From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:35:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.165401.10396@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <MICHAEL.92Aug16223939@paul.bu.edu> 
>michael@paul.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin) writes:
>
>>elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>> Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a 
>>>> democratically-controlled Congress will keep a lid on spending 
>>>> is fooling themselves.
>
>> Let's face it- all that happened was that we went from stupid
>> tax-and-spend policies to even more stupid borrow-and-spend
>> policies. Myself, I find it rather hard to put the entire blame
>> on Congress when the President himself hasn't bothered to even
>> SUBMIT a balanced budget for 1993. 
>
>President Bush has submitted balanced budgets PLANS, but they've been
>rejected by Congress.  It's going to take more than a year to get
>the budget balanced. 
>
>Bush supports the balanced budget amendment, Clinton does not.  And a 
>whole bunch of Democrats in the House don't support the amendment either. 
>
>We need a President that will rein in the spending habits of Congress,
>not one that will rubberstamp every spending bill that crosses his desk.  
>

The reason that Clinton doesn't support the balaced budget amendment is not
necessarily against the idea of a balanced budget, but because the amendment
proposal *AS SUBMITTED* is considered by Clinton as unworkable. He has other
proposals on the table that would limit spending and raise the tax base on 
the top 5% (annual incomes >200K) by 3% on the income over 200K - Base was
28%, Clinton wants it at 31%. I personally don't like the idea of 
using this method myself.  A much more feasable (and FAIR) method would be to
close the loopholes that people rich enough to afford their own tax accountants
get the benefit of while middle America struggles under the burden of an
oppressive tax system.  The conservative Republicans talk about fiscal 
responsibilty, but only to the extent that they still get *theirs*.

As for Clinton rubber-stamping every spending bill that crosses his desk if
in fact he does become President, both of us know that will not happen. Quite
simply, the country would not stand for it.

It looks more and more like I will be voting for either Clinton or Marrou.
From the looks of the Republican platform, I think that the following can
be said:
 
 If you vote for a liberal, look out for your wallet.
If you vote for a conservative, look out for prying eyes in your bedroom.
 
When it comes to the voting booth, which one do YOU consider to be more 
important?

Tom H.

-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2428 talk.politics.misc:41137 alt.politics.clinton:2518 alt.politics.elections:11209