From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: The Clinton Program
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.003441.29983@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>It seems Mulroney may be right...
>
>The Clinton stimulus is going to be no larger than $60 billion...
>and probably a lot less.
>
>...his economic conference is recommending, even with all his
>basically "liberal" economists stimuli from nothing to $60 billion
>at the most, with most advocating only about $30 billion.
>
>If you compare the sizes of the economy, the Canadian equivalent
>of that is about $3 billion, which is essential in the range
>the action Mulroney and Mazankowski have taken...

it's better than what it could have been, but ignores the simple
fact that neither country can afford to stimulate anything.

>...none of the McLaughlin-Chretien nonsense about going on a 
>borrowing and spending binge.

we'll see. remember, we are all on a borrowing and spending
binge *right now*.

>Also, the emphasis is going to be on deficit reduction in the
>medium term...

i'll believe it when i see it. the politicians always want to
spend money in the short term and reduce the deficit in the
medium or long term. the results speak for themselves.

ronald reagan, when he took office in 1981, said in his first
television address that "the deficit of nearly $80 billion" was 
evidence that "the federal budget is out of control". his *average*
deficit over his 8 years was more than double that. in his first
address to congress he said "can we, who man the ship of state,
deny that it is somewhat out of control? our national debt is
approaching $1 trillion". it is was $2.6 trillion when he left.

>which means Clinton wants to make significant
>inroads against the deficit in the second half of his first
>term.

only if he is willing to tackle entitlements (social spending)
which are growing at a something like 5 times the rate of inflation.

>The capital gains tax cut on long held assets, and
>health care reform, the education and training initiatives,
>and all the Canadian-like social programs all are going to
>have to be undertaken in the context of this rather austere
>fiscal framework.

they can't be. the numbers don't add up. it has been that way
since he started his campaign, and it still is that way. the US
gov't can't even afford what it has now. and clinton's claim
that we will "grow our way out of debt" is the same hooey that
reagan used.

>Turns out that Clinton is a Mulroneyish Red Tory on fiscal policy.

if that is the case, the USA is in serious trouble.
your comparison seems to have some valid points on the surface.
but at least clinton doesn't have the nerve to call himself
a "conservative", progressive or otherwise.

>And Clinton is not likely to raise taxes next year...Mulroney
>is not going to raise taxes next spring...

i don't know about mulroney.

who wants to bet that clinton won't raise taxes in '93?
send in that money today...

>Bob Rae and Pink Floyd are going to sock it to Ontarians on the
>tax front.

what's their "justification du jour"?
seriously, do they have a particular reason for this?

also, have they pre-announced any new spending to use up the
new tax?

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada