NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ba/politics/7925

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 7.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!daver!dlb!zygot!john
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:33:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Lines: 148

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc Salomon) writes:

>Because they just became wealthier and their kids will come into that
>wealth some day.

I am a little confused here. Are you saying that each and every
homeowner in the category in question has progeny to whom he can pass on
inheritance? And even if so, if you would bother to check into Prop 13,
you would find that such property, when passed on, gets taxed at the
new, higher rates. Once again I ask: until that property actually
realizes its new higher value, why do the current owners have to be
burdened with confiscatory (compared to the original property value)
taxes?

>How many were actually kicked out onto the street?

I know of about fifteen people in my narrow circle of acquaintances who
were forced to severely downgrade their living conditions through the
sale of property that they could no longer afford. Some of them were
forced to live with their children, who themselves were struggling
under outrageous property taxes.

>Too many Americans believe that the omnipotent president controls every
>aspect of the socio-economic situation and should get kudos or blamed
>for what happened on his watch.  Carter didn't raise property values.

No one said that he did. I merely mentioned his administration as a
time frame and to pre-empt categorizing Prop 13 as "Reaganomics", since
it came about a full two years before Reagan's election.

>Never have you mentioned any of the kids who are starving for
>education as the teeth of prop-13 start to actually sink in.

No, because it is a crock. In California, we spend (in adjusted
dollars) more per student that at any other time in history.

>First of all, you are getting rich.  If we are to allow the so-called
>free market to work for the poor, why not for the rich?  Whats so unfair
>about that?

Who is getting rich? My wages have not increased any more than yours.
Going into debt by borrowing against my home is not my idea of a good
time. And if I sell my home, where am I supposed to live? I would very
much like to live here the rest of my life. I have no children. So who
is getting rich?

>Secondly, It is choking the children of this state of their right to a decent
>education.  It is closing libraries.  It is raising every conceivable
>fee that state govt collects ($120 to register my truck this year).

This is all garbage. Blaming poor education on lack of funds (given the
above) is nuts. And it cost me over $350 to register my truck, so I am
not shedding any tears for you.

>And just what percent of the budget, Fed, State and local is pork? On the Fed
>level, the untouchables constitute towards 90% of the budget.

It is the untouchables that need to be really looked at.

>Pork is a "hot-button"
>used to rile people up against government spending, except where they
>benefit.

If you believe that the various government agencies are wisely spending
your tax money, then we have little to discuss. We are not operating in
the same reality.

>Most of us don't own homes and are not planning on buying them.

Why not? Too busy buying BMWs and other goodies? My parents bought the
first family home with a great deal of effort and sacrifice. It was not
easy. It even required some assistance from THEIR parents. Today, I see
people right out of college or graduate school miffed because they
cannot walk right into home ownership. They blame everything and
everyone else just as you seem to be doing.

>I have contempt for the selfish who hoard in a world full of scarcity.

People who work very hard and contribute to society have a right to
have some benefit from that. Who are you to dictate that no one has a
right to anything above a subsistence level?

>>Fine with me. But do this please: buy some property, retire while you
>                                   ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>I think I'll buy a home in Hillsborough this afternoon!

This is exactly the immature attitude that I refer to above. You do not
start with an estate in the country. You start with something very
modest and work up. If you do not know that, then you need some very
serious life lessons.

>That this society cares little for its poor elderly is another issue, and with
>the economic structures left to us by the WWII generation, fewer of us have
>any hope of owning a home by the time we reach that age.  But the govt
>bites the bullet and helps you out if you are lucky enough to own a home,
>and if you don't, then its cat food for 15 years?

So what you want is the government to create "elderly poor" by taxing
them out of their homes and then offer them a helping hand? Are you so
insecure that you only feel comfortable around the unfortunate? Is it
not possible that we as a society should empower people to take care of
themselves rather than take everything away and then "help" the
newly-created poor?

Allowing people to keep some of what they have worked a lifetime for is
not evil. You have great contempt for elderly that have managed to set
themselves up to take care of themselves financially in their old age,
and then you turn around and berate the society for not caring enough for
the "poor elderly"? This makes no sense to me.

>_We_ deserve a society that tries to figure out a solution that preserves the
>dignity of all parties involved instead of hoarding wealth to one side.
>We deserve intellectual discussions of political matters without these
>racist scare tactics.

What racist scare tactics? Where was this introduced into the
discussion?

>Is the dignity of the retiree with a home somehow more substantial than that
>of the homeless person that he steps over each day or the child who gets
>a pseudo-education because the school can't afford books or the 25% of the
>African American population in jail for lack of opportunity?

What does one have to do with the other? Are you saying that someone
who works hard, plans well, sacrifices some pleasures to fulfil his
goals, and ends up NOT being a burden on society is somehow to blame
for some unrelated societal problems? I live in a paid-for home. It
wasn't easy. Am I responsible for the mismanagement of our schools?
(The issue of schools is complex, and most knowledgeable people in
the field do NOT blame a simple lack of funds for the problems.) Have I
been jailing African-Americans (or any other hypenated people for that
matter)?

BTW, I never went to college. Could not afford it. I nearly flunked out
of high school. I am really sick of this "lack of opportunity" crap.
One makes his own opportunities. Except for a small number of truly
handicapped people, the power to succeed is in each of us. When I was
in my impressionable years, all I ever heard was, "get off your fat ass
and do something". Today, you and others are too busy making excuses
for yourselves and others for any inability to achieve whatever you
feel is owed to you. If you tell someone that the reason he is going
nowhere is because society is letting him down long enough, he will believe
it. And he will become powerless.

I think it is time you grew up and smelled the coffee.
--
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
 [e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]