From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democratc.d,alt.politics.election,ba.poliitcs,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:55:13 GMT

or.politics and ne.politics removed from follow-ups

In article <BZS.92Nov12031138@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>I said Congress was _also_ responsible, not that they are _exclusively_
>>responsible. I don't understand why people direct all the blame for
>>the deficit on the President. He certainly shares _some_ of it, but
>>Congress is at least as responsible.

>One reason people blame GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH is because he said
>he was very happy with the last few budgets.

I'm sure a few Congressmen said similar things. As a hypothetical, if
David Duke were murdered, I might say I was happy about it. That doesn't
mean I'm responsible. Bush said he was happy about the budget, but that
doesn't make it (solely) his fault.

>>I didn't suggest the number. Someone else suggest we focus on those
>>parties reaping the greatest benifits in dollar terms. I just 
>>pointed out that the _profit_ on a contract measures the benifit,
>>not the total contract value. (E.g. net not gross profits are
>>the benifit.)

>But if you decide to give me $1B to put me into the tank building
>business (whatever), that is, a $1B contract for tanks, and I come out
>even on the books the first year, do you think I am equivalent to a
>company which didn't get $1B? How much of that $1B went to capital
>investment, for example, so now I own tank-building equipment? What
>advantage is that next time a tank contract comes up? etc.

If you didn't have any tank-building equipment, you wouldn't
have gotten the contract. Further, the value of this equipment
is rather doubtfull: Major, similar government contracts are
usually rare: It's likely to be about 20 years until the next
tank-contract comes along. Most of the equipment is scraped 
between contracts, because that's cheaped than letting the 
factory sit idle. However, you are right: Long-term investments
in such equipment are occasionally of future value. I guess
we should add in that fraction of government contract costs,
to the amount of government spending that benifits the rich.
Do you have a number for this?

>>There is probably _some_ value (so that not all of the money
>>being spent on the poor goes exclusively fro their benifit.) 
>>Can you suggest a way to objectively measure this value? If you
>>want to support the assertion that the rich benifit more than
>>the poor from government spending, you have to: You can't
>>compare the benifits if you can't measure them.

>Objectively? No, you can't objectively measure such a thing, you can
>measure it, but not entirely objectively. These are people, not
>objects you can take a ruler and scale to. What's the objective
>measure of feeding a hungry child or teaching a person to read?

If you can't objectively measure it, how do you propose to compare
it to the benifits the rich derive from government. A subjective
measure isn't sufficient since, by definition, no one agrees on
it.

>>>Actually, I do. You draw this moral line, these profits are ok, these
>>>aren't, and that's that.
>>I believe I made a distinction between fair profits and graft.

>So now money to feed children is "graft"?

Since my remark concerned defense contractor profits, that's an odd
way to interpert it...

>You also are ignoring large segments of the govt where it is not so
>clear, like research grants etc. Or student loans, or aid to
>universities, ya know, middle-class people's welfare...not that I
>eschew it, but you sure don't notice it.

I'm not ignoring it, it just isn't usefull to the discussion: Since
as you say, it is ambiguous, it doesn't help establish who benifits
most from government.

>>The poor don't _only_ get $100 billion, that's $100 billion that 
>>goes _exclusively_ to the poor. If all the remainder of the 
>>budget benifited rich and poor equally, that would still leave
>>the poor ahead of the rich.

>But it doesn't benefit the rich and poor equally, obviously, the poor
>are still poor.

That doesn't prove anything: If the government spent no money at all
it would benifit the rich and poor equally (e.g. not at all.), but
the poor would still remain poor. All your point shows, is that the
government doesn't spend enough on the poor, to eliminate poverty. It
doesn't relate to how much the rich get relative to this.

>You think some homeless guy sleeping on the street
>benefits in the same way as the Frobozz Corp winning a bid to build
>high-pressure widgets for battleships?

From the diverse government social programs, the homless guy is 
certainly benefiting. He's certainly not benefiting in the same
way, but that doesn't say if he benefits more or less. In terms
of the effect on their respective standards of living, the homeless
guy might well benefit more. In terms of dollars, the corporation
almost certainly does. But there are far fewer homeless guys than
denense contracts. So looking as a single case isn't too usefull a
metric.

>>I didn't suggest that justification: It was asserted (at the begining
>>of this whole discussion) that the rich benifit more from government
>>than the poor, and therefore deserve to pay a greater share of
>>the costs of government. If the assumption isn't true, then this
>>justification fails; and there is no reason for inequitable
>>treatment.

>And I assert that the justification is there but not really needed,
>ability to pay a little more is also reasonable to consider in a true
>crisis. If we weren't in a crisis then we shouldn't do it, kind of
>like the draft.

Very like the draft. Are you saying the draft is "fair" or "moral"
or "a good thing for the government to do"?

>Boy, did that sure turn around fast when it was the rich's turn to put
>up. Hoo boy.

Not really: Both cases (in my opinion) of the majority carrying out
an unfair and immoral policy at the expense of a minority (18-year-old
draftees or rich tax payers.) Realistically, the majority controls
the government and in times of crisis people often don't _care_
about fairness. (Or invent excuses to satisfy their morals: It's
their duty to fight; they can afford it...) None of this makes
the majority right in doing so.

>I'll remember your arguments when/if they try to call my son or
>daughter, it isn't HIS/HER FAULT you guys are in a war. Why should
>S/HE PAY.

Please do: If enough people listened to you, we might get rid of
the draft. (Not likely, but it couldn't hurt to try...)

>Oh don't tell me, you're against the draft (even in WWII?) Sorry
>buddy, maybe it's too late, maybe it's PAYBACK time for some folks,
>swallow the same bullshit they tried to feed me, only not the same,
>only money for them.

Oh, I see: Punishing the rich is _revenge_ for the draft, and that
makes it a good and moral thing.

>Too late, give my dad his two years back and undo the last fifty years
>he suffered with his legs until it finally ruined his heart and then
>maybe we can talk.

Since I wasn't even alive 50 years ago (as is true of about 65% or so 
of the population, rich and poor alike), are they really a rational
target for your revenge?

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15977 alt.politics.democrats.d:321 alt.politics.elections:22782