From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:45:11 GMT

In article <BxrEvq.2Hv@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <BxKFp4.EIG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>In article <lg2innINNpfm@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>>|>Brent Irvine writes (think this is his):
>
>>If those are the rules, you obtained them legally, therefore (the discussion
>>was trying to come up with a definition for EARNED) you EARNED your money,
>>and did not have it taken away.  
>
>I disagree.  If the money was simply given to a recipient (say, food stamp
>recipients or Chrysler) then he did not earn it!  It may be LEGAL, but it's
>not JUST.



>
>>Yes, it is earned, it is totally unfair to everyone else, but it is earned.
>
>What's unfair about allowing people to trade without interference or fraud?
>Does the fact that some will be rich and others poor make everything in that
>system unfair?  I think it is QUITE fair that I have money and the panhandler
>outside doesn't.  I EARNED that money and he did not.
>
>>>Are you saying that if the government decides slavery is legal for all
>>>persons with red hair, that you will have EARNED the right to go and
>>>enslave a person with red hair (assuming you don't have red hair)?  Or that
>>>if you do have red hair, you should not fight becuase you have EARNED the
>>>right to be a slave?
>
>>I never said that you should lie down and accept what is passed down.  In 
>>fact, if you had read the whole post (yes, i know it got kind of confusing),
>>you should have picked up that I felt that while the Wall-Street movers
>>and shakers had been allowed to EARN their fortunes via favorable rules,
>>I felt it was unfair and should be changed in a way that did not rely
>>upon the debunked "trickle down" garbage.
>
>What's so unfair about being allowed to earn a living?  Who is being
>unfairly treated?  The uninvolved masses?  The customer in the trades?

The tax laws were such that the government subsidized a lot of the 
wealthy (because that is who could afford it) investment by having
all kinds of deductions and actual lower taxes.

By your definition this is little different from food stamps or that
"loan" to Chrysler (which was from a BANK, just guaranteed by the
government.  It was paid off early as well).  So the rich you defend
so much are just as subsidized as thos panhandler you are so happy to have
out in the cold.  (except food stamps help with necessities, not luxuries
which makes the trickle down much more indiseous)(.

>there are a lot of us (myself inlcuded) who are making lots of money
>in the 1990's.  Should we be punished in compensation for the "sins" of the
>80's too?  What's just about that?

iRaising the tax rate to before trickle down is not punishment!  It is 
just putting it back to what it was before!  You do not have the "right"
to tiny taxes (in percentage terms) any more than i have the right
to take your money.  If it helps you, great, but think about the
government subsidies you get as well (tax deductions not available
to most people -- BTW if you don't use many of them, then the "taxc
hike" probably wont perceptibly "hurt" you)
 
>
>
>--Brian


-- 
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         |These opinions are the opinions of the majority of |
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | space aliens currently in residence in the USA.   |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8629 alt.folklore.urban:29325