From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:32:16 GMT

In article <C17LIt.1AME@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>In <1993Jan21.004735.14256@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In <C12qnu.17Ko@austin.ibm.com> (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan16.182205.2427@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ipadavic@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Irene Padavic) writes:

>>>>> The reality is that every man, woman, and child (the collective "we, the
>>>>> people of the United States ...." is up to his/her ass in debt.
>>>>> $4 trillion and mounting.  Either we fix it, or we start learning
>>>>> Japanese en masse.  Get it?

>>>>It is dismaying, and funny, I supposed, how those who propose to be so
>>>>clear-eyed about the state of the nation lapse immediately into
>>>>nationalist and corporatist sentiment as soon as they try to talk
>>>>about remedies.  With an urgent sweep of the hand all class
>>>>distinctions are swept aside - we are all "up to our ass in debt" and
>>>>we all face the prospect of having a serious linguistic deficit added to
>>>>our fiscal one.

>>>Clever.  Except that I'm no "corporatist", although I accept the
>>>label of patriot.  Fact is, if the debt is not paid, we all lose.
>>>You cannot prove otherwise.

>>Prove it.   We've had a debt for 200 years.  No problem, unless it gets
>>*too* big.

>Would a sizable percentage of the GNP being sucked up by interest
>charges to service the debt prove it to you?  Because that's exactly
>what's happening.  Is $4 trillion biggies enough to prove it?

Sizeable?  It isn't that big.  The interest on the debt is ~$300 billion
a year.  The GNP is ~$5 trillion.

>That's an average of $16,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

No, $4 trillion out of context means absolutely nothing.

>Being a net debtor nation is neither here nor there - being a nation
>that has to beg for foreign investment just to service the debt IS.

>>He's got a lot; I don't think he's hurting.  What else does he have to
>>spend it on besides his ego-tripping?

>I dunno.  Ask him yourself.  So what if its an ego-trip?  Many
>people do Great Things out of ego.  President Clinton, fer instance,
>wouldn't have gotten very far with a weak ego.

True.  Jimmy Carter probably was one of the few presidents we had
without much of an ego, and look where it got him.

>>Which explains Ross Perot, who, of course, was a used-car salesman, not
>>a politician.

>No, he sold computers, and later computer services.  He was and is
>a salesman, a noble profession.  One that serves a vital economic
>function.  Unless you'd like to denegrate an entire profession?

Why not?  You and Ross are doing it with politicans.

>>>Oh please, Ted Kennedy is one of the biggest criminals in Washington, DC.

>>Huh?  I've heard some people say Chappaquiddick was criminal, but other
>>than that, what are you referring to?

>Uh, yeah, that death thing was kinda criminal.  Adultry was a crime
>in his home state.  That's two counts. 

Adultery?  Now you're really stretching it.

>>>His tax and spend liberal policies have been one of the reasons we're
>>>in this mess.  That he uses a progressive tax structure to cover up
>>>for his mindless crimes only means he believes we are suckers indeed.

>>Oh, and I'm sure Ted Kennedy has been making a lot of policy for the
>>last 12 years.   (As an aside, if we had been doing tax-and-spend, there
>>wouldn't be a huge deficit.  We were doing borrow-and-spend.)

>Of course he has - he's a member of the Senate!  Yes, we borrow -
>but in fact my taxes have continued going up, too.  Inevitably,
>despite Ed's and Michael's pleadings, we are gonna get higher
>taxes to pay for it.  And, I think they are right - I concede
>their points.

>>>Frankly, you're right: I'm not a starry-eyed fan of Ross, and I think how he
>>>ran EDS was wrong.  But I *am* a fan of straight talk, of
>>>action, and of clear goals worthy of committment.  That he's willing to
>>>help solve the problem, and put his own money in to do it, says something
>>>for the person.

>>It says he's a meglomaniac.

>In your opinion.  Maybe he is, maybe not.  Its a nice label,
>a ptr to a struct with many members.  Nonetheless, let's say he
>got elected Prezdunt in 1996.  Do you think he could suspend
>the Bill of Rights?
 
After 12 years of Reagan/Bush/Rehnquist, you think there is a Bill of
Rights?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:5937 talk.politics.misc:69964 alt.activism:21410 alt.politics.usa.misc:959 alt.politics.reform:239