From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:58:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.043834.27759@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>In article <C0o5wH.Cns@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>
>Both my grandparents were illiterates. Their children grew up poor. There were
>no social programs back them. My father grew up so poor he didn't even go
>to high school because the family needed money. No, poverty wasn't their
>fault - but all of them to some extent escaped it. The worked their way
>out of it. The stories he tells me about his childhood make think about
>
  First, I'd like to say that this post makes a heck of a lot more sense than
the last one, even if I do have trouble believing all your stories.  I wonder
if the same guy actually wrote them...
  And it often is possible to work your way out of poverty.  But a lot of the
time, it isn't.  Are you saying that Watts, L.A. has a 90% unemployment rate
because the people there are lazier than the people in Rosedale.  (Don't say
that they live there because they're poor, because practically all people in
south-central L.A. were born there.)  And you and your ancestors probably were
damn hard workers and your success was a result of your hard struggle.  But
it was also a product of luck.  For everybody that makes it out, there are 
five others who don't, even though they tried as hard.  One man I know
was born penniless, worked three or four jobs all his life, starting as a kid,
and always made enough money to get by.  But he finds it hard to feel pride
in barely surviving for 80 years, with little or no help from others.  If you
ask him to describe his life, he'd tell you it was pure hell.  He wasn't lazy,
and he never wanted to live off others.  But he always would have appreciated
a little help.

the people today. Poverty is a RELATIVE thing. Poor people today are
>living a luxury compared to poverty 50 years ago. Work is the only 

  And a lot of that change is due to the government.  Any historian worth
his salt could tell you that the Great Depression would have ended much later,
if at all, if it weren't for the interventions of the American government.
Live under the Industrial revolution was hell, and only improved because 
governments instituted social programs, labour laws, union protection, child-
labour laws, and other "socialist" measures.  If the government always just
butted out, we'd all still be living in unheated hovels in grime-ridden cities.
(Now, only half of us do)
 
>just handing over money. Don't assert to me that "they don't get enough".
>At the place I work you can get a 10kg bag of rice for $5. Don't tell me
>that "they don't get enough". You've probably spent too much money on
>that expensive Kraft Dinner to look for real bargains. You can live
>CHEAP AND HEALTHY on a Welfare budget.

  Alone.  It's still damn hard to support a family.  And you can't support
a kid on that two-digit child support allowance.
>
>It's the government who has brought on so much of this misery. People are
>hurting because of unfair restrictions on small and medium sized businesses.
>Because of high taxes. Because of all sorts of government related problems.
>Like landlords who earn less money then their tenants no thanks to rent
>control. Don't cry on my shoulder about who is the real victim. Maybe we
>could look after real people - those disabled , no physically challenged-
>people with the money wasted on bailing out corporate welfare bums like
>those sleazy oil companies in Nfld or sending our troops off to some war.
   
  So the government's made mistakes.  Of course it's not perfect.  But
that doesn't mean the entire idea of a social-welfare government is wrong.
Don't throw out the baby with the batchwater (to use a really stupid
platitude). 

>I have a retarded relative - a second cousin - who actually works for a 
>living. Everybody can be productive. Our system is a product of those 
>people who think that if you are unproductive nothing can change that
>and thus as Victorian paternalists - they deserve free money. Nothing
>changes.

  My brother has a learning disability.  (I don't make up these stories.)
He's managed to get a CEGEP (Quebec community college) education, and can
support himself.  But he never would have made it anywhere if he hadn't gone
through special programs and recieved the necessary tailored education, all of
which was paid for by the government.  We couldn't have afforded to get him
what he needed.  And we're glad he got it. 

>
>The government takes enough of your taxes that you don't need to feel
>guilty about it. Maybe we should have the insurance people replace the
>bozos who run the system today.
  
  Ever try dealing with an American insurance company?  They're close to
the only thing harder to deal with than the Canadian government.
>
>
>The problem with AIDS is that 98% of it could've been prevented. Bad
>sex practices or using drugs introduces AIDS to many people. Early on
>they contribute blood to the blood bank or give it to their boyfriends/
>girlfriends and down the line your second cousin gets AIDS. A sad 
>disease. Maybe the people who spread the disease in the first place should
>pay for him. After all they gave him the disease.
 
  Sounds good.  Any practical ideas about how to do it?  I may be naive,
but it seems impossible to me...

  Keep trying.