From: eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story )
Subject: Re: Perot ?
Originator: eas3714@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:51:21 GMT

In article <Bsuu00.I6w@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>In article <3483@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>>das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>>
>Naw.  Gun Control.  Affirmative action.  Lowering of standards so
>jobs can be had by the incapable.  Restrictions on business. etc.
>...nothing to do with excercising undo control over people's lives.

Death penalty, Anti-abortion laws, a complete non-understanding of the
lower economic class, vodoo economics.. etc.

>>  But that's the big lie.  Conseratism is *not* equality of chance, as they
>>want more than anything to remove the social programs that give the less
>>privledged among us the ability to make their lives better.
>
>They already HAVE the ability to make their lives better.  Same as I
>do.  The only unfair laws providing increased opportunity to any
>particular group that I know of are affirmative action programs.

Ever hear of the "Glass ceiling"?  Ever hear of race discrimination?
Conservatives like to think these things don't exist, that ANYONE can
make their lives better.  What a load of BS.  These things DO exist, and
no amount of pandering to rich cooperations will fix them.  The
social programs may not be the end-all, but at least its recognizing the
problem.

>Liberals have a bad tendancy to leap before they look...the
>quick-fix mentality.  Feel good stuff.  Lack of practicality.

Feel better?  I'm sure supply-side economics was thought out
completely... NOT!

>>  Do you beleive there should be class seperation?  Are the rich somehow
>>better?
>
>Yes.  They provide jobs, spur the economy, allow folks to improve
>their standard of living, work hard for what they have.  They don't
>sit around on the dole sucking the energies of the economy.

Er, Check the unemployment rate recently?  Ever heard of Love Canal,
Great Lakes.. etc.?  I'm sooooo sure these heads of cooperations care
about my standard of living.  Wake up dude..

>>Do you find yourself not wanting "them" moving into "your"
>>neighborhood?
>
>Nope.  Wouldn't mind at all for my property values to go up.

Read his sentence again.. notice the quotes?  

>>  *That* is preserving the status quo.  Keeping "them" in their place while
>>giving "your" people all the real oppurtunities.
>
>"Them", "us", "your people"... sounds like YOU'RE the one who believes
>in class separations.  

Ever hear of something called an EXAMPLE?  You're smarter than that, I
hope.  I get tired of people intentionally missing the point.

>For me it's simple.  Those that produce should
>get the gold.  Those that do not...do not.  Sounds imminently fair.

Yeah, except for one small fact.  There are lots of people who CAN'T
produce up to their potential because of discrimination.  Pay attention,
Look around.

>A big problem, though, it the tripe that you are dishing out.  It tends
>to make underpriveleged people believe that hard work will get them
>nowhere...that they are useless to society.  That's why the government
>should GIVE them everything...they'll never earn it on their own.

This is a sideeffect that I agree with.  It DOES happen, but any guess
as to what would happen without some of these social programs?  One
perspective does not make a whole view. 

>I love how about 6 months ago, the liberals of San Diego decided to
>"help" the homeless...they gave each of them their own garbage can
>to sleep in!  (true)  Now...THERE's a statement of personal worth!

So?  What does this have to do with anything?  I frankly dont see any
Conservatives "helping" the homeless at all!

>>  It all comes down to money, which in the end, is the great equalizer.  The
>>liberals wan't to share the wealth (unfortuantely in an irresponsible manner
>>since it's not "their" money)
>
>This is true.

Agreed.  There are irresponsible programs out there, but dont throw out
the baby with the bathwater.

>>while the conseratives want the wealth to stay
>>with the wealthy.
>
>This is not true.  Conservatives understand that this country got
>prosperous by acting as a community and being productive.  The
>Soviet Union died because of the opposite philosophy.

They may not WANT the wealth to stay with the wealthy, but it sure turns
out that way.  There's only a limited amount of money, dude, you just
can't keep printing more.  Lots of people ARE gonna be left out, no matter how
much you and others try to deny it.

>70% of the federal budget goes to entitlements.  The crap you
>hear about the defence budget is just that...crap.  We desperately
>need to stop giving $$ for nothing...allow the populace to gainb
>some pride by earning a living.  Free up business to provide jobs.
>Every person employed is another contributor in not only work
>but taxes.

Agreed.  Although I wouldn't call SDI and nuclear weapons testing "money well
spent".

>The answer is not higher taxes... but increasing the tax base.
>Productivity AND governmental income thus BOTH increase.

Sure, but giving money to busnesses doesnt guarantee anything.  Same as
giving money to people doesn't.  Cooperations and the wealthy should earn
their keep like anybody else.

>FDR introduced this country to social programs and it's been a faucet
>no politician has has the guts to turn off.  It was the beginning of the
>end.

ANy guess as to WHY he implemented those programs?  hehe.


-- 
"THAT is a DRY turtle.  That turtle is NOT moist!"
Ezra Story, a student at RIT, and
eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu, his trusty(?) mailing address.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy