From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 720761837@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu, eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:

>Why doesn't somebody just come out and say it?  BILL CLINTON IS A
>SOCIALIST.  His answer to everything seems to be "throw money into it,"
>or "throw the government into it."  Look at it: nationwide health care,
>a college education for everyone, and more police.

To answer your question:  because Clinton is not even remotely like a socialist.
He has no plan to "nationalize" any industry, as, for example, the banking 
industry was nationalized in France under a socialist government.  He advocates 
the same economic system that we have had in this country during previous 
administrations--a government-regulated market-driven economy.  The purpose of
government regulation is to ensure a level playing field, i.e. fair competition,
and protect the rights of the public.  Regulation is not the same as government
ownership, although it can be done ineptly.  Both Democratic and Republican 
administrations have demonstrated that in the past. 

>Nationwide health care, like welfare, is initally a good idea.  You then
>must come up with a way to FAIRLY pay for it.  It's not fair for all us
>tax payers to have to pay for somebody else to sit on their fanny, not
>working, but riding the government.  Also, put those prisoners to work!

I think that most prisons do offer (or coerce) some kind of work.  Again, don't
confuse Clinton's healthcare plans with socialism.  A socialist idea would be
to nationalize all hospitals or make all doctors federal employees.  A plan that
regulates health costs does run counter to our "free market" philosophy, but most
Americans seem to believe that the current system has failed to deliver health care
as effectively or efficiently as in most other industrialized nations.  So Clinton
is making very modest proposals to copy what has worked successfully in other
countries.  More government regulation is being introduced to improve the system.
That is not a guarantee that it will succeed, but Clinton now has a mandate to
try to change the system.  This has been one of the single most important issues
with voters.  

>College education for everyone: come on, it's already hard enough to get
>into a good college.  Now why would anyone want to open colleges up to
>everyone and their brother?  There's already enough people at centers of
>higher learning who don't care about college--they're only there for the
>parties.

The goal of government assistance should be to guarantee that each citizen has
the *opportunity* to go to college regardless of their income level.  Academic
performance should be the main criterion for entry into college.  The reality
is that richer children usually perform better than their peers anyway, so this
program is not going to cure all our problems.  The "party problem" might be
helped by a president who not only was an academic scholar in his own right, but
who actually encouraged people to excel academically.  Now that would be a rare
sight, wouldn't it?  An American president actually using his office to inspire
excellence?  

>More police: you shouldn't need more police at all.  You should just
>start enforcing the laws you have.  There are no criminal rights--the
>criminal gives up his rights.  A prison can never be overcrowded.
>Whatever happened to victim rights?

I don't think Clinton is opposed to victim's rights.  As for more police, the 
amount of law enforcement you have might well affect your ability to enforce
the laws you have.  You are absolutely correct that the criminal loses some
rights.  But first you should have a trial to determine that he/she is a criminal.
Our system requires that people be assumed innocent until proven guilty.  Are
you proposing to modify it?

>Well, that's all.  Somebody had to say it.

You act as if you've said something unusual.  This is usenet.  Hysterical attacks
on Clinton have been quite common.  At least, you didn't call him a communist
like some people have.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA