A sick way to run a country
Harry Hope
From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
currently on the SSI program must lose essential
benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
family together. It is estimated that an equal
number will have to be denied access to this
lifeline program over the next six years. This
equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
critical benefits.
As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
with glee.
Harry
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Zarlenga
Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
: goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
: currently on the SSI program must lose essential
: benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
: family together. It is estimated that an equal
: number will have to be denied access to this
: lifeline program over the next six years. This
: equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
: severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
: critical benefits.
: As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
: with glee.
Says right there at the top that it's the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S
budgetary goals that are the cause, yet you blame the "right-wing."
Why? Is Clinton right-wing now? Has the left disowned him so soon?!
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
AMA on Clinton's drug policy: "Misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane."
K. Knopp
In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com
(Harry Hope) wrote:
> From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>
> To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
> goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
> currently on the SSI program must lose essential
> benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
> family together. It is estimated that an equal
> number will have to be denied access to this
> lifeline program over the next six years. This
> equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
> severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
> critical benefits.
>
>
>
> As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
> with glee.
>
> Harry
Would such disabilities include ADD?
Harry Hope
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>>
>>To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
>>goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
>>currently on the SSI program must lose essential
>>benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
>>family together. It is estimated that an equal
>>number will have to be denied access to this
>>lifeline program over the next six years. This
>>equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
>>severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
>>critical benefits.
>>
>>
>>
>>As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
>>with glee.
>>
>>Harry
>>
>>
>Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?
Yes.
The Arc of the United States, a national
organization on mental retardation. Founded in
1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
retardation.
Anti-rumor
Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5ddpph$h...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
> m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>
>
snip
>>
>
> >Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?
>
> Yes.
> The Arc of the United States, a national
> organization on mental retardation. Founded in
> 1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
> organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
> retardation.
>
There are some mentally retarded people who have no ability to function and
are fed, diapered, and cared for their entire lives AND there are some who
lead productive lives complete with a job and friends and there are many
who are not at either end of the extreme. All are disabled, but again,
some are more seriously disabled than others. One mentally retarded young
man I knew who lived in a town where I once lived, held a job, belonged to
the local JCs and was a really neat, hard-working, and independent person.
Therefore one must wonder who did The Arc get to put those figures
together? I am sure that the organization does much good and I have no
problem with it what-so-ever, it is, however in the organization's best
interest to paint the worst possible picture to get the sympathy of the
general public in order to get contributions. Therefore, that organization
cannot be considered a totally unbiased source. I am not putting the
organization down, simply trying to be realistic about using it as a source
of information when it comes to getting government money for the disabled.
Anti-rumor
Jill E. Deel
Harry Hope wrote:
>
> From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>
> To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
> goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
> currently on the SSI program must lose essential
> benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
> family together. It is estimated that an equal
> number will have to be denied access to this
> lifeline program over the next six years. This
> equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
> severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
> critical benefits.
>
> As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
> with glee.
> Harry
Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
tommorow, and my kids will be living in a tommorow that selfish tax and spend
liberals never think about. What will you tell them when they are paying a
85% tax rate to pay off a debt that has *already* been spent? That we helped
a lot of people *before* they were even born? Doesn't matter that they won't
even be able to help themselves, they will have the comfort of knowing that
we helped a lot of people before they were born. (It will be a great comfort
to them won't it.)
I wonder what they will have to say about your "compassion."
No one is rubbing their hands with glee about this, but somewhere, sometime
someone has to cut up the "National Credit Card." We are broke! Get a clue!
I am sick and tired of you liberals thinking there is no tommorow and then
accusing the right of being selfish. It is *YOU, YOU, YOU* that is selfish
for only thinking of yourselves and failing to think about those that
will have to carry on in the future. There will be people in it too, you
know!
What price will my children have to pay just to satisfy your
"compassion" and your vanity?
Jill E. Deel
vale...@megalinx.net
Jill E. Deel
<snip>
> >>As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
> >>with glee.
> >>
> >>Harry
> >Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?
>
> Yes.
> The Arc of the United States, a national
> organization on mental retardation. Founded in
> 1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
> organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
> retardation.
Sounds to me like the usual smoke and mirrors, "three million homeless" ploy.
You mention a number of children that might lose benefits. What your report
does *not* mention is little things like if those children are losing their
benefits based on their parents ability to pay, level of retardation, or
private foundations in their community. Not *everyone* needs help from the
federal nanny. A lot of times it is just *easier* to get help from the
federal nanny. It is just real nice and easy to look at this from a simple
platform of numbers, but that doesn't cover a lot of variables that your
article does not choose to mention.
Jill E. Deel
vale...@megalinx.net
kenfran
Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> Harry Hope wrote:
> >
> > From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
> >
> > To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
> > goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
> > currently on the SSI program must lose essential
> > benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
> > family together. It is estimated that an equal
> > number will have to be denied access to this
> > lifeline program over the next six years. This
> > equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
> > severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
> > critical benefits.
> >
> > with glee.
> > Harry
>
> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> tommorow, and my kids will be living in a tommorow that selfish tax and spend
> liberals never think about. What will you tell them when they are paying a
> 85% tax rate to pay off a debt that has *already* been spent? That we helped
> a lot of people *before* they were even born? Doesn't matter that they won't
> even be able to help themselves, they will have the comfort of knowing that
> we helped a lot of people before they were born. (It will be a great comfort
> to them won't it.)
>
> I wonder what they will have to say about your "compassion."
>
> No one is rubbing their hands with glee about this, but somewhere, sometime
> someone has to cut up the "National Credit Card." We are broke! Get a clue!
>
> I am sick and tired of you liberals thinking there is no tommorow and then
> accusing the right of being selfish. It is *YOU, YOU, YOU* that is selfish
> for only thinking of yourselves and failing to think about those that
> will have to carry on in the future. There will be people in it too, you
> know!
>
> What price will my children have to pay just to satisfy your
> "compassion" and your vanity?
>
> Jill E. Deel
> vale...@megalinx.net
Proposals for items to cut from the budget, since we can't afford them:
1) Foreign aid to Israel. If they are spying on us, and have bombed an
American warship, no reason we should finance their military budget
100%.
2) The U.S. troops stationed in dozens of foreign countries. (Bosnia,
Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Panama, and everywhere else I look these
days)
3) Procurement of new weapons for the military. The Navy didn't even
want the Sea Wolf submarine. (cost: $1 billion) The B-1 bomber has no
mission.
There is no one remotely near powerful enough to attack us, and we have
no business spending money on defending Japan, Germany, etc.
4) Subsidies to big corporations. After all, we want a free market to
prevail, right?
I have a lot of other unneccesary expenditures I could mention. More to
come later.
Anti-rumor
Jill E. Deel <vale...@megalinx.net> wrote in article
<32FB2E...@megalinx.net>...
>
snipped
It is interesting that the liberals are saying that the conservatives want
to leave the elderly sick and helpless and yet they want to put the country
further into debt by never making a cut-off to "assistance" even to those
who can do for themselves thus making helping the elderly of tomorrow
impossible. Maybe all the liberals plan to commit suicide upon reaching
the age where they can collect social security so that there isn't any
worry about it. <g> Well, we can always fantasize.
Anti-rumor
Anti-rumor
Jill E. Deel <vale...@megalinx.net> wrote in article
> > The Arc of the United States, a national
> > organization on mental retardation. Founded in
> > 1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
> > organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
> > retardation.
>
> Sounds to me like the usual smoke and mirrors, "three million homeless"
ploy.
> You mention a number of children that might lose benefits. What your
report
> does *not* mention is little things like if those children are losing
their
> benefits based on their parents ability to pay, level of retardation, or
> private foundations in their community. Not *everyone* needs help from
the
> federal nanny. A lot of times it is just *easier* to get help from the
> federal nanny. It is just real nice and easy to look at this from a
simple
> platform of numbers, but that doesn't cover a lot of variables that your
> article does not choose to mention.
>
> Jill E. Deel
> vale...@megalinx.net
>
Go Jill! I posted something along these lines last night. You are
absolutely correct. Also please note the words (and this is a copy and
paste so there can be no accusiations of my changing the words) "dedicated
solely to issues of mental
> > retardation." SOLELY to the issues of mental retardation. That means
that they *should* know all about the differences in severity of mental
retardation and that they probably don't know beans about other
disabilities. The second part is OK as long as they don't try to
represent all the disabled. The minute they step out of their area of
expertise, they are less credible.
Angelmoon
Mark D. Vincent
In article <32FB31...@megalinx.net>,
Jill E. Deel <vale...@megalinx.net> wrote:
>Harry Hope wrote:
>>
>> m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >>with glee.
>> >>
>> >>Harry
>
>>
>> Yes.
>> organization on mental retardation. Founded in
>> 1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
>> organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
>> retardation.
>
>Sounds to me like the usual smoke and mirrors, "three million homeless" ploy.
>You mention a number of children that might lose benefits. What your report
>does *not* mention is little things like if those children are losing their
>benefits based on their parents ability to pay, level of retardation, or
>private foundations in their community. Not *everyone* needs help from the
>federal nanny. A lot of times it is just *easier* to get help from the
>federal nanny. It is just real nice and easy to look at this from a simple
>platform of numbers, but that doesn't cover a lot of variables that your
>article does not choose to mention.
>
>Jill E. Deel
>vale...@megalinx.net
It's just the standard liberal scare tactic. They hold children up like
shields every time their welfare state empire is threatened. Gutless
wonders all.
--
grea...@mindspring.com
The only way to balance the budget is the ablsolutely foolproof
traditional method:
Cut OTHER peoples budgets
Leave MINE alone
Herman
Robert N. Newshutz
Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> Harry Hope wrote:
> >
> > From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
> >
> > To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
> > goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
> > currently on the SSI program must lose essential
> > benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
> > family together. It is estimated that an equal
> > number will have to be denied access to this
> > lifeline program over the next six years. This
> > equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
> > severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
> > critical benefits.
> >
> > with glee.
> > Harry
>
> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> tommorow, and my kids will be living in a tommorow that selfish tax and spend
> liberals never think about. What will you tell them when they are paying a
> 85% tax rate to pay off a debt that has *already* been spent? That we helped
> a lot of people *before* they were even born? Doesn't matter that they won't
> even be able to help themselves, they will have the comfort of knowing that
> we helped a lot of people before they were born. (It will be a great comfort
> to them won't it.)
>
> I wonder what they will have to say about your "compassion."
>
> No one is rubbing their hands with glee about this, but somewhere, sometime
> someone has to cut up the "National Credit Card." We are broke! Get a clue!
>
> I am sick and tired of you liberals thinking there is no tommorow and then
> accusing the right of being selfish. It is *YOU, YOU, YOU* that is selfish
> for only thinking of yourselves and failing to think about those that
> will have to carry on in the future. There will be people in it too, you
> know!
>
> What price will my children have to pay just to satisfy your
> "compassion" and your vanity?
>
> vale...@megalinx.net
It's not compassion if it's someone else's money.
Rob Pavlik
kenfran wrote:
> OK, we are broke.
> Proposals for items to cut from the budget, since we can't afford them:
>
> 1) Foreign aid to Israel. If they are spying on us, and have bombed an
> American warship, no reason we should finance their military budget
> 100%.
>
> 2) The U.S. troops stationed in dozens of foreign countries. (Bosnia,
> Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Panama, and everywhere else I look these
> days)
>
Yes, cut it all!!! We don't need to support any other government when we
can't even support all the people here in the US. I know someone that
wants a new Jag... send them some money instead so they don't have to
use the SSI check they get every month to buy it!!
> 3) Procurement of new weapons for the military. The Navy didn't even
> want the Sea Wolf submarine. (cost: $1 billion) The B-1 bomber has no
> mission.
> There is no one remotely near powerful enough to attack us, and we have
> no business spending money on defending Japan, Germany, etc.
>
This is supported by the LIBERALS in REPUBLICAN cloths. This is more
military walfare. You should love this one.
> 4) Subsidies to big corporations. After all, we want a free market to
> prevail, right?
>
If there were no taxes (the way it should be) on corporation, you would
see HIGHER pay and LOWER prices. And if you didn't, thats because you're
the fool that keeps working for or buyin from that bussiness.
yon lew
riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) writes:
>m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>>In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>>>
>>>To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
>>>goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
>>>currently on the SSI program must lose essential
>>>benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
>>>family together. It is estimated that an equal
>>>number will have to be denied access to this
>>>lifeline program over the next six years. This
>>>equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
>>>severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
>>>critical benefits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
>>>with glee.
>>>
>>>Harry
>>>
>>>
>>Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?
>Yes.
>The Arc of the United States, a national
>organization on mental retardation. Founded in
>1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
>organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
>retardation.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
>> m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey! This is "the Clinton Administration's" budget. Since when did
Clinton become the right wing?
yon lew
grea...@mindspring.com writes:
>Herman
How about cut everybody's budget and raise taxes some?
I listen to NPR, and it always irritates me that they're constantly
talking about all the people who get government subsidies and would
probably be unlikely to support any kind of cut in services. It's one
thing to talk about some guy in an iron lung on welfare, it's another to
talk about the average citizen and the benefits he accrues from big
government. NPR clearly is addressing the latter with their "No one's
going to want to lose their piece of the pie" propaganda. My response
is, hey, there's this thing called sacrifice, right? That's where you
tighten your belt a little bit today to try and recoup some gains
tomorrow. If the average person in this country has forgotten what that
means, then this country is doomed.
kenfran
corporation. So much so that he wants to give all our money to them.
Bill Duncan
In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) writes:
|> From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
|>
|> To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
|> goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
|> currently on the SSI program must lose essential
|> benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
|> family together. It is estimated that an equal
|> number will have to be denied access to this
|> lifeline program over the next six years. This
|> equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
|> severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
|> critical benefits.
|>
|>
|>
|> As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
|> with glee.
|>
|> Harry
Of course the fact that many of these kids will be institutionalized at a much
higher cost because their parents can't afford to keep them won't even be
considered.
It's not how much you spend, it's how much you save! :-(
--
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of
Fidelity Investments, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
--
Bill Duncan
bi...@ripag1.fmr.com
Anti-rumor
yon lew <le...@netcom.com> wrote in article <lewyE59...@netcom.com>...
>
> How about cut everybody's budget and raise taxes some?
>
> I listen to NPR, and it always irritates me that they're constantly
> talking about all the people who get government subsidies and would
> probably be unlikely to support any kind of cut in services.
>
Of course NPR wants government subsidities. After all, that's where NPR
gets a good deal of it's funding--taxpayer subsidities.
Anti-rumor
Rich Travsky
Jill E. Deel wrote:
> [...]
> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
republican senate were racking up the debt?
I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes
and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
> [...]
RT
Well, for one thing, the great problem that from the very beginning that
has faced us -- the deficit -- that I had thought at one time we could
get balanced. But that was during the campaign, and I had had a group of
economists who were working on the plan that we followed. But no one's
ever asked me, so I'll tell you. Before the election, those economists
came to me and told me that the deterioration had now been so much greater
than when they made their study that, no, there was no way that we were
going to, in a few years, be able to balance the budget. But we put the
plan into effect anyway, aimed at whenever it can happen.
-- Ronald Reagan, August 12, 1987, 4 pm, Oval Office interview with
Hugh Sidey, Public Papers of the Presidents, 23 Weekly Comp Pres Doc. 948
Anti-rumor
Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote in article
<32FC25...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu>...
> Jill E. Deel wrote:
snipped
>
Then there's "My balanced budget...." followed by a huge list of
additional give-aways Billy boy wants to add to our already over-burdened
budget. If his give-away program is allowed to begin, then the former
welfare queens will want back on the gravy train, too. Then, thaxs will
get even bigger. The real problem is the American people who have their
hands out for "freebies". The more give-away programs we have, the worse
it gets. Ending give-aways for all except those who are truly UNABLE to
care for themselves and TEMPORARILY in need of assistance. Then just
giving an across-the board tax-cut (it could start small if necessary)
would be a smarter solution. This "this group can have a tax cut and that
group can have a tax cut, but no, that group over there can't have a tax
cut" (and I don't necessarily mean the "rich" there are a lot of people in
this country who have already borrowed and/or earned the money for college
and who don't have children under 13 who aren't "rich") stuff is just
dividing the nation into groups more. If we are to come together as a
people, we must start by ending special interest group tax cuts and/or
give-away programs for all except the truly unable to care for themselves
and TEMPORARILY in need of assistance.
yon lew
Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
>Jill E. Deel wrote:
>> [...]
>> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
>> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
>> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
>> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
>> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
>Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
>republican senate were racking up the debt?
You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
Mitchell Holman
In article <01bc15cd$c150aca0$34f8...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Anti-rumor" <anti...@concentric.net> wrote:
}
}
}Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote in article
}<32FC25...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu>...
}> Jill E. Deel wrote:
}snipped
}>
}Then there's "My balanced budget...." followed by a huge list of
}additional give-aways Billy boy wants to add to our already over-burdened
}budget. If his give-away program is allowed to begin, then the former
}welfare queens will want back on the gravy train, too. Then, thaxs will
}get even bigger. The real problem is the American people who have their
}hands out for "freebies". The more give-away programs we have, the worse
}it gets.
Forget it. *All* Americans have their hands out for government
benefits, and the neo-conservatives are usually at the front of the
line. They whine about welfare mothers and food stamp fraud, but
just watch them scramble for that VA loan for their house, or the
military base near them that just has to be kept open, or the hike in
their Social Security benefits that they are "entitled" to. And when
their beach house and Winnebago get blown away in hurricane,
count on them demanding federal disaster relief and whine about
the slow pace of federal clean up efforts. Seems consistency isn't
one of those "family values" they practice, is it......
Mitchell Holman
"The conservative dream is to end the welfare state, not to save money."
Rush Limbaugh, Dec 21, 1995
James R. Olson, jr.
Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
James R. Olson, jr.
"Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@zippy.com> wrote:
->It's not compassion if it's someone else's money.
I assume you are talking about military aid to authoritarian
governments here...
Jill E. Deel
yon lew wrote:
>
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
>
> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
>
> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
>
> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
the House during the 80's.
> >I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes
> >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
ceases to amaze me.
Jill E. Deel
vale...@megalinx.net
Steve Casburn
In article <5dj222$l...@mochi.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net
What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
Steve
--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"Shut up he explained"
-- Ring Lardner, Jr.
David D. Zahn
Anti-rumor wrote:
>
> Mitchell Holman <hol...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
> <5dibat$5kd$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
my $0.02 worth.
dave
Jill E. Deel
Milt
On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jill E. Deel wrote:
:yon lew wrote:
:>
:> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
:>
:> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
:> >> [...]
:> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
:> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
:> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
:> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
:> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
:>
:> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
:> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
:>
:> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
:> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
:
:Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
:believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
:the House during the 80's.
First of all, this entire post shows an amazing ignorance of the process.
Spending bills only technically originate in the House. The BUDGET comes
from the OMB, which is in the executive Branch, and the House and Senate
have to pass a budget and appropriations bills that the president will
sign, unless they have, by some miracle, enough votes to override a veto.
Yes, that's right; the PRESIDENT creates the budget, and must SIGN all
appropriations before they become actual spending. Therefore, the
president has a very active role in the process; a hell of a lot more than
the right wing would dare give him credit for...
Second, yes, the House was GOP during Reagan's years, but the Senate
was GOP for six of Reagan's 8 years, so don't give us this crap about
everything somehow being the Demos fault. Reagan created the budgets, and
sponsored the budgets, and signed the budgets AND the appropriations.
Therefore, he had more than a significant role in the outrageous deficit
spending of the 80s...
:> >I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes
:> >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
:
:Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
:Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
:those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
The roots are not 30 years old. While we have been running deficits
annually for most of the last 60 years, it has only gotten unmanageable in
the last 15-16, since Reagan decided to lower taxes, while increasing
federal spending tremendously.
This is reality. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. The
pres sets the budget, gets a member of the House to sponsor it, and then
the House and Senate hash it out and vote on it. BUT the president still
has to sign the thing. What are the odds that a pres will sign a bill that
the Congress has slashed about $80 billion from? HMmmmm?
:The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
:ceases to amaze me.
What amazes me is the abject ignorance that the right wing seem to wallow
in...
Anti-rumor
Jill E. Deel <vale...@megalinx.net> wrote in article
<32FD18...@megalinx.net>...
> Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
> Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you
think
> those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
>
> The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
> ceases to amaze me.
>
> Jill E. Deel
> vale...@megalinx.net
>
Have to disagree with you there, Jill. I honestly not ever met a liberal
with a mind as deep as those roots, much less an imagination! Though they
are good at rationalization. <bg>
Anti-rumor
Yes, there are many with their hands out--too many. As for the other
things you mentioned, well, I don't know the circumstances to which you
refer. VA loans can only be gotten by veterans. These are a part of the
package offered encourage military service as are some other programs so
they are considered to be earned by the service given to the country as
part of the package. And the loan does have to be paid back. If you think
it should be ended, you should start a drive to end it. I never got a VA
loan and g.i. pay is far better than it used to be. Perhaps it is time to
change the benefits for the military. It would be worth looking in to if
you feel it is something that should be cut back on. Social Security is
way more than what people paid in, but at least the majority of people now
on social security did pay into the program. Though I must say I do
disagree with giving social security to those who have never paid anything
into the program such as people who bring in mom, dad, grandpa, grandma,
Aunt Sue, Uncle Bob,..... from another country then promptly put them all
on taxpayer support. There are a number of changes I'd like to see made
and I have written to my representatives and senators about it.
Unfortunately, the AARP keeps lobbying and using PAC money in an attempt to
influence politicians. I am against PACs and do not contribute to PAC
funds. That's another thing I work against. Too many "special interest
groups" around. Seems that those with a Winnebago (sp?) should buy
insurance for it. Oh well, when you provide proof positive of this
happening instead of just your opinion, then I'll consider it as a
possibility. Do you have any facts as to how many dollars each person
received in a loans or relief and how that breaks down as to annual income?
:) When I see it and verify it, I'll believe it.
Anti-rumor
hendo
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <01bc15cd$c150aca0$34f8...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Anti-rumor" <anti...@concentric.net> wrote:
>}
>}
>}Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote in article
>}<32FC25...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu>...
>}> Jill E. Deel wrote:
>}snipped
>}>
>}Then there's "My balanced budget...." followed by a huge list of
>}additional give-aways Billy boy wants to add to our already over-burdened
>}budget. If his give-away program is allowed to begin, then the former
>}welfare queens will want back on the gravy train, too. Then, thaxs will
>}get even bigger. The real problem is the American people who have their
>}hands out for "freebies". The more give-away programs we have, the worse
>}it gets.
>
> Forget it. *All* Americans have their hands out for government
> benefits, and the neo-conservatives are usually at the front of the
> line. They whine about welfare mothers and food stamp fraud, but
> just watch them scramble for that VA loan for their house, or the
> military base near them that just has to be kept open, or the hike in
> their Social Security benefits that they are "entitled" to. And when
> their beach house and Winnebago get blown away in hurricane,
> count on them demanding federal disaster relief and whine about
> the slow pace of federal clean up efforts. Seems consistency isn't
> one of those "family values" they practice, is it......
