Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Something Wicked This Way Comes
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 25 Jul 1992 09:50:15 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University


Chuan "infamous" Lee (chuan@milton.u.washington.edu) writes:

#In article <92Jul24.092426edt.47891@neat.cs.toronto.edu> mgreen@cs.toronto.edu
#(Marc Green) writes:
#>The Reagan/Bush administrations have spent several trillion dollars on
#>social programs. That's enough compassion and caring for the poor.
#"..."

"I usually don't respond to" individuals who call me "a jerk,", "stupid"
and "ignorant," but I guess it takes one to tell, right Marcy?  In any
regard, I don't care what little minds have to say about *me*. If you
feel that there are valid argumentations/reasons to refute what I say,
I'd invite you to stick to the *issues* pertinent to our discussion.

So. The Reagan/Bush administrations "have spent several trillion dollars
on social programs."  With *that* kind of money, I wonder why we haven't
reached Utopia yet?  Despite Marc's "trillions," isn't it remarkable
that mental patients are kicked out of institutions (because there isn't
enough funding available), isn't it remarkable that drug rehabilitation/
treatment centers are desperate to reach out to many more patients who
are willing to kick the habit, but have to be turned down because of...
you guessed it.  Isn't it remarkable that schools continue to be under-
funded (especially in poorer school districts, where poverty seems to
"recycle" itself)?  Isn't it remarkable than when I visited my local
Texaco gas station, I found a flyer begging me to donate some money to
little Stephen who stands in need for a liver transplant?  Who cares
whether it was the parents' "fault" for not being insured?  Should we
assume the law of the jungle and allow Stevie to die then?  What kind
of society have we become? It frightens me when people like Marc claim
that "enough" has been done for the poor...  I invite you to take a
good look around you Marc, especially out of your cosy white-collar
suburban neighborhood.  And what do you see, based on your world view?
Parasites whose mindset are focussed on draining the system, or despa-
rate individuals who can't think of nothing else but to survive one
more day? Or individuals who have given up hope? Perhaps the only thing
they needed to get up and do something, was a listening ear and someone
who cared. Evidently we don't "care," because "enough" has been done
for the poor...  What do WE say when we stand before our Maker? That we
have shown "enough compassion and caring for the poor"?  I don't buy
the "burdened working men and women" myth either, since I'm talking
about *re-allocating* resources in self-help, and preventive programs.

Besides, it is high time that the rich pay indeed their fair share to
this society. Not the "soak the rich" rhetoric, but a return to a
fairer tax system, since the rich have had their party under Reagan/
Bush.  Even if you reject all of the above, the choice may eventually
become this simple: either we "sacrifice" some of our "hard-earned"
dollars on programs to support the-less-fortunates-amongst-us, or they
may simply come into our homes and take it... Ever wondered why America
ranks a lone #1 among all the Western nations in (street) violence and
(violent) crime rates?  (Who thought Lebanon was far away from home?)
--Perhaps the dreary scenario I outlined may already have commenced...

DISCLAIMER (lest someone suspect): I'm NOT for cheap hand-outs. That's
why I'm very unhappy with the current welfare system, where recipients
are even penalized for picking up a job, thus encouraging dependancy
rather than to create self-reliance. I'm talking about creating *equal
opportunities* and working towards a consensus where a majority of
people are willing to support legislation like universal health-care,
say similar to the Canadian or German system.

#>Again, don't let facts get in the way. The US has the strictest
#>anti-pollution and species protection legislation in the world. Bush
#>wisely refused to sign a treaty which would have required the US to
#>give away huge and unpsecified sums to the Third World.
#"..."

You seem to pick out "the facts" with care, and ignore others. I doubt
whether your claim that "the US has the strickest anti-pollution and
species protection legislation in the world" is based on reality, but
I'll inquire at the Zoology/Botany-Range department on Monday.  Bush
was NOT wise to reject a treaty which would require us to clean up our
act, as OTHER major Western nations (especially Britain and Germany)
were willing to do.  I guess those nations WERE willing to sacrifice
a bit, since they seem to recognize that we cannot continue to ignore
and abuse our (global) environment.  I agree with you that we shouldn't
"give away huge and unspecified sums to the Third World," but that was
not the real issue, was it not?  The real issue at stake here, was
whether we're willing to recognize that we are the #1 polluter in this
world, and owe it to the world to continue to reduce our emmissions.

#>It was the arms race that spent the Soviets into submission and freed
#>the peoples of Eastern Europe. It was not wasted money.
#"..."

I grant you that I generally liked Reagan's aggressive foreign policy,
but the forces of history where against the Soviet empire anyway. Even
without our defense "effort," the Soviet people could not be kept under
subjugation and oppression forever. In any regard, I challenge you
again: Why keep fighting the Cold War when it's no longer with us? We
need to put America FIRST in our efforts to fix some of its ills.

#>Guess what Bunky - it is the democratic congress which is the major
#>roadblock to defense spending. Bush wanted to kill the Stealth bomber,
#>and several other major weapons programs but was blocked by
#>_democratic_ congressmen whose districts would have suffered job
#>losses. The democrats talk a good game - as long as it's some elses
#>money.

The real situation is a little bit more complicated than you described.
You're quite right that Democrats (AND Republicans BTW) do tend to be
highly protective when it comes to their own constituency, but I would
propose that it is NOT "just" the "Democratic Congress" which is
responsible for all these woes.  It is also a president unwilling to
compromise, not just with "the Democrats," but also --since these
Democrats were chosen representatives of and by the People-- with what
a majority of the American people want to see accomplished. The opinion
polls are quite clear in that. Keep denying that, it won't matter.

#>
#>Marc Green
#>Trent University
#
#Bravo!  I'll say let's vote the Dems. out of the Congress and have
#this country moving again.

Hmmm. Based on results, I find this conviction rather shallow. Your
scenario would probably invite less social security, less rights for
consumers and employees, more profits funneled to the rich, more
inequality, more stagnation when it comes to overhaul health-care and
education, etc.  Sure, this nation would move, but in what direction?

#
#Sure enough, the economy is in bad shape (I do hope it will get
#better by the time I get out of college in a few months).  But I
#take a more optimistic view toward the situation.  This is a
#rare opportunity to convert this country from intensive defense
#job market to lesser one.  I believe the economy will become
#healthier that way.

Yes, I whole-heartedly agree with you!

#
#We don't need any more social programs.  We need jobs.  As
#Dan Quayle once said, "McDonald is hiring!"  (hey, someone
#finally quoted him in a positive sense.)  I feel alot better
#knowing that many more people can affort to eat out than
#that many have their welfare checks sitting in their mailboxes.

Actually, I'm surprised that you quoted this joker! --Most people here
at least, regarded that particular "gem" of Dannies thinking to be
highly cynical, since he didn't explain how an average family can hope
to survive on what Mr. Mac puts into their paycheck!  Perhaps Mc D can
help out a schoolkid, but surely you're not so naive as to believe
that those low-wage jobs can help out families?? As I indicated before,
the Welfare system sucks.  You're right.  Any system which invites
dependency ought to be illiminated.  This doesn't mean that we should
turn our backs on those who are less fortunate than we are. This is
neither Christian nor instrumental in creating a "gentler society."
(...)

#
#Say it once more, Dan.

Don't worry, he'll do it again, and again, and...

#
#Chuan Lee