From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:48:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <1bjremINN18q@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.162909.6653@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>>Agreed! Let's drop the cost of health care by dropping the threat of
>>medical litigation... oops, sorry. For a moment, I forgot that Clinton
>>supports the trial laywers and their movement to ensure that we spend
>>our dollars in the hospital instead of the court.
>>
>
>And if you took the time to read his proposal for health care reform
>you would discover that right there in the thick of things is a clause
>for restricting the amount of money awarded in malpractice litigation...
>(try reading it...)

Restricting awards is only a small part of needed legislation. What
we really need is legislation to cut down on frivilous suits. Clinton
doesn't seem to support that. But, give him time. I'm sure he'll reverse
himself eventually.

>As far as the schools being ineffective, try asking some of the
>teachers and administrators why... a major cause for poor performance
>is that they have to teach at an "average" level...parents complain
>if johnny is put in a class of students of his own ability that happens
>to be less than the best. So, you have to group all students together
>and the slower students get completely lost and the faster students
>get totally bored. So instead of helping the slower students learn
>and challenging the faster students, you have two groups that don't
>learn and have a high probability for dropping out...

So, what's the answer? Magnet schools? Magic wands? What?

>Another problem is that many children just entering school are
>totally unprepared for it. They do not have even the basic skills
>needed to survive in school. how will the voucher system help them?

Get real! "Unprepared for school?!?"

What do you think school is? Lacking basic skills? I'm not the one whose
lost sight of what public schools are. Schools *provide* basic skills.
You can't expect a kid to read and write when he enters the school system.
In fact, you need to expect him *not* to be able to.

It is the school's job to provide basic skills -- both for adult life
and for surviving in school. What do you propose -- "school school?"

>
>>same approach that initially distinguished America in the commercial
>>world -- free competition! We can issue vouchers, so parents can *choose*
>
>How would you propose to have a "standard of education" ? The government
>could require it (oops can't do that - government regulations...)
>guess we'd have to be satisfied with whatever they decide to give us...

I'm not opposed to the government setting down common education standards
that all public schools (or private school that honor public vouchers)
must comply with. AND -- even so -- if a school doesn't perform, they
won't get the business. How do you ensure carpet salesmen do a good job?
Government regulation? No! If they do a poor job, they'll go out of
business. This type of common-sense approach is needed in our school
systems. That tenured teacher might just try a little harder, since his
tenure may be no good if the school closes.

>Do you really mean that? take a look at the Reagan/Bush years as
>far as how the consumers fared with this "free competition"...after the
>regulations were removed, companies started producing poorer quality
>products, cut corners as much as possible, and if that didn't work
>they closed the plant and moved to Mexico...wonder what corners the schools
>can cut to compete. wonder what poorer quality product they'll produce...

I think American product quality has risen in the eighties. But that's my
opinion, and one I won't go into now.

Any good business manager knows that to compete and succeed, a good path is
quality. There are a few areas where low quality, low price is acceptable
to consumers. There are some that simply are not. The buyer that buys
generic toilet paper then goes to buy quality meat.

You don't have to cut corners to compete. You can excel. If Clinton had ever
had a career in the public sector, he might know that.

>>or go out of business. Now, about those vouchers... oops. My goof. I
>>forgot, Clinton doesn't support the concept that the working class
>>should be able to afford to send their kids to private school.
>>
>
>The *only* people who would be able to CHOOSE which school to go
>to under Bush's voucher system are the ones that are currently able
>to do so. You would still have a LARGE percentage of students
>attending public schools, but under the Bush plan the funding
>to the public schools would be reduced...lets see that seems
>like "screw the lower class and middle class" and help the
>upper class...

What? Where did you get this baloney?

>Why not work to improve the public schools? why not spend a little
>of that "voucher" money to insure all students entering school
>are prepared to enter (fully fund Headstart)

Whoa. Throwing money at a problem does not solve it. Ours are among the

thrown money at a problem in hopes it will go away. It doesn't.

>>> I would like to see my
>>>tax dollars going to allow everyone to have a chance to have
>>>a reasonable life...
>>
>>Instead of spending your tax dollars to guarantee a good life, why not
>>structure the tax system to encourage investment and increase employment?
>>We'll have a much stronger country if you have to go to work to make a
>>living instead of going to the mailbox for your check.
>>
>
>Ummm...I assumed you could read, but try reading again...

I can read. My assertation is that it is *my* responsibility, through
my talents, abilities, and what I have to offer to employers, to
guarantee myself a good life -- *not* Uncle Sam's. If you release the
wealthy from their tax shackles and allow them to invest, more people
will be employed. That's just the way it is.

>>> I would like to see my
>>>tax dollars going to ALLOW everyone to have a CHANCE to have
>>>a REASONABLE life...
>
>strange, I didn't see anything in the above statement about a
>GUARANTEE of a GOOD LIFE. Structure the tax system to encourage
>investment...hmmmm sounds like a good idea, but strange, that
>is just what Reagan/Bush have been doing, and strange, it hasn't
>worked...guess it just needs another 12 years to produce some
>tangible results...What has occured it that the folks who were
>*supposed* to be investing have been giving themselves large
>pay raises while at the same time laying off thousands of workers...

No! It *did* work! The eighties *were* properous! When Bush buckled in
and signed the Democrats 1990 tax code into law, the wealthy no longer
had a financial incentive to invest! What happens when there's no
incentive? THIS! Look at the late 70s: same problem. It works. History
has proven it to work. The Democrats love to say they are forward looking.
They have to be; they've been such a dismal failure in the past.

>If you follow the Republican party dogma and ASSUME that the
>Democrates want everyone on welfare,

I don't.

> 1) Open your eyes
I do.
> 2) Open your mind
It never closes.
> 3) READ!!!
Always.

I would give the same advice to you, adding:

 4) Think!

>One MAJOR reason many folks remain on welfare is that they cannot
>afford to work. If they went to work, they would lose ANY government
>provided health care benefits. They would prefer NOT to GAMBLE
>with the health of themselves or their family. Ensure that they
>will have adequate health care and the majority of welfare recipients
>would be off of it as soon as they could find ANY job, which if
>you haven't noticed, are pretty hard to come by lately...

Wow! That's Bush's reform plan! Good call.
By the way, I really haven't noticed. I know things are a bit rough,
but things here have been on the upswing for the last three years or so.
Unemployment is up, though -- the Democrats' tax bill has risen it to the
highest levels since Reagan took office.

>>VOTE FOR CHANGE! VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 92!
>
>Ummm...didn't Bush say "Stay the course..." that doesn't sound 
>like much in the way of change...

Personally, I believe that we'd get more change by throwing about 265
comfortable Democrats out of the House than to throw one
Republican out of the White House.


						- greg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton