A sick way to run a country

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Harry Hope

unread,
Feb 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/6/97
to

From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:

To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
currently on the SSI program must lose essential
benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
family together. It is estimated that an equal
number will have to be denied access to this
lifeline program over the next six years. This
equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
critical benefits.

As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
with glee.

Harry

Mark D. Vincent

unread,
Feb 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/6/97
to

In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,

Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Feb 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/6/97
to

Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary

: goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
: currently on the SSI program must lose essential
: benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
: family together. It is estimated that an equal
: number will have to be denied access to this
: lifeline program over the next six years. This
: equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
: severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
: critical benefits.

: As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
: with glee.

Says right there at the top that it's the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S
budgetary goals that are the cause, yet you blame the "right-wing."

Why? Is Clinton right-wing now? Has the left disowned him so soon?!

--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
AMA on Clinton's drug policy: "Misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane."


K. Knopp

unread,
Feb 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/6/97
to

In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com
(Harry Hope) wrote:

> From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>

> To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
> goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
> currently on the SSI program must lose essential
> benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
> family together. It is estimated that an equal
> number will have to be denied access to this
> lifeline program over the next six years. This
> equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
> severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
> critical benefits.
>
>
>
> As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
> with glee.
>

> Harry

Would such disabilities include ADD?

Harry Hope

unread,
Feb 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/6/97
to

m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:

>In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,


>Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>>
>>To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
>>goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
>>currently on the SSI program must lose essential
>>benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
>>family together. It is estimated that an equal
>>number will have to be denied access to this
>>lifeline program over the next six years. This
>>equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
>>severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
>>critical benefits.
>>
>>
>>
>>As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
>>with glee.
>>
>>Harry
>>
>>

>Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?

Yes.
The Arc of the United States, a national
organization on mental retardation. Founded in
1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
retardation.

Anti-rumor

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to


Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5ddpph$h...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...


> m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>
>

snip


>>
>
> >Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?
>
> Yes.
> The Arc of the United States, a national
> organization on mental retardation. Founded in
> 1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
> organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
> retardation.
>

There are some mentally retarded people who have no ability to function and
are fed, diapered, and cared for their entire lives AND there are some who
lead productive lives complete with a job and friends and there are many
who are not at either end of the extreme. All are disabled, but again,
some are more seriously disabled than others. One mentally retarded young
man I knew who lived in a town where I once lived, held a job, belonged to
the local JCs and was a really neat, hard-working, and independent person.
Therefore one must wonder who did The Arc get to put those figures
together? I am sure that the organization does much good and I have no
problem with it what-so-ever, it is, however in the organization's best
interest to paint the worst possible picture to get the sympathy of the
general public in order to get contributions. Therefore, that organization
cannot be considered a totally unbiased source. I am not putting the
organization down, simply trying to be realistic about using it as a source
of information when it comes to getting government money for the disabled.
Anti-rumor

Jill E. Deel

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Harry Hope wrote:
>
> From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>
> To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
> goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
> currently on the SSI program must lose essential
> benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
> family together. It is estimated that an equal
> number will have to be denied access to this
> lifeline program over the next six years. This
> equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
> severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
> critical benefits.
>
> As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
> with glee.
> Harry

Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
tommorow, and my kids will be living in a tommorow that selfish tax and spend
liberals never think about. What will you tell them when they are paying a
85% tax rate to pay off a debt that has *already* been spent? That we helped
a lot of people *before* they were even born? Doesn't matter that they won't
even be able to help themselves, they will have the comfort of knowing that
we helped a lot of people before they were born. (It will be a great comfort
to them won't it.)

I wonder what they will have to say about your "compassion."

No one is rubbing their hands with glee about this, but somewhere, sometime
someone has to cut up the "National Credit Card." We are broke! Get a clue!

I am sick and tired of you liberals thinking there is no tommorow and then
accusing the right of being selfish. It is *YOU, YOU, YOU* that is selfish
for only thinking of yourselves and failing to think about those that
will have to carry on in the future. There will be people in it too, you
know!

What price will my children have to pay just to satisfy your
"compassion" and your vanity?


Jill E. Deel
vale...@megalinx.net

Jill E. Deel

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Harry Hope wrote:
>
> m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:

<snip>

> >>As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
> >>with glee.
> >>
> >>Harry

> >Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?


>
> Yes.
> The Arc of the United States, a national
> organization on mental retardation. Founded in
> 1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
> organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
> retardation.

Sounds to me like the usual smoke and mirrors, "three million homeless" ploy.
You mention a number of children that might lose benefits. What your report
does *not* mention is little things like if those children are losing their
benefits based on their parents ability to pay, level of retardation, or
private foundations in their community. Not *everyone* needs help from the
federal nanny. A lot of times it is just *easier* to get help from the
federal nanny. It is just real nice and easy to look at this from a simple
platform of numbers, but that doesn't cover a lot of variables that your
article does not choose to mention.

Jill E. Deel
vale...@megalinx.net

kenfran

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> Harry Hope wrote:
> >
> > From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
> >
> > To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
> > goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
> > currently on the SSI program must lose essential
> > benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
> > family together. It is estimated that an equal
> > number will have to be denied access to this
> > lifeline program over the next six years. This
> > equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
> > severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
> > critical benefits.
> >
> > As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
> > with glee.
> > Harry
>
> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> tommorow, and my kids will be living in a tommorow that selfish tax and spend
> liberals never think about. What will you tell them when they are paying a
> 85% tax rate to pay off a debt that has *already* been spent? That we helped
> a lot of people *before* they were even born? Doesn't matter that they won't
> even be able to help themselves, they will have the comfort of knowing that
> we helped a lot of people before they were born. (It will be a great comfort
> to them won't it.)
>
> I wonder what they will have to say about your "compassion."
>
> No one is rubbing their hands with glee about this, but somewhere, sometime
> someone has to cut up the "National Credit Card." We are broke! Get a clue!
>
> I am sick and tired of you liberals thinking there is no tommorow and then
> accusing the right of being selfish. It is *YOU, YOU, YOU* that is selfish
> for only thinking of yourselves and failing to think about those that
> will have to carry on in the future. There will be people in it too, you
> know!
>
> What price will my children have to pay just to satisfy your
> "compassion" and your vanity?
>
> Jill E. Deel
> vale...@megalinx.net
OK, we are broke.
Proposals for items to cut from the budget, since we can't afford them:

1) Foreign aid to Israel. If they are spying on us, and have bombed an
American warship, no reason we should finance their military budget
100%.

2) The U.S. troops stationed in dozens of foreign countries. (Bosnia,
Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Panama, and everywhere else I look these
days)

3) Procurement of new weapons for the military. The Navy didn't even
want the Sea Wolf submarine. (cost: $1 billion) The B-1 bomber has no
mission.
There is no one remotely near powerful enough to attack us, and we have
no business spending money on defending Japan, Germany, etc.

4) Subsidies to big corporations. After all, we want a free market to
prevail, right?

I have a lot of other unneccesary expenditures I could mention. More to
come later.

Anti-rumor

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to


Jill E. Deel <vale...@megalinx.net> wrote in article
<32FB2E...@megalinx.net>...
>
snipped

It is interesting that the liberals are saying that the conservatives want
to leave the elderly sick and helpless and yet they want to put the country
further into debt by never making a cut-off to "assistance" even to those
who can do for themselves thus making helping the elderly of tomorrow
impossible. Maybe all the liberals plan to commit suicide upon reaching
the age where they can collect social security so that there isn't any
worry about it. <g> Well, we can always fantasize.
Anti-rumor

Anti-rumor

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to


Jill E. Deel <vale...@megalinx.net> wrote in article

<32FB31...@megalinx.net>...


> > The Arc of the United States, a national
> > organization on mental retardation. Founded in
> > 1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
> > organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
> > retardation.
>
> Sounds to me like the usual smoke and mirrors, "three million homeless"
ploy.
> You mention a number of children that might lose benefits. What your
report
> does *not* mention is little things like if those children are losing
their
> benefits based on their parents ability to pay, level of retardation, or
> private foundations in their community. Not *everyone* needs help from
the
> federal nanny. A lot of times it is just *easier* to get help from the
> federal nanny. It is just real nice and easy to look at this from a
simple
> platform of numbers, but that doesn't cover a lot of variables that your
> article does not choose to mention.
>
> Jill E. Deel
> vale...@megalinx.net
>

Go Jill! I posted something along these lines last night. You are
absolutely correct. Also please note the words (and this is a copy and
paste so there can be no accusiations of my changing the words) "dedicated


solely to issues of mental

> > retardation." SOLELY to the issues of mental retardation. That means
that they *should* know all about the differences in severity of mental
retardation and that they probably don't know beans about other
disabilities. The second part is OK as long as they don't try to
represent all the disabled. The minute they step out of their area of
expertise, they are less credible.
Angelmoon


Mark D. Vincent

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

In article <32FB31...@megalinx.net>,

Jill E. Deel <vale...@megalinx.net> wrote:
>Harry Hope wrote:
>>
>> m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >>As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
>> >>with glee.
>> >>
>> >>Harry
>
>> >Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?
>>
>> Yes.
>> The Arc of the United States, a national
>> organization on mental retardation. Founded in
>> 1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
>> organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
>> retardation.
>
>Sounds to me like the usual smoke and mirrors, "three million homeless" ploy.
>You mention a number of children that might lose benefits. What your report
>does *not* mention is little things like if those children are losing their
>benefits based on their parents ability to pay, level of retardation, or
>private foundations in their community. Not *everyone* needs help from the
>federal nanny. A lot of times it is just *easier* to get help from the
>federal nanny. It is just real nice and easy to look at this from a simple
>platform of numbers, but that doesn't cover a lot of variables that your
>article does not choose to mention.
>
>Jill E. Deel
>vale...@megalinx.net

It's just the standard liberal scare tactic. They hold children up like
shields every time their welfare state empire is threatened. Gutless
wonders all.


--

grea...@mindspring.com

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

The only way to balance the budget is the ablsolutely foolproof
traditional method:

Cut OTHER peoples budgets
Leave MINE alone

Herman

Robert N. Newshutz

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> Harry Hope wrote:
> >
> > From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
> >
> > To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
> > goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
> > currently on the SSI program must lose essential
> > benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
> > family together. It is estimated that an equal
> > number will have to be denied access to this
> > lifeline program over the next six years. This
> > equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
> > severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
> > critical benefits.
> >
> > As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
> > with glee.
> > Harry
>
> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> tommorow, and my kids will be living in a tommorow that selfish tax and spend
> liberals never think about. What will you tell them when they are paying a
> 85% tax rate to pay off a debt that has *already* been spent? That we helped
> a lot of people *before* they were even born? Doesn't matter that they won't
> even be able to help themselves, they will have the comfort of knowing that
> we helped a lot of people before they were born. (It will be a great comfort
> to them won't it.)
>
> I wonder what they will have to say about your "compassion."
>
> No one is rubbing their hands with glee about this, but somewhere, sometime
> someone has to cut up the "National Credit Card." We are broke! Get a clue!
>
> I am sick and tired of you liberals thinking there is no tommorow and then
> accusing the right of being selfish. It is *YOU, YOU, YOU* that is selfish
> for only thinking of yourselves and failing to think about those that
> will have to carry on in the future. There will be people in it too, you
> know!
>
> What price will my children have to pay just to satisfy your
> "compassion" and your vanity?
>
> Jill E. Deel
> vale...@megalinx.net

It's not compassion if it's someone else's money.

Rob Pavlik

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

kenfran wrote:

> OK, we are broke.
> Proposals for items to cut from the budget, since we can't afford them:
>
> 1) Foreign aid to Israel. If they are spying on us, and have bombed an
> American warship, no reason we should finance their military budget
> 100%.
>
> 2) The U.S. troops stationed in dozens of foreign countries. (Bosnia,
> Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Panama, and everywhere else I look these
> days)
>

Yes, cut it all!!! We don't need to support any other government when we
can't even support all the people here in the US. I know someone that
wants a new Jag... send them some money instead so they don't have to
use the SSI check they get every month to buy it!!

> 3) Procurement of new weapons for the military. The Navy didn't even
> want the Sea Wolf submarine. (cost: $1 billion) The B-1 bomber has no
> mission.
> There is no one remotely near powerful enough to attack us, and we have
> no business spending money on defending Japan, Germany, etc.
>

This is supported by the LIBERALS in REPUBLICAN cloths. This is more
military walfare. You should love this one.

> 4) Subsidies to big corporations. After all, we want a free market to
> prevail, right?
>

If there were no taxes (the way it should be) on corporation, you would
see HIGHER pay and LOWER prices. And if you didn't, thats because you're
the fool that keeps working for or buyin from that bussiness.

yon lew

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) writes:

>m...@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent) wrote:

>>In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,


>>Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
>>>
>>>To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
>>>goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
>>>currently on the SSI program must lose essential
>>>benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
>>>family together. It is estimated that an equal
>>>number will have to be denied access to this
>>>lifeline program over the next six years. This
>>>equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
>>>severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
>>>critical benefits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
>>>with glee.
>>>
>>>Harry
>>>
>>>

>>Where did those numbers come from Harry? Do you know?

>Yes.
>The Arc of the United States, a national
>organization on mental retardation. Founded in
>1950, The Arc is the nation's largest volunteer
>organization dedicated solely to issues of mental
>retardation.

>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


>> Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
>> m...@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey! This is "the Clinton Administration's" budget. Since when did
Clinton become the right wing?

yon lew

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

grea...@mindspring.com writes:

>Herman

How about cut everybody's budget and raise taxes some?

I listen to NPR, and it always irritates me that they're constantly
talking about all the people who get government subsidies and would
probably be unlikely to support any kind of cut in services. It's one
thing to talk about some guy in an iron lung on welfare, it's another to
talk about the average citizen and the benefits he accrues from big
government. NPR clearly is addressing the latter with their "No one's
going to want to lose their piece of the pie" propaganda. My response
is, hey, there's this thing called sacrifice, right? That's where you
tighten your belt a little bit today to try and recoup some gains
tomorrow. If the average person in this country has forgotten what that
means, then this country is doomed.

kenfran

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to
Another one of the reactionaries whose heart bleeds for the poor
corporation. So much so that he wants to give all our money to them.

Bill Duncan

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

In article <5ddidn$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) writes:
|> From the Associated Press, 2/6/97:
|>
|> To achieve the Clinton Administration's budgetary
|> goals, 135,000 children with disabilities who are
|> currently on the SSI program must lose essential
|> benefits that serve as a lifeline for keeping the
|> family together. It is estimated that an equal
|> number will have to be denied access to this
|> lifeline program over the next six years. This
|> equals a total of almost 250,000 children with
|> severe disabilities who will lose or be denied
|> critical benefits.
|>
|>
|>
|> As the right-wing chuckles and rubs it's hands
|> with glee.
|>
|> Harry

Of course the fact that many of these kids will be institutionalized at a much
higher cost because their parents can't afford to keep them won't even be
considered.

It's not how much you spend, it's how much you save! :-(

--
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of
Fidelity Investments, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
--
Bill Duncan
bi...@ripag1.fmr.com

Anti-rumor

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to


yon lew <le...@netcom.com> wrote in article <lewyE59...@netcom.com>...


>
> How about cut everybody's budget and raise taxes some?
>
> I listen to NPR, and it always irritates me that they're constantly
> talking about all the people who get government subsidies and would
> probably be unlikely to support any kind of cut in services.
>

Of course NPR wants government subsidities. After all, that's where NPR
gets a good deal of it's funding--taxpayer subsidities.
Anti-rumor

Rich Travsky

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

Jill E. Deel wrote:
> [...]

> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no

Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
republican senate were racking up the debt?

I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes
and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.

> [...]

RT
Well, for one thing, the great problem that from the very beginning that
has faced us -- the deficit -- that I had thought at one time we could
get balanced. But that was during the campaign, and I had had a group of
economists who were working on the plan that we followed. But no one's
ever asked me, so I'll tell you. Before the election, those economists
came to me and told me that the deterioration had now been so much greater
than when they made their study that, no, there was no way that we were
going to, in a few years, be able to balance the budget. But we put the
plan into effect anyway, aimed at whenever it can happen.
-- Ronald Reagan, August 12, 1987, 4 pm, Oval Office interview with
Hugh Sidey, Public Papers of the Presidents, 23 Weekly Comp Pres Doc. 948

Anti-rumor

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to


Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote in article
<32FC25...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu>...
> Jill E. Deel wrote:
snipped
>
Then there's "My balanced budget...." followed by a huge list of
additional give-aways Billy boy wants to add to our already over-burdened
budget. If his give-away program is allowed to begin, then the former
welfare queens will want back on the gravy train, too. Then, thaxs will
get even bigger. The real problem is the American people who have their
hands out for "freebies". The more give-away programs we have, the worse
it gets. Ending give-aways for all except those who are truly UNABLE to
care for themselves and TEMPORARILY in need of assistance. Then just
giving an across-the board tax-cut (it could start small if necessary)
would be a smarter solution. This "this group can have a tax cut and that
group can have a tax cut, but no, that group over there can't have a tax
cut" (and I don't necessarily mean the "rich" there are a lot of people in
this country who have already borrowed and/or earned the money for college
and who don't have children under 13 who aren't "rich") stuff is just
dividing the nation into groups more. If we are to come together as a
people, we must start by ending special interest group tax cuts and/or
give-away programs for all except the truly unable to care for themselves
and TEMPORARILY in need of assistance.


yon lew

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:

>Jill E. Deel wrote:
>> [...]
>> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
>> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
>> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
>> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
>> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no

>Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
>republican senate were racking up the debt?


You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In article <01bc15cd$c150aca0$34f8...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Anti-rumor" <anti...@concentric.net> wrote:
}
}
}Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote in article
}<32FC25...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu>...
}> Jill E. Deel wrote:
}snipped
}>
}Then there's "My balanced budget...." followed by a huge list of
}additional give-aways Billy boy wants to add to our already over-burdened
}budget. If his give-away program is allowed to begin, then the former
}welfare queens will want back on the gravy train, too. Then, thaxs will
}get even bigger. The real problem is the American people who have their
}hands out for "freebies". The more give-away programs we have, the worse
}it gets.

Forget it. *All* Americans have their hands out for government
benefits, and the neo-conservatives are usually at the front of the
line. They whine about welfare mothers and food stamp fraud, but
just watch them scramble for that VA loan for their house, or the
military base near them that just has to be kept open, or the hike in
their Social Security benefits that they are "entitled" to. And when
their beach house and Winnebago get blown away in hurricane,
count on them demanding federal disaster relief and whine about
the slow pace of federal clean up efforts. Seems consistency isn't
one of those "family values" they practice, is it......


Mitchell Holman

"The conservative dream is to end the welfare state, not to save money."
Rush Limbaugh, Dec 21, 1995


James R. Olson, jr.

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.


James R. Olson, jr.

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

"Robert N. Newshutz" <news...@zippy.com> wrote:

->It's not compassion if it's someone else's money.

I assume you are talking about military aid to authoritarian
governments here...

Jill E. Deel

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

yon lew wrote:
>
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
>
> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
>
> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
>
> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.

Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
the House during the 80's.

> >I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes
> >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.

Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)

The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
ceases to amaze me.

Jill E. Deel
vale...@megalinx.net

Steve Casburn

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In article <5dj222$l...@mochi.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net


What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?


Steve

--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"Shut up he explained"
-- Ring Lardner, Jr.

David D. Zahn

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

Anti-rumor wrote:
>
> Mitchell Holman <hol...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
> <5dibat$5kd$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> First off, Anti-rumor hit the nail on the head. I EARNED my VA status. It was one of the few benefits to come from my service. Secondly, a VA loan for a home is not as "wonderful" as most would think. I have the same interest as a conventional loan. The only difference is that I don't have to come up with a down payment.

my $0.02 worth.

dave

Jill E. Deel

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

Milt

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jill E. Deel wrote:

:yon lew wrote:
:>
:> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
:>
:> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
:> >> [...]
:> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
:> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
:> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
:> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
:> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
:>
:> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
:> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
:>
:> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
:> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
:
:Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
:believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
:the House during the 80's.

First of all, this entire post shows an amazing ignorance of the process.
Spending bills only technically originate in the House. The BUDGET comes
from the OMB, which is in the executive Branch, and the House and Senate
have to pass a budget and appropriations bills that the president will
sign, unless they have, by some miracle, enough votes to override a veto.
Yes, that's right; the PRESIDENT creates the budget, and must SIGN all
appropriations before they become actual spending. Therefore, the
president has a very active role in the process; a hell of a lot more than
the right wing would dare give him credit for...

Second, yes, the House was GOP during Reagan's years, but the Senate
was GOP for six of Reagan's 8 years, so don't give us this crap about
everything somehow being the Demos fault. Reagan created the budgets, and
sponsored the budgets, and signed the budgets AND the appropriations.
Therefore, he had more than a significant role in the outrageous deficit
spending of the 80s...

:> >I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes


:> >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
:
:Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
:Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
:those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)

The roots are not 30 years old. While we have been running deficits
annually for most of the last 60 years, it has only gotten unmanageable in
the last 15-16, since Reagan decided to lower taxes, while increasing
federal spending tremendously.

This is reality. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. The
pres sets the budget, gets a member of the House to sponsor it, and then
the House and Senate hash it out and vote on it. BUT the president still
has to sign the thing. What are the odds that a pres will sign a bill that
the Congress has slashed about $80 billion from? HMmmmm?

:The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
:ceases to amaze me.

What amazes me is the abject ignorance that the right wing seem to wallow
in...

--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook

Anti-rumor

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to


Jill E. Deel <vale...@megalinx.net> wrote in article
<32FD18...@megalinx.net>...

> Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
> Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you
think
> those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
>

> The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
> ceases to amaze me.
>

> Jill E. Deel
> vale...@megalinx.net
>
Have to disagree with you there, Jill. I honestly not ever met a liberal
with a mind as deep as those roots, much less an imagination! Though they
are good at rationalization. <bg>


Anti-rumor

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

Yes, there are many with their hands out--too many. As for the other
things you mentioned, well, I don't know the circumstances to which you
refer. VA loans can only be gotten by veterans. These are a part of the
package offered encourage military service as are some other programs so
they are considered to be earned by the service given to the country as
part of the package. And the loan does have to be paid back. If you think
it should be ended, you should start a drive to end it. I never got a VA
loan and g.i. pay is far better than it used to be. Perhaps it is time to
change the benefits for the military. It would be worth looking in to if
you feel it is something that should be cut back on. Social Security is
way more than what people paid in, but at least the majority of people now
on social security did pay into the program. Though I must say I do
disagree with giving social security to those who have never paid anything
into the program such as people who bring in mom, dad, grandpa, grandma,
Aunt Sue, Uncle Bob,..... from another country then promptly put them all
on taxpayer support. There are a number of changes I'd like to see made
and I have written to my representatives and senators about it.
Unfortunately, the AARP keeps lobbying and using PAC money in an attempt to
influence politicians. I am against PACs and do not contribute to PAC
funds. That's another thing I work against. Too many "special interest
groups" around. Seems that those with a Winnebago (sp?) should buy
insurance for it. Oh well, when you provide proof positive of this
happening instead of just your opinion, then I'll consider it as a
possibility. Do you have any facts as to how many dollars each person
received in a loans or relief and how that breaks down as to annual income?
:) When I see it and verify it, I'll believe it.
Anti-rumor

hendo

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:

>In article <01bc15cd$c150aca0$34f8...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Anti-rumor" <anti...@concentric.net> wrote:
>}
>}
>}Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> wrote in article
>}<32FC25...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu>...
>}> Jill E. Deel wrote:
>}snipped
>}>
>}Then there's "My balanced budget...." followed by a huge list of
>}additional give-aways Billy boy wants to add to our already over-burdened
>}budget. If his give-away program is allowed to begin, then the former
>}welfare queens will want back on the gravy train, too. Then, thaxs will
>}get even bigger. The real problem is the American people who have their
>}hands out for "freebies". The more give-away programs we have, the worse
>}it gets.
>
> Forget it. *All* Americans have their hands out for government
> benefits, and the neo-conservatives are usually at the front of the
> line. They whine about welfare mothers and food stamp fraud, but
> just watch them scramble for that VA loan for their house, or the
> military base near them that just has to be kept open, or the hike in
> their Social Security benefits that they are "entitled" to. And when
> their beach house and Winnebago get blown away in hurricane,
> count on them demanding federal disaster relief and whine about
> the slow pace of federal clean up efforts. Seems consistency isn't
> one of those "family values" they practice, is it......
>
>
> Mitchell Holman
>

> "The conservative dream is to end the welfare state, not to save money."
> Rush Limbaugh, Dec 21, 1995
>

You can rest assured that VA loans are not handouts. They are just
guarantees that if a qualified VA mortagee defaults, then Uncle Sam
will pay off the debt. And also be assured that the Government just
doesn't write off that debt.

I would hope the Government would extend the same federal assistance
to you if your Property or posessions were destroyed in a like manner.
Once again, that assistance is just a low interest loans, not a
handout.

Loren Petrich

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

In article <Casburn.1-ya023180...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
Steve Casburn <Casb...@osu.edu> wrote:

> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
>the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?

He may well have the right idea, but if the rest of the Party
resists... it may be necessary to give second thoughts to being a
yellow-dog Republican.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

Claude Du Bois

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:

>In article <5dj222$l...@mochi.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net
>(James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
>>
>> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
>> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
>> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
>> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
>> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
>> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
>> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.

> What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
>the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?


Haven't heard about it or read it. Can you give us an outline?

Claude

kenfran

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> yon lew wrote:
> >
> > Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
> >
> > >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> > >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> > >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> > >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> > >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> >
> > >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> > >republican senate were racking up the debt?
> >
> > You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> > spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
>
> Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
> believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
> the House during the 80's.
>
> > >I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes
> > >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
>
> Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
> Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
> those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
>
> The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
> ceases to amaze me.
>
> Jill E. Deel

Make up your mind. You keep trying to say the Reagan years were
wonderful, and the credit goes to Reagan, and the Reagan years were
awful, and the blame goes to the Democrats.
Was the economic policy between 1980 and 1988 good or bad?
Answer that and then we can discuss it.

kenfran

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

Milt wrote:

>
> On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> :yon lew wrote:
> :>
> :> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
> :>
> :> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> :> >> [...]
> :> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> :> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> :> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> :> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> :> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> :>
> :> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> :> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
> :>
> :> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> :> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.
> :
> :Only if you learn facts. If you learn the liberal lexicon, anything is
> :believable. Too bad liberals keep forgetting that the Democrats controlled
> :the House during the 80's.
>
> First of all, this entire post shows an amazing ignorance of the process.
> Spending bills only technically originate in the House. The BUDGET comes
> from the OMB, which is in the executive Branch, and the House and Senate
> have to pass a budget and appropriations bills that the president will
> sign, unless they have, by some miracle, enough votes to override a veto.
> Yes, that's right; the PRESIDENT creates the budget, and must SIGN all
> appropriations before they become actual spending. Therefore, the
> president has a very active role in the process; a hell of a lot more than
> the right wing would dare give him credit for...
>
> Second, yes, the House was GOP during Reagan's years, but the Senate
> was GOP for six of Reagan's 8 years, so don't give us this crap about
> everything somehow being the Demos fault. Reagan created the budgets, and
> sponsored the budgets, and signed the budgets AND the appropriations.
> Therefore, he had more than a significant role in the outrageous deficit
> spending of the 80s...
>
> :> >I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes

> :> >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
> :
> :Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
> :Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
> :those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
>
> The roots are not 30 years old. While we have been running deficits
> annually for most of the last 60 years, it has only gotten unmanageable in
> the last 15-16, since Reagan decided to lower taxes, while increasing
> federal spending tremendously.
>
> This is reality. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. The
> pres sets the budget, gets a member of the House to sponsor it, and then
> the House and Senate hash it out and vote on it. BUT the president still
> has to sign the thing. What are the odds that a pres will sign a bill that
> the Congress has slashed about $80 billion from? HMmmmm?
>
> :The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
> :ceases to amaze me.
>
> What amazes me is the abject ignorance that the right wing seem to wallow
> in...
>
> --Milt
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
When Reagan took office, the national debt was 1 trillion. When he left
it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
taking more away from the poor.

yon lew

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:

Which is missing the point. Is the president actively involved? Yes.
How involved? Well, that depends. Martin Crutsinger, AP, in todays's
(Feb. 9) newspaper.

"Presiden't Clinton's massive five-volume budget had barely landed on
lawmakers' desks before attention turned to the president's real budget -
what he will accept.

"That one, which may exist only in the president's mind, is likely to
include a sizable reduction in capital gains taxes..."

So it's obvious that both parties have a great deal to do with how the
budget turns out. And with Reagen at least, don't forget that many items
in the federal budget were included over his objection, or funded beyond
what he would have liked. Anyone who was alive at that time can remember
the sniping between both parties over budget priorities.

And lastly, in the Reagen era there was only one politician who showed
any commitment to the idea of balancing the budget. Thanks to
cosiderable arm twisting on his part, the Senate was actually able to pass
budget legislation where every aspect of government took a hit to curtail
spending. Of course, it never got past the House, and in the next election
his party lost control of the Senate because their opponents could appeal
to the short-sightedness of their constituents. "Who voted to cut your
benefits? Why, my opponent of course."

>Second, yes, the House was GOP during Reagan's years, but the Senate
>was GOP for six of Reagan's 8 years, so don't give us this crap about
>everything somehow being the Demos fault. Reagan created the budgets, and
>sponsored the budgets, and signed the budgets AND the appropriations.
>Therefore, he had more than a significant role in the outrageous deficit
>spending of the 80s...

I can only respond for myself, and not any of the other individuals who
have been posting to this thread, but I never denied that both parties
shared equal responsibility for the budget crisis. I was responding to
some idiot who was spewing crap about how it was purely Reagen and the
Republicans who were responsible for the deficit.

So, to summarize, both parties share equal blame for the huge deficit,
and to state that it was purely the fault of one or the other is
pretty stoopid.

C. L. Williams

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:

>> Second, yes, the House was GOP during Reagan's years, but the Senate
>> was GOP for six of Reagan's 8 years, so don't give us this crap about
>> everything somehow being the Demos fault. Reagan created the budgets, and
>> sponsored the budgets, and signed the budgets AND the appropriations.
>> Therefore, he had more than a significant role in the outrageous deficit
>> spending of the 80s...
>>

>> :> >I'm sooooo tired of these right wingers whining about budgets and taxes
>> :> >and spending when they are the root of the mess we're in now.
>> :
>> :Oh please! Let's see. Reagan was President for eight years and the
>> :Democrats controlled the Congress for more than 30. How deep do you think
>> :those roots go, pal? (About as deep as the average liberal imagination)
>>
>> The roots are not 30 years old. While we have been running deficits
>> annually for most of the last 60 years, it has only gotten unmanageable in
>> the last 15-16, since Reagan decided to lower taxes, while increasing
>> federal spending tremendously.
>>
>> This is reality. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. The
>> pres sets the budget, gets a member of the House to sponsor it, and then
>> the House and Senate hash it out and vote on it. BUT the president still
>> has to sign the thing. What are the odds that a pres will sign a bill that
>> the Congress has slashed about $80 billion from? HMmmmm?
>>
>> :The propensity for the liberal to rationalize just about anything never
>> :ceases to amaze me.
>>
>> What amazes me is the abject ignorance that the right wing seem to wallow
>> in...
>>
>> --Milt
>> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook

>When Reagan took office, the national debt was 1 trillion. When he left
>it was 3 trillion. When Bush left it was 4 trillion.
>They have bankrupted the country giving it away to their rich campaign
>contributors, now the Republicans want to pay the bill collector by
>taking more away from the poor.

Please supply an example of what Republicans want to take from the
poor.


C.L. Williams


Rich Travsky

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

yon lew wrote:
> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
> >Jill E. Deel wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Hey Harry, as a mother of one and one on the way (due date summer 97) what do
> >> you suggest? We just keep spending as if there is no tommorow? There *is*
> >> a tommorow. You were aware of that, right? (why do I have trouble
> >> believing that you are aware of that?) We aren't just broke, we are in a
> >> hole, pal! You liberals think we should just keep spending as if there is no
> >Tsk. Nice sentiments. Where were you in the 80s when Reagan and his
> >republican senate were racking up the debt?
> You know, in your average high school civics class they teach you that
> spending bills can only originate in the House of Representatives.

There's home schooling for you. The senate ALSO votes on the budget.
Twice. Differences must be reconciled. Seeing clearer now?

The republicans, controling 2/3 of the government, had EVERY
opportunity to live up to their empty rhetoric. If anything
Reagan could've vetoed budgets. He didn't.

We're paying for their lies right now.

RT

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

In article <5dl1r5$h...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:

}
}Please supply an example of what Republicans want to take from the
}poor.
}

Housing, jobs, welfare benefits, Head Start, family leave,
school lunches, and legal aid, just for starters.......

Robert N. Newshutz

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

Sorry, missed by a mile. Please try again, but first get your
"vision" checked.

Military aid to authoritarian governments is wrong.

You must be very far into totalitarian thought if you think
totalitarianism has a claim to the word compassion.

Robert N. Newshutz

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.

If you haven't heard, then you haven't been listening. Rep Kasich
(R Ohio) is leading an effort against such sillyness.

Robert N. Newshutz

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

Claude Du Bois wrote:
>
> Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:
>
> >In article <5dj222$l...@mochi.lava.net>, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net
> >(James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
> >>
> >> Why is the right so eager to balance the budget on the backs of the
> >> poor and helpless? I hear all of these complaints about welfare
> >> chiselers, but nary a complaint about McDonalds getting a subsidy for
> >> overseas advertising, Archer-Daniels-Midland getting free grain to
> >> sell, tobacco subsidies, or any of the other massive corporate welfare
> >> scams. It's always "those welfare queens are driving the country
> >> broke" with their 4% cut of the budget.
>
> > What do you think about the plan to cut corporate welfare devised by
> >the staff of conservative Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)?
>
> Haven't heard about it or read it. Can you give us an outline?
>
> Claude


Kasich has formed a list of the corporate welfare that he wishes
to have eliminated. He has received backing from consumer groups
(Nader), environmental groups, and tax-groups.

Try a web search on Kasich and Corporate Welfare. It was in the
newspapers last week.

C. L. Williams

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote: