From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Something Wicked This Way Comes
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 20:29:29 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <92207.095015ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>Chuan "infamous" Lee (chuan@milton.u.washington.edu) writes:
>
>#In article <92Jul24.092426edt.47891@neat.cs.toronto.edu> mgreen@cs.toronto.edu
>#(Marc Green) writes:
>#>The Reagan/Bush administrations have spent several trillion dollars on
>#>social programs. That's enough compassion and caring for the poor.
>#"..."
>
>"I usually don't respond to" individuals who call me "a jerk,", "stupid"
>and "ignorant," but I guess it takes one to tell, right Marcy?  In any
>regard, I don't care what little minds have to say about *me*. If you
>feel that there are valid argumentations/reasons to refute what I say,
>I'd invite you to stick to the *issues* pertinent to our discussion.
>
>So. The Reagan/Bush administrations "have spent several trillion dollars
>on social programs."  With *that* kind of money, I wonder why we haven't
>reached Utopia yet?  Despite Marc's "trillions," isn't it remarkable
>that mental patients are kicked out of institutions (because there isn't
>enough funding available), isn't it remarkable that drug rehabilitation/
>treatment centers are desperate to reach out to many more patients who
>are willing to kick the habit, but have to be turned down because of...
>you guessed it.  Isn't it remarkable that schools continue to be under-
>funded (especially in poorer school districts, where poverty seems to
>"recycle" itself)?  Isn't it remarkable than when I visited my local
>Texaco gas station, I found a flyer begging me to donate some money to
>little Stephen who stands in need for a liver transplant?  Who cares
>whether it was the parents' "fault" for not being insured?  Should we
>assume the law of the jungle and allow Stevie to die then?  What kind
>of society have we become? It frightens me when people like Marc claim
>that "enough" has been done for the poor...  I invite you to take a
>good look around you Marc, especially out of your cosy white-collar
>suburban neighborhood.

It frightens me when people look at the trillion dollars that has been spent 
on social programs, can wonder why we haven't reached Utopia yet, and conclude,
not that the current form of addressing these problems is misguided but that
we haven't spent enough.  When those of us footing the bills begin to ask why
we spend so much and get so little, we are accused of lacking compassion and
being locked up in a cosy, white-collar suburban neighborhood.  Well, this
kind of response is no longer good enough; it's time for some real answers.

>And what do you see, based on your world view?
>Parasites whose mindset are focussed on draining the system, or despa-
>rate individuals who can't think of nothing else but to survive one
>more day? Or individuals who have given up hope? Perhaps the only thing
>they needed to get up and do something, was a listening ear and someone
>who cared. Evidently we don't "care," because "enough" has been done
>for the poor...  What do WE say when we stand before our Maker? That we
>have shown "enough compassion and caring for the poor"?  I don't buy
>the "burdened working men and women" myth either, since I'm talking
>about *re-allocating* resources in self-help, and preventive programs.

While we're selling myths, how about the myth that everyone who qualifies as
poor in this country is a day and a dollar away from death by starvation.  Not
when obesity is a bigger problem for the poor than malnutrition.  Not when 30%
of the poor own their own homes, 90% own at least one television, most have at 
least one car, some have more than two, etc. There are almost certainly some 
desperately poor people in this country but not everyone that benefits from 
anti-poverty programs is desperate.  

>
>Besides, it is high time that the rich pay indeed their fair share to
>this society. Not the "soak the rich" rhetoric, but a return to a
>fairer tax system, since the rich have had their party under Reagan/
>Bush.  Even if you reject all of the above, the choice may eventually
>become this simple: either we "sacrifice" some of our "hard-earned"
>dollars on programs to support the-less-fortunates-amongst-us, or they
>may simply come into our homes and take it... Ever wondered why America
>ranks a lone #1 among all the Western nations in (street) violence and
>(violent) crime rates?  (Who thought Lebanon was far away from home?)
>--Perhaps the dreary scenario I outlined may already have commenced...

I'm not trying to be ungenerous but let's stop throwing words around and spell
out what we mean.  Who is "rich" and how much is their "fair" share.  I'm
beginning to suspect that the Democratic definition of "rich" is "employed"
and "fair" means "more than you are paying now". How do do you want to "support
the-less-fortunates-amongst-us".  Do you mean empowering them to support
themselves and become net contributors to society, or do you mean herding them
into voting blocs and encouraging them to become dependent on government
largesse?  Which do you suppose is going on now?  We are going to have to make
some hard choices about how best to address real poverty, and stop assuming
that everyone who benefits from anti-poverty spending is both poor and
deserving.  There are people who need help and there are ways that we can
help, but we need to exercise better judgement than we have been and stop
assuming that everyone with their hand out is needy and deserving.  The
federal government is not the United Way, and nobody is being served by social
program that cost too much and achieve too little.  
>
>DISCLAIMER (lest someone suspect): I'm NOT for cheap hand-outs. That's
>why I'm very unhappy with the current welfare system, where recipients
>are even penalized for picking up a job, thus encouraging dependancy
>rather than to create self-reliance. I'm talking about creating *equal
>opportunities* and working towards a consensus where a majority of
>people are willing to support legislation like universal health-care,
>say similar to the Canadian or German system.

I'm not for cheap hand-outs either, and I'm strongly loathe to throw more
money at a failed system in hopes that it will magically improve.  I am also
loath to trust the same group that gave us the so many failed programs to give
us a successful universal health-care system.  Until we abandon
command-and-control type programs for individual empowerment type programs I
am opposed to any more big spending government programs of any type for any
reason.



===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
It can't be won, the way the game is run
but if you choose to stay, you wind up playing anyway.

		"On the Boulevard" -- Jackson Browne

===============================================================================
"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
... the  government  runs  into a  probable loss.  We  do not wish to make the 
United  States Government liable  for the  mistakes and  errors of  individual
banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
                                      Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa