From: gross@monarch.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: [X] -- Put 10% of my Taxes to Paying on the National Debt.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 01:06:01 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <81473@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 8107@dg-rtp.dg.com, gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
>
>>To digress a moment, Congress has taken all of the money in the Social
>>Security fund and replaced it with an IOU.  Someday that IOU will be
>>called.  The problem is that the amount of the IOU is so great, the
>>government can't pay it.
>
>An interesting digression.  When did Congress authorize the administration
>to do this?  I seem to remember Pat Moynihan raising a big stink about
>the administration's tactic, but he didn't get much support from others
>in Congress.  Did Congress officially approve the borrowing gimmick, or
>was it something that the executive branch was able to pull off alone?

Congress did this all on its own.  Notice that SS appears on the "Off
Budget" list.  As I recall, Crane was the person from whom I got some of
my information.  The rest comes from a variety of conservative and
liberal political journals and rags.

The Legislative and Executive branches have been playing a game for a
long time with us.  They have ceased to deserve our trust -- but what
good does it do to keep saying this.  Few listen -- and many who do
still haven't figured out the basic truth -- it doesn't matter which
party is in the White House nor which is in control of the Congress
(both houses).  They get theirs and hang the rest of us!! 
>
>>All this talk of which candidate will be best for the country begins to
>>pale when one looks at the actual troubles the lie ahead of us.  Neither
>>Bush nor Clinton will be able to get us out of this one.  It has been
>>growing through all of the administrations since Roosevelt's time to
>>now.  That is historical fact not merely supposition.  This problem is
>>the fault of both parties and a citizenry that has steadfastly refused
>>to educate itself and force their elected representatives to act
>>responsibly on all accounts.
>
>I agree with much of what you wrote, especially the part that lays the
>real blame on the people who bought the foolishness that their political
>leaders were selling.  But your comment about everybody back to Roosevelt
>being responsible sounds typical of the Republican line recently.  The fact
>is that nothing like our present problem existed before the benighted
>Reagan administration, with its idiotic "supply side" patented snake oil,
>came to power.  The reason we can't pay off the debt is that Congress went
>along with the lunacy.  Now that we finally have to pay for it, our
>erstwhile salespeople are dancing around pointing fingers at each other.

Actually, FDR pulled a fast one on us as well!  He issued his own
version of "patented snake oil."  The depression was by no means over
with when WWII started.  There is no evidence that what FDR did to end
the problems of the depression were in fact accomplishing their task.

At the end of WWII, we had a sizeable war debt.  We also had the funds
to begin paying it off.  What did Truman or Ike do about that!?  Can you
say "Zip, zilch, nada!"?  It was a time of prosperity, as I can well
recall having grown up during the last years of the war (WWII ;-)).  I'm
grateful for the military spending as it paid for my food and clothing
being a service-brat.  Also I got to see a lot of the world thanks to
Uncle -- Iran, Iraq, Palestine, various nations in Europe.  And all this
as a kid to young adult!!

Then along comes Kennedy and Johnson and Vietnam!  O, boy, do I remember
that -- every night when I try to get some sleep and the pain starts!
Or when I wake up in the morning an spend nearly an hour trying to get
this old body to function properly, or at least enough to reduce the
pain so the tears don't flow!  So much for Johnson's Great Society --
Hey, hey LBJ....

Need I go on, my friend!?  Republican or Democrat makes no difference.
The name of the game with professional politicians is power and wealth.
As for Clinton, well, I worked for quite some time in Little Rock.  I
was not impressed with what he had done governor. So excuse me if I'm
not thrilled, or even in hope, that he is running.

>You are right that Clinton doesn't have a total solution to the problem.
>But he has some good ideas, and, once in office, he'll try to take the
>economy back to fiscal soundness.  Like you, I doubt that his present
>plans will come near to doing the trick.  However, when both the Congress
>and the Presidency are controlled by the same party, there will be less
>gridlock in government and more pressure on both branches to fix the mess.
>(BTW, this is Bush's line, too, only his plan relies on changing both
>houses of Congress to Republican control.  Vote for him if you believe
>that that will happen. :-)

Frankly, this makes no sense to me.  Why turn over the government to one
party!?  Ye gads, that is asking for tyranny! ;-)

Rick, the only thing that makes sense to me is to slash spending
drastically and raise taxes appropriately -- like I've said before,
something on the order of a 40 percent slash in spending and an increase
of 50 percent in taxation.  But what happens if Congress and the
President do that -- we'll vote them out the very next election,
provided we don't rebel first.  We, Americans, are good at spending but
very lousy at saving and living within a budget (how about a raising of
hands for those who save at least 10 percent regularly and live to a
real budget!).

The soultions of both parties are still old hat.  They have come up
with nothing new.  In fact, neither presidential candidate has really
addressed the debt problem and what it will mean if not resolved within
the coming three to five years.  I know a lot of folks want Clinton to
be some sort of white knight, but he isn't.  He is a product of the
liberal wing of the Democratic party.  And this is not to say that Bush
is any better. (And no, I wasn't a Perot supporter -- I lived in Austin,
TX, my adopted state, and yes, I do have my passport, for those Native
Texans who are interested.)

My problem is that I have no other alternatives.  I have examined the
Libertarian thinking, and don't find anything in there that gives me any
more hope. 8-(  So, if anyone has some ideas, please post away!  I'm all
ears, or eyes as the case might be. 8-)

Regards,

Gene Gross

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush