From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:42:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.202406.18220@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Nov06.211519.14545@bnr.ca> labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche) writes:

>>Well why don't you go back and refresh yourself on these
>>same aspects of the Bush and Reagan pre-presidential days.
>>I'm sure the same kinda big business stuff was going on 
>>then as well as now.  

>Less so under Reagan, more so under Bush - they are two VERY
>different Presidents - I thought Reagan was great overall - 
>I am less thrilled with Bush and didn't vote for him this time.

>>Geeze, you guys act like Clinton wants to give away the country.  

>Not really - but I am scared about all the special interests
>that will attempt to sway him their way. Its already starting...
>But Clinton did make a number of promises to the voters - lets 
>hope he sticks to them.

As James Madison would say, everyone is a special interest.

>>Well I guess thats fair cause I feel there's enough evidence 
>>that under the Reagan/Bush years that makes me think the 
>>same of these two GOP-heads.  You remember things like 
>>increasing the national debt by over 3 trillion in 12 years.  

>Wrong----it increased 3 trillion in the last 4 years, under

This is just wrong.  It increased by 3 trillion in the last *12* years.
It increased by about 1 1/4 trillion in the last *4* years.

>George Bush. It increased at a far slower pace under Reagan.
>Lets also not forget who controls the public debt - Congress.

Really?  The President has to sign every budget passed by Congress.  
And both Ronald Reagan and George Bush did.

>>Boy I'm sure we could do without that.  Give the guy a chance to
>>sit his fanny in the big chair in the white house before
>>freaking out with your paranoid delusions.  

>Its not paranoia - watch it happen! Why did the Democratic
>leadership and big wigs keep a low profile this election?

Because there is no such thing?  Bill Clinton is now the Democratic
leadership.  The only other person who could reasonably be called part
of the Democratic leadership is Ron Brown, and he was *not* low profile.

>Why are they flexing their muscle now? I happen to like Bill
>Clinton but am worried that he will be cajoled to give away
>the country to liberal interests - even thought the NY Times
>reported that Americans are largely conservative and Tuesday's
>election validated that. Lets hope that the politicians listen
>to the voters and what they say, including:

>  Exit polls taken by CNN on election day reveal in a straight choice 
>  between lower taxes and more government services, the electorate 
>  preferred by 55% to 37% to keep taxes down even if government 
>  services suffered.

This is a perfect example of how polls can be used deceptively.  This is
a false dichotomy.  You can have both of these, at least in the short
term, as long as you're willing to accept high deficits.  And the facts
show that most people are -- look at who wins elections.

>  Californians voted 58% to 42% to reject a "soak-the-rich" tax plan.
>  Coloradians voted 54% to 46% to require voter approval of all state
>  and local tax increases. They also voted 55% to 45% to reject a raise in
>  the sales tax to fund schools.
>  Arizona said (by 72%) that the legislature must approve tax hikes by a
>  two-thirds margin.
>  In Florida, a property tax limit bill was passed by 53% of the voters.
>  South Dakota voters rejected imposing a state income tax by a 3 to 1 margin.
>  The Democratic candidate for Governor of New Hampshire advocated an
>  income tax and was roundly defeated.
>  Other states also rejected tax increasing items (North Dakota, Oregon,
>  Oklahoma, Missouri).
>  California voters rejected a big public-works bill.
>  In NY, Governor Cuomo, labor and the unions were behind a big public 
>  works bond bill ($850million) which the voters also rejected by some
>  55% to 45% margin. 

All you've shown is the obvious truism that the public is against taxes.
No one has ever thought otherwise.  Not that the public is conservative.

>There is plenty of evidence that people want a less intrusive, less
>expensive, more responsive government. Let's hope Bill Clinton has
>the courage, wisdom and leadership to deliver that to us.

No, this is evidence that people want less expensive government.  The
fact that the only candidate offering much less intrusive government,
Andre Marrou, got 0.25% of the vote is evidence that people want MORE
intrusive government -- look at the party line all 3 candidates parroted
in the first debate about the WOD.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections