From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:58:23 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 8244@aio.jsc.nasa.gov, cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 
> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> > Bill Clinton's 128 tax increases. Distortion. Refuted numerous places.
> 
> Still, he did raise them a lot more than he lowered them.

Define "alot".  It all depends on what you "count".  I personally think
"alot" is, well too much :^D.  The more reliable figures that I've seen
are around 60 raises vs. around 40 lowers.  That's a net gain of 20 over
12 years.  Also one must actually look at what taxes were raised.  It is
still a fact that Arkansas has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country.

>  I'm sick of 
> Democrats calling Bush a liar over "No new taxes".

And I'm sick of Republicans saying that the Democrats will raise your
taxes but we won't (and they do anyway).  Bush made an iron-clad promise
that he wouldn't raise taxes (he even ridiculed Dukakas for saying that
he'd only raise them as a last resort) and he broke his promise.  Do I
hold him accountable?  Yep.  Do I think he was stupid for making the
promise?  Yep.  But that's why I couldn't vote for him.

> I don't think he 
> intended to deceive anyone when he said that... and I think that he felt 
> that the circumstances that existed justified he change of heart on the 
> matter. 

Well, he should have thought about that *before* he made his iron-clad
promise.
 

> 
> > The Canadian health care system is a failure....Canadians hate 
> it....there are
> > long waits for basic care.... Lies and distortion. Every study I've read 
> has
> > refuted these statements
> > and every Canadian I've talked to would not trade their system for ours.
> 
> I think the key to health care is to control costs, not socialization.

The Canadian method of Healthcare is *not* socialized medicine (CR had a
really good non-biased write up on it a month or so ago).
   

> 
> > As a scientist, I am particularly bothered by this kind of arguement 
> because
> > it amounts to one huge speculation. During the depression Roosevelt 
> admitted
> > that he had doubts about many of the programs he started to help the
> > situation. However, he felt that the only way to decide whether they 
> would
> > work was to try them out. That is what I call proof by experiment.
> 
> Good, let Congress implement some of Bush's programs that they have 
> bottled up for so long.

They have tried.  For instance, they passed 6 of the 7 items that Bush
asked for.  He vetoed it because it contained a tax increase on "the rich".
To say that Congress has not attempted to implement Bush's programs is
incorrect.  Bush cannot expect to have Congress implement his plan
without some comprimise.  I give Bush more credit for intelligence than
that.



> After all, when we elect a President, there is a 
> national mandate of sorts which I believe supercedes some of the 
> congressional interests which are often regional.

One could argue that Bush never received the "mandate" of which you speak.  He
was one of the few Presidents whose party won the election yet *lost* in the 
number of seats in Congress.  That suggests to me that Bush didn't get the
mandate the Reagan did.

> After all, the President is the only one elected on a national basis.  I'll 
>say the same thing about Clinton if he is elected.  My message to congress 
>is:  If you want the President to be accountable, you've got to cooperate.  
>Otherwise, no one is accountable...the situation that we are presently in,
>unfortunately.


You mean like Reagan considers himself accountable for the deficit?  Nah, he 
blames it on Congress.  Nothing will change until the blame game goes away.
We are one people, we are Americans.  Together we will succeed or together
we will fail.

  [...deletions...]
> 
> While we are at it, why are the Democrats in Congress afraid to give the 
> president a line item veto?

It's a matter of power.  Why should they give up their constitutionally mandated
powers?  Too put the shoe on the other foot, why do you think the Executive
branch is against a Special Prosecutor (and don't say just because it doesn't
apply to Congress, to me, that's a red herring, that's what the Justice Dept
is for.  I don't trust one branch of government to be responsible to investigate
itself.).

Personally, I think that a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment
are both window dressing.  (Even Vin Weber agrees with that for the BBA.
source: Evans and Novak, June 1992).

> > Don't be a sheep or a random number generator, do some research and vote
> > responsibly.
> 
> I agree...and don't forget that the executive branch is not the only one 
> which implements and controls policy.   Research your congresscritters 
> while you are at it. 

Ditto.  I hold all my elected officials responsible for the pledges they
make while running for office. 
> 
> Mark T. Evert
> Friendswood, TX
> 
> My opinions are my own.



Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!