From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:40:05 EST
Summary: dir
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1bk32lINNdp6@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.142226.4780@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <1bf1pkINNgit@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> 
>>>>I must have missed it when the democratically-controlled Congress assumed
>>>>blameless status? Did the original 1990 budget that Bush submitted have a
>>>>tax increase in it? Or, was the tax increase added by Congress?
>  
>>> Bush's original budget had an even LARGER deficit and had to be revised
> 
>>	Deficit?  We're talking TAXES.
> 
> What we're talking about is what had to be done about the $500 Billion
> deficit which was shaping up in early 1990. Today's NY Times editorial

	Quit spending so much.

> points out that Bush's economic advisers warned that No New Taxes would
> backfire. In the absence of new taxes, every discretionary federal
> program except defense would have had to be cut by one-third. As a
> Libertarian, Stupes, I imagine this thought pleases you. However, it
> didn't please Bush (or the Democrats). Can you imagine what unemployment
> would be like if one-third of the federal employees were laid off!

	Something like we have now? :)

	We spent 30 years building 4.1 trillion in debt, we can take more than
one year to reduce it.

>>> Howver, Bush's 1993 budget AS SUBMITTED had several tax and fee
>>> increases.
> 
>>	Okay, larger or smaller than the one that was eventually signed? And
>>what about all those Demo promises to cut spending???
> 
> The 1993 budget is still on the table. The Times pointed out that the
> Demos kept to their side of the agreemnt pretty well. It's George Bush
> who welshed, and, Stupes, even supposing that the massive budget cut is
> a good idea, you haven't heard GHWB say once what he would do if he had
> 1990 over again except refuse to raise taxes. In other words, he is too
> chicken even now to endorse any alternative.

	No, congress hasn't kept it's word.  There isn't a single
congress-favored program that has a cut in it.  It's almost all coming from
defense.

> If I had just one question for GHWB in a debate, it would be: A time
> mchine has taken you back to June 1990. Do not raise taxes. Tell us what
> spending cuts you will make instead. Be specific.

	Heh.  Across the board, 10% per year until the debt is paid.

> I'll give YOU credit: you have such a list (although I disagree with
> it). GHWB does not. He wants the money to spend, but not the blame.

	I guess I should clear something up, I don't like GB.  However, what I
think are the solutions to the current problems don't match with the Dems,
which usually has be debating against them.  (Giving the impression that I'm a
Bushite).

> I should mention in passing that the Republican party in NJ is the same
> way. They won the state legislature griping about a big Demo tax
> increase, but when the lame duck legislature was going to REPEAL the
> taxes (so that the incoming Repubs would have to find some of their
> own!), the Republicans changed sides. So now they have the Demo tax
> money to spend, but not the blame.... The Republicans: The Free Lunch
> Party.

	All to often the seduction claims the hero....

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11078 talk.politics.misc:52560 sci.econ:8157