From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PAYCHECK DAMMIT!!!
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:47:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <1992Aug10.191758.24936@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.171033.24637@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.153415.21460@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>There are several possible things that can happen.  However, let's
>>>assume that we have a choice between "the rich get a lot richer and
>>>the poor get a little richer" (in other words, the gap grows, but the
>>>poor are better off in absolute terms) and "the rich get a lot poorer
>>>and the poor get a little poorer" (the gap decreases, but the poor are
>>>worse off in absolute terms).  The repubs favor the former; are the
>>>demos different?
>>
>>You assume these are the only two choices.  How about: the rich get
>>rich at a slower rate while everyone else gets rich at a faster rate?
>
>I agree that there are several possible things, but I'm only interested
>in the "correct" choice between two of them.  That's why I asked my
>question, the question that's been ducked.

Ducked?  Nonsense.  Have you stopped beating your wife yet?  No, you
can't say that you don't beat your wife, that isn't one of the
choices.  Logical fallacies DESERVE to be 'ducked'.  When you try to
manipulate the results by being selective with the question, the
appropriate response is to answer "bad question" rather than respond
to the choices offered.

>
>I've eliminated the easy choices because including them can't result
>in an interesting discussion.  (Am I wrong to assume that Demos prefer
>increasing the gap and the wealth of the poor to increasing the gap
>and decreasing the wealth of the poor?)  I'm also eliminating them
>because it isn't obvious that we always have a "no lose" option,
>however nice that would be.
>
>>>In other words, are the demos more concerned with absolute factors or
>>>relative ones?
>>
>>You've apparently deliberately phrased the question in a 2-value way
>>that excludes any good answers.
>
>Reality doesn't always give us a choice between "good" and "bad";
>sometimes we have to choose between two "bad" things.

Reality is not subject to two-value Aristotelean logic.  This has been
recognized for hundreds of years.  Not black and white, but shades of
grey. 

Your question doesn't even answer the question you claim to be trying
to answer.  To answer that question, you would have to ask whether it
is better for the rich to get richer, the poor to get richer, and the
gap increase; or is it better for the rich to get poorer, the poor to
get richer, and the gap to decrease.

Your question is phrased to yield either that the Republicans are
'right' or that the old canard about 'we can all be poor together' is
desirable.  Either way, it's a silly question to even address.

>
>We know that we can increase the gap and increase the wealth of the
>poor.  

How do we know this?  It certainly is NOT what happened during the
last 12 years.  We know that we can increase the gap and hose the
poor.  We know that we can decrease the gap and increase the wealth of
the poor (see the 1970s and results of the Great Society).

>I'm willing to assume that we can decrease the gap while we
>hose the poor.  (We certainly can hose the poor, so I'm willing to
>assume that we can increase "fairness" at the same time in order to
>add some silver lining.)  

Why are you willing to assume this, but not other things?

>If you've got a "proof" that we can always
>both decrease the gap AND increase the wealth of the poor, then my
>question is artificial (which doesn't mean that it is irrelevant), but
>if you don't ....

Consider it proven by history.

>
>Presumably we know how the Repubs would answer the question asked;
>they'd help the poor absolutely even if that increased the gap between
>rich and poor.  

When are they going to do that?  How do you know?  Are they in favor
of helping the poor, or more in favor of increasing the gap?

>Why is it so hard for Democrats to choose between
>evils, to either agree or say "we'd rather increase equality than help
>the poor absolutely"?

It's not hard.  It's pointless.  There's quite a bit of difference
there. 

>
>I've asked the question before, but Demos always go with a "we don't
>like those options, so we'll answer a different question" response
>without any accompanying evidence that the added options are always
>possible.  

So far, you have no proof that the proposed options are possible.

>Curiously, the answering Demos won't let Repubs exercise
>that same choice, but I'll let a Repub whine about that.

Well, I'm not a 'Demo' or a 'Repub', so maybe that's why I see the
artificiality and falsity of your claims here.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections