From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: I just can't figure it out....
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:48:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.143356.6467@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
> In article <sam.1dju@terapin.com> sam@terapin.com (Sam Lewit) writes:
> > 1) Have these 39% been in a cave?
> > 
> > 2) Have they been on vacation out of the country for the past 4 years?
> > 
> > 3) Are they all extremely wealthy? (At the onset of the 80's, Congress went
> > along with the Reagan-Bush "voodoo" supply-side economics, making the biggest
> > tax cut in history, and slashing social-service spending. The biggest
> > benefactors were the rich. The share of the top 1 per cent almost doubled, 
[...]

The gap between the rich and the poor grew in the 80's, BUT, the income of
the poor grew.  The Democrats have played a fine trick by stating the fact
that the rich got richer, and then *infer* from that fact that the poor 
got poorer.

The fact is that the poor got richer, too.  You may have heard that the
census bureau has reported that the number of Americans living below the
poverty level has grown, but, get this, the census bureau does not count
entitlements in that income.  So they would have you believe that some
20 million Americans are making less than the 13,100 for a family of four.
However, only 13 million Americans are on Food Stamps -- the cut off for 
which is $18,x00/year.  (So there's 7million + people who are starving
but don't bother to get food stamps??)  

The reason that the census bureau reports that more Americans are poor
is because more Americans are relying on the welfare system.  

The average income of the poor is also exclusive of welfare benefits:
the poor have gained tremendously -- so much so that many formerly
hard-working Americans have found that they are better off *not*working*
and that is why "the poor get poorer."

Meanwhile, those of us who got an education and work for a living are paying
for these bums to take life easy.  If you're in college now, the welfare 
system may sound "kinder and gentler," but after graduation you will see
a paycheck that reflects the cost of the welfare system: you will be working
1.5 to 2 days per week to support those who choose not to work.

> > 6) These 39% perhaps really believe the line blaming this whole mess on the
> > Democratic congress! If the Democratic congress are all to blame, how come we
> > never heard ole Ronnie complaining about them? Oh it seems *HE* was able to
> > handle them, huh? Then maybe we need a president who COULD handle our evil
> > congress. COME ON! Can't you people see through this fabrication?! This guy is
> > DESPERATE!
> 
> Memories are short.  Ronnie complained loud and often.  He was better at 
> getting the people to complain, too which is the main reason that Congress 
> grudgingly cooperated.

I have yet to see either party do anything to reduce my taxes or balance
the budget.  Neither party cares about me or the deficit.

> > Well what about the House rubber check scandal you say? FACT: The *top*
> > bad-check artist was former GOP Congressman Tommy Robinson (R-Ark) with 996 to
> > his credit. Other GOP standouts include Robert Davis (R-Mich) with 878 and Vin
> > Weber (R-Minn). FACT: The total number of rubber GOP checks was SIX THOUSAND,
> > FOUR HUNDRED AND FOURTY-SEVEN (6,447) checks! As for those who bounced *no*
> > checks, the Democrats edged out the Republicans 89 to 77!

The Democrats edge out the Republicans by a wider margin in terms of total
members in Congress -- so the above is meaningless dribble.

Also, if you look at the $$$$$ bounced instead of the number of checks,
the Democrats take the prize.

> The percentage of Democrats that bounced checks was still greater than the 
> percentage of Republicans.  Why to you think Foley and Co. tried to go to 
> great lengths to cover up the situation.?   Even arch-Republican Rush 
> Limbaugh thinks the GOP bouncers should be tossed too.   My thinking is 
> that Congress needs to make real changes in the system in which it 
> operates..a system that encourages corruption, waste, and bureaucracy.   
> The Democrats have it within their power to change the system and would 
> probably have Republican support as well.  They haven't done it in the 
> last 40 years.  Let's give someone else a chance, be it new Democrats or a 
> Republican controlled Congress.

The Demicans and Republicrats have had a lock on the system for far too
many years.  It is time to dump them *both*!

[...]
> > Think back 12 years ago. Do you remember how nice it was to take a walk around
> > the neighborhood on a warm summer night? To do that now would almost be suicide
> > in most major towns and cities. I live in an honest hard working neighborhood
> > yet we hear gunfire a few blocks away almost nightly. This NEVER happened 12
> > years ago. Ever! 

I live in Phoenix, Arizona -- the nation's tenth larget city (total population
of the "Valley of the Sun" is just shy of 2 million).  

I walk or cycle daily either late at night (9-midnight) or early in the
morning (4-6 am).  I've yet to hear gunfire, and I'm not afraid.  I also
carry a loaded gun with my from time to time: a gun which I am prepared to
use in defense of myself or my fellow citizens.  This is, IMHO, why my part
of town is safe: not because we can carry guns without licenses, but because
the average citizen is ready, willing, and able to defend the liberty of
his fellow citizens (of course, it's a lot easier to do something when
you stand a pretty good chance of surviving -- unlike some big east coast
cities where liberals have passed laws which ensure that only criminals
are carrying guns).

Was it 20/20 that did the recent story on car-jacking (where an armed 
criminals walks up to the car and orders the driver out)?  We don't have
much problem with that around here: better than half the cars on the road
have loaded guns within the driver's reach so such a stunt could well be 
fatal to the criminal -- do you think that might have something to do
with it?

[...] 
> > Think back 12 years ago. Do you remember our streets and bridges being in the
> > state of disrepair they are now?
> 
> Actually I think they have improved.  This was also an issue under the 
> Carter administration.   Besides, most roads belong to a city, county or 
> state, and they certainly have the power to improve them if required.   
> Some states and cities do a pretty good job of it.  Others don't.   Maybe 
> those states and cities that don't need to look hard at their officials.

Things are looking pretty good here in AZ.  Of course, we have made cuts 
to social programs (read: welfare) in recent past.

> > You simply can not "Just Say No to Drugs" out one side of
> > your mouth, and then lay off half your police department due to cutbacks in
> > federal aid and expect the problem to dissapear.

History has shown that you simply cannot tell a free people that they cannot
have commodity x when those people want that commodity.  Legalize drugs and 
you will (1)eliminate the huge profits, (2)eliminate the source of money that
gangs use to buy guns (including sub-machine guns which are already illegal
nation-wide), (3)generate new tax revenue, (4)reduce the cost of drugs to a
point where a junkie does not need to steal in order to get high, (5)eliminate
the prison over-crowding problem.  

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections