From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I loved Bush ...
Date: 21 Jul 1992 19:58:24 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> >Patrick J. McGuinness writes:
|> >|> >Michael Polen writes:
|> >|> >>What?  He [Bush] has done everything he promised.  He has continued the Reagan plan to
|> >|> >>move our resources to the wealthy, he has scuttled the Supreme Court, he has
|> >|> >>ignored the environment, he has abondoned our public education system, and he
|> >|> >>has significantly reduced support for social program.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Elements of the poverty of politics:
|> >|> 1. The use of rhetoric and propoganda to displace rational analysis.
|> >|> e.g.  When supposedly intelligent politically-active people engage in false,
|> >|> charged rhetoric in order to score 'debating' points or cause an emotional reaction.
|> >
|> >I am apparently a novice.  As a response to my rhetoric and propoganda, Patrick
|> >has chosen to use false and misleading statistics to accomplish the same task.
|> 
|> My statistics are 'misleading' because they contradict your claims.
|> That doesn't make them false.  Can you present, in budgetary numbers, any
|> evidence to support the claim that social spending was sigificantly
|> cut under Bush? That education spending, directly or indirectly, was reduced? 
|> 
|> 
|> >|> "He has significantly reduced support for social program (sic)."
|> >|> Under Bush, social spending at the Federal level has increased.
|> >|> In 1992, we spent $32 billion dollars on Education,
|> >|> $264 billion in Health and Human Services (non-Social Security),
|> >|> $284 billion on Social Security,
|> >|> $36 billion on Transportation, and almost $7 billion in the EPA.
|> >|> In all categories, real levels of spending have been steady or increased.
|> >|> If speaking about overall programs, the "significantly reduced support" is
|> >|> clearly false.
|> >
|> >If necessary, I'd be happy to find 3 programs reduced.
|> 
|> I'd be happy too, if you could name one, let alone three, significantly reduced
|> programs under Bush. Please prove me wrong. I would love to find out
|> that Bush is a closet budget-cutter.
|> 
Head Start.

|> > If you are saying that
|> >the Bush administration has **supported** maintaining social programs at their
|> >existing levels (adjusted for inflation), I am interested in hearing that.
|> 
|> I find it fascinating that when I call you on your statement of drastic
|> reductions, you evade the point, and switch gears, now asking 
|> if Bush supports the current level of social programs.  Well,
|> his latest budget proposal shows that he does. If you have evidence to support your
|> claim, please present it.

I was assuming that your pointing out three programs with higher levels of
support, that you were making the case for Bush as a champion of social
programs.  Just wanted to know what point you were making.  I am still
interested.
|> 
|> >|>Bash Bush Bash Bush Bash Bush Bash Bush ... <insert train whistle here>

Actually it is his policies I am bashing.  His person, his opinions,
his treatement of friends, his intelligence are all commendable.  What
he is doing to the country and to those who have differing opinions is
unconscionable.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36142 alt.individualism:4629 alt.activism:13568 soc.motss:32648