From: dano@srl01.usl.edu (Dan Stephenson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Presidential predictions Re: Perot?
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:47:24 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>In article <Brsp87.209@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>> In article <dano.711761245@srl01> dano@srl01.usl.edu (Dan Stephenson) writes:

>> >that there would be NO 'gridlock' if the Congress didn't keep preventing
>> >his *proposals* from going through (and then, of course, they slam him
>> >for 'inaction') and if George Bush had line-item veto powers (like many
>> >governors do)
>>
>> The line item veto, proposed by so many, have its negative aspects
>> also.  In your post, you correctly explain that the Executive is to
>> *enforce* the laws.  The line item veto, in my opinion, gives the
>> President too much influence in *making* the laws...
>>

>Let's look at a concrete example of how the line item veto could have
>worked.  In January, Bush made his state of the Union speech and proposed
>a very specific 7-point economic growth package.  He dared congress to
>pass his package by March 20.  Come March 7, congress had agreed to pass
>6 of the 7 points but also were talking about adding a soak the rich tax
>to the package.  Bush used the exact kind of influence you fear - he
>promised to veto the bill because of the soak the rich tax.  For two
>weeks, congress knew Bush would veto his own 6 points if the tax was
>present.  Yet they passed the bill that way anyhow and it was indeed
>vetoed.  The override vote got less than 50% (67% was required to
>override).  Now, given the line-item veto, Bush would have vetoed
>the soak the rich tax and signed the 6 points that EVERYONE agreed
>would help the country.  Congress could override the line-item
>veto, but the soak the rich tax would not stand on its own merits.

Yes, i sure have noticed that the Congress trys to lead George Bush    
along, willing to pass a budget that cut spending and reduced the
size of government and promoted fiscal responsibility (my my! how
PARTITSAN of me!), and stick in some loony bits in themselves.  The see
themselves as invincible this way:  George Bush HAS to agree  to their
AWFUL fiscal polcies so as to enact the sane measures he want;if he does
not, the Democrats in Congress critcize him for being unreasonable.
They count on voters not understanding that the President keeps a
Spending 'Check' on the Congress, NOT the other way around. ('Check',
as in Checks and Balances, as in being preventative of excessive
behavior, in this case: Budgeting legislation.)

>Is congress really interested in helping the country?  Or are they
>more interested in damaging the nation (they ARE that desparate)
>to hurt Bush in the polls?  If they are interested in helping
>the country, they pass a 6 point growth package AND a soak the
>rich tax.  That way, the country is guaranteed to be helped.
>And if the 6-point plan fails, blame Bush because it was HIS
>plan.

If was possible, they'd do a 'Recession-Dance' a la 'rain dance' (Amer.
Indians).  It's a shame that they get such glee over bad polling for
Bush 
due to negative happenings in the country/economy.  It is a real
shame that they have such a Vested Interest in the US going to shambles
for the sake of 'CHANGE change CHANGE change CHANGE' type slogan-chants.

>> >My Popular vote predictions:
>> >
>> >George Bush:  55%
>> >Bill Clinton: 35%
>> >Ross Perot:   10%
>> >
>> >Indeed, I do think Ross Perot _will_ get such a large percentage.
>>
>> I hope it's a lot more than that (say, 65% :^)).  Of course, were it
>> so, old H. Ross probably wouldn't live long enough to move into the
>> Presidential palace anyway...
>>

>Paranoia.  I gave Perot 30% of the vote, whether he is IN or not.  To
>indicate how significant that is, the most votes ANY 3rd party candidate
>has gotten in this century is 12% (Teddy Roosevelt).

Gosh, that 12% figure would temper most ALL tendencies to predsict
30% for Perot, eh?

>People - if you want to vote for change, vote out ALL incumbents at ALL
>levels of government.  Choose the Libertarian candidate for President.
>Get rid of congress is the first priority.

Too bad that voting in anarchy is an oxymoron.

>Trivia:  Who is the only incumbent VP to run for president and WIN
>when his president left office?  Answer: George Bush.  So what
>does that say about Dan Quayle?  It says that Bush didn't pick his
>friend Jim Baker so Baker could do something USEFUL as Secy of State
>and have a much better chance to WIN as president in 1996.

Assuming he runs in 1996, I do really like Jack Kemp.  I odnt't know
as much about Baker, except for the WONDERFUL work he does as Secy.
of State.

>> 	Dave Scharfe
>>
>> P.S.  Hmm... Amiga advocacy, lets see...
>
Oh yeah, umm..lesse...How about this:

Amiga500: the ultimate game console.

>Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
>Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.

Are you the SOLE programmer behind these? Is you NAME or something in
the
packageing?


>Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
>1124 Fremont Ave.
>Los Altos, CA 94024

--
Dan Stephenson|das9674@usl.edu masres10@ucs.usl.edu dano@srl01.cacs.usl.edu
Come all of you you/Who are not satisfied/As rulers in a lone wall/
papered room/Full of mute bird and flowers that /Falsely bloom/And
closets choked with dreams that long ago died,... --Judy Collins
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy