From: jdough@unf6.unf.edu (Joseph Dougherty)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BUSH
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:59:55 GMT
Organization: University of North Florida, Jacksonville

>Growing AIDS crisis?  Why does everybody blame society or the president
>for the growing AIDS crisis.  It came and it is still here because some
>people absolutely refuse to change their behavior.
>
>True a very small amount got AIDS from blood transfusions but most got it
>through behavior as in Promiscuous, dangerour sex, and/or drugs!
>
>I don't see why Bush is being blamed for something people could have stopped
>with their OWN actions.  People get AIDS and spread it because of the
>things they do not what Bush does or doesn't do.

This is the typical reaction from people who just don't get it, Martin. 
I am a young (37) conservative and a Republican (the two can me mutually 
exclusive!) who has become awful weary of people blaming *everything* on
Reagan , Bush, the GOP, Jesse Helms, Alan Simpson, Clarence Thomas, and 
any other individual whose name is followed by the word conservative.
	People seem to conveniently forget that almost $4 billion is spent on 
AIDS research each year. But, this is never enough! This happens because
AIDS is the first disease wiht a political agenda. Imagine for a 
moment thousands of cancer patients holding protests in Washington. Imagine
the hundreds of thousands of victims of heart disease creating a giant 
quilt as a symbol of their suffering (something like that would likely cover
the entire landscape. People with those diseases don't have a political
network for support. All they have his each other and hope. But the cries that
America isn't doing enough for AIDS are lies, since we can't seem to get away
from talking about the problem. We're also seeing something which we haven't
seen with other diseases before: the spreading of misinformation. If you
believe the media or much of the nonsense from the AIDS activists, this
problem is now knocking on everyone's door....but it isn't. The problem stii
still exists within a small circle of individuals, those who insist on 
participating in risky  lifestyles. 
	And that's why Bush and his predecessors get blamed...because those
who have the real responsibility for the spread of the problem don't want
to take responsibility for themselves. 

>Deepening economic problems?  As if Jimmy Carter and other fellow Democrats
>had it all happy happy joy joy in that great and lovely year of '79 where
>the misery index was much much greater.  Prosperity under the Reagan
>years had been great.  Give the man a break.

	I would get a real laugh out of seeing Mr. Clinton get elected
with a Democratic congress. I recently heard about a report prepard by 
Sen. Phil Graham, in which he took the expenditures outlined by Clinton's
economic plans (which he says will be paid for by direct expenditures of 
private profits and taxing those profits) and bounced them against the 
national business numbers from one recent year (I believe it was '91).
	To summarize, American private business had a profit in that
period of about $190 billion. If you were to deduct all the money those 
businesses would have been taxed or would have directly spent on 
Clinton's federally-required programs, that profit would have been reduced to 
about $60 billion. Now, since most businesses reinvest their profits
into their business, that's two-thirds of that possbile corporate gone
to federal entitlement programs. It follows that since most businesses in 
America are *small* business who have under 200 employees, many of those 
companies would have to flod for lack of working capital. This would
increase unemployment, increase our taxes, increase the size of welfare
rolls, and so on. 
	I'm not trying to pump up the President, since I think he's been 
weak on some issues and too willing to waffle to a liberal Congress. However
the best thing he or any President could do would be to *leave the economy
alone* and let it run through it's cycle. Cutting taxes and federal
spending (especially in entitlement areas) would help move things alone,
as has lower interest rates and inflation. We're stuck in a somewhat slow
recovery, one only exacerbated by that stupid tax law Bush agreed to go 
along with two years ago. But we are recovering. And, as you so frustratingly 
stated, the blame cannot be placed soley at Bush's feet. I certainly don't
want to return to the days of Jimmy Carter.

>
>Besides, why are we all blaming one man for our country's problems?  If you
>look at our Constitution, you will see that THREE branches of gov't share
>power.  ONLY one of them is the Executive office.  What about Congress?
>Doesn't Congress have the same IF not MORE than the Executive office?
>Hey, wouldn't you rather make laws instead of just carry them out?  
>Congress wields a great power and guess who controls them?  Why does
>everybody blame Bush?  Why not Congress too?

	I thin you're going to see a surprising shakeup in Congress this year and next. Many people in the House and Senate come up for reelection in 93 and
94, and we will be reminded of any improprieties the incumbents were involved
in while in office. Unfortunately, Presidential politics tend to overshadow
other campaigns, except in those areas directly affected. Where I reside here
in the NE corner of Florida, we've had redistricting (which created a new seat)
and two local congressmen (Charlie Bennett and Craig James) are leaving the 
House (Bennett, the Democrat, has been there over 40 years, and James, the 
Republican, has been there 8 years but is leaving out of frustration. He 
can't get anything done).
	I think the time for blame has come to an end. What's it's time to do
is examine each candidate, think about the long-term results or consequences
of their actions, and vote accordingly. 
	It's going to be a fascinating year.

see you,

Joe
jdough@unf6.cis.unf.edu
Xref: sparky talk.bizarre:23596 alt.flame:11416