From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Perot ?
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:23:35 GMT

In article <BsvJKz.DAD@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>> [a bunch of amazingly (for c.s.a.a) sober dicussion deleted]
>
>>Yes.  They provide jobs, spur the economy, allow folks to improve
>>their standard of living, work hard for what they have.  They don't
>                           ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
>Well, sometimes.  How hard is it to inherit a fortune?  Or to swindle
>a S & L?

Come on.  How significant do you think that is?  And in those cases,
what makes you think the inherited wealth would remain?

Wrt S&Ls, the 'rich' you imply left fails institutions because the
Congress deregulated them whilst still insuring them.  That's the problem-
they were allowed to be risky not at their own expense, but at the Federal
governemnt's expense.  The people like Keating were, I think, ethically
flawed, but *did* manage to 'succeed' in a perveted way.  I am speaking
of the principle of working for success.  It is jut that in the S&L
cases, this working and taking investment risks was government-backed.

>>sit around on the dole sucking the energies of the economy.
>>
>>>  *That* is preserving the status quo.  Keeping "them" in their place while
>>>giving "your" people all the real oppurtunities.
>>
>>"Them", "us", "your people"... sounds like YOU'RE the one who believes
>>in class separations.  For me it's simple.  Those that produce should
>>get the gold.  Those that do not...do not.  Sounds imminently fair.'
>
>I assume you therefore mean that the representative portions of the
>Federal government should not be paid? :^)

Probably so, I think.  I am very displeased with the pork-barreling
and demogoguery especially.

>>[...]
>>This is not true.  Conservatives understand that this country got
>>prosperous by acting as a community and being productive.  The
>>Soviet Union died because of the opposite philosophy.
>
>Perhaps it would be fair to say SOME conservatives think this way.

What?  i do not understand.  I think what he meant was that 
US conservatives are generally more pro-market than liberals (who
tend to me more Socialistic (like the old Soviet Union was in extreme)).

>>70% of the federal budget goes to entitlements.  The crap you
>>hear about the defence budget is just that...crap.  We desperately
>>need to stop giving $$ for nothing...allow the populace to gainb
>>some pride by earning a living.  Free up business to provide jobs.
>>Every person employed is another contributor in not only work
>>but taxes.
>
>Absolutely!  
>
>HOWEVER, methinks it is a BIG mistake to waste $2G for a B-2 bomber, 
>and fail to build a supercollider or a space station.  Certainly, 
>one could not successfully argue that the "liberals" are responsible 
>for the B-2 program; therefore in our simple labeling-scheme-world, 
>the "conservatives" must be responsible.  This just goes to show 
>that the "conservatives" can be just as stupid and short-sighted 
>as the "liberals", you NEED ONLy look in the right places!

And for every government 'waste' spawned by conservatives, I see
ten brought about by liberals.  Big Government is a key theme to
US liberalism.

And of course these conservative/liberal labels are not always accurate,
but the do serve to simplify things a good bit.  I could name
most issues and there is a general 'conservative' position, and there
is a general 'liberal' position.  

In addition, I think a lot of the move to in fact produce the B-2
bomber is to actualy see something come from the R&D invested in the project.
All that R&D is/was useful I'd imagine in other areas of Defense.  
If you take the large R&D costs and spread them over so few planes,
voila, the planes are all that more expensive.  Instead of producing a fe
w planes now and then, the desired amount (what the Pentagon recommends)
should be produced all at once to both spread out the R&D costs and
minimize overhead.

And yes, now that there isn't a Soviet Union to threaten us anymore (hail
Reagan!), the B-2 surely is much less needed.  In fact, it would probably
be better spent on B-1s.

>   Dave
>
>Insert standard disclaimer here...
Like: 'The opinions I express are not neccesarily those of my employer?'
.


--
*Dan Stephenson   das9674@usl.edu 
*"It reminds me of something Cally said. 'He who trusts cannot be
*betrayed, only mistaken.' It was a saying of her people.... Cally is
*dead. So are most of her people." -Avon, from _Rescue_ (Blakes 7)