From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH: Acceptance speech text
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:21:07 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

You can just skip this message, folks.  I need to respond to some of
GB's version of the US.

[edited]          Text of President Bush's Acceptance Speech
[foreign policy & bashing omitted]

>    You don't hear a lot about progress in America.  So let me tell
>you about some good things we've done together.

>    Just 2 weeks ago, all 3 nations of North America agreed to trade
>freely from Manitoba to Mexico.  This will bring good jobs to Main
>Street USA.
and more jobs to Mexico, along with even worse air than they have now.

>    We passed the Americans with Disabilities Act--bringing 43 million
>people into the economic mainstream.  I must say, it is about time.
Almost 20% of the population is disabled and out of the economic mainstream?
Does not parse.

>    Our children will breathe easier because of our new Clean Air Act.
which the Competitiveness Council is working hard to gut, even as we speak.

>    We are rebuilding our roads, providing jobs for more than half a
>million Americans.
Izitso?  We _really_ need about 10x as many people to fix our infrastructure,
except the money is all sitting in missle silos.

>    We passed a child care law, and we took a stand for family values
>by saying that when it comes to raising children, government doesn't
>know best, parents know best.
Except for abortion, when GB knows best.  Does this mean he's going to sign
the family leave act?  Didn't think so.

>    I've fought against prejudice and anti-Semitism all my life.  And
>I am proud that we strengthened our civil rights laws--and we did it
>without resorting to quotas.
and without resorting to restoring what the Supreme Court taketh away.

>    One more thing.  Today, cocaine use has fallen by 60 % among young
>people.  To the teenagers, the parents and the volunteers who are
>helping us battle the scourge of drugs in America:  We thank you.
GB is personally responsible.  For the inflated statistic.

>    Do I want to do more?  You bet.  Nothing hurts me more than to
>meet with soldiers home from the Persian Gulf, who can't find a job.
>or workers who have a job, but worry that the next day will bring a
>pink slip.  And what about parents who scrape and struggle to send
>their kids to college, only to find them back living at home, because
>they can't get work.
Well, DO SOMETHING, dammit!

[Divisive crap deleted]
>    We start with a simple fact:  Government is too big, and spends
>too much.
And spending more and more on GB.  On what?  Nothing for me, thanks, I'm full.

>    I've asked Congress to put a lid on mandatory spending except
>Social Security.  And I've proposed doing away with over 200 programs
>and 4000 wasteful projects and to freeze all other spending.
go ahead, ask him which manditory spending he wants to cut.  He won't
tell you.  And Congress returned _more_ cuts.  Did he veto that?

>    The gridlock Democrat Congress has said:  "No."
And GB said: "No.  You're cutting GOP waste."

>    So, beginning tonight, I will enforce the spending freeze on my
>own.  If Congress sends me a bill spending more than I asked for in my
>budget--I will veto it fast--faster than copies of Millie's book sold.
Good.  Never has happened, has it?

>    Congress won't cut spending, but refuses to give the president the
>power to eliminate pork barrel projects that waste your money.
>Forty-three governors have that power.  So I ask you, the American
>people:  give me a Congress that will give me the line-item veto.
From what I hear, line-item will only cut the non-pres. party waste.
From the stuff he deleted earlier this year, it seems that that's true.

>    Let me tell you about a recent battle I fought with Congress.
>This spring, I worked day and night to get two-thirds of its members
>to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

>    We almost had it, but we lost by just 9 votes.  Listen how.  Just
>before the vote, the liberal leaders of Congress convinced 12 members
>who cosponsored the bill to switch sides and vote no.  Keep in mind,
>they voted against a bill they had already put their names on.

>    Something fishy going on?  Well, look at my opponent on this
>issue.  He says he's for balanced budgets.  But he came out against
>the amendment.  He's like that on a lot of issues, first one side,
>then the other.  He's been spotted in more places than Elvis Presley.
Lots of people favor balancing the budget, and they all know that the
BBA was BS.  It's all a government snowjob.  Bush, submit a balanced budget!
Please!

>    After all these years, Congress has become pretty creative at
>finding ways to waste your money.  So we need to be just as creative
>at finding ways to stop them.  I have a brand new idea.

>    Taxpayers should be given the right to check a box on their tax
>returns, so that up to 10 % of their payments can go for 1 purpose
>alone:  To reduce the national debt.
Brilliant.  How about "Whip the Deficit Now" buttons.

>    But we also need to make sure that Congress doesn't just turn
>around and borrow more money, to spend more money.  So I will require
>that, for every tax dollar set aside to cut the debt, the ceilings on
>spending will be cut by an equal amount.  That way, we'll cut both
>debt and spending, and take a whack out of the budget deficit.
Good.  Ask the American people to cut their own throat.  This way, GB
is not responsible for cutting.  It's your own fault.

>    My feelings about big government come from my experience; I spent
>half my adult life in the private sector.  My opponent has a different
>experience, he's been in government nearly all his life.  His passion
>to expand government knows no bounds.
Uh-oh... GB, outsider extraordinaire

>    He's already proposed $220 billion in new spending, along with the
>biggest tax increase in history--$150 billion.  That's just to start.
Lies again... RR has the biggest, GB has #2, and part of the $100B or
so BC has proposed is offset by cuts.

>    He says he wants to tax the rich, but, folks, he defines rich--as
>anyone who has a job.
Very good, George.  Looking around you, that's probably true.

>    You've heard of the separations of powers.  My opponent practices
>a different theory:  "The power of separations." Government has the
>power to separate you from your wallet.
What the heck does that mean?

[more new ideas - capital gains tax cut, supply side tax cuts, freeze
 on regulations (like clean air), research credits, legal reforms, and Elvis
 jokes deleted]
 
He continues on with all of his ideas that were blocked by Congress.  What
he really means is that when he came up with an idea, Congress changed it
to be palatable to the country, and he vetoed/threatened to veto it.

What did he expect?  He ran his 88 campaign against the Dem. Congress as
well.  Then when he's elected, he says, let's all be friends again and do
everything my way.  Now he says,

>    It wasn't always this way.  I served in Congress 22 years ago.
>Back then, we cooperated, we didn't get personal, we put the people
>above everything else.

>   At my first inauguration, I said that people didn't send us to
>bicker.  I extended my hand to the Democratic leaders, and they bit
>it.

Sorry, but I can't read anymore without screaming.  If anyone has read this
far, thank you.

--f2
------------------------------------
  "There's nothing I can do"
  --David Bowie or George Bush, I can't remember which
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush