From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:55:43 GMT

born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
>I would also concur on paying more in taxes.  Unfortunately, we already
>tried that under Bush and look at the results.  There's
>one thing that Clinton said in his acceptance speech that I really agree
>with is (and paraphrasing), "even if they(Bush & Co.) don't like
>government, the least they could do is make what is there work."
>The legacy of the Reagan-Bush era is government that doesn't work
>which I partially (more than 50%) attribute the deficit problems to them.

I don't think we have a problem of government not working, but a problem of
the electorate wanting more and more services for the same tax dollar.
Clinton will not make things run any more efficiently than Bush.  The only
thing to decide between the two candidates on is whose programs do you want
to pay for.

>On a side note. Wouldn't the effects of "spending was frozen" cause your
>salary to be frozen or cut?

Could be, but that comes with the territory when working directly or
indirectly for the government.  If that time comes I'd have to decide
whether I liked what I'm doing enough to make a sacrifice in pay.  I'd
rather make a relatively small sacrifice now then have my kids pay through
the nose when what we owe on the deficit finally comes due.

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>> Clinton, a man who is luring the middle class to vote for him by saying
>> that people making over $200,000 will have their taxes raised, but then
>> refuses to guarantee that the rest of us won't pay more.  It's hypocritical

>I may be wrong, but hasn't he proposed programs that will cost EVERYONE
>more money and admits it. Knowing that, many people still support Clinton.
>
>In the context of saying something on CROSSFIRE
>to the effect raising peoples taxes would be an excellent sound bite that
>the republicans would use against the Clinton campaign.

But he has been relying heavily on the 'class warfare' rhetoric in order to
sway the middle class.  A LOT of those people who say they are for Clinton
think they will never have to pay any more in taxes since we'll be soaking
the rich.

>> of him to blast Bush for compromising with the Democrats and raising taxes,
>> and then play 'mind games' himself with the middle class.
>
>Bush and Co. don't play 'mind games'?  Let's talk about the negotiations
>that are going on about the debates.

I agree, Bush plays his share of games with the voters.  But Clinton has
campaigned first on the theme that he represents change.  So far I see
nothing different except for the fact that he wants to fund Democratic
interests as opposed to Republican interests.  I'll say it again - how
could all you Democrats let yourselves be manipulated by the political
machine into nominating Clinton when you had a great candidate in Paul
Tsongas.  He was willing to have EVERYBODY take their medicine in solving
our problems.  None of these side issues like Vietnam, Hillary, etc. would
have had any effect on him.  The Democrats didn't nominate the best
candidate, they nominated the one which pandered most to the special
interests.
 
-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, if (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) are moderates, I'm | These pontifications
a world champion speller." - Vice-President Dan Quayle  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections