smw@tilt.UUCP (Stewart Wiener) (04/01/84)
>From: dave@teldata.UUCP (Dave Heppner) > >I for one had to work for everything I have I do not feel >that I should HAVE to give it to someone who feels that >we owe it to him/her. I do believe that we need to help >those who cannot help themselves, but this has to be >done at the local level because government wastes most >of what it gets on it self. Hear, hear! I'm damned sick and tired of the "theftist" policy of taking away what I've earned to give it to any person or cause that I wouldn't voluntarily support. Nobody has a RIGHT to any kind of assistance. None. The government has given assistance for so long, though, and to so many, that people think it IS their right. It may be a good thing to have, but it is not a good thing to force people to provide it. If government cut off all assistance, and immediately lowered taxes to corres- pond, I would expect every church and synagogue in America to start pushing the idea of tithing 10% to charity. This is the way to provide assistance to those who truly need it. The minimum services that federal government should provide have already been discussed here: a court system, and a small standing army, are about it. To forestall SOME flames, I do NOT expect to receive Social Security payments (rashly assuming the SS [appropriate initials!] system will exist when I reach 65). I can take care of my own future. I've paid my way through college with the help of scholarships and loans from private organizations who CHOSE to give them. (And yes, tilt!chenr, I pay the same $12,000 as you at Princeton.) I loathe Ronald Reagan's stand on moral issues. But his economic positions are a small step in what I consider the right direction. -- Stewart Wiener :-) "Read and weep as did Princeton Univ. EECS :-) Alexander when he beheld {allegra,ihnp4!mhuxi}!princeton!tilt!smw :-) the glories of Egypt."
notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/03/84)
#R:tilt:-2900:iuvax:2000014:000:2138 iuvax!scsg Apr 2 19:33:00 1984 I fail to see how you can claim Reagan has made any steps towards reducing the size of government or providing only a small standing army when in fact 1)he's responsible for the biggest deficit in our history 2)he intends to spend $1.6 trillion on the military in the next few years, more than the total costs, adjusteed for inflation of ALL of World War II! Are we in a World War? Are we about to get into one? 3)His federal budget is the largest in the world's history 4)the increase in the interest on the National debt due to these incredible deficits is larger than ALL of his cuts in social spending 5)his cuts in social spending are irrational and a hodge-podge meatax approach. In fact, he has hurt NOT the people who stay permanently on welfare but the working poor who have struggled to ralize the American dream by working for it--only to find that ,as a GAO report found--they would have been better off on welfare after Reagan's meatax approach to social spending. The GAO found that a person making $714 for example, and getting a raise in pay before Reagan's cutbacks now makes $550--they could have done as well to quit working and just go on Welfare. Is this the incentive we want to give people to be productive citizens? 6)what is the justification for retaining such govt expenditures as the tobacco subsidy? 7)what is the purpose in continuing to underwrite Nuclear power at the expense of alternative forms of energy--Reagan has increased the amount of money the gov't spends on nuclear power. Is this the "free-enterprise" approach? Increase gov't spending for those programs which benefit the biggest businesses and tend to lead to centralization and monopoly power while cutting spending for ordinary people? ne of the greatest myths ever perpetrated is the myth that Reagan has CUT gov't spending. He hasn't--he's increased it more than any other President in history--the economic "recovery" is being fueled by military keynesianism--wasting enormous amounts of Americans money to build a war machine that only threatens our survival. tim sevener Indiana University, Bloomingto pur-ee!iuvax!scsg
notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/03/84)
#R:ucbtopaz:-43200:iuvax:2000015:000:1117 iuvax!scsg Apr 2 19:43:00 1984 It is true that there are different means of computing the amount of our taxes that go to the military. There are basically two different ways to compute that sum--one way is to take the actual amount of federal income taxes that we pay to maintain the federal gov't and fund gov't programs. That is the basis for my figure. The other way is to lump in the Social Security tax that workers pay to provide for their pensions in old age. This is the way most militarists compute it. However this is a trust fund which is alloted ONLY for the purpose of providing pensions. The federal government does not have the discretion to dip into this fund for any other purpose than to provide Social Security benefits. This is why I was careful to point out that my figure was based upon federal income taxes, rather than pension funds. Pension funds I believe are not generally included as Corporate savings or whatever. Why should they be included for the gov't? I will get the exact dollar amounts of the military budget as percent of federal budget computed both ways shortly. tim sevener pur-ee!iuvax!scsg
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/03/84)
[] Wrong again, oh IRS breath. The Social Security fund has not been "untouchable" since Kennedy and his cronies disolved the Trust Fund 20 years ago. This is just the reason why the SS has been in trouble. Congress HAS been dipping their greasy fingers into the pot. Most of what you are spouting off about was a result of our mighty Congress, not the Administration. Just who do you think passes the laws in this country? Our famous Democratically controled Congress, that's who. If you want to point fingers, at least point them in the right direction. The President can't spend a thin dime, or save a thin dime unless Congress says so. Get your head out of the sand and take a course in Government sometime. But, first, take the course from an impartial prof. There are too many around who have axes to grind and DO NOT present impartial facts to their students, but present their views only. Better yet, sit down with the Constitution and study it in depth. Too many netters have no idea whatsoever as to how our government works. T. C. Wheeler
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (04/04/84)
#R:ucbtopaz:-43200:uiucdcs:29200117:000:810
uiucdcs!renner Apr 3 17:46:00 1984
Tim Sevener has apparently swallowed the fiction that Social Security is a
pension system. In a old-age pension system, your contributions are
*invested* so that your money, plus interest, will be available to support
you in your old age. In the SS system your "contributions" are immediately
handed out to others; this is an income-transfer program, not a pension
program. SS taxes fund a government welfare program for old people and
surviving dependents. Because of this, they should be counted in the
revenue base just as personal and corporate income taxes do.
Any pension system run with the creative bookeeping methods used by the SS
administration would be shut down and the directors would face criminal
penalties. It's called a "pyramid scheme."
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!rennertac@teldata.UUCP (Tom Condon) (04/06/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
Ah, finally a breath of fresh sensical air in this hot air convention.
Mr. Wheeler has pointed out the shortcomings of the average political
analyst--a lack of knowledge of the workings of our government. More
of us should spend the time to study the Constitution and it's background.
It would help to convince us there is something we can do about big
government, high taxes, inflation and unemployment. (Funny thing is that
those are the very problems that the Constitution was written to solve.)
It would also help us to talk more clearly about cause and effect in
government.
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.