From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:05:27 GMT

In <1992Sep9.233117.851@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.154445.11263@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Sep4.211527.8826@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>>>>>We've seen Clinton's plan.  It is a vehement version of the 1990 tax
>>>>>increase and spending since then.  
>>>>
>>>>We must not have seen the same plan.
>>
>>>Sure we have.  Tax increase on the rich and increased investment.
>>>That's how Clinton presents his plan.  It happens to be a mild version
>>>of what Bush and Congress have done since 1990.  The 1990 version was
>>>a mistake; the Clinton plan is to go further in that direction.
>>
>>Well, is it a "vehement version" or a "mild version"?

>It's the WILD version.  (Typo, so sue me.)

Oh, sorry.  It was still a word (with the typo) so I read it as
written.  (So sue me.)

>>Does it "go further" or is it "mild"?  Also, where is the *investment*
>>(as opposed to just spending with no investment) in the current budgets?

>It's in exactly the same places the post-1990 increase has been.

We definitely must have read a different plan, then.

>Maybe the wild version will do better than the mild version, but
>you can't ignore the similarities; you have to explain them.

Explain them?  Hell, I can't even FIND them.  The only way I can
arrive at your conclusions is if I start with the assumption that all
taxation is the same and all spending is the same.  We then arrive at
some tax increases (and some tax cuts) and some spending.  Pretty much
end of similarity, as far as I can see.

>>>No, my opinion is if that if we don't like the direction Bush took in
>>>1990, we'd be stupid to sign up with someone who wants to go further
>>>in that direction than Bush went.
>>
>>That's as opposed to going with someone who is promising us all all
>>sorts of spending, but doesn't want to get bogged down in the detail
>>of how he plans to fund it until after the election?

>You mean like Foley's promise to give even more to Florida than Bush
>proposed?

Who's voting for Foley?  He's not even running for President and he's
not from my state.  Bush initially has proposed $7.6 billion for
Florida.  To keep his earlier promises about "100% reimbursement",
BUSH is going to have to give even more to Florida than Bush proposed
(at least twice as much, in fact).

>>>>Yeah, let's go for the guy who is going around handing out presents
>>>>(we got one here in our area) and who says he'll cut our taxes but
>>>>doesn't want to tell us how it will be paid for.
>>
>>>Change "presents" to "promises" and you have the Clinton campaign.
>>>Bush thinks that he blew it in 1990; Clinton disagrees, he thinks that
>>>Bush didn't go far enough in 1990.
>>
>>Evidence for that statement of what Clinton thinks?

>Clinton's plan is a WILD version of the post-1990 plan, which
>Clinton presumably doesn't like (or at least doesn't like as
>much as his plan).  That's "bush didn't go far enough", unless
>someone wants to argue that Clinton doesn't really support his
>own plan.

That's not proof.  That's ASSERTION.  One more time, EVIDENCE that
Clinton thinks what you claim he thinks.

>>>If you liked the 1990 tax increase and spending plan and want more of
>>>the same, to go even further in that direction, Clinton's your obvious
>>>choice.

>>On anything other than the most simplistic level, I simply don't see
>>the comparison between the two that you seem to think exists.

>What's simplistic about pointing out that the promised tax increases
>are right where the tax increases happened in 1990?  What's simplistic
>about pointing out that the spending shifts are the same?

Because they aren't?  Well, they aren't unless you only put spending
in two baskets (Defense and Everything Else).  They aren't unless you
count ANY tax increase as equivalent to any other.

>I realize that Clinton folks don't want to argue for a WILD version of
>the "mild" plan implemented in 1990, but that's their candidate's
>position.

Not from what I've seen, it isn't.  This does, however, sound like the
kind of FUD that the Republicans are trying to spread.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics