From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WHAT GORE REALLY SAYS in his book
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:37:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) said..
>aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer):
>> 
>> Here's what Brooks Jackson of CNN said:
>> 
>> 	"Nowhere in the book does Gore propose $100 billion of foreign
>> 	aid for environmental projects." "Gore writes that the money the
>> 	United States spent on the Marshall Plan to rescue post-World War II
>> 	Europe would equal $100 billion a year today, but he does not urge
>> 	spending that much now."
>
>That is not the statement that I heard on CNN immediately after the 
>debate.  Immediately after the debate they made a statement that there 
>was nothing at all about what Quayle was talking about on page 304.  That
>was simply not correct.  

Hilarious -- you criticize me for not quoting a statement that was wrong.
Dan Quayle said, "Senator Gore has suggested to have the taxpayers of
America spend $100 billion a year on environmental projects in foreign 
countries."  That is what Brooks Jackson is referring to above.  The
assertion is false.

>Even though Quayle clearly misrepresented the
>specifics, there absolutely is something about what Quayle was refering
>to on page 304.

I've read the book.  To paraphrase Gore:  "We need something like the 
Marshall Plan to clean up the Environment.  But the Japanese won't do 
anything, and the Europeans are wrapped up in the EEC, so that leaves 
us.  But 'we are not nearly as dominant in the world economy as we were', 
and the debt prevents us from doing much.  Plus the Marshall Plan cost 
the equivalent of $100 billion dollars.  So we need to put together a 
framework for later action, and offer alternatives that are politically 
feasible now."

>> Amazingly enough, I've actually seen people asserting in this newsgroup
>> that Quayle was correct.  
>
>I have never said that Quayle was correct.  Amazingly enough, you seem 
>determined to dodge the real issue here.  

The issue was:  Was Quayle correct about Gore's book when he said, "Gore 
has suggested to [...] spend $100 billion on environmental projects in 
foreign countries".  Now, since the facts show with absolute certainty 
that Quayle was incorrect, and since you seem eager to change the subject,
I'll oblige.

>Does Gore advocate spending US 
>funds on foreign aid for environmental projects or not?  

I'm sure he advocates it, but realizes that with the country suffering
so badly from the Bush recession that it's not feasible to do now.

Instead, he says, (and listen closely, this is his "politically feasible
now" alternative) we should concentrate on the environment here in the US
by, for example, retraining defense industry technicians for work in
civilian fields such as biotechnology, renewable energy, and environmental 
cleanup.

Here is the Clinton/Gore plan in a nutshell:

	"My plan [...] offers twenty billion dollars a year in hard 
	federal dollars every year for the next four years, to build 
	an economy for the twenty-first century, to invest in new roads 
	and bridges and streets and rail systems, to develop high-speed 
	rail and a national fiber optic network, to develop new 
   ->   environmental technologies to clean our waters and our air, 
   ->   and to recycle more of our solid wastes.  In short, to do those 
	things which we are not doing today."

One way Clinton wants to do the environmental portion of that plan is
by creating a market-based environmental protection strategy that "rewards
conservation and 'green' business practices."  A method Clinton & Gore will
use to do that is to provide revenue-neutral tax incentives which "favor the
use of recycled materials whenever possible."  Another is to establish
solid-waste-reduction "credits" that can be traded between companies.  Yet 
another is to create revenue-neutral tax incentives to encourage the use 
of alternative fuels like natural gas, hydro-electricity, solar power, 
and wind power.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections