From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:29:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.043812.5220@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.015128.20902@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>[munch]
>>	Basically, I'm saying that I don't believe in Social Darwinism.
>>I think it is a huge step back on the evolutionary scale. And to remove
>>the sad excuse we have for a safety-net in this country is to return to
>>a dog-eat-dog society that was rejected once already. 
>
>I'm afraid (at least from the number of people, born poor, who "made
>it" and became middle class or rich) the dog-eat-dog society worked
>better. The alterantives appear to be hardships for the poor and
>many people escaping poverty; charitably reducing the suffering of
>the poor and many people remaining poor all their lives (and raising
>thier children in poverty). It is debatable which alternative is 
>really "helping" them.

  (Oh god, here I go again :-)

  Frank, I regret having to disabuse you of THIS faulty notion also.
  However, the facts you state are in error.  During the so-called
  "dog-eat-dog" era (which I calculate ran roughly from the Civil
  War to the beginning of the Great Depression, very few so-called
  poor peopl escaped poverty.  What was notorious during that era
  was the way the rich and powerful preyed on the working poor by
  essential enslavement, revolting working conditions, pitiful wages,
  and no sharing of profits.  Unions were formed out of this horrid
  sick society.  What is really important is that this was NOT when
  the greatest growth of our country took place.  Oh, for sure,
  there were notable inventions and lots of progress (cars, phones,
  airplanes, etc).  But the industrial level of our society had not
  really started to progress.

  FDR put much of the country back to work during the Depression and
  some gains were made in working conditions.  But this didn't
  change things much either.  What finally started to process was
  World War II.  Our industrial capacity increased dramatically.
  Was this due to investment?  Of course not.  It was due to the
  government taxing and spending in order to contract to build an
  incredible war machine.  It jump-started the economy and pulled
  us to within an eyelash of where we are today.  Still, things
  got even better after the War when former soldiers were GIVEN
  (yes, GIVEN) things like the GI Bill which they used to put
  themselves through school and purchase homes.  We also had
  Social Security so people who were previously left to rot as
  elderly poor were able to keep their apartments and eat.  All
  of this was what gave us the vast middle class.  Not making
  it "tough" for the poor, but giving them a gentle hand up.

  The Reagan years made it much tougher on the poor once more.
  And as a result, homelessness increased (after decreasing 
  for many years), poverty level shot up, unemployment went
  up, etc.  

  So I think it is VERY clear.  Poor people have the same needs,
  feelings, desires as us middle class and you rich.  The only
  difference between the poor and the rest of us is that they
  don't have any money.  Most of them would work if there were
  jobs.  There aren't any.  The choice is simple.  Heartlessness
  or helpfulness.  I think your concept (that heartlessness may
  be a better way to "help" them) is so devoid of intellect OR
  emotion  that it clearly shows you for what you are.     

  Jon Rosen
Xref: sparky ba.politics:6981 talk.politics.misc:59470 alt.politics.elections:23413 co.politics:1778 ne.politics:2873 alt.politics.clinton:16778 alt.politics.democrats.d:437