From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.040531.1597@athena.mit.edu>
    jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>
>Jim, [and excuse me for butting in to a discussion to which I do not belong]
> but please allow me to help you out.
>
>I saved this post when I saw it--I knew it would come in handy:
>
>This data is taken from a Wall Street Journal article detailing the 
>congressfolk who would spend the most if everything went their way, as
>well as the dollar amount of the total of spending _increases_ and _decreases_
>said folk sponsored.  All amounts given in billions.  Enjoy, democrats!!
>
> [interesting data deleted]

Nit-pick, you missed two other Republicans and an Independent.

>
>This shows pretty conclusively that under a democratic president who would
>have vetoed decidedly _fewer_ democratically-pushed bills, our debt (and 
>deficit) would be MUCH bigger.  Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten all of 
>the miraculous growth that would occur with all this spending, and the tax 
>revenues would roll right in, right?  Sure.	

This list does not represent the majority of House Democrats, because it is
too short.  This list may be mostly Democrats, but they would be unable to
win a majority in the Democratic Party, let alone the entire House.

>Midway between the highest and lowest spenders is $224 billion.  If
>those expenditures were authorized by a democrat president and _no more_,
>we'd still be $224 billion more dollars in debt, ignoring the petty cuts shown
>in the fifth column.

Well, it looks impressive, but 95 votes do not make a majority in the
House.  I would like to see this list expanded to include all 435 House
members.  That $224B is not representative of the entire House, or even
the entire Democratic Party.  How much were the Republicans willing to cut?  

>What you have to understand is that although it is impossible to say "such and
>such would have happened" with any surety, it is pretty clear from figures
>such as these that a democratic president would have (and still will, if 
>elected) blown us back to the economic stone age what with the desire to 
>pad every special interest lobbying organization's wallet (he would have
>or will owe them all for getting him elected!!) and the desire to 
>solve all of society's programs with more spending--an irresponsible 
>ideology at best.

Gee, what about special interests that have prospered under the Republicans?
The defense industry.  The oil companies.  The timber companies.  The
S&L bandits.  The corporate raiders.  The health-insurance companies.

I'm not anti-business.  I just wanted to state that the Republicans have
their own set of special interests, too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton