From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:22:12 GMT

From article <Bvv17E.7Kw@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
> In article <Bvv0nr.2MD@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.140035.5043@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
> 
>>>While you're complaining that his program is a "soak the rich"
>>>scheme, others are complaining that his gas and sin taxes place an
>>>unfair burden on the middle class or that his deep spending cuts will
>>>place an unfair burden on the poor.  Sounds like shared pain to
>>>me.
>>
>>This is an excellent point, and a powerful argument in favor of
>>what Perot is saying.  If you have people of all economic classes
>>complaining about how certain proposals are hurting their individual
>>benefits from government largesse, it is both rational and correct
>>to characterize the results of such proposals as "shared pain".
>>
>>Dave
>>   Libertarians for Congress!
>>   Perot for President!


>    Perot
>    wants to raise taxes and increase the role of government in the economy

As you see it.  Perot also wants to slash spending and allow business
more freedom in many areas.   You seem unable to distinguish between
control and incentives.

>    and here we have yet *another* person who divides his loyalties between
>    Perot and libertarians!     
> 
>    This is moronic.

Only if you presume that the poster agrees completely with the
Libertarian Party.  I would like to see a few libertarians in congress
to help safeguard civil liberties but I would never want them to have
significant power.

>   Perot and libertarianism is like oil and water: 
>    they don't mix.   Perot is the opposite of a libertarian.  

Only in that he's realistic.  The Libertarian Party could only be more
of fringe party if they added brain mapping to their platform.  The
only real issue for the Libertarians this year is whether they'll
manage to break .5% of the vote.

>    Anyway the concept of government enforcing "shared pain" is bogus for
>    two reasons:
> 
>    1.  Any serious attempt to eliminate the deficit and start paying
>        down the national debt will produce PLENTY of pain to go around
>        in the form of double-digit unemployment.

Perot's plan is a intended to create long term growth and prosperity.  
Yes, there would be some negative impact at first but according to US 
News & World Report, high officials in both parties admit privately that 
Perot's plan offers the best hope for long term prosperity.  It's time 
to stop thinking a month ahead and start thinking ten years ahead.

>    2.  Why SHOULD the pain be distributed equally?   It should be mainly
>        directed at those who advocated massive government programs and
>        huge deficits in the first place.   Those groups and industries 
>        who have been promoting this nonsesne are the ones who should
>        pay.

You mean like people who used social security payments to buy racing
bikes, stereos and camera equipment?   You mean like every citizen of
the United States, each and every one of which benefited from the
security of a huge defense budget?

We're all guilty.  As much as you'd like to bury your head in the sand 
and point fingers at everyone else, you're just as guilty as the rest
of us.  It's time to pay the piper.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50255 alt.politics.clinton:9050