From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Smaller government means MORE money for the poor
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:19:14 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <BtsvzE.9Jo@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
>cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:
>
>>Ahh, the old "Soak the Rich".  It will not work.  The wealthy just
>>do not have enough money to cover the current level of congressional
>>spending.

>Do not get fooled by party propaganda. It is part of Bush's strategy
>to blame Congress, but he always submits LARGER budgets than they
>give him. Congress is actually trimming executive spending!!
>

Please, he is only the president of the united states of america. Why
should he take responsibility for the actions of the executive branch?
The Republican right has moved us beyond that archaic and primitive time
where political leaders were unfairly blamed  for their own actions. Oliver
North and Clair George were *forced* to lie to congress, Orin Hatch
was *forced* to lobby on behalf of BCCI, George Bush and Ronald Reagan
have been *forced* to introduce vast spending programs without income
to pay for them.  Similarly, Pat Buchanon, Newt Gingrich, Dan Quayle
and other chicken hawks were *forced* to miss out getting shot at in 
Vietnam despite their vocal support for sending others to get shot in their
place. Just like Dan Quayle blames it all on the media even though his
daddy owns a string of newspapers and TV stations, and just like
Orrin and Newt blame it on "congress" where they supposedly work, and
just like Ron Reagan and his second wife and maybe even their good buddy
Frank Sinatra blamed it all on a collapse in family values,
George Bush has a perfect right to blame it all on "government".


>As for the rest....  There are many necessary things that government
>does , that charity would not handle. 
>
>Reduce the size of government yes!! Start with removing the largest
>growth in government employees under in our history, they came on
>during Bush's term.
>
>If you are a conservative, BE A CONSERVATIVE. Reagan and Bush sing
>pretty songs , but the reality is:
>
>Reagan and Bush each have had larger deficits than ALL other presidents
>in history. Together they have crippled our ability to deal with the
>future.
>
>          1981 - 1989  
>Auto Imports  19%	30%
>Computer Imports  7%	36%
>machine tools	 27%	44%
>Consumer Elect.	 57%	75%  
>
>These guys have not been good for business either!!  Speaking as someone
>who has been involved in startups and venture capital and who has their
>own business now, Bush (and Reagan before him) have not been on the side
>of business except for big business. The trickle down theories really
>are "voodoo economics" that do not improve either savings rates or
>capital accumulation.
>
>Bush pretends to ba a conservative (Reagan was just asleep at the wheel)
>but he outspends every president in history, he increases government
>employment more than any president in history. He is not a conservative.
>
>He combines the worst historically Democratic characteristics like
>spending and government growth with the worst Republican characteristics
>and none of the best from either.
>
>Unless Perot reenters the race , most true conservatives (unless blinded
>by campaign propaganda) will have the dubious (for them) choice of 
>voting for Clinton or abstaining.
>
>Charlie
>
>P.S. Sorry to run off like that , I was just triggered by misuse of the
>word "congressional" in the quoted section above.
>
>
>-- 
>*****************************************************************************
>*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
>*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@chiechan.mro4.dec.com		    *
>*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: ne.politics