From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Subject: A "New" Reich
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:04:13 GMT
	<1992Nov9.201907.22803@kadsma.kodak.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Nov9.201907.22803@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
<   In article <1992Nov8.124336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
<   >     On This Week with David Brinkley, Clinton economic advisor
<   >Robert Reich said that the current recession is not as deep
<   >as the 1981-1982 recession.  This does not seem consistent
<   >with the "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme I 
<   >continually heard from the Clinton campaign.  Secondly, Reich
<   >said that although Clinton did promise a middle-class tax
<   >cut, it really wasn't a *salient* point.  Once again, I remember
<   >Clinton campaign ads *trumpeting* that the middle class would
<   >"get a break" under a Clinton administration.
<   >     Just think what we'll hear *after* the inauguration....
<   >
<   >     C. Perttunen


<   I believe you're wrong on both counts. First of all, I don't recall
<   anyone using the phrase 'worst economic conditions in 50 years',
<   either from the Clinton campaign, or from any other campaign, or
<   from the media generally. 

	Isn't it a bit early to rewrite history? I guess not...

	Al Gore, during the VP debate, stated exactly that.
	I believe the phrase was,"This recession has placed
	the United States in the worst economic conditions
	in 50 years....the worst since the Great Depression".

	Never mind that 50 years ago was 1942, not 1932....

	Is Gore part of the "Clinton campaign", please?


<In fact, most comments were to the effect
<   that this recession, while not as *deep* as some previous ones,
<   was both broader and longer in duration. 

	Huh? Where was this? Not on "Face the Nation", where
	Senate Majority Leader Mitchell claimed the recession
	was "the worst in recent memory.....worse than the
	1970's".

	Not on NBC/ABC/CBS "News", which routinely featured
	bad economic news as lead story...until last week.

<Much analysis was devoted
<   to the seeming paradox that people were much more anxious than the
<   numbers warranted.

	In W. F. Buckley's column, perhaps....not on the
	nightly news, not on the Sunday political talk
	shows and certainly not in any Clinton campaign
	speech.

<   Secondly, Clinton de-emphasized the middle-class tax cut shortly
<   after the New Hampshire primary, and began stressing other elements
<   of his program, such as education and infrastructure investment.
<   I heard a number of Clinton speeches during the latter phase of the
<   campaign, and heard not one reference to a middle-class tax cut.

	
	Yes, just about the time that the phrase "raising the
	taxes on people that earn $200,000 or more" became "raising
	taxes on *households* that earn $200,000 or more...or 
	individuals that earn $125,000 or more".

	Stick around....that number will soon hit, oh,
	"households that earn $35,000 or more" since that
	is where the taxable income is.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.rush-limbaugh