From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Perot ?
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:58:49 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <Bsuu00.I6w@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
> In article <3483@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
> >das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
> >
> >>Funny, I'd always thought of the liberal types as the ones who tried to
> >>control people's lives via Welfare, food stamps, anti-business/industry,
> >>anti-'success' (wrt The Rich).
> >
> >  Hehe, not at all.
>
> Naw.  Gun Control.  Affirmative action.  Lowering of standards so
> jobs can be had by the incapable.  Restrictions on business. etc.
> ...nothing to do with excercising undo control over people's lives.
>

BINGO!

> >
> >>Right.  What poster to this group said 'conservatism=equality of chance,
> >>liberalism=equality of result'?
> >
> >  But that's the big lie.  Conseratism is *not* equality of chance, as they
> >want more than anything to remove the social programs that give the less
> >privledged among us the ability to make their lives better.
>
> They already HAVE the ability to make their lives better.  Same as I
> do.  The only unfair laws providing increased opportunity to any
> particular group that I know of are affirmative action programs.
>

A few weeks ago, on the ABC News with Peter Jennings, the American Agenda
segment featured an area of Chicago known as South Shore.  This neighborhood
was built by upper class whites in the early 1900s, but has since turned almost
100% black (during the 60's).  What once was a wonderful neighborhood with
wonderful architecture turned into a ghetto - boarded up houses in disrepair, etc.
The people (poor blacks) got tired of waiting for the govt. to give them the
world on a silver platter, so they got together and bought the local neighborhood
bank.  They used the bank to issue home loans and home improvement loans and
now the neighborhood is completely restored to its former glory.  Many of the
formerly poor blacks now own several renovated properties even.  What once was
a wonderful neighborhood with wonderful architecture was restored!

The moral:  The opportunity is there.  They HAVE the ability to make their
lives better.

Wouldn't enterprise zones even help these people MORE by getting the govt.
off their backs?

> >
> >>I do not think that being personally conservative means being 'status quo'
> >>as it means not leaping bull-headed into bad decisions.
> >
> >  Being fiscally conserative is not the issue here.
>
> Read carefully... the poster did not mention financials at all.
> Liberals have a bad tendancy to leap before they look...the
> quick-fix mentality.  Feel good stuff.  Lack of practicality.
>

And pumping more money into ill-working programs.

> >
> >  Do you beleive there should be class seperation?  Are the rich somehow
> >better?
>
> Yes.  They provide jobs, spur the economy, allow folks to improve
> their standard of living, work hard for what they have.  They don't
> sit around on the dole sucking the energies of the economy.
>

Somebody has to work at Burger King :)  We all can't just sit around and
watch the stock ticker...

> >Do you find yourself not wanting "them" moving into "your"
> >neighborhood?
>
> Nope.  Wouldn't mind at all for my property values to go up.
>

Sorry, depends on what "them" is defined to be.  If it is someone who is
going to destroy the neighborhood, I want them to improve themselves before
I want them in my area.  Otherwise, my property values go DOWN.  If they
want my personal help, I am glad to do so.

> >
> >  *That* is preserving the status quo.  Keeping "them" in their place while
> >giving "your" people all the real oppurtunities.
>
> "Them", "us", "your people"... sounds like YOU'RE the one who believes
> in class separations.  For me it's simple.  Those that produce should
> get the gold.  Those that do not...do not.  Sounds imminently fair.
>

Isn't it ironic that the Ted Kennedys and Jay Rockefellers seem to want to
keep themselves in a class all to themselves?  The 80's saw the US go from
4,000 millionaires to 64,000.  Ted and Jay don't want that.

> A big problem, though, it the tripe that you are dishing out.  It tends
> to make underpriveleged people believe that hard work will get them
> nowhere...that they are useless to society.  That's why the government
> should GIVE them everything...they'll never earn it on their own.
>

We need MORE South Shore stories.

> I love how about 6 months ago, the liberals of San Diego decided to
> "help" the homeless...they gave each of them their own garbage can
> to sleep in!  (true)  Now...THERE's a statement of personal worth!
>

Handing out condems to teenagers has worked miracles, too.  What we
have is less teenagers (baby bust generation) and more teen pregnancy.

> >
> >  It all comes down to money, which in the end, is the great equalizer.  The
> >liberals wan't to share the wealth (unfortuantely in an irresponsible manner
> >since it's not "their" money)
>
> This is true.
>

I believe money is not an equalizer - it is a catalyst.  You can always do
something, but money helps you do it faster.  We spend more $$$ per student
in public education than per student in private education.  Per student.

People who are rich simply know how to be rich.  They collect interest instead
of paying it.  Simple formula :)

> >while the conseratives want the wealth to stay
> >with the wealthy.
>
> This is not true.  Conservatives understand that this country got
> prosperous by acting as a community and being productive.  The
> Soviet Union died because of the opposite philosophy.
>

True.

> 70% of the federal budget goes to entitlements.  The crap you
> hear about the defence budget is just that...crap.  We desperately
> need to stop giving $$ for nothing...allow the populace to gainb
> some pride by earning a living.  Free up business to provide jobs.
> Every person employed is another contributor in not only work
> but taxes.
>

Facts here are wrong.  In the 1992 budget, 41% of govt. spending was
to individuals.  14% was debt interest.  20% was defense.  And, the
defense budget has shrunk from $350Bil in 1989 to $280Bil in 1992.
Govt. spending on welfare, education, and health care increased by 20%
from 1986 to 1989.  The few other areas of budget cuts of interest have
been infrastructure (minimal cuts), national parks...

> The answer is not higher taxes... but increasing the tax base.
> Productivity AND governmental income thus BOTH increase.
>

That's part of the answer.  The rest of it is to CUT spending in half
or more.  The amount of money we spend on interest on the debt is
staggering.  The TRUTH:  you can double everyone's taxes and apply
all that money to debt repayment and it would take 15-20 years
to pay it off.  I'll be an old man by then.  DOUBLE.  EVERYONE.

From 1980-1990, the US workforce increased by 7.3 Million men and
11.4 Million women.  That's 18.7 Million new jobs.  And people say
trickle-down economics didn't work?

(I love my 1992 Universal Almanac :)

> FDR introduced this country to social programs and it's been a faucet
> no politician has has the guts to turn off.  It was the beginning of the
> end.

People complain about 8 years of Reagan.  We've had 50+ years of FDR.  We
ned 50 years of Reagan to undo it all and make things right.


--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy