legend about the carburetor somebody's uncle invented that allowed a car to drive a hubdred miles on a single gallon of gas. You know, the carb that the oil companies paid big money to keep off the market so they could keep sticking it to us at the pump.
Most everybody thinks that story was dreamed up at a bar one night, by a couple of good ol' boys who were bendin' their elbows and bitchin' about how much of their paychecks went to put gas in their gas guzzlers. That may be, but it doesn't explain the March,1981, issue of Popular Science magazine ( Vol.218, No. 3 ). Popular Science, isn't exactly the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News; it's pretty much looked at as a legitimate news source.
On page 67 of that issue, there's is a one page article titled, "44-mpg two-seaters, Ford EXP/LN7". The article is written by Herbert Shuldiner. Mr. Shuldiner test drove these preproduction models in Phoenix Arizona.
" I tested preproduction versions of both cars on smooth, flat interstates and curving mountain roads near here-and finally on the track of Phoenix International Raceway.
The two cars do not act like the conventional Escort/Lynx. Handling is precise,predictable, and has a definite sports-car feel. They behaved perfectly in hard cornering and braking.
In addition, I found no hint of the handling problems the Popular Science auto-test team described in its test of the base Escort [PS,Jan.].
The EXP/LN7 suspension is not sensitive to changes in power. When I deliberately took my foot off the accelerator in high-speed turns, there was no noticeable changes in steering when the wheel was not turned.
The EXP/LN7 standard suspension produces a flat, firm ride. There's almost no lean, even on hard turns. The optional TRX suspension, features Michelin TRX tires, improves the EXP/LN7's already good handling characteristics.
While handling is sporty, there's no sports-car performance in accleration-even with a four speed manual transmission." End quote.
So these babies handled like a sports car, but weren't rockets out of the gate. Is that what killed them ? Whatever the reason was, you have to wonder how much more gas would be available ( at a lower cost ) at the pumps today if for the last 25 years commuters were driving cars that got 44 miles per gallon.
By the way, there are pictures of these cars in the article and no, they are not skateboards with motors on them. They are normal sized Exps and LN7s. They are very much the same size of many cars we see today that do not get 44 miles per gallon. Go figure! Are we marching backwards into the future ?
PS: Yes, I have a copy of this issue in my possession. My facts did not come from somebody's Web page.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Fact: a thing known to be true

Since the days of George Washington, we've been complaining about all the things Presidents get away with. The truth ( aka fact ) is, no President gets away with anything.
Whatever a President does or doesn't do is a direct reflection of the depth of participation the people of this country have, as a whole.
Recently, the question was raised as to whether the "in your face"
attitude of President Bush was real and if it was, how did he "get away with it " ?
The "in your face" attitude the President has really is there, but it's certainly not restricted to the way he presents himself. Intimidating posture and language is what pop culture is currently based on. Tune into any television show, music video, video game, or hit movie, and chances are you will see a version of the same " in your face" attitude that President Bush bases his "stage act" on.
His public persona is based on the old slogan,"talk the talk and walk the walk" but like the rest of today's pop culture, it's only based on it. Our attention span is so short, as a nation,that we are only attracted to the "talk the talk" part of the cliche. Nobody, in general, has the time or desire to get up out of their chair, let alone "walk the walk", these days.
The President's act is a direct reflection of pop culture and he and his advisers mold that image to fit what the majority of the public is asking for. This is not something new; it's as old as the office of the President itself. The amount of superficial posturing involved, this time around, is no different from anywhere else it appears in today's culture.
Everything in our pop culture today attracts its audience's interest by threatening to kick that audience's ass. It is possible to observe something without passing judgment on it (believe it or not !). Without judging whether it is a good or bad thing, consider pop television, video games and movies.
Most of them center around people being killed or having been killed.The number of "good" people killed is usually equal to the number of "bad" people being killed. The only difference being that the "bad" guy is usually the last one killed.Along the way, the audience is invited to identify with either (or both ?) the good and the bad guys.
When describing ourselves, we tend to call ourselves either good or bad. Since our pop entertainment currently focuses on both the good and the bad getting their "asses kicked", it's pretty safe to say that pop entertainment today is heavily based on an "in your face" point of view.
The President wanting to please, "all the people all the time" come election time, is simply running todays pop culture selling points through his image making machinery and giving us back what we are asking for. The next President will do the same thing.
Here's the scary part. We never seem to notice that any given President reflects the citizens they govern. We do not follow the President, the President follows us ! Since "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" those who seek the office of the President are akin to the celebrity impersonators that used to be on the old "Ed Sullivan Show". The only difference is they are impersonating the audience that is watching them.

Monday, October 10, 2005

"The Age Of (fill in the blank)"
Any detailed observation of the good ole' U.S. of A. would lend creditability to the theory that we are about to enter one of those mysterious "ages" we read so much about when we were kids. You remember those, don't you ?
Remember how we read in grade school about how we went from a farm based society to an industrial based one ? That one was called the "Industrial Age". We have actually lived through the next one. Remember the "Information Age" ?
Even when I was a kid, I used to be puzzled by the lack of detail they taught us in school about what life was like in this country as it was changing from everybody living on a farm to everybody living ( or wanting to live ) in the city.
I mean, you have to figure that there was a drastic change in everything. Changing from waking up to a field of cows to a subway full of people had to be a pretty radical change. Right ?
Now that we've lived in the "Information Age" for a couple of decades, I think I get why we weren't taught much about the changes in everyday life when our country was leaving the farming way of life and entering the city way of life.
I'll bet that, in general, nobody even noticed that we were changing. I base that "theory" on the fact that just about everything that used to be a big deal in our everyday lives, over the last fifty years or so, is changing or disappearing and nobody seems to notice or be bothered by it.
Things like the automobile industry, the airline industry, the medical profession, the banking industry, the post office, and institutions of higher learning used to be taken for granted as being as solid and dependable as water to drink and air to breathe. These days, all of these entities are either shaky, going down, or fading into the woodwork, and it doesn't seem to cause even a ripple in the pool of public concern.
Since all these things were as central to our society as farms were when we all were farmers and now seem to be fading from the list of things we think are important, it stands to reason that in the near future something else will probably take their place. I wonder what it will be ?
What will be the next age ? We've done farming, we've done industry, and we've done information; what's left ? I have some guesses based on what I've been seeing going on around me lately. Maybe we'll enter the
"Age Of Secession". that could be interesting if we had fifty individual countries instead of one big one. Heck, absolutely nobody gets along or agrees on anything. It might be productive as well as entertaining watching the population divide into fifty different groups. Of course, that might mean we would be in the "Age Of Entertainment" since we seem to be tilted more to the entertaining than the productive, as a nation.
Anyway, if there's anything you think you might miss when the new "Age Of (fill in the blank )" comes, you might want to stash some away or jot down what it is ( or was ) because according to history nobody will remember any of the details of the change once the change is complete. You heard it here first; don't forget that.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

From: Tuesday, March 18, 2003

P. Pause
E. Everyday
A. And
C. Consider
E. Everyone

Friday, October 07, 2005

Politics Classic:
We,the people,should not be above adopting things that work, even if they come from a source that was formerly trying to screw us. The biggest issue facing the left and the right is their respective party's inability to acknowledge their mistakes. As a result, every mistake remains in place and is augmented by a lie. This leads to more lies, the end result of which is failure and destruction.
We often hear of Corporate America and national politics being one and the same. While in many cases this is true, there is one huge difference.
Although reluctantly, when Corporate America screws up in their relationship with their customers, they will admit they were wrong
( not because they are ethical, but because it will hurt them in the pocket book if they keep lying once their customers have said, "This idea stinks, and we don't want it).
Do they come right out and say, " Our new idea had nothing to do with improving our product; we just wanted to get more money from you by reinventing a product you were already happy with."? Of course not, they simply reintroduce a version of the original product and call it "classic".
This probably would be a good solution to the current dilemma with President Bush's nomination of Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court. It seems like both Republicans and Democrats are more than a little uneasy about it. But, how does Mr. Bush get out of it without saying, "I was wrong to nominate her. "?
Once upon a time in the "classic" world of politics,high ranking elected leaders often didn't do things if they had "the appearance of impropriety", simply because they risked losing customers (aka voters)
if they did.
If Washington would simply announce the return of "Politics Classic*", President Bush could remove his nomination and avoid saying he was wrong ,and we the customers would be a whole kot happier. WARNING: see footnote

* It should be noted that labeling a product "classic" is only a psychological improvement for the customer. There is no guarantee of the original product returning.
Example: Coke Classic is not the classic version of Coke from when I was a kid. Coke, in my day, was sweetened with sugar, came in glass bottles, was very cold, and had a lot of carbonation. It was refreshing and it quenched my thirst.
By the seventies cans began to replace bottles, which meant a loss of carbonation ( while drinking ). Stores that sold Coke began turning down the temperatures of their coolers, and corn syrup replaced sugar as the sweetener in Coke. Corn syrup not only doesn't quench your thirst, it actually makes you thirstier.
Coke Classic is no form of Coke that is classic to me.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Who Are They?
They go after what they want. They do whatever is necessary to get what they want. They take advice from no one. they ignore questions aimed at getting them to explain why they are doing what they are doing. When ignoring the question doesn't work, they change the subject. They condemn others for doing the same things they are doing. Finally, they leave messes they created for others to clean up.
Who are they ?

A. the Bush administration
B. teenagers
C. husbands
D. Corporate America
E. politicians
F. Hollywood actors/actresses
G. Americans that still have credit left on their credit cards
H. talk show hosts
I. alcoholics/drug addicts
J. all of the above

If you have been trying to post a comment, and not having any luck, please try again.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Mom Was Right Again:
I first heard this phrase from my mom. In fact, come to think of it, she may be the only person I ever actually heard say, "Out of everything bad comes something good".
When I read the headline,"Is the big SUV dying ?", her words rang in my ear. I know we're supposed to be all worried and filled with a sense of doom over the rising cost of gasoline and it's potential scarcity. But, as I read that
[ "sales of sport-utility vehicles took a dive in September", "sales of the Ford Explorer dropped by 58% and sales of the Ford Expedition
( 14mpg ) dropped 61%", "Ford even stopped producing its even larger Suv, the Excursion", " sales of GM's full-size SUVs fell 56%", " Hummer H2 (10 mpg ) sales were off 31%", "sales of Toyota's immense Sequoia
( 15mpg ) were off 46%, "Honda's Pilot was off 26%", "Nissan's Armada
( 13 mpg ) was off 20%" ], instead of wringing my hands in a fit of worry, I found myself smiling and humming to myself, " It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood".
In fact, it will be hard for me not to pump my fist in the air the next time I get behind the wheel of my four cylinder Volvo station wagon and let out a Homer Simpson-style, "Woo-Hoo !"
Using my less than perfect math skills, I figure these numbers mean a potential drop in the number of SUVs on the road, while I am on the road, in the 40% range.
That would mean when I park at the supermarket, I would have a four in ten shot at not having to park between two SUVs. That would translate into a four in ten shot of being able to actually pull out of that parking spot and being able to see any vehicles about to crash into me ( as opposed to the Russian Roulette method SUVs offer ).
I would have a four in ten shot at making eye contact with drivers headed right at me while they talk on their cell phones in heavy traffic.
When I park in a public parking lot, I would have a four in ten shot of mysterious "dings" showing up on my car less frequently, the kind that are usually the same height as an SUV bumper.
Speaking of public parking lots, I would have a four in ten chance of not having to watch SUV drivers point their keychain remotes at their SUVs
(and hearing that annoying "beep,beep" sound ) as they lock them up so they can buy groceries, and not have to worry about all those nasty car thieves that hang out in supermarket parking lots in broad daylight.
That in turn would mean a four in ten chance of not ever hearing the alarm in an SUV going off in the middle of a parking lot for twenty or thirty minutes while no one pays any attention to it. ( other than to wish someone would actually steal it or throw a rock through the window ).
I could go on, but I don't want to sound like I'm gloating. I'll just finish by saying if gas hits $6.00 a gallon and suddenly all the SUVs are gone, how do I act like I'm not happier than when only 40% of them were gone ?
I mean, $6.00 a gallon for gas would be a bad thing, wouldn't it ?
" Woo-Hoo ! "

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Priceless !
Very few citizens are opposed to sending whatever help is needed to rebuild the areas of our country devastated by the recent hurricanes. However, there has been some talk,lately, questioning the wisdom of our nation borrowing the money for this relief from other nations. I doubt this talk will gather much attention or action, and here's why.
When someone does something, they always have a core reason that supercedes and contributes to the publicized reason for what they do. In the case of hurricane relief, money is being spent by the President and Congress because the American people want help to be sent to the areas devastated. While that explains why the money is being spent, it does not explain why the money is being borrowed to finance the help being sent.
The money being spent for hurricane relief is being borrowed from sources outside this country because both the President and Congress know that the majority of citizens who vote are more than comfortable with financing things "credit card-style".
There is a very large section of our voting public that believes once you hold an object in your hands, you own it; and any money you may owe on it is at your discretion to pay or ignore.
If the President and Congress know (and they do) that the people who vote for them are very comfortable with huge amounts of personal debt, why shouldn't they use credit and future debt to give the voting public the feeling of helping their fellow citizens without any immediate sacrifice ?
" The feeling of helping your fellow citizens without immediate personal sacrifice, Priceless."
Not until the voting public rejects perpetual debt in their personal lives will any elected leaders shy away from it. That's simply the truth.