From: silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:15:59 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>>>(David Scharfe) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree, Brian.  Clinton has incredible audacity to speak of "healing"
>>>>>the nation while he plunders one group of people ("the rich") to 
>>>>>influence the voting of another ("the poor").
>>>>>
>>>>>This bald-faced promotion of class conflict, combined with shrill 
>>>>>rhetoric about "healing", is the epitome of hypocrisy.
>>
>>Is anyone else amazed and appalled by the self-absorbed weeping over the
>>poor (sic) abused rich-people?
>
>Is anyone else amazed and appalled by such double standards?


	NO. But I think they're damn stupid to adhere to such attitudes.
For over 12 years now the 'monied' classes in both the US and the UK
have rolled back the clock with regard to pro-active, socially 
responsible government, and both these societies are now markedly less
well off than comparatively 'socialistic' competitors such as Germany
and Japan. Failure doesn't impress me. 

>
>>[What] did you do to change the realities that gave rise to Rodney
 King's beating?
>
>Nothing, so far as I can tell.  What do you propose, throwing my money
>at such irrefutable successes as the Welfare program?
>

	Throwing your money at Head Start programs might however, be
an excellent idea. And almost any conglomeration of 'Tax-and-Spend
Liberal' programs would be cheaper to than the current 'system' we
have: ignore and neglect the urban poor until they get caught killing,
robbing and stealing, then leave them to the tender mercies of our 
revolving door 'justice system'.
	For ideological reasons our society _has not dealt with_ the
underclass for at least a decade. The only conservative who's espoused
good, vital programs and ideas in regards to them has been Jack Kemp,
and he's been frozen out of power in the Bush administration. It's
probably due to his excessive enthusiasm. Even when he's only standing
around breathing he outshines most of his colleagues.


>>What do you do other than look for ways to make arguments that "the rich"
>>are somehow being oppressed in a way that is comparable to disadvantaged
>>groups in society?
>
>Volunteer work.

	Great. Specify please.
>
>>You people are a bad joke!  I'll switch places in a minute with any of your
>>poor little rich folks, and I suspect you would have a hard time finding
>>any of them who would trade your worst senario for their lot in the Clinton
>>administration with anyone who experiences real oppression.  Get real!
>
>Oh would you?  I suppose that you'd therefore agree that money can
>buy happiness.
>

	It can buy the time and energy to permit pursuit of happiness,
I'll guarantee you that.

>You are frightening.  Any time you look around you and see someone 
>in trouble, you immediately look to a stranger to shake down in order
>to fund some social program.  If you think this is such a good idea,
>then explain to me how our situation is so grim (as you would no
>doubt claim) after trillions of dollars of government spending.
>
>Could it be that many of these programs just don't work?!?!?
>
	Yes. You seem to imply that the ineffectiveness of many of
our current social programs is in itself sufficient reason to scrap
all and any such programs. Yet this type of socialism characterizes 
the very successful economies/societies of Japan and the nations of 
western Europe. It does _not_ appear that government spending on 
social issues is necessarily money ill-spent. I see no reason to 
believe that the governments of these other developed nations are 
necessarily 'better' or more adept at management than our own. If
they can provide for their people, to the betterment of their 
societies, then we can do the same.

>Do you believe in forced "charity"?  Is this your notion of freedom?  
>Is this your notion of "equal opportunity"? 

	In a word, yes. I believe in forced charity. It works, and
it works better than any hodgepodge of private volunteerism can over
a sustained period of years. Freedom, real freedom, requires some
education and freedom from fear for the majority of people. Our 
government is the only social organization which can provide a 
baseline level of education and basic need fulfillment for the 
population as a whole. It has been _selective_ in providing these
things in the past. This _selectivity_ is damaging to our society,
much more damaging than the 'freedom-destroying' socialism you so
despise.

>There are legitimate things for our government to spend money
>on.  I just happen to think that if they spent the money responsibly,
>there would be no need to raise taxes on ANYBODY.
>
	They've already _spent_ our money, irresponsibly. The government
is in hock up to its elbows and that frankly, means that you're in hock
up to your elbows. This idea that we can eliminate governmental cost
overruns solely by eliminating government waste is an absolute pipe-
dream. It's as absurd as any 'ultra-Liberal' belief regarding the ability 
(and need for) the government to take care of everyones' _every_ need.
There is, however, significant value in having and accepting a
government's role in providing for certain fundamental needs of 
individuals, in order to provide for certain fundamental needs of the
society. And it can't be 'free'. You're not going to get something for
nothing, and you're not going to provide for the next generation without
paying off this one's debts. 
--
======================================================================
|| Holly Silva			I have nothing terribly clever to say||
|| Applied Earth Sciences	today.  You're in luck.		     ||
|| Stanford University						     ||
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa