From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:39:46 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov12.005137.27918@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>In article <1992Nov11.035031.22437@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>>>>Now what would be one way to correct that situation...?
> 
>>>Eliminate programs that benifit only one section of society.
> 
>>Which section of society do you want to cut-off. The poor? The old?
>>The disabled? The children? All the above? Where will you weld the knife?
> 
>I didn't qualify that at all: Eliminate _all_ programs that exclusively
>(or prefferentially) benifit _any_ one section of society. If, as you
>seem to think, the rich benifit more from government than the poor,
>then such an approach would _help_ the poor and hurt the rich. Or
>are you now suggesting that it is the poor who preferentially benifit
>from government?

You are mistaking me for the person you were argueing with before. I just 
stuck my nose in. I believe that more money goes to the poor than to the
rich. But the rich don't need it because they are rich. Make sense to you?
It does to me. The question is, do you split a piece of bread between a 
starving man and a fat man just to be "fair"?

>>>Sorry, I'm arguing the reverse: There is no reason to hate 
>>>rich people, so why blame it on them? We are all in this together.
> 
>>I'm sure that is exactly what the homeless person feels when the
>>rich person steps over him and into his limo.
> 
>I see: Hating the poor is inexcusable and wrong, but the poor hating
>the rich is acceptable and a good basis for government policy...

Give me a break. What I was saying was that a person living in a gutter,
and a person living in a mansion have almost nothing in common other
than being both human. So they aern't "in this together". To assume anything
else is just fooling yourself.
>
>>You see despite what conservatives are telling
>>you the social services sector is about to collapse because of the budget
>>cuts all through the 80's.
> 
>I've seen these numbers, and the budget for social services was not 
>cut: It did grow more slowly than the rest of government spending, 
>but that isn't a "cut."
>
You didn't factor in the increasing number of people on social services.
Also, the "growing more slowly" you alluded to is actually not even 
keeping up with inflation. They are closing emergency wards in county
hospitals, children's services, ect. all over California (did this have
something to do with your leaving California? Trust me, it's gotten worse.)
My statement still stands, the social services in this country are
in danger of collapsing. To make massive cuts in them in order to
balence the budget will be to invite crime and suffering of epic proportion.
(unfortunantly, I think that is what is going to happen.)

>>more money for police services because stealing food and money will be
>>the only way for the poor to get by (this is no joke. If you don't 
>>realize it then you should get out of the suburbs more often.) 
> 
>You mean like Oakland, California (where I'd been living for about five
>years before I moved to Colorado)?

Exactly. You should know then (although the Oakland hills are suburbs).
Could the deteriorating conditions in the Bay Area be the reason you
left California?

>>>>>Defence contractors don't, as a rule, pocket the money the
>>>>>government gives them.
> 
>>You haven't been doing your homework then. We aern't talking just
>>profits, we are talking curruption, and it runs into the billions.
>>I believe the name of the investigation was "Ill Wind" (or very close
>>to that). Check out the record of defense contractors during the 
>>80's, and the number of indictments. You might be very surprised.
> 
>Actually, I was following that quite carefully: _You_ might be
>supprised by the number of indictments and the money involved:
>For all the publicity, there weren't all that many convictions
>and the money involved doesn't even approach the ~15 billion/year
>in profits. You are assuming that even _less_ of defense spending
>went to the rich than I am.
>
Whoa! There is a big difference between indictments and convictions.
The Justice Department didn't prosecute nearly as many cases that the
FBI recommended they prosecute. Also, the percentage of profits that 
defense contractors got from government contract was WAY over the 
average profit percentage in the private sector. Soem of the things
the defense contractors got away with in the 80's would have been 
criminal in the private sector (ie. $800 toilet seats, $150 screwdrivers,
ect.). 

>                                            Frank Crary
>                                            CU Boulder

Garrett@Ingres.com