From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:50:50 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov12.180043.3531@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>In article <1992Nov12.092934.20343@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>  However, the facts you state are in error.  During the so-called
>>  "dog-eat-dog" era (which I calculate ran roughly from the Civil
>>  War to the beginning of the Great Depression, very few so-called
>>  poor people escaped poverty.
> 
>During that time, the bulk of the urban poor were European emmigrants
>(mostly Irish and Italian, if memory serves.) Since this is no longer 
>the case, I think it's safe to assume the overwelming majority of these
>groups escpade poverty.

 It's been 60 years since this era ended and the government programs
   of the New Deal could have accounted for this rather than capitalism.
>  
>>  Unions were formed out of this horrid
>>  sick society.
> 
>Which is _also_ a "dog eat dog" institution, with workers organizing 
>themselves so that they could do some of the eating. It seems to have
>worked very well for factory workers.

Yes it did work for the factory workers (after countless died in the 
struggle). But Unions aern't a "dog eat dog" institution. "Dog eat Dog"
implies every man for himself. A union is an organization of people
banded together for the good of everyone in the organization. Simple.
> 
>>  What finally started to process was
>>  World War II.  Our industrial capacity increased dramatically.
>>  Was this due to investment?  Of course not.
> 
>Nor was it due to World War Two.

BZZZZZZT! Sorry. World War II was responsible for the increased industrial
capacity. Yes we did have a sound industrial capacity. But the thing
that really scared Japan wasn't just that. It was our access to natural
resources that we had that Japan didn't (or do you remeber the huge amounts
of scrap metal that Japan used to import before the war?). Natural resources
was the reason Japan invaded South East Asia before Hawaii. And of course,
without rubber, iron ore, and such, steel mills and factories are worthless.

>>  We also had
>>  Social Security so people who were previously left to rot as
>>  elderly poor were able to keep their apartments and eat.  All
>>  of this was what gave us the vast middle class.  Not making
>>  it "tough" for the poor, but giving them a gentle hand up.
> 
>It was also at this time the begining of _permenant_ poverty in this
>country: Large numbers of people being born in poverty, living their
>entire lives in poverty, and raising childern who did the same.
> 
The cycle of poverty started after WWII? I doubt that. Time to back
up your statement.

>(By the way, do you have and references or facts to support the claim 
>that the large middle class was solely a post-war growth? You seem to
>industrial capacity was (which isn't really the case, see above) so
>I'm doubtfull of this claim about the middle class.)
> 
If he doesn't, I will. The size of the middle class increased dramatically
between the late 30's and 1950.

>>  So I think it is VERY clear.  Poor people have the same needs,
>>  feelings, desires as us middle class and you rich.
> 
 If you eliminate all
>the bad things that go along with poverty, you also eliminate the
>strongest motive to escape poverty.

This is true, but it isn't the only factors in poverty. Without aid to
get through college then that person can only get so far in life if
he/she comes from a poor family. If the poor family has no access to
health care then a potentially curable disease can go untreated and 
cripple. If the family runs into hard times it might need to bring the
children out of school to work. (And if you eliminate public schools
altogether then some poor families may never go to school. And then you 
have a REAL cycle of poverty.) The list goes on.
> 
>>  ...Most of them would work if there were
>>  jobs.  There aren't any.  The choice is simple.  Heartlessness
>>  or helpfulness.  I think your concept (that heartlessness may
>>  be a better way to "help" them) is so devoid of intellect OR
>>  emotion  that it clearly shows you for what you are.     
> 
>Perhaps living in proximity to the Berkeley, CA homeless for five years
>has given me the wrong impression (I rather doubt that group is "typical"...)

You are correct on both assumptions.

>But I think most of the homeless (the real extreme of poverty) will
>work _only_ as much as they have to in order to survive.

You haven't factored in the large percentage of mentally ill homeless.
(In San Francisco the percentage is over 1/3. A real tragedy left over
from Dukemajian and Feinstein.)

 I'd 
>generalize this, to say people (everyone, not just poor people) tend
>to work _only_ as much as they have to, to obtain some standard of
>living which they consider tolerable. I don't find this conclusion
>deviod of intellect: It seems a very reasonable one to draw from
>my expreience. Is it "devoid of emotion"? Possibly, but at least by
>training, I consider that an advantage: We ought to be considering the
>world as it exists and how it works; _not_ how the would "should" be,
>or what would make up happy _if_ it were true. Unpleasent, emotionally
>disturbing facts are still facts, and concepts based on emotion instead
>of fact don't solve very real problems.

Agreed. But without a certain amount of idealism then we become a 
VERY cold society.  
> 
>                                                   Frank Crary
>                                                   CU Boulder
Garrett@Ingres.com
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7000 ca.politics:9511 talk.politics.misc:59592