From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:10:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.062447.26229@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec12.223948.25318@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>>>The problem is that the growth of the 80s was centered primarily on
>>>the already well-off.  The 80s were an age of gluttony which we will
>>>probably never see again.
>
>>The growth was not centered around only the well-off.  Read the thread
>>on the REAGAN-BUSH RETROSPECTIVE.  
>
>I haven't seen this thread.  Is it hidden under another Subject: line
>or have I simply missed it.  I'm reading this in
>alt.current-events.somalia, BTW.  Is the thread in another group
>(presumably alt.politics.bush, which I see in the Newsgroups: line)?

It's in alt.politics.clinton.  After you've read it, throw out another
post and I'll respond to that and several of the related arguments
further down in your post if, having heard my remarks in the other
thread, you still hold to them.


>
>>By the way, how do you
>>differentiate between a healthy, robust economy and gluttony?  Why is
>>making money associated with a cardinal sin?
>
>Making money isn't.  Making lots of money at the expense of others is.
>Put aside those who earned money selling drugs and contraband.  You
>have left the liquidators, the inside traders, the dishonest S&L
>executives, etc., etc.
>
>I have only met four of five millionaires in my life, but never have
>I met an honest one.  I'm sure there are honest ones out there, but
>they appear (to me) to be in the minority.  Why has cheating on one's
>taxes become such an acceptable crime?  


   How does one make money at the expense of others?  About the only way
I can think of are through monopolies or cartels, but the U.S. market
is quite competitive, and there are laws against monopolies.  

   The millionaires I know are honest.  Cheating on income taxes, to a highly
profitable extent, is difficult and rare, especially among the
wealthy, who really get reamed when audited.  You hear about it, but
in the absence of an award for exceptionally scrupulous tax returns,
there is little counterplay.  

   You may be referring to loopholes--I've never understood why they
are named such, as if the government made a mistake writing the tax
code and they DIDN'T KNOW people were going to take advantage of it.
Tax laws are tax laws; tax shelters are not some secret bank that the
rich get to hide their money away in.  They are a form of investment,
designed to get people to put their money into it, so the investment
will perform as intended, i.e. a loan of money to the government so
they can afford to pay for our big budget.


>>>Actually, the top earners have a lot of money "socked away" from the
>>>tax breaks of the 80s.  If they don't pull a seven digit income after
>>>taxes anymore I'm not going to shed a tear.  They won't be out on the
>>>street, either, and they'll never starve.
>
>>Again, why are the wealthy less entitled to personal property and
>>prosperity than everyone else?  At what point does one become too wealthy,
>>so that one suddenly shouldn't be the beneficiary of his own
>>labor?  
>
>They're entitled.  They're also entitled to pay a fair share of taxes.
>It's not like they government will be taking everything over a
>particular cap sum of a person's income.  They'll simply be taking
>more from the wealthy than they did before.


How do you determine what a fair share is? In my mind, a fair share is
the same percentage of income as everyone else pays, perhaps 2-3 %
more if you must.


>Actually, I intended to include _all_ governmental employees in my
>above statement, not just those who are employed at the federal level.
>The federal government can (and probably will) affect the state and
>local government's employment of civil servants with various funding
>and regulations.



This is certainly true--I do not think it so desirable to have state and
local relying on the feds for $, but at the current stage of excess, I'd probably be willing to tolerate the bureaucratic waste for more cops.


>
>>Our schools, are.
>>if anything, dramatically over-staffed.  Not with teachers, whom, I
>>believe, often have difficulty finding a job, but administrators, who
>>add little, if not detract, from the quality of education.  
>
>I agree that there are far too many school administrators.  However
>there are far too few teachers and most of them are underpaid, which
>does little to attract new and better ones.  When I was a high school
>student (during the 80s) some folks complained about the 1:30 to 1:35
>teacher-student ratio.  Now I find that I was actually fortunate
>compared to some schools.
>


I agree.  Lose some administrators (the teacher's union is the largest
and most powerful lobby group in the country,) gain some teachers (and
pay them better.)


>>And on the
>>call for programs, programs, programs, the idea is not new.  The
>>number of programs of this sort have grown, but so have the numbers of
>>kids on the streets and in gangs.  A program won't replace a family.
>>I'm not saying that all programs are ineffectual, rather that most
>>are.  
>
>Yes, but _some_ programs work.  The point is that we have to figure
>out what works and apply it to more kids.  It's relatively well known
>that most gang members are in them because there's nothing else to do.
>It's also about the only available source of income for them.


Nothing else to do?  Why don't they go to school? Or get a job? I
don't claim it's easy, but, without a doubt, it's their only chance.


>>Read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind.
>
>I'll at least keep an eye out for it. 

Find it before you do anything else--it'll cow you.

David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.activism