From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 8 Nov 92 13:39:24 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <BxBB8I.53n@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>>>How can we even talk about healing a nation, when we divide it by our 
>>>>words?

>>>When your words are "Your money or your life?" we are irrevocable at odds.
>>>If it's a choice between "healing" and robbery vs. division and justice,
>>>I'll chooce the division.  You are trying to use emotion to paper over
>>>the difference between justice and theft.  That doesn't cut it.

>>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.

>Actually, one could say the same thing about the Republican Administrations
>by switching the words "the rich" and "the poor."  The rest sounds just
>like what criticism of the Reps did.

On the contrary, buying the votes of the rich doesn't get you much in an
election, since there are not very many rich people.  Furthermore, there is 
a BIG difference between allowing people to keep the money THEY earned and 
forcing people to cough up money for transfer to others who DIDN'T EARN it.
It's the difference between me spending MY dollan and me spending YOUR dollar.
Get it?

>IMNSHO, the "trickle-down" theory allowed the upper few percent to gain
>about 60% of the income growth throughout the 80's.  

Indeed, they were alolowed to MAKE that money.  They didn't steal it.
Would like to see the government forbit people from making money?  Do you think
that anything other than poverty could result from the government outlawing 
economic productivity among the most able segment of the population?

>By that reasoning,
>it it justifiable to tax them more (tax where the least pain and most
>gain as a society) than those without $$$.  

What "reasoning"?  It is THEIR MONEY.  THEY EARNED IT.  You seem to think
that the government took money away from poor people and deposited it into
the accounts of rich people.  If anything, the rich have been paying 
much more than everyone else for a long long time, and it is about time
that everyone pay them back for this injustice.  I don't advocate that myself,
but it is much more consistent with your stated principle than increasing
the taxes on them.

>[For a scary example where this did not happen was France, pre-Revolution,
>where the nobles owned 95% of the wealth, yet paid no taxes, while the
>peasantry and commoners taxes *started* at 60%.  You need to tax where the
>money is, plain and simple]

And in the US the money is in the middle class.  The situation in France 
was much different in several respects, not the least of which was a legal
system that didn't allow commoners the freedom to produce wealth freely
and trade freely.  Focusing in on the the fact that there was a big difference
in wealth between the rich and poor gets you nowhere.  The important question
is WHY was this the case.  Look at it this way, for hundreds of years before 
the revolution, the King owned 100% of the wealth (which he shared sparingly
with his vassals).  Why didn't they rise up and revolt 100 years earlier?

--Brian
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc