From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 1992 15:06:08 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep4.005247.8080@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> 
> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
> >I am sick to death of the Republicans using the non-issue of "family values"
> >to distract the voters from the real issues.
> 
> >I am sick to death of the lies distortions and half-truths being spewed from
> >Bush and his lap-dogs. Even when they are caught red-handed, they continue
> >to use them (Phyllis Schlafly on nightline is a great example).
> 
> And I am sick to death of people only seeing what they want to see and
> tuning all else out.  I can agree with you that campaign rhetoric is 
> exagerated, libelous, and unfair.  I wouldn't even attempt to defend
> some of the statements coming from the Republican campaign.  What really
> galls me, though, is the "selective indignation" (just learned that...)
> from the Democrats.  They complain about lies from the Republicans and 
> go on lying themselves.  

The difference is that while Clinton has spelled out his programs, all we
get from Bush is rhetoric. period. His rhetoric would be alot easier to take
if there was ANY substance given along with it.

> 
> >Examples:
> 
> >Bill Clinton's 128 tax increases. Distortion. Refuted numerous places.
> 
>    The Republican party is only interested in the rich.  Does this sound like 
> a true statement, or just campaign rhetoric? 

The Bush record contains nothing to make me believe that the statement is not
true.  Rhetoric means crap while the record is the true key to the nature of the
candidate.

>    Bush is incompetent on foriegn policy because he followed UN mandates, 
> and Arab wishes, and did not invade Iraq.  Can liberals get any more 
> two-faced on this issue?  They would just as soon be criticizing Bush right 
> now for having gone against the UN, being a "cowboy" by invading Iraq.

No arguement here. I have some disagreements with Bush on foreign policy, but
I think he has done an adequate job. It's his lame overly-simplistic approach
to domestic issues that I take acception to.
  
> 
> >Hilary Clinton believes children should be able to sue their parents for
> >limiting their nintendo playing (and other absurd things). Distortion, read
> >her paper.
> 
>    The Republicans don't *really* believe in family values because they
> voted against the bill to allow paid maternity and emergency leave.

Since the Republicans are the ones who made the non-issue of "family
values" an issue, they deserve everything they get on this front. For this
to become a real issue, the Republicans have to support legislation which
is pro-family. Otherwise, the "family values" issue is just a smoke screen.



>    The Republicans are against single parent families.  

Listen to some of the statements that were made. It sure sounded that way
to me.

>    The Republicans want to round up all gays and throw them in jail.  

No, just give them less rights and support than every other citizen (see
statements by Pat Buchanan).

>    Am I getting through to you?  All of this is a tremendous simplification 
> of a complex problem, an exageration, or an outright lie.  And I would 
> not even be bringing it up if not for the Democrats' constant blathering 
> that the Republicans are the only ones playing nasty.

I don't deny that dirt flows both ways. However, all the Republicans are doing
is flinging dirt. When they start adding some statements on programs to the
fray, I'll give them alot less grief about the lies and distortions.

> 
>    And you forgot one:  The Democrats don't believe in "family values".

According to several of the Republican speakers, they don't. So what is
your point?
> 
> 
> Now on to health care:
> 
> >Why not choose a state and try NHC out, fine tune it over a few years, expand
> >it to a whole region, fine tune it again, get the Canadians to consult.
> >Let's start it up and see why it don't run.
> 
> This is a very good idea.  I've never heard it before, but it is
> reasonable.  Why not leave it in the hands of the states?  Most of them
> *have* to balance their budgets and therefor the health care could not
> be deficit funded, as it will be if it is a federal program.

This is a reasonably good description of the Canadian health care system.
The povinces and counties do most of the administration. All the national
government does is equalize funding and coordinate the services between 
provinces.

> 
> >What
> >are the republicans so afraid of? It certainly is not the only government-
> >run industry in the country (police, fire, roads, defense, etc). Some things are just
> >not amenable to free-market design. Do we really want police protection to
> >be free-market? If this happened, rich areas would be heavily policed and poor
> >areas would become war zones.
> 
> I'll tell you exactly what *I'm* afraid of.  I'm afraid of a program
> like FDR's Social Security.  You mentioned that he tried some new
> things, not knowing how they'd work out.  Well look at it.  It is the
> monster that will not die.  It just keeps getting bigger and bigger and
> no politician will touch it with a ten foot pole.  It is the entitlement
> that will bring down our economy if nothing is done about it--and nobody
> can do anything about it.

I agree. However, FDR also had the WPA and CCC. Two programs that are
considered model programs and may be brought back under Clinton.

> I'm afraid that if Clinton gets in, we'll
> have NHC and *never* be able to get rid of it if it doesn't work.  It
> will be an albatrose around our necks.  You can't just try something
> like this--if you start it, it will never die.  It will be one more
> thing that people will grow to depend on from their government.  One
> more thing that people cannot do for themselves.  One more thing to foil
> ever balancing our budget.

Ths is mere speculation on your part.
Tested on a limited basis as described previously,
the horror story you describe does
not have to happen. Furthermore, it is not like we don't have examples of
successful systems to use as templates. Furthermore, a
system which keeps the american people healthy will cost us much less
over time than the
present system in which we are paying for large numbers of chronic stages of
preventable diseases due to the lack of universal preventative care. Who
do you think pays the huge costs of these cases? That's right. we do.

> 
> >The fact of the matter is that we the voters need not depend on anyone's
> >rhetoric to make our decision (not even mine :-) ). Clinton and Bush have
> >records to be examined. Voting is more than watching a few sound bites,
> >listening to a few speeches, listening to a few media analyses and pulling
> >a lever. Responsible voting requires us to check the records of these men
> >and to demand detailed statements of their plans before making our decision.
> >Don't be a sheep or a random number generator, do some research and vote
> >responsibly.
> 
> Amen.
> -- 
> 
> Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
> jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality