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 04:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov12.023946.29923@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>It does to me. The question is, do you split a piece of bread between a 
>starving man and a fat man just to be "fair"?

If the fat man supplied the materials and baked the bread, I'd call
it more than fair. The question is, "whose bread is it?" Need does
not justify theft. 

>>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."

>You didn't factor in the increasing number of people on social services.
>Also, the "growing more slowly" you alluded to is actually not even 
>keeping up with inflation. They are closing emergency wards in county
>hospitals, children's services, ect. all over California (did this have
>something to do with your leaving California?

Actually, when I left, Califorina had among the highest levels of
social services in the nation. Far more, in fact, than the state
could afford... You can't make unlimited commitments to such
programs (as California has) without things falling apart
eventually. (_That_ is one reason I left.)

>>>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)?

>Exactly. You should know then (although the Oakland hills are suburbs).

(The Oakland/Berkeley border, actually.) People were already doing
a great deal of stealing, even before the California government
started comming unglued... I don't think the social programs had
much direct effect on this, one way or another. 

>>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.

>Whoa! There is a big difference between indictments and convictions.
>The Justice Department didn't prosecute nearly as many cases that the
>FBI recommended they prosecute.

As I recall, there were a large number of technical violations (poor
bookkeeping) that weren't prosecuted due to a lack of criminal 
intent... 

>...Soem of the things
>the defense contractors got away with in the 80's would have been 
>criminal in the private sector (ie. $800 toilet seats, $150 screwdrivers,
>ect.). 

That's largely the result of Department of Defense stupidity, not
contractor greed: Those toilet seats were specifically tested (as
per DoD requirment for _everything_ they buy) to withstand subartic
temperatures, over-pressures and tempreatures consistant with nuclear
explosions, etc... None of these really matter for toilet seats, but
DoD requires it regardless of cost and so the contractors did the tests.


                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
Newsgroups: ba.politics