From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:12:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct9.202212.18241@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:

>>    Perot
>>    wants to raise taxes and increase the role of government in the economy
>
>As you see it.  Perot also wants to slash spending and allow business
>more freedom in many areas.   You seem unable to distinguish between
>control and incentives.

   Any "incentive" carries with it a defacto "disincentive".  So you're
   right; I don't see any distinction.  


>>    Anyway the concept of government enforcing "shared pain" is bogus for
>>    two reasons:
>> 
>>    1.  Any serious attempt to eliminate the deficit and start paying
>>        down the national debt will produce PLENTY of pain to go around
>>        in the form of double-digit unemployment.
>
>Perot's plan is a intended to create long term growth and prosperity.  

  That's what they all say.  Eliminating the deficit and reducing the 
  role of government in the economy will in the long run do this.
  The fomer can be done with spending cuts, and the latter is not
  in Perot's vocabulary.


>>    2.  Why SHOULD the pain be distributed equally?   It should be mainly
>>        directed at those who advocated massive government programs and
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>        huge deficits in the first place.   Those groups and industries 
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>        who have been promoting this nonsesne are the ones who should
>>        pay.
>
>You mean like people who used social security payments to buy racing
>bikes, stereos and camera equipment? 

  No, I mean people who advocated these things.  I wasn't even old
  enough to vote when I got my new stero courtesy of Uncle Sam's
  Welfare for the Affluent.    As I said, I'm not running a charity;
  if some stranger gives me $100 legally I'll take it and feel no guilt
  but that doesn't mean I don't think he's a little nuts.
  
>  You mean like every citizen of the United States, each and every
> one of which benefited from the security of a huge defense budget?

  This is likewise bogus, since it cannot be shown that I or anyone
  except defense contractors, army brats, and military personnel
  benefitted from this.  And that's *some* of who I mean.  

  I'm taking about these and farmers who get price supports, and
  lawyers who benefit from complex regulations and tax laws which
  need explaining, and other "experts" and "consultants" who
  similarly suck from the public teat.  And space travel and super-
  collider enthusiasts who want the government to buy all their
  expensive toys for them.  And social engineers who think that every
  problem ever discovered needs a new social service agency.
  And wealthy retirees who continue to oppose means testing for
  social security.  And artists who expect the taxpayer to pay for 
  their paint, canvas, beakers, chains, whatever.

  There are enormous numbers of people either employed directly
  by the government, or employed as a result of the demands of
  federal laws or federal contracts, who continue to support
  the idea of a large activist governement.  THESE are the 
  people I'm taking about. 
  

>We're all guilty.

  Speak for yourself.  I totally reject this political equivalent
  of original sin!   Many people have actively supported bigger
  government or candidates dedicated to "bringing home the bacon"
  and it's time for THOSE people to get their comeuppance.


---peter









Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51543 alt.politics.clinton:10247 alt.politics.elections:16606