From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:23:44 GMT

dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:

>Sorry, Greg, my mistake.  It's on alt.president.clinton.  If you can't
>find/don't get that group, email me, and I'll send you what I have in my kill
>file.

Hmmm...  Apparently we don't have that at Netcom.  That's surprising
since I'd gotten the impression that Netcom had everything. [They try
;) ]

>>BTW, I take some offense about the fact that you're so sure my
>>opinions will be swung by this thread of news articles.  I find that
>>rather hard to believe, since I base my opinions about the Reagan-
>>Bush era on personal experience and not the media's retrospective.
>>I'm open-minded, not weak-minded.  Besides, even if there were strong
>>points made in the thread (which I can't confirm or deny w/o seeing
>>it) I'd have to find independant confirmation of them before I'd
>>consider them more than just so much propaganda.

>I am not assuming you will change your mind, merely entertaining the
>possibility.  I also know you are open-minded; otherwise your
>responses would be filled with f-words in all caps.  I apologize for
>your unintended misunderstanding.

Ok.  Hatchet buried. ;)

>Liquidation is quite legal, but insider trading is not, and the SEC in
>fact is overzealous in some cases.  Michael Milken, if you examine the
>details of his "crime," did not actually break the law--he was more of
>a scapegoat.  In any case, the S&L scandal was the result of trying to
>do the right thing (deregulation) the wrong way (stopping halfway.)
>The owners of those S&Ls were free to do as they pleased, but the U.S.
>Government kept them under the protection of the FSLIC, so they
>weren't liable.  Clearly this presents a problem, but the effect, I
>believe, was not intended as a way to institutionalize a con game.

In the case of liquidation, I'd like to see some way to protect the
employees.  Unfortunately, about the only fair way to do this is for
the employees to own the majority of the stock, which isn't really
feasible in the smaller companies.  I agree with what you say below
about it being necessary to prune the businesses to keep the economy
healthy, but it's done at the expense of thousands of people and it
only benefits (directly) a handful.  This, in itself, isn't morally
wrong, but it's something that happened enough in the 80s to create a
lot of financially desperate people.  That was my point about getting
rich as the expense of others.

Insider trading is now pretty well policed, but once again it was a
problem in the 80s and it hurt of lot of honest people.  As for the
S&Ls, there were certainly some folks who took advantage of the
governmental protection to make themselves rich.  Most of them are, of
course, sitting in jail or on their way now...

>>I'm not saying that being a millionaire automatically makes one a
>>criminal or a cheat.  I'm saying that it's acceptable behavior among
>>an alarmingly large and growing croud.

>Possibly it is; I do not believe it to be the case.  I will reiterate
>that the cheating is illegal, so let's get the IRS to crack
>down, rather than decide it's okay to hit everyone with a punitive
>levying of taxes, on the assumption that a high number of those
>affected may be committing illegalities. To wit, direct the defense to
>the area under siege.

I agree.  The IRS needs to crack down, but they have to have the staff
and funding to do so.  So far, few elected officials have felt the
need to suggest or back any support for the IRS.  The voters wouldn't
like it, because in the public opinion the IRS is the enemy of the
people.  

>>Loopholes are a different case.  No, the legislators aren't so dumb as
>>to not know they're there.  It's a simple fact that the holes came
>>into existance and remain open due to lobbyists.  It would be
>>political suicide to advocate closing many of them.

>These that you mention here are not good, I agree, but they are
>directed at specific industries or specific companies, _not_ the
>wealthy as a whole.  Let's kill the special interests' meddling, by
>all means--such exemptions are just a particularly skunky form of
>pork.

Yep.  Though once again, where's the incentive for elected officials
to legislate the special interests out of business?  Most of the
public is willing to put up with it, apparently, and candidates that
refuse the funding don't have much of a chance of winning.

>>As it is, the wealthy _can_ afford to pay a higher percentage than the
>>middle and lower classes.  They won't starve.  They won't lose their
>>homes.  It's unlikely they'll feel it in any other way than
>>psychologically.

>Certainly they are capable of forking it over, just as I am capable of
>doing without an extra CD or an expensive bottle of scotch.  We cannot
>descend to the point of deciding taxes based on who can afford to pay,
>because we run into the difficulty of where that amount ends up.  You
>are a reasonable man by your take on taxes, but at some points in our
>nation's history, the highest tax bracket was 75-90%.  The Swedish
>even now pay out the ass for their socialist state.

I'm not trying to suggest such drastic taxes.  I'm saying that the
wealthy can afford to pay 2-3% more, and even at that I'd like to see
it moved back to a flat rate once the tax base is improved.

>These highly graduated tax brackets are, in effect, a redistribution
>of wealth.  For where does the extra contribution of the wealthy go?
>Certainly not to the benefit of everyone, as if it were providing for
>the national defense.  No, this money goes to entitlements and the
>like.  It does not go toward the deficit, I can assure you; I read the
>text of the Save Our Nation's Cities plan that David Dinkins just sent
>over to Bill C.  It calls for supplemental spending, which, if you're
>not familiar, means borrowing more money and _adding_ to the deficit.
>If they're going into debt on that, you can be pretty sure the extra
>$10 billion scraped out of the wealthy won't countermand it.

Well, for the moment the extra money is needed.  I don't expect the
deficit to decrease (and it may increase -- one can only guess at this
point) anytime soon.  What we need is the extra money to boost the
economy.  Get it growing again at better than a snail's crawl and
_then_ worry about the deficit.

>That its only affect is psychological (plus financial) is irrelevant,
>for to my way of thinking, a man who is successful and performs well
>for his country by producing great things should reap the benefits of
>his labor.  His skills help the economy, our level of technology, our
>standard of living in general--let's not kick him in the face for it.

Once again, I'm not suggesting that we do anything so drastic.  The
amount of increase I'm talking about will probably not even keep
anyone from getting that extra CD or that expensive bottle of Scotch.
At worst it might make a visible difference in the bank balance.

>Bill Gates, for example: even professional athletes are envious of his
>kind of cash, but he earned every penny of it, because he makes good products.

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion. ;)

Also, you could hit Bill Gates for a few hundred thousand in extra
taxes and he'd only notice on paper.  It wouldn't affect his lifestyle
one bit.

The subject of Bill Gates reminds me that we need some serious
litigation reform, too.

>I will make the same argument for those athletes and even the
>liquidators; excluding illegal activity, these people are paid for
>what they do.  Someone thinks it's worth millions to have a guy who
>will hit little balls out of your park, he'll pay that much.  If he
>thinks a good catcher who costs less is a better deal, the pinch
>hitter will have to accept a lower salary or go elsewhere.

While I feel that professional athletes are entitled to a significant
amount of money, especially due to their rather short careers, I think
the amounts many receive today are ridiculous.  In other words, I
don't think anyone can hit a ball well enough to really deserve
multiple millions of dollars per year.  Pro sports tickets are being
priced out of the reach of many people, and with the trend toward
pay-per-view they're going to price themselves out of business.

>Larry the Liquidator is good for us, too, for he maximizes efficiency
>in our nation's companies.  Strong companies, you'll notice, do not
>get bought up and hacked to pieces.  It's always the little squeakers
>who made a couple of bad moves or the aging giants, now obsolete.  This
>efficiency ensures that we always have the best technology, that the
>right employer will find the right employee faster, and that there are
>lower prices.  Although the U.S. still supports the agricultural
>industry, we have no need for so many farmers.  A hundred years ago, a
>substantial chunk of our citizens were involved in the business.  Now
>it is many less, which is fantastic--survival, the simple production
>of food is no longer as crucial a part of our economy; those people
>can move on to more beneficial areas.

I agree that liquidators keep the business economy healthy, but the
employees of these companies often have little say about the
circumstances that made their company so ripe for the picking anyway.
These people are left without work, so they increase the burden on the
government by receiving unemployment and not paying taxes.  Perhaps
the answer is a surtax on liquidation income to help foot the bill.
Yes, it reduces the income made, but liquidators _are_ directly
putting people out of work.

>>Significant work should be done with the extra money to increase the 
>>tax base by improving the working conditions of the lower class
>>taxpayers.  

>I don't see it as the responsibility of the wealthy.  Any job is a
>contract between the employer and the employee.  Both sides have to
>agree to the terms.  Besides, with the strength of the unions these
>days, I think you needn't worry about the conditions of the working
>class.  Ever drive by a construction site? Count the number of
>workers.  Now count how many are working.

I'm no fan of unions.  Many have violated their original raison d'etre
of protecting the employees and have moved on to legally-sanctioned
extortion.

The people who are working in unionized jobs are doing fine.  It's
those who aren't unionized and those who aren't working at all.  Yes,
I believe it's the humanitarian responsibility of those who can afford
to pay a little extra.  The current so-called "free" market doesn't
give these people a chance.  Ross Perot, Bill Gates and Michael Dell
are extremely rare cases of ability and a good bit of luck, and given
conditions today it's possible that none of them suceed if they had to
start over.

>>[I removed the parts where we agree.  I'm glad we do, though.]  

>So did I and so am I--maybe we'll eventually have pared this down to just
>a few MB <g>.

Possibly. ;)

>>Getting them to go to school is part of the point of the programs 
>>[what alliteration! ;)].  As for getting a job, there has to be a job 
>>to be gotten first...  

>Admirable alliteration, but never neglect the importance of individual
>responsibility in arresting academic apathy.  Regarding the rest, I
>live not more than a mile from the heart of Harlem.  Edifying employment
>emplacement is evident and effluent.

;)

Interest in education has to begin at home, but it has to be
perpetuated at school.  

>>Again, please don't be so condescending as to think my opinions can be 
>>changed so easily.  

>It is not condescending to suggest a work which presents relevant
>information in more detail than I have time to relate.  It is not in
>my power to change your opinions--only you can do that.

Well, to suggest that "it'll cow [me]" seems a bit smug to me, but I
guess it's a matter of intentions and interpretations.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:672 alt.politics.org.un:199 alt.president.clinton:1197 talk.politics.misc:64839 alt.politics.bush:14744