From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:02:33 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov13.033437.4237@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>>  Still, things
>>>  got even better after the War when former soldiers were GIVEN
>>>  (yes, GIVEN) things like the GI Bill which they used to put
>>>  themselves through school and purchase homes. 

>>I never said giving things away as always a bad policy. I've just been 
>>pointing out the existance of the gifts. (We do both agree that this
>>benifited the soldiers, right?)

>  AH-HA!  Yes we both agree that the GI Bill benefited the soldiers.
>  However, I content that it also benefited society as a whole...

I think we agree on this. I would say the soldiers benefited _more_,
but to some extent, society as a whole did as well.

>  And indeed, in a previous post, you wanted to stop giving away
>  things where only one segment of society is benefited.  

Which, if you think about it, doesn't apply to this case: The GI 
Bill did result in substantial benefits to society as a whole.

>>Sure, and two of those desires (to which the rich are _very_ subject
>>as well as the poor) are laziness and a desire for comfort. If
>>someone has a comfortable standard of living, he isn't (usually)
>>inclined to work...
>>...If you eliminate all
>>the bad things that go along with poverty, you also eliminate the
>>strongest motive to escape poverty.

>  Are you going to sit there and suggest that the trivial amount of
>  money paid to welfare mothers to feed their children (about $370
>  a month plus rent) somehow "eliminates all the bad things that
>  go along with poverty"?

Of course not. But I also recognize that the world isn't all black
and white: My statement is still accurate if you replace "eliminate"
with "reduce"; if you reduce the bad things that go along with poverty
you also reduce the strongest motive to escape poverty.

>  Of course, Reagan did a GREAT service to help the poor by eliminating
>  federally funded child care centers so that the willing-to-work poor
>  mother (and most families on welfare are headed by a single or divorced
>  woman) can place her young children into competent care centers while
>  she works or looks for work.

Why do you think I agree with everything Reagan did? I, personally, 
would call that a bad policy.

>>Perhaps living in proximity to the Berkeley, CA homeless for five years
>>has given me the wrong impression (I rather doubt that group is "typical"...)
>>But I think most of the homeless (the real extreme of poverty) will
>>work _only_ as much as they have to in order to survive.

>  I think you are fucked up in the head, Frank.  First of all, if you
>  doubt that the Berkeley homeless population is typical, how can you
>  then generalize without any further knowledge.

Because I don't have any reason to think their unusual characteristics
relate to this. The only factor that might be relevent is Berkeley's
unusually high level of social services for the homeless (the highest
in the Bay Area, and as I recall, one of the highest in the nation.)
That might result in a higher number of homeless who are, essentially,
looking for a free ride. However, that leds to more-or-less the same
conclusion: High levels of social programs (which do no disqualify
people making little or no effort to help themselves) encourage
people who just want to get by on charity.

>  I too think people would prefer to work only as much as they have to.
>  Based, however, on significant contact with many homeless people,
>  not the alcohol addicted homeless or the mentally insane homeless,

At least to my limited knowledge, this is a sizeable fraction of the
homeless (although certainly not all.)

>  but the genuine down on their luck homeless without jobs or shelter,
>  which make up the vast majority of homeless people in Los Angeles,
>  most would take a job, any job, if it would get them off the streets.
>  Unfortunately, they are caught in a web.

You are now talking about a different issue: Trying to give everyone
an equal oppertunity. The sort of programs that accoplish that are
quite different, and directed at a much more specific group, that
our current social programs. The one reasonably benefits society in
general and encourages people to help themselves, while the other
meets neither of those standards.

>  These are also disturbing facts that you seem willing to ignore 
>  because you don't like the idea that you (and all your reactionary
>  buddies of the past 12 years) might share SOME (even the remotest)
>  responsibility for this travesty.

Mostly becasue I don't. (By the way, I don't, as far as I know, have
any "reactionary buddies"; nor does a lack of guilt for the situation
mean I don't care about it, nor that I think nothing should be done
about it.) Do you have any reason (as in evidence) to say I am
responsible? (The biblical standard, that the sins of the father are
held against the sons to the fourth and fifth generations, doesn't 
count.)

>  But you do, and indeed, if you
>  have any faith whatsoever, I expect you will be judged by your
>  maker when you arrive in a not very charitable manner.

How, exactly, are my objections to _government_ social programs
which fail to distinguish between those who are trying as hard as
they can to help themselves and those who aren't, a lack of
charity? It says nothing about my opinions of _private_ charity
(or, for that matter, government charity if it could be rectricted to
those that deserve it.)

>  Bill Clinton is the man elected to make those changes, and I daresay 
>  that what you think will not count for much over the next 8 years 
>  or (hopefully) more.  The rich ARE going to pay, and I am going
>  to enjoy the feeling of knowing that you are losing sleep over it.
>  Get used to, its about to happen.

The majority attacking minorities has been going on for a long time.
I'm sure Clinton will continue that tradition, as well as the long-standing
tradition of ignoring the Constitution whenever it's inconvienent. 
(I'm not, by the way, losing any sleep over it, even though I'm
not happy about it.) Of course, the hypocracy of people who claim to
care about minorities, and individual rights; but then feel free to 
trample those of minorities they don't, personally, like, is amazimg.
It shows not only in the issue of unfair taxes on the rich, but also
in such things as "hate speach"/"fighting words" laws, and other suppression
of unpopular political views.

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder