From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:41:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.223948.25318@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>
>>I thought even the media was admitting that the U.S. economy is not
>>doing so badly after all. The crux of the argument rests on what basis
>>you are measuring the strength of our economy.  Relative to the rest
>>of the world, we are up near the top.  Relative to how we were doing
>>in the 80s, we are worse off, but then again the 80s showed the
>>longest period of growth since the late 40s. 
>
>The problem is that the growth of the 80s was centered primarily on
>the already well-off.  The 80s were an age of gluttony which we will
>probably never see again.


The growth was not centered around only the well-off.  Read the thread
on the REAGAN-BUSH RETROSPECTIVE.  By the way, how do you
differentiate between a healthy, robust economy and gluttony?  Why is
making money associated with a cardinal sin?


[concurrence deleted]
>
>>I will admit that George
>>squandered what we had going about five years ago, but if we are in a
>>recession, tell me how raising taxes (as Bill C. has pledged to do)
>>will ameliorate the situation? If we are all "BROKE", then how will
>>giving more of it to the feds make us better off?  The top earners in
>>the country don't have enough to pay for all of us.
>
>Actually, the top earners have a lot of money "socked away" from the
>tax breaks of the 80s.  If they don't pull a seven digit income after
>taxes anymore I'm not going to shed a tear.  They won't be out on the
>street, either, and they'll never starve.


Again, why are the wealthy less entitled to personal property and
prosperity than everyone else?  At what point does one become too wealthy,
so that one suddenly shouldn't be the beneficiary of his own
labor?  



>
>>Incidentally, I do not understand how you expect the president to "get
>>us jobs."  Unless, of course, you think we should all work for the
>>government.
>
>Alot of people will, in fact, work for the government.  Now is a time
>when we're desperately in need of a lot of civil servants.  Our police
>forces are anemically under-staffed, as are our schools.  We need
>programs to help keep kids off the streets and out of gangs.  Those
>programs will need people to staff them.


As of May 1991, there were 3.5 million people employed by the federal
government. (World Almanac) This figure does not include those merely
on the payroll, this is direct employment.  Estimating the country's
population at 275 million, that comes to roughly one person in eighty.
Isn't that more than enough?  I agree with you on cops, but they
aren't usually employed by the federal government.  Our schools, are.
if anything, dramatically over-staffed.  Not with teachers, whom, I
believe, often have difficulty finding a job, but administrators, who
add little, if not detract, from the quality of education.  And on the
call for programs, programs, programs, the idea is not new.  The
number of programs of this sort have grown, but so have the numbers of
kids on the streets and in gangs.  A program won't replace a family.
I'm not saying that all programs are ineffectual, rather that most
are.  Read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind.


David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia