From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 1992 20:24:58 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <16858B1F1.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> >I am sick to death of the Republicans using the non-issue of "family values"
> >I am sick to death of the lies distortions and half-truths being spewed from
> >I am sick to death of Republicans using crystal ball arguements (Bill Clintons
> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> Mr. LaFave.  You are a doctor.  Cure yourself of these sicknesses.

I am a PhD, not an MD. Cute opening though...

> 
> One hint would be to apply the same attacking spiteful analysis
> toward the Democrats.  They too make up lies (Bush's deficit is really
> a congressional deficit.  Read Thomas Sowell's analysis.)

I never said they didn't. However, they also have given detailed accounts of
their programs for the voters to scrutinize making their dirt a bit
more palatable. Just look at the two alt.politics.* newsgroups. Where are
the postings of detailed descriptions of programs from Bush? Where is a
posting of the RNC platform? If he wants my vote so bad he can give me some
policy along with the dirt.

> The
> Rep.'s talk about family values because they are important to many
> people (they must be since both parties are fighting for that turf).

"Family Values" is an ill-defined smoke screen until someone can put forth
a good definition and propose well-concieved "family value" legislation. So
far, most of Bush's programs have been very anti-middle class family. His
record does not back up his "family value rhetoric".

> Topics as diverse as school reform, abortion, condom distribution,
> welfare reform, community standards of decency, are all important.

I agree for the most part. Again, where are his detailed descriptions of
his programs?

> Yet, to you, they are non-issues.

No, just buzz words until he gives me more than the simplistic, sketchy
descriptions. He produced nothing in 3 1/2 years to
make me think he has any comprehensive domestic agenda. I care deeply about the
issues you describe above. I have a two year old daughter and one on the way.
I just believe that the republican idea of family values is warped and that
the democrats have a much better understanding of the issues you listed.
Just because they preach family values does not mean they have a clue
what they are. They could change my mind, but they will have to show me that
they can back up their words with actions and that their idea of family values
is not the intolerant hate-mongering they have dealt me so far.

> 
> And crystal ball arguments!  Geez are you on weak ground here.  Gore has a
> pie-in-the-sky fanaticism about the environment and his self righteousness
> about his claims which have little resemblance to scientific thinking on
> the topic.

Al Gore has done years of research on the subject and has some good ideas
on the subject of the environment. I personally agree with him that
radical steps must be taken before the air is unbreathable and the water
is undrinkable. It is because I have "family values" that I want these
things for the health of my children and grandchildren. These melodramatic
arguements that forcing the auto industry into building fuel efficient,
low emmission autos will destroy jobs are without grounds. How is this
any different from any other technological innovation?

> Clinton's economic proposals assume that the economy will rebound
> and just start churning out more money.

When, pray tell, did he ever say this in his proposals?

> He says he will raise taxes by $150
> billion. I could go on, but your mind is set in concrete.

Oh, because I don't agree with your unsubstantiated claims? The problem
with the Republicans is they can't tell the difference between an investment
and an expenditure. They were more than willing to be dragged into a
futile arms race with the soviets that turned out to be completely
unnecessary. This has left us with billions of dollars of worthless weapons
which add nothing to the GDP, and a huge military infrastructure to wean.
The Soviet Union was falling under its own weight despite the
ludicrous claims of the Republicans. All we had to do was
wait them out. Instead, we trashed our economy right along with them.

Job training programs, subsidized day care, health care, education...
are programs that will cost money but will pay big dividends later.
If we can save 10% of the people from falling into the dependency mire, these
programs will be worth the cost. It cost an average of $45,000 dollars per anum
to keep a felon in a federal penitentiary. During this time he pays no taxes
and adds nothing to the GNP. If we turn this same felon into a working
citizen, not only do we save $45,000, but we have one more tax payer in the
tax base and an additional consumer in the market. That is what I call an
investment. The same arguement works for welfare recipients.

> If you want to
> have a reasonable debate, choose an issue.  I hope I can keep up with
> a Dr. Dr. like yourselfself.

Me too too.
> 
> 

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton