From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:07:21 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

In article <1684A74DF.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.173307.25429@aero.org>
>foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> 
>>
>The question should really be, "are you better off now than you were
>twelve years go?" Unless the Democrats are planning to dump Clinton and
>nominate Reagan, that is ;-)

I was simply reponding to the question asked by a speaker at the Republican
Convention which was are you better off now than you were 4 years ago. She
knew that she couldn't win support for Bush by asking about 12 years.

> 
>>My answer is NO.
>>
>>I am planning a foreign vacation. It will now cost me a substantially
>>larger per centage of my income than it would have 4 years ago.
> 
>Is that because you make less, or because the various European currencies
>are stronger, or...?

It really doesn't matter, in that I am worse off for either reason. For
your info it is not because my income is less. I think it is not totally
due to the relative value of the currencies. It seems to me that part of
the reason is that things cost more in Europe in their own currency.

> 
>>
>>I drive around LA a lot. It takes a substantially larger percentage of my
>>time than it did 4 years ago. I read the news. In spite of the Willie
> 
>Wait a minute- you're blaming Bush for the traffic increase? Sounds like
>you're saying the traffic is worse --> more cars on the road --> more
>people can afford cars, or perhaps more people are driving to work?
> 
>You'll have to explain that one a bit!

Again I am responding to the question am I better off than I was 4 years
ago. If Lynn Martin can give Bush credit for "winning" the cold war by 
outspending the Soviets on weapons, I can give him the blame for the traffic
problems in LA for not funding freeways, rapid transit or any thing else
that I might want to rationalize causes the traffic.

> 
>>Hornton ad there is a substantially greater amount of crime in it than
>>there was 4 years ago.
> 
>Pity Bush can't do much about the LAPD.
> 

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The cities used to receive much more money from the
Federal Government. If they were receiving more money LA could have more
police. Also there seems to a correlation with the escalation of the drug
war and the escalation of crime. So perhaps he directly caused some of
the problem by his approach to drugs.


>>I like to be able to relax in nature. There is substantially less clean
>>nice nature than there was 4 years ago. I don't like to worry. I spend a
> 
>In fact, that's wrong. Air and water quality has consistently improved over
>the past 20-30 years. The trend has been continually upward, despite what
>you may hear from such environmental sages as Meryl Streep.
>

What you say is true. However, I should have been a little clearer about
relaxing in nature. I wasn't thinking about clean air and water. I was 
thinking about being able to walk through groves of giant trees far from
the city. He has been pushing the sale of old growth trees at much less 
than their market value creating more deforested areas. He is also doing
nothing on the International scene to stop or slow the rapid cutting of
the Amazon. I might want to take a trip there some day. Maybe it will be too
late soon. He has actively decreased the amount of family planning support
that goes to the third world countries. This increases the amount of trees
that they are clearing in Africa etc.

>>substantially greater percentage of my time worrying about ozone holes etc.
>>than I did 4 years ago.
> 
>Which tells me you're reading the wrong sages again. The word from the
>arctic climitologists is that the much-ballyhooed "ozone hole" is nothing
>new or scary. The artic is the natual ozone sink, where ozone breaks down
>owing to lower UV levels. It is primarily created in the tropics. There
>was some variation, mainly attributed to Cl emissions from the volcano
>eruption in the arctic that year.

My sources are mostly in science. I think Science is about as reliable
soruce as any expect perhaps for specific professional journals in 
climatology etc.

> 
>>I like the women that I know to have the same opportunities, freedoms and
>>choices that I have. Their choices are substantially less than they were 4
>>years ago. Not incidentally, the Reagan Bush Supreme Court have reduced my
>>freedoms as well and will go on doing so for many more years.
>>
>Interestingly, the Republican party has nominated about 50% more women for
>Senate and Gubanatorial office in the last four years than have the
>Democrats. This is the anti-woman party? There is a very strong "Republicans
>for Choice" movement as well (I'm a contributor). It's just not as monolithic
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ excellent
>as the democratic party.

And women's choices decreased under Bush. The party has a no abortion
amendment plank.

> 
>>Though I lead a life style that Clayton Cramer and the Religious Right
>>would probably approve of at least as far as sex and drugs are concerned,
>>I am substantially more at risk of aids than I was 4 years ago.
> 
>Unless you're an IV drug user, or sleep with one, or have anal intercourse
>with a large number of men, you're not substantially at risk at all. At least,
>that's what the stats say. Even then, given the disproportionately large
>amount of funding AIDS research gets for the numbers of people afflicted,
>you could hardly call it underfunded. And if you read the placards at the
>convention you'd note there are a significant number of Republicans who are
>active in the area of helping AIDS sufferers and gay rights.
>>

You are right I do none of those things. So my risk is not substantial.
However my risk has increased substantially from what it was 4 years ago.
It may have been 1 in 100,000,000 4 years ago. Now it may be 1 in 
25,000,000. And it keeps going up.

I am sorry to make a big posting out of really nothing. My whole point is 
that in many ways many people are worse off now than they were 4 years ago,
as contrsted with Lynn Martins speech saying we are better off. I am sure 
that if you talk to the unemployed and the people loosing their jobs every
week and the ones who are in fear of loosing thier jobs next month, you 
would find many millions of people who would spit in Lynn Martins face
for saying they are better off.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle