From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:04:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.213258.29097@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:

>
>just a historical note here....*every* single time taxes were raised in the last
>16 years the debt got bigger, why?  because they spend even more than the
>additional amount that comes in.  conclusion:  raising taxes will *never*
>elimate the debt....cutting spending and a growing economy(and thus mor revenue
>and less people on unemployment/welfare etc) are what it will take.
>i was for perot until he came out for the regressive gas-tax that would sock
>it to the middle and lower class.  cut spending cut spending cut spending.
>not a penny more in taxes ever!


	Cutting spending is a good idea.  I'm a Democrat, but even I
have to admit that. Also, wisely spending what we have, without
spending more, is a good idea as well.
	Unfortunately, I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no
one way that is not going to end up hurting someone in the end. And in
this country, its usually the ones with the most money and/or
political sway who get attention. That usually means the wealthy (who
are always going to be alright, no matter what) and the middle class
(who could loose it all if just two of three different things go
wrong.) So in the end, the poor are going to loose out.
	Perhaps we are finally coming to a place in this country at
which we'll have to decide just what groups in this country are
expendable. We'll eventually have to write someone off and turn our
back on them. My guess is that it will be the poor. Spending cuts
aren't going to touch the wealthy, and the middle class is still large
enough to comprise a voting block that demands attention. So it will
be the poor who are hurt by spending cuts, because they have the least
wiggling room, and not very many people will speak for them. (I'm
beginning to feel that ours is a socioeconomic system that requires
poor people, if for no other reason than to supply someone to occupy
the low-paying-but-neccesary jobs that no one else wants to do.)
	In the end, Americans will never generate enough Christian
Charity and Volunteer Spirit to ease even some of the pains of the
poor. Bush's thousand points of light never happened. I've stood
volunteered in enough soup kitchens and breadlines to know. The ranks
of the volunteers, in fact, are getting thinner and thinner. Mainly
because those middle class folks who once felt the moral obligation to
pass their blessing on to others are now finding themselves so
strapped that it takes everything they've got to hold their own ship
together. Others will have to bail themselves out, and those who can't
are just out of luck.
	We may well have to get used to seeing the poor, sick and
starving crowd our streets (At least until we pass tougher laws
against loitering and panhalding, then they will simply crowd our
jails). And we may have to step over them and tell ourselves that
there's nothing we can do to help them. After all, we can't afford it.
We'll have ourselves to keep afloat.

-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:533 alt.politics.perot:5573 talk.politics.misc:60801