Conference back40::soapbox

    I vote that notes 19.1582 to 19.l be moved here so as to not clutter
    the introdcution topic.

    I second that motion.
    
    		dave

    But "Our violent youth" isn't directly referring to me, is it? I think
    I'm the most youthful boxer (20 , 21 next month) and I would hate to be
    labeled as violent in a public forum. So when we say "our violent
    youth", we don't mean "the young security guard who opened a can of
    worms by disclosing some of his past", do we?

    Um, no, of course not. In the intro topic we're discussing the reasons
    why young people are being violent.

    Phew!!!
    
    It's not like I had a lot of people on my side, anyway, and to get
    labled like that would have blacklisted me for sure.  Hooray for the
    end of the McCarthy era.
    
    				dave

    Dave, you sound like a good kid.
    
    The title of the topic is not about you.
    
    Suzanne

    I really have put an effort into making something better of myself.
    thank you for the compliment.
    
    				dave

Generally today's youth aren't violent.

    generally, bears don't sh*t in the woods.

    I meant, generally bears don't sleep in the woods. My apologies to the
    moderator.

         That "MADHATTA" guy sounds like a violent psychopath to me. He has
    repeatedly threatened me on other conferences. I am almost afraid to
    get involved in these notes anymore. I'm sure he's the one who sent the
    hidden death threat to my mail account. He might also be the deranged
    psycho that mailed me a picture of my wife with the message "Want her
    to keep living? Back down, punk." 

         Wait a minute, MADHATTA, where do you work? I think we might be in
    the same place. I'm in CXO2. 

    Get a life, Edith.  8P

    I am not the psycopath who sent a picture of your wife and all that
    other shtuff you said.  But, maybe I do work with you. I assure you,
    though, I only began noting on friday, and if I threatened you you
    would know it.
    
    				dave
    

    My quiz asked if you had thick skin remember?
    
    8^)

    Not sure what you mean by thick skin, but every now and then I cut
    myself shaving so I guess it's not too thick.  Oh, yeah, didn't you
    also ask if I ever owned a Pickup? When I was 18 I had a BIG red '78
    ford f-100.
    
    					dave

    re: .14
    
    "oooooooh, tough guy"

        Nope, never asked if you had a pickup. I do not suffer from the Ozark
    Syndrome.

    Wait till I tell him about my tattoos and piercings!!!!

    This sounds like a perfect example of "our violent youth" to me.  I 
    would suggest that you two stop the threats and delete your messages
    before someone really gets offended.
          You both sound like psychos to me.

         Hey, MADHATTA, are you a security guard at CXO2? I'm in core 10;
    in the shelf area. Most of the people I work with prefer insulting,
    threatening, and often assaulting me in person. But that's because most
    of these clowns never figured out how to use E-mail. 

    I really don't go around threatening people.  It wastes a lot of time
    and gets you in trouble, not to mention warning somebody of an
    impending attack, which is poor strategy.  I'm not violent,
    threatening, psycho, perverse, or any other catagory of deviant.
    I'm a nice guy. Why aren't people sticking up for me? I thought we were
    people, April, Glen, Jim, somebody put in a good word.
    
    
    				please	
    
    				dave

    Ed-
    
    	why don't you call security with all these assaults?Or do we
    assault you as well?

    By the By, I do not work with you as I am the only human left in the
    building, unless you are one of the large rodents I occasionally see
    scurrying about the warehouse.
    
    
    				dave

         The number here is 6772. Nobody really attacks me-don't you people 
    have any sense of humor? I'm tired of typing. 
    

    Then go back to work, why don't you?

    SOUNDS LIKE YOUR THE ONE THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO WORK "MADHATTA"
    

    I think all you need to get back to work.  What is this? Clownfest '96?
    
    8)_

    All the alarms are set, all the doors are locked. All secure over here.
    
    
    					dave

    Did someone say tattoos and piercings????

    No, but I typed tattoos and piercings.
    
    
    		dave

    What's with all the BSS?
    
    Dave's a really nice guy by the way.  8)

    Are you sure that you`re in the right conference?  I thought this one 
    was reserved for losers with nothing better to do than insult each
    other all night.
    

    Thank you, april. It's about time somebody sticks up for me. I've been
    arguing all night.

    Look Epperson.  The only loser here seems to be you.  Quit trying to
    start trouble and get back to work!!

    I think I'm really starting to like this conference.  Hi 'pril. (I've
    seen ya hang in HM). But anyway......the ruder, the better.
    -ss

    I think you & your little buddy Dave should both go back to work.I have
    seen your names on every conference in decnet.  Don`t you have real
    jobs? 
    

         Hey, leave EPPERSON alone. He sounds like a swell guy. Besides,
    its me you all are supposed to be after. And all I was trying to do 
    was find MADHATTA, because we are both in Colorado Springs somewhere. 
    

    Cool.  Hi, dude.  Can I call you that?  Some people don't particularly
    like to be called dude.  I'm rather fond of the term myself.  8)

    I'm doing my job. Nothing is getting stolen, the building isn't burning
    down, there are no acts of violence on DEC property. I provide the
    blanket of safety you work under every day.
    
    
    					tee-hee-hee
    
    							dave

    re: -ss...unless of course you're not a dude.  8)

    And I'm at home so, nyah nyah!!!  8P

    I should be at home, but I'm at the end of a double shift. I need beans
    and rice.
    

    Mmm, beans & rice.  My specialty!  8)

    Dude is cool. Lucky to be home.  Mudhatta seems to be a little cranky
    from that double shift.:(

    Mine too. I'm not much of a cook either I'm afraid. Do you use Minute
    rice or Boil in a bag?

    Mudhatta?
    
    

    I'm a Mahatma mamma.  8)

    You wear mud on your head?

    I've been to Manhattan before...

    >>You wear mud on your head?
    
    
    No, that dude guy called me mudhatta a while ago.

    typos are funny huh?

    I thought so.

    Speaking of mud.... I'll be getting a little dirty myself this weekend.
    I'll be getting violent with Six Feet Under. Any of you BSS losers up
    to it?
    Too bad you're in Dallas 'pril. Your missing a good one.
    

    where are they playing?

    Colo Spgs, CO

    wanna go

    Lot of good that does me in Boston Mass.  Maybe Sam Black Church is
    around this weekend. What am I talking about, they're around every
    weekend!!

re 19.1675:

Where I came from we had volunteer fire departments.  (still do, and it's
a fairly big town now)

    I've never heard of Six Feet Under.  Is that some kind of new fangled
    whipper snapper rock n roll, boyyeee???

    No, not at all. It's a collaboration of Obituary and Cannibal Corpse.
    Pretty killer if you ask me.

    So who paid for the volunteer fire trucks, pumpers, hoses, etc.
    
    I hope volunteer fire depts are few and far between because I'm taking
    the civil service exam for firefighters in April. I'm not going to risk
    my life for free. I take it you came from a small town. Larger
    municipalities usually have funds set aside, while smaller towns with
    fires being so rare rely on volunteers.

    Well, maybe Glen would like 'em then.  It's just a tad too heavy for my
    tastes though.  Give me some Sepultura and I'm a happy camper.

    Sepultura's killer too

    The soapbox people are going to be upset to see we've been discussing
    heavy metal in here.
    
    				dave
    
    
    
    P.S. are any of you into Marilyn Manson? They're probably the best
    newest band around.Produced by T. reznor, kinda creepy, but not too
    hard, not too soft, though the lyrics are a little controversial.

    Marilyn Manson...interesting you should mention them.  I've been doing
    some surfing and their homepage is really creepy.  I've only heard
    like, one song of theirs and it seemed to have a pretty good groove.
    
    Maybe we should hop on over to HM.  8)

    Alright, write a new topic.

    In HM?

    Yeah, just call it goofing off or something. Maybe marilyn manson since
    we're on the subject.

    What's with all this fire truck garbage?
    
    

>    So who paid for the volunteer fire trucks, pumpers, hoses, etc.
    
Mostly the fire department themselves.  People were willing to donate for the
obvious reason.  Often they'd send around the firetrucks in the neighborhood
with lights going, which was always great fun for the little kids who could see
the fire trucks up close and personal.  Firemen's field days are big draws in
some towns. 

The town is no city, but I wouldn't call 30,000+ people a "small" town.

    Oh well, it was a good idear.
    
    

    Sorry.
    
    8)

    
    
    	re: Way back in the intro topic...regarding the mother of three
    whose hubby ran off with the bimbo.
    
    	Dave, if you'll go back and read my notes, I don't advocate leaving
    them out in the cold to die! I do expect that the mother will have to
    go to school or work however. Babysitting would be provided for by the
    state (perhaps other welfare moms could b-sit). Here's a true life
    example of how the system is supposed to work:
    
    	My MIL (mother-in-law) moved to Massachusetts from Pennsylvania
    with her two young (under 3yrs old) kids after divorcing from her
    abusive hubby. She had no money and no place to go, so she went on
    welfare and lived in subsidised housing. What she ALSO did was GO TO
    SCHOOL AND GET HER ASSOCIATES DEGREE. She was off welfare in two years
    and started working here at Digital (entry level, low pay). 14yrs
    later, she was in middle management and pulling down almost 4times what
    I make now. She used the system to get some help up, not a bed to lay
    down on.
    
    
    	jim

    See?  Violent yoots can get together to reenact a scene from <GAK!>
    Friends.  Just look at the smarmy schmoozing that occupied the last
    several dozen topics or so.  

  .75  "smarmy" is a good choice.

     (from topic 19)

>	The US has thrown most of your taxes to create a military that works
>some of the time and fails some of the time.  
    
    Most?  Hardly.  And our military is the best in the world (for now), so
    it obviously DOES work as designed.  Spending problems ($300 ash trays,
    etc.) need to be dealt with, however.
    
    We spend more money each year on social programs and entitlements (by a
    good margin) than we do on the military.  Of course, at least with the
    military we are spending money on *something* that is a constitutional
    expenditure.
    
>    The money spent on social programs
>works some of the time and fails some of the time.  
    
    We've spent well over $3 TRILLION dollars since New Deal, on social
    spending.  Let me spell this out for further effect:  THREE TRILLION
    DOLLARS.  If you stacked $3 trillion (in tightly wrapped $100 bills) on 
    top of each other, you would have a stack 186+ *miles* high.  The net
    result as a whole?  Completely ineffective expenditure of monies. 
    It can even be argued that it is these very programs that increase the
    problems they were created to solve.
    
    We've had nearly 70 years of history to tell us that these programs do
    not work, yet the answer is always just *one more* program, or a *little
    more* money.  Sorry, that is an untenable answer.  We've spent far too
    much already, and it is now time to cut back (especially when looking
    at our current state of debt, and continual deficit spending).
    
>    Are you suggesting that we
>just quit even trying to make things better and give the USA to some foreign
>power?  Do you want the states to make 50 militias?

    Excuse me?  I'm not sure how you jumped from the above comments to this
    conclusion.
    
    What I've been saying (for years) is that we need to get the federal
    government out of the entitlement business.  This is the first step. 
    Until we do this, there will be no real changes to this failed system. 
    
>	The midnight basketball program worked in Chicago.  IT WORKED!  When
>the goverment found out about it, they tried to make it available to others 
>to see if it would work.  
    
    "Make it available to others"?  Hardly, they wrote it into a bill
    (which was already hundreds of pages long) that would be funded by
    federal monies.  This means that they offer a service, but even if you
    don't accept it, you pay for it.  This is not right.
    
    If Chicago wants to have midnight basketball, that's fine with me, as
    long as Chicago (or the state of Illinois) pays for it.  Personally, I
    think it is a bandaid on a broken arm, and comes at the current
    problems from a questionable angle.
    
    
    -steve 

 Z   The midnight basketball program worked in Chicago.  IT WORKED!  When
 Z   the goverment found out about it, they tried to make it available to
 Z   others 
 Z   to see if it would work.  I have no idea how well it is working
 Z   elsewhere, but
 Z   if it isn't then we should can it.
    
    That's great Stacy and I can appreciate that the program works.  I
    believe however, that's Chicagos issue....and not
    Washingtons...understand?  In other words, I have enough of my own
    dirty laundry to deal with.  Don't make your problem mine.  
    
    Can you say block grants?  Kind of arrogant since it should be the
    states money in the first place!
    
    -Jack

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 663.78                     Our Violent Youth                       78 of 78
MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."            16 lines  27-FEB-1996 10:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Z   The midnight basketball program worked in Chicago.  IT WORKED!  When
> Z   the government found out about it, they tried to make it available to
> Z   others to see if it would work.  I have no idea how well it is working
> Z   elsewhere, but if it isn't then we should can it.
>
>    That's great Stacy and I can appreciate that the program works.  I
>    believe however, that's Chicago's issue....and not
>    Washingtons...understand?  In other words, I have enough of my own
>    dirty laundry to deal with.  Don't make your problem mine.
>
>    Can you say block grants?  Kind of arrogant since it should be the
>    states money in the first place!


	So Jack, your saying that adding an additional level of management
between a problem and a potential solution is a good thing?  Tax it to the
federal level, then give it to the state without saying anything and hope
they can find out about what works in Chicago or anywhere else.

	Block grants without controls and standards aren't very bright.  Would
you let just anybody have power of attorney for your money and not have some
control?  Would you let just anybody with a gun be your local police?  State
money or Federal money, they both fall into the Tax category as far as I am
concerned.  The state has no more right to it than the Federal government does. 
All I want is the best return on that Tax investment.  Chicago, Atlanta, Boston
and LA have all done things that have helped in each of their own cities.  Isn't
it worth while to find out if they will work elsewhere?  What about small town
violence problems?  They aren't as easy to find out about or implement.  Do you
want to pay your local mayor to travel around the states looking for potential
solutions that apply to your town's specific problem or would some federal
coordination be appropriate?

re:  .79
    
>	So Jack, your saying that adding an additional level of management
>between a problem and a potential solution is a good thing?  Tax it to the
>federal level, then give it to the state without saying anything and hope
>they can find out about what works in Chicago or anywhere else.

    Actually, what I think Jack is saying is that you should not be taxed
    at all on the federal level for this; that the tax $$ stay in the state
    to begin with.  Eliminating the federal money sponge from the equation
    would save a great deal of money and aggrivation.
    
>	Block grants without controls and standards aren't very bright.  
    
    Block grants are not much of a solution, actually.  The real solution is not
    allowing the feds to take the money to begin with.  Let Illinois create
    their own social programs with thier own money, within their own
    budget.  Keep DC out of the picture altogether.
    
>State money or Federal money, they both fall into the Tax category as far
>    as I am concerned.  The state has no more right to it than the Federal
>    government does. 
    
    Wrong.  The federal government has NO right to it, consitutionally.  If 
    you are going to insist on having social programs like midnight basketball,
    welfare, etc., then this should be done on the state or local level of 
    government. 
    
>All I want is the best return on that Tax investment.  Chicago, Atlanta, Boston
>and LA have all done things that have helped in each of their own cities.  Isn't
>it worth while to find out if they will work elsewhere?  
    
    If there is to be any social experimentation, it should be implemented
    locally, and paid for locally.  Forcing all taxpayers to pay for social
    experimentation in select areas of the nation, is simply wrong.
    
>    What about small town
>violence problems?  They aren't as easy to find out about or implement.  Do you
>want to pay your local mayor to travel around the states looking for potential
>solutions that apply to your town's specific problem or would some federal
>coordination be appropriate?
    
    Who can best solve your family problems- you, or your local government?
    Who can best solve community problems- that community, or the state
    government? 
    
    The farther you get away from the problem, the less likely you are to
    find a solution.  Each community is different, making broad federal
    mandates and outlines more likely to do harm than help.  Bigger is not
    always better.  I've seen several state governors outline these issues
    during my perusals of C-Spam.  
    
    
    -steve

 ZZ   The state has no more right to it than the Federal government does.
    
    Actually, Steve answered most of what I was saying.  This line above
    really caught my attention though.  Consider The 10th ammendment...
    
    	"The powers not delagated to the United States by the Constitution,
    	nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
    	respectively, or to the people."
    
    In other words, the federal government has usurped much of the power of
    the states decisionmaking ability through taxation and socialist
    programs.  
    
    Take a good look at Washington DC.  DC is currently under the auspices
    of the congress; and yet DC is one of the most crime ridden barbaric
    cities anybody could have the displeasure of living in.  To answer your
    question about an additional level of management, I wholeheartedly
    agree.  That's why I am an advocate of non federal meddling.  
    
    -Jack

re: .81 , .80

	I thought that there was an amendment to the Constitution (my copy is at
home) that gave the Federal Government power to tax.  I believe this was passed
by a republican congress around 1902 and started taxes in 1908.  The reason that
the tax legislation was passed was to stop getting repairation taxes from the
south because of their plundering of the treasury prior to Lincoln and to pay
the interest on the foreign debt incured by the north to fight the war.  If you
want to blame somebody for taxes, then fix your label gun for the correct one. 
I might suggest CONFEDERATE.  Then the first federal social programs were to get
us out of the depression.  Then there was the war debt, the GI bill, the
national infrastructure, more war debt, the Reagon military buildup ...  It took
a lot of things to get us here and condensing them into an incorrect label for
political ends doesn't help solve them.

	If you son is a murderer, you and your neighbors can not solve the
problem.  Yea, yea, I know about the guns but I still don't think that is a good
way to conduct every day buisness.  If your community is generally in the KKK,
then civil rights can not be solved there.  If the state government is more
interested in lining their pockets or political fund raisers, then problems
can't be solved there.  If the federal government is too far away and not
listening, then problems can not be solved there either.  The fixes to tough
problems are not easy and do require combined good faith efforts from the
federal level to you.  

	The small town I grew up in now has a gang problem.  The gangs were
started from people in the next state.  The local police did not know what was
going on until they were really deep in gang violence.  I believe this is an
instance that requires coordination local to federal.  A few years ago, there
was some vandalism at a jewish graveyard in Hudson.  I believe this was an issue
for multiple local communities.  There are rare few things that happen in your
neighborhood only and I would venture a guess that most of those couldn't be
solved completely within your neighborhood.

    re: .82
    
>	I thought that there was an amendment to the Constitution (my copy is at
>home) that gave the Federal Government power to tax.  
    
    Congress has had the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
    and exicises all along, as long as such was uniform throughout the
    United States and they were collected under the pretense of the bullet
    points listed in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution (of which,
    social welfare spending of any sort is conspicuously absent).
    
    The amendment you are thinking of is the 16th Amendment, which reads:
    "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
    from whatever source derived, without apportionment amoung the several
    States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." [and without
    regard to Constitutional intent (and the 10th Amendment), it seems]
    
>    I believe this was passed
>by a republican congress around 1902 and started taxes in 1908.  The reason that
>the tax legislation was passed was to stop getting repairation taxes from the
>south because of their plundering of the treasury prior to Lincoln and to pay
>the interest on the foreign debt incured by the north to fight the war.  If you
>want to blame somebody for taxes, then fix your label gun for the correct one. 
>I might suggest CONFEDERATE.  
    
    The 16th Amendment was not passed until February 25, 1913 (the same
    year as the Federal Reserve Act).  Direct taxation wasn't duly
    implemented until the WWII era, I believe, and was around 1% (those who
    have the hard facts on this one, feel free to correct me if I'm
    mistaken).  There was quite an uproar about that 1%, too.
    
    IMNSHO, Amendment 16 is completely bogus.
     
>    Then the first federal social programs were to get
>us out of the depression.  
    
    That was the excuse, but in reality, WWII pulled us out of the
    depression, though liberal ideologists are hard at work revamping
    history books (and have been for years).
    
>    Then there was the war debt, the GI bill, the
>national infrastructure, more war debt, the Reagon military buildup ...  It took
>a lot of things to get us here and condensing them into an incorrect label for
>political ends doesn't help solve them.

    The war debt was miniscule, comparitively, to what we have today.  If
    you have been keeping up with economic history, we have balanced the
    budget twice since WWII (and have been debt free once or twice, I
    believe).  Our current debt level is due to several
    different factors, but the main one that will take us to bankruptcy
    (especially dangerous when the economy is slow) is the ridiculously
    high automatic increases built into our social-welfare programs.  
    
>	If you son is a murderer, you and your neighbors can not solve the
>problem.  Yea, yea, I know about the guns but I still don't think that is a good
>way to conduct every day buisness.  
    
    If I had a son who murdered someone, then we have local police to take
    care of it.  We have local prisons to store him in.  We have a local
    court system- complete with local judges, lawyers, etc. for due process
    of law.  Tell me where we need the federal government in your 
    scenario. 
    
>    If your community is generally in the KKK,
>then civil rights can not be solved there. If the state government is more
>interested in lining their pockets or political fund raisers, then problems
>can't be solved there.  If the federal government is too far away and not
>listening, then problems can not be solved there either.  The fixes to tough
>problems are not easy and do require combined good faith efforts from the
>federal level to you.  

     I disagree.  The state government level is as high as you should have
    to take any problem inside that state (that does on affect another
    state directly).  If the whole state is corrupt, it would be best to
    move to another state.
    
>	The small town I grew up in now has a gang problem.  The gangs were
>started from people in the next state.  The local police did not know what was
>going on until they were really deep in gang violence.  
    
    Why didn't they know what was going on?  Why didn't they arrest those
    commiting the crimes?  Or is this a problem with the justice system
    (revolving door)?   Too vague an example to be of much use in this
    argument.
    
>    I believe this is an
>instance that requires coordination local to federal.  A few years ago, there
>was some vandalism at a jewish graveyard in Hudson.  I believe this was an issue
>for multiple local communities.  There are rare few things that happen in your
>neighborhood only and I would venture a guess that most of those couldn't be
>solved completely within your neighborhood.
    
    Why local to federal?  Why not local to state?  If the state can't
    handle it, something is wrong with either the justice system or the
    state police.  Only if the State cries uncle, should we allow federal
    agents to step in (or if there is a vital national interest involved). 
    The federal police have too much power, and seem to be feeling it as of
    late (see Waco, Weaver, and the many other examples of federal police
    abusing citizens....see the WoD).
    
    The federal government is part of the problem, not the answer to our
    problems, in general.  Until the US voting public gets this one fact
    straight, we will continue to see this great (once) republic spent into
    bankruptcy.
    
    
    -steve

re: Note 663.83


>>    I believe this was passed by a republican congress around 1902 and started
>>taxes in 1908.  The reason that the tax legislation was passed was to stop
>>getting repairation taxes from the south because of their plundering of the
>>treasury prior to Lincoln and to pay the interest on the foreign debt incured
>>by the north to fight the war.  If you want to blame somebody for taxes, then
>>fix your label gun for the correct one.  I might suggest CONFEDERATE.
>
>    The 16th Amendment was not passed until February 25, 1913 (the same
>    year as the Federal Reserve Act).  Direct taxation wasn't duly
>    implemented until the WWII era, I believe, and was around 1% (those who
>    have the hard facts on this one, feel free to correct me if I'm
>    mistaken).  There was quite an uproar about that 1%, too.
>

	We both missed.  The 16th Amendment was passed in 1909 and began
taxing in 1913.  The President was Taft (Republican).  I didn't find the
congresional breakdown.

	The north was justifiably miffed at being asked to pay taxes.  I am not
a Civil War expert but I believe prior to the Civil War, the government ran on
DONATIONS from the merchant marines who wanted a strong navy (corporate welfare
but the corporations paid for it).  The southern confederates robbed the
treasury of the 1990 equivelent of about 20 TRILLION dollars and absconded with
most of the armory of the USA.  This money was not spent during the Civil war
and the people who had it went to Mexico with the money after the war.  Lincoln
pardoned these people and did not go after the money.  The north was MIFFED that
they had to pay anything when we could have been living on the interest forever. 


>>    Then the first federal social programs were to get us out of the
depression.
>
>    That was the excuse, but in reality, WWII pulled us out of the
>    depression, though liberal ideologists are hard at work revamping
>    history books (and have been for years).

	So putting people to work and getting them to feed themselves doesn't
help to end a depression??  Is that conservative economics??  Conservatives
keep telling people about these revisionists while they are making total C**P
out of the facts themselves.


>>    Then there was the war debt, the GI bill, the
>>national infrastructure, more war debt, the Reagon military buildup ...It took
>>a lot of things to get us here and condensing them into an incorrect label for
>>political ends doesn't help solve them.
>
>    The war debt was miniscule, comparitively, to what we have today.  If
>    you have been keeping up with economic history, we have balanced the
>    budget twice since WWII (and have been debt free once or twice, I
>    believe).  Our current debt level is due to several
>    different factors, but the main one that will take us to bankruptcy
>    (especially dangerous when the economy is slow) is the ridiculously
>    high automatic increases built into our social-welfare programs.

       The budget ran surpluses in 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1956, 1957,
	   1960 and 1969.  We have never been debt free since WWII.

	Conservatives do change the facts and history a lot.  During the last
	election it was the service on the debt.  But they denied that in
	the 84 and 88 elections.  What will be the conservative mantra next
	year?

>     I disagree.  The state government level is as high as you should have
>    to take any problem inside that state (that does on affect another
>    state directly).  If the whole state is corrupt, it would be best to
>    move to another state.
>
>    The federal government is part of the problem, not the answer to our
>    problems, in general.  Until the US voting public gets this one fact



	I believe these 2 statements show the problem better than most.
The problem is that government is really representative of the people.
And that the vast majority of the people are self centered, greedy, lazy,
conservative cowards.   (My label gun works too.)


	I REFUSE TO RUN FROM A PROBLEM!!  

>	I REFUSE TO RUN FROM A PROBLEM!!  

You say you never met a problem you din't like?

 Z   And that the vast majority of the people are self centered, greedy,
 Z   lazy,
 Z   conservative cowards.   (My label gun works too.)
    
    
 Z           I REFUSE TO RUN FROM A PROBLEM!!
    
    That's just the ticket.  If you choose to try to resolve the problem,
    then that is your passion or mission in life.  Not everybody shares the
    same views as you do and hence you have no right to make your problem
    everybody elses problem.  
    
    Congratulations though.  You affirmed my point regarding the depravity
    of humankind.  As far as the conservative element, just
    remember...there is absolutely nothing vituous in getting screwed by
    the establishment under a falso guise of helping thy neighbor.  
    
    -Jack

    re: .84
    

>	We both missed.  The 16th Amendment was passed in 1909 and began
>taxing in 1913.  
    
    You are mistaken.  The 16th was adopted Feb. 25, 1913.  I'm not sure of
    the exact date taxation of income was started, however. 
    
>	The north was justifiably miffed at being asked to pay taxes.  I am not
>a Civil War expert but I believe prior to the Civil War, the government ran on
>DONATIONS from the merchant marines who wanted a strong navy (corporate welfare
>but the corporations paid for it).  
    
    The government ran then as it does now...taxes, duties, imposts,
    excises...  
    
    Only now, it takes the money right out of your paycheck, before you can do
    anything with it.  That, and you still have all the other taxes,
    duties, imposts and excises to pay indirectly, as well.
    
>    The southern confederates robbed the
>treasury of the 1990 equivelent of about 20 TRILLION dollars and absconded with
>most of the armory of the USA.  
    
    I doubt that the 1990 equivalent was 20 BILLION, much less 20 Trillion.  
    Yes, I doubt this figure very much.  I don't think we ever had this much 
    money (or the historical equivalent) sitting in one place TO be stolen. 
    No doubt a LOT of money was stolen by Confederates, in any case.
    
>	So putting people to work and getting them to feed themselves doesn't
>help to end a depression??  Is that conservative economics??  Conservatives
>keep telling people about these revisionists while they are making total C**P
>out of the facts themselves.

    It would take too long to address this comment thoroughly, and I don't 
    want to go too far astray.  But let me point out that it was this legacy 
    that has created most of this nation's financial problems.  It is this 
    legacy, expanded by Great Society programs, that has created an attitude of
    "entitlement" and a national character of dependancy, rather than an
    attitude of rugged individualism and self-sufficiency.  
    
    The simple fact is that New Deal did help some.  But in the big
    picture, even during the Great Depression, New Deal was not NEEDED, nor
    did it do a great deal to help us out of the Great Depression. 
    The legacy, however, haunts us to this very day.
    
>       The budget ran surpluses in 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1956, 1957,
>	   1960 and 1969.  We have never been debt free since WWII.

    I stand corrected.  We have more years of a balanced budget than I
    realized.  What is your source that says we have not been debt free
    since WWII?  I thought that we had a couple years of no debt in the
    50's.
    
>	Conservatives do change the facts and history a lot.  During the last
>	election it was the service on the debt.  But they denied that in
>	the 84 and 88 elections.  
    
    Election platforms and reality are not usually complimentary- on either 
    side of the political table.
     
    I was talking about history books used in schools- that kind of
    "rewriting of history".  Politics is a completely different animal.
    
>	I REFUSE TO RUN FROM A PROBLEM!!
    
    That's good.  But what about the solutions?  Will you balk when it's
    time to make the really tough decisions?  Will you support positive
    change, or will you continue to support polices that will bankrupt this
    nation in the not-too distant future?  
    
    
    
    -steve    

re: .87

	The difference of a couple of years doesn't make much difference now.
I believe the 1913 date was the begining date of taxation.  I was quite
surprized when I learned how much money and weapons the confederates had stolen.
Anytime you want to talk solutions, you can count on me not balking if their
tough.  I don't believe we have much of a chance with all the "Blind Verbal
Belchers" that exist.  


re: 663.86


>    That's just the ticket.  If you choose to try to resolve the problem,
>    then that is your passion or mission in life.  Not everybody shares the
>    same views as you do and hence you have no right to make your problem
>    everybody elses problem.
>
>    Congratulations though.  You affirmed my point regarding the depravity
>    of humankind.  As far as the conservative element, just
>    remember...there is absolutely nothing vituous in getting screwed by
>    the establishment under a falso guise of helping thy neighbor.
>

	I agree, there is nothing virtuous in getting screwed by the by the
	establishment under a false guise of helping thy neighbor.  The
	key words here are SCREWED under a FALSE GUISE.  I also believe
	that the old saying about "the road to hell is paved with good
	intentions".  That is why things need controls, repairs and if
	it is beyond repair, thrown away.  But it is not a reason to
	cowardly run from even trying.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	I am not good with this conservative mantra garbage, but here is a
	try at it.  Conservatives believe freeloaders should have to pay their
	own way.  Republicans are conservative.  All problems should be solved
	locally.  The Liberal federal government has never done anything good.
        The federal government is the problem.

It sounds like you have a solution here for everyone.  All republicans over
65 will no longer get medicare or social security. Anyone over say 50 who
has been registered republican or has donated to the party will not get
anything from these programs.  Republicans will not drive on interstate
highways.  Republicans will not drive GM cars.  OK, republicans
will not drive.  Republicans will not use the internet.  Republicans will not
use PC's with Intel inside.  Republicans will not send letters or use radios.
Republicans can not use Fed Ex.  Republicans will not be able travel
interstate.  In the event of war, the republicans will defend themselves only.
Republicans will not have the right to vote nationally.

	It sounds harsh to me, but if that is the way the conservatives want it.

8^)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For an example of what life would be like, take a look at the Indian
reservations.

 Z   For an example of what life would be like, take a look at the Indian
 Z   reservations.
    
    Anything...I repeat...ANYthing which has brought about prosperity in this
    country has derived from the private sector and the willingness of the
    entrepreneaur to excell in his/her field.  Hospitals and schools from
    the local church, you name it.  The government more often than not
    leeches upon that which is good, and usually suckers the lambs into
    believing..."we are the government and we're here to help you."
    
    -Jack

re: .89

	Try telling that to GM workers, or Intel or Fed Ex or interstate
truckers or Sadam or ...  All of them have gotten a hand from the Federal
Government.  I am not convinced of your evil democratic government claim.

    If you believe big business is here to help you, you've got jam for
    brains.

 Z   Try telling that to GM workers, or Intel or Fed Ex or interstate
 Z   truckers or Sadam or ...  All of them have gotten a hand from the
 Z   Federal
 Z   Government.  I am not convinced of your evil democratic government claim.
    
    I don't claim government is evil across the board, but I do tend to
    realize waste when I see it.  What really pisses me off is when
    somebody out and out lies to your face because they think you're an
    idiot.  
    
    The examples you mentioned above have one thing in common.  They are
    all under the umbrella of Unions.  Unions are outdated and are operated
    by mobsters and the syndicate.  They are bad people who are screweing
    the participants out of money.  Furthermore, they are an extortion tool
    interfering with the private sector.  They are a blight on progress.
    
    -Jack

re: .92

	Sadam is in a Union??

	OOOPS!!  I had forgoten about the blame the UNION conservative mantra.
When was it that the conservatives used that to win elections?  Very tired old
conservative line that is not correct.  I am not saying that they are all good,
but they are not and have never been a blight on progress?

    I used the present tense purposely.  Even in the old days when they 
    brought about good change for the worker, they were still screwing the
    worker out of money.  The unions have made it impossible for companies
    to compete in WW markets.  I believe the global economy will put an end
    to unions forever!  

    Now that's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

re: .94

	Unions do not make it impossible to compete in WW markets.  Unions are
increasing in numbers across most of EEC.  A large percentage of the modern
american union is secratarial.  I can hear it now "Secrataries are responsible
for the loss of jobs to ...".  Or even better "It isn't my fault that I did
something bad, it was because my teacher was in a union".  


Here is something to ponder:

The conservatives are helping to build big buisness and destroy government
controls.    

Buisnesses aren't giving raises to employees that actually make those large
profits possible.

Not all people are greedy, self centered, coward conservatives.

Unions increase numbers to combat rising costs and stagnant wages.

Buchanan joins a union?

    Paying a man on an assembly line $16.00 per hour in 1972 was nothing
    but sheer extortion.  And don't even talk to me about teachers unions. 
    They were labeled the pressure group second to the Polit Bureau.  The
    NEA that is.  They are SCUM...
    
Z    The conservatives are helping to build big buisness and destroy
Z    government controls.    
    
    Excellent.  Please give us more.
    
Z    Buisnesses aren't giving raises to employees that actually make those
Z    large profits possible.
    
    You can quit anytime.  Look, the bottom line is this.  The company
    didn't knock on your door and say, "Oh please Mr. Stacy, please work
    for us!"  Chances are you contacted them and inquired about employment 
    opportunities.  What it boils down to is the ONLY thing a company owes
    you is a paycheck based on what you agreed to at the interview. 
    Nothing more.  Pay raises are discretionary just as you quitting is
    discretionary.  Sorry but I must side with the business.  They may be
    scum for their lack of loyalty but in the end, deal with it!
    
Z    Not all people are greedy, self centered, coward conservatives.
    
    Another emotional response.  Greedy, Self Centered
    Conservatives....fine...makes no diff to me.  Go to the corner and lick
    your wounds.  That's life and I don't know where you picked up this
    mentality that everybody owes somebody something.  The harsh reality is
    as I mentioned above.  The world DOESN'T sing Kumbaya in unison okay?? 
    Deal with it.  If people want to be self centered Scrooges, what
    business is that of mine?
    
 Z   Unions increase numbers to combat rising costs and stagnant wages.
    
    No, unions are a tool of extortion used by employees who have
    absolutely no business butting into the operations of the private
    sector.  The Union is a bully pulpit used by thugs who don't have a
    brain of their own, or the ability to think for themself.  Stagnant
    wage fighting sounds good but everybody anti's up and policy is
    manipulated where it shouldn't be manipulated.  
    
    -Jack
    Buchanan joins a union?
    

 ZZ     Buchanan joins a union?
    
    Forgot this one.  Buchanan has adopted the mentality of Gephardt who is
    staunchly against NAFTA, and Ted Kennedy who believes government has
    the right to butt into the private operations of corporate America.  
    Therefore, I don't think he is truly the Republican mentality.  I don't
    believe people should solely be swayed by his social agenda although I
    agree with much of it.  
    
    Bottom line is if he does win the nomination, he will get my vote.  
    I believe the electorate made an error in electing Bill Clinton. 
    Character does in fact count and I respect the office of the
    Presidency.  I wouldn't allow a guest to use my home as a prostitution
    dwelling, why should I feel any different about the presidency??
    
    -Jack

    Jack, it behaves like an analog control system. You will always have
    overshoot. Right now we're heading for overshoot on the down side.

Me thinks Jim Stacy was sent here to sit in for George Maiewski as our
resident ultra-leftist liberal.

Maiewski is over in sports making the arguement that figure 
skating is a sport and, being the big Celts fan that he is,
begging someone to tell him who the current owner is.

daryll

Maiewski is a violent youth?

re: .98 

>I believe the electorate made an error in electing Bill Clinton.

	The last I knew, we still had free elections.  Have the Comuni (oops)
Conservative Republicans already passed the term limit and voting correctness
ammendment to the constitution that allows the few to dictacte with impunity to
the many?  Is that why the Conservative Republicans are against Buchanan and
labeling him a liberal?

re: .101

>Me thinks Jim Stacy was sent here to sit in for George Maiewski as our
>resident ultra-leftist liberal.

	There is that label gun again!  If you mean that priorities like
God first, the USA second and political parties something like 400 is liberal
and putting the GOP before god or the USA is conservative.  Then YEP I am a 
liberal.  If standing behind what you say is liberal and running away from what
you say is conservative. Then YEP I am a liberal.  If you mean listening to both
sides and working for the best solution is liberal and commanding what you will
think, do and vote is conservative.  Then YEP I am a liberal again.  If you mean
that being SICK of being told what I believe, stand for, and how to vote by lazy
cowards is liberal.  Then, yes I am a liberal.  I don't know about your
ultra-leftist label.  If it means I lean right when I bowl, then it applies.

re:                      <<< Note 663.104 by NICOLA::STACY >>>
.104>	There is that label gun again!  

.96>The conservatives are helping to build big buisness and destroy government
.96>controls.    
.96>Buisnesses aren't giving raises to employees that actually make those large
.96>profits possible.
.96>Not all people are greedy, self centered, coward conservatives.
.96>Unions increase numbers to combat rising costs and stagnant wages.

There you have it. Our Jack already pointed out the issues in the leftist
agenda you posted in .96.

If those aren't the leanings of an ultra-leftist liberal, I don't know
what else could be so construed.

Why don't you simply admit that you require that government provide for 
the havenots at the expense of those who contribute to the GNP and be done 
with it?

I've spent enough of my goddam life being ripped off by the government
to feed the worthless. I've got every right in the world to choose to
be a greedy, self centered bastard if I so desire.

> I've got every right in the world to choose to
> be a greedy, self centered bastard if I so desire.

 but you just can't get yourself to do it. ;>

re: .105


Are you saying that conservatives are NOT good for buisness?  
Are you saying there is not a "Conservative Revolution" in Washington that is 
	disasembling the federal government?
Are you saying that wages are not stagnant in the USA even though corporate     
        profits are up?


	So what you call "ultra-leftist" is someone who is pointing at facts.
Does that make an "ultra-conservative" someone who believes in lies.


	There was a level of sarcasim in note .96.  Perhaps "Buchanan joins a
union" was too subtle for you.  Remember, it was in response to the conservative
claim that the new world order would end the existance of unions.  That
conservative claim is not supported by facts or history.  I am not advocating or
discouraging the unions, though I do use information from the National Taxpayers
Union. 

> Are you saying that conservatives are NOT good for buisness?  

Not at all. Unlike you, however, I recognize this as an extremely good,
rather than an evyl, thing.

>Are you saying there is not a "Conservative Revolution" in Washington that is 
>	disasembling the federal government?

Not at all. Unlike you, however, I recognize this as an extremely good,
rather than an evyl, thing.

>Are you saying that wages are not stagnant in the USA even though corporate
>        profits are up?

What I'm saying is that canonizing unions as the saviors who prevent this
is a fool's mission. What I'm saying is that if one doesn't like the wage 
situation at the expense of corporate profits, then one is free to get off
their lazy butt and do something with respect to the way they make their
living to improve their lot rather than sitting there waiting for the
government or some damned commie union to come fix things for them. That's
(let the govt/union fix it) the liberal mindset in action

>	So what you call "ultra-leftist" is someone who is pointing at facts.

No. Someone who's looking for a handout for society.

 Z   The last I knew, we still had free elections.  Have the Comuni (oops)
 Z   Conservative Republicans already passed the term limit and voting
 Z   correctness
 Z   ammendment to the constitution that allows the few to dictacte with
 Z   impunity to
 Z   the many?  Is that why the Conservative Republicans are against
 Z   Buchanan and labeling him a liberal?
    
    As far as the Commie inuendo, surely you must realize that democrats
    are notorious for social engineering and government regulation.  I mean
    come on, let's not be disingenuous here.  As far as term limits though,
    I have to agree with you on that one.  An elected official is only as
    powerful as the stupid voter allows him/her to be.  Besides, why should
    an elected official have their constitutional rights taken away just
    because the losing party is eating sour grapes?  The concept of term
    limits smells of a democrat tactic...very unbecoming and uncomely.
    
    -Jack
    

re: .107

	It still sounds like what you call "ultra-leftist" is someone who is
pointing at facts and that an "ultra-conservative" is someone who believes in
lies.



BTW:

	I thought the commie union has split up under Yeltzin.

8^)

re: .111

I meant .109 not .107.

>	It still sounds like what you call "ultra-leftist" is someone who is
>pointing at facts and that an "ultra-conservative" is someone who believes in
>lies.

You don't get it, do you?

It's not a matter of "pointing out facts or believing in lies". It's a matter
of seeing the reality of the situation and recognizing the value in it,
rather than finding fault with it. Your evyls (helping business grow, dis-
mantling government, bolstering profits, whatever the cost) are the
conservative's goal. Your goals (bleed the producer to feed the non-producer)
are the conservative's evyl. It's not rocket science, Jim.

    

>Why don't you simply admit that you require that government provide for 
>the havenots at the expense of those who contribute to the GNP and be done 
>with it?  

    I will admit that I want the government to help provide for people who
    can't provide for themselves, and yes, I'll pay taxes to help with it.  
    
>I've spent enough of my goddam life being ripped off by the government
>to feed the worthless. 
    
    I wonder how much of your taxes have gone to food stamps/afdc? a
    percentage of 1%? More?  Does anyone know what percentage of taxes to
    to these programs?
    
    I don't like wasted tax money any more then the next guy.  I also don't
    want some paint manufacturer to be allowed to dump lead in the water.
    I do like roads.  I do like affordable colleges/universities.  I do
    like my job (wonder how much of Digital's revenue is to government or
    government related activities).  I do like worker safety/auto safety
    standards.

>    I will admit that I want the government to help provide for people who
>    can't provide for themselves, and yes, I'll pay taxes to help with it.  

You're free to feel that way. I don't. Charity is the business of the private
sector in the form of churches and non-profit institutions that can manage
the activity efficiently along with the help of those who wish to contribute.
I don't believe in socialism and I don't believe it's the role of the
government to "provide" for people by picking my pocket to whatever tune
they choose. And if the private sector sources fail to provide sufficiently,
then folks die. Life's tough all over. It's been happening since the first
DNA molecule replicated itself, to borrow a phrase from a discussion yesterday.