>
>
> Mitchell Holman
>
> "The conservative dream is to end the welfare state, not to save money."
> Rush Limbaugh, Dec 21, 1995
>
You can rest assured that VA loans are not handouts. They are just
guarantees that if a qualified VA mortagee defaults, then Uncle Sam
will pay off the debt. And also be assured that the Government just
doesn't write off that debt.
I would hope the Government would extend the same federal assistance
to you if your Property or posessions were destroyed in a like manner.
Once again, that assistance is just a low interest loans, not a
handout.
Loren Petrich
In article <Casburn.1-ya023180...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
Steve Casburn <Casb...@osu.edu> wrote:
> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
>the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
He may well have the right idea, but if the rest of the Party
resists... it may be necessary to give second thoughts to being a
yellow-dog Republican.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Claude Du Bois
Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:
>In article <5dj222$l...@mochi.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net
>(James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
>>
>> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
>> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
>> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
>> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
>> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
>> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
>> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
>the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
Haven't heard about it or read it. Can you give us an outline?
Claude
kenfran
Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> yon lew wrote:
> >
> > Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
> >
> > >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> > >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> > >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> > >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> > >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> >
> > >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> > >republican senate were racking up the debt?
> >
> > You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> > spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
>
> Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
> believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
> the House during the 80's.
>
> > >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
>
> Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
> those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
>
> The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
> ceases to amaze me.
>
> Jill E. Deel
Make up your mind. You keep trying to say the Reagan years were
wonderful, and the credit goes to Reagan, and the Reagan years were
awful, and the blame goes to the Democrats.
Was the economic policy between 1980 and 1988 good or bad?
Answer that and then we can discuss it.
kenfran
Milt wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> :yon lew wrote:
> :>
> :> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
> :>
> :> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> :> >> [...]
> :> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> :> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> :> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> :> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> :> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> :>
> :> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> :> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
> :>
> :> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> :> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
> :
> :Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
> :believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
> :the House during the 80's.
>
> Spending bills only technically originate in the House. The BUDGET comes
> from the OMB, which is in the executive Branch, and the House and Senate
> have to pass a budget and appropriations bills that the president will
> sign, unless they have, by some miracle, enough votes to override a veto.
> Yes, that's right; the PRESIDENT creates the budget, and must SIGN all
> appropriations before they become actual spending. Therefore, the
> president has a very active role in the process; a hell of a lot more than
> the right wing would dare give him credit for...
>
> Second, yes, the House was GOP during Reagan's years, but the Senate
> was GOP for six of Reagan's 8 years, so don't give us this crap about
> everything somehow being the Demos fault. Reagan created the budgets, and
> sponsored the budgets, and signed the budgets AND the appropriations.
> Therefore, he had more than a significant role in the outrageous deficit
> spending of the 80s...
>
> :> >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
> :
> :Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
> :Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
> :those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
>
> annually for most of the last 60 years, it has only gotten unmanageable in
> the last 15-16, since Reagan decided to lower taxes, while increasing
> federal spending tremendously.
>
> This is reality. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. The
> pres sets the budget, gets a member of the House to sponsor it, and then
> the House and Senate hash it out and vote on it. BUT the president still
> has to sign the thing. What are the odds that a pres will sign a bill that
> the Congress has slashed about $80 billion from? HMmmmm?
>
> :ceases to amaze me.
>
> in...
>
> --Milt
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
taking more away from the poor.
yon lew
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:
Which is missing the point. Is the president actively involved? Yes.
How involved? Well, that depends. Martin Crutsinger, AP, in todays's
(Feb. 9) newspaper.
"Presiden't Clinton's massive five-volume budget had barely landed on
lawmakers' desks before attention turned to the president's real budget -
what he will accept.
"That one, which may exist only in the president's mind, is likely to
include a sizable reduction in capital gains taxes..."
So it's obvious that both parties have a great deal to do with how the
budget turns out. And with Reagen at least, don't forget that many items
in the federal budget were included over his objection, or funded beyond
what he would have liked. Anyone who was alive at that time can remember
the sniping between both parties over budget priorities.
And lastly, in the Reagen era there was only one politician who showed
any commitment to the idea of balancing the budget. Thanks to
cosiderable arm twisting on his part, the Senate was actually able to pass
budget legislation where every aspect of government took a hit to curtail
spending. Of course, it never got past the House, and in the next election
his party lost control of the Senate because their opponents could appeal
to the short-sightedness of their constituents. "Who voted to cut your
benefits? Why, my opponent of course."
>Second, yes, the House was GOP during Reagan's years, but the Senate
>was GOP for six of Reagan's 8 years, so don't give us this crap about
>everything somehow being the Demos fault. Reagan created the budgets, and
>sponsored the budgets, and signed the budgets AND the appropriations.
>Therefore, he had more than a significant role in the outrageous deficit
>spending of the 80s...
I can only respond for myself, and not any of the other individuals who
have been posting to this thread, but I never denied that both parties
shared equal responsibility for the budget crisis. I was responding to
some idiot who was spewing crap about how it was purely Reagen and the
Republicans who were responsible for the deficit.
So, to summarize, both parties share equal blame for the huge deficit,
and to state that it was purely the fault of one or the other is
pretty stoopid.
C. L. Williams
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> Second, yes, the House was GOP during Reagan's years, but the Senate
>> was GOP for six of Reagan's 8 years, so don't give us this crap about
>> everything somehow being the Demos fault. Reagan created the budgets, and
>> sponsored the budgets, and signed the budgets AND the appropriations.
>> Therefore, he had more than a significant role in the outrageous deficit
>> spending of the 80s...
>>
>> :> >I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes
>> :> >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
>> :
>> :Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
>> :Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
>> :those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
>>
>> The roots are not 30 years old. While we have been running deficits
>> annually for most of the last 60 years, it has only gotten unmanageable in
>> the last 15-16, since Reagan decided to lower taxes, while increasing
>> federal spending tremendously.
>>
>> This is reality. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. The
>> pres sets the budget, gets a member of the House to sponsor it, and then
>> the House and Senate hash it out and vote on it. BUT the president still
>> has to sign the thing. What are the odds that a pres will sign a bill that
>> the Congress has slashed about $80 billion from? HMmmmm?
>>
>> :The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
>> :ceases to amaze me.
>>
>> What amazes me is the abject ignorance that the right wing seem to wallow
>> in...
>>
>> --Milt
>> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
>When Reagan took office, the national debt was 1 trillion. When he left
>it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
>They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
>contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
>taking more away from the poor.
Please supply an example of what Republicans want to take from the
poor.
C.L. Williams
Rich Travsky
yon lew wrote:
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
There's home schooling for you. The senate ALSO votes on the budget.
Twice. Differences must be reconciled. Seeing clearer now?
The republicans, controling 2/3 of the government, had EVERY
opportunity to live up to their empty rhetoric. If anything
Reagan could've vetoed budgets. He didn't.
We're paying for their lies right now.
RT
Mitchell Holman
}
}Please supply an example of what Republicans want to take from the
}poor.
}
Housing, jobs, welfare benefits, Head Start, family leave,
school lunches, and legal aid, just for starters.......
Robert N. Newshutz
Sorry, missed by a mile. Please try again, but first get your
"vision" checked.
Military aid to authoritarian governments is wrong.
You must be very far into totalitarian thought if you think
totalitarianism has a claim to the word compassion.
Robert N. Newshutz
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
If you haven't heard, then you haven't been listening. Rep Kasich
(R Ohio) is leading an effort against such sillyness.
Robert N. Newshutz
Claude Du Bois wrote:
>
> Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:
>
> >In article <5dj222$l...@mochi.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net
> >>
> >> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
> >> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
> >> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
> >> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
> >> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
> >> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
> >> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
>
> >the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
>
> Haven't heard about it or read it. Can you give us an outline?
>
> Claude
Kasich has formed a list of the corporate welfare that he wishes
to have eliminated. He has received backing from consumer groups
(Nader), environmental groups, and tax-groups.
Try a web search on Kasich and Corporate Welfare. It was in the
newspapers last week.
C. L. Williams
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> Mitchell Holman
This is what I expected. Republicans have no plans to confiscate
houses from the poor. Jobs are created by the private sector, unless
they are government jobs (besides, Clinton says he created 10 million
jobs). Reducing welfare benefits is not taking something, it's
redistributing less. I'm not sure what Head Start is. Family leave
is a mandate to employers, which Clinton plans on expanding. School
lunches are being increased; the Democrats lied about the cuts (so
what else is new?). I haven't heard anything about legal aid.
Giving less of what is confiscated from the rest of us is not taking
from the poor. It's not theirs to begin with. At least try to keep
the debate accurate, instead of turning it upside down. The fact that
you liberals have to come up with this kind of nonsense proves you
know you're arguing form a weak position.
C.L. Williams
Loren Petrich
In article <32FE29...@zippy.com>,
>> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
>> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
>> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
>> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
>> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
>> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
>> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
>If you haven't heard, then you haven't been listening. Rep Kasich
>(R Ohio) is leading an effort against such sillyness.
But has he gotten through to the rest of his Party?
Has Rush Limbaugh been inviting him to RL's show and celebrating
him as a Great National Hero?
Seriously.
Steve Casburn
In article <5dkjvr$1...@boursy.news.erols.com>, pla...@erols.com (Claude Du
Bois) wrote:
>
> Steve Casburn:
> > James R. Olson:
> >>
> >> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
> >> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
> >> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
> >> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
> >> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
> >> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
> >> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
> >
> >the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
>
> Haven't heard about it or read it. Can you give us an outline?
I didn't look too closely at it myself -- it was the headline story
in the Sunday Columbus Dispatch last week, and I read a few paragraphs
while I was at the newsstand. I was wondering whether James had heard of
it, and what he thought of it.
K. Knopp
> When Reagan took office, the national debt was 1 trillion. When he left
> it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
> They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
> contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
> taking more away from the poor.
Bullsh*t.
A. Presidents do not appropriate spending, therefore they cannot spend us
into debt unless they have a majority of their party in the house and
senate who pass the president's proposed budget through unchanged.
B. How can you take something away from someone who dosen't have anything
in the first place.
David Salvador Flores
In article <kknopp-ya02408000...@news.citynet.net>,
K. Knopp <kkn...@citynet.net> wrote:
>In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com
>(Harry Hope) wrote:
>
>> From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>>
[deletia]
>
>Would such disabilities include ADD?
Huh? Come again... what was that you said?
-Dave
ZB
On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 20:06:00 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
wrote:
Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by the
Democratically controlled House. The balance were cut.
gp
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely
regarded as a bad move....... Douglas Adams
Paul Havemann
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu) sez:
: pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) wrote:
:> Steve Casburn:
:>> James R. Olson:
:>>>
:>>> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
:>>> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
:>>> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
:>>> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
:>>> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
:>>> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
:>>> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
:>>
:>> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
:>>the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
:>
:> Haven't heard about it or read it. Can you give us an outline?
:
: I didn't look too closely at it myself -- it was the headline story
: in the Sunday Columbus Dispatch last week, and I read a few paragraphs
: while I was at the newsstand. I was wondering whether James had heard of
: it, and what he thought of it.
Given his lack of response, one might guess that Mr. Olson's likely
answer to your question is either "No, but telling me that ruins a
perfectly good rant," or "Yes, but admitting it would ruin a perfectly
good rant." Such is the fragility of stereotypes.
Where does he come up with this "backs of the poor and helpless" stuff,
anyway? According to people who know what they're talking about, the
middle class takes it on the chin for corporate -- and any other
variety of -- welfare.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)
"Everything silly that can be said [on Usenet] has been said."
-- Charles H. Duell <cdu...@uspto.gov>
Robert N. Newshutz
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Loren Petrich writes:
>
> Loren> In article <Casburn.1-ya023180...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
> Loren> Steve Casburn <Casb...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
> >> the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
>
> Loren> resists... it may be necessary to give second thoughts to being a
> Loren> yellow-dog Republican.
>
> Both parties would resist, I am sure.
>
> Much of the cw was created while the dems were in
> control.
>
> It is the nature of our Congress.
>
Yep, I sent my congresscritter mail supporting Kasich's initiative,
and he sent me a tax reform form letter. However, if the congress
is serious about balancing the budget, corporate welfare and
entitlements
must be addressed.
James R. Olson, jr.
"Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@zippy.com> wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
->>
->> "Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@zippy.com> wrote:
->>
->> ->It's not compassion if it's someone else's money.
->>
->> I assume you are talking about military aid to authoritarian
->> governments here...
->Sorry, missed by a mile. Please try again, but first get your
->"vision" checked.
->Military aid to authoritarian governments is wrong.
->You must be very far into totalitarian thought if you think
->totalitarianism has a claim to the word compassion.
I was thinking of the words "It's NOT compassion," looking for a
likely reference. I always like to find some grounds for agreement.
James R. Olson, jr.
"Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@zippy.com> wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
->>
->> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
->> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
->> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
->> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
->> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
->> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
->> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
->If you haven't heard, then you haven't been listening. Rep Kasich
->(R Ohio) is leading an effort against such sillyness.
Yes, I've heard about him, usually in reference to Newt's problems
with the minority of unruly freshmen who are taking the rhetoric
seriously. I haven't heard anything about him having a serious effect
on the problem, though.
midt...@slip.net
> Although I can't recall all 12 programs targeted by the group, the
> following is a partial list:
>
> Overseas Private Investment Corporation
> Timber road subsidies
> Agricultural marketing subsidies
> Certain programs of the International Monetary Fund
> Rural Utility Services
> DOE's fossil fuel R&D program
> Appalachian Regional Development Commission
>
> Hope this helps to answer your question.
That would be so nice if Congress actually eliminated these things
for a change. For some reason they have a real hard time doing this.
> Eleanor Rotthoff
BTW, I realized the other day that Congress has probably accomplished
more in the last 4 years than in the two decades before it.
And everyone seems to hate them. No wonder things don't get done in
Washington.
kenfran
ZB wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 20:06:00 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <32FE11...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> >
> >> When Reagan took office, the national debt was 1 trillion. When he left
> >> it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
> >> They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
> >> contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
> >> taking more away from the poor.
> >
> >Bullsh*t.
> >
> >A. Presidents do not appropriate spending, therefore they cannot spend us
> >into debt unless they have a majority of their party in the house and
> >senate who pass the president's proposed budget through unchanged.
> >
> >B. How can you take something away from someone who dosen't have anything
> >in the first place.
>
> Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by the
> Democratically controlled House. The balance were cut.
>
economic policy during the reagan years?
Eleanor Rotthoff
pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) wrote:
>> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
>>the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
>
>
> Haven't heard about it or read it. Can you give us an outline?
John Kasich is spearheading a group called the Stop Corporate Welfare
Coalition and is joined in that effort by Reps. Ed Royce (R-CA) and
Rob Andrews (D-NJ). The group is composed of representatives from
about a dozen public interest groups all across the political
spectrum, from Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform to Ralph
Nader, including such diverse groups as the National Taxpayers Union,
Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Public Citizen, and
Citizens Against Government Waste.
Kasich got all of these people to sit down together and agree not to
leave the room until they could identify a number of programs which
they could *all* (regardless of party or ideology) agree were
worthless and should be eliminated. Their criterion was a very simple
one: if the benefit to a private recipient exceeds the benefit to the
public, then a program is a candidate for elimination. In the end
they came up with 12 programs, the elimination of which would save
$11.5 billion over the next 5 years. All stress that this is only the
beginning, but a worthwhile beginning.
Although I can't recall all 12 programs targeted by the group, the
following is a partial list:
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Timber road subsidies
Agricultural marketing subsidies
Certain programs of the International Monetary Fund
Rural Utility Services
DOE's fossil fuel R&D program
Appalachian Regional Development Commission
Hope this helps to answer your question.
Eleanor Rotthoff
Jeff Blunt
kenfran wrote:
>
> ZB wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 20:06:00 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <32FE11...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> > >
> > >> When Reagan took office, the national debt was 1 trillion. When he left
> > >> it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
> > >> They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
> > >> contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
> > >> taking more away from the poor.
Yup, and now its pushing 6 Trillion. When are you morons going to stop quibbling?
This is nonsense- one guy says "the Democrats are responsible for the debt", and the
next guy says its the Republicans fault.
The fact is that both parties are to blame! Both parties have their own pet programs
that they love to waste OUR money on. The Democrats take your money and redistribute
it to the "needy" or waste it on some completely useless artsy program. The Republicans
spend it on the military or by subsidizing some multi-billion dollar corporation.
Either way, YOUR MONEY is being pissed away. Only one party truely wants to reduce
the size of the government and force the Federal government to live within its means.
That party is the Libertarian Party.
If you support either the Democrats or the Republicans, you are supporting big, wasteful
government. The Republicans want big Government, and the Democrats want even bigger Government.
What is there to argue about? The differences between the major parties are miniscule.
> > >
> > >Bullsh*t.
> > >
> > >A. Presidents do not appropriate spending, therefore they cannot spend us
> > >into debt unless they have a majority of their party in the house and
> > >senate who pass the president's proposed budget through unchanged.
> > >
> > >B. How can you take something away from someone who dosen't have anything
> > >in the first place.
> >
> > Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by the
> > Democratically controlled House. The balance were cut.
>
Lets see, when you have a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, the size of the
debt increases. When you have a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, the size of
the debt increases. When you have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, the debt
increases. Do you folks see a pattern here? I'm sure the debt would also increas if we had a
Republican Congress and a Republican President.
The only way to end this madness is to completely change our government. One way to do this is
to elect a President and members of Congress who are not members of the ruling parties. We
need to establish a viable third party to disrupt the free spending ways of the Republocrats.
We need to vote for Libertarians (or any other party that may come along that will end
business as usual in Washington).
J.
Frodo
gar...@ix.netcom.com (ZB) wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 20:06:00 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
>wrote:
>>In article <32FE11...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
>>
>>> When Reagan took office, the national debt was 1 trillion. When he left
>>> it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
>>> They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
>>> contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
>>> taking more away from the poor.
>>
>>Bullsh*t.
>>
>>A. Presidents do not appropriate spending, therefore they cannot spend us
>>into debt unless they have a majority of their party in the house and
>>senate who pass the president's proposed budget through unchanged.
>>
>>B. How can you take something away from someone who dosen't have anything
>>in the first place.
>Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by the
>Democratically controlled House. The balance were cut.
A budget is just a budget, not what actually gets spent. In all or at
least most of the Reagan years the congress spent more money than was
in the budget. This is one of the reasons that Reagan was so hot for
the line-item-veto.
It is no coincidence that when the right got hold of the congress for
the first time in 40 years, they attempted some serious defecit
reduction, only to be demagauged demograts.
-- Frodo --
Brett Kottmann
ZB (gar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
...
: Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by the
: Democratically controlled House. The balance were cut.
The truth is the exact opposite. Seven of eight years
congress spent more than Reagan asked for.
The proof is at the usual place:
http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html
Brett
______________________________________________________________________________
Notre Dame was only for revenge 60 years late and for national championship
consideration, after all. It's not like it was a Big Ten game or anything.
--Bernie Lincicome, commenting on OSU's attitude about the 45-26 win.
Dave Johnson
In article <5dfe5i$8...@northshore.shore.net>, m...@shore.net (Mark D.
Vincent) wrote:
> It's just the standard liberal scare tactic. They hold children up like
> shields every time their welfare state empire is threatened. Gutless
> wonders all.
>
Who do you think receives welfare other than children?
--
Dave Johnson
In article <32FB2E...@megalinx.net>, "Jill E. Deel"
<vale...@megalinx.net> wrote:
> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow?
I wonder how much you think we spend on programs like this in the United
States? You write as if you think this is a big part of where your taxes
go!
> We aren't just broke, we are in a
> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> tommorow, and my kids will be living in a tommorow that selfish tax and spend
> liberals never think about.
Actually it is the LIBERALS who are concentrating on cutting the BIG MONEY
programs in the United States budget. Military spending and debt interest
account for almost half the budget all by themselves!
The LIBERALS have cut the borrowing by 60%. Do you understand that we pay
about $300 billion a year interest, to rich people, because of the money
Reagan borrowed?
Do you understand that LBJ balanced the budget, Nixon and Ford brought
massive borrowing, Carter cut it in half (in GNP and adjusted dollars) and
submitted a balanced budget his last year. Reagan and Bush exploded it,
and Clinton has cut it 60%.
> No one is rubbing their hands with glee about this, but somewhere, sometime
> someone has to cut up the "National Credit Card." We are broke! Get a clue!
Should we cut BIG MONEY programs that only help a few rich people, or
should we cut low-cost programs that provide our citizens with basics like
food and education?
> I am sick and tired of you liberals thinking there is no tommorow and then
> accusing the right of being selfish. It is *YOU, YOU, YOU* that is selfish
> for only thinking of yourselves and failing to think about those that
> will have to carry on in the future. There will be people in it too, you
> know!
What do -YOU- get out of programs that take most of your tax dollars and
only benefit a very few rich people? You sound like you've been fooled
bad.
--
Dave Johnson
In article <5doesc$c...@client3.news.psi.net>, Fr...@middle.earth.com
(Frodo) wrote:
> A budget is just a budget, not what actually gets spent. In all or at
> least most of the Reagan years the congress spent more money than was
> in the budget. This is one of the reasons that Reagan was so hot for
> the line-item-veto.
Aside from the obvious falsity of this statement - what is it you think
most of the money was spent on during the 80's?
> It is no coincidence that when the right got hold of the congress for
> the first time in 40 years, they attempted some serious defecit
> reduction, only to be demagauged demograts.
The deficit was cut 50% by the Clinton budget BEFORE the Republicans took over.
--
kenfran
Claude Du Bois
Fr...@middle.earth.com (Frodo) wrote:
>gar...@ix.netcom.com (ZB) wrote:
>>On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 20:06:00 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
>>wrote:
>>>In article <32FE11...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> When Reagan took office, the national debt was 1 trillion. When he left
>>>> it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
>>>> They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
>>>> contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
>>>> taking more away from the poor.
>>>
>>>Bullsh*t.
>>>
>>>A. Presidents do not appropriate spending, therefore they cannot spend us
>>>into debt unless they have a majority of their party in the house and
>>>senate who pass the president's proposed budget through unchanged.
Under Reagan he had a Majority in the Senate and effective Control of
the House with 196 Republicans and 44 conservative Southern Democrats
who voted for everything Reagan wanted! Take the time you use
listening to Rush and go to a local Library and ask for the
Congressional Record from 1980 to 1988! Or go to the Library of
Congress web site! The information contained in the Congressional
Record will dispel the myth you believe in.
>>>
>>>B. How can you take something away from someone who dosen't have anything
>>>in the first place.
There are 43 Million Working Poor in this country, and they all have
to pay taxes because the Wealthy don't pay their Fair Share!
>>Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by the
>>Democratically controlled House. The balance were cut.
I think that you have been listening to too much Rush! I suggest you
look at the facts contained in the Congressional Record or the Library
of Congress!
>A budget is just a budget, not what actually gets spent. In all or at
>least most of the Reagan years the congress spent more money than was
>in the budget. This is one of the reasons that Reagan was so hot for
>the line-item-veto.
Considering the Fact that Reagan had effective control over Both
Houses of Congress ie. None of his Vetoes could be over-ridden. I find
it interesting how you conservatives are re-writing history!
>It is no coincidence that when the right got hold of the congress for
>the first time in 40 years, they attempted some serious defecit
>reduction, only to be demagauged demograts.
The only problem is that there Deficit Reductions were at the expense
of the Middle Class while lowering the Capital Gains taxes which most
benefitted the Wealthy!
Claude
>-- Frodo --
Mark D. Vincent
In article <DaveJ-11029...@nuthouse.com>,
Dave Johnson <Da...@Nuthouse.com> wrote:
>In article <5dfe5i$8...@northshore.shore.net>, m...@shore.net (Mark D.
>Vincent) wrote:
>
>> It's just the standard liberal scare tactic. They hold children up like
>> shields every time their welfare state empire is threatened. Gutless
>> wonders all.
>>
>
>
>Who do you think receives welfare other than children?
>
>--
>
Anyone smart enough to rip off this system. It's easy Dave.
Claim you are disabled and you can get an SSI crazy check.
Join us in the real world Dave. You may find it opens your eyes a bit.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Kottmann
Dave Johnson (Da...@Nuthouse.com) wrote:
: In article <5doesc$c...@client3.news.psi.net>, Fr...@middle.earth.com
: (Frodo) wrote:
...
: > in the budget. This is one of the reasons that Reagan was so hot for
: > the line-item-veto.
: Aside from the obvious falsity of this statement - what is it you think
What is false about it? Reagan repeatedly asked for a line-item
veto.
: most of the money was spent on during the 80's?
Entitlements (i.e., bribes to voters). The same thing we're
still spending the most money on.
: > It is no coincidence that when the right got hold of the congress for
: > the first time in 40 years, they attempted some serious defecit
: > reduction, only to be demagauged demograts.
: The deficit was cut 50% by the Clinton budget BEFORE the Republicans took over.
Nope. Clinton only had two budgets before the Republicans
took over. The deficit wasn't cut by half until the fourth year,
after two years of Republican paring beyond what Clinton wanted to
cut.
Brett
__________________________________________________________________________
"I think [I] had underestimated the importance of the presidency, even
though I had read all the books and seen it all and experienced it in
my lifetime."--Bill Clinton (The Washington Times, 9/26/95)
Brett Kottmann
Claude Du Bois (pla...@erols.com) wrote:
...
: Under Reagan he had a Majority in the Senate and effective Control of
: the House with 196 Republicans and 44 conservative Southern Democrats
This "effective control" is such a tired canard by the left.
If Reagan had "effective control" why were his budgets
declared DOA? Why weren't his economic policies passed as-is,
instead of watered down? Why didn't he get his way with
military and social spending?
Do your own research before asking others to!
: There are 43 Million Working Poor in this country, and they all have
: to pay taxes because the Wealthy don't pay their Fair Share!
A lie. The rich not only pay most of the taxes, they
paid an ever-increasing share throughout the Reagan Era.
Brett
___________________________________________________________________________
http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html
The award-winning Ronald Reagan Home Page
James R. Olson, jr.
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
->It's just the standard liberal scare tactic. They hold children up like
->shields every time their welfare state empire is threatened. Gutless
->wonders all.
It's just the standard conservative scare tactic. They hold up their
wallets like shields every time some shred of decency is proposed.
Heartless shits all.
Zepp
Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:
>In article <5dj222$l...@mochi.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net
>(James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
>>
>> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
>> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
>> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
>> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
>> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
>> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
>> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
>
>
> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
>the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
At first glance, I approve. Kasich is one of the good guys in the
GOP, and really does seem to have the public weal at heart.
>
>
> Steve
>
>--
> Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
> "Shut up he explained"
> -- Ring Lardner, Jr.
=====================================================================
As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and
good. But that doesn't mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I
disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance.
And I detest dittoheads.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
Bill Zettler
Zepp wrote:
>
> Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:
>
> > What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
> >the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
>
> At first glance, I approve. Kasich is one of the good guys in the
> GOP, and really does seem to have the public weal at heart.
Possibly, although I note that they did take at least 95% of the total
corporate welfare off the table before they even started. What they've
come up with so far is a lot of hot air and a few billion over several
years. Better than nothing, I suppose, and it does have people talking
about it like it's a real problem.
Also, Kasich was one of the guys they trotted out to minimize the
impact of the Gingrich punishment. Statements like "Newt just wanted
to teach children. Who would begrudge him that?" (not an exact quote).
I saw him on Evans and Novak, and I thought he was going to burst into
tears in his Newt defense.
This was my first real exposure to the man. Maybe I'm being unfair,
but I just can't forgive these people who insist on putting forth the
idea that Gingrich is some sort of misunderstood philosopher king,
rather than the greasy little pol that he is.
Bill
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
erot...@io.com (Eleanor Rotthoff) wrote:
>pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) wrote:
>>> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
>>>the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
>>
>>
Well perhaps its a start, but I din't see the following corp welfare
recieptents on that list: Dole, ADM, any company innvolved with nukes
including the illegal cap on damages afforded the nukes.
>Eleanor Rotthoff
Steven R. Fordyce
>>gar...@ix.netcom.com (ZB) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 20:06:00 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
>>>wrote:
>>>>into debt unless they have a majority of their party in the house and
>>>>senate who pass the president's proposed budget through unchanged.
>
>the House with 196 Republicans and 44 conservative Southern Democrats
This is just a flat out lie. Reagan could not get everything he wanted.
He wanted to eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education, and they
are both still with us. There were hundreds of cuts in programs he wanted,
but couldn't get. He wanted less spending than congress authorized 7 out
of 8 years. He wanted a BBA and Line-Item-Veto. Clinton just got the
latter and we are still working on the first.
>Take the time you use
>listening to Rush and go to a local Library and ask for the
>Congressional Record from 1980 to 1988! Or go to the Library of
>Congress web site! The information contained in the Congressional
>Record will dispel the myth you believe in.
Please take your own advice as you are the one who believes in myths.
Doesn't the truth matter to you?
>>>>B. How can you take something away from someone who dosen't have anything
>>>>in the first place.
>
> There are 43 Million Working Poor in this country, and they all have
>to pay taxes because the Wealthy don't pay their Fair Share!
The top 1% paid a larger share of tax receipts under Reagan than under
Carter. Just what do you think is "fair"?
>>>Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by the
>>>Democratically controlled House. The balance were cut.
>
>I think that you have been listening to too much Rush! I suggest you
>look at the facts contained in the Congressional Record or the Library
>of Congress!
If you look you'll find this:
Federal Budget Outlays
Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress) and
Cumulative Percent Difference
(billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year Outlays
Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
______________________________________
Totals $7,357.6 $7,554.9 Avg 2.8 (3.1) (averages for 82-9)
Sources:
Budget Message of the President, FY's 81 to 89
Budget of the United States, FY 1993, Part 5, Table 1.3,
page 5-18. Proposed outlays for 1981 from 1981 FY 1982
Budget Revisions.
>>A budget is just a budget, not what actually gets spent.
This is not exactly true. For most parts of the budget, what congress
authorizes is what *must* be spent by law.
>>In all or at
>>least most of the Reagan years the congress spent more money than was
>>in the budget. This is one of the reasons that Reagan was so hot for
>>the line-item-veto.
>
> Considering the Fact that Reagan had effective control over Both
>Houses of Congress ie. None of his Vetoes could be over-ridden. I find
>it interesting how you conservatives are re-writing history!
Speaking of re-writes! You are correct that congress couldn't over-ride
Reagan's veto's of the budget, but that left the government shut down.
The majority Democrats weren't as nice to Reagan as the Republicans were
to Clinton. The Republicans partially funded most of the government so
that Clinton's veto and the resulting government shut down didn't effect
anything important. The Democrats send Reagan huge omnibus budget bills
(against all his efforts) that completely shut down the government (except
for the military and other absolutely necessary things, but they had to
work without pay). Reagan did veto a couple of budgets even so, but he
couldn't keep that up in good conscience, and was thus forced to settle
with Congress in a few days each time, and he paid a heavy political
price for the shut-downs.
>>It is no coincidence that when the right got hold of the congress for
>>the first time in 40 years, they attempted some serious defecit
>>reduction, only to be demagauged demograts.
>
> The only problem is that there Deficit Reductions were at the expense
>of the Middle Class while lowering the Capital Gains taxes which most
>benefitted the Wealthy!
Please buy a clue. Most of the people who claim capital gains are middle
class.
--
ste...@hevanet.com
"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance, and even our very existence depends on it.
Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."
-- Albert Einstein
To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I
say thee, "Nay!"
kenfran
Do you deny that many rich people pay NO tax at all? Do you think it is
fair that a person trying to support a family on minimum wage gets a
major part of his/her income taxed away, when s/he can afford to lose
the money far less than a millionaire can afford to be taxed a far
larger proportion of their income? Do you think it fair that, as Leona
Helmsley said, "Only the little people pay taxes."?
>
> >>>Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by
<snip>
> >
> > The only problem is that there Deficit Reductions were at the expense
> >of the Middle Class while lowering the Capital Gains taxes which most
> >benefitted the Wealthy!
>
> Please buy a clue. Most of the people who claim capital gains are middle
> class.
An attempt to lie by indirection. Most PEOPLE who get capital gains are
middle class because a lot of people sell houses for more that they
bought them for. The AMMOUNTS of the capital gains are minor compared to
the huge ammounts that the rich have in capital gains.
> --
> ste...@hevanet.com
>
Mark D. Vincent
In article <3302E2...@concentric.net>,
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
I deny that. Unless you have some proof of that silly statement I
suggest you drop it. They may not pay the percentage of their income
you would like to see (a flat tax would solve this of course) but there
are no "rich" people paying zero tax. While there are many poor who
correctly do not pay any tax.
>fair that a person trying to support a family on minimum wage gets a
>major part of his/her income taxed away, when s/he can afford to lose
>the money far less than a millionaire can afford to be taxed a far
>larger proportion of their income? Do you think it fair that, as Leona
>Helmsley said, "Only the little people pay taxes."?
Leona is a loon. As for middle class taxes. I agree - they are too high.
So let's cut them. Oops, if we do that some EEEEEEVILLL rich person might
benefit. OK, sorry middle class we can't give you a tax cut - we have to
put the screws to the EEEEEEEVIL rich.
>>
>> >>>Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by
><snip>
>> >
>> > The only problem is that there Deficit Reductions were at the expense
>> >of the Middle Class while lowering the Capital Gains taxes which most
>> >benefitted the Wealthy!
>>
>> Please buy a clue. Most of the people who claim capital gains are middle
>> class.
>
>An attempt to lie by indirection. Most PEOPLE who get capital gains are
>middle class because a lot of people sell houses for more that they
>bought them for. The AMMOUNTS of the capital gains are minor compared to
>the huge ammounts that the rich have in capital gains.
>
So we should not cut the cap gains tax then? Your fixation with what the rich
have, do, pay, or not pay does not help you or any middle class person one
wit. I want a tax cut that results in more of MY money staying in MY
possesion. It could be cap gains, it could be a rate cut. Either way, it
helps ME. If some rich guy makes out OK too - I DON'T CARE.
Good for them - its their money too.
Paul Havemann
midt...@slip.net sez:: [snip]
: > Although I can't recall all 12 programs targeted by the group, the
: > following is a partial list:
: >
: > Overseas Private Investment Corporation
: > Timber road subsidies
: > Agricultural marketing subsidies
: > Certain programs of the International Monetary Fund
: > Rural Utility Services
: > DOE's fossil fuel R&D program
: > Appalachian Regional Development Commission
: >
: > Hope this helps to answer your question.
: That would be so nice if Congress actually eliminated these things
: for a change. For some reason they have a real hard time doing this.
: BTW, I realized the other day that Congress has probably accomplished
: more in the last 4 years than in the two decades before it.
: And everyone seems to hate them. No wonder things don't get done in
: Washington.
You noticed that too, huh?
BTW, an article I read notes that the Market Assistance Program -- the
"Agricultural marketing subsidies" Eleanor referred to -- costs about
$31 million per year on behalf of a handful of major corporations.
What's more, Commerce (I believe) found "no appreciable benefit" from
all that dough.
Hey, a million here, a million there, and soon you're talking about
real money.
Paul Havemann
Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) sez:
: Robert N. Newshutz <news...@zippy.com> wrote:
:>James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
:
:>> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
:>> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
:>> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
:>> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
:>> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
:>> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
:>> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
:>If you haven't heard, then you haven't been listening. Rep Kasich
:>(R Ohio) is leading an effort against such sillyness.
:
: But has he gotten through to the rest of his Party?
:
: Has Rush Limbaugh been inviting him to RL's show and celebrating
: him as a Great National Hero?
:
: Seriously.
I'd suggest that you should care less about Limbaugh, and more about
getting as many Congressporkers as possible -- including yours --
behind the anti-pork brigade. There's at least one Democrat
spearheading the effort with Kasich (though I don't recall who) -- you
oughta be asking whether they will get through to the rest of _their_
party. (Surely you're not implying that the Dems don't carry home their
fair share of pork?)
Of course, whether this latest effort is anything more than idle talk
isn't clear at this point, but anyone willing to make the attempt
deserves your support -- no?
Dave Johnson
In article <32FD18...@megalinx.net>, "Jill E. Deel"
<vale...@megalinx.net> wrote:
> Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
> believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
> the House during the 80's.
Are you actually trying to claim that THE DEMOCRATS voted in Reaganomics???!!
--
Dave Johnson
In article <lewyE5A...@netcom.com>, le...@netcom.com (yon lew) wrote:
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
>
> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97)
what do
> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if
there is no
>
> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
>
>
> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
I suggest you look at the record and see just who in the House voted for
and who voted against Reaganomics.
--
Zepp
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>In article <DaveJ-11029...@nuthouse.com>,
>Dave Johnson <Da...@Nuthouse.com> wrote:
>>In article <5dfe5i$8...@northshore.shore.net>, m...@shore.net (Mark D.
>>Vincent) wrote:
>>
>>> It's just the standard liberal scare tactic. They hold children up like
>>> shields every time their welfare state empire is threatened. Gutless
>>> wonders all.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Who do you think receives welfare other than children?
>>
>>--
>>
>
>Anyone smart enough to rip off this system. It's easy Dave.
>Claim you are disabled and you can get an SSI crazy check.
>Join us in the real world Dave. You may find it opens your eyes a bit.
Well, Mark, since you are visiting the real world, find out for us how
many folks on SSI are actually disabled. Remember, "crazy" can be a
disability, even if you -can- still use a keyboard.
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
> m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================================
Dave Johnson
> An attempt to lie by indirection. Most PEOPLE who get capital gains are
> middle class because a lot of people sell houses for more that they
> bought them for. The AMMOUNTS of the capital gains are minor compared to
> the huge ammounts that the rich have in capital gains.
I think the Clinton response to this is brilliant. He says OK, then let's
have a capital gains tax cut ONLY FOR MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE SELLING A
HOUSE!
Instead of putting the Democrats in a position of arguing the complexities
of income percentiles against the Republican sound bytes about how all
they want to do is help the middle class this leaves the Republicans to
explain why they insist on including wall street millionaires in their tax
cut plan! It just shuts them up and we don't have to argue this anymore.
--
RLD
Dave Johnson <Da...@Nuthouse.com> wrote in article
<DaveJ-13029...@nuthouse.com>...
:
:
Why even do that, just tax all Capitol Gains as income (which it is) and
lower the overall tax rates accordingly. If you want to protect the middle
class homeowners only real tax shelter, let them sell their primary home,
tax free once every 15 years or so.
--
"Time To Pull a Quick Hank Snow"
RLD (Rocket 88)
Mark D. Vincent
In article <DaveJ-13029...@nuthouse.com>,
No Dave, they voted in half of Reaganomics - the tax cut half. They then
went on a spending spree with all the new revenue. This is contrary to
Reaganomics. However, the Reagan administration made a judgement call
that in order to get the appropriations they wanted - primarily defense,
they would not try to block the dems social spending. IMHO, this was a
mistake.
Mark D. Vincent
In article <01bc19c6$99b7a660$173279a8@default>,
Better yet eliminate the cap gains tax entirely and let people buy and sell
as they damn well please.
Jason Christian
Paul Havemann wrote:
>>
> BTW, an article I read notes that the Market Assistance Program -- the
> "Agricultural marketing subsidies" Eleanor referred to -- costs about
> $31 million per year on behalf of a handful of major corporations.
> What's more, Commerce (I believe) found "no appreciable benefit" from
> all that dough.
I'd love a cite on that last one.
Evaluating MAP, and its predecessor MPP, is rather a cottage industry
around here. I have my name on two of them: Kinnucan & Christian,
Effectiveness of Pacific Rim Almond Promotions: A Reappraisal. Journal
of Ag & Resource Economics (forthcoming 1997). (That means its been
accepted & is in the publication queue). Also, chapter 5 of Alston,
Chalfant, Christian, Meng & Piggott, The California Table Grape
Commission's Promotion Program: An Evaluation. Giannini Foundation
Monograph series. Oakland: Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
Economics (also forthcoming, 1997).
Neither of these are the really, em, amusing cases, like giving MPP
funds to McDonalds or to Gallo. The first one *did* involve MPP funds
going to what looks like a single entity, the Blue Diamond coop (founded
100 years ago last month, as the Davisville Almond Growers Exchange, by
several families whose names are still well-known around here). In the
case of grapes, the Commission represents all growers and packers
supplying California grapes to fresh markets. Blue Diamond is owned by
several thousand small growers of almonds, who tend to form the middle
tier in terms of wealth amongst California farm operators: there are a
small number of big operators (like Gallo, Paramount, & Vukasian, &
other names that neither you nor I know), and some marginal operations.
Some big operators also have the coop handle part of their crop, &
speculate with the rest.
Typically, one finds that the promotional activities undertaken by the
boards, commissions, and coops do work to shift demand schedules.
Furthermore, the amount of the shift is typically pretty large, so that
a comparison of the benefits of the promotion to costs reveals the
programs as "effective," using the standard tools of economic
benefit/cost analysis. That is, *if* the funds had been paid out of
grower pockets (and handler pockets, although the incidence of the tax
in perennial-crop industries like grapes & almonds is probably mostly on
growers), the industries would find themselves better off than if they
had just kept the dough and not undertaken the promotion activities.
The standard cynical economists' response to these findings, which we
use constantly, is "if you're so smart how comeyou ain't rich." Oops,
sorry, wrong gybe. "If these programs are so hot, how come (1) the
growers don't pay for them themselves and (2) why don't the growers
expand them?" Note that, subject to the Supreme Court's ruling in the
pending case of Wileman Brothers et al v. Mike Espey, these growers do
have the authority, under the Agricultural Marketing and Adjustment Act
of 1936, as amended, and under state legislation, to essentially do just
that: levy a mandatory tax on sales of a product, the proceeds to be
used in the purchase of common assets, typically production research and
advertising and promotion activities.
If our econometrics are correct (and we are doing the best job we can),
then the economic argument against MPP is not on efficiency grounds (at
least in the case of generic programs, like those I have studied), but
on equity concerns: why should the feds do something that the growers
would do on their own. Note that in the grape study we found some
evidence that the private actors would do precisely that: the marginal
return to foreign promotion, for which the feds pick up half the tab, is
about half the estimated marginal return to domestic promo, which is
entirely funded out of industry assessments. This observation fits very
nicely with a Chicago-like theory that included in the cost of *any*
joint expenditures is a substantial transaction-cost element, some of
which must be priced bafflegab, and another an actuarial transformation
of the threat posed by a couple of aggressive looneytarian lawyers who
figure that joint and mandatory conduct of any intraindustry activity is
"communism in the valley."
>A million there, and soon you're talking about
> real money.
It happens that Gallo Winery is a real expert at acquiring MPP funds.
This is really lame policy: the transactions-cost simply doesn't apply,
and the existence of a brand makes the free-rider efficiency concern
irrelevant. In the case of Blue Diamond, the particulars of the
case---that the exported product is sold primarily to brand-insensitive
producers, and the existence of a "law-of-one-price" (self-citation in
the professional literature available on request) joining co-op and
independent sellers--suggest that the free-rider concern applies,
harnessed to the transaction-cost associated with negotiations within a
marketing order.
Oh, and one last thing: a ritual apology for interjecting Facts and
Details into somebody else's otherwise-interesting discussion.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)
>
> "Everything silly that can be said [on Usenet] has been said."
> -- Charles H. Duell <cdu...@uspto.gov>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian University of California, Davis
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu Agricultural and Resource
Economics
Office:(916)752-1357 FAX:(916)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
Mark D. Vincent
>
>> An attempt to lie by indirection. Most PEOPLE who get capital gains are
>> middle class because a lot of people sell houses for more that they
>> bought them for. The AMMOUNTS of the capital gains are minor compared to
>> the huge ammounts that the rich have in capital gains.
>
>
>I think the Clinton response to this is brilliant. He says OK, then let's
>have a capital gains tax cut ONLY FOR MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE SELLING A
>HOUSE!
>
>Instead of putting the Democrats in a position of arguing the complexities
>of income percentiles against the Republican sound bytes about how all
>they want to do is help the middle class this leaves the Republicans to
>explain why they insist on including wall street millionaires in their tax
>cut plan! It just shuts them up and we don't have to argue this anymore.
>
>
What about middle class people who don't own a house but do invest in stocks
and stock funds? Not everyone who plays the Wall St. game is a millionaire.
Once again Dave demonstrates his ignorance.
Joe Myers
m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>What about middle class people who don't own a house but do invest in stocks
>and stock funds? Not everyone who plays the Wall St. game is a millionaire.
>Once again Dave demonstrates his ignorance.
Okay, Mark, I'll bite.
Tell the class just how many middle class people are investing in the
stock market but do not own a home.
g...@ix.netcom.com
> >>Who do you think receives welfare other than children?
> >>
> >
> >Claim you are disabled and you can get an SSI crazy check.
> >Join us in the real world Dave. You may find it opens your eyes a bit.
>
> Well, Mark, since you are visiting the real world, find out for us how
> many folks on SSI are actually disabled.
The PSAa "proudly proclaim" that there are over 50 million disabled
Americans -- that's one in six. One out of every six Americans is
disabled in the eyes of our fine government. Granted, it's not like the
over 60% that qualify for afirmative action programs, but the resources
that should go to the truly disabled are being sucked up by those who
are not, not other do the 5 out six pay the price of yet another set of
screwed-up gov't regulations, but the 1 out of 100 Americans that actual
are disabled are getting ripped-off too...
> As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and
> good. But that doesn't mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I
> disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance.
this doesn't sound like today's liberal, but rather to goal of today's
liberal
> And I detest dittoheads.
but now this does...
Nosy
<In article <opg1z4p...@remus.cs.uml.edu> Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu> writes:
< >>>>> Loren Petrich writes:
< Loren> In article <Casburn.1-ya023180...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
< Loren> Steve Casburn <Casb...@osu.edu> wrote:
< >> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
< >> the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
< Loren> He may well have the right idea, but if the rest of the Party
< Loren> resists... it may be necessary to give second thoughts to being a
< Loren> yellow-dog Republican.
< Both parties would resist, I am sure.
Yes, of course.
< Much of the cw was created while the dems were in
< control.
< It is the nature of our Congress.
It is the nature of Congress because the government is
far too powerful.
Consider this: if Congress did not have the power to
decide what sugar should cost in the United States,
would Archer-Daniel-Midland be as interested in buying
access to the Congress?
The real solution to the "problem" of campaign financing
is to reduce the power of the government, not to create
more laws (with the obligatory loopholes for the favored
groups) in a rerun of "Campaign Reform 1974".
RLD
Mark D. Vincent <m...@shore.net> wrote in article
<5dvvn3$3...@northshore.shore.net>...
: In article <01bc19c6$99b7a660$173279a8@default>,
: RLD <ric...@minbdspring.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >Dave Johnson <Da...@Nuthouse.com> wrote in article
: ><DaveJ-13029...@nuthouse.com>...
: >: In article <3302E2...@concentric.net>, ken...@concentric.net
wrote:
: >:
: >: > An attempt to lie by indirection. Most PEOPLE who get capital gains
are
: >: > middle class because a lot of people sell houses for more that they
: >: > bought them for. The AMMOUNTS of the capital gains are minor
compared
: >to
: >: > the huge ammounts that the rich have in capital gains.
: >:
: >:
: >: I think the Clinton response to this is brilliant. He says OK, then
: >let's
: >: have a capital gains tax cut ONLY FOR MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE SELLING A
: >: HOUSE!
: >:
: >: Instead of putting the Democrats in a position of arguing the
: >complexities
: >: of income percentiles against the Republican sound bytes about how all
: >: they want to do is help the middle class this leaves the Republicans
to
: >: explain why they insist on including wall street millionaires in their
: >tax
: >: cut plan! It just shuts them up and we don't have to argue this
anymore.
: >:
: >:
: >
: >Why even do that, just tax all Capitol Gains as income (which it is) and
: >lower the overall tax rates accordingly. If you want to protect the
middle
: >class homeowners only real tax shelter, let them sell their primary
home,
: >tax free once every 15 years or so.
: >
: >
:
: Better yet eliminate the cap gains tax entirely and let people buy and
sell
: as they damn well please.
That would be stupid unless everyone wage earners didn't have to pay taxes
on income. And don't you think that if CG's were exempt it wouldn't be a
tough thing to figure to never get paid a wage, and only take a GC
distribution. Yeah, I change my mind, let's do what you say!
Mark D. Vincent
In article <5e0lop$8...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Me, for one. I know many others. If you are looking for some "official"
numbers - I don't have 'em - look it up yourself.
Anti-rumor
Paul Havemann <pa...@hshuna.hsh.com> wrote in article
>
> I'd suggest that you should care less about Limbaugh, and more about
> getting as many Congressporkers as possible -- including yours --
> behind the anti-pork brigade. There's at least one Democrat
> spearheading the effort with Kasich (though I don't recall who) -- you
> oughta be asking whether they will get through to the rest of _their_
> party. (Surely you're not implying that the Dems don't carry home their
> fair share of pork?)
>
> Of course, whether this latest effort is anything more than idle talk
> isn't clear at this point, but anyone willing to make the attempt
> deserves your support -- no?
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)
>
> "Everything silly that can be said [on Usenet] has been said."
> -- Charles H. Duell <cdu...@uspto.gov>
>
An anti-pork brigade is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, like term
limits, everyone wants it as long as it doesn't cut into "their fair
share." It is the voters who will have to push--and I do mean push
hard--if either of these things have any chance of survival. It's fairly
clear that not enough of our elected politicians are willing to risk losing
"their fair share" to give this sort of common sense thing an honest
chance.
Zepp
"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> caused us all to grin
by saying:
>> Under Reagan he had a Majority in the Senate and effective Control of
>>the House with 196 Republicans and 44 conservative Southern Democrats
>>who voted for everything Reagan wanted!
>
>This is just a flat out lie. Reagan could not get everything he wanted.
>He wanted to eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education, and they
>are both still with us. There were hundreds of cuts in programs he wanted,
>but couldn't get. He wanted less spending than congress authorized 7 out
>of 8 years. He wanted a BBA and Line-Item-Veto. Clinton just got the
>latter and we are still working on the first.
His promises to get rid of Energy and Education were just noises made to draw
in the religious morons and make the polluters happy. He knew that no
rational politician would actually support either. It's kinda like term
limits, anti-flag-burning amendments, abortion amendments and the BBA--just
noises to attract fools.
>
>>Take the time you use
>>listening to Rush and go to a local Library and ask for the
>>Congressional Record from 1980 to 1988! Or go to the Library of
>>Congress web site! The information contained in the Congressional
>>Record will dispel the myth you believe in.
>
>Please take your own advice as you are the one who believes in myths.
>Doesn't the truth matter to you?
>
Doesn't it matter to you? You are in a position of arguing that Reagan was a
great president who, er, couldn't do anything because congress hated him.
That doesn't make much sense, y'know?
>
>>>>B. How can you take something away from someone who dosen't have anything
>>>>>in the first place.
>>
>> There are 43 Million Working Poor in this country, and they all have
>>to pay taxes because the Wealthy don't pay their Fair Share!
>
>The top 1% paid a larger share of tax receipts under Reagan than under
>Carter. Just what do you think is "fair"?
>
Nope. They paid less as a percentage of taxes paid. Substantially less.
>>>>Of the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress only 1 was increased by the
>>>>Democratically controlled House. The balance were cut.
>>
>>I think that you have been listening to too much Rush! I suggest you
>>look at the facts contained in the Congressional Record or the Library
>>of Congress!
>
>If you look you'll find this:
>
> Federal Budget Outlays
> Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress) and
> Cumulative Percent Difference
> (billions of dollars)
>
> Fiscal Year Outlays
> Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
> 1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
> 1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
> 1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
> 1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
> 1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
> 1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
> 1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
> 1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
> ______________________________________
> Totals $7,357.6 $7,554.9 Avg 2.8 (3.1) (averages for 82-9)
He said proposed budgets, not what was actually spent. Those numbers would
have been even WORSE if Reagan had his way in all things.
You left out the best parts--in both cases, Congress was trying to get REAGAN
to reduce spending!
>>>It is no coincidence that when the right got hold of the congress for
>>>the first time in 40 years, they attempted some serious defecit
>>>reduction, only to be demagauged demograts.
>>
>> The only problem is that there Deficit Reductions were at the expense
>>of the Middle Class while lowering the Capital Gains taxes which most
>>benefitted the Wealthy!
>
>Please buy a clue. Most of the people who claim capital gains are middle
>class.
Not if Clinton's tax bill goes through. It exempts cap gains on the primary
residence, which is about 95% of the cap gain liability the middle class
faces.
>--
>ste...@hevanet.com
>
>"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
>actions. Our inner balance, and even our very existence depends on it.
>Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."
> -- Albert Einstein
>
>To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I
>say thee, "Nay!"
>
>
>
>
=====================================================================
"No Keith, I am not a racist, nor have I ever practiced racism. I have
tried to post the facts they have asked for only to be personally
attacked and called a racist for my efforts. My using epithets and
personal attacks against them was only to drop to their level so they
could understand what I was talking about."
--Truth ("Dippy") Mason, giving an "explanation" of his
use of racial epithets.
Paul Havemann
Jason Christian (ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu) sez:
: Paul Havemann wrote:
: >>
: > BTW, an article I read notes that the Market Assistance Program -- the
: > "Agricultural marketing subsidies" Eleanor referred to -- costs about
: > $31 million per year on behalf of a handful of major corporations.
: > What's more, Commerce (I believe) found "no appreciable benefit" from
: > all that dough.
:
: I'd love a cite on that last one.
Sorry, but I misremembered. Fortuitously, I stumbled upon the article
(in _Insight_ mag); it cited Commerce as the source for saying MAP
costs about $100 million per year (not $31M), which goes mostly to large
agribusinesses, and it quoted Steve Moore of Cato as roundly denouncing
the program, calling it "the poster child for corporate welfare." Mea
culpa.
: Evaluating MAP, and its predecessor MPP, is rather a cottage industry
: around here. I have my name on two of them: Kinnucan & Christian,
: Effectiveness of Pacific Rim Almond Promotions: A Reappraisal. Journal
: of Ag & Resource Economics (forthcoming 1997). (That means its been
: accepted & is in the publication queue). Also, chapter 5 of Alston,
: Chalfant, Christian, Meng & Piggott, The California Table Grape
: Commission's Promotion Program: An Evaluation. Giannini Foundation
: Monograph series. Oakland: Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
: Economics (also forthcoming, 1997).
So the rumours are true then: 'Jason Christian' is a real person,
unlike so many Usenet personalities, like that Kuh-whale fellow. (Not
that anyone would have believed a name like that anyway.)
: Neither of these are the really, em, amusing cases, like giving MPP
Yes, I do recall reading that, and the Standard Cynical Economists'
Response is, to use the technical term, right on. (By the way, does
the adjective 'cynical' modify 'economists' or 'response'? Just
curious.) Of course, it doesn't take a village of economists -- or
cynics -- to realize that there's no incentive for the growers to pick
our pockets openly when they can let Uncle Sugar do so on the sly.
I also suspect that the answer to the question "if MAP is so great, why
don't _they_ fund it?" is pretty straightforward as well. I'm not an
economist, though I've seen one on TV, but seems to me that the benefit
side of the equation doesn't _really_ need to be a consideration when
the cash comes in regardless of results. (A _real_ cynic would opine
that the growers are as skilled as other special interests -- perhaps
more so -- at manipulating the standard tools of economic benefit/cost
analysis to support MAP forevermore. But luckily, as some famous guy
once said, there are no cynics in economic foxholes. Or something like
that.)
: If our econometrics are correct (and we are doing the best job we can),
(For those who feel that 'bafflegab' is a good working description of
economic jargon, the "free-rider" argument sez that producers of a
product which do not heavily advertise get a 'free ride' from the
producers who do, with agriproducts (like almonds and cantaloupe) where
no one name brand stands out.) I've never totally bought into the
"free-rider" argument even when name-brand recognition _is_ a factor;
the market is replete with examples where that occurs. When you think
of corn flakes, you think of Kelloggs -- yet even competing corn flakes
brands enjoy some benefit of Kelloggs' advertising. But that's hardly a
justification to shell out taxpayer money to level the playing field in
some cases (or any, IMO).
: Oh, and one last thing: a ritual apology for interjecting Facts and
: Details into somebody else's otherwise-interesting discussion.
No apology necessary here; I found it interesting. I hadn't realized
that anyone outside of Beltway gloryhounds had actually studied this
waste of taxpayer money.
kenfran
Mark D. Vincent wrote:
>
> In article <5e0lop$8...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
> Joe Myers <boo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
> >
> >>What about middle class people who don't own a house but do invest in stocks
> >>and stock funds? Not everyone who plays the Wall St. game is a millionaire.
> >>Once again Dave demonstrates his ignorance.
> >
> >Okay, Mark, I'll bite.
> >
> >Tell the class just how many middle class people are investing in the
> >stock market but> >
>
> numbers - I don't have 'em - look it up yourself.
>
> --
However, his capital gains each year are nothing to worry about
tax-wise.
Instead of talking about the number of people, tell us the total dollars
of capital gain per capita for middle class people who don't own a home.
I think it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Jason Christian
Paul Havemann wrote:
>
> Jason Christian (ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu) sez:
> : Paul Havemann wrote:
> : >>
> : > BTW, an article I read notes that the Market Assistance Program -- the
> : > "Agricultural marketing subsidies" Eleanor referred to -- costs about
> : > $31 million per year on behalf of a handful of major corporations.
> : > What's more, Commerce (I believe) found "no appreciable benefit" from
> : > all that dough.
> :
> : I'd love a cite on that last one.
>
> Sorry, but I misremembered. Fortuitously, I stumbled upon the article
> (in _Insight_ mag); it cited Commerce as the source for saying MAP
> costs about $100 million per year (not $31M), which goes mostly to large
> agribusinesses, and it quoted Steve Moore of Cato as roundly denouncing
> the program, calling it "the poster child for corporate welfare." Mea
> culpa.
Why is it that when the Anonymous Left complains about "big business,"
it is an invidious comparison, while when the Anonymous Right does the
same, it is clear-headed analysis?
> : Evaluating MAP, and its predecessor MPP, is rather a cottage industry
> : around here. I have my name on two of them: Kinnucan & Christian,
> : Effectiveness of Pacific Rim Almond Promotions: A Reappraisal. Journal
> : of Ag & Resource Economics (forthcoming 1997). (That means its been
> : accepted & is in the publication queue). Also, chapter 5 of Alston,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ July issue. Available at at
Agricultural Experiment Station near you.
> : Chalfant, Christian, Meng & Piggott, The California Table Grape
> : Commission's Promotion Program: An Evaluation. Giannini Foundation
> : Monograph series. Oakland: Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
> : Economics (also forthcoming, 1997).
>
> So the rumours are true then: 'Jason Christian' is a real person,
> unlike so many Usenet personalities, like that Kuh-whale fellow. (Not
> that anyone would have believed a name like that anyway.)
>
<...>
> : The standard cynical economists' response to these findings, which we
> : use constantly, is "if you're so smart how comeyou ain't rich." Oops,
> : sorry, wrong gybe. "If these programs are so hot, how come (1) the
> : growers don't pay for them themselves and (2) why don't the growers
> : expand them?" Note that, subject to the Supreme Court's ruling in the
> : pending case of Wileman Brothers et al v. Mike Espey, these growers do
> : have the authority, under the Agricultural Marketing and Adjustment Act
> : of 1936, as amended, and under state legislation, to essentially do just
> : that: levy a mandatory tax on sales of a product, the proceeds to be
> : used in the purchase of common assets, typically production research and
> : advertising and promotion activities.
>
> Yes, I do recall reading that, and the Standard Cynical Economists'
> Response is, to use the technical term, right on. (By the way, does
> the adjective 'cynical' modify 'economists' or 'response'? Just
> curious.) Of course, it doesn't take a village of economists -- or
> cynics -- to realize that there's no incentive for the growers to pick
> our pockets openly when they can let Uncle Sugar do so on the sly.
I'll not call you a right-winger if you won't call me a cynic. Though
note: around here "right winger" is a term of endearment (well, not in
*my* office, but just about everywhere else in the department).
But wait: what do you mean by "pick our pockets openly"? MAP/MPP is
about as open a case of pocket-picking as you will find in ag policy.
It is the slyer jobs that worry me, about which more, below.
> I also suspect that the answer to the question "if MAP is so great, why
> don't _they_ fund it?" is pretty straightforward as well. I'm not an
> economist, though I've seen one on TV, but seems to me that the benefit
> side of the equation doesn't _really_ need to be a consideration when
> the cash comes in regardless of results. (A _real_ cynic would opine
> that the growers are as skilled as other special interests -- perhaps
> more so -- at manipulating the standard tools of economic benefit/cost
> analysis to support MAP forevermore. But luckily, as some famous guy
> once said, there are no cynics in economic foxholes. Or something like
> that.)
I think you are wrong. Look, we get money, not from Gallo or Blue
Diamond but from Cal Table Grape Commission and the Almond Board of
California, because we are the best econometricians around (well, not
me; I'm ok, but contribute other things to the team). That allows us
to make strong, and defensible, claims about the degree of demand shift,
which is the benefit side of the question. What we can't do, no matter
how hard we try (and we don't try at all) is answer The Question. Hey,
we keep raising it. As a policy analyst, I think it is a trump
question. As an observer of politics, I see that it isn't.
I wonder what Richard Pombo (R Tracy) thinks about MAP. I can guess:
the same things that Vic Fazio (D, West Sac) does.
> (For those who feel that 'bafflegab' is a good working description of
> economic jargon, the "free-rider" argument sez that producers of a
> product which do not heavily advertise get a 'free ride' from the
> producers who do, with agriproducts (like almonds and cantaloupe) where
> no one name brand stands out.) I've never totally bought into the
> "free-rider" argument even when name-brand recognition _is_ a factor;
> the market is replete with examples where that occurs. When you think
> of corn flakes, you think of Kelloggs -- yet even competing corn flakes
> brands enjoy some benefit of Kelloggs' advertising. But that's hardly a
> justification to shell out taxpayer money to level the playing field in
> some cases (or any, IMO).
>
> : Oh, and one last thing: a ritual apology for interjecting Facts and
> : Details into somebody else's otherwise-interesting discussion.
>
> No apology necessary here; I found it interesting. I hadn't realized
> that anyone outside of Beltway gloryhounds had actually studied this
"Waste" is perhaps not quite right. I would prefer "misdirection," or
"misappropriation" or even (if you share Orwell's taste for the
unisyllabic), "theft." "Waste" is wrong.
The standard criterion for economic policy is that it should increase
the present-value of per-capita income. Ecofreaks should know that into
that pat prhrase is loaded a whole lot...for example future loss of
income due to today's environmental profligacy. When I say "waste," I
want to say a policy that drives down that magical mythtery tour, I mean
magical mythical number [MMN]. Assuming some distorion associated with
collecting taxes, a policy that spends money but doesn't even cover the
financial costs (eg has an internal rate of return less than the
government's borrowing cost) would count at a waste. In the present
case, all indications are that in fact the program *does* generate
export earnings far in excess of the opportunity cost of money; hence,
MMN goes up.
It isn't, using non-controversial definitions, a "waste." Indeed, given
the high rates of return that are *always estimated,* the gain in MMN
far exceeds the loss in MMN due to the social burden of tax collection.
The criticism, which is totally valid, is not with the efficiency
question, which is what "waste" is all about, and which is the main
concern of economics, but with the
distributional consequences: the incidence of the benefit is on the
producers (and cooperating factors, like just about anybody living in
the Central Valley of California), while the incidence of the tax is on
everybody. That is lame policy, if "distribution of income" is a
concern of government. If it isn't, if all government cares about is
total MMN and not how it is shared, then it is in fact rather difficult
to criticize the program.
I nounce those who froth about distributional consequences.
And now we get to the nub of things. Do we dislike MAP, which at least
increases MMN, more than we do, say, Peanut or Sugar programs, the first
of which enriches holders of peanut quotas, causes too few peanuts to be
grown, drives up the price of chunky peanut butter, and therefore leads
to a suboptimal level of consumption of
Peanut-Butter-and-Mrs.-Renfro's-Dangerously-Spicey-Green-Salsa
sandwiches, and the second of which leads to too high a level of
domestic production of sugar beets, loss of income and consequent
political instability and dispatch of U.S. troops to quell same in the
Caribbean, diversion of maize from corn tortillas with which to make
Renfros-and-cheddar quesadillas and into corn-sweeteners from the
processing facilities of Archer Daniel Midlands and side payments to
Bobdole? "Hmmmmmmmm?"
MAP has some impact on the tax bill (hence, due to the cost of
collecting taxes, reduces MMN), and a much bigger positive impact on MMN
through the profitable sale abroad of farm commodities. The peanut
program has no impact on the tax bill, while the sugar program may have
some positive impact on the tax bill from tariff collections (hence
either small positive effect, or none at all, on MMN), but a much larger
negative impact on MMN due to increase in prices of, respectively,
peanuts and sugar and all its substitutes. In the latter two cases,
there is still a transfer of purchasing power from society as a whole
(at least those of us who eat peanuts, sugar and substitutes) to a
particular class; the difference is that in the case of the Wicked
Corporate Welfare MNN increases at the same time, while in the case of
All-American Protectionism it declines.
Sorry for all the bafflegab. Here's hoping that some of it was tasty.
Mark D. Vincent
In article <3304F3...@concentric.net>,
Define "hill of beans". If it is my hill - it means a hell of a lot to me.
Dave Johnson
In article <5dtpkf$6...@news.jf.intel.com>, "Steven R. Fordyce"
<steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> wrote:
> This is just a flat out lie. Reagan could not get everything he wanted.
> He wanted to eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education, and they
> are both still with us. There were hundreds of cuts in programs he wanted,
> but couldn't get. He wanted less spending than congress authorized 7 out
> of 8 years. He wanted a BBA and Line-Item-Veto. Clinton just got the
> latter and we are still working on the first.
Please let us know when Reagan sumbmitted to the Congress a plan for
getting rid of these departments.
The spending increases of the 80's were mostly military, and debt interest.
> The top 1% paid a larger share of tax receipts under Reagan than under
> Carter. Just what do you think is "fair"?
They did not pay as large a percentage of the taxes as the percentage of
the income they received. Under Reagan the rich got much richer while the
rest of us stood still or fell behind. But they did not pay more taxes
relative towhat they were receiving.
And now the rest of us pay the interest on the trillions of debt that caused.
> Federal Budget Outlays
> Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress) and
> Cumulative Percent Difference
> (billions of dollars)
>
> Fiscal Year Outlays
> Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
> 1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
> 1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
> 1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
> 1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
> 1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
> 1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
> 1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
> 1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
> ______________________________________
> Totals $7,357.6 $7,554.9 Avg 2.8 (3.1) (averages for 82-9)
This represents what was SPENT, not what the Congress appropriated. The
difference is due to mismanagement by the administration in their
projections.
HOWEVER even this accounts for $200 billion over the entire Reagan term.
But the added debt was 3 TRILLION!
> This is not exactly true. For most parts of the budget, what congress
> authorizes is what *must* be spent by law.
But for that difference in your above chart it was the added spending that
accounted for going over budget.
--
Dave Johnson
In article <5dvvjl$3...@northshore.shore.net>, m...@shore.net (Mark D.
Vincent) wrote:
> >Are you actually trying to claim that THE DEMOCRATS voted in Reaganomics???!!
> >
> >--
> >
>
> No Dave, they voted in half of Reaganomics - the tax cut half. They then
> went on a spending spree with all the new revenue. This is contrary to
> Reaganomics. However, the Reagan administration made a judgement call
> that in order to get the appropriations they wanted - primarily defense,
> they would not try to block the dems social spending. IMHO, this was a
> mistake.
Between 1981 and 1990:
Yearly debt interest payments increased $217.3 billion
Yearly defense spending increased $141.4 billion
Yearly income security (Military pensions included) increased $73.5 billion
Yearly Medicare increased $65.3 billion
Yearly health increased $44.3 billion
General science space & technology increased $9.3 billion
Education training, employment and social service increased $9.1 billion
Veterans benefits & services increased $8.5 billion
Transportation increased by $8.1 billion
Administration of justice increased $7.8 billion
Natural resources & environment increased $5.2 billion
Agriculture increased $4.5 billion
International increased $3.9 billion
General government DECREASED $260 million
Community & regional development DECREASED $2.9 billion
Energy DECREASED $12.5 billion
Special case: Social Security increased $129.4 billion after Reagan
"challenged" the Congress to increase it before the 1984 election. But SS
runs a -SURPLUS- and does not contribute to the deficit
--