From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:51:37 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov11.035031.22437@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>>>Now what would be one way to correct that situation...?

>>Eliminate programs that benifit only one section of society.

>Which section of society do you want to cut-off. The poor? The old?
>The disabled? The children? All the above? Where will you weld the knife?

I didn't qualify that at all: Eliminate _all_ programs that exclusively
(or prefferentially) benifit _any_ one section of society. If, as you
seem to think, the rich benifit more from government than the poor,
then such an approach would _help_ the poor and hurt the rich. Or
are you now suggesting that it is the poor who preferentially benifit
from government? If so, what excuse is there to over-tax the rich?

>>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.

>I'm sure that is exactly what the homeless person feels when the
>rich person steps over him and into his limo.

I see: Hating the poor is inexcusable and wrong, but the poor hating
the rich is acceptable and a good basis for government policy...

>Despite your obvious bias for the rich, you have a point.

How is arguing that everyone, rich and poor alike, deserve equal
treatment, an "obvious bias for the rich"?
 
>However you
>are approaching this from the wrong direction. The question is "Who can
>afford to pay for it?" 

No, the question is, "How can we _fairly_ pay for it?" Taking someone's
money, for no better reason than "he can afford it", is not even
close to fair.

>You see despite what conservatives are telling
>you the social services sector is about to collapse because of the budget
>cuts all through the 80's.

I've seen these numbers, and the budget for social services was not 
cut: It did grow more slowly than the rest of government spending, 
but that isn't a "cut."

>more money for police services because stealing food and money will be
>the only way for the poor to get by (this is no joke. If you don't 
>realize it then you should get out of the suburbs more often.) 

You mean like Oakland, California (where I'd been living for about five
years before I moved to Colorado)? In any case, I'm not talking about
taxing _any_ income up to the cost of living.

>	Now we can always do what people usually do (and what will 
>probably be done again), and that is raise taxes on the middle class.
>The problem with that is, taxes were raised on the middle class all 
>through the 80's by the states to make up for the money that Reagan 
>wasn't sending anymore. To further complicate this, is that the middle
>class is shrinking because millions of good paying jobs left the 
>country during the 80's and were replaced by low paying service jobs.
>You can't keep demanding more from the middle class, or you will end
>up with frustrated, formerly working people shooting at police and
>tax men.

Then perhaps we should reduce government spending: The people on
average can't afford it, and are (in your opinion) unwilling to 
pay for it.

>>>>Defence contractors don't, as a rule, pocket the money the
>>>>government gives them.

>You haven't been doing your homework then. We aern't talking just
>profits, we are talking curruption, and it runs into the billions.
>I believe the name of the investigation was "Ill Wind" (or very close
>to that). Check out the record of defense contractors during the 
>80's, and the number of indictments. You might be very surprised.

Actually, I was following that quite carefully: _You_ might be
supprised by the number of indictments and the money involved:
For all the publicity, there weren't all that many convictions
and the money involved doesn't even approach the ~15 billion/year
in profits. You are assuming that even _less_ of defense spending
went to the rich than I am.

>> You have $85
>>billion to go to account for as much money as flows yearly into
>>the pockets of the poor.

(More, since the $15 billion I assumed accounted for, e.g. defense
contractor profits, you have just dismissed as irrelevant.)

>I have to ask. What exactly do YOU "think" that the poor do with 
>this money? Buy lots of drugs and booze? 

I neither know nor care. The fact is, a great deal of federal money is
going to the poor, and (given this) you can't reasonably claim 
the rich get more out of government than the poor.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
Newsgroups: ba.politics