From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 14:13:03 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:16:40 GMT

In article <830@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>>If aspects of the plan change, so what. It is incredibly naive on your
>>part to believe that the program would not change. Here we sit on this
>>"moving ship" called the economy, and you want the program to be cast in
>>stone, regardless of any unforeseen political or economic events.
>
>No I want you to admit that his "plan", which he repeatedly claimed
during
>the campaign specific and chock full of details, the plan which he
claimed
>was the difference between he and Bush and Perot, the plan which he was
>on record as having layed the details out for, that plan never existed.

I am not going to admit it because it is not true. Did you ever even
listen
to the man? He said at two of the debates and at numerous campaign stops
that aspects of the plan could change due to unforeseen changes in the
economy and world events. If he
had said that the plan was cast in stone, I would have had my doubts about
his competance. To fully-cast an economic plan that far in advance,
with no contingency for adjustment
would have been stupid. Secondly, Bush not only didn't provide any
specific numbers for
his plan, he provided little detail. This is abysmal considering
he had three years to do it. Furthermore, the
thing that separates the Clinton plan from the
noncomprehensive, nonstructured babblings of Bush or the one-dimensional
approach of Perot was the plan's philosophy---deficit reduction by
investment in long-term growth and the resulting expansion of the tax
base. That aspect of the plan is still in place. Most of our
best economists have
said that this is the only legitimate path toward real deficit reduction.

>
>At Best what Clinton had in the campaign was a sketchy outline of some 
>proposals that used fudge or incomplete numbers to create an illusion
>of a plan.

I challenge you to prove that anything was "fudged" and to define
what Clinton would have had to produced to satisfy
you. How much detail do you demand? What in hell is an
"incomplete number"? Can you  cite the Clinton proposals in detail?
Clinton published his plan for full scrutiny. Can the same be said about
Bush?

>
>What I want is for you to answer these questions: Did he, or did he not
have
>the detailed and specific plan he claimed to have during campaign.  And
>if he did then what's the purpose of this conference?

His plan is quite detailed considering the fact that it wouldn't be
implemented for months. However, any claim that he said that the numbers
or
schedule was cast in stone is delusion on your part. Maybe you should 
actually read the plan and read the debate and speech transcripts
before you embarass yourself further. They are available from the Clinton
volunteers.

>
>I know what I think the answers are

Think? I thought you knew for sure? do you know what the first three
letters in "assumption" spell?

>and they lead me to the conclusion

Conclusions are based on what you KNOW, not what you THINK.
No wonder you can so effectively dismiss every fact you are presented
with.

>that
>Bill Clinton is a man that values symbolism over substance and he thinks
that
>because he was able to play that game with a bunch of podunks in Arkansas

Listen, Clinton's excellent record in Arkansas is a matter of public
record.
His award as most effective governor is a matter of public record.
Most people I have met from Arkansas show a much more developed
grasp of reality than you do.

Come on Galvanek...I dare you to post an actual fact based account to
back up
your contentions. Why don't you post the position paper of Clinton and
give us
a fact-filled analysis based on real data tearing it to threads
and dazzling us poor brain-
washed Clinton supporters. Explain to us why the numbers are bogus using
factual data. Tell us why the Bush plan is so much better. Explain to us
how supply-side economics was a boon to our nation's economy using OMB
data. Come on Paul....prove to us that you're not just another
rhetoric-spewing,
misinformation peddling, doomsaying conservative who's pouting because
his candidate lost.

Let's here your choices for cabinet posts. Tell us their credentials
and why they are so much better than Clinton's appointees. Let's here
what you would do to decrease the deficit and strengthen the economy.
Give us solid numbers to prove that your plan is superior.

The gauntlet is thrown....

>he can get away with it in Washington.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh