From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (=white ribbon=)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot and "United We Stand"  
Summary: The Coming Clean-up: 1996. 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: just let go and pray
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:43:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.040801.25850@tc.cornell.edu>, 
beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers) writes...
>

>In article <6JAN199319222619@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (=white ribbon=) writes:

>Thanks for the article, very interesting, perspective is nice on occasion.

My pleasure JB.

>In the campaign he seemed to be saying that even if he did not win,
>his UWSA group should try to influence politics.

I'm sure they're out to influence society beyond politics, and 
mainly by giving voice to a previously "silenced" portion of the people.

>Back to why I am replying to this, the comment, bankrupt in '95!
>I just read the popular book about that, it is at home, I am not
>sure the exact title, but it claims we are going to be in bad shape
>by 1995.

<sigh> 

Those who don't learn from history (not directed at you JB) are fools.

Michael Parenti _Democracy for the Few_ (4th Ed. **1983**) p. 112+
	
	One way government keeps business profits high is by
	spending more than it collects in taxes, a process
	known as "deficit spending." The government expends
	billions on behalf of business firms and defense
	contractors, yet cuts business taxes. To meet its
	deficits it borrows from financial institutions, 
	wealthy individuals, and other creditors in the U.S.
	and abroad. Small wonder business people like this
	kind of deficit spending: it allows the federal
	government to subsidize corporate profits and main-
	tain capital accumulation. [Parenti cites _The Great 
	Society_ p. 103].

	Small wonder also that conservative leaders who sing
	hymns to a balanced budget on Sunday are among the 
	wildest deficit spenders during the rest of the week.
	The Nixon and Ford administrations produced record
	peacetime deficits, and President Reagan's budget
	deficits threaten to run off the charts, estimated
	at $120 billion for 1982 and $200 billion for 1983,
	a deficit rate several times higher than previous
	peacetime and wartime budgets. [Parenti cites "Deficit
	Spending -- A Hard Habit to Break" USNWR 12-29-79]

	As government plays an increasingly active role in
	maintaining profit growth, it must spend greater and
	greater sums, borrowing from the future earnings of
	the people to shore up the present earnings of the 
	wealthy. As with the debts incurred by our cities and
	by Third World nations, the U.S. national debt seems
	to grow at an increasingly greater rate. The more the
	government owes, the more it must borrow -- which puts
	it deeper in the hole. In 1940 the national debt was
	$43 billion; the costs of World War II brought it to
	$258.7 billion. By 1970 it climbed to $370 billion, but
	by 1982 it had ballooned to $1 trillion and may reach 
	$1.5 trillion by 1985. [Parenti cites NYTimes 9-30-81]

	As time goes on, the government not only borrows more,
	but does so at higher rates and on shorter terms; hence
	the interest paid on the national debt has been growing
	twice as fast as the budget itself. In 1978 the interest
	payment was $49 billion; in 1980, $75 billion; in 1981,
	$96 billion. This interest payment represents another
	huge hand-out to the wealthy. It is one of the largest
	single items in the federal budget each year, a sum 
	almost three times the amount spent on federal welfare
	payments to the poor. The bulk of this money, drawn
	as taxes from the working public, constitutes an upward
	redistribution of wealth, another manifestation of the
	"siphoning-up" of income.

	Deficit spending, then, serves the moneyed class not only
	by allowing the government to subsidize the corporate
	economy but by providing a relatively risk-free, high-yield
	place for investors who shy away from a depressed private
	market. By buying up government bonds and securities 
	wealthy creditors can put their surplus capital into the
	federal deficit and watch it grow at public expense.

Lester Thurow would agree. And thus "deficit spending" will continue 
until the national goverment goes bust. I say lets help it along by 
stopping resistance. The feds going bust is no big deal -- mainly
hurts speculators.
	
>This is the reason I back ole Ross.  I think fiscal responsibility is
>the most important issue right now.  If UWSA is going to push for this,
>I am behind them 100%.

They will set the facts out -- especially before the politicians and 
candidates, as well as the people. 

I've given up on trying to fight it. Largely because I finally got
over identifying with the old USA, (though I'd been strongly pro-
grammed by over a decade in the military), with the help of folks
like David Nieporent, William Star, Ted Frank, and especially Bill
Clinton. {Mainly, I think when I realized how uhmm... "noble" the
academics thought it was to go off to Oxford for a couple of years,
while other folks served and died in Viet Nam, or were strongly active 
in war protests.} Now that government is academic, it's hardly worth
foolin' with.

So why bother. Just prepare to pick up the pieces when they get
through with it. UWS may have a lot to say about that.

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen   "Tell Ross, only GOD could fix it now."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc