From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: A few words about Flip-Flops
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:28:41 GMT

The "richest 2%" saw there TAX RATE go down and the their PERCENTAGE OF THE
INCOME TAX PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT go up.  What does one mean by "fair share"
and what is the rationalization behind the meaning.

If the middle class family with children is overburdened, maybe they
should have planned a little more wisely.  You can't get yourself into
trouble and then expect the government to bail you out.

>
>I doubt seriously that his tax reductions were a major point in his being
>elected.  Economics, yes.  But this specific proposal which even _he_ was
>rethinking late in the campaign?  I think not.

Ask people who voted for Clinton.  Most people (the other 98%) thought that
their taxes would go down and the taxes on the rich would go up.  Ahhh.. the
politics of greed in action.
>
>>If this
>>proposal cannot be enacted, why honor him with the highest office in the land
?
>
>I think you're just bitter.  First of all, you haven't even seen an economic
>plan from Clinton yet.  He's been in office for all of twelve hours now and
>you already think he shouldn't be honored with the Presidency.  Certainly
>you're entitled to your opinion, but don't you think you're perhaps being
>just a bit unfair????????

Clinton's economic plan was supposed to be ready by now.
>
>Seriously - give him a chance and see what you think about what he does, not
>what the media thinks he's going to do or what you think he might do.  He's
>a new president, he at least deserves a chance, don't you think?
>
He was elected because of what people thought he WOULD do.

>>> This will take money, yes.  Perhaps a so-called "fiscal stimulus."  But the
>>> idea is to do something, so that the economy will grow, and the deficit
>>> can be reduced (also you can reduce the deficit by cutting waste, which is
>>> something Bush always said he would do but never did).



>
>>Here I disagree. The point is NOT to do something. Far too often when a
>>government plays around with "fiscal stimulus" (In the context that Clinton h
as
>>vested in) the opposite effect desired will occur. The only reasonable
>>"stimulus" per se is to send a message to the private sector that government
is
>>not going to atificially manipulate the market. Reagan was a master of this.
>
>Well, what we see here is a difference in economic philosophies.  I can cope
>with the fact that we disagree about economic policy - I just can't cope with
>unfair and harsh attacks on a guy who doesn't deserve them.
>
>>> If not, can we have lost that much?  Inaction has been killing us...
>>Here I must reiterate, however cliche it has become, that change for the sake
>>of change is asinie, and often counter-productive. (Jimmy Carter ring a bell?
)
>
>Bill Clinton, noon today:
>
>"When our founders boldly declared America's independence to the world
>and our purposes to the Almighty, they knew that America, to endure,
>would have to change.
>        Not change for change's sake, but change to preserve America's ideals
>-- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. And though we march to the
>music of our time, our mission is timeless...
>    Thomas Jefferson believed that to preserve the very foundations of
>our nation, we would need dramatic change from time to time. Well, my
>fellow Americans, this is our time. Let us embrace it.
>        Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine
>of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be
>cured by what is right with America.
>        And so today, we pledge an end to the era of deadlock and drift and a
>new season of American renewal has begun.

Does this mean that deadlock in the previous adminstration was planned?

>        To renew America, we must be bold.
>        We must do what no generation has had to do before. We must invest
>more in our own people in their jobs and in their future, and at the
>same time cut our massive debt. And we must do so in a world in which we
>must compete for every opportunity.
>        It will not be easy; it will require sacrifice. But it can be done,

"Sacrifice" means taxing the middle class because that is where the money is.

>and done fairly, not choosing sacrifice for its own sake, but for our

"Fairly" means the politics of greed.

>own sake. We must provide for our nation the way a family provides for
>its children."

Yes--if you have a problem run to mommy and she will solve it or "feel your 
pain!">
>Doesn't sound to me like a guy who believes in change for change's sake!

Sounds like a lot of rhetoric.

>
>>> It was quite
>>> clear to anyone who followed the campaign carefully that by election day,
>>> Clinton was not planning a middle-income tax cut.  But he also didn't want
>>> to raise middle-income taxes, either!
>
>>During the last Presidential debate, Clinton renewed this pledge. It was to
>>this that I refered.
>
>Again, I think perhaps it was overblown - do you have the text of the debate?
>Alas, I never got it in electronic form...

If you have been reading this newsgroup, Clinton's rhetoric about a MCTC has
been well documented.
>
>>And I blame the populus for not investigating Clinton enough.
>
>And I would join with you.  The populus doesn't investigate anyone enough -
>it simply doesn't feel it is important enough to justify its time.  It's not
>just Clinton, it's every president.  But what can you do??
>
>At least they made a good choice this time! :-)
>
>
>It's good to see that this discussion has quenched the flames and turned
>into a somewhat rational discussion!!!!!
>
>Ben
>--
>Ben McCall, Caltech - bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu
>SEDS President, Technical Projects Coordinator


JSL.