From: luriem@reis54.alleg.edu (Michael Lurie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Mike  Lurie Review of Debate-Long
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:57:27 GMT
Organization: Allegheny College

Wow! First off, I'd like to say that I liked the format of  
this debate. The candidates looked more human, and the fact  
that the were not using any notes rocked,

CLINTON was very good. He was less of a machine than he was  
last time, in fact, I thought that he was very natural. First  
off, Clinton said that he wanted the rich to pay "their fair  
share in taxes" The rich are already, in my opinion, paying  
more than their fair share. I believe that this is a good  
thing, but lets not kid ourself and call it fair. Fair  
capitalism would be everybody getting taxed in the same  
bracket. Letting the rich take up the slack of the poorer  
people is good. People who make more can afford to give more,  
and people who make less, dearly need the money that a lower  
tax bracket can give them. Since Rooselvelt, our country has  
proven that fixed capitalism, with some aspects of socialism,  
works. Therefore, I do believe that big corporations, and the  
ultra-rich, should pay more than their fair share.His view on  
the Social-security trust fund were exemplory. We must keep  
that up, because if the baby-0boomers do not get their, money  
when they retire, money that they have been giving away all  
during their working years to the people who were retired  
then, under the assumption that the people who were working  
when they retired would be financing their well-being in their  
old age, there will be a revolt in this country, a revolution  
of sorts. Don't think I'm crazy. The baby boomers will make up  
a huge part of the population by the year 2028, and if they  
don't get their money, that bunch of old people will be PISSED  
bigtime. On Clinton's economic plan, I thought that it sounded  
good. A commition decided that his was better than Bush's, but  
unfortunately, he didn't give us any details. I would like to  
hear, in depth, at least some aspects, and ideas of his plan.  
Bush did, and I applaud Bush for it. Overall, Clinton was very  
good, but that was all he was. He gave almost perfect answers,  
but didn't concentrate on actual ideas. He needs to for me to  
have further confidence in him, or less. 


BUSH was, in my opinion, at his best tonight. He had some  
outstanding ideas and looked much better than he did in the  
last debate. He didn't sling any mud, did not tell any lies or  
fabricate facts, and he was a very frank speaker who came  
across as a person using his own ideas, not somebody elses.  
His pledge for a Balanced budget amendment was great. Just a  
little note for you people out there: a balanced budget  
amendment doesn't really mean that much, the U.S. still can  
put deficit spending by putting it off-budget, but an  
amendment would be a first step. The Line-item Veto that he  
proposed is very, very dangerous, and I am vehemently opposed  
to it getting passed at any level, local, state, or national.  
A line-item veto gives ONE man the power, in this case the  
president, to take a passed, bill, cross out parts that he  
doesn't like, and enact the bill into law will his exemptions.  
This is giving the president the power of a law-maker, and no  
one man should have this power. It also breaks up the checks  
and balances that our three party system is supposed to give  
our country. I thought his idea of having a space on our tax  
forms to allocate 10% of our taxes to lowering the deficit  
was, and still is, ingenius, and is one of the best, if not  
simplest ideas out there that gives the american people a  
direct say in how they want the goverment to act, and this  
country to run. Bush said that "Character is part of being  
President." He really shouldn't talk, with Iraqgate, and not  
doing almost any of the things that he said that he would, in  
education, the environment, and on the economy, he has NO  
business stating that here. I could go on on this, but that is  
a whole other post. He is not for a national gun law. What's  
wrong with this? I do believe that people have the right to  
bear arms, but why can't we have a one week waiting time to  
check people out? Is one week without a gun going to hurt  
somebody, when it is going to be a detterent in some crazy or  
former killer to get a hold of a gun and kill somebody? His  
views on the Social Securitytrust fund were good, as I  
explained under Clinton, we need it desperately. Just to put  
it in perspective, the fund now is solvent and is gaining  
about one million dollars a day. That is not enough. Another  
question is will Congress be able to keep their hands off a  
pot of gold this big? The fund should have 40 TRILLION dollars  
in it by the year 2028, and there is nothing that the law  
staes that can keep Congresses hanmds off that money. On his  
views on defense and the United states keeping a major role in  
the world, and staying involved, I believe that it is very  
true, and important. The last time we sayed out of things was  
during the Carter administation, and I don't want a repeat of  
that again, when America was thought of as a wimp, and foreign  
countries staged an oil embargo on us, and took American  
citizens hostage. On his closing statement: I would rather  
have him in if there was a conflict with this country and  
another one, but that is not the only thing that we need a  
president for. Why doesn't Bush take up something to do with  
foreign policy? I personally believe that he would make an  
EXCELLENT Secretary of state. One last thing. Bush, in this  
debate, had class. He is no Dan Quayle, who I intensely  
dislike in terms of class and how he acts.

PEROT was good. He will gain some points in the polls after  
this one. His pledge on issues was good. His comment on why  
doesn't the Congress just work it out sounded good but was  
very vague. You need a plan to do that. Congress is too  
complicated and party affiliated to "just work it out." Perot  
also kept on repeating statements over and over again. One  
answer seemed to repeadetly pop up. When ever he did not know  
the answer, he simply said that the bills he needed to solve  
the peoblem was "on the table, in congress. There are so many  
plans that are just lying there, waiting to be used." This in  
itself is a good idea, but not an answer to every problem that  
arises. As alwys though, Perot spoke well.

Now that you've read all that(I can't be;lieve that I typed  
that all out, It's been 45 minutes already.) I'll give my  
evaluation of the debate.

BUSH  9.0     He did great,and his ideas sounded good, but  
	      will he follow through? He didn't in his first  
	      four years, and I am apprehensive as to whether                
	      he will in his next four years. Also he had none  
	      of the dramatics like when he said " I wanted to  
	      rid the world of the nightmare of nuclear 	 
	      war....AND I DID! ( if you saw the Republican  
	      National Convention, you know what I'm talking  
	      about.

Clinton  7.5  Good job, but said no to some important  
	      questions that the american public would have       
	      wanted him to say yes to. At least he was 	      
	      honest. Good speaker, not as robot-like. Great   
	      answers, but no snap. He didn't talk about  
	      the details, or about his ideas. He can do  
	      better, especially with his platform.

PEROT  6.5    He did okay. He answered everything alright, but     
	      his ideas were repeated over and over again.  
	      Great speaker though. The words flow from his  
	      mouth like water in a stream. Needs to do better  
	      if he is going to impress the American people.

A closing note from Mike: I am still voting for Bill Clinton.  
We need something better than Bush, and I believe Bill Clinton  
is it.  After listening to the debate, it seems that I would  
like a mix of ideas from both candidates. The main reason that  
I am voting for Clinton is the issue of Economics. Bush is the  
candidate of the rich, and he supports them when he can. We  
need a president that will be fair to the majority of people  
in this country, the middle class, and below. That man, is  
Bill Clinton. (Doesn't that sound like a commercial?)

Thank You.

==============================================================
Slick:    "Happiness is not the fufillment of what you wish to                   
Michael    achieve, but in the realization of all that you
Lurie	   already posess."    
==============================================================      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics