From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Budget Plan (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:01:58 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug31.175201.19107@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|In article <17rm25INNcbe@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug30.185712.4999@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 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.
|>
|>
|>Realizing that you were not trying to make a indepth analysis, it seems to me
|>that Clinton's plan is much preferable to that of Bush.
|
|Let's see the details.

You can read the details in his National Economic Agenda Speech posted
on this net or available in the Clinton archives. It does not have
every detail, to be sure, but I think gives enough information to tell
me that Clinton's plan is better than what we have now.

|>Clinton proposes to
|>rearrange spending on Human and phyisical capital, instead of defense,
|>entitlements, and other government waste. Investments in health, education and
|>research and development, on par with other developed nations, will hopefully
|>bring back productivity growth on par with those other nations.
|
|That's PRECISELY what we've been doing since 1990, only more so.  If
|"more" is such a great idea, then why has the mild version of that
|policy such a disaster?

I think Bush has gone in some directions of this, but overall I think
that what has been hapening is that the non-defense spending is being
eaten up by social security and medicare and interest on the national
debt. I think our social or human capital investments have been
shrinking, not increasing, even in a mild way. Also, I belive we can
spend less on defense. A small reduction in defense, say 10%, is a 
great deal, 20 billion dollars, for example.

|>Clinton will be able to get his plan working since he is a leader, is
|>a democrat that can work with congress, and congress has shown
|>acceptance of a similiar bill that Bush Vetoed.
|
|Bush could have gotten Clinton's complete plan enacted too, as the
|Clinton plan is Congress' plan.  It's easy to get them to pass it.
|
|The question is whether or not Clinton's plan a good idea.  We have
|some experience with it.  It hasn't been good.  Will more of the same
|be any better?  If yes, then Clinton's right.  If not....

I don't believe that Clinton's plan was exactly the same as
congresses. Yes, they were similiar, in that they both wanted to tax
incomes over 200,000, and that is a good idea. But the Congressional
plan really did not go far enough in cutting entitlements, reducing
waste, or defense spending. Nor did it do they type of re-arangement
that Clinton's plan talks about at such a length. That is my opinion
of the situation.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)