    RE: .115  

    > And if the private sector sources fail to provide sufficiently,
    > then folks die. Life's tough all over. It's been happening since 
    > the first DNA molecule replicated itself, to borrow a phrase from 
    > a discussion yesterday.

    Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that you are talking
    about consciously setting a policy for poor Americans to be left to
    DIE in the streets of starvation and exposure.

>       -< The goal - protect us from those who would let the poor DIE. >-

Support your local charities, I'll do the same, and get your legislators
out of my pocket.

    If we're ALL on our own to survive death (with no guaranteed safety
    net ever again), people will keep all their extra money.  It would
    be stupid not to save every penny that might be needed to keep
    yourself from dying in the streets someday.

    Meanwhile, if you think that the deaths of the poor will be a simple
    matter of stepping over dead bodies when you walk down the street,
    think again.  If survival becomes a matter of life and death in this
    country, we will ALL be at risk of being killed for our groceries
    (not to mention everything else we have.)

    If you don't believe me, try moving to a country where it costs
    PENNIES to live (because the level of poverty is so devastating.)
    Sure, you'll be like a millionaire in that country, but don't
    expect to walk down the street or take a casual drive in your car
    without worrying about your life.  You would need to spend all
    your extra money trying to maintain your movements between heavily
    armed/protected havens.

    Suzanne:
    
    If there are in fact dead bodies all over the street, then it would be
    an indictment on the local church.  Wake up call my friends, charity is
    the responsibility of the church, not uncle Sam.
    
    

    Well, I'm not willing to risk having our streets covered with dead
    bodies simply so we can yell at our local churches about it.

    If they don't have the funding to save these lives, there will be
    nothing they can do about it.  (They'll just yell back at us, and
    we'll still be stepping over dead bodies all over the place.)

    Civilized Western countries provide safety nets for their citizens.
    If we stop doing this, we will become a third world nation (with
    millions of people living in garbage dumps and millions of people
    dying in our streets of starvation and disease.)

re: .113 , .115

	I get it, but it doesn't seem like you do.  You really have no idea what
my goals are but you have LABELED me so that you can trivialize or demonize them
no matter what.  This seems to be done in an attempt to force what you believe
down on all.  There have not been many, if any, conservative ideas that have
been discussed that would help the USA.  Only ideas that help conservative
republicans and then mostly rich conservative republicans.

This is the conservative agenda as I understand it.  I find most of it to be
garbage so excuse me if it isn't complete.

1.) Get slick out of the White House.

	That is a blatant power play, not an idea to make things better.

2.) Raise Military spending.

	No discussion of on what or for what mission, just raise it.

3.) Cut taxes and deliver the same services.

	Outright lie.

4.) Flag desecration.

	Protect the civil rights of flags but not citizens.  If we buy that     
        garbage then we deserve to go down in flames as a nation.

5.) Block grants to states without any accountability for where the money is    
        spent.

	That will only line the pockets of crooks.

6.) Term Limits.

	That has kinda lost focus now that it would mostly impact republicans.
	I can't imagine how term limits will help us at all.  There has never
	been any problem solved without directly addressing it.  This is just
	another conservative power game.

7.) Balanced budget amendment.

	Yeah right, shift the responsibility for our inability to actually do  
         our job.  Reagan would have been crying out loud if he couldn't have
         deficit spent to grow the economy. ....  I borrowed money to buy a car
	 but I have to pay the money back with interest.  If I don't pay it back
	 then the bank takes my car.  If this gets passed, then we will be      
         borrowing money from foreign countries when times are bad, and giving
	 them the USA when we default.  Bad idea, BAD BAD BAD idea.

8.) 2/3 vote for raising taxes.

	Again, shift responsibility.  A power game.

9.) School prayer.

	This should be interesting.  Churches have failed to teach a generation
	right from wrong so now we want schools to do it.  At least that is the 
        case if you believe all that the conservatives say is wrong.  I am not
	convinced that things are all that bad.

....

The hairball irresponsibility continues.

POSTLOG:

	Evidently there are 97 constitutional amendments in the republican
congress right now.  Do you know what they are?  Don't ask me, I am not a 
republican.  It is your party and it is your responsibility.

    In other words, taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
    
    On the other hand, you are legislating morality here...forced charity
    if you will.  Sounds to me like an anti libertarian position to take.
    
    -Jack

    In other words, Jack, you do not want to live in a civilized society.
    
    You could always find an island somewhere and defend it yourself
    against anyone who might decide to take your food, shelter and
    belongings by force.
    
    I'm not demanding that you remain in civilization.

1.) Get slick out of the White House.

ZZ	That is a blatant power play, not an idea to make things better.

On the contrary, Clinton is an obstructionist to my interests.  Furthermore,
he has no solid convictions on anything and therefore cannot be relied upon.

2.) Raise Military spending.

ZZ	No discussion of on what or for what mission, just raise it.

Raise it?  Or keep it from being gutted. 

3.) Cut taxes and deliver the same services.

ZZ	Outright lie.

Second part is in error.  We don't want the same services.  We want to cut the 
pork.

4.) Flag desecration.

Z	Protect the civil rights of flags but not citizens.  If we buy that     
Z        garbage then we deserve to go down in flames as a nation.

You are opening up a complete new discussion here.  The flag issue was voted
on and rejected.  It was brought to the floor and that is all that was asked.
As far as the civil rights thing, what specifically are you speaking of.


5.) Block grants to states without any accountability for where the money is    
        spent.

ZZ	That will only line the pockets of crooks.

Right now the linings are being filled in DC.  Local lining has a far greater
chance of being accountable to the voters.

6.) Term Limits.

I agree. 

7.) Balanced budget amendment.

Agreed but there should be more accountability in spending.

8.) 2/3 vote for raising taxes.

ZZ	Again, shift responsibility.  A power game.

No, it is actually a good way to keep lying presidents in check...both Bush
and especially Clinton.

9.) School prayer.

Z	This should be interesting.  Churches have failed to teach a generation
Z	right from wrong so now we want schools to do it.  

Actually the teachers unions are the great Satan, not the kids.  

-Jack

    Suzanne:
    
    I'm for a civilized society.  I want more local control of social
    assistance and far less federal intervention.

    re: .118
    
    I think this one should be saved for posterity, as a primo example of
    "Chicken Little" noting.
    
    
    -steve

re: .124 (Jack)

>1.) Get slick out of the White House.
>ZZ	That is a blatant power play, not an idea to make things better.
>On the contrary, Clinton is an obstructionist to my interests.  Furthermore,
>he has no solid convictions on anything and therefore cannot be relied upon.
What about the "checks and balances"?  I thought that was keeping Slick
in line.  Or will that only work with republican presidents?

>2.) Raise Military spending.
>ZZ	No discussion of on what or for what mission, just raise it.
>Raise it?  Or keep it from being gutted. 
Oh yeah, what about them planes the pentagon doesn't want. Let's not
gut them!

>3.) Cut taxes and deliver the same services.
>ZZ	Outright lie.
>Second part is in error.  We don't want the same services.  We want to cut the 
>pork.
Cut taxes and only cut liberal-backed-services.  It's clear now.

>4.) Flag desecration.
>Z	Protect the civil rights of flags but not citizens.  If we buy that     
>Z        garbage then we deserve to go down in flames as a nation.
>You are opening up a complete new discussion here.  The flag issue was voted
>on and rejected.  It was brought to the floor and that is all that was asked.
>As far as the civil rights thing, what specifically are you speaking of.
So it doesn't bother you that they're fiddling and discussing such
unimportant things?  How nice we have so much time to squander.

>5.) Block grants to states without any accountability for where the money is    
>        spent.
>ZZ	That will only line the pockets of crooks.
>Right now the linings are being filled in DC.  Local lining has a far greater
>chance of being accountable to the voters.
And your choice of which pockets to line is certainly better.  Thanks for
that great, solid argument.  

>6.) Term Limits.
>I agree. 
Yeah, ol' TeddyK is a great institution.  If the folks keep reelecting
him he MUST be great!  Right Jack?

>7.) Balanced budget amendment.
>Agreed but there should be more accountability in spending.
What about a 10% across-the-board cut?  Oops!  That would cut some
republican projects.  Can't have that.

>8.) 2/3 vote for raising taxes.
>ZZ	Again, shift responsibility.  A power game.
>No, it is actually a good way to keep lying presidents in check...both Bush
>and especially Clinton.
Taxes should be HARD to raise.  Otherwise there's no incentive to
reduce spending.

>9.) School prayer.
>Z	This should be interesting.  Churches have failed to teach a generation
>Z	right from wrong so now we want schools to do it.  
>Actually the teachers unions are the great Satan, not the kids.  
The kids aren't part of the point, Jack; it's the CHURCH.  Somehow you
missed that in your retort.

Glad to help keep you on track.
\john

    
    re: .126
    
    I agree..
    
    
    BTW.. no one seems to want to talk about the grass-roots movement
    in/around/about/from lawmakers to take the "task" of charity and care
    away from the government and give it to charitable institutions that
    can make a better go of it... and more than a 50% savings in cost...
    

    .128
    
    The way United Way's CEO did a better job of it, to the tune of several
    millions of YOUR dollars in his own pocket and those of his closest
    friends?  United Way is accountable to NOBODY.  Except the federal
    government.

    The "Save the Children" operation in the United States is almost an
    outright scam.  Only pennies of every donated dollar goes to help
    actual children in the United States.
    
    A great many of the other charities in this country are a fraud as
    well.  Most of the money goes to pay huge salaries to the execs.

    
    I prefer 'Save the Whales" myself.

re: .128

> ... and more than a 50% savings in cost...

	Where did you get that from?  I have a hard time believing that with all
the "Private Charity" plundering that has happened.

Some charities are very cost-effective.  Others are run by greedy scoundrels.
Government, on the other hand...

    If private companies took over the entire 'safety net' in this
    country, we'd see millions of the poor being 'laid off' while
    the charity execs got zillions in bonuses each year.

    
    
    There goes everyone... starting with Dick in .129 on their high horse
    
    If you are ignorant of the procedures and practices, and the groups
    involved, then STFU!!!
    
    I did my reading.. saw who was involved and why... and made up my mind
    that this was something to pursue...
    
    Chicken-Littles like the previous responses don't accomplish much
    except heat (vs. light)...
    
     But, anything to make us think... wot??
    

    
    re: .134
    
    >If private companies took over the entire 'safety net' in this
    >country, we'd see millions of the poor being 'laid off' while
    >the charity execs got zillions in bonuses each year.
    
    
     Nothing like "hysterics" huh???
    

    RE: .136  Andy K.

    >> If private companies took over the entire 'safety net' in this
    >> country, we'd see millions of the poor being 'laid off' while
    >> the charity execs got zillions in bonuses each year.
    
    > Nothing like "hysterics" huh???

    Nothing like history.  Massive lay-offs followed by huge bonuses
    for the company's execs is Standard Operating Procedure in the world
    of business these days.

    Why wouldn't they do this if such businesses took over the safety net?
    (The poor have even less resources than the middle class when it comes
    to fighting back against such things.)

    The only massive lay-offs would occur in government workers who used to
    do that job...
    
    But.. maybe the private firms will hire them... 
    
    BTW.. we are not talking about mega-corps and the "United Ways" of this
    country...
    
    It's smaller lean and mean operations that'll do it better than the
    government ever could...
    

    RE: .138  Andy K.
    
    > It's smaller lean and mean operations 
                            ****
    
    We can count on such operations to be as 'mean' as possible, I'm sure.

    More emotional knee-jerk....how surprising.

    
    
>    If you are ignorant of the procedures and practices, and the groups
>    involved, then STFU!!!
 
    Whatever you say.  I apologize for having an opinion.

    
    re: .141
    
    > Whatever you say.  I apologize for having an opinion.
    
    Opinions are welcome and expected...
    
    Knee-jerk blather, whether from the right or left (which I'm all too
    guilty of many times) is what I was commenting on...
    
    You want to knee-jerk with pie-in-the-sky, chicken-little anecdotes?
    
    Go right ahead... your choice...
    

    
    re: .141
    
    See .139 for a perfect example of who should STFU...
    
    hth
    

re: .138

	Which ones??  Here is a chance to plug your charity.  Which charity do
you donate to that helps with violent youth or feeds the increasing number of 
homeless families.  Where can we get the information that got you to choose them?

    
>    You want to knee-jerk with pie-in-the-sky, chicken-little anecdotes?

	if you can't write one note without using these trite
	little buzz words, then STFU.

	hoho, just kidding, etc.

    Andy, stick it where the sun don't shine.
    
    Early today, someone in this topic indicated that he didn't give a
    crap if people DIED as a result of the private charities not having
    enough resources to help everyone.  ("Life's tough all over", he said.)
    
    So he says he doesn't care if people die and we're being 'hysterical'
    for responding to such a statement??
    
    Stick it where the sun don't shine - twice.

    
    re: .147
    
    Like I said... and you've shown it here (and time and time again),
    anecdotes don't mean diddley!!!
    
    But do keep playing... if for no other reason than to show that there's
    chicken-littles at both ends of the spectrum...
    

    What anecdote??
    
    Someone here made a statement about not caring if people died from
    the policy change being proposed, and it spurred a chain of responses.
    
    Stop playing with yourself and pay attention, Andy.

    
    re: .145
    
    > Which ones??  Here is a chance to plug your charity.  Which charity
    >do donate to 
    
    Want to see my check-book register???
    
    BTW...wer're not talking about individual contributions by private
    citizens to these charities...
    
     We're talking about taking your (my) tax dollar, at a substantial savings
    over what's being pissed away today, and allocating that tax dollar to
    specific "lean and (snarl) mean"... no-nonsense charities.. to do the
    work that the bloated, give-me-more-dollars-cause-I-never-have-enough
    to-begin-with (like that Di??) government agencies piss away..
    

>    Stop playing with yourself and pay attention, Andy.

A master baiter, she is...

    
    re: .149
    
    >What anecdote??
    
    You are dense.... go look up the definition of the word and tell me
    again what your reply about "Someone here made a statement about not
    caring if people died..." means in retrospect...
    
    >Stop playing with yourself and pay attention, Andy.
    
    Have no fear... I haven't had to do that since my teens... but then
    again, seeing as how you brought it up, and it was fresh in your mind,
    perhaps it's not me that should worry... wot??
    

    RE: .152  Andy
    
    >> What anecdote??
    
    > You are dense.... go look up the definition of the word and tell me
    > again what your reply about "Someone here made a statement about not
    > caring if people died..." means in retrospect...
    
    The statement mentioned was part of the discussion here ITSELF.
    
    You are a dolt, kiddo.

    
    >The statement mentioned was part of the discussion here ITSELF.
    
    
     Who mentioned it?? How was it mentioned??
    
    Did you bother looking up the definition before you shot yourself in
    the foot??
    
    Will you continue on this course as you did your ridiculous
    "penultimate" discussion??
    
    You are starting to thrash in the water as you did with Mark... I ain't
    gonna place your silly-assed game... 
    

    Andy, obviously you haven't been reading this topic today, so I'll
    forgive you for your ignorance.  Just this once.  :/
    
    This was the statement:
    
        663.115> And if the private sector sources fail to provide 
    	663.115> sufficiently, then folks die. Life's tough all over.
    			       **************  *********************	   
    	663.115> It's been happening since the first DNA molecule 
    	663.115> replicated itself, to borrow a phrase from a discussion 
    	663.115> yesterday.
             
    This was part of the discussion ITSELF today.

re: .150


>    re: .145
>
>    > Which ones??  Here is a chance to plug your charity.  Which charity
>    >do donate to
>
>    Want to see my check-book register???
>
>    BTW...wer're not talking about individual contributions by private
>    citizens to these charities...
>
>     We're talking about taking your (my) tax dollar, at a substantial savings
>    over what's being pissed away today, and allocating that tax dollar to
>    specific "lean and (snarl) mean"... no-nonsense charities.. to do the
>    work that the bloated, give-me-more-dollars-cause-I-never-have-enough
>    to-begin-with (like that Di??) government agencies piss away..


	Now that is a new twist.  How is this going to work.  Charity A with a
person earning x.xx million a year is going to request money from the federal
government or state government.  That is going to be more efficient than what
we have now?  What are the checks on this organization?  Sounds radical, risky
and prone to political abuse to me.

	To rephrase my original question.  Do you have any documentation or
research that would help any of us skeptics to believe that private charities
are more efficient at getting help where it is needed?  Or is this just
wishfull arguing?

    
    
    re: .156
    
    It's been in the New York Times and Boston Globe recently. No, I don't
    have the dates but it's easy to look up in the library...
    
     The proposed system, as I remember reading, had many checks and
    balances built into it to prevent abuses such as you state/suggest..
    

.153>    You are a dolt, kiddo.
    
.149>    Stop playing with yourself and pay attention, Andy.
    
.147>    Stick it where the sun don't shine - twice.
    
    	Wow, Suzanne.  Are you always this crabby?  Or are you just 
    	showing off for me on my last day here...
    

    Joe, don't tease.
    
    Is this really your last day here?
    

    
    re: .155
    
    > -< Poor baby. >-
    
    >Andy, obviously you haven't been reading this topic today, so I'll
    > forgive you for your ignorance.  Just this once.  :/
    
    Obviously, you don't have a clue, and refuse to look up the word
    (perhaps it's near "penultimate"???)
    
    Let's take this slowly.... Jack Delbalso's 663.115 is NOT the
    anecdote... 
    
     Your .147 diatribe **IS*....!!!! (along with .134, .137, .139)
    
    
    Doc? I know you're in vacation-land somewhere... and when it happened
    to you, I wondered how you got yourself roped into it... Well, now I
    can see.... you try and try to pull them up out of the muddy waters,
    but they insist on thrashing more and more.. and before you know it,
    you can't see the clear water for the muck on top...
    

    Andy, I have one word for you:  Prozac.
    
    Think about it.

    
    <------
    
    Good note!!!!!
    
    
    Listen.... I'm gonna be here for awhile...
    
    Why don't you concentrate on Joe Oppelt while you still have a
    chance...
    
    Maybe you can feed him a few good anecdotes before the end of the
    day...

  clearly he's confuse, Suzanne.  go easy on 'im.  ;>

    By the way, for the humor-impaired, my line about the poor being
    'laid off' (from their jobs as 'the poor') from private company
    charities was meant in jest.
    
    <Whoooooooooosh.>   :)

    
    
    Gee-Di-???
    
    Why-would-you-go-and-say-something-like-that-about-me???
    
    
    BTW...-you-still-have-some-time-with-Joe-too!!

    
    re: .164
    
    >By the way, for the humor-impaired, my line about the poor being
    >'laid off' (from their jobs as 'the poor') from private company
    >charities was meant in jest.
    
    
    You mean, next-to-last-jest??
    

    RE: .163  Di
    
    > clearly he's confuse, Suzanne.  go easy on 'im.  ;>
    
    I'll try.  :)

>    Why-would-you-go-and-say-something-like-that-about-me???

    er, because it's true.  you get all caught up in your
    undershorts if the string of replies goes on too long, and it
    just happened again.

    hth

    
    >hth
    
    Yeah...of course it does Di...
    
    
    Sure... that's the ticket...!!
    
     
     BTW.. got any spare Prozac??? Or, maybe a good bottle of wine??
    

FWIW, the gummint _already_ contracts out services to various charitable
organizations like the Salvation Army.

Professional charity organizers run fraudulent organizations that function 
by forcing or coercing the producers to sacrifice increasingly larger portions 
of time, property, and earnings to themselves and other nonproducers.  As a 
result of making "careers" from other people's sacrifices, theses valueless 
beings never learn to exert the honest thought and effort needed to be
competitive or to produce tradeable values required to become independent 
individuals with genuine prosperity and self-esteem. By their defaults, 
they lose the possibility of earning abiding prosperity and happiness, despite
their desperate efforts to feign importance, self-worth, well-being, and 
happiness.

>    Early today, someone in this topic indicated that he didn't give a
>    crap if people DIED as a result of the private charities not having
>    enough resources to help everyone.  ("Life's tough all over", he said.)

Well, if you choose to interpret my "Life's tough all over" as "I don't
give a crap if people die", that's certainly your prerogative, but I'd
classify it more along the lines of inevitabilities that we simply aren't
going to solve no matter what we do. People die the world over everyday due 
to starvation, if you hadn't noticed, and nothing you nor I nor any government 
or church or charitable organization can do is ever going to turn that around 
180 degrees. The fact that it could be Americans  dying instead of Biafrans
or Ethiopians or Bangladeshis is pretty immaterial in the grand sceme of
things.

Your fatalist rhetoric about missing safety nets causing charitable 
contributions to come to a halt notwithstanding, I have every reason to
believe that you're wrong (and you have no evidence to prove otherwise
so let's leave it at that.) For every dollar that the government is
returning to the poor, there is at least a dollar it's squandering in
the administration of the programs to collect and distribute that dollar -
probably more. That's two dollars you could keep to give to the poor.
Tell me which way the poor benefits more. Even if you only gave them one
and kept the other for yourself out of FUD, no one's the worse off, unless
you're a big government supporter.

I was relatively  cognizant of the world around me before LBJ started ruining
this country with his Great Society socialist agenda. I lived on the edge of
an inner city ghetto. Do you know what the major differences are that I see
between now and 34 years ago or so? There aren't fewer poor people. There aren't
fewer welfare cases. There aren't fewer projects. Mostly what there's fewer of 
is people being shamed by their families and friends because they don't try to
find work. Why should they? The government'll take care of them. There is no
reason on the face of this earth why anyone other than a quadraplegic vegetable
shouldn't be able to do _something_ that's valued and purchasable by someone
else. But as long as we continue to run a society in which folks get the message
that the government is there to provide for them, we will continue to have
the leeches who want nothing more than a good long pull on the teet.

Getting back to the point that charity is in the hands of charitable 
institutions, instead of being wastefully administered by a government who
takes your tax dollars forcibly is one of the best moves we can make in this
country. For those who need the charity, it will always be there. For those
who simply like the suck, some humility instead of an entitlement might
change their attitude for the better.

re:                      <<< Note 663.121 by NICOLA::STACY >>>

>1.) Get slick out of the White House.
>	That is a blatant power play, not an idea to make things better.

Removing a lying, obstructionist wastrel from office is always for the better.


>2.) Raise Military spending.
>	No discussion of on what or for what mission, just raise it.

I have no particular interest in seeing it raised. Holding the line, or even
reductions in some areas is more than satisfactory to me.


>3.) Cut taxes and deliver the same services.
>	Outright lie.

No. Cut taxes, reduce services. Drastically.

>4.) Flag desecration.
>	Protect the civil rights of flags but not citizens.  If we buy that     
>        garbage then we deserve to go down in flames as a nation.

I don't favor a flag protection ammendment. It'll never be ratified anyway.

>5.) Block grants to states without any accountability for where the money is    
>        spent.
>	That will only line the pockets of crooks.

I don't want block grants to the states. I want to reduce taxation to the 
extent that the money is left in the states to do with as they please to 
begin with. This whole concept of sending our money to Washington so that
they can administer it in our best interests is madness.

>6.) Term Limits.
>	That has kinda lost focus now that it would mostly impact republicans.
>	I can't imagine how term limits will help us at all.  There has never
>	been any problem solved without directly addressing it.  This is just
>	another conservative power game.

I favor term limits only for the political elite - the US senate. I don't like
the idea of the PRM continually sending Fatboy back to write and pass laws which
affect me as a non PRM resident. I don't think you'd like it any better if
Judd Gregg continually stepped on your toes, either. House seats in general
haven't sufficient individual weight to make term limits worthwhile relative 
to them.

>7.) Balanced budget amendment.
>	Yeah right, shift the responsibility for our inability to actually do  
>         our job.  Reagan would have been crying out loud if he couldn't have
>         deficit spent to grow the economy. ....  I borrowed money to buy a car
>	 but I have to pay the money back with interest.  If I don't pay it back
>	 then the bank takes my car.  If this gets passed, then we will be      
>         borrowing money from foreign countries when times are bad, and giving
>	 them the USA when we default.  Bad idea, BAD BAD BAD idea.

Your conclusions of how this will/should work are somewhat ill founded, which
is to be expected given your liberal leanings. It's like this - a Balanced
Budget Amendment does _not_ mean you borrow from foreign countries when times
are tough - it means you're required by law to spend within your means. For
example, given your analogy, you don't _get_ the car, you ride a bike, or walk. 


>8.) 2/3 vote for raising taxes.
>	Again, shift responsibility.  A power game.

What nonsense. You think it's reasonable to let less than a strong majority 
pick your pocket? More liberal bias, clearly. It would be comical if it
weren't for the fact that you want to license them to pick mine while they're
at it.

>9.) School prayer.
>	This should be interesting.  Churches have failed to teach a generation
>	right from wrong so now we want schools to do it.  At least that is the 
>        case if you believe all that the conservatives say is wrong.  I am not
>	convinced that things are all that bad.

I couldn't possibly care less about school prayer, or any other sort, for that
matter.

         I haven't checked up on this topic in a couple of days, and I see
    that things have gotten out of hand. You seem to have all the answers,
    DELBALSO, why don't we put you in charge of the country?
    

Neither my style nor my ambition, Hit'n'run.

As long as the govt wants to take my money to run things, I expect the 
government to provide value, to my spec.

         Quit whining, DELBASO. You probably don't even vote. I'm tired of
    people complaining without providing any useful solutions. The
    government isn't going to custom design itself around you. 
    

Put a little effort into the game, Pilgrim,

Where's the whining you don't like?

As you're a johnny-come-lately around here, you'd do well to read some of
what's been written since this incantation of the 'box came about. You'll
find plenty of solutions proposed by plenty of folks, yours truly included.

    Accusing Jack D of not voting is like accusing the sun of not shining.

    "So you thought you could sit there and gloat? Shouldn't have said that
    Jack didn't vote."

I *wish* I'd stop reading that "violent" heading as "violet".

    But which violets?
    
    Shrinking ones?
    
    Freckled ones?
    
    We need to stop our youth from turning blue, purple or (gasp) violet
    and putting down roots.  Next thing you know they'll be demanding
    blossom booster(tm) so their colors stand out more fully from their
    foliage.
    
    

Candied violets are *the worst* and somebody ought to put a stop to it *right 
now*!
    

    
    
    Hmmmm...
    
    Sounds like E_WALKER... "THE STALKER" needs to get laid...
    

>                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 663.173                    Our Violent Youth                     173 of 183
>MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"             80 lines  29-FEB-1996 19:11
>                       -< Another conservative's reply >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>re:                      <<< Note 663.121 by NICOLA::STACY >>>
>
>>1.) Get slick out of the White House.
>>	That is a blatant power play, not an idea to make things better.
>
>Removing a lying, obstructionist wastrel from office is always for the better.

	YOU KNOW AN HONEST POLITICIAN????  IS HE OR SHE ALIVE????
	This is not an argument or a solution.

>>3.) Cut taxes and deliver the same services.
>>	Outright lie.
>
>No. Cut taxes, reduce services. Drastically.


	Honesty should be given credit and DELBASO is being honest here.
This is close to where I started in this conference.  This is the reason
people gave for really not liking or trusting the republican party.  This is
the f**k civil and human rights that conservatives are given credit for and
then run like a bunny from.


>>6.) Term Limits.
>>	That has kinda lost focus now that it would mostly impact republicans.
>>	I can't imagine how term limits will help us at all.  There has never
>>	been any problem solved without directly addressing it.  This is just
>>	another conservative power game.
>
>I favor term limits only for the political elite - the US senate. I don't like
>the idea of the PRM continually sending Fatboy back to write and pass laws which

	You seem to support term limits because you are against someone making
a lot of money.  That is a SOCIALIST viewpoint.  Try again sometime.


>>7.) Balanced budget amendment.
>>	Yeah right, shift the responsibility for our inability to actually do
>>         our job.  Reagan would have been crying out loud if he couldn't have
>>         deficit spent to grow the economy. ....  I borrowed money to buy a car
>>	 but I have to pay the money back with interest.  If I don't pay it back
>>	 then the bank takes my car.  If this gets passed, then we will be
>>         borrowing money from foreign countries when times are bad, and giving
>>	 them the USA when we default.  Bad idea, BAD BAD BAD idea.
>
>Your conclusions of how this will/should work are somewhat ill founded, which
>is to be expected given your liberal leanings. It's like this - a Balanced
>Budget Amendment does _not_ mean you borrow from foreign countries when times
>are tough - it means you're required by law to spend within your means. For
>example, given your analogy, you don't _get_ the car, you ride a bike, or walk.


	Reality check please.  Mass has a balanced budget amendment not unlike
what the conservatives want the government to have.  Mr. Weld begged and
borrowed money from any foreign country that he could think of for Mass
becuase of this little bill.  If you want to be irresponsible, don't send the
bill to me.

>>
>                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
>==============================================================================
>Note 663.172                    Our Violent Youth                     172 of
>MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"             45 lines  29-FEB-1996 
>                                  -< scHeme >-
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Early today, someone in this topic indicated that he didn't give a
>    crap if people DIED as a result of the private charities not having
>    enough resources to help everyone.  ("Life's tough all over", he said.)

>Well, if you choose to interpret my "Life's tough all over" as "I don't
>give a crap if people die", that's certainly your prerogative, but I'd
>classify it more along the lines of inevitabilities that we simply aren't
>going to solve no matter what we do. People die the world over everyday due
>to starvation, if you hadn't noticed, and nothing you nor I nor any government
>or church or charitable organization can do is ever going to turn that around
>180 degrees. The fact that it could be Americans  dying instead of Biafrans
>or Ethiopians or Bangladeshis is pretty immaterial in the grand sceme of
>things.
>
>Your fatalist rhetoric about missing safety nets causing charitable
>contributions to come to a halt notwithstanding, I have every reason to
>believe that you're wrong (and you have no evidence to prove otherwise
>so let's leave it at that.)

WRONGO:  Wow, some people have some trouble and you give up.  As bad as the
	 economy was in 1979, the USA managed to have a year without
	 starvation. None, not 1, Zippo.  Then when the Reagan administration
	 went to "truely needy" and your kind of "we can't do it" defeatism,
	 the number of starving in all age groups exploded.


>For every dollar that the government is
>returning to the poor, there is at least a dollar it's squandering in
>the administration of the programs to collect and distribute that dollar -
>probably more. That's two dollars you could keep to give to the poor.
>Tell me which way the poor benefits more. Even if you only gave them one
>and kept the other for yourself out of FUD, no one's the worse off, unless
>you're a big government supporter.

	This is at direct odds with the reports from the Reagan, Bush and
Clinton administrations.  I believe they quote .70 or .80 of every dollar
getting to where it was intended and not lost in government waste.  However,
far be it from me to exhault the "virtues" of politicians (oxymoron?), so
do you have data or an article that says 50% or more of the money is wasted?



>I was relatively  cognizant of the world around me before LBJ started ruining
>this country with his Great Society socialist agenda. I lived on the edge of
>an inner city ghetto. Do you know what the major differences are that I see
>between now and 34 years ago or so? There aren't fewer poor people. There aren't
>fewer welfare cases. There aren't fewer projects. Mostly what there's fewer of

	There is that coward conservative label gun again.  It seems to get
used every time that conservatives just want to give up.  As far as the
content, I agree.  The housing projects did not work.  They should all be shut
down.  We should spend the money buying distributed poor housing not
collecting the poor and putting them in a slum.  But then the NIMBY crowd
screams.

>	This is not an argument or a solution.

BS. Obstructionist liars should consistently and perpetually be removed 
from office. It's a far better solution than the liberal approach of a wink
and a nod.

> This is the reason people gave for really not liking or trusting the 
> republican party.

Fine. Let them dislike and mistrust. The fact of the matter is the socialist
liberals are robbing them blind without producing anything worthwhile. I
much prefer the idea of letting folks keep what's theirs to begin with.

>	You seem to support term limits because you are against someone making
>a lot of money.  That is a SOCIALIST viewpoint.  Try again sometime.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how much money they make at it. It has 
to do with the power they weild at the expense of those who aren't their 
constituents.

>	Reality check please.  Mass has a balanced budget amendment not unlike
>what the conservatives want the government to have.

BS. Show me the text of the BBA that indicates that it provides for foreign
borrowing. Hint: you cannot.

Where on earth do you come up with these nonsensical interpretations, Jim?

>                      <<< Note 663.185 by NICOLA::STACY >>>

>	This is at direct odds with the reports from the Reagan, Bush and
>Clinton administrations.  I believe they quote .70 or .80 of every dollar
>getting to where it was intended and not lost in government waste.

If you look more closely at those analyses you'll find such things as salaries
to social workers and funding to local and state welfare agencies being included
in that 70 or 80 cents per buck that "got to where it was intended". I don't
buy that. That's still wasteful administrative expenses that could be done
away with by eliminating government programs. You don't get it. You let people
keep their tax dollars instead of taking them from them. The people then can 
locally give them either directly to the poor, or to a non-profit volunteer
organization to administer at little or no cost. The purpose of providing
funding for the needy is not to provide jobs for the admistration of that
activity. If you keep the government in that business, that is what you will
get and that spells waste no matter how you cut it.

> 		We should spend the money buying distributed poor housing 

No. "We", you and me and every other producer, should spend our charitable
dollars as we see fit, privately, without government intervention, assistance,
guidance, management, or meddling. If you choose to spend yours buying
distributed poor housing, so be it. If I choose to spend mine funding a
soup kitchen, so be it. 

>Note 663.186                    Our Violent Youth                     186 of 
>MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"             27 lines   1-MAR-1996 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>	This is not an argument or a solution.
>
>BS. Obstructionist liars should consistently and perpetually be removed
>from office. It's a far better solution than the liberal approach of a wink
>and a nod.

	Label making cowardly avoidance!  You have defined Clinton as
"Obstructionist" others define that as defending or protecting.  Given a
choice between a liar and an honest individual, I hope the honest one would
win.  However, given a choice between a liar and a liar, then it is not
an issue.


>> This is the reason people gave for really not liking or trusting the
>> republican party.
>
>Fine. Let them dislike and mistrust. The fact of the matter is the socialist
>liberals are robbing them blind without producing anything worthwhile. I
>much prefer the idea of letting folks keep what's theirs to begin with.

	You really need to stop using that label gun so often.  Is it an
automatic machine??  Here let me turn mine on for a minute and see if it
describes anything you stand for?

	White supremacist conservative coward republicans want to impose their
ideology to end freedom in the USA.  The goal is to have a worldwide economic
slave class by the year 2000.  If this occurs, then people will work
themselves to death for corporate profits and will not have any civil rights
at all.


>>	Reality check please.  Mass has a balanced budget amendment not unlike
>>what the conservatives want the government to have.
>
>BS. Show me the text of the BBA that indicates that it provides for foreign
>borrowing. Hint: you cannot.


	HINT: I don't know what a BBA is but I can show you where Weld sold
		bonds worldwide to get the money we don't have.

>	HINT: I don't know what a BBA is but I can show you where Weld sold
>		bonds worldwide to get the money we don't have.

BBA= Balanced Budget Amendment, i.e. what we were talking about! For
crissakes if you're not going to pay attention, what's the point? I don't
give a rat's posterior about what Weld did in the PRM. It has absolutely
nothing to do with a federal BBA [see above].

    Mr. Stacy:
    
    Why do you keep bringing up civil rights?  Exactly who is being
    victimized here?

    <--- YOu mean besides the taxpayers?

re: .190

I believe that we have been down this path before.  It started with
conservatives expressing a bleeding heart nature, the expressing thier views,
and refusing to stand behind them.  Again, the issue that has hit my family
hard has been discrimination.  However, I believe there is a fundamental
difference in what you and I see as civil rights and as responsibility.
So what is your opinion as to what our civil rights and resposibilites are?




RE: .189
	Get a life. Don't blow a gasket because somebody doesn't know an
acronym.  I asked, you let me know what it was.  Thanks.

 Z   So what is your opinion as to what our civil rights and resposibilites
 Z   are?
    
    Steve Forbes coined it very well...
    
    Equal rights for all.  Special rights for none.

You gotta watch this equal stuff.

I mean if'n we're all getting screwed, we're all equal.

TTom

re: .193

	So the conservative line is Equal Rights for all and special rights for
none.  No responsibility for anybody?  Gun laws for all?  Nobody can say
anything?  I KNOW you can do better than Steve Forbes.

    Okay..how about this.
    
    When you discrimate FOR somebody, you discriminate AGAINST somebody
    else.
    
    

    
      Having a "line" on Civil Rights isn't a very good idea.  This
     is a very complicated subject, and saying simplemonded things
     about it doesn't accomplish much.
    
      On even seemingly straightforward questions, both the Congress
     and the SCOTUS have written many reams of laws and opinions,
     some contradicting each other.
    
      I doubt whether liberal or conservative movements in America take
     their views on particular Civil Rights matters from some "line".
    
      bb

    Simply put, I eschew state sponsored bigotry and state funded
    discrimination.

    
    
    Never mind...

    
    I can't believe I'm this cheap.
    

    gosh you're that cheap and still available past 1AM, my oh my, such a
    faux pas on my part!   :-)

    
    <-- 8^p
    
    

    
    re: .200
    
    >I can't believe I'm this cheap.
    
    
    I can't believe you have sunk this low, my dear...
    

    
    I know, isn't it terrible!
    
    

    
    well deb, perhaps John Harney will forgive you, but I can't believe
    you have sunk to the Glen Silva school of snarf noting.. In fact, I'm
    grievously troubled by this.

	Stoop to my level? Oh come on, Mark! (notice comma was used)

   ______________________________________________________________________
   
     Rate of violent crime and murder by youths show first drop in decade
  __________________________________________________________________________
                                       
      Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
      Copyright � 1996 The Associated Press
      
   WASHINGTON (Aug 8, 1996 3:17 p.m. EDT) -- The nationwide arrest rates
   of youths for murder and for overall violent crimes declined last year
   for the first time in more than a decade, Attorney General Janet Reno
   announced today.
   
   At her weekly news conference, Reno released preliminary FBI figures
   which showed that the murder arrest rate for youths aged 10 to 17
   declined last year for the second year in a row and were 22.8 percent
   below the 1993 figure. Beginning in 1985, that rate had increased
   every year except 1992 and 1994.
   
   The figures also showed that 511.9 juveniles per 100,000 were arrested
   for a violent crime last year, a 2.9 percent decline from the 1994
   figure of 527.4. This was the first decline since 1987 in the combined
   rate for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.
   
   The declines were unexpected because as adult violent crime rates have
   declined slightly in recent years, experts and law enforcement
   officials have focused on the steeply rising youth crime rates as
   among the nation's most troubling crime problems. They have noted that
   the population of teen-agers in their most crime-prone years began to
   grow in 1992 and is expected to expand by 17 percent in the next
   decade.
   
   "I share this data to encourage communities to renew their efforts,"
   Reno said. "We cannot relax. These rates are still far too high."
   
   Noting the impending rise in the teen-age population, Reno added, "I'm
   not claiming victory, at all."
   
   Asked to explain the unexpected drop, Reno pointed to three different
   strategies under way in federal-state-local partnerships around the
   country:
   
   --Focusing law enforcement on truly dangerous, violent youths and
   making sure the punishment fits the crime. She noted there has been an
   increase in trying such youths as adults, but she emphasized such
   efforts "have got to make sure that we focus on the truly violent
   offender."
   
   --Community intervention to help solve the underlying problems of
   first-time offenders. Too often, she said, a 12-year-old who gets in
   trouble for the first time "is just told to ... don't do it again. But
   he may have problems that we can address then that can make a
   difference and prevent the crime in the future."
   
   --And prevention programs aimed at youths with free time and little
   supervision.
   
   "I don't think there's one key. I think it's got to be a balanced
   approach," Reno said. "We've got to go after the targeted offenders
   who are part of the gangs, who rob and murder, but then we've got to
   focus on the first offender, as well."
   
   "But then, as importantly, we've got to look at the programs that are
   working across the nation to prevent crime -- mentoring programs,
   dispute resolution programs that teach children how to resolve
   conflicts without knives and guns and fists, truancy prevention
   programs that get them back into the mainstream of school and keep
   them out of trouble. These are programs that are working now in some
   communities."
   
   "If we can keep our children from a life of crime through appropriate
   mentoring programs, through afternoon and evening programs that give
   constructive activity for our children, let's do it," Reno added.
   "It's a lot cheaper than a detention facility. But more importantly,
   it's saving a kid who can become part of a work force, who can become
   part of the strength of this nation."
   
   The murder arrest rate for 1995 was 11.2 youths per 100,000, down 15.2
   percent from 1994's figure of 13.2. The 1993 murder arrest rate was
   14.5 youths per 100,000.
   
   The last year in which the murder and overall violent crime arrest
   rates for juveniles dropped simultaneously was 1983, when the violent
   crime arrest rate dropped 5.7 percent and the murder arrest rate
   dropped 18.2 percent.

    
    	It doesn't say violence has decreased, it says that arrest
    	rates have decreased.
    
    	It just means that more kids are getting away with it.
    

re: arrest rates.

Yep, that's really what it's reporting.

>It just means that more kids are getting away with it

Not the onliest conclusion that can be drawn. It could mean, violence is
decreasing.

   .207  so the arrest rates correlate directly to the crime rates?
	 is that generally accepted to be true?

    
    	Sorry, Tom, I didn't mean to sound so negative ... but when I
    	read something like that it's obvious that someone is looking
    	for brownie points [and probably funding], regardless of the
    	accuracy [or generalizing] of the statements.
    

You were perfectly correct, Slab.

I just sorta repeated the headline which was much less correct as
a_assessment that what you posted.

The funding of interest with this type of statistics is getting the money
to produce the numbers and let the others try to do something with or
about 'em.

    
    	Sorry if I sounded like I was getting on your case ... it was
    	pretty obvious that you were just posting it the way you got
    	it.
    

    Re. ...looking for funding                                            
    
    On NPR I heard Clinton crowing about that report, with the inevitable
    addendum taking credit and calling for more of what he did to make it
    happen, something like, "...What we are doing is working, and we need
    to do more of it"
    
    Two things occurred to me:
    
            o A report issued a few months ago about a recent downward
              tendency in violent crime that was attributed to the passing
              of a population boom out of the prime crime age bracket
    
                    Do you suppose this could be nothing more than a
                    statistical phenomenon, i.e. there are fewer kids
                    in the target age group, so naturally there is
                    less crime from that group?
    
            o A $33,000,000,000 crime bill that the government got out of us
              by keeping us scared half to death about violent crime, even
              though the government's own statistics, never mentioned by 
              either party, indicated that violent crime has been on the
              decline for the past 10 years.
    
                    Do you suppose they liked that $33 billion, and would
                    like some more?