From: cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung)
Subject: Re: Review of the Republican National Convention
Organization: Objectivity Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 01:10:09 GMT

	In article <1992Aug26.015609.11395@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
	>Clinton's "economic plan" is basically a fraud.  Also, Republicans
	>traditionally don't believe that government should intervene much in the
	>economy anyway.

	>In the final analysis, both Clinton and Bush are smart men, and if there's a
	>clear and politically workable solution, both men would go for it and we
	>wouldn't see any differences.  Right now there's really no such solution,
	>and Clinton is trying to tell people that he has a plan to revive the
	>economy.

	>That's why I see all this "economic program" stuff as nothing more than
	>political strategy.

True. 
Perot once said that the guiding principle of government spending is:
1. You cannot spend more than you make
2. You cannot spend your children's money
(Was there a third one?)

Before his quitting from the race, he has worked out a balanced budget and
found that it would have to cut so much in spending that there is no
hope for it to be accepted.

	>The President cannot do a better job without a less political Congress.
	>Bush has a point when he says Congress stopped him from carrying out
	>his policies.

Bush cited an example of Energy Initiative was sent to COngress on the same day
he ordered the beinning of bombing of Bagdad.  It takes 43 to win the war.  
Congress took more than 500 days and still counting.

	>To tell you the truth, I have been watching the Chinese students' lobby
	>for the protection bill.  While I want to see this bill pass, I saw
	>clearly how completely Congress was controlled by special interest
	>groups and not the general public.  This is the biggest political
	>problem of this country.

	>>Strategically, Congressmen and women are elected from all the states,
	>>useing major strength to fight them is not wise.

	>Because of voter frustration, the change rate in Congress this year will
	>probably be one of the highest in history, according to the analysts.

By some estimate, the number will be around 150.  That's about 150/550 or 27%.
Many states have term-limit.  The Congress still don't have it.

	>>	Now the convention is over, the republican still lag 10% -
	>>12% behind. It seems they really need two home runs in order to make
	>>up the deficit in the poll by November.

	>The Republicans' arguments are going to be: yes, things are bad now, but
	>it'll be WORSE when this deadlock between the White House and Congress
	>is GONE.  We'll see how well that works.

I am afraid that the economic cycle will run its course and the next presidency
will happen to be in the upswing of the economic cycle, and then the next 
president will take full credit for the 'recovery'.  If Clinton wins, I would
expect to see higher tax, more government spending lead to higher inflation and then
higher interest rate.  By the way, what is Clinton's definition of rich people when
he mention taxing the rich 2%?  I have heard of a figure $50,000.  Well, if so, an
average senior engineer in Silicon Valley is going to be taxed as rich!

	>In the long run, I believe if Clinton wins, he'll be such a bad President
	>that he will give the final blow to the now-dying Democratic party.  Since
	>the main party philosophy is basically dead, the Party has become an uneasy
	>get-together of non-mainstream people with very different philosophies
	>who had to nominate Clinton, whose philosophy could easily have been mistaken
	>for a Republican one just several years ago, in order to get any chance at
	>the White House.  I think the break-up and the weakening of the party is
	>coming, and Clinton will make it earlier if he wins.

-cw-
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china