From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:34:26 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> In article <gDo9PB5w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> >> >The problem is that there is no extension of the plan past the first year
> >> >The OMB has no long-term goals for the budget outside of Gramm-Rudman.
> >>
> >> Until year 1 is started, why should they plan as if it was in place?
> >> The plan hasn't been started, so it is rather silly to act as if it has.
> >
> >That's essentially one of the problems with the Bush administration.  The
> >attitude is 'well, we don't need to think about that now, because it's not
> >going to happen.'  Lack of planning is irresponsible, particularly on fiscal
> >matters.
>
> Nice twist, but that's not what's happening.  "What next" should be
> based on what's been done, whether or not that was a good idea.
> Branley thinks that Bush should plan as if he's gotten his program
> enacted, when it hasn't been.
>
> >> >If we move away from borrow-and-spend, we stop writing checks agains the
> >> >future.  Faced with the prospect of more taxes or less spending (borrowin
> >> >removed from the equation), the voters will be forced to allow politician
> >> >to make tough choices.
> >>
> >> That's all well and good, but Clinton is even further from that than
> >> Bush is.
> >
> >At least Clinton has a plan.  George Herbert Walker Bush is a cynical liar w
> >cannot be trusted to provide even basic ideas for running this country.  I'm
> >ready to take the chance on the unknown commodity, given how repulsive the
> >incumbent is.
>
> Wowsers!  Branley thinks that Bush is aimlessly wandering around on
> the edge of a cliff, but prefers Clinton, who's promised to run off
> that cliff.
>
> "He has a plan" doesn't imply that the plan is GOOD; no plan IS better
> than a bad plan.  Notice what Branley admits about Clinton's plan.
>
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

So, Freeman would have us wander around in the desert for another four years.
There's going to be no change in Congress' basic partisan structure.  There'll
be more new faces, but the same party lines.

Freeman fails to realize that Bush's blaming of Congress is going to get him
nowhere.  Any plan that is based on false assumptions such as a major change in
the partisan makeup of Congress is inherently flawed.  This makes the author of
the plan either incompetent or so cynical that he feels that he can say
anything and people will believe him.

So, Mr. Freeman, which is it?  Is Bush a total incompetent who refuses to admit
that his ideas will *never* come to pass?  Or, is he just another cynical
politician who feels that he can put up a 'plan' and blame someone else for
it's inherent flaws?




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush