From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: More on Reagan
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:22:34 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul20.183255.29318@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
> In article <11317@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |> In article <1992Jul15.132425.28460@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
> |> > In article <11291@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |> > |> In article <1992Jul13.201347.27492@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
# |# # |# # Don't ask us liberals where the tax money has been going.  Domestic spending
# |# # |# # has greatly decreased under Reagan's and Bush's programs.  Yet, debt
# |# # |# 
# |# # |# Source?  I have figure for the U.S. budget for the period 1979 through
# |# # |# 1985.  Education Dept.?  Went from 10,713 million to 16,682 billion.
# |# # |# Health and Human Services?  Went 181,186 million to 315,553 million.
# |# # |# Housing and Urban Development Dept.?  Budget rose from 9,218 million
# |# # |# to 28,671 million.  The Consumer Price Index rose 48% during that
# |# # |# same period of time, so the Education Dept. experienced a net increase
# |# # |# in funding of about 7%.  Health and Human Services went up 26%, after
# |# # |# inflation.  HUD had an increase of about 250% in funding.
# |# # |# 
# |# # |# This is a great decrease in domestic funding?
# |# # 
# |# # Exclude entitlements.
# |# 
# |# Why?  Your original statement, "Domestic spending has greatly decreased
# |# under Reagan's and Bush's programs," has been shown to be false.  The
# |# entitlements are domesting spending, and most of it for the ostensible
# |# purpose of helping the poor and elderly.
# 
# The problem of most of the entitlement charges is that they go to supporting
# the current health system, which is one reason why the impact of the greying
# of America is such an important and growing issue.  Since so many facets of
# medicine have been able to write their own checks without a motivation to
# control costs, and since this facet of the budget is not under discretionary
# control, this problem is clearly in a different category from other facets of
# domestic spending.

Fine.  Let's drop the Health & Human Services budget above, and assume
that ALL the increase in HHS was entitlements.  Housing and
Urban Development does nothing with medicine.  Neither does the Education
Dept.  Which entitlements are taken care of by the Education Dept.?

# |# # |# # has gone up.  Entitlements?  Most of us are getting older and greyer.
# |# # |# # Any one medical problem is enough to wipe out our life savings, and
# |# # |# # anything we'd like to give our kids.  Yet, the cost of medical services
# |# # |# 
# |# # |# That's what health insurance is for.  What sort of fly-by-night
# |# # |# outfit is the IBM company you work for, that they don't give you
# |# # |# health insurance as a fringe benefit?
# |# # 
# |# # Most of the US doesn't work for IBM.  Many companies do not include health
# |# # insurance in their pension packages (IBM does, but there are limitations,
# |# # of course).
# |# 
# |# Very true.  But why, "Most of us..." if it didn't include you?  Remember
# |# that many of the uninsured in this country can afford to be insured,
# |# but (stupidly) choose not to.
# 
# "Most of us" refers to people who work for some employer for their income.
# Most employed workers (I AM an employee) in the US don't get the benefits
# that IBM offers.  Further, most workers who HAVE HAD such support are finding
# benefits are being reduced.

Most employed people in the U.S. DO have health insurance.  Remember,
there's about 32 million Americans who aren't covered (not all because
of financial need).  That leaves about 220 million who ARE covered.
Most of those are covered by employment related insurance.  Your 
statement that "'Most of us' refers to people who work for some employer
for their income" is simply wrong.

# Most people in this country cannot afford individual health insurance and meet
# their current debt costs, housing costs, etc.  

Most people don't need to, either.

# |# # |# # During Reagan's first primaries, he promised every tax payer a $1,000.00
# |# # |# # rebate.  I'm still waiting for mine.
# |# # |# # 
# |# # |# # Dan
# |# # |# 
# |# # |# I've certainly received far more than that in tax reductions.  I wish
# |# # |# that he could have done something about reducing the amount of government
# |# # |# "services" as well.  Any more servicing by the government, and I would
# |# # |# have to take a second job.
# |# # 
# |# # My taxes have gone up significantly.
# |# # 
# |# # Dan
# |# 
# |# Oh?  As a percentage of income?  Or because you now make 2-4x what
# |# you made in 1980?
# 
# I make a lot more than 2-4X's what I made in 1980... (they didn't pay graduate
# students that much then).  However, if you didn't notice, I'm being rather

I don't doubt that your taxes have gone up then.  I *COULD* tell you that
my federal income tax went from 50% under Carter, to 9% today, but
that would overlook that I've gotten married, had children, and bought
a house.  Even without those things, however, my tax rate would have
dropped dramatically.

# tongue-in-cheek (that phrase has a non-literal meeing too... look it up).
# However, there is a point to the sarcasm.  The amount of my tax $'s that goes

Oh, you mean we weren't supposed to believe that you really meant what
you said.  Why should we believe anything else, now that you admit that
the statement wasn't honest?

# to servicing the debt has gone up significantly.  All that money goes into

Certainly.  The problem of the deficit is serious.  Congress and the
President have a lot to be embarrassed about -- Congress especially,
because THEY PASS THE BUDGET!

# the pockets of people who have purchased government bonds.  That means they
# have put their capital in a place that is not providing growth, and they're
# reaping rewards for not doing anything with their money to rebuild the
# economy (such as investing in companies that would buy equipment to
# build more stuff to sell to people who were making the equipment that
# they buy from, etc...).  There's been another thread around here about
# the impact of the capital exodus from Argentina.  In a way, we are subsidizing
# a capital exodus from our own country via the national debt.  Most of this
# grew under the Reagan budgets.

Yup.  With Congress' active participation.  The problem is real, and
it will destroy this country, because democracy lacks the will to
fix a problem this serious.

# Dan


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: soc.history