From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:51:44 GMT

In article <Bv8C7B.CAo@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep24.134747.13873@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
> >Yes, let's look at Mr. Quayle's criticism. Here we have a spoiled rich kid
> 
> What makes you lefties think that being rich is such a crime?  I think that
> Quayle is an idiot too, but being from a wealthy family is nothing to
> criticize him for.  Unfortunately, this seems to be your number one strike
> against him.

I never said it was a crime. However, it isn't exactly a basis for making
the judgements that Mr. Quayle is making. Until I see him getting in the
middle of the life of the AVERAGE american family and seeing how it really
is, I will keep this opinion.

> 
> >from Indiana with barely enough intellect to walk and chew bubble gum at the
> >same time... 
> 
> True enough, but this is basically an ad hominem argument, just like the above.
> Try again.

It is not ad hominem since intellect is a criteria for making intelligent
decisions and statements. He has made so many stupid statements in the
last four years (i.e. "the water on Mars" statement), that I feel more than
justified in my statements.

> 
> >A man who hasn't a clue what real American families are going
> >through right now, 
> 
> How do you know this?  Does it follow from the fact that his family was rich?

No, it has to do with the fact that, because he is rich, he should make an
effort to get to "know" a variety of working-class and poor families so he can
obtain a basis for his statements. His own experience is just not typical of
the normal family. I will give Kemp credit, as housing secretary he made an
effort to do so and he admits it opened his eyes to the nature and extent of
the housing problem.

> Do you not think that he can read economic reports?

This is not sufficient because it doesn't address the "human" factor.
Furthermore, economics is an admittedly inexact science. Direct experience
is much more enlightening. I'm an advocate of reading about the issues, but
getting some direct experience can put the written material into better
perspective.

> Do you not think he's 
> smart enough to watch TV?

Still insufficient. It is easy to dismiss reports as "biased" (as he and
other conservatives have done).

> Tell me, how do YOU know what "American families
> are going through right now"?

>From direct experience.

My family was lower middle class. I saw the sacrifices my own parents made and
how they suffered to make ends meet.

I do volunteer work at a homeless shelter and for family outreach.
There is no substitute for talking to REAL families in crisis to get
a real feel for the extent of the problems facing families.

> Among other things, they are suffering from
> high taxes and business regulation.

And inadequate health care, and insufficient housing, and poor educations,
and crime, and drugs, ..... Many wonder how they are going to afford to
send their kids to college, or even put food on the table.

> Are you interested in doing anything
> about that?  Of course not!

I already am doing something about it. I give of my time. How about you?
Don't embarass yourself by making assumptions about my dedication to these
issues.

> 
> >telling us his conception of a family. 
> 
> Look, all he said was that it's better to have two parents at home than not.
> Do you disagree with that?

No. But alot of times that is not a possibility. Somtimes, it is better if a
particular parent was NOT involved in the family (abusers for instance).
Furthermore, where are the programs to help families from the Bush administration?
In four years, all we have heard is alot of talk, no action.

> If you think that his little comment is an
> unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of American families, how do
> you feel about the taxes the government imposes on those families?

If the taxes were used to provide comprehensive health care, improved
education, workfare and job training, family intervention, subsidized
day care,...., it would be worth it.

First of all, It costs an average of 45K a year to
keep a prisoner in a federal penitentiary. During this time he provides
nothing to the GDP, pays no taxes, and will, in many cases, be back in
prison later. Recent reports on our present welfare system have disclosed
massive fraud and abuse. The problem is not the entitlements, but how they
are implemented. Many of them are regressive, providing no long-term
benefits. I contend that a shift to the progressive programs mentioned above
would be a good use of our tax dollar. Yes, they would probably cost more
in the short-run. However, I believe that they could more than pay for
themselves in the long-run because they endeavor to solve the problems, not
to treat the symptoms. Massive amounts of money could be saved and the tax base
increased by saving just 10% of the chronically poor.

Then there are the secondary effects. A better trained workforce, less crime,
infrastructure repair through the workfare,....

> Is not
> reaching into someone's wallet a bit more intrusive than making a comment in
> a speech?

This conservative logic is termnally flawed.
The fact is that these problems will not go away just because you refuse
to acknowledge them. They will get worse until you CAN'T ignore them.
Furthermore, it will then cost you more to solve them. Would you have us be
penny-wise and pound foolish?

> 
> >I've got news for
> >our vice president....alot of families are working harder, spending less time
> >together, and are losing their ability to survive due to the policies of his
> >party. 
> 
> Indeed, his party should be doing more to stop the tax-and-spend policies of
> the Democrats and turn the rest of those worker's paychecks back over to them.

I hate to tell you this but when I've talked to families about their financial
problems, taxes are rarely the first thing they mention. Health care costs are
mentioned, food costs are mentioned, inadequate low-cost housing is mentioned,
unemployment is mentioned. Many are bewildered at the rate that college tuition
is increasing... . If increased taxes could solve some of these problems, I think
they would opt for the taxes. There are more things eating their paychecks than
just taxes. Many don't even have a paycheck.

By the way, I see little difference between the "tax and spend" democrats
and the "borrow and spend" republicans except wha t the money is being
wasted on (regressive entitlements vs. defense).

> I gather that you think that higher taxes and more business regulation are
> the way to allow families to work less hard, make more money, and spend more
> time together.  That kind of logic escapes me.

It depends on the regulations and what the taxes are used for. It doesn't take
much imagination to construct regulations which would help and ones which would
hurt in these areas. The logic that all possible taxes and regulations would keep
families from working less hard, making more money, and spending more time
together eludes me completely.
> 
> >It's real easy to sit imperiously and pontificate in his position.
> 
> Apparently he's not the only one! ;-)

My statements are based on experience at least.

> 
> >He has never had a parent walk away from the family, he has never had to tell
> >his kids that there won't be any food on the table, he has never had to go to
> >a homeless shelter, he has never had to give his kids up to foster care because
> >he couldn't support them, he has never had to tell his kids that he couldn't
> >afford to send them to college, he has never stood in an unemployment line,
> >he has never had to live in a car, he has never watched any of his
> >kids gunned down in the street, .... These are things I have seen in my
> >volunteer work everyday.
> 
> Do you seriously think that he has never heard of these things?

He does not have a full comprehension of the nature or extent of
the problems going by the statements he has made.

> I know 
> Quayle is not too bright, but he's not a vegetable.  Do you think that
> one must live through all of these things in order to understand them?

If you haven't lived through them, nothing can replace attaining some first-hand
experience, not books, not reports, not TV.

> Do you seriously disagree with Quayle that all other things being equal,
> 2-parent families are better than single parent families?

Again, there are exceptions to everything (i.e. abuse).

> Would you also say
> that Dan would be out of place to say "AIDS is a terrible disease." since he
> has never personally had AIDS and because he is a rich Republican?

Any moron can say "Aids is a terrible disease". Understanding the true nature
of why it is terrible thing requires making an effort to gain first-hand experience.
Furthermore, talk is cheap. Action is the true test of commitment.

> 
> Gimme a break.

Okay, you're broke. :-)

> 
> >This is the reality for many American families. Most of these parents love
> >their kids just as much as he loves his. 
> 
> When did he say otherwise?  All he said was that Hollywood was being bad for
> portraying single parenthood as being equally good a choice as 2-parent
> families.  He said nothing about how much single parents love their kids.

Whoopy, it was an insult to all those successful one-parent families who had
no choice in the matter.

> 
> >They make sacrifices for their
> >children everyday that would boggle his puny mind. Until he gets off his
> >high-horse and talks to REAL families and helps REAL families to prosper,
> >all his talk is just so much hypocritical clap-trap.
> 
> It appears that he has not cornered the claptrap market yet.

How true.

> 
> --Brian
> 
> 
> 

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton