From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:40:21 GMT

In article <21648@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.041448.21874@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:

>But the government doesn't have to provide EVERY SINGLE SERVICE known to
>mankind.  The STATES are free to provide services.  One such service MIGHT
>be the assumption of debts related to all the pork a state has received.

The idea that the Federal government could be funded solely through the Poll
Tax and the State government would have regular taxes is bogus.  After all,
the States could reimbose both the taxes and the services that the federal
government does now.


>>The idea that the Poll Tax would raise enough revenue to pay interest on the
>>national debt is laughable, and anyone with an ounce of economic sense knows
>>that treasury notes, bills, and bonds become worthless if the government
>>stops paying interest on the debt.
>
>Then I suggest we repudiate the debt.  Most of the money that was handed
>out was done so through fraud.  Our Congressman KNOW that they can't keep
>spending at an ever increasing rate, and I'd say it is high time we undid
>the damage they've done.

I think there is a lack of appreciation for the consequences of defaulting on 
the debt among you and some other people on Usenet.  It is possible that 
capitalism as we know it would cease to exist.  For decades or even centuries 
to come people would reason that, if what has long been considered the best 
credit risk on the entire planet (the American government) defaults on their 
debt, then it would be logical to assume that nothing is credit worthy and only
a fool would lend money to anybody.  Thus one of the main pillors of the
international capitalistic economic system would be gone causing the collapse 
of the whole system.  It would be ironic indeed for capitalism to self-destruct 
so soon after triumphing over communism.

If the death of capitalism doesn't concern you, how about the death of the 
U.S. dollar along with all dollar denominated financial assets.  People will
be damn mad that their life savings was wiped out just so that tax rates could 
be lowered.  Pretty much anyone with even a small net worth would lose more 
money than they save on taxes.  The only people who would benefit would be 
workers at Canadian printing presses.

>>The government has never gone bankrupt before and defaulted on the national 
>>debt (which answers your question), at least not since the Revolutionary War. 
>>Why hasn't the country defaulted on the national debt before?  (1) The Poll 
>>Tax was never the sole nor the main source of revenue for the government.
>>(2)  We have never had a $3.5 Trillion national debt before.
>
>1). Of course not.
>2). It's now $4T.  Are you getting interested in reform yet?

I am interested in reform, but not in going backwards.

>>Even if you accepted the notion that Americans would be willing to return to
>>the past, and forgetting for the moment that conditions in the country are
>>quite different from what they once were, the new political system you propose 
>>we all adopt does not resemble anything from the past.
>
>1). The conditions are very much the same.

Oh?  I wasn't aware that during the 19th century...

(1) Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhistan, Byelorussia, France, Britain, and possibly 
    China had the capability of destroying all our cities 30 minutes after 
    making the decision to do so.
(2) We had a $3.5/$4 trillion debt.


>2). It actually does.

You just agreed that the Poll Tax was never the main source of revenue
for the government.  Now you are contradicting yourself in the same post.

>Prior to the 16th Amendment, the government was kept small because it didn't
>have the power to tax the shit out of us.  Various use taxes, such as canal
>fees and poll taxes, paid for all of government.  

We have never in the past had a government that funded itself solely or
mainly or even significantly by selling the right to vote.

>WE DON'T NEED ALL THE
>GOVERNMENT WE ARE PAYING FOR SO WE SHOULD STOP PAYING FOR IT.

If everybody stopped paying their taxes because with they don't agree
with everything the government spends money on there would be no government. 
If we have no government the Cubans will be happy to provide us with one.

>Maybe a Poll Tax is the dumbest idea every dreamt up, and being USENET that
>is probably pretty close to the truth.  But the simple reality is that the

Are you admitting a mistake here?  I didn't know you were capable of doing
that. :-)

>current system is only going to keep the politicians in power in a position
>where they can waste trillions of dollars and have you and I pay for it.  If
>we can get back to a system of use taxes for specific services (that is, if
>you want to be eligible for welfare, you pay a fee that lets you collect
>welfare).  Fred will jump up and down about "externalities", but I suggest
>he start finding ways to turn these "externalities" into something that can
>be presented as a "use tax."

Yes the government sometimes wastes money.  And the government spends money
on some things I wish it wouldn't.  But I don't mind my tax dollars being 
spent on something if it is either (1) in the best interest of society as a
whole, or (2) its the right thing to do.


-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton