From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: A few words about Flip-Flops
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:22:56 GMT

In article <1jla31INNoe4@gap.caltech.edu>, bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall) writes:

> This middle class tax reduction was, methinks, quite overblown by the pundits.

"I want to make it very clear that this middle class tax cut, in my view, is
central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic
strategy and a long term fairness strategy, which is part of getting this
country going again."
	Primary Debates 1/19/92

Couple this with what you have posted, and Voila! You have made your own waffle
house... Arkansas style! Regardless, Clinton's speech that you cite gives
little credence to your arguement, I can read a tax cut promise into it.
 
> I doubt seriously that his tax reductions were a major point in his being
> elected.  Economics, yes.  But this specific proposal which even _he_ was
> rethinking late in the campaign?  I think not.

Think again. Ask a few of the people who voted for them. Ask them if they are
expecting a tax cut. I think it was the WSJ that did a poll on this... the
reply was "yes" in about the 90 percent.
 
> I think you're just bitter.  First of all, you haven't even seen an economic
> plan from Clinton yet.  He's been in office for all of twelve hours now and
> you already think he shouldn't be honored with the Presidency.  Certainly
> you're entitled to your opinion, but don't you think you're perhaps being
> just a bit unfair????????

He promised on several occasions to have an economic strategy "on the first day
of my presidency". It was unfair for him to blatantly lie to the blue collar
workers who believed in him. That is unfair. Responsible voting, on these
premises tells us to be bitter.
 
> Seriously - give him a chance and see what you think about what he does, not
> what the media thinks he's going to do or what you think he might do.  He's
> a new president, he at least deserves a chance, don't you think?

Yes, of course. That's one of the nice things about voting for the loser; you
can sit back and watch, not taking any credit for the bad, and welcoming the
good. Clinton is off to a bad start, and I am not a part of it. :-)
 
> Well, what we see here is a difference in economic philosophies.  I can cope
> with the fact that we disagree about economic policy - I just can't cope with
> unfair and harsh attacks on a guy who doesn't deserve them.

I believe in free enterprise and supply side. I should hope you don't disagree
there. No one spared George Bush when the blame was largely Congress. "What
goes around, comes around."
 
>         We must do what no generation has had to do before. We must invest

"Invest" read:Tax

> more in our own people in their jobs and in their future, and at the
> same time cut our massive debt. And we must do so in a world in which we
> must compete for every opportunity.
>         It will not be easy; it will require sacrifice. But it can be done,

"Sacrifice" read: accept the tax

> and done fairly, not choosing sacrifice for its own sake, but for our

"Sacrifice" read: accept the tax

> own sake. We must provide for our nation the way a family provides for

"family provides for its children" read: 'Mother government' will make all go
away. Sounds like a step toward socialism to me.

> And I would join with you.  The populus doesn't investigate anyone enough -
> it simply doesn't feel it is important enough to justify its time.  It's not
> just Clinton, it's every president.  But what can you do??

You'll have the opportunity to recind this should Jack Kemp decide to run...
care to join us? :-)
 
> It's good to see that this discussion has quenched the flames and turned
> into a somewhat rational discussion!!!!!

Yes. I fully agree with you... but the debate continues! :-)

--Vince