On Tue, 7 Mar 1995 07:16:02 EST, Dale Wharton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH > > According to the February 27 issue of Business >Week, the latest estimate of the net tab for the >Savings and Loan bailout comes to $150 billion. > By comparison, the U.S. government spent just $17 >billion last year for family support, $10 billion >for farm price supports, and $7 billion for child >nutrition. > It appears that in the U.S., as in Canada, there >is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the >poor. I would agree that the S&L bailout is not money well spent, but then most Americans (except those whose deposits were guaranteed by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation) would likely also agree. However, the S&L bailout is a once-only expenditure (though there is no guarantee that something like it won't happen again) whereas dependent child and family costs, and farm price supports, go on and on and on. I would also agree that more money should perhaps have been spent on child nutrition and family support. However, I'm not sure of what Business Week's numbers mean. According to the Economist (Feb. 4, 1995) 14 million Americans currently qualify under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, and $22.5 billion is currently being spent on them. Is Business Week talking about the same thing or something else? I would not agree that more money should be spent on farm price supports. In the US, as in Canada, such supports do little more than maintain the inefficiency of the agricultural sector. Many if not most of the farmers who benefit from them are in very different, and certainly much better, economic circumstances than AFDC recipients. Ed Weick
