From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:26:40 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:30:15 GMT

In article <828@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.190608.8438@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov 
>(Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>progressive social programs to replace the regressive ones we have now,
>>clean up our environment, provide us with a high-speed rail system, etc.
>>If some of these things don't occur now, I will juswt have more money
>>squeezed out of me later. I, unlike you, will not be penny-wise and
>>pound-foolish.
>
>Penny-wise and Pound-foolish you say?  This is a pretty good example of
>why people should think through the promises of politicians before 
>accepting them as the pennies from heaven these people claim.

Oh, take a reality break. Have you been on the major highways or driven
into the cities lately (cripes, you live in Pittsburgh)? Have you seen
recent reports on the projected
congestion on roads in the next 10 years? If we wait till the last minute
to do something about this problem it will cost 10 times what it
would cost now. Ask anyone who has ever had to do a project on the
quick what it does to the costs.

>
>I'll just bet the people in the highly competative airline industry,
trucking
>and auto industries are thrilled with the prospects of their tax dollars
>being spent on projects like this.

They will have to adjust and adapt or be completely replaced by a high
speed rail industry. Are you suggesting that cars should never have
been built because it destroyed the horse and buggy business?

>I wonder what the stock market reactions
>will be when the government starts spending money to take a slice of the
>transportation industry's ever dwindling profits.  

Who says the high-speed rail system will be government owned? Just
because the government seeds development for such projects through
tax incentives does not imply management or ownership.

>
>But hey what does that all that matter when you get a shinny new toy
>that goes real fast...  

And could solve our road congestion, air pollution problem, city
population
congestion,.....  You don't seem to have a lick of imagination or
foresight.

>
>>based on records (spelled ACTIONS) rather than rhetoric (spelled TALK).
>>You are the one that seems to have been hypnotized by all that supply-
>>side nonsense.
>
>Until I see a real effort at supply side economics attempted, which 
>we have never seen in this country, calling a economic theory that
>when used has managed to not only provide governments like Mexico with
>not only balanced budgets but with budget surpluses, nonsense is the real
>nonesense.

Have you been to Mexico lately? The average citizen still lives in
squallor
down there. Mexican businesses may be doing "better" than they were, but
it has had little effect on the lives of the Mexican worker. Until that
occurs,
any talk of the "success" of the Mexican system is fallacious. It is easy
to
get surpluses when you don't give a rats ass about your citizenry.

I suggest you go get educated on these issues before you let
your tongue wag indiscriminately.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton