From: rjc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic (European?) Arrogance makes us lau
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:00:47 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1992Aug21.053744.16235@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>[foreign policy stuff deleted]
>>
>>>The thing is that Bush does not have a coherent domestic policy
>>
>>This line is getting tired ... it is quite untrue:
>>
>>Bush has submitted proposals on Banking reform;
>     I hope this works better than the S&L deregulation.....                    
   Started by Carter.   All this proves is that the government should
not be in the insurance business. Not health insurance, not banking
insurance.  Ask yourself this, what private sector insurance company
would charge premiums totally unrelated to risk?

  Big government. Just SAY NO!

>>an Economic recovery package which includes capital gains tax cuts,
>     This is the same old story.. why did we not have so much
>     trouble with investment in the bad old days when capital gains
>     could have been taxed at higher rates than they are now?

   Maybe because we want more investment. There will always be some
opportunists who will risk investment in a high tax economy. Even
if capital gains was 90% there would still be investment. The question
is, would there be enough?   The capital gains is not merely a rich
man's tax.  I know plenty of people, including myself, and my parents
who own stock and real estate (our home).  

>>R&D investment credits, and housing incentives.
>>He has proposed enterprise zone legislation to reviatalize our inner cities.
>     This is Republican economics? Seems like twisting the arm of
>     capital resources to go somewhere the market wouldn't take them
>     naturally.....

  He's not twisting their arm, he's trying to gently coax business
into the inner cities by offering them a carrot on a stick (a tax break).
After the riots, I wouldn't be surprised if no business takes it.
Why would I build my business in a looter area with only a paultry
tax break?

>>He has negotiated a free-trade agreement with Mexico.
>     So? I go to Mexico frequently and I can tell you we're not going to
>     sell much to those folks. I'm not a protectionist, but it's going
>     to take maybe 5-6 years before this will have a positive
>     effect here. I like the idea because it will benefit Texas...the
>     folks in Michigan will probably come out on the bad end....

  So no president should do anything which takes more than 4 years to
see the effect?  And people criticize Bush for his lack of "the vision thing"!

>>He has asked for a line-item veto and balance budget amendment to control
>     Refried beans again. Until the voters of BOTH parties get weened
>     from federal spending, this is just blowing smoke.

  The republicans in New Jersey recently took hold of the legislature and
cut $1billion from the state budget. There's no doubt as to which party
is more fiscally responsible.

>>deficit spending, and has submitted spending recissions (like the Seawolf,
>>which failed in the House).
>>Bush has submitted a significant proposal on providing health insurance
>>for the currently uninsured.
>     Tell me more.

 Tort reform, tax credits.    What's Clinton's plan? Tax 1/2 of all
business profits, force small businesses who can only afford 1 or 2
employees to pay for benefits? "Tackle" insurance companies by fascist
price controls on the market. "Force" insurance companies to provide
unilateral insurance coverage to all claims ( i.e. no premiums based
on risk, even if you are terminally ill) Sounds like a prescription for
disaster. A chance to repeat the S&L/FSLIC fiasco in the private sector.
But Clinton would love that. For you see, once private insurance is eliminated
the government can become the one true provider of health insurance.
FHIC anyone?  (Federal Health Insurance Corporation)

>>He has recently asked the Dept of Labor and other departments to review
>>regulations to lessen the burden of regulation on the economy.
>     Another boogey man. WHich regulations are thought to be dragging it
>      down.

  Recent example.  A small communications company has (over the last 2
years) invested $60 million in research and development of a new
system called TV Answer.  TV answer is the first ever interactive
cable system allowing you to play games, bank, shop, interact over
your TV.  It would have been availible now except for one thing, the FCC
is stonewalling it.  TV Answer is now in serious trouble. The
company recently layed off 1/3 of their employees.  Their product is
ready to be marketed, their tranmission systems are built, only one thing
is stopping them, FCC approval.

   Please tell me what the FCC is "protecting" me from. Is it protecting me
from a wonderful new product? Will TV Answer kill me?  Why can't I decide
whether I want to purchase or not?  

  The FCC is directly responsible for billions of potential dollars
being lost in telecommunications. Even the director of the FCC has
called for across the board deregulation. If the FCC didn't
exist, I might be able to choose between competing cable companies today,
get cable tv over telephone, or get online information services from
my telephone company.    The only boogeyman being perpetrated is the
"monopoly" boogeyman.

>>He has proposed legal system reforms, which are intended to reduce the cost of
>     I usually need a doctor a hell of lot more often tha I need a lawyer.
>     This is just pandering to corporate special interests.

  How is it pandering to corporate special interests? Which corporations?
Name them.   The only pandering being done is by Clinton (Pander Bear)
to the trial lawyers association.

>>litigation. He proposed and enacted the ADA bill, providing access and
>>rights to disabled Americans in businesses and in employment.
>>He pushed and enacted the 1990 Clean Air Act, the first significant
>>piece of environmental legislation in two decades.
>     Good. One point on this one.

  Nope. The environmental wackos don't like it because it doesn't kill
enough private sector jobs.  No matter what environmental legislation
is proposed by Bush, environmental wackos like Al Gore will denounce it.
(for a real laugh, read Gore's book)

  There are only two things you need to consider when voting for Clinton.
1) he will raise spending ("investment" ha) by $200 billion (hello deficit
      and higher taxes)
2) you will have a democratically controlled spending machine
   (congress + clinton)

 2a.  Rumor is, Clinton is thinking about monetising away the debt by
printing money.  Say hello to hyper inflation. I may as well take a time
machine back to the Carter years.

 I will add one more credit to Bush's record. His America 2000
plan for education.

  To some extent Bush is right, Congress has prevented many of his proposals
from being tried.  After his last State of the Union speech I half
expected Congress to cooperate and _quickly_ pass his proposals. No 
such luck.  I'm not a Bush fan since I'm a libertarian. The social
side of conservatism leaves me with a bad taste, but to say that
the last 4 years are Bush's fault is wrong.  The president of the United
States is not a dictator.. The fault for the last 4 years is in
the two party grid-lock.  The last 4 years aren't the result of
bad action, but inaction.  However, I don't know that radical
action is desirable (Clinton + congress).  The problem with massive
social programs and spending is that they are impossible to cut.
Once you get people hooked on social services you can't cut them, and
they grow like a disease.   Social Security is now a fact of life.
No way to cut it without condemning many people to starvation.
The same thing will happen with nation health care. Once implemented,
it will be impossible to refuse anyone, or cut anything. It will spiral
out of control.    I favor state and local programs instead.
It's possible to run pilot programs to "tweak" such a system on the
small level. You can't do the same thing on a national level without
hurting millions of people.


  

>>
>>---
>>Pat
>>" Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
>>Compromise in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections