From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Nov11050702@world.std.com>
	<1992Nov12.015339.7494@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:11:38 GMT


From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>I said Congress was _also_ responsible, not that they are _exclusively_
>responsible. I don't understand why people direct all the blame for
>the deficit on the President. He certainly shares _some_ of it, but
>Congress is at least as responsible.

You're appealing to generalities, that's not necessary.

One reason people blame GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH is because he said
he was very happy with the last few budgets.

The same can be said of Reagan.

And based on their stated goals (e.g. Star Wars, defense spending) it
would seem they had good reasons to be happy, they got more or less
what they wanted, a little less, but hey...that wasn't really their
point, was it? I don't remember Bush saying "Congress is forcing me to
cut back the budget", do you?

>>Why should *that* be the real question? You mean to say that unless a
>>corp profits in the billions then it's not worth mentioning?
>
>I didn't suggest the number. Someone else suggest we focus on those
>parties reaping the greatest benifits in dollar terms. I just 
>pointed out that the _profit_ on a contract measures the benifit,
>not the total contract value. (E.g. net not gross profits are
>the benifit.)

And that statement is simply not true.

Profits are certainly *A* benefit.

But if you decide to give me $1B to put me into the tank building
business (whatever), that is, a $1B contract for tanks, and I come out
even on the books the first year, do you think I am equivalent to a
company which didn't get $1B? How much of that $1B went to capital
investment, for example, so now I own tank-building equipment? What
advantage is that next time a tank contract comes up? etc.

Please pass $1B through me and make me spend it all, as a private
corporation, and I assure you I will be a very wealthy person shortly
thereafter, even if I spend every nickel of that $1B (especially
if...)

>>And therefore there is no value to providing for the poor?
>
>There is probably _some_ value (so that not all of the money
>being spent on the poor goes exclusively fro their benifit.) 
>Can you suggest a way to objectively measure this value? If you
>want to support the assertion that the rich benifit more than
>the poor from government spending, you have to: You can't
>compare the benifits if you can't measure them.

Objectively? No, you can't objectively measure such a thing, you can
measure it, but not entirely objectively. These are people, not
objects you can take a ruler and scale to. What's the objective
measure of feeding a hungry child or teaching a person to read?

>>The point is the corporations did well. If the govt launches a
>>$100B/year Star Wars program and goes out and buys lord knows what in
>>support of that and perhaps gets their money's worth (whatever that
>>means) then therefore the corporations didn't profit?
>
>That would, by the way, mean a 33% increase in the defense budget,
>and nearly doubling the spending on defense contracts. In any case,
>if the government "gets their money's worth." Then (by definition)
>the government didn't give away any money. _Both_ the government
>and the corporations profited, but the corporation didn't
>profit at the expense of the government and the budget: It gave
>an equal value to the government in return.

You have a funny logic, please become a govt contracts officer and
don't "give away" $1B to me...

>>Actually, I do. You draw this moral line, these profits are ok, these
>>aren't, and that's that.
>
>I believe I made a distinction between fair profits and graft.

So now money to feed children is "graft"?

>I
>don't want to get into a debate over how much profit is "fair"
>and when it becomes "unreasonable." Are you saying there is
>no such distinction (where ever you draw the line), and no such
>thing as a fair profit?

Of course there is a fair profit. But if you come into my store and
spend $1B of the taxpayer's money can you say I benefited whether or
not I got just a "fair" profit? Or is it all just the same to you?

You also are ignoring large segments of the govt where it is not so
clear, like research grants etc. Or student loans, or aid to
universities, ya know, middle-class people's welfare...not that I
eschew it, but you sure don't notice it.

>>>No, you are asserting that taking care of the deficit is (or should
>>>be) the responsibility of the rich.
>
>>I am stating a fact: If the poor are only getting $100B, as you
>>yourself have stated, and the deficit alone is $400B then it has to
>>come out of someone's hide other than the poor.
>
>The poor don't _only_ get $100 billion, that's $100 billion that 
>goes _exclusively_ to the poor. If all the remainder of the 
>budget benifited rich and poor equally, that would still leave
>the poor ahead of the rich.

But it doesn't benefit the rich and poor equally, obviously, the poor
are still poor. You think some homeless guy sleeping on the street
benefits in the same way as the Frobozz Corp winning a bid to build
high-pressure widgets for battleships?

>>Only if we accept your moralistic criteria.
>
>I didn't suggest that justification: It was asserted (at the begining
>of this whole discussion) that the rich benifit more from government
>than the poor, and therefore deserve to pay a greater share of
>the costs of government. If the assumption isn't true, then this
>justification fails; and there is no reason for inequitable
>treatment.

And I assert that the justification is there but not really needed,
ability to pay a little more is also reasonable to consider in a true
crisis. If we weren't in a crisis then we shouldn't do it, kind of
like the draft.

>Do you consider, "we need the money and you can afford it", a valid
>justification for unfair (e.g. unequal) treatment or for taking
>someone's money? If so, is it, in your opinion, moral for a poor
>man to steal from a rich man? The same justification applies equally
>well.

As justified as "we need your body, so you're drafted" which they
tried to do to me during the Vietnam era.

No one said to me "Barry, the Vietnam war is your fault so you're
going to have to go fight it". They said: You got the wherewithal (18,
healthy) so march forward.

No one said to my dad "WWII is your fault, so you're going to have to
go fight it". Or my uncles, several of whom served in combat.

No one said to my grand dad "WWI is your fault...", but he was in the
trenches.

They gave what they had, risked their lives, spent two years or more
in the mud.

Why? Because it was THEIR fault? Hell no. Because everyone said it was
their DUTY.

Now all of a sudden you're trying to convince me it's based on who's
RESPONSIBILITY it is and what's "fair"? When it's only a few percent
of their f***ing money? They wanted my entire life! Said it was my
DUTY.

Boy, did that sure turn around fast when it was the rich's turn to put
up. Hoo boy.

I'll remember your arguments when/if they try to call my son or
daughter, it isn't HIS/HER FAULT you guys are in a war. Why should
S/HE PAY.

Oh don't tell me, you're against the draft (even in WWII?) Sorry
buddy, maybe it's too late, maybe it's PAYBACK time for some folks,
swallow the same bullshit they tried to feed me, only not the same,
only money for them.

>>You draft the 18 year old because he has the capability to fight (tho
>>I could argue that this has been the case historically), so who has
>>the capability to pitch in to help in times of financial adversity?
>
>So: Unequal taxation of the rich is just as fair and moral 
>as the draft. What, exactly, is your point? Given how fair and
>moral the draft is, this says almost nothing.

Ulp, there ya go.

Too late, give my dad his two years back and undo the last fifty years
he suffered with his legs until it finally ruined his heart and then
maybe we can talk.

Happy veterans day, patriot.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15799 alt.politics.democrats.d:299 alt.politics.elections:22620 ba.politics:6737 co.politics:1585 ne.politics:2698 nj.politics:524 or.politics:421 ny.politics:51 talk.politics.misc:58179