From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:16:06 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>>>Gary, would I be wrong if I guessed that Mr Whitehead is one of the
>>>Reagan-can-do-no-wrong Republicans?
>>
>>Absolutely right ... considering the movement that swept Ron into the
>>White House, he was the closest that was palatable in the realpolitik
>>that prevailed at the time.  So far, no true fiscal conservative has
>>ever made it into office -- not even Mags.
>
>oh, so *now* Thatcher was a "true fiscal conservative" but Reagan was
>not. how consistent.

Okay, one more time ...

"So far, no true fiscal conservative has ever made it into office --
not even Mags."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>As I said, and you concur, folks like John C. Whitehead "persist in 
>>that notion" so nobody on the Republican side need consider looking 
>>any further than Ronnie Reagan's example* -- after all, Ronnie tried 
>>and threw up his hands after ~18 months.
>
>according to Senator Rudman, Reagan could have mustered the votes
>in 198*6* to end the indexing of social security benefits, but didn't.
>explain that.

Very disappointing.  Considering all the whining about Congress by
Bush, Reagan before him and Republicans in general, the "Showdown at
OK Corral", Washington version, never materialized when they had that
opportunity.  As per my past references to David Stockman's view from
the inside, it all went out the window when Reagan's circle realized
that their own oxes would have been gored ...

A similiar phenomenom occured in the Mulroney government.  

>>Jack Kemp has been trying to look "for real" but he shows that he 
>>has a heart as well as a brain.  Bush could have done better by 
>>being his own man and only going conservative on finances without any
>>conflict with his real self (i.e., up 'til summer 1979) but blew it.
>
>*what* does that mean?
>even those who think *Reagan* was fiscally conservative don't think 
>that Bush ever was. this is getting ridiculous...

Bush could have pulled off fiscal conservatism without wrinkling his
past liberal Republican stance without inconsistency.  He didn't, he
let himself be locked into "family values" loop ...

>>What Reagan did has defined the popular definition of "fiscal
>>conservative" for the lay American public ...
>
>what Reagan did was *warp* the definition of "fiscal conservative"
>for all the baa-ing woolly mammals in north america.
>
>>sorta what happened to "liberal" (i.e., nothing to do with the 
>>UK party of Disraeli and of Churchill).
>
>what a joke. where do you come up with this crap?

Another repeat ... "... has defined the popular definition of ...";
even now in Europe, the traditional meaning of liberal still holds
(e.g., liberals have motivated free trade, commercial deregulation,
etc.) -- big deal what Americans mean (and influence Canadians on 
the meaning) about the word.

>>*Think about it.  Mulroney came into power *after* Reagan and Thatcher.
>>He knew how much room he had with which to maneuvre ...
>
>oh yeah, poor guy. nothing he could do. gee, Gary, he sure *told*
>us he could do a lot. but i guess we owe him *infinite* benefit 
>of the doubt.

We do?  Why do you say that?

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics