mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/11/85)
When Ronald Reagan entered office in 1981, the Federal deficit totalled approximately $70 billion. Today, it is about $200 billion. In the past five years, *real* spending on social programs as a group has remained frozen or declined. Real defense spending has gone up approximately 30%. It was approximately $170 billion during the last year of the Carter presidency; this year it will be approximately $314 billion. It doesn't take a f**king genius to see what has caused the bulk of the deficit problem. If you're against social programs on principle, fine. I'd suggest to you that most people in this country have benefited from them. If you doubt that, ask yourself what kind of shape your older relatives would be in without social security; what kind of education you would have had without federal aid to primary and secondary schools, as well as the federal loan, grant and work-study programs for colleges; what your health would be like without federal support for disease research and universal vaccination. For some reason, people think social programs are what the government gives *someone else*; what you get are *rights*. Mike Kelly
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/13/85)
>/* mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) / 6:45 pm Apr 10, 1985 */ > >When Ronald Reagan entered office in 1981, the Federal deficit totalled >approximately $70 billion. Today, it is about $200 billion. In the >past five years, *real* spending on social programs as a group has >remained frozen or declined. Real defense spending has gone up >approximately 30%. It was approximately $170 billion during the last >year of the Carter presidency; this year it will be approximately $314 >billion. > >It doesn't take a f**king genius to see what has caused the bulk of >the deficit problem. I may not be a "f*ckig genius," but it seems to me that the deficit is not the problem. Remember that the deficit is not a real quantity but the difference between two real quantities, revenues and spending. Thus, either revenues (taxes, etc.) are too low, spending is too high, or taxes are too low and spending is too high. Note, it may be that spending and taxes are both too high (spending being much more so), or that both spending and taxes are too low (taxes being much more so). >If you're against social programs on principle, fine. I'd suggest to >you that most people in this country have benefited from them. If you >doubt that, ask yourself what kind of shape your older relatives would >be in without social security; what kind of education you would have had >without federal aid to primary and secondary schools, as well as the >federal loan, grant and work-study programs for colleges; what your health >would be like without federal support for disease research and universal >vaccination. For some reason, people think social programs are what >the government gives *someone else*; what you get are *rights*. > >Mike Kelly >/* ---------- */ Whether or not social security benefits some people or not is beside the point. What you must consider is if we'd be better off if people pro- vided for their old age themselves, through savings, counting on their children or whatever. I went to private primary and secondary schools that received no federal aid, but my parents still had to pay taxes to support public schools. So, it's hard to see how my family has benefited from federal aid to primary and secondary schools. I currently attend graduate school and receive no federal aid, yet I am required to finance the education of others thru taxes. I speculate that my health would be the same without all the federal spending on health, provided of course that the taxes being used for this spending were returned to the private sector. Don't forget about the potentially beneficial drugs that the FDA has managed to keep off the market for long periods of time. AS you can see from the above, I do not feel that I would be any worse off without the socail spending. In fact, I believe I would be BETTER off, since I would be the one decidin how to spend MY money. As an aside, why are these prorams called social programs and defense appropriations not. Ostensibly, the defense programs are to defend people. Michael Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/14/85)
>/* mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) / 6:45 pm Apr 10, 1985 */ > >When Ronald Reagan entered office in 1981, the Federal deficit totalled >approximately $70 billion. Today, it is about $200 billion. In the >past five years, *real* spending on social programs as a group has >remained frozen or declined. Real defense spending has gone up >approximately 30%. It was approximately $170 billion during the last >year of the Carter presidency; this year it will be approximately $314 >billion. > >It doesn't take a f**king genius to see what has caused the bulk of >the deficit problem. I may not be a "f*ckig genius," but it seems to me that the deficit is not the problem. Remember that the deficit is not a real quantity but the difference between two real quantities, revenues and spending. Thus, either revenues (taxes, etc.) are too low, spending is too high, or taxes are too low and spending is too high. Note, it may be that spending and taxes are both too high (spending being much more so), or that both spending and taxes are too low (taxes being much more so). >If you're against social programs on principle, fine. I'd suggest to >you that most people in this country have benefited from them. If you >doubt that, ask yourself what kind of shape your older relatives would >be in without social security; what kind of education you would have had >without federal aid to primary and secondary schools, as well as the >federal loan, grant and work-study programs for colleges; what your health >would be like without federal support for disease research and universal >vaccination. For some reason, people think social programs are what >the government gives *someone else*; what you get are *rights*. > >Mike Kelly >/* ---------- */ Whether or not social security benefits some people or not is beside the point. What you must consider is if we'd be better off if people pro- vided for their old age themselves, through savings, counting on their children or whatever. I went to private primary and secondary schools that received no federal aid, but my parents still had to pay taxes to support public schools. So, it's hard to see how my family has benefited from federal aid to primary and secondary schools. I currently attend graduate school and receive no federal aid, yet I am required to finance the education of others thru taxes. I speculate that my health would be the same without all the federal spending on health, provided of course that the taxes being used for this spending were returned to the private sector. Don't forget about the potentially beneficial drugs that the FDA has managed to keep off the market for long periods of time. AS you can see from the above, I do not feel that I would be any worse off without the socail spending. In fact, I believe I would be BETTER off, since I would be the one decidin how to spend MY money. As an aside, why are these programs called social programs and defense appropriations not. Ostensibly, the defense programs are to defend people. Michael Sykora
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/16/85)
>From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) >I may not be a "f*ckig genius," but it seems to me that the deficit is not >the problem. Remember that the deficit is not a real quantity but the >difference between two real quantities, revenues and spending. Thus, >either revenues (taxes, etc.) are too low, spending is too high, or taxes >are too low and spending is too high. Note, it may be that spending >and taxes are both too high (spending being much more so), or that both >spending and taxes are too low (taxes being much more so). > Ah, but Ronald Reagan ran for the Presidency of this country with three promises: he was going to reduce taxes, increase military spending and lower the deficit. When asked how he could do that without using drugs, he pulled out the already-discredited theory of some California economist. The point is the theory didn't work. He did reduce taxes -- for some. He did increase military spending -- enormously. But he didn't reduce the deficit. In fact, he has, in four years, run up a higher debt than that of all previous Presidents *combined*. He is undoubtedly the luckiest President since Dwight Eisenhower. Massive foreign investment has funded his deficit spending, and so far, the bubble hasn't burst. But when it does, he will go down in history as another Herbert Hoover. >Whether or not social security benefits some people or not is beside the >point. What you must consider is if we'd be better off if people pro- >vided for their old age themselves, through savings, counting on their >children or whatever. > >I went to private primary and secondary schools ... >I currently attend graduate school and receive no federal aid ... Well, congratulations on being born into a family wealthy enough to pay for all that. That certainly was smart of you! But, tell me, what does NYU cost per year now, and how many students are attending without any financial aid? And I believe that for most people, if they did not directly benefit from the programs of the New Deal, their parents or grandparents did, and that contributed to the priviledged position they are in now. Ronald Reagan, by the way, is an example of this; his father held a WPA job during the 30s. Mike Kelly
ritter@spp1.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter) (04/18/85)
In article <121@ttrdc.UUCP> mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: > ... >If you're against social programs on principle, fine. I'd suggest to >you that most people in this country have benefited from them. In general, your right. I, personally, don't like most of what the feds currently do in the way of social programs ((thats my right!). Most everyone has benifited from some of the social programs currently in place. I do, however, think that you have chosen some very weak examples. > If you >doubt that, ask yourself what kind of shape your older relatives would >be in without social security; My (very) older relatives wouldn't have been hurt much without it - they knew from the start that they had to fend for themselves. My parents, on the other hand, would probably have been much better off if the system encouraged them to save instead of making promises to them that could not possilby be met. Its not clear that social security has been a net benifit for them at all. >what kind of education you would have had >without federal aid to primary and secondary schools, My education probably benifitted a little. There was no federal aid to public primary and secondary school until the Johnson days. My parents, as well as my older brothers and sisters, did quite well with the poor old local aid (no rich school districts, either. Pomona, CA is a borderline slum). I'm not convinced that the federal programs have done anything to actually aid education (point of view: opinions of my sister (a special education teacher supported by COUNTY money and my mother (jr. high), ran a reading lab supported by FEDERAL money (primary grades)). > as well as the >federal loan, grant and work-study programs for colleges; I used none. Saw no reason to use OPM (other peoples money) to pay when my income (literal - no support from parents (who didn't have any savings because they believed in socail security... )). Most people I knew that used these services did so out of convienence. They didn't really ``need'' them (though I admit they do help some). Also, what percent of the federal budget is direct student aid? (hint - less than 0.1%). A better example here would have been research support to colleges/universities. A much bigger slice of the pie that applies to EVERYONE that has attended college (some two-year institutions excepted). > what your health >would be like without federal support for disease research and universal >vaccination. Given. Very good social program. Still, however, a very small slice of the federal pie. For what its worth, Phil Ritter -- Phillip A. Ritter