Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's Opinion

1 view
Skip to first unread message

j...@sna.com

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In <4c4iln$f...@firehose.mindspring.com>, kpe...@atl.mindspring.com (Soccernut) writes:
>rf...@clark.net (Richard Firestone) wrote:
>
>
>>The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
>>all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
>>be reposted in its entirety.
>
>You should send you letter to the President. He was the one who shut
>down the government.
>
>Compromise-The repubicans have been compromising for 40 years and look
>where we are going broke.
>
>I an sure you are a very productive worker but about half of the
>federal workers are not and should be fired.
>
>Kern
>

Your post reflects the basic ignorance of government work and workers that
I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government
service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
thankless position. Until you've been there, you ought to keep your ignorance
where it won't show. You should also think about the difference between
annecdote, which is what the idea of the "inefficiency" government workers
is largely based on, and reality.

Yeah, the bureaucracy is maze like and horrible, and could definitely use
pruning, but are you smart enough to know where to put the blade? If you
helped elect a congress that wants to weaken the clean water act,
not only do you not know, but you probably deserve to drink what we
would have in its absence, and be cared for by the health system you
think is just fine the way it is, preferrably in a hospital that has undergone
"redesign" to be more "competitive" in the health care "industry".

JWD


Stephen Lajoie

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <4c415c$8...@clark.net>, Richard Firestone <rf...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
>all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
>be reposted in its entirety.
>
>---------
>Congressman,
>
> I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
>immorality, and hubris. I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for
>nine of the past ten furlough days on "emergency" status. I know of one

[rantings deleted]

There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
much hate.

And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
"downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.

I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
tax and borrow policies. It means a stronger private sector, better job
security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
guaranteed you a job for life.


--
--
Steve La Joie
laj...@eskimo.com

J.D. Baldwin

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to

[Cute but bogus newsgroups deleted.]

In article <4c415c$8...@clark.net>, Richard Firestone <rf...@clark.net>
wrote:

>Congressman,

Let's start here. You left out one very important player. The only
thing necessary for the government "shutdown" to end is for Bill
Clinton to KEEP HIS DAMN WORD. (I know this is a lot to ask.) He
agreed, in no uncertain terms, to use non-partisan numbers from a
mutually agreeable source to calculate the balance of his submitted
budget. The details of the compromise were very clear at the time and
are not in dispute. So where is your wrath for the one man who's
dishonorable act is keeping a compromise from being consummated?

What's that you say? "That's just politics"? Oh, well, if you
don't particularly care who does and doesn't keep his promises, that
would explain your anti-Republican slant . . . .

> I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
>immorality, and hubris.

That's quite a list. I wonder how arrogance differs from hubris in
your list, and what exactly you meant by "immorality" and what exact
form of "cowardice" you had in mind. I personally, think it's the
finest example of moral courage in U.S. politics since . . . uh
. . . since, I don't know when!

> I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for nine of the past

>ten furlough days on "emergency" status. I know of one case where a
>colleague has worked a thirteen hour day because illness prevented her
>relief from coming to work.

Dear God, you can't mean that! Thirteen whole hours! That has NEVER
happened in the private sector! What kind of sweatshop are they
running down there at USIA? And on top of that, she may be late with
her next payment on the Volvo! Boo hoo, you're breaking my heart.

Look, sarcasm aside, I'm not impressed. I'm sorry this is happening,
I really am. It's disrupting the lives of a lot of innocent people,
and it's probably not fair. But if this is the price we (you, in
particular) have to pay so that our children won't have to work their
whole lives to give 82% of everything they make to the government, so
be it. (And, before you ask, yes I have made sacrifices for this
country, including deprivations that far dwarf the occasional thirteen
hour day--six months' separation from my family in service of the
national interest, for starters.)

Besides, you act as if the Congress (the Republican freshmen, in
particular) is acting like a bunch of spoiled children, when in fact
they're making a bold stand against politics as usual. They've made
their willingness to negotiate WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN ALREADY
AGREED-TO COMPROMISE quite clear. The President, has, however,
reneged on his commitment to using CBO numbers to balance the budget,
and the freshmen are the victims of his duplicity. Clinton continues
to get away with it, largely because the media is beating the drum for
him and portraying the Republicans as recalcitrant spoiled brats. You
seem to have bought the party line.

> You people have the audacity to take your pay of almost three times
>what I make and give yourself a five or six day weekend during a
>crisis. Next week I will receive half pay (or less).

There are, of course, Constitutional problems with holding up
Congressional (or Presidential) pay, besides which the Congress is of
course working its normal schedule. (Incidentally, didn't the
Democrats do the exact same thing to Reagan back in '86? Pass a
budget, go on break, dare him to veto it?) No such Constitutional
considerations apply to nth-tier bureaucrats in federal agencies.

Besides which, you know damn well you're going to get your money
retroactively. All the players agree on that, and stories and
speculation to the contrary are mere fearmongering. So shut up and
enjoy your vacation.

> As annoying as it is, our system of government was apparently set
>up dependent on COMPROMISE to solve political disagreement. You
>Republicans have rejected that road to a solution of the country's
>indebtedness problem. I consider this a rejection of Constitutional
>philosophy and an example of arrogance and hubris.

It bears repeating: the compromise has already been reached, and
Clinton is getting away with a political stunt that would make
Machiavelli blush. As for the "solution" to the "country's indebted-
ness problem," Clinton has yet to offer one that is based on numbers
derived somewhere besides "Alice in Wonderland" (no insult meant to
the fine mathematician who penned that opus).

> I urge you to try something different: a rational solution, not one
>that uses innocent Federal employees as abused soccer balls.

Well, there's always the private sector. Oh, yeah, I forgot: you
already tried that, didn't you?
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

nem...@iadfw.net

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
On Mon, 1 Jan 1996 21:12:15 GMT, laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
wrote:

>
>There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
>much hate.
>
>And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
>"downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
>year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
>got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
>better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
>going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
>
>I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
>tax and borrow policies. It means a stronger private sector, better job
>security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
>I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
>guaranteed you a job for life.

>Steve La Joie
>laj...@eskimo.com

You obviously were not aware of Clinton's National Performance Review
Program where by all Federal agencies were required to lay off or
downsize in order to save money.

What that means is that a number of people were RIFFED (reduction in
force) . Promotions were cancelled and work loads were increased
under the same demands as before.

When employees are laid off, they can normally draw some sort of
severance pay. In contrast, furloughed Govt. employees don't get
severance pay. They are entitled to unemployment compensation only.
IF Congress opts to repay them, the unemployment compensation must be
paid back.

Nobody expects a job for life with the Govt. But would you like your
pay frozen because the bureaucracy wants to play one upsmanship. This
isn't a question of being fired. It's a question of having your
earnings and you placed in limbo.


Richard Firestone

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote:
:
: And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get

: "downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
: year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
: got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
: better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
: going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
:
: I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
: guaranteed you a job for life.
:
:
: --
: --
: Steve La Joie
: laj...@eskimo.com
:

I'm sorry about those 5,000 people and anyone who loses a job because of
the volatile nature of free enterprise, but I'll bet everyone of those
5,000 were able to collect unemployment, were free to look for a new job,
and were not required to report to their former job as before, except for
the matter of being paid.

Under this furlough there are in one of two situations. You are either
furloughed, which means you have a job, are not permitted to come to
work, and don't get paid. That seems fair, but you are not permitted
to take another job since you are still "employed" by the Government.
The other situation is where you are declared to be in "emergency"
status, must come to work and do your job (and other people's if
possible), and not get paid.

That's it. Its not possible to anything else. Personaly I'm now
looking for a job in the private sector. If I find one before this
stupidity is settled there is no way to resign. The Personnel Department
is furloughed. If I just walk out I jeopardize the possibility of the
money owed to me for the work I did. You may disagree but I don't think
that's a good idea.

If the Government wants to shut down my agency, and they go through the
Constitutional process, thats OK with me. I think its stupid to get rid
of the Voice of America, but I took an oath to support and defend the
Constitution, so I'd be a hypocrite if I complained.

On the other hand, whats happening now is not that process. I am not
full of hate but I am angry about my employer's treatment.

Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote:
: In article <4c415c$8...@clark.net>, Richard Firestone <rf...@clark.net> wrote:
: >
: >The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
: >all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
: >be reposted in its entirety.
: >
: >---------
: >Congressman,
: >
: > I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
: >immorality, and hubris. I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for
: >nine of the past ten furlough days on "emergency" status. I know of one

: [rantings deleted]

: There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
: much hate.

: And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get


: "downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
: year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
: got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
: better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
: going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.

Ahh, so because people in the private sector got laid off, it's time to
celebrate the demise of government workers. Is that about it? Hey, where
i worked there were lay-offs all the time, and I was laid-off too. It's
a terrible situation, but not one that calls for a vengeful type attitude
to those who have jobs. They are people just like you and me.


: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
: tax and borrow policies.

Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
they're all that different.


: It means a stronger private sector, better job

: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.

Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
situation.

: I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
: guaranteed you a job for life.

There is no job that is guranteed. This doesn't mean we should root for
a persons downfall. It doesn't mean you will automatically have your job
saved.

Stephen Lajoie

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <4c9fc2$r...@tweety.sna.com>, <j...@sna.com> wrote:
>In <4c4iln$f...@firehose.mindspring.com>, kpe...@atl.mindspring.com (Soccernut) writes:
>>rf...@clark.net (Richard Firestone) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
>>>all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
>>>be reposted in its entirety.
>>
>>You should send you letter to the President. He was the one who shut
>>down the government.
>>
>>Compromise-The repubicans have been compromising for 40 years and look
>>where we are going broke.
>>
>>I an sure you are a very productive worker but about half of the
>>federal workers are not and should be fired.
>>
Ł+č>>Kern

>>
>
>Your post reflects the basic ignorance of government work and workers that
>I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government
>service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
>knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
>thankless position. Until you've been there, you ought to keep your ignorance
>where it won't show. You should also think about the difference between
>annecdote, which is what the idea of the "inefficiency" government workers
>is largely based on, and reality.
>
>Yeah, the bureaucracy is maze like and horrible, and could definitely use
>pruning, but are you smart enough to know where to put the blade? If you
>helped elect a congress that wants to weaken the clean water act,
>not only do you not know, but you probably deserve to drink what we
>would have in its absence, and be cared for by the health system you
>think is just fine the way it is, preferrably in a hospital that has undergone
>"redesign" to be more "competitive" in the health care "industry".
>
>JWD

Well, aren't you smart. :-| I've worked for the fed too. What a joke. It
was like the intent of the the job was to waste money. Hell, they not only
threatened to fire me, but bring me up on charges for saving them
thousands of dollars. Underpaid, wasteful, and silly. It was one of the
worst places I've ever worked. I got paid to stay home so that I wouldn't
be there when the congressman came around to ask questions.

The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
state agency or private industry, except for the military.

Stephen Lajoie

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <4cado3$c...@ruby.interactive.net>,

Robert Zitka <zi...@interactive.net> wrote:
>Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: In article <4c415c$8...@clark.net>, Richard Firestone <rf...@clark.net> wrote:
>: >
>: >The following letter was emailed to twenty five Congressmen last night,
>: >all but two are Republicans. The letter is self explanatory and may only
>: >be reposted in its entirety.
>: >
>: >---------
>: >Congressman,
>: >
>: > I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
>: >immorality, and hubris. I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for
>: >nine of the past ten furlough days on "emergency" status. I know of one
>
>: [rantings deleted]
>
>: There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
>: much hate.
>
>: And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
>: "downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door last
>: year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when they
>: got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You got it
>: better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you aren't
>: going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
>
>Ahh, so because people in the private sector got laid off, it's time to
>celebrate the demise of government workers. Is that about it? Hey, where
>i worked there were lay-offs all the time, and I was laid-off too. It's
>a terrible situation, but not one that calls for a vengeful type attitude
>to those who have jobs. They are people just like you and me.

I've seen massive layoffs throughout aerospace. Hardly a mention in the
news. No thought given in congress, or by the president. And maybe that's
as it should be. What gripes me is that the news media plays like it's
the end of the world and stands at the gate of some national monument and
ask people what they think of the shutdown. They're they only people they
can find affected, outside of the government workers themselves. And the
government workers are almost to a person playing party politics with the
shutdown, pinning all the blame on the Republicans.

I didn't ask for vengeance, I was just putting it in perspective. I
compared the attention a short shutdown gets, where are bunch of
histeracle government workers are denouncing and demonizing congressional
republicans, (as we saw in a recently nationally telivised parade), with
the private sector, where people LOSE their jobs every day, and in much
greater numbers. We don't pay much attention to the people getting laid
off compared to some government asshole in a Gingrich mask whining about
his check being late.

>: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
>: tax and borrow policies.
>
>Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
>they're all that different.

What? By taxing social security?

Why not tax the elderly? It was their stupid representatives that voted
them a tax free ride in the first place, with the younger generation
picking up the tab. Thomas Jefferson thought that it would be a miscarage
of justice for one generation to do that.

The republicans are just asking them to pay the same fair share of taxes
that everyone else pays. Why should a guy pulling down $100,000 a year
get a social security check, paid for with my tax dollars, tax free?!

>: It means a stronger private sector, better job
>: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.
>
>Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
>situation.

Apparently you didn't see the stock market rally when the Republicans
started acting like they meant business when they started fighting Clinton.
It hit record highs. The bond market shot up too, interest rates went
down... all these things make it easier for businesses to stay in
business.

>: I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
>: guaranteed you a job for life.
>
>There is no job that is guranteed. This doesn't mean we should root for
>a persons downfall. It doesn't mean you will automatically have your job
>saved.

Rooting for a downfall is different than rooting for a balanced budget.
I'm rooting for a balanced budget, and I am pointing out that a lot of
people who don't work for the government have had it a lot worse, and
their lot can be made better. And while it is tough to have your paycheck
a week late, it's a lot tougher to have no paycheck at all.

Charles Lipsett

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <4cc1iu$9...@news.2sprint.net>, rn...@2sprint.net (Rusty Neff) says:

>
>laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:
>
>
>>Well, aren't you smart. :-| I've worked for the fed too. What a joke. It
>>was like the intent of the the job was to waste money. Hell, they not only
>>threatened to fire me, but bring me up on charges for saving them
>>thousands of dollars. Underpaid, wasteful, and silly. It was one of the
>>worst places I've ever worked. I got paid to stay home so that I wouldn't
>>be there when the congressman came around to ask questions.
>
>>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>>state agency or private industry, except for the military.
>
>
>
>>Steve La Joie
>>laj...@eskimo.com
>>
>
>
>
>Ooooooh....can I have some of what you're drinking? It must be a
>powerful mind-altering substance! The last time I checked, federal
>employees aren't getting paid to stay at home. We've already missed
>one paycheck, and at this rate we'll probably miss several more.
>
>Did you have a bad work experience working for the federal government?
>Get real....the problems you mentioned are common to all large
>organizations.......Ask someone at IBM about bureaucracy, waste and
>inefficiency. AT&T wants to eliminate 75,000 mid-management
>positions....I bet there was waste there. There is waste in any large
>organization.
>
>But simply saying private industry doesn every thing better is one of
>the dumbest things I've heard. Gee, I think I'll trust Weyerhauser to
>manage public lands for multiple use. And I'm sure they have my best
>interests at heart when they use river from a watershed for making
>paper. I'm certain they'd make sure I have a clean drinking water
>supply.
>
>I also know that worker safety is at the TOP of all private employer
>priorities.
>
>Steve, did you ever stop to think that government programs were
>installed to correct certain abuses by the private sector? Did we
>really need a clean air act? Only if we wanted to keep breathing!
>
>Most federal employees want to be productive and do a good job. Some
>are held back from that by restrictive practices and procedures, but
>no more than similar stupid rules in private industry.
>
>
>Rusty Neff
>
Rusty you have hit the nail on the head. I have been a gov. for 32 years
and have been defending the works of NASA.

Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much

: >: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
: >: tax and borrow policies.

: >Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
: >they're all that different.

: Everyone taxes the elderly. It sounds however that you've fallen
: victim to Democratic propaganda. What the above person was saying is
: that Republicans are the revolutionaries that started the balanced
: budget movement with the Contract with America. Once Bill Clinton
: realized that this is what America wanted via the overwhelming voting
: for Republican in the last election, he then started working for
: it.... sort of.

Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that
he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
implement it, everyone backed off. The same thing with the Contract
w/America. The Repubs won on a platform of a balanced budget. Then
everyone realized how painful that would be and are backing away from the
Republican plan of taxing the elederly and children to finance tax breaks.


: What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for
: EVERYONE. Can't beat it.

Until the lobbyists for the accounting industry have their say about it,
and that will go down to defeat too.


: >: It means a stronger private sector, better job

: >: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.

: >Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
: >situation.

: Please read the comments of the top financial advisors at
: www.townhall.com. They interview about 12 of them.

: They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
: frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
: do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.

One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt. Secondly,
as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and
making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
the government.

Of course you also realize that government fuels private companies too.

: - Will Gilliland
: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

: Will Gilliland
:
: will...@airmail.net
: ----------------------------------------------


Rusty Neff

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to

William A. Gilliland

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much
sympathy from the private sector workers.

>Ahh, so because people in the private sector got laid off, it's time to
>celebrate the demise of government workers. Is that about it? Hey, where
>i worked there were lay-offs all the time, and I was laid-off too. It's
>a terrible situation, but not one that calls for a vengeful type attitude
>to those who have jobs. They are people just like you and me.

I'll go with you here. No one should celebrate layoffs, furloughs,
cutbacks, RIFs or whatever you want to call them. What we should
celebrate is the cutting of actually unneeded jobs in the Federal
sector.

>: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
>: tax and borrow policies.

>Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
>they're all that different.

Everyone taxes the elderly. It sounds however that you've fallen
victim to Democratic propaganda. What the above person was saying is
that Republicans are the revolutionaries that started the balanced
budget movement with the Contract with America. Once Bill Clinton
realized that this is what America wanted via the overwhelming voting
for Republican in the last election, he then started working for
it.... sort of.

What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for


EVERYONE. Can't beat it.

>: It means a stronger private sector, better job

>: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.

>Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
>situation.

Please read the comments of the top financial advisors at
www.townhall.com. They interview about 12 of them.

They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.

- Will Gilliland

Richard Clark

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to

>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>state agency or private industry, except for the military.

Well I'd certainly hate it, if the Air Controllers left their jobs
while I was up in the air and waiting to land on a foggy day at
Chicago O'hare.


William A. Gilliland

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

>William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:

>: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much

>: >: I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
>: >: tax and borrow policies.

>: >Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
>: >they're all that different.

>: Everyone taxes the elderly. It sounds however that you've fallen
>: victim to Democratic propaganda. What the above person was saying is
>: that Republicans are the revolutionaries that started the balanced
>: budget movement with the Contract with America. Once Bill Clinton
>: realized that this is what America wanted via the overwhelming voting
>: for Republican in the last election, he then started working for
>: it.... sort of.

>Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that

>he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
>implement it, everyone backed off.

Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things. The focus
needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
costs and falling into a socialistic trap.

> The same thing with the Contract
>w/America. The Repubs won on a platform of a balanced budget. Then
>everyone realized how painful that would be and are backing away from the
>Republican plan of taxing the elederly and children to finance tax breaks.

The thing here is that one person is backing away and not signing. In
the prior example, the consensus of a group decided it was a bad idea.

>: What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for


>: EVERYONE. Can't beat it.

>Until the lobbyists for the accounting industry have their say about it,

>and that will go down to defeat too.

I think you greatly overestimate the power of lobbying and
underestimate the power of election. The biggest cries won't be from
the accounting industry, but from misinformed poor that see the rate
of taxation dramatically decrease for the wealthy.

What they unfortunately don't know is that the very wealthy pay as a
proportion, very little in taxes. They can afford tax lawyers and
write-offs out the wazoo.

>: >: It means a stronger private sector, better job

>: >: security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were laid off.

>: >Face it, whatever the government does will not change the downsizing
>: >situation.

>: Please read the comments of the top financial advisors at
>: www.townhall.com. They interview about 12 of them.

>: They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
>: frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
>: do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.

>One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt.

The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the
like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
growth both of which are not achieved by debt.

> Secondly, as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and
>making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
>the government.

Downsizing, in general, does promote larger profits to shareholders.
However, companies are in the business to stay in business. If you
fire someone that is essential, you won't have a business to give out
profits. Therefor, companies don't layoff to increase shareholder
profits, they downsize to make the company more efficient.


>Of course you also realize that government fuels private companies too.

Of course you realize we fuel the goverment.

-Will Gilliland
Dallas Conservatives for Common Sense

nem...@iadfw.net

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
On Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:40:08 GMT, laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
wrote:


>Well, aren't you smart. :-| I've worked for the fed too. What a joke. It
>was like the intent of the the job was to waste money. Hell, they not only
>threatened to fire me, but bring me up on charges for saving them
>thousands of dollars. Underpaid, wasteful, and silly. It was one of the
>worst places I've ever worked. I got paid to stay home so that I wouldn't
>be there when the congressman came around to ask questions.

No argument there. The Govt. is very wateful.

>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>state agency or private industry, except for the military.

Yes, except where do you think the states, and in some cases private
industry, look to for funding these essential duties.

ken heffner

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
On Jan 02, 1996 20:54:18 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's
Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:


>One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt. Secondly,
>as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and
>making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of

>the government.
--
Companies see layoffs as a way to stay competitive. Like it or not,
capitalism is based on competition. Less people doing the same work
translates into more efficient. This country has change drastically, but,
people aren't keeping up.

In the 50s and 60s you could drop out of high school, get a job as an
apprentice somethingorother, join a union, and have a solid middle class
life. Now, that's no longer true. You still have the same number of kids
partying their way through, or out of, school. But, now there's nothing
there for them except a career in the fast food industry.

kenh

bu...@ionet.net

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
In <4cc8hi$6...@news2.his.com>, rac...@his.com (Richard Clark) writes:
>
>
>>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>>state agency or private industry, except for the military.
>
>Well I'd certainly hate it, if the Air Controllers left their jobs
>while I was up in the air and waiting to land on a foggy day at
>Chicago O'hare.
>
>
>
We wouldn't do that we have to be there whether we get paid or
not. And I am afraid that I agree with that policy. I don't
work at O'hare but I do care about the people that I control
every day. Nice of you to think of us too. Later.

Buddy


Sheldon (Buddy) Thornton
Air Traffic Controller (Pays the bills and provides the thrills)
Buddy's Computer Service (Supports the habit)
Team OS/2
Acer Authorized Reseller


Evan Steeg

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
In article <4cee25$m...@sam.inforamp.net>,
Chris Moorehead <moor...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <4ccj1k$h...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
> will...@airmail.net (William A. Gilliland) wrote:
>>....

>>Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
>>of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
>>learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
>>with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things. The focus
>>needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
>>costs and falling into a socialistic trap.
>
>I live in Canada (Toronto, Ontario, to be precise), and am a little tired of
>US conservatives pontificating at great length on the failures of Canada's
>health system. Our health system is one of the major reasons that Canada's
>quality of life is consistently rated as the highest in the world. It's
>expensive for sure, but US health costs per capita are almost TWICE those of
>Canada - plus we don't have millions of our citizens falling through the
>cracks and having no health care coverage at all!

As a U.S. citizen living in Canada (7 years, mostly in Toronto), I'd
like to add my $.02 (that's $.01 U.S. :-)

I, too, am tired of ideology-gripped Americans spouting ignorant
nonsense and lies about the Canadian health-care system. I also think
that some Canadians would do well to curb their arrogant presumption
that Canadian systems should be adopted in the U.S.

Basically, the truth is, lots of thing do work well in Canada --
the health system *is* better, the cities *are* cleaner and have *much*
less violent crime, and so on. However, that doesn't mean that particular
policies successful in one place can be exported and implanted successfully
within a very different cultural and political context. For example, I
don't think gun-control works in the US -- the culture of violent yahoo-ism
is too deeply ingrained. Better to let citizens there protect themselves
against their depraved neeighbors, now that things have come this far.

Sorry, my American friends, but Canadian health-care does work well in
Canada (not perfectly, but very well). Canadian gun-control also works
well in Canada. If you want to argue against their implementation
in the US, I'm with you on that, but stop lying about Canada, eh?

-- Evan

Department of Computing and Information Science
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6
CANADA

Phone: (613) 545-6000 -1-5710
FAX (613) 545-6513
Email: st...@qucis.queensu.ca
st...@cs.toronto.edu
st...@t13.lanl.gov


Pat Coghlan

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
In article <4cd1oe$3...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>,

ken heffner <ke...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>Companies see layoffs as a way to stay competitive. Like it or not,
>capitalism is based on competition. Less people doing the same work
>translates into more efficient. This country has change drastically, but,
>people aren't keeping up.
>
>In the 50s and 60s you could drop out of high school, get a job as an
>apprentice somethingorother, join a union, and have a solid middle class
>life. Now, that's no longer true. You still have the same number of kids
>partying their way through, or out of, school. But, now there's nothing
>there for them except a career in the fast food industry.

You are right about how the standard of living for the 'average Joe' is
about to decline dramatically, but you don't need to write off everyone
currently in school.

There are TONS of jobs in the high tech sector which continues to grow at
a healthy rate. Just make sure your kids study computer science or
electrical engineering etc. and not the arts.

D. Citron

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
j...@sna.com wrote:
: I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government

: service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
: knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
: thankless position.

If that is how you feel about it, it is good that you're no longer there.
There are far too many people (not only in govt jobs) who feel that their
job is owed to them.

There are LOTS of thankless positions out there. That's why you are free
to quit and seek another. Or start your own business.

I don't think that being a bureaucrat (federal, state, or local) is any
picnic, but if you act superior to the peons of the public who must deal
with you -- and whine if you're not treated that way -- you deserve every
bit of our disrespect and disdain.

You'll notice that the liberal media and the federal employees and all
the recipients of entitlements are making a big deal about the shutdown.
But everyone else says "who cares?" If they're not working, they're not
causing trouble. The Hooters case, during the last shutdown, was the
exception.

How come Slick Willie isn't considered a non-essential employee?

Posted as a public service by .............................. D. Citron

"The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public
authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind. ... In this
field every person must be his own watchman for the truth, because the
forefathers did not trust any government to separate the truth from
the false for us."
...Thomas v Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)

Chris Moorehead

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
In article <4ccj1k$h...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
will...@airmail.net (William A. Gilliland) wrote:

>>Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that
>>he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
>>implement it, everyone backed off.
>

>Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
>of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
>learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
>with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things. The focus
>needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
>costs and falling into a socialistic trap.
>


I live in Canada (Toronto, Ontario, to be precise), and am a little tired of
US conservatives pontificating at great length on the failures of Canada's
health system. Our health system is one of the major reasons that Canada's
quality of life is consistently rated as the highest in the world. It's
expensive for sure, but US health costs per capita are almost TWICE those of
Canada - plus we don't have millions of our citizens falling through the
cracks and having no health care coverage at all!

The major danger to our health system is last June's election of a neo-con
wacko as Premier of Ontario. Our new "leader", Mike Harris is a third-rate
golf pro who is as mean as Newt Gingrich, but a whole lot stupider. He
froths at the mouth constantly about the private sector being the engine
of economic growth - however, the only job he ever held in the private sector
was running daddy's ski resort (which he ran into bankruptcy). As a small
business owner, I'm a little resentful of this loser presuming to tell me how
to run a business!

To add insult to injury, this weasel and his cronies are presently trying to
ram through Omnibus Bill 26, a truly oppressive piece of legislation which
gives the Premier's office carte blanche to do practically ANYTHING with no
input from either Legislature or citizens (sorry, we don't have citizens
anymore, we have TAXPAYERS!!)

My sympathies are with any of you unfortunate enough to be working for the
Federal Government at the present time. It's very difficult to get any kind of
compassion from TAXPAYERS for your predicament, since OF COURSE government
workers are lazy, overpaid, blah, blah, blah... Mind you, these TAXPAYERS are
the first to whine endlessly whenever services are cut.

Good Luck!

Chris

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Christopher J. Moorehead
Environmental & Manufacturing Engineering Consultant
moor...@inforamp.net

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much


: >Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that

: >he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
: >implement it, everyone backed off.

: Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
: of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
: learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
: with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things.

: The focus
: needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
: costs and falling into a socialistic trap.

Gee, even the Republicans think you have to control the costs. What kind
of conservative are you?

But, the point is that the people voted Clinton in on his health care
platform. That's what the people wanted until the Republican PR campaign
ran the scare commercials on tv and then it got killed.

: > The same thing with the Contract

: >w/America. The Repubs won on a platform of a balanced budget. Then
: >everyone realized how painful that would be and are backing away from the
: >Republican plan of taxing the elederly and children to finance tax breaks.

: The thing here is that one person is backing away and not signing. In
: the prior example, the consensus of a group decided it was a bad idea.

No, the one person not signing is doing so because he has the support of
the multitude of senior citizens, parents, and others who beleive that
the Republican way is not the right way. The same consensus you talked
about.


: >: What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for


: >: EVERYONE. Can't beat it.

: >Until the lobbyists for the accounting industry have their say about it,
: >and that will go down to defeat too.

: I think you greatly overestimate the power of lobbying and
: underestimate the power of election. The biggest cries won't be from
: the accounting industry, but from misinformed poor that see the rate
: of taxation dramatically decrease for the wealthy.

I overestimate the power of lobbyists? How come it's the Republican
congress that is sitting down with lobbyists and having them write the
laws? Nope, lobbyists have a big say in the matter.


: >: They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and


: >: frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
: >: do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.

: >One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt.

: The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the


: like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
: growth both of which are not achieved by debt.

Sure is. Consumer debt is at a very high level right now. And, ever
heard of margin?


: > Secondly, as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and

: >making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
: >the government.

: Downsizing, in general, does promote larger profits to shareholders.


: However, companies are in the business to stay in business. If you
: fire someone that is essential, you won't have a business to give out
: profits. Therefor, companies don't layoff to increase shareholder
: profits, they downsize to make the company more efficient.

And in the process of laying off, it makes those and others lose
confidence in the economy, causing them to tighten their purse strings
and bring the economy to a roaring halt. How can the economy continue to
do well, by laying off workers that help fuel the growth of the companies
they once worked for?


: >Of course you also realize that government fuels private companies too.

: Of course you realize we fuel the goverment.

What goes around, comes around.


: -Will Gilliland

dc3

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
On Jan 02, 1996 04:53:23 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's

Opinion>>Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote:
Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:


>> I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his

>> tax and borrow policies.
>
>Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
>they're all that different.

Really?? Have you ever heard of the capital gains tax?? Do you know how it
applies to almost all of the wealthy?? Isn't this the tax cut that Clinton
so despises?? Well let me explain it to you, very slowly, so you can
understand Robert. Let's talk about the elderly that you think the
Republicans "want to hurt." Let's say a couple bought a house about 36
years ago, back before there was any inflation to speak of. Now the house
that they bought for, say $17,000 and now it is worth $110,000. If they
wanted to sell that house, buy a motor home, and just visit all of the
National parks for the remainder of their lives, (provided of course that
the parks were not shut down by something as far fetched as a Government
Shutdown), they would have a capital gain of $93,000. This is what a
capital gain is. They bought at a low price, and sold at a high price.
Considering that to own that house, they had to pay interest to a mortgage
company, the insurance to a insurance agency, maintenance for 36 years of
wear, and what ever else might be included, do you think they would really
end up coming out ahead and really have a capital gain that exceded the
inflation rate? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. But they made a
GOOD choice and put the money they earn to use. Is this the kind of person
that should be taxed for a capital gain? I don't think so. If I had my way,
that kind of capital gain would not be taxed!
Now, for the $10,000 question, who wants to help a person in this
situation more, Republicans in congress, or the President and her husband?

Just in case you don't know, the Republicans want to lower the capital
gains tax. THE PRESIDENT AND HER HUSBAND WANT TO RAISE THE CAPITAL GAINS
TAX, or keep it the same, or lower it some, depending on which day of the
week it is.
Now tell me, are there more homeowners in this country or are there more
businesses? There again I don't know the answer, but common sense would say
there are more home owners than businesses.
Who's plan would help the most people? (clue-- it is not the president's
plan).
Only fools think there is something to be had for nothing. You think the
democrats are on the side of the "working family?" Think again. Everything
democrats want hurts people who work for a living and people who take risks
with there capital to gain more money. Do you think you pay enough of your
money in taxes? I'll end it here.

David in Dallas


Leonard Grossman

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <4c9nkh$v...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
nem...@iadfw.net wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Jan 1996 21:12:15 GMT, laj...@eskimo.com
(Stephen Lajoie)
>wrote:
>
>>

>>There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll
for a guy with this
>>much hate.
>>
>>And welcome to the real world. In the private sector,
people get
>>"downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go
out the door last
>>year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with
back pay when they
>>got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit
happens. You got it
>>better than a hell of a lot of people in private
industry, so you aren't
>>going to get much sympathy from the private sector
workers.
>>
>>I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting
Bill Clinton and his
>>tax and borrow policies. It means a stronger private
sector, better job
>>security for me and better job oppertunities for those
who were laid off.
>>I don't care if the government stays in partial
shutdown forever. No one
>>guaranteed you a job for life.
In addition, many government workers have been warned
expect extensive furloughs _without pay_ after getting
back to work. These will be necessary if agencies are
going to be able to function under the reduced budgets
that are anticipated without further RIFs. Of course,
the continued delay means that there will be less time
left in the fiscal year to spread out the loss making
the pain even more difficult to bear.


gros...@mcs.net ( preferred address)
alternative address:leonard....@syslink.mcs.com

William A. Gilliland

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

>William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

>: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much


>: >Well, when Bill Clinton won election in 1994, it was on the platform that
>: >he would bring everyone universal health-care. Then, when he tried to
>: >implement it, everyone backed off.

>: Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
>: of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
>: learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
>: with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things.

>: The focus
>: needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
>: costs and falling into a socialistic trap.

>Gee, even the Republicans think you have to control the costs. What kind
>of conservative are you?

Conservatives ARE the ones who believe in fiscal responsiblilty.
Where have you been? Thats why the balanced budget, the government
cuts, the contract with American....etc.

>But, the point is that the people voted Clinton in on his health care
>platform. That's what the people wanted until the Republican PR campaign
>ran the scare commercials on tv and then it got killed.

People voted Clinton in for 'change'. Congressman Joe Barton of
Ennis, Tx also pointed out something amusing on talk radio today. He
pointed out Bill Clinton hasn't made good on one of his campaign
promises.

Back to the subject. What killed the "Healthcare reform" is that it
was too socialistic as most Democratic policies are. Hillary started
spouting how she wanted to limit the number of specialist and that she
wanted to get more general practictioners; that she wanted to put
prices on medicine and services and America woke up and thought we'ld
lost the Cold War.

>: > The same thing with the Contract
>: >w/America. The Repubs won on a platform of a balanced budget. Then
>: >everyone realized how painful that would be and are backing away from the
>: >Republican plan of taxing the elederly and children to finance tax breaks.

>: The thing here is that one person is backing away and not signing. In
>: the prior example, the consensus of a group decided it was a bad idea.

>No, the one person not signing is doing so because he has the support of
>the multitude of senior citizens, parents, and others who beleive that
>the Republican way is not the right way. The same consensus you talked
>about.

Wrong. I think you must have been sleeping in the last election. Not
only have conservatives been elected in droves, but the Democrats that
did retain their seat are learning how bankrupt Democratic ideas are.
They just want politics as usual keeping red tape flowing and keep the
poor dependant on you like poverty pimps.

Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens. Fortunately
Nightline uncovered their lies and you should have seen the Democratic
leaders studder when confronted. I couldn't believe I saw it on
network TV.

I don't blame you for being misguided, most of America has been
mislead too. The facts are that Republicans will increase spending in
Medicare, Medicaid, lunch programs and the like. They also provide
ingenious alternatives. Too bad CBS, NBC and ABC will never focus on
them.

>: >: What you can take to the bank is Dick Armey's flat tax of 17.5% for
>: >: EVERYONE. Can't beat it.

>: >Until the lobbyists for the accounting industry have their say about it,
>: >and that will go down to defeat too.

>: I think you greatly overestimate the power of lobbying and
>: underestimate the power of election. The biggest cries won't be from
>: the accounting industry, but from misinformed poor that see the rate
>: of taxation dramatically decrease for the wealthy.

>I overestimate the power of lobbyists? How come it's the Republican
>congress that is sitting down with lobbyists and having them write the
>laws? Nope, lobbyists have a big say in the matter.

If they have such a big say, why is the plan gaining popularity and
will be voted on this year by congress?

Lobbyist have swayed some people, but the new Republican freshmen are
proposing ground breaking new laws limiting special interest groups to
only $100 per group. That includes special interest personal money,
group money and the monetary value of all perks.

>: >: They state how a balanced budget affects confidence, spending and
>: >: frees up money. If you think about it in very simple terms, you can
>: >: do more things if you don't have the burden of debt.

>: >One fact, the stock market right now is being fueled by debt.

>: The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the
>: like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
>: growth both of which are not achieved by debt.

>Sure is. Consumer debt is at a very high level right now. And, ever
>heard of margin?

Consumer debts are loans, credit cards etc (I can't believe I have to
spell this out). Like I said before, if anything debt weakens the
stock market not strengthen. If you don't have the cash, you don't
buy. How could it 'fuel' the stock market?

Again, I implore you to read what top investors have to say about the
great things ahead if we balance the budget. @ www.townhall.com

The same holds true for companies. If they don't have the cash, they
don't invest in R&D, give raises, takeover or expand.

I've heard of plenty of margins. I'ld be happy to explain whatever
one you are talking about. Profit, sales, debt,.....

>: > Secondly, as long as companies see layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and
>: >making happy shareholders, they will continue to downsize. Regardless of
>: >the government.

>: Downsizing, in general, does promote larger profits to shareholders.
>: However, companies are in the business to stay in business. If you
>: fire someone that is essential, you won't have a business to give out
>: profits. Therefor, companies don't layoff to increase shareholder
>: profits, they downsize to make the company more efficient.

>And in the process of laying off, it makes those and others lose
>confidence in the economy, causing them to tighten their purse strings
>and bring the economy to a roaring halt. How can the economy continue to
>do well, by laying off workers that help fuel the growth of the companies
>they once worked for?

Remember, you are talking about a VERY small portion of the buying
public (.04% to be exact) You can't seriously think that .04% will
bring us to a roaring halt.

The plight of the federal workers is tragic and not by their own hand.
I feel for them, but they don't affect the economy. As I've stated
before, many more private sector employees get cut every year but you
don't hear the fanfare for them from the media nor do they really
affect the economy.

>: >Of course you also realize that government fuels private companies too.

>: Of course you realize we fuel the goverment.

>What goes around, comes around.

I think you missed the point. Remember Government of the People
by the People and for the People?

We are at the top of the food chain, then the Government. The only
reason Government 'can' subsidize some companies is because WE provide
them with the money.

- Will Gilliland
Dallas Conservatives for, I guess, not so Common Sense

Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

: >: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:>: going to get much


: >But, the point is that the people voted Clinton in on his health care

: >platform. That's what the people wanted until the Republican PR campaign
: >ran the scare commercials on tv and then it got killed.

: People voted Clinton in for 'change'. Congressman Joe Barton of
: Ennis, Tx also pointed out something amusing on talk radio today. He
: pointed out Bill Clinton hasn't made good on one of his campaign
: promises.

Yes, and one of the changes was to change the healthcare situation in
America. Everyone knew his plan was to institutionalize a national
healthcare system. People cheered him when he said it during the campaign.


: Back to the subject. What killed the "Healthcare reform" is that it


: was too socialistic as most Democratic policies are. Hillary started
: spouting how she wanted to limit the number of specialist and that she
: wanted to get more general practictioners; that she wanted to put
: prices on medicine and services and America woke up and thought we'ld
: lost the Cold War.

What killed it was the republican propaganda machine that ran the ads on
tv showing the couple being scared to death by the "draconian" health
care program.


: Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens.

Much the same way Republicans scared Americans about the Clinton
helathcare program. This time the republicans are on the losing end.


: I don't blame you for being misguided, most of America has been


: mislead too. The facts are that Republicans will increase spending in
: Medicare, Medicaid, lunch programs and the like. They also provide
: ingenious alternatives. Too bad CBS, NBC and ABC will never focus on
: them.

Yes they will cut spending on the elederly, who's health care cost
continue to rise, to finance a tax cut. Sounds like I got it about right.


: >I overestimate the power of lobbyists? How come it's the Republican

: >congress that is sitting down with lobbyists and having them write the
: >laws? Nope, lobbyists have a big say in the matter.

: If they have such a big say, why is the plan gaining popularity and
: will be voted on this year by congress?

Can you gurantee that? I'd wait until the real debate started before
being so sure about it.


: >: The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the


: >: like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
: >: growth both of which are not achieved by debt.

: >Sure is. Consumer debt is at a very high level right now. And, ever
: >heard of margin?

: Consumer debts are loans, credit cards etc (I can't believe I have to
: spell this out). Like I said before, if anything debt weakens the
: stock market not strengthen. If you don't have the cash, you don't
: buy. How could it 'fuel' the stock market?

Simple. The market keeps on going up, right? So people contine to throw
more and more money at it trying to get rich. Except, they don't have
the money, so they start putting the purchases on credit cards and
running up debt instead of withdrawing form their mutual funds. The same
is true for margin on the market. Why not margin another 50% so you can
ride the wave?

And don't let me even get into the fact that more people lease their cars
than ever before. What a sham.


: The same holds true for companies. If they don't have the cash, they


: don't invest in R&D, give raises, takeover or expand.

I can name a long list of companies that have loans taken out. They are
debtors too. Ask any person who owns a house if he has a mortgage. You
make it sound like no one has debt but the federal government. Surprise,
but this whole country, and world, is running on debt.


: >And in the process of laying off, it makes those and others lose

: >confidence in the economy, causing them to tighten their purse strings
: >and bring the economy to a roaring halt. How can the economy continue to
: >do well, by laying off workers that help fuel the growth of the companies
: >they once worked for?

: Remember, you are talking about a VERY small portion of the buying
: public (.04% to be exact) You can't seriously think that .04% will
: bring us to a roaring halt.


No, probably a wimpering halt. Considering the economy hasn't been all
that strong, thanks to the fed, it probabaly doesn't take much to shift
to a recession right now.


But the point is, companies lay off to make more profits, forcing other
companies to lay off to keep up to them, and so on. But, now those that
are laid off can't get their higher paying jobs, so they stay unemployed
or take lower paying jobs. In turn, companies see lower than expected
profits and in turn lay off more people and so on and so on.......


: The plight of the federal workers is tragic and not by their own hand.


: I feel for them, but they don't affect the economy. As I've stated
: before, many more private sector employees get cut every year but you
: don't hear the fanfare for them from the media nor do they really
: affect the economy.

Actually, in my opinion, only in the third week of the govt. shutdown has
there been a media focus on the govt. employees. But, mostly about the
fact that they are working without pay and how the ones they interviewed
had no money left to pay their bills.

But, there is a lot of media coverage about private sector workers
getting laid off too. One of the top stories this week was about ATT.
In the past I've seen stories about other companies too having massive
layoffs.

I don't think any of it is right. We want people off of welfare, yet the
slogan of companies is lay-off. It doesn't send a positive signal.
All I do know is that people better have a cushy nest-egg set aside for
the next recession.


donna marie fern

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
How interesting that you have discovered the budget deficit now that a
democrate is in office. After all the majority of the spending that
contributed to this situation was signed into law by the previous
republican administrations. This inflamitory retoric is not changing a
thing.

Kim DeVaughn

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <4cd1h6$3...@ionews.ionet.net>, <bu...@ionet.net> wrote:
|
| In <4cc8hi$6...@news2.his.com>, rac...@his.com (Richard Clark) writes:
| >
| >Well I'd certainly hate it, if the Air Controllers left their jobs
| >while I was up in the air and waiting to land on a foggy day at
| >Chicago O'hare.
|
| We wouldn't do that we have to be there whether we get paid or
| not. And I am afraid that I agree with that policy. I don't
| work at O'hare but I do care about the people that I control
| every day. Nice of you to think of us too. Later.

Well ... you (the generic "you") *did* go out on strike back when Nixon was
in the White House, as I recall ...


But don't you think it'd be better in *many* ways if the ATC were to be
"privatized", as is currently being discussed?

For example, you could get some decent new technology (read, new computers)
in a reasonable amount of time, that actually worked correctly. And UPS's
to match.

Hell ... I remember working on a proposal in the late 1970's for a system
to replace the then-obsolete NAS Enroute systems. And here it is in the
mid-1990's, and those machines are *still* in service (most of the time,
anyway). Ah ... some of the stories I heard WRT Enroute ... <shudder> ...!

Let's hear it for the FAA's procurement "policies" ...

/kim

==================================================
Excuse me ... I have to go vacuum my files now ...

Andrew Hall

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
>>>>> dc3 writes:

dc3> On Jan 02, 1996 04:53:23 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One
dc3> Fed's
Opinion> Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote: ,


Opinion> 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:


>>> I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill
>>> Clinton and his

>>> tax and borrow policies.

>> Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I
>> hardly think they're all that different.

dc3> Really?? Have you ever heard of the capital gains tax?? Do you
dc3> know how it applies to almost all of the wealthy?? Isn't this
dc3> the tax cut that Clinton so despises?? Well let me explain it
dc3> to you, very slowly, so you can understand Robert. Let's talk
dc3> about the elderly that you think the Republicans "want to
dc3> hurt." Let's say a couple bought a house about 36 years ago,
dc3> back before there was any inflation to speak of. Now the house
dc3> that they bought for, say $17,000 and now it is worth
dc3> $110,000. If they wanted to sell that house, buy a motor home,
dc3> and just visit all of the National parks for the remainder of
dc3> their lives, (provided of course that the parks were not shut
dc3> down by something as far fetched as a Government Shutdown),
dc3> they would have a capital gain of $93,000. This is what a
dc3> capital gain is. They bought at a low price, and sold at a
dc3> high price. Considering that to own that house, they had to
dc3> pay interest to a mortgage company, the insurance to a
dc3> insurance agency, maintenance for 36 years of wear, and what
dc3> ever else might be included, do you think they would really
dc3> end up coming out ahead and really have a capital gain that
dc3> exceded the inflation rate? I don't know and it really doesn't
dc3> matter. But they made a GOOD choice and put the money they
dc3> earn to use. Is this the kind of person that should be taxed
dc3> for a capital gain? I don't think so. If I had my way, that
dc3> kind of capital gain would not be taxed! Now, for the $10,000

Good, as this particular transaction would have no taxes under current
law.

dc3> question, who wants to help a person in this situation more,
dc3> Republicans in congress, or the President and her husband?

dc3> Just in case you don't know, the Republicans want to lower
dc3> the capital gains tax. THE PRESIDENT AND HER HUSBAND WANT TO
dc3> RAISE THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX, or keep it the same, or lower it
dc3> some, depending on which day of the week it is. Now tell me,
dc3> are there more homeowners in this country or are there more
dc3> businesses? There again I don't know the answer, but common
dc3> sense would say there are more home owners than businesses.
dc3> Who's plan would help the most people? (clue-- it is not the
dc3> president's plan). Only fools think there is something to be
dc3> had for nothing. You think the democrats are on the side of
dc3> the "working family?" Think again. Everything democrats want
dc3> hurts people who work for a living and people who take risks
dc3> with there capital to gain more money. Do you think you pay
dc3> enough of your money in taxes? I'll end it here.

dc3> David in Dallas


ah

(Followups set to "talk.politics.misc" where I am posting from.)

Guy E Wheelock

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
dci...@gate.net (D. Citron) writes:

>j...@sna.com wrote:
>: I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government
>: service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
>: knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
>: thankless position.

>If that is how you feel about it, it is good that you're no longer there.
>There are far too many people (not only in govt jobs) who feel that their
>job is owed to them.

>There are LOTS of thankless positions out there. That's why you are free
>to quit and seek another. Or start your own business.

>I don't think that being a bureaucrat (federal, state, or local) is any
>picnic, but if you act superior to the peons of the public who must deal
>with you -- and whine if you're not treated that way -- you deserve every
>bit of our disrespect and disdain.

>You'll notice that the liberal media and the federal employees and all
>the recipients of entitlements are making a big deal about the shutdown.
>But everyone else says "who cares?" If they're not working, they're not
>causing trouble. The Hooters case, during the last shutdown, was the
>exception.

>How come Slick Willie isn't considered a non-essential employee?

... or the IRS - at least thru April 15th .... of the year 3000!

Sharon Smith

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <4ccou1$v...@news-f.iadfw.net>, nem...@iadfw.net says:
>
>On Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:40:08 GMT, laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
>wrote:
>
>

>>Well, aren't you smart. :-| I've worked for the fed too. What a joke. It
>>was like the intent of the the job was to waste money. Hell, they not only
>>threatened to fire me, but bring me up on charges for saving them
>>thousands of dollars. Underpaid, wasteful, and silly. It was one of the
>>worst places I've ever worked. I got paid to stay home so that I wouldn't
>>be there when the congressman came around to ask questions.
>
>No argument there. The Govt. is very wateful.
>
>>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done by a
>>state agency or private industry, except for the military.
>
>Yes, except where do you think the states, and in some cases private
>industry, look to for funding these essential duties.
>
>
IMHO, it's not the federal govt. that provides funding, but the taxpayer.

Let's follow the money trail.

Currently:
Tax $ from taxpayer to IRS [fed employees]
IRS processes returns & distributes $ to Fed (Unknown - # of
agencies to handle and disperse $ [fed employees])
Fed agencies disperse $ to state treasuries
State treasuries disperse $ to state agencies
State agency disperse $ to local govts.

Proposed: Eliminate first three processes. Institute:
Tax $ from taxpayer to state treasuries
State treasurer disperses $ to appropriate state agency
State agency disperses $ to local govt.

The $ ends up at the same place. The savings is in how many employees
handle the $, each diminishing the value of it. Since the process is
designed closer to the customer, there is a better custom fit.

The funding hasn't gone away until all taxes go away or citizens
send a message to their state legislator to eliminate the service.

One thing needed for the proposal to succeed is good watch dogging and
better reporting at the state - local levels, however. This is an
opportunity for growth and improvement.

Sharon


James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
d...@usa.pipeline.com(dc3) wrote:

->Really?? Have you ever heard of the capital gains tax?? Do you know
how it
->applies to almost all of the wealthy?? Isn't this the tax cut that
Clinton
->so despises?? Well let me explain it to you, very slowly, so you can
->understand Robert. Let's talk about the elderly that you think the
->Republicans "want to hurt." Let's say a couple bought a house about
36
->years ago, back before there was any inflation to speak of. Now the
house
->that they bought for, say $17,000 and now it is worth $110,000. If
they
->wanted to sell that house, buy a motor home, and just visit all of
the
->National parks for the remainder of their lives, (provided of course
that
->the parks were not shut down by something as far fetched as a
Government
->Shutdown), they would have a capital gain of $93,000. This is what a
->capital gain is. They bought at a low price, and sold at a high
price.
->Considering that to own that house, they had to pay interest to a
mortgage
->company, the insurance to a insurance agency, maintenance for 36
years of
->wear, and what ever else might be included, do you think they would
really
->end up coming out ahead and really have a capital gain that exceded
the
->inflation rate? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. But they
made a
->GOOD choice and put the money they earn to use. Is this the kind of
person
->that should be taxed for a capital gain? I don't think so. If I had
my way,
->that kind of capital gain would not be taxed!
-> Now, for the $10,000 question, who wants to help a person in this
->situation more, Republicans in congress, or the President and her
husband?

-> Just in case you don't know, the Republicans want to lower the
capital
->gains tax. THE PRESIDENT AND HER HUSBAND WANT TO RAISE THE CAPITAL
GAINS
->TAX, or keep it the same, or lower it some, depending on which day
of the
->week it is.
-> Now tell me, are there more homeowners in this country or are
there more
->businesses? There again I don't know the answer, but common sense
would say
->there are more home owners than businesses.
-> Who's plan would help the most people? (clue-- it is not the
president's
->plan).
-> Only fools think there is something to be had for nothing. You
think the
->democrats are on the side of the "working family?" Think again.
Everything
->democrats want hurts people who work for a living and people who
take risks
->with there capital to gain more money. Do you think you pay enough
of your
->money in taxes? I'll end it here.
->
->David in Dallas

Let me preface this by mentioning that YOU ARE AN IDIOT, DAVID.
If you sell your house, you have two years in which to buy another.
The value of that house is deducted from your capital gains. Sure,
there are a few people who want to sell their family home and never
buy another, but I think they are in the minority. Capital gains (if
you are rich) are actually taxed at a lower rate than other forms of
income. If you're poor, it's a different story, of course.
One of the purposes of the capital gains tax was to discourage
speculation and the kind of financial bubble market that led to the
crash of '29. Now, of course, it is a tax shelter for the rich and a
burden on the middle class. Perhaps the answer here is to tax capital
gains like any other income.
I guess you think your stock market gambling is a good thing. Why
don't you make your money by providing goods and services, instead of
wasting your efforts pushing money here and there in hopes of hitting
it big?
An please, no stupid lectures about how "the stock market is the
engine that drives our economy." It's a parasite that drains it.


Sharon Smith

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <4c5802$f...@News1.mcs.net>, gros...@mcs.com (Leonard Grossman) says:
>
>In article <4c4vjv$r...@clarknet.clark.net>,

<snip>

>
>It also reminds me of my early days as a teacher in
>other ways. In the
>late 60's or early 70's the Chicago teachers struck
>for the first time.
>It was over quickly. Before that the mere threat of
>a lengthy *strike*
>made the city quake. Then we went on a longer
>*strike*. The unthinkable
>occurred and yet the city survived. After that each
>strike was longer.
>An unspoken compact had been broken yet the world
>did not end.
>
>
>And the same is happening here. For years, the
>thought of an extended
>shut down was a threat.. chaos would prevail... But
>now there is
>merely silence... The indifference is defeaning.
>We were pawns.. Now
>we are less than that.. we have become ciphers.
>
>Slowly a fire is growing in my stomach... a fire of
>anger.
>
>I will never forget that Congress chose to go home
>and let us twist
>slowly in the wind.
>
>Regardless of how one feels about the priorities of
>a balanced budget,
>the *use of blackmail is abhorent.* Last year's
>revolution was
>incomplete, the party in power cannot yet regularly
>override a veto.
>They do not have a mandate to dictate overwhelming
>change but merely the
>opportunity to negotiate progress in the direction
>they have chosen.
>This is still a democracy, whether they recognize it
>or not.
>
>The idea that a failure to sign on to a fantasy long
>term budget plan is
>a basis for shutting down the government is absurd.
> For the president
>to cave in to short term real changes in policy and
>funding when more
>than a third of Congress has not agreed would be
>unconscionable. Before
>major shifts of policy and direction occur in our
>democracy, there must
>be a much greater consensus than now exists. That
>is why the President
>has a veto and it takes 2/3's to override it.
>
>The party in power has not yet made its case. If it
>can persuade the
>voters next November, then it may have the required
>super majority in
>congress to make the changes it desires. Until
>then, it should get on
>with the business of governing and *out of the
>blackmail business*.
>
>Forgive me for rambling so.. but there is a fire
>growing in my stomach...and a hole in my wallet
>
>Len
>

I find it very interesting that you deem government shutdown as
blackmail, but countenance teachers' strikes as acceptable
procedure. (See insertion of asterisks in your above text, made for
reference purposes.) Did not striking teachers use students and their
parents as "ciphers" (your term)? Evidently, you don't apply the same
standard across the bar. It hurts to be in the receiving position,
having no choice, doesn't it? "..and yet the city survived", your
words. You were willing to inflict the results of a strike upon a city,
but find "the use of blackmail [is] abhorent. Hmmmmmmm.

Side comment: until we have education vouchers and alternatives
for students, teachers' strikes will be blackmail.

Sharon

James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:


->I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and
his
->tax and borrow policies.
->--
->--
->Steve La Joie
->laj...@eskimo.com
->
Did you have your taxes raised by Clinton? No wonder you're so mad.
Why don't you have the butler bring you a gin and tonic and try to
relax a little. Maybe you can spend the afternoon on your yacht and
try to forget your responsibilities to the rest of humanity for a
little while.
JimmyO (full of sympathy)


James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
will...@airmail.net (William A. Gilliland) wrote:


->Billary's plan failed because it was too much like the failing plans
->of Canada and Great Britain. Even the then Democratic congress had
->learned something from the history of our neighbors. The problem
->with that plan is that it focused on the wrong things. The focus
->needs to be universal forms and portablility and not controlling the
->costs and falling into a socialistic trap.

Clinton's plan bore no resemblence whatsoever to the Canadian or
British programs. The problem with it was that he knew the insurance
companies would fight tooth and nail to save their latch on our
wallets, and so he tried to end run them by allowing them to design a
plan that would preserve their profits. Of course the scheme they
came up with was a load of crap, and we are all lucky it failed to
pass, as it might have prevented .a better system from being
implemented in the future.
The only reason the Republicans opposed the plan was out of
partisanship. It was just the kind of thing they would have come up
with themselves.
JimmyO (class war is our only hope for a better future)


James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
ke...@usa.pipeline.com(ken heffner) wrote:


->Companies see layoffs as a way to stay competitive. Like it or not,
->capitalism is based on competition. Less people doing the same work
->translates into more efficient. This country has change drastically,
but,
->people aren't keeping up.
->
->In the 50s and 60s you could drop out of high school, get a job as
an
->apprentice somethingorother, join a union, and have a solid middle
class
->life. Now, that's no longer true. You still have the same number of
kids
->partying their way through, or out of, school. But, now there's
nothing
->there for them except a career in the fast food industry.
->
->kenh

Why don't you read "The Road to Wigan Pier" by George Orwell? Quite
an illuminating book, about living with English coal miners during the
Great Depression. One of the most telling points he makes is how a
third of the workforce was unemployed, yet every unemployed worker was
made to feel that it was due to his own personal failure. We have an
equivalent situation today, albeit on a smaller scale. The Fed
manipulates the economy to keep 6% of us out of work, (remember last
year's headlines?) but anyone who is out of work is considered lazy,


ken heffner

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
On Jan 03, 1996 17:44:54 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's

Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:


>No, the one person not signing is doing so because he has the support of
>the multitude of senior citizens, parents, and others who beleive that
>the Republican way is not the right way. The same consensus you talked
>about.
--
And that support was bought by the Democrat PR campaign that scared the
seniors and parents with distortions and flat out lies (i.e. the
Republicans are trying to gut Medicare, when, in fact, the Debtocrat plan
is essentially the same.)

kenh

Leonard Grossman

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
In article <4cgqej$6...@guava.epix.net>, tr...@epix.net

Amopng other differences, of course, was the fact that
the teachers themselves chose to withold their services,
they wre not shut out by the government. The right to
withhold services is one of the essential liberties--
one that federal workers no longer have.

It is interesting to know that the recent unrest in
France was the result of workers protesting a
government attempt to reduce the French deficit too a
level that is much greater than that of the United
states when compared to the gross national priduct of
each country. Stated another way, the French strongly
object to a far smaller reduction in government
spending than we so docily accept here, It is
fascinating to be reminded again that workers have
far greater rights in other democracies thaan we have in
the land of the free.

Len
Len

James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
tr...@epix.net (Sharon Smith) wrote:


->Let's follow the money trail.

->Currently:
-> Tax $ from taxpayer to IRS [fed employees]
-> IRS processes returns & distributes $ to Fed (Unknown - # of
-> agencies to handle and disperse $ [fed employees])
-> Fed agencies disperse $ to state treasuries
-> State treasuries disperse $ to state agencies
-> State agency disperse $ to local govts.

->Proposed: Eliminate first three processes. Institute:
-> Tax $ from taxpayer to state treasuries
-> State treasurer disperses $ to appropriate state agency
-> State agency disperses $ to local govt.

->The $ ends up at the same place. The savings is in how many
employees
->handle the $, each diminishing the value of it. Since the process
is
->designed closer to the customer, there is a better custom fit.

->The funding hasn't gone away until all taxes go away or citizens
->send a message to their state legislator to eliminate the service.

->One thing needed for the proposal to succeed is good watch dogging
and
->better reporting at the state - local levels, however. This is an
->opportunity for growth and improvement.

->Sharon


One of the things that federal funding does is even out the local
economies. There are a lot of states that run a local trade deficit,
and without a certain degree of redistribution, we'd see them fall
into third-world conditions. (Look at East St. Louis for a
microcosm.) There are those who say "So what?" but this is one
country, and troubles in one part are troubles for the whole.
Backwaters of poverty will eventually export their problems to the
rest of the country, and the only solution (besides helping the poorer
areas) would be Balkanization and the eventual collapse of the
country.
Another problem with your analysis is the assumption that money
disappears at each handling. The money spent in the handling goes back
into the economy. And remember, it was government spending that
brought us out of the Great Depression.
One of the things I learned as a manager is that positive action now
works better than punitive action later. It just takes a little more
thought and attention on my part. The same principle applies at the
national level.
JimmyO (stickin' up for spending)


James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
nem...@iadfw.net wrote:

->On Mon, 1 Jan 1996 21:12:15 GMT, laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
->wrote:

->>
->>There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with
this
->>much hate.
->>
->>And welcome to the real world. In the private sector, people get
->>"downsized" all the time. I saw some 5,000 people go out the door
last
->>year where I work. None of this ten day furlough with back pay when
they
->>got back stuff that is being whinned about here. Shit happens. You
got it
->>better than a hell of a lot of people in private industry, so you
aren't
->>going to get much sympathy from the private sector workers.
->>


->>I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton
and his

->>tax and borrow policies. It means a stronger private sector, better
job
->>security for me and better job oppertunities for those who were
laid off.
->>I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever.
No one
->>guaranteed you a job for life.


->>Steve La Joie
->>laj...@eskimo.com
->

->You obviously were not aware of Clinton's National Performance
Review
->Program where by all Federal agencies were required to lay off or
->downsize in order to save money.

-> What that means is that a number of people were RIFFED (reduction
in
->force) . Promotions were cancelled and work loads were increased
->under the same demands as before.

->When employees are laid off, they can normally draw some sort of
->severance pay. In contrast, furloughed Govt. employees don't get
->severance pay. They are entitled to unemployment compensation only.
->IF Congress opts to repay them, the unemployment compensation must
be
->paid back.

->Nobody expects a job for life with the Govt. But would you like your
->pay frozen because the bureaucracy wants to play one upsmanship.
This
->isn't a question of being fired. It's a question of having your
->earnings and you placed in limbo.

Excellent return. One of the things the right wing refuses to admit
is that Clinton has accomplished in three years what Republican
administrations promised and failed to do for twelve.
Incidentally, have you seen the latest on the budget negotiations? it
seems like it's all been a power play to get the capital-gains tax
dropped. So much for principles...
JimmyO (2 + n = 4... now I wonder what n could be...)


James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/4/96
to
will...@airmail.net (William A. Gilliland) wrote:

It sounds however that you've fallen
->victim to Democratic propaganda. What the above person was saying
is
->that Republicans are the revolutionaries that started the balanced
->budget movement with the Contract with America. Once Bill Clinton
->realized that this is what America wanted via the overwhelming
voting
->for Republican in the last election, he then started working for
->it.... sort of.

->- Will Gilliland
->-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-> Will Gilliland
->
-> will...@airmail.net
->----------------------------------------------

What amazes me is how many people suck up Republican propaganda. For
instance, of the ten items in the Contract on America, seven wer
giveaways to the affluent, and three were budget reduction policies.
The two items that didn't get passed were both budget reduction.
Remember Chicago Rep. Charles Rostenkowski? He had a plan to end the
deficit in five years, he was horse trading for the votes and getting
a promise form Bush not to veto, it looked like a sure shot, when
suddenly the House Post Office scandal popped up, investigated by a
Republican pit bull (who's now working on the Whitewater
investigation). The tactics of that case are a story in themselves.
Rostenkowski's balanced budget proposal died in the water, he's no
longer in office, and the Republicans claim that the balanced budget
is their idea.
If they are interested in a balanced budget, why insist that the
Pentagon buy 20 Stealth bombers that they didn't want? Why give tax
breaks to people who are living in luxury? Why cut the meat from
programs that help the poor and hungry when five times as much is
handed out to the affluent?
I believe that they know that this is their last hurrah. Republican
policies have brought America to death's door, and they are squabbling
over the corpse before it gets cold.
JimmyO (can you tell I'm mad?)


William A. Gilliland

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

>: People voted Clinton in for 'change'. Congressman Joe Barton of
>: Ennis, Tx also pointed out something amusing on talk radio today. He
>: pointed out Bill Clinton hasn't made good on one of his campaign
>: promises.

>Yes, and one of the changes was to change the healthcare situation in
>America. Everyone knew his plan was to institutionalize a national
>healthcare system. People cheered him when he said it during the campaign.

I for one didn't cheer. And when people saw that their ideas were so
socialistic, thats when even Demacrats said No.

>What killed it was the republican propaganda machine that ran the ads on
>tv showing the couple being scared to death by the "draconian" health
>care program.

People heard how Hillary was going to control every aspect of
healthcare, including cost, through bureaucratic agencies and they did
all they could to stop it. Don't forget it took a lot of Democrats to
vote it down too. Even they recognized that cost control through
federal control is socialism and unamerican.

>: Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens.

>Much the same way Republicans scared Americans about the Clinton
>helathcare program. This time the republicans are on the losing end.

No, you are on the losing end. It hasn't affected me or 88% of
Americans at all (as polled). The Republican plan raises Medicare
rates by less than $200 per year, per person. Pretty scary stuff eh?
Thank goodness Nightline uncovered this Democratic propaganda.

>: I don't blame you for being misguided, most of America has been
>: mislead too. The facts are that Republicans will increase spending in
>: Medicare, Medicaid, lunch programs and the like. They also provide
>: ingenious alternatives. Too bad CBS, NBC and ABC will never focus on
>: them.

>Yes they will cut spending on the elederly, who's health care cost
>continue to rise, to finance a tax cut. Sounds like I got it about right.

Its not just the elderly but a lot of other spending is being cut.
Those tax cuts you talk about are mainly for the lower in middle
class. Its 17% across the board with the poor families paying nothing
for federal taxes (Dick Armey's plan). If we don't get the budget
balanced, we are looking at 80% tax rates for our childeren (from the
Democratic budget values). Right now, every child is born with a
$187,000 debt (just heard now on RealAudio over the internet from
KLIF).

There is no question. We HAVE to balance the budget. Republicans
have a great plan to do it. If Clinton doesn't like it, why doesn't
he submit a balanced budget with real numbers that are nonpartisan
accurate?

>: >I overestimate the power of lobbyists? How come it's the Republican
>: >congress that is sitting down with lobbyists and having them write the
>: >laws? Nope, lobbyists have a big say in the matter.

>: If they have such a big say, why is the plan gaining popularity and
>: will be voted on this year by congress?

>Can you gurantee that? I'd wait until the real debate started before
>being so sure about it.

Just like the Contract with America, the Republicans have done
everything in their power to pass everything they've promised and have
NEVER waffled. They said they would and they have. Its very easy for
me to see who holds true to their word. That's how I'm sure.

>: >: The stock market is not fueled by debt. Bank savings, bonds and the
>: >: like are fueled by debt. The stock market is fueled by stability and
>: >: growth both of which are not achieved by debt.

>: >Sure is. Consumer debt is at a very high level right now. And, ever
>: >heard of margin?

>: Consumer debts are loans, credit cards etc (I can't believe I have to
>: spell this out). Like I said before, if anything debt weakens the
>: stock market not strengthen. If you don't have the cash, you don't
>: buy. How could it 'fuel' the stock market?

>Simple. The market keeps on going up, right? So people contine to throw
>more and more money at it trying to get rich. Except, they don't have
>the money, so they start putting the purchases on credit cards and
>running up debt instead of withdrawing form their mutual funds.

People with mutual funds don't have high credit card debt. If they
do, I'll inform them revolving charge and refer them to my broker who
will tell them to pay off the cards and forget about the mutal funds
till they cards are zero..

Its true the average American spends more than they make. This is due
mostly to consumer debt through credit cards. And when the credit
cards run out, you don't buy. The credit cards are starting to run
out and we are getting more and more into debt. With that debt you
can't afford a $500 minimum on most mutual funds. Its the people that
don't have that debt that fuel the stock market.

Debt only fuels, the VISAs, banks and lending institutions of the
world.


>And don't let me even get into the fact that more people lease their cars
>than ever before. What a sham.

It depends on your buying habits. If you like buy new every two
years, lease. If you keep it till it dies, leasing is definitely not
worth it.

>: The same holds true for companies. If they don't have the cash, they
>: don't invest in R&D, give raises, takeover or expand.

>I can name a long list of companies that have loans taken out. They are
>debtors too. Ask any person who owns a house if he has a mortgage. You
>make it sound like no one has debt but the federal government. Surprise,
>but this whole country, and world, is running on debt.

You darn right the US is running on some debt. Almost EVERY business
has debt. The difference is, its managed debt. When debt gets too
high, the investors get worried and pull out. Who wouldn't. Why
should I invest in a company in debt if there are plenty of
alternatives.

Just like you. Most of us have managed debt. IF, you don't have cash
on hand, you can use borrowing to you advantage... to a point. IF,
you don't have debt, your options are vast.

>: >And in the process of laying off, it makes those and others lose
>: >confidence in the economy, causing them to tighten their purse strings
>: >and bring the economy to a roaring halt. How can the economy continue to
>: >do well, by laying off workers that help fuel the growth of the companies
>: >they once worked for?

>: Remember, you are talking about a VERY small portion of the buying
>: public (.04% to be exact) You can't seriously think that .04% will
>: bring us to a roaring halt.


>No, probably a wimpering halt. Considering the economy hasn't been all
>that strong, thanks to the fed, it probabaly doesn't take much to shift
>to a recession right now.

Wait a second. Are you the same person that is claiming the stock
market is going up and up and now you are saying the economy hasn't
been that strong?

>But the point is, companies lay off to make more profits, forcing other
>companies to lay off to keep up to them, and so on. But, now those that
>are laid off can't get their higher paying jobs, so they stay unemployed
>or take lower paying jobs.

Thats why people are learning to work two jobs and get better
educations, or open their own businesses ...... you can't get fired
then.

> In turn, companies see lower than expected
>profits and in turn lay off more people and so on and so on.......

You just said that they lay off people to increase profits. Who is
saying it didn't work? You've been telling us the stock market is
going up and up. Companies do everything they can not to keep laying
more off and off. This creates a wary atmosphere where production
really suffers.

>: The plight of the federal workers is tragic and not by their own hand.
>: I feel for them, but they don't affect the economy. As I've stated
>: before, many more private sector employees get cut every year but you
>: don't hear the fanfare for them from the media nor do they really
>: affect the economy.

>I don't think any of it is right. We want people off of welfare, yet the

>slogan of companies is lay-off. It doesn't send a positive signal.
>All I do know is that people better have a cushy nest-egg set aside for
>the next recession.

Name one company of a slogan of laying off. Who would ever work for
them? And as for a cushy nest egg ....... I suggest people clear up
their debt and get in touch with a broker as soon as possible. The
top investors of America forsee great things when the Republicans get
America running in the black and start giving them BACK money through
the new flat tax rate. I'll try to get the exact address in
townhall.com to this exciting report. I just got off the phone with
my investor and he's predicting great things too.

- Will

Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
dc3 (d...@usa.pipeline.com) wrote:
: On Jan 02, 1996 04:53:23 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's
: Opinion>>Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote:
: Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:
:
:
: >> I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his
:
: >> tax and borrow policies.
: >
: >Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think
: >they're all that different.
:
: Really?? Have you ever heard of the capital gains tax?? Do you know how it
: applies to almost all of the wealthy??

Here we go again. The ones that benefit the most from the capital gains
cuts are the rich. Here, I'll prove it to you. Joe MiddleClass declares
$10,000 cap gain while Bill Gates exercises $5 stock options and declares
$10,000,000 cap gain. Cap gains were cut 10%.

10,000 x .1 = 1,000 savings
1,000,000 x .1 = 100,000 savings.

Gee, who really benefitted here? I'd say Bill Gates.


: Isn't this the tax cut that Clinton
: so despises?? Well let me explain it to you, very slowly, so you can
: understand Robert. Let's talk about the elderly that you think the
: Republicans "want to hurt." Let's say a couple bought a house about 36
: years ago, back before there was any inflation to speak of. Now the house
: that they bought for, say $17,000 and now it is worth $110,000. If they
: wanted to sell that house, buy a motor home, and just visit all of the
: National parks for the remainder of their lives, (provided of course that
: the parks were not shut down by something as far fetched as a Government
: Shutdown), they would have a capital gain of $93,000. This is what a
: capital gain is. They bought at a low price, and sold at a high price.
: Considering that to own that house, they had to pay interest to a mortgage
: company, the insurance to a insurance agency, maintenance for 36 years of
: wear, and what ever else might be included, do you think they would really
: end up coming out ahead and really have a capital gain that exceded the
: inflation rate? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. But they made a
: GOOD choice and put the money they earn to use. Is this the kind of person
: that should be taxed for a capital gain? I don't think so. If I had my way,
: that kind of capital gain would not be taxed!

So let's do the math. $93,000/36years = $2583 cap gain/year. Huh, they
probably declare more than that on their mutula funds.

Next, assuming 35% tax on 2583, it would be $900/year in taxes.

Assuming 25% tax on 2583, it would be $645/year in taxes.

So, they would gain $258/year. Well, if you think they're getting rich
with that tax cut, they must not be making all that much to begin with.


: Now, for the $10,000 question, who wants to help a person in this
: situation more, Republicans in congress, or the President and her husband?

Gee, when health care costs are rising at multiples to inflation, and
when the increase in health care premiums will more than obliterate that
$258/year tax cut, I'd say the President is doing the seniors a bigger
favor than the tax increase in the Republican plan.


: Only fools think there is something to be had for nothing. You think the
: democrats are on the side of the "working family?" Think again. Everything
: democrats want hurts people who work for a living and people who take risks
: with there capital to gain more money. Do you think you pay enough of your
: money in taxes? I'll end it here.

Do you think you'd enjoy the above computations, if you were a senior
citizen?

:
: David in Dallas


Mark

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In article <4chnjf$4...@News1.mcs.net>, gros...@mcs.com (Leonard Grossman) wrote:

@ Amopng other differences, of course, was the fact that
@ the teachers themselves chose to withold their services,
@ they wre not shut out by the government. The right to
@ withhold services is one of the essential liberties--
@ one that federal workers no longer have.

*Certain* (ie. not all as you imply) government services are necessary and
if you hold such a job I would hope you realize the importance of that
position and recognize that not being able to redress greveinces _by_
striking is part of the job description. You are free to accept or decline
such a job and you may resign.

Sure it is an unconvience for them, but these federal workers _are_
getting paid for _not_ working. They are lucky to be being paid at all.
Their employer (US government) could have simply just laid them off.
Contrary to what most government workers believe, they _don't_ have a
right to their job or a steady paycheck from the government.

@
@ It is interesting to know that the recent unrest in
@ France was the result of workers protesting a
@ government attempt to reduce the French deficit too a
@ level that is much greater than that of the United
@ states when compared to the gross national priduct of
@ each country. Stated another way, the French strongly
@ object to a far smaller reduction in government
@ spending than we so docily accept here, It is
@ fascinating to be reminded again that workers have
@ far greater rights in other democracies thaan we have in
@ the land of the free.
@

The US federal government does not owe anyone a job or a paycheck. France
should be seen as a warning for a nation being dependent on the national
government for the most services. With France being so dependent on the
socailist goverment, those in government have the real power over the
people.

In America, with federalism, state governments should oversee _only_ what
the local government can't. The federal government should _only_ oversees
what the US Constitution specifically tells it to.

If America followed this limited, federalism form government of our
framers, the vast majority of Americans would not notice a federal
shutdown in their daily lives. However heavy dependence on a national
goverment (socialism) like France should make Americans aware of the
dangers of the oversized and out of bounds federal government we now
have.

France was a good point, glad you brought it up.

*************************
Mark O'Brien th...@voicenet.com
*************************

Defend your Freedoms FIRST, your Peace SECOND,
because without Freedom, Peace becomes oppression.

Brent Barber

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In article <DKItK...@eskimo.com>, laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:

> In article <4c415c$8...@clark.net>, Richard Firestone <rf...@clark.net> wrote:

> > I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
> >immorality, and hubris. I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for
> >nine of the past ten furlough days on "emergency" status.

> There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this

> much hate.

If that were true, not a single Republican, especially hate filled venom
spewer Newtie, *should* have a place on the government payroll.

> [rantings deleted]



> I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his

> tax and borrow policies. It means a stronger private sector, better job

> security for me and better job oppertunities (sic) for those who were
laid off.

> I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one

> guaranteed you a job for life.

Not only did you apparently skip your junior high civics lesson on the
responsibilities of congress in negotiating legislation witht the
executive branch of government, but you callously disregard the fact that
millions of Americans are being denied a wide array of government services
they have already PAID FOR! Your ideological fanaticism does not serve you
well. I too am glad the shutdown continues, for a different reason. It
continues to expose the petty arrogance and base stupidity of the
Republican party and its poisoned philosophy while simultaneously
demonstrating the humanity and neccessity of efficient government agencies
which serve the public, often thanklessly, despite these are only amonge
the 23% considered "non-essential." The hollow right wing anti-government
hate speech is finally being exposed for the insipid drivel it always was.

--
- bre...@ionet.net

rusty_nail

unread,
Jan 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/6/96
to
jha...@lava.net (James R. Olson jr.) wrote:

>laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:


>->I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and
>his

>->tax and borrow policies.

>->--
>->--


>->Steve La Joie
>->laj...@eskimo.com
>->

>Did you have your taxes raised by Clinton? No wonder you're so mad.
>Why don't you have the butler bring you a gin and tonic and try to
>relax a little. Maybe you can spend the afternoon on your yacht and
>try to forget your responsibilities to the rest of humanity for a
>little while.
> JimmyO (full of sympathy)


Well, Jimmy, I did have my taxes raised by Clinton. In fact they went
so high that I had to let the butler and the upstairs maid go. Now
they are both on welfare and the little guys like you are supporting
them. Tah Tah!

Rusty Nail (weathered but functional)


Unknown

unread,
Jan 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/6/96
to
will...@airmail.net (William A. Gilliland) wrote:

>have a great plan to do it. If Clinton doesn't like it, why doesn't
>he submit a balanced budget with real numbers that are nonpartisan
>accurate?

That wouldn't be the CBO numbers.


>Just like the Contract with America, the Republicans have done
>everything in their power to pass everything they've promised and have
>NEVER waffled. They said they would and they have. Its very easy for
>me to see who holds true to their word. That's how I'm sure.

No, they didn't waffle Friday; they caved in on a policy position that
everyone else already knew was insupportable.

Jabbo
"Everything's going to hell -- entropy wins again!"


Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/6/96
to
William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

: >What killed it was the republican propaganda machine that ran the ads on

: >tv showing the couple being scared to death by the "draconian" health
: >care program.

: People heard how Hillary was going to control every aspect of
: healthcare, including cost, through bureaucratic agencies and they did
: all they could to stop it. Don't forget it took a lot of Democrats to
: vote it down too. Even they recognized that cost control through
: federal control is socialism and unamerican.

No, what people saw was 1 minute scare commercials. I doubt that most
people paid enough attention to anything in Washington. They generally
never do. Coomercials are much easier to sell an idea. (Or kill an idea)

: >: Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens.

: >Much the same way Republicans scared Americans about the Clinton
: >helathcare program. This time the republicans are on the losing end.

: No, you are on the losing end. It hasn't affected me or 88% of
: Americans at all (as polled). The Republican plan raises Medicare
: rates by less than $200 per year, per person. Pretty scary stuff eh?
: Thank goodness Nightline uncovered this Democratic propaganda.

And what happens when YOU retire? So far your not on the loosing end of
a medicare plan. So why should you care?

But speaking of polls, if the Republican plan is so wondeful, why have
more people supported the Presidents view than the Republicans view?

Once again, the Democrats did to the Republicans what the Repubs did with
the Clinton Healthcare program. Maybe you just can't see it.


: There is no question. We HAVE to balance the budget. Republicans


: have a great plan to do it. If Clinton doesn't like it, why doesn't
: he submit a balanced budget with real numbers that are nonpartisan
: accurate?

Well, where was Reagans balanced budgets? Surprise, but none of them were
balanced. But, who did the Republicans blame? The Democrats.

But, now all of a sudden, the Republicans want a banced budget. What a joke.
Except it's not very funny, because we've amassed over 5 trillion in debt.

And who instituted COLA for Medicare? Nixon. Let's see, was he a
Republican or a Democrat?

Look, there's different ways to balance a budget. And there's nothing
sacred about the Republican plan.

Here's my opinion. Forget the tax breaks. Most eceonomists don't think
they're going to amount to anything anyway. Take that money, and put it
towards the debt. Or, if they're so damn bent over a tax break, make it
only available after the seven years is up and if we truly have balanced
the budget. Then we could reward ourseleves for the sacrafice.

We both know that in seven years we could still be in debt. Take the
taxes, but figure in the tax break into the budget. If we fall short,
use the money to fill the gap. If there's money left over, return it to
us as a windfall.

: >Simple. The market keeps on going up, right? So people contine to throw

: >more and more money at it trying to get rich. Except, they don't have
: >the money, so they start putting the purchases on credit cards and
: >running up debt instead of withdrawing form their mutual funds.

: People with mutual funds don't have high credit card debt. If they
: do, I'll inform them revolving charge and refer them to my broker who
: will tell them to pay off the cards and forget about the mutal funds
: till they cards are zero..

Easier said than done. We are talking about the American consumer here.


: Its true the average American spends more than they make. This is due


: mostly to consumer debt through credit cards. And when the credit
: cards run out, you don't buy. The credit cards are starting to run
: out and we are getting more and more into debt.

And that's one of the reasons the market is making a top right now.


: With that debt you


: can't afford a $500 minimum on most mutual funds. Its the people that
: don't have that debt that fuel the stock market.

I can name a number of funds that you can do $50/month.


: >And don't let me even get into the fact that more people lease their cars

: >than ever before. What a sham.

: It depends on your buying habits. If you like buy new every two
: years, lease. If you keep it till it dies, leasing is definitely not
: worth it.


The problem is that the car companies are luring and forcing people into
leasing soemthing that has an expectancy of two or three years. In turn,
this helps sales of car companies grow, where as before people turned
around cars every seven years. But, in the end it's the customer getting
hurt.

: >No, probably a wimpering halt. Considering the economy hasn't been all

: >that strong, thanks to the fed, it probabaly doesn't take much to shift
: >to a recession right now.

: Wait a second. Are you the same person that is claiming the stock
: market is going up and up and now you are saying the economy hasn't
: been that strong?

Yes. A strong market does not necessarily correlate to a strong
economy. It's been show where market crashes occur during the best
economic times. The problem is that the market looks forward and sees
that the economy can't get any better, so it can only get worse. And
it's time to pull out.

Look at the present market. Many fear that a recession may occur. So,
in turn interest rates fall. But, that means that people will want to
try and get a better return by taking their money out of low yielding
paper and buy stocks.

The opposite is true. Look at 1994.


: >But the point is, companies lay off to make more profits, forcing other

: >companies to lay off to keep up to them, and so on. But, now those that
: >are laid off can't get their higher paying jobs, so they stay unemployed
: >or take lower paying jobs.

: Thats why people are learning to work two jobs and get better
: educations, or open their own businesses ...... you can't get fired
: then.

No you can't get fired from your own business. But you can loose your
business and the $100,000 you may have invested.

And although better educations are a good thing, it's also no guarantee.
Unless you learn how to program in C.


: > In turn, companies see lower than expected

: >profits and in turn lay off more people and so on and so on.......

: You just said that they lay off people to increase profits. Who is
: saying it didn't work?

Because by laying off, it hurts the incomes of families. In turn, they
have less to spend and down the food chain it will wind up hurting the
large companies that laid them off.

You know, layoffs look good on paper, but in the macro of it all, it sucks.
If layoffs really would help companies and the economy, why is it that
they continue to downsize year after year? The fact is it's a long term
failure.

: >I don't think any of it is right. We want people off of welfare, yet the

: >slogan of companies is lay-off. It doesn't send a positive signal.
: >All I do know is that people better have a cushy nest-egg set aside for
: >the next recession.

: Name one company of a slogan of laying off. Who would ever work for
: them?

My former company was one who's slogan was "lay-off". The only reason
why I continued working there was that the job market was tight. It
still is. Why jump ship, even though it's drowning, when there's nothing
else to go to?


: And as for a cushy nest egg ....... I suggest people clear up


: their debt and get in touch with a broker as soon as possible. The
: top investors of America forsee great things when the Republicans get
: America running in the black and start giving them BACK money through
: the new flat tax rate. I'll try to get the exact address in
: townhall.com to this exciting report. I just got off the phone with
: my investor and he's predicting great things too.


It sounds like you've swallowed the whole rehtoric, hook-line-and sinker.

ke...@usa.pipeline.com

unread,
Jan 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/6/96
to
On Jan 05, 1996 00:57:30 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's

Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:


>
>Here we go again. The ones that benefit the most from the capital gains
>cuts are the rich. Here, I'll prove it to you. Joe MiddleClass declares

>$10,000 cap gain while Bill Gates exercises $5 stock options and declares

>$10,000,000 cap gain. Cap gains were cut 10%.
>
>10,000 x .1 = 1,000 savings
>1,000,000 x .1 = 100,000 savings.
>
>Gee, who really benefitted here? I'd say Bill Gates.

--
I'd say both of them. Who do you think provides more jobs and therefore
pumps money into the federal coffers ? Also, I would think that $1,000
would be pretty important to Joe. If you have a thing about Bill Gates, how
about indexing capital gains ?
kenh

Anonymous

unread,
Jan 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/6/96
to
Could someone please post Pat Schroeder's maiden name or forward it to me.

Thanks.
Gaston Phillips

d...@usa.pipeline.com

unread,
Jan 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/6/96
to
On Jan 06, 1996 19:24:24 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's

Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:


I can't resist. This is just too much fun. Read on

>William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:
>
>: >What killed it was the republican propaganda machine that ran the
>: >ads on tv showing the couple being scared to death by the
>: >"draconian" health care program.


Thank goodness something killed it!

>: People heard how Hillary was going to control every aspect of
>: healthcare, including cost, through bureaucratic agencies and they
>:did all they could to stop it. Don't forget it took a lot of Democrats
to
>:vote it down too. Even they recognized that cost control through
>: federal control is socialism and unamerican.


Ya they did!

>No, what people saw was 1 minute scare commercials. I doubt that
>most people paid enough attention to anything in Washington. They
>generally never do. Coomercials are much easier to sell an idea.
>(Or kill an idea)

Come on, get real. What has gotten you so much up in arms, is it the
"coomercials" or the "propaganda" from the press? I'll tell you what I saw
and what I believe most people saw on the "coomercials." They saw federal
intervention on something in which federal intervention would likely make
the problems worse. Why do we need the government to get involve with
doctors visit? We don't! The US Government works very slowly, methodically
in some ways and very incremental. If we let government get involved with
health care now, what is to keep them from regulating your lawn boy 20
years from now. It is a step by step process and government will never sit
still and not change how many things it tries to regulate.
There are fundamentally two type of attitudes towards what the government
should do. One, it should get involved as much as possible in the private
affairs of people. Or two, it should be a least intrusive as possibly. You
seem to want government to involved in everything. I want government
involved in very little. My view of government intrusion is that there is
very little they can do to make things better. You seem to believe there is
little government can do to make worse. Needless to say, I want less
government, less government intrusion, and few problems created by the
government to justify it's involvement.



>: >Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens.
>: >Much the same way Republicans scared Americans about the
>: >Clintonhelathcare program. This time the republicans are on the
>: >losing end.


>: No, you are on the losing end. It hasn't affected me or 88% of
>: Americans at all (as polled). The Republican plan raises Medicare
>: rates by less than $200 per year, per person. Pretty scary stuff eh?
>: Thank goodness Nightline uncovered this Democratic propaganda.

>And what happens when YOU retire? So far your not on the loosing
>end of a medicare plan. So why should you care? But speaking of
>polls, if the Republican plan is so wondeful, why have more people
>supported the Presidents view than the Republicans view? Once
>again, the Democrats did to the Republicans what the Repubs did
>with the Clinton Healthcare program. Maybe you just can't see it.

Gotta interrupt. "Why have more people supported the .....Pres vs.
Republican." I have to as you, have you ever read a poll questonaire and
thought about they way the question were written and the order in which
they are asked? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that polls
are mostly written to confirm an opinion rather than find out what the
opinion are. Look at this news group for proof of that. How much have you
written on your opinions? How much have others written about their
opinions? Do any of us write a yes, no or maybe? Of course not. It take
more than a yes, no or maybe to express an opinion. So I would say that
99.9% of all polls do nothing more that try to confirm the poll writers
opinion.


>: There is no question. We HAVE to balance the budget.
>:Republicans have a great plan to do it. If Clinton doesn't like it, why

>:doesn't he submit a balanced budget with real numbers that are
>:nonpartisan accurate?


>Well, where was Reagans balanced budgets? Surprise, but none of
>them were balanced. But, who did the Republicans blame? The
>Democrats. But, now all of a sudden, the Republicans want a banced
>budget. What a joke. Except it's not very funny, because we've
>amassed over 5 trillion in debt.
>And who instituted COLA for Medicare? Nixon. Let's see, was he a
>Republican or a Democrat?
>Look, there's different ways to balance a budget. And there's >nothing
sacred about the Republican plan.
>
>Here's my opinion. Forget the tax breaks. Most eceonomists don't >think
they're going to amount to anything anyway. Take that money, >and put it
towards the debt. Or, if they're so damn bent over a tax >break, make it
only available after the seven years is up and if we
>truly have balanced the budget. Then we could reward ourseleves
>for the sacrafice.

Excuse me, sorry to interrupt again, but about the tax breaks. The
republicans signed an agreement, the contract with America, saying that if
they got elected, these are the things they will try to do. The tax cuts
are a part of it. Liberals and democrats and the like would love nothing
more than for the congress gop to give up on it's tax cut pledge. Remember
Bush in '88 saying "read my lips, no new taxes." He compromised with the
lefties and guess what he got. Lefty "Coomercials" about how he wouldn't
keep his word. He made a promise and broke it to appease the lefties and
then the lefties fried him. What do you think would happen to the
congressional GOP if the went back on their word? They would be fried for
not keeping their promise.
"Eceonomists" don't think the tax cuts will amount to anything? Not true.
Lets look at what the fed does to interest rates to change the economy.
Raise the rates to slow an "over heating economy" and lower the rates the
encourage economic growth. What do interest rate and taxes have in common?
They both come out of our pocket and we have less to spend. Am I getting
through?



>We both know that in seven years we could still be in debt. Take the
>taxes, but figure in the tax break into the budget. If we fall short,
>use the money to fill the gap. If there's money left over, return it to
>us as a windfall.

Again, that is what the Republicans were campaigning on, 7 year balanced
budget. If they don't keep their promise, they will get fried at the polls.
And if you thing the congress is extreme, they are liberal when compared to
me. I would end deficit spending NOW! I am reasonably sure that month to
month you spend about what you make. But through the year it averages out
to you spend what you make and don't keep going deeper and deeper into
debt. There come a point when your creditors will no long support your
debt. Some with the government, the time has come when people realize
government should spend within it's means.



>: >Simple. The market keeps on going up, right? So people contine to
throw
>: >more and more money at it trying to get rich. Except, they don't have

>: >the money, so they start putting the purchases on credit cards and
>: >running up debt instead of withdrawing form their mutual funds.
>
>: People with mutual funds don't have high credit card debt. If they
>: do, I'll inform them revolving charge and refer them to my broker who
>: will tell them to pay off the cards and forget about the mutal funds
>: till they cards are zero..
>
>Easier said than done. We are talking about the American consumer here.


The government gets involve in problem. Government involvement then creates
more problems and then the new problems created by the government justifies
the need for more government involvement since they are there to solve
problems. This then justifies the need for government. Therefore the
solution to the problem and the cause of the problem are the same. So,
what's the cure?

William A. Gilliland

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

>William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

>: >What killed it was the republican propaganda machine that ran the ads on
>: >tv showing the couple being scared to death by the "draconian" health
>: >care program.

>: People heard how Hillary was going to control every aspect of
>: healthcare, including cost, through bureaucratic agencies and they did
>: all they could to stop it. Don't forget it took a lot of Democrats to
>: vote it down too. Even they recognized that cost control through
>: federal control is socialism and unamerican.

>No, what people saw was 1 minute scare commercials. I doubt that most
>people paid enough attention to anything in Washington. They generally
>never do. Coomercials are much easier to sell an idea. (Or kill an idea)

I didn't happen to see any of the commercials. I just have the common
sense to know that cost control is socialism.

>: >: Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens.

>: >Much the same way Republicans scared Americans about the Clinton
>: >helathcare program. This time the republicans are on the losing end.

>: No, you are on the losing end. It hasn't affected me or 88% of
>: Americans at all (as polled). The Republican plan raises Medicare
>: rates by less than $200 per year, per person. Pretty scary stuff eh?
>: Thank goodness Nightline uncovered this Democratic propaganda.

>And what happens when YOU retire? So far your not on the loosing end of
>a medicare plan. So why should you care?

I guess I'll pay the $16 extra bucks a month.


>But speaking of polls, if the Republican plan is so wondeful, why have
>more people supported the Presidents view than the Republicans view?

It depends on which poll you use. If you poll the people getting
their news from the internet, what do you expect. If you poll people
who listen to talk radio, read the internet, and decide for
themselves, you'll get a whole different set of numbers.

>Once again, the Democrats did to the Republicans what the Repubs did with
>the Clinton Healthcare program. Maybe you just can't see it.

The difference is, Republicans laid out facts and the liberal press
couldn't find anything to dispute. Whereas it was easy for even the
liberal press to point out the blatant lies of the Democrats on
national TV.

>: There is no question. We HAVE to balance the budget. Republicans
>: have a great plan to do it. If Clinton doesn't like it, why doesn't
>: he submit a balanced budget with real numbers that are nonpartisan
>: accurate?

>Well, where was Reagans balanced budgets? Surprise, but none of them were
>balanced. But, who did the Republicans blame? The Democrats.

And where was Clinton's and where was Carter's and where was LBJ's and
where was Kennedy's..... Please, would you get to the present....
this is serious.

>But, now all of a sudden, the Republicans want a banced budget. What a joke.
>Except it's not very funny, because we've amassed over 5 trillion in debt.

No better time than the present, eh? Or should we hold off some more.
That would be a joke.

>Look, there's different ways to balance a budget. And there's nothing
>sacred about the Republican plan.

Then were's the Democratic plan?

>Here's my opinion. Forget the tax breaks. Most eceonomists don't think
>they're going to amount to anything anyway. Take that money, and put it
>towards the debt. Or, if they're so damn bent over a tax break, make it
>only available after the seven years is up and if we truly have balanced
>the budget. Then we could reward ourseleves for the sacrafice.

Hell, better yet, let me pay my $18,904 part of the debt and I'll take
my tax break and you can argue till your blue in the face.

>We both know that in seven years we could still be in debt. Take the
>taxes, but figure in the tax break into the budget. If we fall short,
>use the money to fill the gap. If there's money left over, return it to
>us as a windfall.

I have an even better idea. Pass the seven year balanced budget,
institute Dick Armey's 17% flat tax, let the Republican's cut
government waste, force the thousands of occupational welfarists to
work under Newt's plan, and elect a Republican president with the
balls to pass all this and hold his word.

>: >Simple. The market keeps on going up, right? So people contine to throw
>: >more and more money at it trying to get rich. Except, they don't have
>: >the money, so they start putting the purchases on credit cards and
>: >running up debt instead of withdrawing form their mutual funds.

>: With that debt you


>: can't afford a $500 minimum on most mutual funds. Its the people that
>: don't have that debt that fuel the stock market.

>I can name a number of funds that you can do $50/month.

There are a lot of funds you can contribute $50 a month to, but very
few you can start for under $500. Its not worth their time.

>: >And don't let me even get into the fact that more people lease their cars
>: >than ever before. What a sham.

>: It depends on your buying habits. If you like buy new every two
>: years, lease. If you keep it till it dies, leasing is definitely not
>: worth it.


>The problem is that the car companies are luring and forcing people into
>leasing soemthing that has an expectancy of two or three years. In turn,
>this helps sales of car companies grow, where as before people turned
>around cars every seven years. But, in the end it's the customer getting
>hurt.

I totally agree here. I would never lease a car. Its funny I say
that and yet drive a leased car. Thankfully my company pays for it.


>Look at the present market. Many fear that a recession may occur. So,
>in turn interest rates fall. But, that means that people will want to
>try and get a better return by taking their money out of low yielding
>paper and buy stocks.

I don't know who these people are you talk of. All my friends are
heavily investing in the market. I'm even putting more money together
to get into more funds. My broker has never had a better quarter.

I did hear a lady on talk radio say she was pulling out all her money
because the Republicans were in congress. She was old and cute and I
just had to laugh.

- Will Gilliland

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Will Gilliland

will...@airmail.net
----------------------------------------------


Unknown

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
will...@airmail.net (William A. Gilliland) wrote:


>I didn't happen to see any of the commercials. I just have the common
>sense to know that cost control is socialism.

Then you should have the common sense to know that we should end cost
control on things like mining and grazing fees. That bit of
"socialism" has been benefiting corporations for decades.


>The difference is, Republicans laid out facts and the liberal press
>couldn't find anything to dispute. Whereas it was easy for even the
>liberal press to point out the blatant lies of the Democrats on
>national TV.

"Liberal Press":
ABC=Cap Cities
CBS=Westinghouse
CNN=Time Warner
NBC=General Electric

Now, tell me again which one of those is liberal?

>And where was Clinton's and where was Carter's and where was LBJ's and
>where was Kennedy's..... Please, would you get to the present....
>this is serious.

None of their budgets had any power to keep Reagan or Bush from
submitting balanced budgets; but with them it was 12 years of full
speed ahead, damn the debt, not one balanced budget proposed between
them in 12 opportunities; and THAT'S serious because THAT is what got
us where we are now.


>I have an even better idea. Pass the seven year balanced budget,
>institute Dick Armey's 17% flat tax, let the Republican's cut
>government waste, force the thousands of occupational welfarists to
>work under Newt's plan, and elect a Republican president with the
>balls to pass all this and hold his word.

Forget the seven year balanced budget (after all, if you mortgage a
house or make payments on a car, your budget isn't balanced); forget
the flat (read regressive) tax; let the Republicans start cutting
waste with the defense budget; force the corporate welfarists to work;
and forget electing Republicans. We tried that. It was called
Reaganomics. Been there, done that, quadrupled the debt.


>I totally agree here. I would never lease a car. Its funny I say
>that and yet drive a leased car. Thankfully my company pays for it.

Speaking of corporate welfare...

Leonard Grossman

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
In article <4ci1cu$o...@malasada.lava.net>,


<Much snipped>


The only reason the Republicans opposed the plan was
out of
>partisanship. It was just the kind of thing they
would have come up
>with themselves.
> JimmyO (class war is our only hope for a
better future)
>

Well said... Indeed, It could be said with regard to
almost everything he has proposed.

Now that he has proposed a 7 year CBO scored
budget the attacks are relentless. But wo could
have imagined a Democrat proposing such a budgett..
It would be a republican's dream if it hadn't been
proposed by Clinton.

Stephen Lajoie

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
In article <brentb-0501...@osip73.ionet.net>,

Brent Barber <bre...@ionet.net> wrote:
>In article <DKItK...@eskimo.com>, laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:
>
>> In article <4c415c$8...@clark.net>, Richard Firestone <rf...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>> > I am writing to express my disgust with your arrogance, cowardice,
>> >immorality, and hubris. I am a Federal employee who has gone to work for
>> >nine of the past ten furlough days on "emergency" status.
>
>> There shouldn't be a place on the government payroll for a guy with this
>> much hate.
>
>If that were true, not a single Republican, especially hate filled venom
>spewer Newtie, *should* have a place on the government payroll.

If you define "hate" like most democrats do, as any effort to slow the
increase in spending in social programs, then you could call the Speaker
of the House "hate filled".

But I think it's silly to call everyone you hate as hate filled. You show
contempt for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then deride him
as being hateful, as if you were so damn pure that you couldn't be
accused as the same.

>> [rantings deleted]


>
>> I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and his

>> tax and borrow policies. It means a stronger private sector, better job
>> security for me and better job oppertunities (sic) for those who were
>laid off.
>> I don't care if the government stays in partial shutdown forever. No one
>> guaranteed you a job for life.
>
>Not only did you apparently skip your junior high civics lesson on the

>responsibilities of congress in negotiating legislation witht (sic) the


>executive branch of government, but you callously disregard the fact that
>millions of Americans are being denied a wide array of government services
>they have already PAID FOR!

This is funny! I mean, the whole point of the shutdown is that it is NOT
paid for. First, it's all on credit, a deficit that is being left to
people who are not even old enough to vote yet. Second, if you had passed
junior high school civics, you would know that this is a spending bill,
not a "paid for bill". How an you say that it's "paid for" when the
national debt is some 4 trillion, and the national budget is less than
two trillion? (Or there abouts.)

Second, jr. hi civics revealed that in order to spend, the house had to
write the spending bill, the senate approve it, and the President either
allow it to pass without signature or sign it. They did it this way so
that the default was to NOT spend. The founders had a preference that if
the House, Senate and President didn't agree, that nothing should be
spent.

So, forgive me when I snicker at your ignorant suggestion that the
Congress has a responsibility to negotiate with the President. The
congress can tell the President to go to hell if they so decide.

> Your ideological fanaticism does not serve you
>well. I too am glad the shutdown continues, for a different reason. It
>continues to expose the petty arrogance and base stupidity of the
>Republican party and its poisoned philosophy while simultaneously
>demonstrating the humanity and neccessity of efficient government agencies
>which serve the public, often thanklessly, despite these are only amonge
>the 23% considered "non-essential." The hollow right wing anti-government
>hate speech is finally being exposed for the insipid drivel it always was.

Yes, like most Democrats, you are glad of the partial government shutdown
because it enables you to tell lies about who's responsible and to gain
political ground as the republicans try to do something that politically
very difficult; balance the budget.

Lies like Clinton told, when he vetoed the budget, effectively shutting
down part of the government, and then blamed the congress for HIS actions.

Or the lie Clinton told that the Congress was "terrorist".

You use words like "petty arrogance" and "base stupidity" to describe
republicans, and then, in blatant hypocrisy, call them "hateful".

--
--
Steve La Joie
laj...@eskimo.com

Mark

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
In article <4chutr$h...@malasada.lava.net>, jha...@lava.net (James R. Olson
jr.) wrote:
@laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:

@->I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and
@his
@->tax and borrow policies.
=
@Did you have your taxes raised by Clinton? No wonder you're so mad.
@Why don't you have the butler bring you a gin and tonic and try to
@relax a little. Maybe you can spend the afternoon on your yacht and
@try to forget your responsibilities to the rest of humanity for a
@little while.
@ JimmyO (full of sympathy)

I hold a $18,000/year job, lets put things in retrospect, I have filled
out my withholdings form (W-2?) with my employer the same way (2) every
year:

Before Clinton:
I anually (though the good graces of our federal gov.) had _returned_
to me, about $300 of my earnings each year after filing taxes.

After Clinton's tax increase and retroactivism:
I anually have had _taken_ from me, an additional $200 of my earnings
each year after filing taxes.

I have no butler and no yacht.

What are the "responsibilities to the rest of humanity" you are talking
about????

Defend your Freedom FIRST, your Peace SECOND
because without Freedom, Peace becomes oppresion.

Mark

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
In article <4cmi98$n...@ruby.interactive.net>, zi...@interactive.net
(Robert Zitka) wrote:

@Once again, the Democrats did to the Republicans what the Repubs did with
@the Clinton Healthcare program. Maybe you just can't see it.

don't you mean the Clinton Socailist Federal Healthcare Control Law.

@Well, where was Reagans balanced budgets? Surprise, but none of them were
@balanced. But, who did the Republicans blame? The Democrats.

Presidents can't spend a dime, only congress has power to appropriate.
After 40 yrs., the republicans finally have a majority it Congress and
_they_ want to have a balanced budget. (Suprise, imagine that!!) But the
_problem_ is that the failed ideology of the last 40yrs. of Congress, is
currently in the White House and is armed with an unregistered assult veto
pen. The problem is that the White House wants the status quo of the last
40 yrs. "Maybe you just can't see it."

@But, now all of a sudden, the Republicans want a banced budget. What a joke.
@Except it's not very funny, because we've amassed over 5 trillion in debt.

The party controlling the purse of our nation has overspent and amassed
over 5 trillion in debt. Presidents can request funding all they want, but
it is the party controlling Congress (the purse) that has the
responsiblity and authority by the Constitution to spend money wisely and
with the best interests of our nation at hand.

@Look, there's different ways to balance a budget. And there's nothing
@sacred about the Republican plan.

execpt it may realy work!! (without the standard raise taxes demo solution)

@Here's my opinion. Forget the tax breaks. Most eceonomists don't think
@they're going to amount to anything anyway. Take that money, and put it
@towards the debt. Or, if they're so damn bent over a tax break, make it
@only available after the seven years is up and if we truly have balanced
@the budget. Then we could reward ourseleves for the sacrafice.

Justify tax increases to balance the budget with a promise to reduce the
taxes later at a later date, come on, do reality check, I wasn't born
yesterday.

@We both know that in seven years we could still be in debt. Take the
@taxes, but figure in the tax break into the budget. If we fall short,
@use the money to fill the gap. If there's money left over, return it to
@us as a windfall.

It is our money not the government's it is the people's. If the government
can't manage what we allow them to have now, why should we allow them to
have more?

Stephen Lajoie

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
In article <4cmi98$n...@ruby.interactive.net>,

Robert Zitka <zi...@interactive.net> wrote:
>William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:
>
>
>: People heard how Hillary was going to control every aspect of
>: healthcare, including cost, through bureaucratic agencies and they did
>: all they could to stop it. Don't forget it took a lot of Democrats to
>: vote it down too. Even they recognized that cost control through
>: federal control is socialism and unamerican.
>
>No, what people saw was 1 minute scare commercials. I doubt that most
>people paid enough attention to anything in Washington. They generally
>never do. Coomercials are much easier to sell an idea. (Or kill an idea)

Yeah, right. They also read about it in the papers. The Clinton Plan
appeared to me to be an effort to make my employer give my heath care
plan away, and to force me to buyanother plan with fewer benifits.

>: >: Democrats have done a good scare job on senior citizens.
>
>: >Much the same way Republicans scared Americans about the Clinton
>: >helathcare program. This time the republicans are on the losing end.
>
>: No, you are on the losing end. It hasn't affected me or 88% of
>: Americans at all (as polled). The Republican plan raises Medicare
>: rates by less than $200 per year, per person. Pretty scary stuff eh?
>: Thank goodness Nightline uncovered this Democratic propaganda.
>
>And what happens when YOU retire? So far your not on the loosing end of
>a medicare plan. So why should you care?

They take some 3% out of my gross paycheck, and my employer has to kick
in another 3% (which he could give me, if it wasn't for the way the law
was worded). Under the democrats plan, medicare will be bankrupt in 7
years, long before I retire. I've been paying in for 24 years, and if the
Democrats get their way, I'll get nothing. That is the losing end, isn't it?

>But speaking of polls, if the Republican plan is so wondeful, why have
>more people supported the Presidents view than the Republicans view?
>
>Once again, the Democrats did to the Republicans what the Repubs did with
>the Clinton Healthcare program. Maybe you just can't see it.

So, you feel that the Republicans lied about the Clinton Plan, and that
the Democrats have lied about the Republican's medicare plan. You're half
right. The Democrats did lie about the Republican's medicare plan.


>: There is no question. We HAVE to balance the budget. Republicans
>: have a great plan to do it. If Clinton doesn't like it, why doesn't
>: he submit a balanced budget with real numbers that are nonpartisan
>: accurate?
>
>Well, where was Reagans balanced budgets? Surprise, but none of them were
>balanced. But, who did the Republicans blame? The Democrats.
>
>But, now all of a sudden, the Republicans want a banced budget. What a joke.
>Except it's not very funny, because we've amassed over 5 trillion in debt.
>
>And who instituted COLA for Medicare? Nixon. Let's see, was he a
>Republican or a Democrat?
>
>Look, there's different ways to balance a budget. And there's nothing
>sacred about the Republican plan.
>
>Here's my opinion. Forget the tax breaks. Most eceonomists don't think
>they're going to amount to anything anyway. Take that money, and put it
>towards the debt. Or, if they're so damn bent over a tax break, make it
>only available after the seven years is up and if we truly have balanced
>the budget. Then we could reward ourseleves for the sacrafice.
>
>We both know that in seven years we could still be in debt. Take the
>taxes, but figure in the tax break into the budget. If we fall short,
>use the money to fill the gap. If there's money left over, return it to
>us as a windfall.

You don't get the magnitude of the problem. The Republicans are not even
thinking about paying off the national debt. We are going to be more than
7 trillion dollars in debt when the budget is balanced, and there will be
more old people on Social Security and Medicare, and fewer working
taxpayers. I am against a tax cut now. Hell, I thoink we should raise
taxes and cut spending to the bone.

>: >Simple. The market keeps on going up, right? So people contine to throw
>: >more and more money at it trying to get rich. Except, they don't have
>: >the money, so they start putting the purchases on credit cards and
>: >running up debt instead of withdrawing form their mutual funds.
>
>: People with mutual funds don't have high credit card debt. If they
>: do, I'll inform them revolving charge and refer them to my broker who
>: will tell them to pay off the cards and forget about the mutal funds
>: till they cards are zero..
>
>Easier said than done. We are talking about the American consumer here.

Well, if you are going to borrow money at 18-21% and invest it at 6-8%,
more with risk, then you can't know much about making money.

>: Its true the average American spends more than they make. This is due
>: mostly to consumer debt through credit cards. And when the credit
>: cards run out, you don't buy. The credit cards are starting to run
>: out and we are getting more and more into debt.
>
>And that's one of the reasons the market is making a top right now.
>
>
>: With that debt you
>: can't afford a $500 minimum on most mutual funds. Its the people that
>: don't have that debt that fuel the stock market.
>
>I can name a number of funds that you can do $50/month.

Anyone know of any good mutual funds?

sits_in_the_dark

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:
<snip>

>You know, layoffs look good on paper, but in the macro of it all, it sucks.
>If layoffs really would help companies and the economy, why is it that
>they continue to downsize year after year? The fact is it's a long term
>failure.

Layoffs not only look good on paper, they many times cause the stock
of the company to rise in value ( look at AT&T last week). This
happens because management has taken a serious look and decided that
in order to make more money they have to downsize. Their goal after
all is to make money so that more people will invest their money with
this company so they can make even more money. If they do not show a
profit people will not continue to buy their stocks. When people stop
investing in their company they will go broke (the ultimate
downsizing). So, what will it be, have AT&T lay off those thousands
of workers or have all the people who work for AT&T on the dole in a
few years?

>: >I don't think any of it is right. We want people off of welfare, yet the
>: >slogan of companies is lay-off. It doesn't send a positive signal.
>: >All I do know is that people better have a cushy nest-egg set aside for
>: >the next recession.

>: Name one company of a slogan of laying off. Who would ever work for
>: them?

>My former company was one who's slogan was "lay-off". The only reason
>why I continued working there was that the job market was tight. It
>still is. Why jump ship, even though it's drowning, when there's nothing
>else to go to?


>: And as for a cushy nest egg ....... I suggest people clear up
>: their debt and get in touch with a broker as soon as possible. The
>: top investors of America forsee great things when the Republicans get
>: America running in the black and start giving them BACK money through
>: the new flat tax rate. I'll try to get the exact address in
>: townhall.com to this exciting report. I just got off the phone with
>: my investor and he's predicting great things too.


>It sounds like you've swallowed the whole rehtoric, hook-line-and sinker.

It sounds like you should have a basic class in how capitalism
operates.


James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
sits in the dark wrote:

->Sorry, but Gailbraith isn't my cup of tea. His ideas are indeed
->straight out of the 60's. Those are the theories on which our
->government has been operating for the past thirty+ years. They have
->gotten us into a terrible fix economically. I have to agree more
with
->Thomas Jefferson when he said that to spend money from the next
->generation was to rob them. I have five grandchildren under the age
->of five. Each one of those precious darlings owes in excess of
->$187,000.00 as his/her part of the national debt. Somehow it just
->doesn't seem fair. Okay, so my mother told me life wouldn't be fair
->but I can try to change things for their future by supporting those
->who have a different approach to the problem. That's not to say
that
->I think the Republican party has all the answers. I'm simply saying
->that what we've been doing for the past 30+ years has not been
working
->and let's try a new approach.


Gailbraith's ideas are not straight out of the '60s, they are straight
out of the '30s, and they're the ideas that pulled us out of the
Depression. That $187,000 debt was, for the most part, established
during the reign of the Republican party's patron saint, the man so
slick they called him the Teflon President. Our current President,
like it or not, has done more of what Reagan promised than he did
himself.
I wonder how you arrived at that 30+ years figure? Are you dating
from Johnson's term of office? There have been a lot of policy shifts
since that time.
If you are worried about your grandchildren, you should support things
like environmental legislation, workers rights, safety net policies.
After all, 1) they're going to have to breath the air and drink the
water no matter how many other advantages they have, 2) chances are
they'll have to work for someone, and 3) you can't guarantee that
they won't fall on hard times through some unhappy accident.
The Republican party does not have a different approach to the
problem, they are proposing the same non-solutions that brought the
U.S. to the verge of 3rd-world status in 8 short years.
Yes, I know it was a Democrat Congress, but for some god-awful reason,
they let that senile old bastard, his foul scheming little wife, and
her astrologer have a free hand, instead of impeaching him.
You say you don't remember the Depression, because youu weren't born
yet. Neither was I, but the familiar saying goes, "those who cannot
remember history are condemned to repeat it." (Credit, anyone?) I for
one would rather not repeat history, that's why I keep bringing it up.
When I get a chance to go to the library, I will get you a timeline on
how the Republicans torpedoed Rostenkowski's 5-year budget-balancing
plan. Of course, that was a few years ago when the deficit was a
little lower.
Are you aware that Casper Weinberger wrote several articles about how
the deficit is a fine thing because the interest goes to rich people?
A little too honest for most Republicans, but every penny they cut out
of the budget is matched by a two cent break to the affluent. That's
not how you balnce a budget, my friend.
So how about the Laffer curve? Well, it's a bell-shaped curve. What
it proposes is that there is an optimum tax rate which maximizes
revenue. Go above it and you lose revenue. Go below and you lose
revenue. The problem is that it is difficult to determine where on
the Laffer curve you are sitting. The Reaganites proposed that we
were above the optimum point. But when tax rates were dropped,
revenues dropped, so apparently we were below the optimum point.
Oops, suddenly the Laffer curve drops from debate.
Should the rich pay more taxes? Consider that the whole structure of
our government protects their priviledges and property, and I would
say that they receive a great deal more from it than the average
middle-class wage earner. It's also a lot easier for a Forbes to earn
a million dollars than it is for Joe Middle-manager to earn $10,000,
so I don't think that the Forbeses of this world should kick so hard
about having to pay a higher percentage in order to preserve the
functioning of our society.
10% of my income means I have to use this computer for another year,
and have to sit out of college for half a year. 50% of Forbes' income
means he can't buy the controlling interest in that undervalued
corporation and strip its assets and set half its workers on the
street, but he doesn't have to pay 50% of his income in taxes, while I
have to pay 10% of mine, with no relief offered by any of these
tax-cutting Republicans.
I also pay 15% of my income in a tax that the affluent never have to
worry about for a pension that is projected to go broke the year I
qualify to collect it (7.5% out of my pay, 7.5% out of my employer).
Meanwhile, people with an independent income in 6 figures are
claiming that that pension is owed to them "because they paid for it"
(1%, 2% of their paychecks, remember those days?) and voting for
Republican assholes who strip the flesh from the country for the
benefit of their PAC members.
A lot of right-wingers bring up " but it was a Democrat Congress."
There are a lot of people in the Democratic party who don't belong
there, but they are still mad at the Republicans because of Lincoln,
often referred to as Dixiecrats. These are the people who referred to
Johnson as a race traitor for signing the Civil Rights Act. More and
more of those people are realizing that the GOP has totally repudiated
the principles of Lincoln, and are switching over. (Can someone
supply me with the number of seated Democrats who jumped ship? The
last I heard it was something like 6 or 8?)
The more I think about the implications of everything you've written,
the madder I get. The end result of the Republican agenda is a police
state in a poisoned world, and anyone who can't see that is busy
examining the lines on the palm of their hand.

And Jefferson! You're citing Jefferson to support the least
Jeffersonian crop of politicians we've had for 60 years! Don't
forget, they idolize the man who got us into this jam by
borrow-and-spend economics.
There is a place for deficit financing. It was deficit financing that
got us out of the Great Depression. But Reagan's term was a time for
paying back the old deficit, not a time to pile up more. He and his
cronies danced to the tune, but it's WE who must pay the piper...

One more thought before I go- I don't believe the Democrats have all
the answers either, in fact there are a lot of platform points that I
think are downright wrong, but given a choice between bad and worse,
well, I think I prefer bad hands down.
JimmyO (I don't know everything, but I can probably find out..)


James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/7/96
to
Sits in the dark wrote:

->>: And as for a cushy nest egg ....... I suggest people clear up
->>: their debt and get in touch with a broker as soon as possible.
The
->>: top investors of America forsee great things when the Republicans
get
->>: America running in the black and start giving them BACK money
through
->>: the new flat tax rate. I'll try to get the exact address in
->>: townhall.com to this exciting report. I just got off the phone
with
->>: my investor and he's predicting great things too.


->>It sounds like you've swallowed the whole rehtoric, hook-line-and
sinker.

->It sounds like you should have a basic class in how capitalism
->operates.

It sounds like Sits in the Dark is an appropriate handle for you.
Stock prices are based on a lot of things, but only indirectly on
company profits. Dividends are set by the Board of Directors based on
their ideas of what will be advantageous to them. If profits are
high, they may issue a high dividend, but not necessarily so.
Remember the Crash of '29? Lots of people making lots of money...
until they tried to cash out.
I suggest you take a look at The New Industrial State by J. K.
Gailbraith. It was published in the '60s, but lots of the trends he
pointed out have accelerated since then, things like mega-corps and
cross-control of vast portions of the economy by single entities
beholden to no one except their BoD, defense contracting taking over
massive portions of industry and strangling domestic consumer-goods
production. (Incidentally, he warned of the little crash of '88 in an
article published in August of that year.)
He also wrote a book about the Crash that casts a lot of scary light
on the current situation. A lot quicker read than NIS, for those who
are interested.


Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

: >William A. Gilliland (will...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:


: >: There is no question. We HAVE to balance the budget. Republicans


: >: have a great plan to do it. If Clinton doesn't like it, why doesn't
: >: he submit a balanced budget with real numbers that are nonpartisan
: >: accurate?

: >Well, where was Reagans balanced budgets? Surprise, but none of them were
: >balanced. But, who did the Republicans blame? The Democrats.

: And where was Clinton's and where was Carter's and where was LBJ's and
: where was Kennedy's..... Please, would you get to the present....
: this is serious.

I'm serious. Why should Clinton have to submit a balanced budget, when
Reagan and Bush, or other Presidents weren't required to? It's a double
standard your imposing on Clinton.

: >But, now all of a sudden, the Republicans want a banced budget. What a joke.


: >Except it's not very funny, because we've amassed over 5 trillion in debt.

: No better time than the present, eh? Or should we hold off some more.
: That would be a joke.

How about if Reagan submitted a balanced budget in the eighties so we
wouldn't have the 5 trillion debt to begin with? He could have debated
it with congress, much like were doing today, and we could be debt free.


: >Look, there's different ways to balance a budget. And there's nothing

: >sacred about the Republican plan.

: Then were's the Democratic plan?

Clinton already submitted two. A Democratic congressman submitted one a
few months ago.

Have you been paying attention?

: >We both know that in seven years we could still be in debt. Take the

: >taxes, but figure in the tax break into the budget. If we fall short,
: >use the money to fill the gap. If there's money left over, return it to
: >us as a windfall.

: I have an even better idea. Pass the seven year balanced budget,
: institute Dick Armey's 17% flat tax,

Apples and oranges.


: let the Republican's cut government waste,

Clinton has already downsized government employees to the same levels as
the early 60's. And he's combined departments. Seems like Clinton has
beat them to the punch.


: force the thousands of occupational welfarists to work under Newt's plan,


Clinton has already agreed to welfare reform.

: and elect a Republican president with the balls to pass all this and
: hold his word.

Which Republican would that be? Dole? Or Buchanan?

: >I can name a number of funds that you can do $50/month.

: There are a lot of funds you can contribute $50 a month to, but very
: few you can start for under $500. Its not worth their time.

T. Rowe Price, Twentieth Century, Heartland, and Janus all have funds you
can start for under $500. What's wrong with them?


Unknown

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
obse...@mnsinc.com wrote:

>So now instead of proactively managing the health care revolution, we've allowed
>the large insurance companies determine which doctor's we see. I like the
>Clinton plan better. At least I had a way to rate HMOs. Now I have nothing.

Which is pretty ironic, when you think about it. The screaming
objections to a single-payer plan were that you couldn't pick your
doctor and you had to wait.

Well, guess what. I'm on an HMO, and I take their choice of doctors
or pay out of my own pocket, and I never see a doctor within two hours
of the appointment for which I was on time, and I have to wait three
weeks for an appointment with a specialist. That's another by-product
of the economic strategy of always choosing the most commercialized
and profitable solution.

James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
th...@voicenet.com (Mark) wrote:

->I hold a $18,000/year job, lets put things in retrospect, I have filled
->out my withholdings form (W-2?) with my employer the same way (2) every
->year:

->Before Clinton:
-> I anually (though the good graces of our federal gov.) had _returned_
->to me, about $300 of my earnings each year after filing taxes.

->After Clinton's tax increase and retroactivism:
-> I anually have had _taken_ from me, an additional $200 of my earnings
->each year after filing taxes.

Apparently you aren't aware that during his last year in office, Bush,
in a desperate attempt to boost the economy and save his job, lowered
the payroll withholding rates. You aren't paying more taxes, you're
just not having as much taken out of your paycheck to cover them. Of
course, this didn't show up on your tax bill during his term. (I have
had to kick in an additional $400 each of the past two years, but I
fugure that means I had the use of that $400 until 4/15.) If you want
a tax refund, then don't check as many allowances on your W-2.
JimmyO (glad I could clear that up)


Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
Sitsinthedark wrote:
: zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:
: <snip>

: >You know, layoffs look good on paper, but in the macro of it all, it sucks.


: >If layoffs really would help companies and the economy, why is it that
: >they continue to downsize year after year? The fact is it's a long term
: >failure.

: Layoffs not only look good on paper, they many times cause the stock


: of the company to rise in value ( look at AT&T last week). This
: happens because management has taken a serious look and decided that
: in order to make more money they have to downsize. Their goal after
: all is to make money so that more people will invest their money with
: this company so they can make even more money. If they do not show a
: profit people will not continue to buy their stocks.

So you're telling me ATT is losing money? On what planet?


: When people stop


: investing in their company they will go broke (the ultimate
: downsizing). So, what will it be, have AT&T lay off those thousands
: of workers or have all the people who work for AT&T on the dole in a
: few years?

How about this. Keep the people employed. The employees can then
continue spending money, thus causing the economy to grow. Since the
economy is growing, more jobs are created, and more people can spend
money. And the economy continues to grow........

: It sounds like you should have a basic class in how capitalism
: operates.

So, capitalism means "no jobs" ?


obse...@mnsinc.com

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
In <4cmp4j$6...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>, d...@usa.pipeline.com writes:
>On Jan 06, 1996 19:24:24 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's
>Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:
>Come on, get real. What has gotten you so much up in arms, is it the
>"coomercials" or the "propaganda" from the press? I'll tell you what I saw
>and what I believe most people saw on the "coomercials." They saw federal
>intervention on something in which federal intervention would likely make
>the problems worse. Why do we need the government to get involve with
>doctors visit? We don't! The US Government works very slowly, methodically
>in some ways and very incremental. If we let government get involved with
>health care now, what is to keep them from regulating your lawn boy 20
>years from now. It is a step by step process and government will never sit
>still and not change how many things it tries to regulate.

So now instead of proactively managing the health care revolution, we've allowed


the large insurance companies determine which doctor's we see. I like the
Clinton plan better. At least I had a way to rate HMOs. Now I have nothing.

--------------------------------------------
The Observer
obse...@mnsinc.com
"Seeking the answers to life's persistent questions.
--------------------------------------------


Mark.O.Wilson

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
.


sits_in_the_dark

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
jha...@lava.net (James R. Olson jr.) wrote:

>Sits in the dark wrote:


>The
>->>: top investors of America forsee great things when the Republicans
>get
>->>: America running in the black and start giving them BACK money
>through
>->>: the new flat tax rate. I'll try to get the exact address in
>->>: townhall.com to this exciting report. I just got off the phone
>with
>->>: my investor and he's predicting great things too.


>->>It sounds like you've swallowed the whole rehtoric, hook-line-and
>sinker.

>->It sounds like you should have a basic class in how capitalism
>->operates.

> It sounds like Sits in the Dark is an appropriate handle for you.
>Stock prices are based on a lot of things, but only indirectly on
>company profits. Dividends are set by the Board of Directors based on
>their ideas of what will be advantageous to them. If profits are
>high, they may issue a high dividend, but not necessarily so.

You are talking about a year-to-year basis. I was speaking of the
overall history of a corporation. Of course, the Board of Directors
set dividends based on what will be advantageous to them, they're good
capitalists.


> Remember the Crash of '29? Lots of people making lots of money...
>until they tried to cash out.

Sorry, don't recall that as I was only a twinkle in my dad's eye.
That was the year my parents got married so I'm sure they could
discuss it with you sometime. But you probably wouldn't want to hear
what my Pop had to say about it.

> I suggest you take a look at The New Industrial State by J. K.
>Gailbraith. It was published in the '60s, but lots of the trends he
>pointed out have accelerated since then, things like mega-corps and
>cross-control of vast portions of the economy by single entities
>beholden to no one except their BoD, defense contracting taking over
>massive portions of industry and strangling domestic consumer-goods
>production. (Incidentally, he warned of the little crash of '88 in an
>article published in August of that year.)
> He also wrote a book about the Crash that casts a lot of scary light
>on the current situation. A lot quicker read than NIS, for those who
>are interested.

Sorry, but Gailbraith isn't my cup of tea. His ideas are indeed


straight out of the 60's. Those are the theories on which our

government has been operating for the past thirty+ years. They have

gotten us into a terrible fix economically. I have to agree more with

Thomas Jefferson when he said that to spend money from the next

generation was to rob them. I have five grandchildren under the age

of five. Each one of those precious darlings owes in excess of

$187,000.00 as his/her part of the national debt. Somehow it just

doesn't seem fair. Okay, so my mother told me life wouldn't be fair

but I can try to change things for their future by supporting those

who have a different approach to the problem. That's not to say that

I think the Republican party has all the answers. I'm simply saying

that what we've been doing for the past 30+ years has not been working

James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
daw...@aol.com (DAWOLF1) wrote:


->>: It sounds like you should have a basic class in how capitalism
->>: operates.

->>

->>
->>

->Capitalism means jobs in industrys that are competitive. If a company can
->not compete, it must either become competitive or die. That in turn means
->another company with more efficiency will take over.
->We are creating jobs now by many companies. Look at HP. It has been
->creating jobs for years. It keeps its efficiency up, not by company wide
->lay offs, but by selectively trimming those who no longer earn their way
->on a continious basis.

->This has been going on for decades. Look at the automobile industry. It
->tried to keep the feather bedding employees on staff for years as the
->public paid more and more for automobiles. When things got to be
->rediculous, the Japanese came in and whipped our buts. Very fortunately,
->none of the top 3 auto makers actually bit the dust. But it was very
->close. They finally trimmed their staffs and got back to being
->competitive. Russia is the best example of what happens when business is
->done to create jobs instead of producing a product or service that people
->want.
->donw

It appears that you are confusing "capitalism" with "free market," a
not uncommon mistake. Capitalism refers to an economic system built
around capital, or ownership of the means of production. That is to
say, those with capital run the system. Not necessarily good, not
necessarily bad. On the other hand, a free market is one which
contains an effectively infinite supply of producers, and an
effectively infinite supply of consumers, with no non-market
constraints. This situation exists in only a few commodities, and
even there, certain players tend to gain some sort of advantage due to
non-market forces.
We do not have a free market in America, in fact we have a system of
mercantile capitalism which is very close to that which Adam Smith
condemned in "Wealth of Nations." (It's a skinny book, and well worth
reading. Better than the distortions of assholes like Freidman or
Sowell.)

You claim that the Japanese kicked butt on us because of deadwood in
the American auto industry. Are you aware that Chrysler laid off
nearly all its design staff just prior to the '70s gas crisis because
they had a 5 year stockpile of designs? Of course, they were all
based on cheap-gas assumptions... but then Iaccocagot the feds to bail
them out of the situation their stupidity had gotten him into. (Can
you say "corporate welfare?" I wonder why AMC couldn't get bailed
out?)

And as for deadwood- are you aware that Japanese companies almost
never fire anyone? If you don't perform, you just get set to stupid
tasks, and everyone around knows you're a loafer. But Japanese
managment works with their unions, not against them, and doesn't try
to blame their own mistakes on the people assigned to carry out tasks.

Russia is a good example of the failure of centralized control, and
American business, due to the massive waves of takeover and merger of
the last 15 years, is getting nearly as centralized. Economies of
scale can take you quite far, but eventually the walnut-sized brain is
just too far from the tail.


James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
th...@voicenet.com (Mark) wrote:

->In article <4chutr$h...@malasada.lava.net>, jha...@lava.net (James R. Olson
->jr.) wrote:
->@ Maybe you can spend the afternoon on your yacht and
->@try to forget your responsibilities to the rest of humanity for a
->@little while.
->@ JimmyO (full of sympathy)


->What are the "responsibilities to the rest of humanity" you are talking
->about????

We all have a resposibility to treat others decently, to view them as
ends and not means. In other words, to respect them as beings, rather
than to use them as tools for our own purposes.
The right to swing your arm ends at your neighbors nose, and I see the
Republicans wildly swinging their arms with no regard for anything
except the nice breeze they get from it. YOU are a victim of
Republican policies. YOUR job insecurity is produced by Republican
policies. YOU pay too many taxes because Republicans don't want to
pay their share. YOU are getting smacked in the nose by the
Republicans' disregard for your position, and then you're accepting
their claim that it was those guys over there.
JimmyO (post-scripting away)


Mark.O.Wilson

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
In article <4cc1iu$9...@news.2sprint.net>, Rusty Neff says...
>
>laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:
>
>
>>Well, aren't you smart. :-| I've worked for the fed too. What a joke. It
>>was like the intent of the the job was to waste money. Hell, they not
only
>>threatened to fire me, but bring me up on charges for saving them
>>thousands of dollars. Underpaid, wasteful, and silly. It was one of the
>>worst places I've ever worked. I got paid to stay home so that I
wouldn't
>>be there when the congressman came around to ask questions.
>
>>The Fed doesn't do very many things essential that isn't already done
by a
>>state agency or private industry, except for the military.
>
>
>
>>Steve La Joie
>>laj...@eskimo.com
>>
>
>
>
>Ooooooh....can I have some of what you're drinking? It must be a
>powerful mind-altering substance! The last time I checked, federal
>employees aren't getting paid to stay at home. We've already missed
>one paycheck, and at this rate we'll probably miss several more.

Either you are exceptionally stupid, or you think we are.
You will get those paychecks, they will just be delayed.

--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.attgis.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for
dinner.
People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on
someone else's money.
Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too
insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.


DAWOLF1

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
In article <4cq4ek$e...@ruby.interactive.net>, zi...@interactive.net
(Robert Zitka) writes:

>
>How about this. Keep the people employed. The employees can then
>continue spending money, thus causing the economy to grow. Since the
>economy is growing, more jobs are created, and more people can spend
>money. And the economy continues to grow........
>
>
>

>: It sounds like you should have a basic class in how capitalism

>: operates.
>
>So, capitalism means "no jobs" ?
>
>

Capitalism means jobs in industrys that are competitive. If a company can


not compete, it must either become competitive or die. That in turn means

another company with more efficiency will take over.

We are creating jobs now by many companies. Look at HP. It has been

creating jobs for years. It keeps its efficiency up, not by company wide

lay offs, but by selectively trimming those who no longer earn their way

on a continious basis.

This has been going on for decades. Look at the automobile industry. It

tried to keep the feather bedding employees on staff for years as the

public paid more and more for automobiles. When things got to be

rediculous, the Japanese came in and whipped our buts. Very fortunately,

none of the top 3 auto makers actually bit the dust. But it was very

close. They finally trimmed their staffs and got back to being

competitive. Russia is the best example of what happens when business is

done to create jobs instead of producing a product or service that people

want.
donw

obse...@mnsinc.com

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
In <4cfc0b$h...@news1.usa.pipeline.com>, d...@usa.pipeline.com(dc3) writes:
>Really?? Have you ever heard of the capital gains tax?? Do you know how it
>applies to almost all of the wealthy?? Isn't this the tax cut that Clinton
>so despises?? Well let me explain it to you, very slowly, so you can
>understand Robert. Let's talk about the elderly that you think the
>Republicans "want to hurt." Let's say a couple bought a house about 36
>years ago, back before there was any inflation to speak of. Now the house
>that they bought for, say $17,000 and now it is worth $110,000. If they
>wanted to sell that house, buy a motor home, and just visit all of the
>National parks for the remainder of their lives, (provided of course that
>the parks were not shut down by something as far fetched as a Government
>Shutdown), they would have a capital gain of $93,000. This is what a
>capital gain is. They bought at a low price, and sold at a high price.
>Considering that to own that house, they had to pay interest to a mortgage
>company, the insurance to a insurance agency, maintenance for 36 years of
>wear, and what ever else might be included, do you think they would really
>end up coming out ahead and really have a capital gain that exceded the
>inflation rate? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. But they made a
>GOOD choice and put the money they earn to use. Is this the kind of person
>that should be taxed for a capital gain? I don't think so. If I had my way,
>that kind of capital gain would not be taxed!

The current law allows an exception for real estate. Retired people who sell
their house don't have to pay capital gains on the first $250,000 (I think that's
the correct figure) of the value of the house.

Now, if you're talking about selling their stocks and bonds which they held onto
for 30 years, you have a point.

obse...@mnsinc.com

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
In <4cf0th$p...@hopi.gate.net>, dci...@gate.net (D. Citron) writes:

>If that is how you feel about it, it is good that you're no longer there.
>There are far too many people (not only in govt jobs) who feel that their
>job is owed to them.

I don't understand this attitude. It stands to reason that if Congress and the
White House make life too miserable for federal employees, the good ones with
skills will leave for the private sector and a self fulfilling prophecy of a civil
service full of class B people will result.

When will Congress do something smart, like figure out ways to encourage smart
people to work for the federal goverment, and allow easier ways to get rid of the
relatively small percentage of unproductive people.

Unknown

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
obse...@mnsinc.com wrote:

>I don't understand this attitude. It stands to reason that if Congress and the
>White House make life too miserable for federal employees, the good ones with
>skills will leave for the private sector and a self fulfilling prophecy of a civil
>service full of class B people will result.

I know I'm looking for the first train out. I've got a Ph.D. in
physics and I don't have to put up with this kind of shit any longer.
I've been with the government for six years and have stuck with it
because I've truly enjoyed my job, but I'll be goddamned if I'm going
to stick around for more of this kind of treatment.

>When will Congress do something smart, like figure out ways to encourage smart
>people to work for the federal goverment, and allow easier ways to get rid of the
>relatively small percentage of unproductive people.

Smart people don't work where they feel they aren't wanted. People
who work for the government now feel like political pawns more than
ever. I know that the morale in our working group has gone from low
before the furloughs to nonexistent now. I have worked plenty of
nights and weekends and delayed completion of my degree work to get
projects done on schedule, but after watching Congress lounge around,
go on vacations, and take expensive junkets while we were told to stay
home and told that we wouldn't get paychecks around Christmas, I'm out
of loyalty. I no longer have any motivation to sacrifice for this
outfit. I'm going to be expected now to work overtime (unpaid, by the
way) to catch up on several projects that were hot when we got
furloughed, but that's tough shit. I won't do it. When quitting time
comes, I'm coming home and working on my job search. There's not a
whole lot that they can do to me for refusing, either. It was
particularly stressful for me because my first child was born on
December 30, when we had been out two weeks on furlough with no end,
no pay, and no assurance of continued insurance benefits in sight.
I've had it; I'm already floating resumes.

Mark.O.Wilson

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
In article <4cefam$6...@ruby.interactive.net>, Robert Zitka says...
>

>But, the point is that the people voted Clinton in on his health care
>platform. That's what the people wanted until the Republican PR
campaign
>ran the scare commercials on tv and then it got killed.

I've always said that liberals find the truth to be scary.

Mark.O.Wilson

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to

Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
Mark (th...@voicenet.com) wrote:
: In article <4cmi98$n...@ruby.interactive.net>, zi...@interactive.net
: (Robert Zitka) wrote:

: @Once again, the Democrats did to the Republicans what the Repubs did with
: @the Clinton Healthcare program. Maybe you just can't see it.

: don't you mean the Clinton Socailist Federal Healthcare Control Law.


And the Newt Gingrich Hurt the Children and Elderly First program.

: @Well, where was Reagans balanced budgets? Surprise, but none of them were
: @balanced. But, who did the Republicans blame? The Democrats.

: Presidents can't spend a dime, only congress has power to appropriate.

So why should Clinton have to put forth a budget?


: After 40 yrs., the republicans finally have a majority it Congress and


: _they_ want to have a balanced budget. (Suprise, imagine that!!)

Of course they didn't mind the unvlanced budgets of the 80's, as long as
it built warplanes and gave tax breaks to the rich.

: But the


: _problem_ is that the failed ideology of the last 40yrs. of Congress, is
: currently in the White House and is armed with an unregistered assult veto
: pen. The problem is that the White House wants the status quo of the last

: 40 yrs. "Maybe you just can't see it."

What you don't see is that the Republicans failed to win the public
approval. Instead, 80% of Americans have disapproved of the Republican
handling of the budget.

You know, the Rpublicans shot themselves in the foot on this one. They
got Clinton to agree to a seven year balanced budget, and they should
have declared victory and proclaimed how they won the victory over
Clinton. It should have ended there and a budget signed off. But, no,
they couldn't handle it. The Republicans aren't happy unless they can
continually beat on the President. Which, of course this is all about.
Not balanced budgets, but political venom.

So, they shutdown the government, made a big deal over CBO numbers, which
are probably just as flawed as any other numbers. And they showed to
America what jerks they could truly be. Newt crying about sitting in the
back of the plane. Come on, he's supposed to be a pit bull while he's
throwing a tantrum. Give me a break.

What the Republicans did was to take the victory they had in their hands
and throw it away because they wanted to beat on the President.
Well, three weeks went by, Clinton stood by, and Newt caved in and sent
the workers back to their jobs. Congratulations Newt, you fucked up. No
balanced budget. No victory parties. You got what you wanted.


: @But, now all of a sudden, the Republicans want a banced budget. What a joke.
: @Except it's not very funny, because we've amassed over 5 trillion in debt.

: The party controlling the purse of our nation has overspent and amassed
: over 5 trillion in debt. Presidents can request funding all they want, but


: it is the party controlling Congress (the purse) that has the
: responsiblity and authority by the Constitution to spend money wisely and
: with the best interests of our nation at hand.

Of course, Reagan didn't mind signing those budgets. Probably because he
didn't have a balanced budget either.


: @Look, there's different ways to balance a budget. And there's nothing
: @sacred about the Republican plan.

: execpt it may realy work!! (without the standard raise taxes demo solution)


So only their balanced budget would balance a budget? No other balanced
budget can balance the budget?


: @Here's my opinion. Forget the tax breaks. Most eceonomists don't think
: @they're going to amount to anything anyway. Take that money, and put it
: @towards the debt. Or, if they're so damn bent over a tax break, make it
: @only available after the seven years is up and if we truly have balanced
: @the budget. Then we could reward ourseleves for the sacrafice.

: Justify tax increases to balance the budget with a promise to reduce the


: taxes later at a later date, come on, do reality check, I wasn't born
: yesterday.

And what happens when in seven years we still have a deficit? All this
bs, and were still in the red?


ke...@usa.pipeline.com

unread,
Jan 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/8/96
to
On Jan 08, 1996 03:52:52 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's

Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:


>So, capitalism means "no jobs" ?
--
Capitalism means no jobs are guaranteed. How many empolyees that used to be
employed elsewhere are working at Microsoft now ? Employees, whether they
work in the public or private sector are guaranteed employment. If you want
that, I think there are some state-run companies in Russia that will
guarantee you a job. Here you have to produce. Companies have an obligation
to the stockholders, not an obligation to provide employment if someone's
services are no longer needed.

kenh

Mark.O.Wilson

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
In article <4cht1q$p...@ruby.interactive.net>, Robert Zitka says...
>
>dc3 (d...@usa.pipeline.com) wrote:
>: On Jan 02, 1996 04:53:23 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's
>: Opinion>>Stephen Lajoie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:
>:
>:
>: >> I'm actually glad that the Republicans are fighting Bill Clinton and
his
>:
>: >> tax and borrow policies.
>: >
>: >Pleas, the Republicans have decided to tax the elderly. I hardly think

>: >they're all that different.
>:
>: Really?? Have you ever heard of the capital gains tax?? Do you know
how it
>: applies to almost all of the wealthy??
>
>Here we go again. The ones that benefit the most from the capital gains
>cuts are the rich.

Even if this were true, why should we base our fiscal policy on greed
and jealousy.

The claim that the rich gain the most from capital gains is only true if
you ignore that fact many people are temporarily pushed into higher
income brackets when they claim in one year, capital gains that were
accumulated over decades.

Mark.O.Wilson

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
.


Gregory Wayne Stafford

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
One private citizens view:
I have been laid off twice! Both times from downsizing. I am a
corporate attorney. Your plight sounds soooo bad. People don't treat
you with the respect you deserve. My point is that at this point I
would love to be laid off over the holidays. Knowing all the while
that I would be paid while I'm away. The whining about how horrible
you have it while the private sector employees are much worse off is
where Fed. employees get the bad rap in the first place. Feel some
real pain and then tell me about it. I am not trying to be a
smart-ass. And I do not wish pain upon you. It is just hard to have
sympathy for somebody who is whining about a situation that most of us
would love to be in. I hope you are back to work soon.
ps . . . if we privatized all these Gov. functions then we wouldn't
have to complain about working for the feds.

obse...@mnsinc.com wrote:

>In <4crf1c$n...@parlor.hiwaay.net>, (Jabbo) writes:

>>I know I'm looking for the first train out. I've got a Ph.D. in
>>physics and I don't have to put up with this kind of shit any longer.
>>I've been with the government for six years and have stuck with it
>>because I've truly enjoyed my job, but I'll be goddamned if I'm going
>>to stick around for more of this kind of treatment.

>No one would blame you. I just think it's a shame that Congress is creating
>the dumbed down federal workforce through their shameful actions. I too have
>to seriously consider getting out. Although I am a GS-13 and make a good salary,
>I have little doubt I could make more with my skills elsewhere. I guess it was
>kinda silly to think of joining the civil service to give the public the benefits of
>my talents.

>>Smart people don't work where they feel they aren't wanted. People
>>who work for the government now feel like political pawns more than
>>ever. I know that the morale in our working group has gone from low
>>before the furloughs to nonexistent now. I have worked plenty of
>>nights and weekends and delayed completion of my degree work to get
>>projects done on schedule, but after watching Congress lounge around,
>>go on vacations, and take expensive junkets while we were told to stay
>>home and told that we wouldn't get paychecks around Christmas, I'm out
>>of loyalty. I no longer have any motivation to sacrifice for this
>>outfit. I'm going to be expected now to work overtime (unpaid, by the
>>way) to catch up on several projects that were hot when we got
>>furloughed, but that's tough shit. I won't do it. When quitting time
>>comes, I'm coming home and working on my job search. There's not a
>>whole lot that they can do to me for refusing, either. It was
>>particularly stressful for me because my first child was born on
>>December 30, when we had been out two weeks on furlough with no end,
>>no pay, and no assurance of continued insurance benefits in sight.
>>I've had it; I'm already floating resumes.

>I know where you are coming from. I routinely bring stuff home on weekends. I
>don't have time at work to get all my work done, particularly the proactive stuff.

>It was very frustrating back in November trying a way to figure out how to get
>my team the training it needed. We were on a CR back then and there was almost
>no money in the pot. I dream of a job where I can be a bit proactive about how
>I manage my project.

Andrew Hall

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
>>>>> Mark O Wilson writes:

Mark> In article <4chutr$h...@malasada.lava.net>, James R. Olson jr. says...
>> Did you have your taxes raised by Clinton?

Mark> Another Clinton clone who is actually stupid enough to believe that
Mark> the income tax is the only tax that he pays.
Mark> If you own a car, or buy anything that is transported by truck, then

Yes, but magnitudes are important, and a reasonable estimate for
the additional taxes on these items comes to under $100/year.

Mark> your taxes were raised. And this doesn't even begin to cover the
Mark> various business taxes that were raised and all of the deductions that
Mark> were eliminated.

I know business lunches are not as deductible, but what else do you
have in mind?

obse...@mnsinc.com

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to

Joe Pruskowski

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to

In Article<4crcku$s...@news1.mnsinc.com>, <obse...@mnsinc.com> writes:
> Path: >
> In <4cf0th$p...@hopi.gate.net>, dci...@gate.net (D. Citron) writes:
>
> >If that is how you feel about it, it is good that you're no longer there.
> >There are far too many people (not only in govt jobs) who feel that their
> >job is owed to them.
>
> I don't understand this attitude. It stands to reason that if Congress and
the
> White House make life too miserable for federal employees, the good ones
with
> skills will leave for the private sector and a self fulfilling prophecy of a
civil
> service full of class B people will result.
>
> When will Congress do something smart, like figure out ways to encourage
smart
> people to work for the federal goverment, and allow easier ways to get rid
of the
> relatively small percentage of unproductive people.
>

I would say the main problem is that overall, the government is currently
staffed with class C people. Certainly there are some A's and a few more B's,
but overall they are probably C's - that's certainly how I would rate them.
The problem is that we have far too many government employees - maybe 50% too
many so obviously many, many people have to go. The trick is to keep the A's
while getting rid of the masses of B's and C's. Government employees need
incentive programs like many business people have - bonuses for accomplishing
goals and you get fired for failure. Until we stop seeing government
employment as an "entitlement", I am opposed to any form of incentive because
in order to be effective it has to swing both ways.

BTW - I don't necessarily believe that the legions of C performers are that
way due to their inherent nature - they are just mismanaged and not
incentivized. Out in the private sector (with a real value-creation job),
maybe many of them will turn into A's and B's, although I think it will take
some significant re-treading to accomplish this feat. Once they've been fired
from one or two jobs for lack of performance, maybe they will begin to wake up
and drop their "entitlement" attitude.


obse...@mnsinc.com

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
In <4crf7d$n...@parlor.hiwaay.net>, (Jabbo) writes:

>>So now instead of proactively managing the health care revolution, we've allowed
>>the large insurance companies determine which doctor's we see. I like the
>>Clinton plan better. At least I had a way to rate HMOs. Now I have nothing.
>

>Which is pretty ironic, when you think about it. The screaming
>objections to a single-payer plan were that you couldn't pick your
>doctor and you had to wait.

One of the few chuckles I've had out of this whole budget mess is that the Republicans
rediscovered HMOs and are using it as a way to save billions on Medicare and
Medicaid. Weren't these the same people who called the Clinton health care
plan socialism and warned people wouldn't be able to see their own doctor?

>Well, guess what. I'm on an HMO, and I take their choice of doctors
>or pay out of my own pocket, and I never see a doctor within two hours
>of the appointment for which I was on time, and I have to wait three
>weeks for an appointment with a specialist. That's another by-product
>of the economic strategy of always choosing the most commercialized
>and profitable solution.

Me too. As we can clearly see, it's better to let the private sector do their
thing, even when it's not in the patient's interest, than allow the government
to set up a health care system which proactively manages change. ;-)

James R. Olson jr.

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
d...@usa.pipeline.com wrote:

cut stuff

->in some ways and very incremental. If we let government get involved with
->health care now, what is to keep them from regulating your lawn boy 20
->years from now. It is a step by step process and government will never sit
->still and not change how many things it tries to regulate.
-> There are fundamentally two type of attitudes towards what the government
->should do. One, it should get involved as much as possible in the private
->affairs of people. Or two, it should be a least intrusive as possibly. You
->seem to want government to involved in everything. I want government
->involved in very little. My view of government intrusion is that there is
->very little they can do to make things better. You seem to believe there is
->little government can do to make worse. Needless to say, I want less
->government, less government intrusion, and few problems created by the
->government to justify it's involvement.
->
cut stuff
->
->The government gets involve in problem. Government involvement then creates
->more problems and then the new problems created by the government justifies
->the need for more government involvement since they are there to solve
->problems. This then justifies the need for government. Therefore the
->solution to the problem and the cause of the problem are the same. So,
->what's the cure?


These two paragraphs seem to be the nub of your argument. Part of the
problem I see here is your either-or scenario. I am willing to accept
your characterization of your own ideas, but your characterization of
the other side is essentially a straw man. There may be those who
wish the government to be involved in EVERYTHING, but I am sure they
are a very small minority, since I have never met one. I think most
of us on the other side of the fence from you think that governmnet is
one of the tools available to us to keep society functioning well, and
it should be used for that purpose.

You seem to think that the government can never do anything right.
First off, why not? What does the government consist of?
Second, I can think of quite a few areas where government has made my
life better. For instance, I'm not too worried about the food I buy
being contaminated. If I am injured on the job, I'm covered by a
government mandated program. The government (supposedly) keeps an eye
on conditions at my workplace so I am not exposed to excessive danger.
It was deficit financing by the government that brought us out of the
Great Depression.
The places where government has made things worse are areas where it
has been used by those with privilege to protect that privilege, areas
like restrictions on new businesses, which protect established
companies from competition, or the capital gains tax, which is a
punitive tax on low and middle income investors, and a shelter for
high income investors, or providing infrastructure for logging on
government lands, then giving away the timber at below-market prices.

The laissez-faire philosophers I have read seem to have an essential
unconcern for the eventual results of the application of their
principles of perfect liberty.If you want to see the ultimate result
of laissez-faire, just take a look at the majority of South American
countries. There, the governments exist mainly to protect the rich
from the poor, and they expend massive resources on that job. Our
country is well down that road.


Andrew Hall

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
>>>>> Mark O Wilson writes:

Mark> In article <4chua4$f...@malasada.lava.net>, James R. Olson jr. says...
>>

>> Excellent return. One of the things the right wing refuses to admit
>> is that Clinton has accomplished in three years what Republican
>> administrations promised and failed to do for twelve.

Mark> Another Clinton clone who actually believes the lie that Clinton
Mark> reduced the deficit. The truth is that the new spending in Clinton's
Mark> budged more then covered the new taxes in his budget. The deficit
Mark> dropped because the RTC started phasing out, the economy improved
Mark> (it started improving 9 months before the election, a year before Clinton
Mark> was sworn in) and dropping interest rates (they had been dropping for
Mark> almost a decade)

Mark> Secondly, Reagan was very successfull in dropping the deficit. At least
Mark> until Bush caved in to the democrats and got rid of Gramm-Rudmann.

You are being a revisionist. THe gramm/rudman cut in the deficit lasted
all of one year. Then Reagan and Congress colluded to move the spending off
budget. The deficit was up in 6 of 8 Reagan years. He never ever asked to
spend less than Congress had spent in the year before. He bears almost
as much of the blame as Congress.

Reagan's era took the deficit.gdp from 2.9% to 5.2%. It took
off budget deficit spending from 6.8 billion to 114.2 billion.

Talk about smoke and mirrors.

I wonder what Clinton and Congress have in mind for off budget
spending in their long debate. It will not be balanced unless
the debt stops growing.

-------------------------------------------------

Courtesy of the Concord Coalition:

Federal Debt and Deficits

Reported, Gross, and Trust, in billions of dollars

See notes following table.

Gross
% Federal % of Reported % of Gross % of Trust
Year GDP Chng Debt GDP Deficit GDP Deficit GDP Deficit
---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ------- --- ------- --- -------
1980 2644.1 8.8 909.1 34.4 73.8 2.8 79.6 3.0 5.8
1981 2964.4 12.1 994.8 33.6 79.0 2.7 85.8 2.9 6.8
1982 3122.2 5.3 1137.3 36.4 128.0 4.1 142.5 4.6 14.5
1983 3316.5 6.2 1371.7 41.4 207.8 6.3 234.4 7.1 26.6
1984 3695.0 11.4 1564.7 42.3 185.4 5.0 192.9 5.2 7.5
1985 3967.7 7.4 1817.5 45.8 212.3 5.4 252.9 6.4 40.6
1986 4219.0 6.3 2120.6 50.3 221.2 5.2 303.1 7.2 81.9
1987 4452.4 5.5 2346.1 52.7 149.8 3.4 225.5 5.1 75.7
1988 4808.4 8.0 2601.3 54.1 155.2 3.2 255.2 5.3 100.0
1989 5173.3 7.6 2868.0 55.4 152.5 2.9 266.7 5.2 114.2

Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1996,
Historical Tables, tables 1.2, 1.3, 7.1
(Gross Deficit equals change in Gross Debt; Trust Deficit equals
Gross - Reported Deficits; percentages calculated)

Among the points that the table below illustrates are the following:

1. The gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP has more than doubled
since 1980. This is the critical percentage in the table since it is
the debt, not the deficit, that we are paying interest on and have
promised to pay back.

2. Despite the fact that the reported deficit is projected to drop and
remain below 3 percent of GDP, the debt as a percentage of GDP is
projected to continue rising.

3. The gross federal debt increases by more each year than that year's
reported deficit. This is because the reported deficit does not
include monies borrowed from trust funds. The 1996 Budget states:
"The Federal Government accounts holding the largest amount of Federal
debt securities are civil service and military retirement, social security,
and medicare trust funds."

Mark.O.Wilson

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
In article <4chutr$h...@malasada.lava.net>, James R. Olson jr. says...

>Did you have your taxes raised by Clinton?

Another Clinton clone who is actually stupid enough to believe that


the income tax is the only tax that he pays.

If you own a car, or buy anything that is transported by truck, then

your taxes were raised. And this doesn't even begin to cover the

various business taxes that were raised and all of the deductions that

were eliminated.

>No wonder you're so mad.
>Why don't you have the butler bring you a gin and tonic and try to
>relax a little. Maybe you can spend the afternoon on your yacht

Apparently, you honestly believe that anybody who objects to stealing
from the rich, must be rich.

>and


>try to forget your responsibilities to the rest of humanity for a

>little while.

I have no responsibilities towards the rest of humanity.

> JimmyO (full of sympathy)

Which he expresses by spending other people's money.

D. Citron

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
Robert Zitka (zi...@interactive.net) wrote:
: ke...@usa.pipeline.com wrote:
: : -- : : Capitalism means no jobs are guaranteed. How many empolyees that used to be

: : employed elsewhere are working at Microsoft now ? Employees, whether they
: : work in the public or private sector are guaranteed employment. If you want
: : that, I think there are some state-run companies in Russia that will
: : guarantee you a job. Here you have to produce. Companies have an obligation
: : to the stockholders, not an obligation to provide employment if someone's
: : services are no longer needed.
: And so the whole game is to infinitely downsize into oblivion. Obviously
: that's the only way to maximize profit.

Yes, you make lots of money with zero employees. (Another clueless poster
who buys the Marxist dogma that the economy is a zero-sum game.)

posted as a public service by ..............................D. Citron

---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Can you trust a government that subsidizes tobacco and tries to |
| ban vitamins to make intelligent choices about YOUR health care? |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" ... Benjamin Franklin

Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
ke...@usa.pipeline.com wrote:
: On Jan 08, 1996 03:52:52 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's

: Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:
:
:
: >So, capitalism means "no jobs" ?

Mark.O.Wilson

unread,
Jan 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/9/96
to
In article <4chua4$f...@malasada.lava.net>, James R. Olson jr. says...
>

>Excellent return. One of the things the right wing refuses to admit
>is that Clinton has accomplished in three years what Republican
>administrations promised and failed to do for twelve.

Another Clinton clone who actually believes the lie that Clinton


reduced the deficit. The truth is that the new spending in Clinton's

budged more then covered the new taxes in his budget. The deficit

dropped because the RTC started phasing out, the economy improved

(it started improving 9 months before the election, a year before Clinton

was sworn in) and dropping interest rates (they had been dropping for

almost a decade)

Secondly, Reagan was very successfull in dropping the deficit. At least

until Bush caved in to the democrats and got rid of Gramm-Rudmann.

--

KERIN BRITTON L

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
D. Citron (dci...@gate.net) wrote:
: j...@sna.com wrote:
: : I have seen for years, the same in fact that I carried when I entered government
: : service for two years. Not being there any longer, I only can speak from
: : knowledge, but from delight at getting away from an under paid, unappreciated,
: : thankless position.

: If that is how you feel about it, it is good that you're no longer there.

: There are far too many people (not only in govt jobs) who feel that their
: job is owed to them.

: There are LOTS of thankless positions out there. That's why you are free
: to quit and seek another. Or start your own business.

: I don't think that being a bureaucrat (federal, state, or local) is any
: picnic, but if you act superior to the peons of the public who must deal
: with you -- and whine if you're not treated that way -- you deserve every
: bit of our disrespect and disdain.

: You'll notice that the liberal media and the federal employees and all
: the recipients of entitlements are making a big deal about the shutdown.
: But everyone else says "who cares?" If they're not working, they're not
: causing trouble. The Hooters case, during the last shutdown, was the
: exception.

: How come Slick Willie isn't considered a non-essential employee?

: Posted as a public service by .............................. D. Citron

: "The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public
: authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind. ... In this
: field every person must be his own watchman for the truth, because the
: forefathers did not trust any government to separate the truth from
: the false for us."
: ...Thomas v Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)

ke...@usa.pipeline.com

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
On Jan 09, 1996 22:52:21 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's

Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:


>And so the whole game is to infinitely downsize into oblivion. Obviously

>that's the only way to maximize profit.

--
It's not a game.

If you had any understanding of the real world, you would understand that
technology and the resultant productivity increases result in a continuing
downsizing. Some day soon, you will get your Big Mac from Micky Dee's from
a robot and pay for it with your ATM card. That day will come sooner with
each increase in the minimum wage. Do you think that McDonald's will be in
oblivion at that point ? I dont.

The alternative is to not downsize while your competitors do. That is the
quickest way to oblivion.
kenh

Joe Pruskowski

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to

In Article<4d147m$g...@malasada.lava.net>, <jha...@lava.net> writes:
> Path: >
> obse...@mnsinc.com wrote:
>
>
> ->My observation in my own agency is that 15% of the employees could be
gotten
> ->rid of immediately with no loss of productivity; these obstacle makers
would
> ->probably increase productivity by being gone. Of course it's almost
impossible
> ->to get rid of these people because they remain marginally productive and
have
> ->been in the job practically forever. Career civil servents can only be
removed
> ->for incredibly stupid mistakes, like showing up doped repeatedly at the
office. But
> ->it's the fault of Congress for not changing the rules so managers can get
rid
> ->of these people.
>
> ->As for the rest, I'd say 35% are A performers and 50% are B performers.
In
> ->other words for the most part we have good people in place, it's just a
lousy
> ->system.
>
>
> ->I'd like to see true innovation in the civil service. I'd like to see a
new tier
> ->of federal employee, maybe a certification level that can only be achieved
through
> ->hard work. These people would be amply rewarded accordingly. Something
like
> ->"Gold", "Silver", and "Bronze" employees, and rankings must be revalidated
> ->every year.
>
> ->Since every federal employee has customers, be them external or internal,
the
> ->key rating criteria is how their customers evaluate how well they have
served
> ->them. Bonus points should be added for completing work ahead of schedule
> ->and under cost.
>
> ->Of course the best management could do would be to truly empower us, but
> ->that's a long digression for another message.
>
> ->--------------------------------------------
> ->The Observer
> ->obse...@mnsinc.com
> ->"Seeking the answers to life's persistent questions.
> ->--------------------------------------------
>
> I've had some experience with "incentive" programs, and my observation
> is that they usually drop down to petty politics. I am in favor of
> simple seniority systems because they are immune to that sort of
> abuse, even though the occasional slacker does get excessive perks.
> When I was a crew leader, I found that I could get optimum performance
> out of each of my crew simply by paying them proper attention. Some
> needed patience, and others needed to be prodded, but it all came down
> to figuring out how to handle that person. The most frustrating part
> of the job was bringing someone up to speed, then seeing them fired.
> The replacement was usually no better, and I would have to go through
> the whole process again. ( I lost the position, despite record
> production, because I "didn't show proper attitude toward
> management.")
> I have to agree wholeheartedly with the last statement. The best and
> most effective managers I've had were also the most hands-off.
>
The problem with 'seniority" based plans is that they reward based on time
which has nothing to do with contribution. Somehow the gov. employees have to
be incentivized on what they contribute, not how long they've been receiving a
paycheck. Reward based on seniority generally promotes mediocrity, which is
what we're trying to get away from in the government. No argument about
managing people properly as you've stated. However, the main part of
management is to give people clear and concise goals that are meaningful and
to have them understand who the "customer" is. The government clearly fails
in all of these areas.


Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
D. Citron (dci...@gate.net) wrote:

: Robert Zitka (zi...@interactive.net) wrote:
: : ke...@usa.pipeline.com wrote:
: : : -- : : Capitalism means no jobs are guaranteed. How many empolyees that used to be

: : : employed elsewhere are working at Microsoft now ? Employees, whether they
: : : work in the public or private sector are guaranteed employment. If you want
: : : that, I think there are some state-run companies in Russia that will
: : : guarantee you a job. Here you have to produce. Companies have an obligation
: : : to the stockholders, not an obligation to provide employment if someone's
: : : services are no longer needed.
: : And so the whole game is to infinitely downsize into oblivion. Obviously
: : that's the only way to maximize profit.

: Yes, you make lots of money with zero employees. (Another clueless poster

: who buys the Marxist dogma that the economy is a zero-sum game.)

Just repeating what others have so eloquently told me about how
capitalism works. And now your equating it to Marxism? Hmmm....

: posted as a public service by ..............................D. Citron

sits_in_the_dark

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka) wrote:

>ke...@usa.pipeline.com wrote:
>: On Jan 08, 1996 03:52:52 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's


>: Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:

>:
>:
>: >So, capitalism means "no jobs" ?

>: --
>: Capitalism means no jobs are guaranteed. How many empolyees that used to be
>: employed elsewhere are working at Microsoft now ? Employees, whether they
>: work in the public or private sector are guaranteed employment. If you want
>: that, I think there are some state-run companies in Russia that will
>: guarantee you a job. Here you have to produce. Companies have an obligation
>: to the stockholders, not an obligation to provide employment if someone's
>: services are no longer needed.


>And so the whole game is to infinitely downsize into oblivion. Obviously
>that's the only way to maximize profit.

Let's review for just a moment. Perhaps you were absent the day they
taught this subject in school. The aim of any business is to make
money. It is not the responsibility of any corporation to provide
jobs. Businesses provide good and services. In return for those
goods and services, consumers give them money. They take that money
and pay their expenses. A business is created to make money. If it
doesn't make money it becomes a bankrupt business. Bankrupt
businesses cost money and don't have any employees as a general rule.
Bankrupt businesses are bad for the economy because everybody involved
(except possibly the attorneys) loose money; the investors loose, the
creditors, and the people who expected to buy the goods and/or
services provided by that business. (Now before anyone jumps on it, a
notable exception to this general rule might be the crash of all the
S&L's, there's a large question there as to who really lost money.
It's pretty apparent to me that the taxpayers were the big losers, so
let's discount that one, shall we?)
Need an example?
You own a small laundry/dry cleaning business. You have, in the past
always had a full-time bookkeeper to take care of your accounts. In
addition you have always had a person working full time to check each
and every article which comes through your front door. Last year you
invested several thousand dollars in computerized equipment which
eliminated the need for a full-time bookkeeper and the employee that
checked in the clothes. Do you continue to keep those people in your
employ even though you know that to do so will cost all of your other
employees because you can't afford to increase their wages or fringe
benefits? Or do you lay those people off and use that money more
efficiently, say for increasing wages and benefits of the employees
that you actually need to operate your business? By the way, this
business feeds your family and will put your kids through school.

sits in the dark

Stanford L and Hilde T. Giles

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
It is time government employees and the Democratic party's philosophy are
down sized. I don't know if I like Newt, but its like traveling across
country, I don't think about the type transportation. It only has to be
dependable. Thanks Newt

obse...@mnsinc.com

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
In <NEWTNews.8212...@jjp.halcyon.com>, Joe Pruskowski <j...@halcyon.com> writes:

>I would say the main problem is that overall, the government is currently
>staffed with class C people. Certainly there are some A's and a few more B's,
>but overall they are probably C's - that's certainly how I would rate them.
>The problem is that we have far too many government employees - maybe 50% too
>many so obviously many, many people have to go. The trick is to keep the A's
>while getting rid of the masses of B's and C's. Government employees need
>incentive programs like many business people have - bonuses for accomplishing
>goals and you get fired for failure. Until we stop seeing government
>employment as an "entitlement", I am opposed to any form of incentive because
>in order to be effective it has to swing both ways.

My observation in my own agency is that 15% of the employees could be gotten


rid of immediately with no loss of productivity; these obstacle makers would

probably increase productivity by being gone. Of course it's almost impossible

to get rid of these people because they remain marginally productive and have

been in the job practically forever. Career civil servents can only be removed

for incredibly stupid mistakes, like showing up doped repeatedly at the office. But

it's the fault of Congress for not changing the rules so managers can get rid

of these people.

As for the rest, I'd say 35% are A performers and 50% are B performers. In

other words for the most part we have good people in place, it's just a lousy

system.

>BTW - I don't necessarily believe that the legions of C performers are that
>way due to their inherent nature - they are just mismanaged and not
>incentivized. Out in the private sector (with a real value-creation job),
>maybe many of them will turn into A's and B's, although I think it will take
>some significant re-treading to accomplish this feat. Once they've been fired
>from one or two jobs for lack of performance, maybe they will begin to wake up
>and drop their "entitlement" attitude.

I'd like to see true innovation in the civil service. I'd like to see a new tier


of federal employee, maybe a certification level that can only be achieved through

hard work. These people would be amply rewarded accordingly. Something like

"Gold", "Silver", and "Bronze" employees, and rankings must be revalidated

every year.

Since every federal employee has customers, be them external or internal, the

key rating criteria is how their customers evaluate how well they have served

them. Bonus points should be added for completing work ahead of schedule

and under cost.

Of course the best management could do would be to truly empower us, but

that's a long digression for another message.

--------------------------------------------
The Observer
obse...@mnsinc.com

Robert Zitka

unread,
Jan 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/10/96
to
ke...@usa.pipeline.com wrote:
: On Jan 09, 1996 22:52:21 in article <Re: Gov't Shutdown, One Fed's

: Opinion>, 'zi...@interactive.net (Robert Zitka)' wrote:
:
:
: >And so the whole game is to infinitely downsize into oblivion. Obviously

: >that's the only way to maximize profit.

: --

: It's not a game.
:
: If you had any understanding of the real world, you would understand that
: technology and the resultant productivity increases result in a continuing
: downsizing. Some day soon, you will get your Big Mac from Micky Dee's from
: a robot and pay for it with your ATM card. That day will come sooner with
: each increase in the minimum wage. Do you think that McDonald's will be in
: oblivion at that point ? I dont.

Maybe, since only robots will be employed at McDonalds, nobody will have
any money to go to McDonalds and buy the hamburgers. Then will McDonalds
be happy?

If you really think that the panacea for this country is lay-offs, then
think again. Employment creates employment. Un-employment creates
un-employment.


:
: The alternative is to not downsize while your competitors do. That is the


: quickest way to oblivion.
: kenh


And if your competitiors jumped off a bridge, would you?

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages