Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:04:28 -0500 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PROVE IT
Distribution: na

 
>Now with the Democrats in control, they're going to unleash 
>all the years of pent-up frustration and hungering for social 
>programs and public mandates at a time when we need them the
>least. The new burdens that Clinton and Congress will place 
>on businesses, such as mandated health care and family leave, 
>are going to hurt US competitiveness and drive the economy 
>into the ground.  
 
.You can't prove this, only time will tell oh ye doom and gloom foresayer.
.Why do you think that everything will actually pass?

Because  people are desparate enough to ask for it, stupid enough to
think they need it and it's happening already!   What country do you
live in?
 
>What can be done to de-rail the Democrat's efforts to turn
>this country into a socialist's paradise?
 
.I'm especially sick of people claiming that Democrats are going to turn this
.country into a socialist's paradise.  Relative socialism might be achieved.
.By that i mean, for example, that not all of the new tax breaks would go to
.people rich enough to afford them.  But other than that, how in the
world do .you think it would be possible to achieve socialism in this
country?  Show me
.how it would be possible to do that, show me how the inertia would be
affected,
.show me people in this country who would actually vote for a socialist state.
.It ain't gonna happen.

Well...It starts with People starting to believe that they have all of
these RIGHTS-other than Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness-
that they were never guaranteed.  Rights like medical care, job
training, and cheap cable TV.  Then you get those same people to start
getting REALLY angry at rich people who have all of those things, they
start shouting words like "Greedy" and "Share" and they start DEMANDING
that they should have these things too.  Since these People don't have
the means to get these groovy things on their own, they must take them
from the people who HAVE the means, or $$.    Lastly, you get all of
these people together and find  a Presidential Candidate with Robin Hood
ideals.  Somebody they can ALL vote for, and they put him in the White
House.   This is when the wheels really start to spin.  The Rich get to
pay a sky high tax rate because "they have enough already", and business
start losing the right to hire and fire who and when the please, and
everything the government can get it's hands on it regulates, and people
get really lazy and bored with life because "why should I bother if I
don't have to?"   Be sure to watch the Government as it grows, and GROWS
until  by golly It's like a little Socialism. 

.And what's wrong w/ allowing all of our people to be healthy?  Let's face it,
.eventually anyone who can afford it pays for those who are disadvantaged
.(physically, economically, etc).  It's either in taxes to pay for their needs,
.in taxes to pay for their new jobs, in taxes to pay for the police to put them
.in jail and then taxes to keep them alive in jail. 

Because the American mentality is " Get all that you can get "  The way
we became such a wonderful country is by using our "survival of the
Fittest" instincts.  If you take that away you'll have a nation of wet
sponges.

As for criminals, maybe if we had less Government regulation, less
people would opt for a life of crime. Here is my logic:  If we let the
Private sector pick up in alot of areas the Government has a strong hold
in, there would be alot more jobs, health care would become more
competetive, quality would go up (yes, it's that survival instinct
sparking up again!) and prices would drop on medical supplies (and
energy as well).  Success would still take alot of work, but it would
not be the "losing battle" so many Americans perceive it to be.   

. The solution that people
.are willing to try, according to the latest election, is to try and educate
.them and give them a chance at health (higher worker productivity when they
.are healthy!), and give new businesses a better chance to start up in
the first
.place w/o having to show profit in the first 2 months (maybe some R&D even!),
.and let those new businesses hire the people who finally had a chance to be
.educated.  What's wrong w/ that?

What's wrong w/that is that is it cost lots of money, and we can't
afford it.  What's wrong w/that is you're going to take the cash out of
the mouth of some Chump who was stupid enough to actually bother to
learn something in High school, pay his way through college, and get
additional training on his own when his American dream didn't pan, and
put it in the mouth of another that you and your government decided was
"needy"  God forbid if the Chump complains or he'll be tagged as, dare I
say it, GREEDY!  Maybe the fool will think twice next time before
earning his keep. 
 
.The idea is to put as many people on non-government payroll as possible.  How,
.exactly, to do that is unknown. 

Yes!  this is true, BUT it's not in the Clinton Gore Plan.

. We're going to try something other than
.Reagan-Bush economics for a little while.  Deal with it.

I can understand the country's need for change:  however, I do challenge
the wisdom in this final decision.  Don't expect me to sit here and
"Deal with it" while the country goes further in this direction. I lived
part of my life in a country with a socialist government, and I know
that IT DOES NOT WORK!  It does not make people happy.  It takes 10
times as long to get things accomplished.  It sucks, and I do not want
it or any part of it here! You deal with that! 
 
-


',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
(borrowed without permission.  Sorry Jason, wherever you are)
   
 
 

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot