From: ggoebel@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Garrett Goebel)
Subject: Re: Flip-flop?!?
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Universitaet Freiburg, Deutschland
Distribution: world   
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 17:43:11 GMT

This is an attempt to respond to all the responses without multiple posts.
__________________________________________________________________________

Jason Steiner says, that politicians/Presidents shouldn't be exempt
from lying.  And that he'll still call Clinton a liar & a cheat.

Pablo Fumero says, they must be held up to their promises.

Mark Wilson sas, Clinton better make an honest attempt, or give a damn
good reason why not.

   Regardless of what "should" or "shouldn't" be, stick to reality.
Politicians and Presidents can and do lie and mislead voters, as Pablo
pointed out.  And they do and will get away with it.  However, there
is an outlet to the public's anger... the vote.  As Mark pointed out,
if Clinton doesn't convince us that he's making an honest attempt then
he will be voted out next term.

   However, this still leaves politicians a lot of room to maneuver.  It
is realistic to see that if Clinton fulfills only one promise out of 
however many he made to get elected, he can still get re-elected.  That 
one promise, is to restore to America a healthy economy (It is also the
hardest promise to deliver).  In the end, people care about the size of
their wallets.

   On the other hand, if Clinton gives an honest and neck-breaking attempt
to solve economic problems and fails... He'll be out in '96 even if he
fulfilled 99% of the numerous promises he made.  The point is, honesty 
doesn't matter, the wallet is what wins votes and puts Presidents in office,
not their honesty.

Also to Mark Wilson, I could care less what Bush was or wasn't pushing.  He
was a damned good President, but he isn't President anymore... and day
dreaming about how good things would be if only a Republican was in power
are a waste of time.  I'm not a Republican.  And I didn't vote for Clinton.
Clinton Administration is our administration... and I'll not be lock out in
the cold.  I will support anyone who will get the job done.  Like Churchhill,
I'd vote the Devil into office if he'd solve the deficit.


And on to Barry...
>|> Really now, we should all know buy now that government intervention in
>|> the market place means increased inefficiency.  

Barry writes:
>If anything the contrary is true - The Japanise, Korean and German governments>all take a very active government intervention policy.  Countrys that don't-
>e.g Britain + America have less successful economys.

In addition to the responses of others, I'd point out to Barry the current
position of Japan and Germany, namely recession.  Also, that Germany and
Japan the industialized countries... are privatizing their economies.
Example, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, Volkswagen, Matra, St.-Gobain,
Paribas, Compagnie Generale d'Electricite, Havas, British Aerospace,
British Telecom, BAA, and Air Canada.

Active intervention doesn't work.  In Japan, state supported monopolies
are falling apart.  The companies that were allowed to grow so "amazingly"
are fracturing.

On the other hand, the U.S. is leaner on intervention, and more productive.
There is a direct connection... less intervention = greater precision and
productivity.

>|> If Clinton wanted to give
>|> the country a real economic stimulus, he could do it by pushing for the
>|> removal of restrictive regulations and taxes.  

>This is what Bush+Regan had been promissing for 12 years.  IT CANNOT BE DONE!

Saying it can not be done... first doesn't refute that it is the right
thing to do, and second doesn't open the mind to new ways of doing it.
Bush actually was somewhat successful, surprising considering having
a rival party in the Congress (George Washington had it right when he 
pointed out that Parties are counter productive and stupid).

If you wanted to help out further, reduce the Capital Gains tax.  Why
disencourage investment?  Drop incentives to borrow... drop mortgage
incentives.  The government if anything tries to lead business and 
consumers into destroying themselves.

>|>Less government = more freedom and opportunity.
>More freedom, true but not neccesarly more prosperity or contentment.

I restate myself and add:

Less government = more freedom, opportunity, prosperity, productivity,
precision, and for me contentment.

What makes you content I have no idea... but I'd rather be free and 
wealthy than poor and repressed.

ggoebel
-- 
Garrett Goebel,8811500 <ggoebel@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:1873 alt.rush-limbaugh:15343