From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:11:53 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <BZS.92Nov10001715@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

>>>The country is in trouble, thanks to the Reagan/Bush "put it on the
>>>credit card" excesses.
>>
>>That odd: The Constitution says _Congress_ controls all spending and
>>taxes. I don't recall this having been repealed. Perhaps we are
>>in trouble, thanks to the liberal, Democratic Congress' "put it on
>>credit" excesses.
>
>When was the last time Congress approved a federal budget which wasn't
>SMALLER than what Bush submitted?
>
>I think you've got your demons all lined up and the facts be damned.

       So, we've established that Congress is ever so slightly more
fiscally conservative than the President.  That isn't much of a consolation
when you're talking about 1.5 trillion dollars and 300 billion dollar
deficits, especially when you consider that a large portion of that money
(remember, it's a budget) was allocated previously and is outside the
President's reach.

>>>The wealthy industrialists benefitted most from
>>>their policies, if for no other reason than it made and kept them
>>>wealthy (that's self-evident)
>>
>>This could be said of _any_ policy that allowed the poor and 
>>middle class to become rich. Nor did government _spending_
>>contribute to the welfare of the rich
>
>How do you figure? Where did that $1 trillion per year go?
>Particularly in terms of largest *recipients* rather than largest
>programs.
>
>How many corporations received single contracts over $1B each? Over
>$5B each? More than a few.
>
>Now unless you are going to argue that those were non-profit
>corporations or that their profits were mostly distributed to
>Americans of average income...
>
>Obviously this will go on in normal times, and is perfectly natural in
>our system.
>
>However, when the country is running $400B yearly deficits we've
>basically created an inverse situation from what is at all healthy,
>essentially robbing from the average guy to give to the wealthy.
>
>Now what would be one way to correct that situation...?

       If the problem is, as you say, that the money is being taken from
the poor to give to the rich, cut government interference and the problem
will take care of itself.  The problem, though, is considerably more
complex. 

>>>...it's not absurd to now ask them to help
>>>solve the resultant problems before they're dragged down by the
>>>effects of the deficit even more than the average person...
>>
>>It might be clear, if you could conclusively and factually connect
>>the well-being of the rich during the 1980s to deficit spending.
>
>I don't have to. All I have to do is point out that the deficit is
>there. That's a fact.

       If you want to attach blame to your fact your do.  Otherwise your
fact just sits there.  (And gets bigger, of course.)

>>defecit spending in the 1980s. With equal validity you could 
>>blame the poor for our current economic crisis. (I, personally,
>>wouldn't: However we got into this mess, we're all in it together
>>and should be trying, on an equal basis, to solve the problem;
>>instead, it seems to be politically popular to point fingers and
>>to try to get someone _else_ to foot the bill.)
>
>Indeed, please give me your thumbnail figures for your "equal
>validity" argument. I gave you mine.

      I dunno.  Considering that the poor have more numbers, and thus more
votes, I'd think they share the blame.

>>>No one is suggesting anything like you describe, I don't remember any
>>>such shrill protests from the defense contractors when Reagan tripled
>>>defense procurements. How come now they have a "right" to be left
>>>alone? They certainly didn't want to be left alone when they were
>>>sucking down those billions of dollars we were putting on the cuff.
>>
>>Defence contractors don't, as a rule, pocket the money the
>>government gives them.
>
>So you are stating categorically that General Dynamics, Lockheed,
>Raytheon etc, none of them made a profit over the last decade?
>
>I think you believe what you want to believe first and then make wild
>statements to try to back it up as an afterthought. Corporations make
>profits or they are not corporations very long. Or is this news to
>you?

      Not unless they get government bail-outs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton