Re: Life Duty Death

Julie Locascio (
Tue, 12 Sep 1995 11:41:08

>I believe that she meant her great grandfather came over LEGALLY. It makes a
>BIG difference. A good part (no I won't dare say all) of the Mexican
>migrants of
>today are ILLEGAL aliens.

Illegal in the eyes of the I.N.S., perhaps, but not illegal regarding the law
of the jungle, natural law, or higher law. We do not arrest birds and
butterflies that cross national boundaries in their natural cycles of birth,
migration, food-hunting, and death. We treat human beings striving to survive
as criminals. Let he who is without legal transgression cast the first stone.

>At least he wasn't taking money away from my family. HE (and/or his wife)
>obviously could afford to feed, cloth and shelter his children.

Really? And how exactly could you afford to buy groceries if Mexican migrants
were not working for ridiculous wages, living in filthy camps without running
water, clean clothes, pick your fruits and vegetables and butcher
your meats? Why don't you look at the literature on the economics of farming.
There aint no FARMERS in this country clamoring for illegal aliens to be
deported because they know how damn hard it is to find American citizens
willing to do this back-breaking labor. Harvest wages would have to go WAY
up, and so would your grocery bills. Those precious illegal aliens are
subsidizing your grocery bills with their minimalist "lifestyle".

>She worked for it, she deserves it. That's more than I can say for SOME of
those>on welfare. And, having worked since I was 16 and planning to work the
rest of>my life (until 70 anyway), I like to think I'll be able to collect
Social>Security too, since I contribute to it with every paycheck. Of course
that >hope looks awfully slim nowadays. Where do you thing the S. S. money is
all>going to, hmmmm?

The point is that social security has, in general, been paying out more per
person than the individual person put in. Yes, people did contribute to
social security, but they have been living 10, 20, 30 years in retirement:
this was never anticipated. You can call it anything you like, but the bottom
line is that retirees who live long eventually get charity from the social
security system: this is welfare for the elderly. I am NOT against it. My
point is that people who point their fingers at other people are not being
honest about all aspects of welfare in this country. If you pay $20,000 into
social security and get out $60,000 over the course of a long retirement, you
are getting a handout. Again, I am NOT against this. I am trying to point
out the lack of internal logic that other people use to complain about federal
handouts for some things without recognizing the federal handouts involved in
other things.

>Your diatribe is just as long as the original, and everyone has the right to
>express their opinions.

My point was that she complains about federal spending for some things, but
uses public money herself (via internet subsidies) without any obvious
justification. I did complain about federal spending--hence, I have not
demonstrated hypocrisy by using the internet.

>As a member of the middle class, whom the government seems to believe is
>wealthy, I must agree with just about everything swan has said (except for her
>attack on Catholicism -- lets try to keep religion out of this).

I don't think the government believes the middle class is wealthy: why else
would they give the middle class enormous tax breaks for buying houses and
having children? And Swan was very adamant that her opinions derived from her
religious beliefs: there is no way to respond to her without taking into
consideration the religious argument presented.

I personally
>would prefer to
use my money for the benefits of my own children -- college
>costs aren't
getting any cheaper, you know. I cannot justify in any way>putting the money
towards these families who are taking charity and>willfully increasing the
amount they take. How can they have any conscience>(sp?)? >The welfare system
does need reform, and the burden should NOT be carried by>those who are rich.
The rich already give the majority of tax money.>Besides, who decides who is
rich and who is not? Anyone who says "the rich">should take the burden is just
envious of people that have a lot of money.

Wealth is relative. It is also circumstantial and accidental. Who are some
of the rich people where I live? People who bought huge tracts of real estate
when it was dirt cheap, and sell it or lease out rental property at very high
prices now. They got rich BECAUSE THEY GOT HERE FIRST. That is an ACCIDENT
of HISTORY--not proof of their deservedness to be rich. African slaves came
into this country legally, too, but they did not have the right or the money
to buy property for a long time. This is NOT proof of their deservedness to
be poor--this is a circumstantial truth.

Wealth becomes possible due to a variety of factors, including the fact that
the government maintains transportation infrastructure, public order and
safety, favorable trade arrangements , and access to cheap labor. Yes, many
people have worked very hard to earn their million bucks, but those bucks were
also made possible by a variety of societal circumstances, and anybody who
pretends otherwise has simply not tried to go to a country like Somalia and
pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And saying a rich person worked hard
for their wealth does not disprove that millions more work hard just to
survive, without any circumstantial opportunity of becoming rich.

Yes, the welfare system needs to be reformed, but throwing human rights out
the window is not going to improve it. As I have said before, if you wage
violent war on the poor, you better watch your backside. Swan was not talking
about reforming the welfare system--she was talking about genocide of the
poor. Your remarks are also approaching that extreme.