From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Nov10001715@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Nov11.013643.1579@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:07:02 GMT


From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>>When was the last time Congress approved a federal budget which wasn't
>>SMALLER than what Bush submitted?
>
>I'm not sure about every case, but I believe the budget Congress passes
>is generally larger than the Bush administration's requests.

You may believe it, but you would be dead wrong.

>>I think you've got your demons all lined up and the facts be damned.
>
>Why do you say that?

Can't imagine (see last interchange.)

>Congress is certainly more involved in the
>budget process than the President (if you are unclear on this,
>check the US Constitution...) I don't think it is unfair to 
>hold them accountable for the defecit...

The Congress must pass a budget which the president will sign.

That induces compromise.

If the president is submitting larger budgets than congress is
ultimately passing what does that tell you?

There is also the "party leadership" issue, the president can
generally rely on his own party's votes in Congress, so to get a
budget passed is usually just a matter of scrounging up enough others
to make up a majority.

It's just not as simple and one-sided as you state.

>>How many corporations received single contracts over $1B each? Over
>>$5B each? More than a few.
>
>The real question should be, "How many corporations _profited_
>by over $5B each?"

Why should *that* be the real question? You mean to say that unless a
corp profits in the billions then it's not worth mentioning?

>I don't think any did (that would imply 
>contracts worth over $50 billion/year...)

Boy, talk about setting up a straw-man and knocking it over...

>More to the
>point, did the government get its money worth? If the government
>got something in return (which they did) worth the money they
>paid (debateable), the government wasn't giving money to those corporations
>in any sense of the word. On the other hand, there are government 
>programs that give money or services away to the poor.

You have an interesting metaphor here of "government as consumer".

And therefore there is no value to providing for the poor?

The point is the corporations did well. If the govt launches a
$100B/year Star Wars program and goes out and buys lord knows what in
support of that and perhaps gets their money's worth (whatever that
means) then therefore the corporations didn't profit?

I don't see your logic.

Actually, I do. You draw this moral line, these profits are ok, these
aren't, and that's that.

>>I don't have to. All I have to do is point out that the deficit is
>>there. That's a fact.
>
>No, you are asserting that taking care of the deficit is (or should
>be) the responsibility of the rich.

No, you are moralizing again.

I am stating a fact: If the poor are only getting $100B, as you
yourself have stated, and the deficit alone is $400B then it has to
come out of someone's hide other than the poor.

That is simple arithmetic.

Not to mention a certain amount of common sense that you can't get
milk from a bull.

>If (and only if) they benifited
>more than most from this spending should they be responsible.

Only if we accept your moralistic criteria.

If on the other hand we need to pay the money we borrowed back then it
may have to come from people with some money. You're not going to
raise a lot of money from the poor.

>The
>fact of the debt simply proves _someone_ must take responsibility
>not who should.

How about the citizens of the United States of America?

>>Trying desparately to blame it on people who can't possibly pay it
>>back (and making an absurd argument at that, since even you quote only
>>around $100B in poor people's payments which amounts to only 25% of
>>the *deficit*, let alone that it's single digit percentages of the
>>total budget) isn't going to fix the problem, right?
>
>Actually I specifically stated that $100 billion was a _minimum_
>spent on the poor: It does not include social security, AFDC or
>unemployment, since I don't have figures for these.

You think Social Security (the biggest item in your list) goes mostly
to the poor?

Why do you think that? There are millionaires who collect Social
Security, as is their right under the current laws.

Anyone who paid into the system may collect, on reaching a certain
age.

>(Also, most
>of government spending benifits everyone more-or-less equally, so
>numbers around 10% of the budget are quite significant.)

More or less equally? Tell me how the few hundred billion spent on
Star Wars benefits me? Directly, don't give me teary-eyed abstractions
or I'll tell you the warmth that wells into *my* heart when some
hungry kid gets fed.

>Of course,
>I'm left with the question why people who "can't possibly pay
>it back" voted to borrow the money in the first place, and why this
>is a good excuse to dump the bill on someone else?

It's not an "excuse", it may be the only choice however.

But since you believe govt spending benefits everyone more or less
equally what's the problem? The poor are only around 10-15% of the
population, the other 85% will have to pay it back.

>Further, we aren't
>so far in debt that we couldn't handle the matter by cutting government
>spending _without_ raising taxes

Since something like $500B per year is going to just pay the interest
on the debt you may well be wrong. Unless you just suggest we default
on the debt.

>I'm not suggesting heavier taxes on the 
>poor, I'm opposing (unfairly) heavier taxes on the rich.

Yes, you are suggesting that perhaps if we do nothing in taxation and
try to cut spending then perhaps things will work themselves out.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

>>You're the one who could use an argument. Thus far you don't have one,
>>other than that you don't like poor people so blame it on them.
>
>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.

It's not a matter of "blame".

WWII was not your average 18 year old's fault, why did they "blame" it
on him (i.e. made him fight the war)?

That sort of reasoning doesn't really get us very far, does it?

How about: If we can conscience drafting 18 year olds in time of war
to fight and die for their country then why is it outrageous, in time
of financial adversity, to "draft" a few percent of a rich person's
income?

You draft the 18 year old because he has the capability to fight (tho
I could argue that this has been the case historically), so who has
the capability to pitch in to help in times of financial adversity?

>>Indeed, please give me your thumbnail figures for your "equal
>>validity" argument. I gave you mine.
>
>Sorry, I must have missed that post. Could repeat exactly which 
>funds directly benifit the rich, without any equatibly-valued
>goods or services being given in return?

What are you talking about? I own a business, if the govt comes to me
and says here's a $1M for your widgets, including a reasonable profit,
you don't think I benefit?

You have a very strange reasoning process.

>Clearly _some_ profit is fair and deserves, and not a government
>hand out.) this is still only $15 billion/year. You have $85
>billion to go to account for as much money as flows yearly into
>the pockets of the poor.

You're talking clear profit. You don't understand business.

>>Corporations make
>>profits or they are not corporations very long. Or is this news to
>>you?
>
>And it is entirely fair and equatible for them to do so (to some
>extent) in exchange for the services and goods they provide 
>customers. Profit is not automatically charity. (Or it this news
>to you?)

I didn't say it was "charity", you did, another straw man.

They benefitted. Just like you might be willing to fight and die for
the benefit of your freedom, ...

>>They didn't want to be left alone when they were sucking down those
>>billion dollar contracts.
>
>Do they give the government anything in return? Is it, therefore,
>a government hand out? Also, most of the "rich" (say people earning
>over $100 billion) don't get their money from government contracts.

People earning over $100B?

Um, sorry, something just clicked in my head that I may be arguing
with someone with a tenuous connection to reality.

No one on the planet earth earns $100B, at least according to the
popular media.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16686 alt.politics.democrats.d:416 alt.politics.elections:23338 talk.politics.misc:59329