From: archer@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: = Opportunity etc.
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:35:50 GMT

In article <7959@dove.nist.gov> hira@cme.nist.gov (Ron Hira) writes:

>In article <ARCHER.720.726846974@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>|> From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)

>|> >|> >What gov't spending is ok?
>|> >Who determines the amounts? 
>|> 
>|> A legislative body with suitable checks by an executive and judicial body 
>|> that is also immediatly responible to the electorate for how the money is 
>|> spent.

>The electorate is in favor of 'social' programs. As a matter of fact,
>the so-called middle class are some of the biggest beneficiaries. 

This doesn't make mandatory participation right.  A closer look at the 
electorate's "favor" will reveal a very strong "other guy pays for it" 
bias.  When you ask people what they are willing to pay for services, there 
is a different answer.  This is while "health care reform" in the form of 
socialized medicine has been stalled.  We as a nation are not willing to 
settle for the level of medical care that we are willing to pay for.

>|> >What about education? Medicine is charity, eh? What do you tell people
>|> >who carry contagious diseases?
>|> 
>|> These are all services  that have to be paid for.  The people who use 
>|> services should be the ones to pay for them.  

>All education should be paid for?? I'm duly surprised even coming from a 
>libertarian.

Not at all.  You get an education, you should pay for it, not the state.

>|> People with contagious diseases should remove themselves from public, as 
>|> they present a hazard of infection.  If they refuse to do so, they are 
>|> assaulting the people around them and should be removed.

>The point of the contagious disease line was to illustrate that actions
>and afflictions by and of others strongly affect every individual, just
>like crime and poverty.

True, and individuals should be responsible for the actions taken.

>|> >|>         1) private charities or businesses can provide the same services
>|> >|>                 with much less overhead and much better accountability to
>|> >|>                 the donors;
>|> >
>|> >Is this really true? How much did the head of United Way earn last year?>
>|> How does one 'police' these charitable organizations? I for one don't>care 
>|> to write individual checks to umpteen charities, as it would be >pretty 
>|> burdensome. I guess you don't believe in economies of scale.>
>|> 
>|> If you want to trust an umbrella organization such as United Way or the 
>|> Federal government to spend your money for you, that's fine.  I prefer to 
>|> control how my money is spent.

>I don't follow. My point was that the United Way, one of those private 
>charities you suggest take over the gov't's role, is quite inefficient. 

Then don't give them your money, allocate it your way, rather than give to 
the United Way.

>|> >This is media hype IMO. I think that most polls support the fact that 
>|> >the majority of Americans support some kind of welfare. 
>|> 
>|> That's true, until you ask them who should pay for it.  The response is 
>|> then "the other guy," or "the rich should pay their fair share."

>This gets into the question of progressivity of the tax system. Should 
>we have poll taxes instead, like Maggie Thatcher tried to push thru
>a few years ago and caused her reign to end?

Elected officials don't reign, monarchs do.  No, we should have, at most, a 
flat tax, suplimented by a lottery.

>|> >Huh? What is the military budget, 24% as you claim? Social programs were 
>|> >just 14%. Be careful about lumping in social security as a social program.
>|> >I'd say that the $300 bill / year budgets are lining some people's 
>|> >pockets, namely the defense industry. 
>|> 
>|> True enought, social security is not a social program, it's a fraudulent 
>|> pyramid scheme that is about to collapse.

>It depends on what you mean by *about* to collapse. In 1983(?) Greenspan 
>headed a commission to overhaul (reduce benefits) the system. As far as
>I know, it is financially healthy for some time to come, at least until
>the baby boomers start retiring. The social security system is a pretty 
>silly system, and it is a prime example of what is wrong with our 
>democracy today. 

>|> >Maybe. Where would that leave all of those workers? On the dole, I would
>|> >guess. 
>|> 
>|> So?  And maybe some of those workers would have come up with a better way to 
>|> compete, or a new industry.

>So?? Those workers when they work, generate revenue for the gov't, 

On the whole, I would bet that they would perfer to generate revenue for 
themselves.

>and 
>when they don't, they live off the gov't. 

No, they live of the taxpayers.

>Who would've benefitted
>if Chrysler went down the tubes?? 

GM and thier employees and stockholders.

>And how do you calculate such 
>benefits. 

You tell me.

>I'd find it hard to believe that the nation overall would've
>been better off letting Chrysler go belly up. 

That's your choice.  Now mind you, I am willing to admit that the government 
doesn't ALWAYS screw up, and the Chrysler loans did not end up in disaster.  
I will not admit that this is not an exception.  As a rule, the state will 
screw up anything it puts its tax-funded hands on, and should be permitted 
to touch as little as possible.

>Keep in mind that the
>gov't made a pretty penny off the repayment of the loans.

The feds insured the loans, they didn't MAKE the loans.  Since Chrysler made 
good on them, they didn't have to pay out.  

>|> >Hey, funny thing is that I don't recall a major homeless problem in 
>|> >1980. 
>|> 
>|> I do.  The homeless have ALWAYS been there, they just have better press now.

>Perhaps, but I would still venture to guess that the problem is much
>more severe today, than 12 yrs ago IMO. The % of people under the 
>poverty line has dramatically increased.

That is because the poverty line has moved.  We are the only country in the 
world whose homeless have a colesterol problem caused by obesity.

>|> >Can't believe that you would discount what *1* man stole from the country
>|> >and innocent people!!!! Remember that this is just one of *many* cases 
>|> >where *deregulation* failed.
>|> 
>|> Deregulation did not fail here:  the insurance scheme did.  The system was 
>|> deregulated and the trustees were allowed to take greater risks, but the 
>|> state maintained the insurance scheme.  So there was NO RISK.  If the 
>|> investments didn't pan out, the government could be counted on to bail out 
>|> the investors, which it is.

>Good answer, but I still don't buy it, the insurance scheme goes hand
>in hand with de/regulation. It is the executive branch's role for 
>enforcement of regulations, and frankly they failed. 

No, they did not.  The regulations were removed, and were not there to be 
enforced.  The failure was in continuing to insure while not regulating 
investments.

>The watchdogs
>were wined & dined by the likes of Keating, and looked the other way.
>Would you suggest that the banking industry go uninsured, like in the 
>20's? 

How about this:  insure and regulate those banks that want it, but permit 
those who wish to to open uninsured or privately insured institutions.  
Current regulations prohibit this.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian