From: M23231@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: United We Stand And Deliver
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:41:48 GMT

In article <Bv5nxL.6w@apollo.hp.com>
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
 
>
>In article <Bv5KKL.Hnr@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>In article <Bv5Iv4.I6D@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>>  Are you saying that you agree that a pair of software engineers
>>>  (not in management) living in a modest 3 bedroom ranch in a
>>>  suburb of Lowell, Mass are "wealthy"?!
>>
>>No, although I may have implied the same.  The validity of my
>>observation remains unmodified by my personal opinion.  Certainly,
>>your economic position is better than mine, as my wife is employed
>>full-time raising our children  (unfortunately, this must remain
>>a part-time job for me).
>
>  Nevertheless we aren't by any reasonable definition "wealthy"
>  (not that I think taxes should be raised on the truly wealthy
>  either).
>
*******************
Let me add that in my experience, although I used to feel secure in the
belief that if I was technically competent and did an excellent job, I
would always have a job, I no longer feel that way. After 24 years with
the same company, and always receiving good reviews, I was, through the magic
of the LBO process and its aftermath, shown how unnecessary I really am to
management. Though I still make enough to be considered "wealthy" by the
above standards, I've lost all assets I had before and have held three jobs
in the last 3 years making major moves to obtain each one. I have zero
confidence in my continuing ability to pay taxes at all--much less at 33%.
I am one paycheck away from falling through the floor to poverty. I think
that those who benefitted from the loss of American jobs and who made
itinerant vagabonds out of former upper middle class taxpaying draft
horses like me should be made to pay for the restoration of our society to
its former state.
 
So I resonate with Peter's feeling that he is *NOT* wealthy.
 
If financial incentives work so well with the upper class let's try some
of that on the middle class riff raff they've been raping in the last 12
years.
 
*********************
>
>>>  us.   Perot *could* have been more explicit, but like the NAFTA
>>>  and health issues he just didn't have the guts.   Face it folks
>>>  he's just another politician-as-usual.
>>
>>Yes, he could have been more explicit.  However, if he's just
>>"another politician-as-usual", why are you so afraid of him?
>
>  2 reasons --
>
>  1.  He combines the WORST of both parties:  government meddling
>      in the economy and social engineering of the Democrats, with
>      the moralistic narrowmindedness and emotional appeals to
>      patriotism of the Republicans.
>
>  2.  The blissed-out religious devotion of his followers.
>
>
>
>>>  Perot gives us not a SHRED of reason to think that Washington
>>>  has any better ideas on education or investment than you or
>>>  I do.
>>
>>Your point?  If they do, then listen.  If you've got better
>>ideas, make them known
>
>  First of all, as I said, I want to run my life as I see fit.
>  I'm not interested in telling others how to run theirs.
>
>
>
>>Have you tried to change the opinions of the person who won?
>
>  Of course.  I have personally discussed many of the issues
>  with Chester Atkins, D-Mass.   Since he was defeated in the
>  recent primary I now have to start all over with the new
>  guy (Cronin (R) or Meehan(D)).  I also write to congressmen
>  from other districts.   I'm also a prodigious letter-to-the-editor
>  writer with over a 60% publication rate.   I've had letters
>  in the Boston Globe, Newseek, Atlantic Monthly, and Wall
>  Street Journal, among many others.   I'm a member and contributor
>  to several organizations with political or social agendas.
>  So there!  I'll bet in these repects I've paid my "involvement"
>  dues better than most Perot supporters on Usenet.
>
>>Query: are you more concerned with a little more taxes now,
>>       or dire economic straights when the bills come due?
>>       Certainly the latter does not qualify as "as little
>>       interference as possible"?
>
>
>   I want neither.  I still claim that if the current $1.4
>   trillion budget were cut to $1.1 trillion it should be possible
>   to distribute this adequately to care for the needy, defend
>   the nation, and provide other basic government services.
>   I'm not some libertarian minarchist, nor am I a "f*** you,
>   Jack, I've got mine" GOP conservative.  $1.1 trillion is
>   a LOT of money.
>
>   There are some things that are hard or impractical for people
>   to do by themselves -- I have no trouble with public health
>   agencies like CDC or someone to set standards for food and drugs
>   like the FDA (like I said, I'm no libertarian).  Nor do I expect
>   a poor mother who discovers she has a $25,000 tumor to deal
>   with it without help.   I want a government that has the
>   resources to help the truly needy.   But for that to be
>   possible some things HAVE to be done by communities so taxpayers
>   can afford to help those who need it.  Closing down crack houses,
>   providing daycare, patrolling streets to fight crime, MAKING
>   kids stay in school and respect their teachers, becoming
>   actively involved in educational issues, enforcing sexual
>   morality (or at least condom use) among the young, etc, can
>   all be done at the community level without Washington's involvement.
>   Throughout most of history these WERE done at the community level.
>   People in the cities have got to stop expecting Washington to save
>   them from their own children.  They have to fight to take back
>   their own neighborhoods.   In my community we've had a wave of
>   burglaries so I'm organizing crime awareness meetings.
>
>   Much of the money Washington spends to fight poverty, drugs,
>   AIDS, and crime would not be necessary if communities were
>   willing to fight for their own neighborhoods.  Where poverty
>   is the highest there are ARMIES of unemployed.  What's needed
>   is not leadership from Washington, but LOCAL leadership to
>   use this man (and woman) -power to sweep the streets free
>   of criminals and gangs, to collar truant children, to care
>   for the children of those who DO have jobs, to clean up the
>   neighborhoods, and so forth.   America was built on the model
>   of small, self-sufficient communities who struggled together
>   against all kinds of dangers.   It isn't that they never
>   looked to bigger government for help (ref. Clarke _Eastern
>   Frontier_), it's that they understood that for this to be
>   even possible they had to make most of the effort themselves.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
>
>
>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15348 alt.politics.homosexuality:6351 soc.motss:42023 alt.society.civil-liberty:6163 uiuc.civil-liberty:54