From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:24:11 GMT

In article <3T5DqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>> While Bush doesn't have a direction, he also doesn't have Clinton's
>>>> "right off the cliff" aim.
>>>
>>>You continually claim that Clinton will drive us off a cliff.  How about som
>>>specifics?  We're heading constantly down under GHWB.  What is there about
>>>Clinton *specifically* that will hasten what GHWB has already begun?
>>
>> Branley forgets that he's agreed that Clinton's tax and "invest" plan
>> is a bigger version of the 1990 tax increase plus the spending pattern
>> since then.  (If someone else wants to dispute the point, step up.)
>> We also know that, on this point, if Clinton had been President
>> instead of Bush, Clinton would only have disagreed on the magnitude;
>> he'd have gone further on both the tax and spending increases.  (We
>> know this because we've read Clinton's plans in 1992.)
>
>Sorry, I didn't agree that Clinton's plan is a bigger version of 1990.

That's a bad opening sentence for a paragraph that shows that it is.

>The two have some similarities, but they also have some big differences.

And, as we see, the differences are in scale, not in direction.  The
1990 result is just a mild version of Clinton's plan.

>Clinton's plan also calls for some significant cuts in spending, so that
>the concept of 'investing' is a re-direction of funds already being spent.

Nevertheless, total spending increases.  There's some redirection
(spending balanced by equiv cuts elsewhere), but there's also
additional spending.  Just like in 1990 and in the same areas.

>Yes, he's looking for higher taxes on people whose taxes were lowered.

The 1990 plan didn't lower taxes on the "rich"; it raised them, just
as Clinton says he'll do.

Clinton's also claiming that he can pay for the increased spending by
taxing "the rich", but the definition of "rich" implied by that claim
doesn't match the rhetoric.  There won't be a middle-class tax cut.

>Now, are you ever going to explain how this will cause the economy to 'fall
>off of the cliff?'  You're just re-hashing things and dodging the challenge
>to put up or shut up.

Above Branley showed us how the 1990 "plan" is just a mild version of
the Clinton plan.  Democrats have done an excellent job of showing how
things have gotten worse since the 1990 plan was put into effect.
Does Branley really disagree with that argument?  No?

Branley must dodge this because he doesn't want to admit that bungler
bush may be the better choice, that the Democrats nominated a worse
candidate.  Oops.

>> Apart from the "I have no lips" effect, the 1990 tax increase plus the
>> spending was a POLICY mistake.  Bush bungled into it; Clinton wants to
>> do it again, only more so.
>
>So, you want to return a bungler to the White House.  That's really an
>excellent platform from which to run.

No, I don't want a bungler.  However, given a choice between a
bungler, who might not blow it, and someone who has promised to, I'll
take the bungler.  Is Branley really any different?  Would he really
choose someone who's promised to blow it over a bungler?

>> We've been following a mild version of the Clinton plan since 1990.
>> Does anyone want to argue that more of the same is a good thing?  (The
>> last time I asked this question, Branley went back to "Clinton is a
>> leader with a plan and Bush is a dweeb", which is true, but let's look
>> at the plan.)
>
>What Clinton proposes is more dramatic than 1990, since that was a compromise
>that was hammered out by two diametrically opposed groups.  Clinton's economic
>plan calls for tax increases to control the deficit and re-direction of
>spending from areas where it is not necessary (certain defense expenditures,
>for example) into areas where the government can make a contribution to the
>overall economy, such as job training, education, etc.

The 1990 "compromise" was over how far to move in that direction; it
did all of those things.  The Clinton plan is more dramatic; it goes
farther.  Will more of the same really be an improvement?

-andy is looking for a "better than Bush" to vote for
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle