From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:44:45 GMT

In <1992Sep4.211527.8826@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.175818.7351@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Sep4.000241.22000@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep3.214809.15810@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>In other words, THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE for all the
>>>>deficit spending we're doing.  Either he can control it (via veto and
>>>>threatened veto) or he can't.  If he can, then he is responsible for
>>>>the deficit.  If he can't, then there's no reason to reelect him.
>>
>>>Sure there is.  Will Clinton do any better?  If Clinton is actually
>>>worse, it doesn't much matter how bad Bush is.
>>
>>CAN Clinton do any worse?  I'm not sure how.

>One easy way is to repeat major mistakes that Bush has made.  Clinton
>has chosen a slight variation on that plan.  He's doing more extreme
>versions of those mistakes.

>>>We've seen Clinton's plan.  It is a vehement version of the 1990 tax
>>>increase and spending since then.  
>>
>>We must not have seen the same plan.

>Sure we have.  Tax increase on the rich and increased investment.
>That's how Clinton presents his plan.  It happens to be a mild version
>of what Bush and Congress have done since 1990.  The 1990 version was
>a mistake; the Clinton plan is to go further in that direction.

Well, is it a "vehement version" or a "mild version"?  Does it "go
further" or is it "mild"?  Also, where is the *investment* (as opposed
to just spending with no investment) in the current budgets?

>>>Bush MIGHT go for that if it was
>>>proposed, but Clinton WILL.  If you think that more of the same is a
>>>good idea, vote for Clinton.  If you think that more of the same is a
>>>bad idea, then the only chance you've got is a vote for Bush.
>>
>>So you're of the opinion that the way to get change is to stay with
>>the guy we have now?  In other words, the way to get change is to not
>>change?  I don't THINK so . . .

>No, my opinion is if that if we don't like the direction Bush took in
>1990, we'd be stupid to sign up with someone who wants to go further
>in that direction than Bush went.

That's as opposed to going with someone who is promising us all all
sorts of spending, but doesn't want to get bogged down in the detail
of how he plans to fund it until after the election?

>>Yeah, let's go for the guy who is going around handing out presents
>>(we got one here in our area) and who says he'll cut our taxes but
>>doesn't want to tell us how it will be paid for.

>Change "presents" to "promises" and you have the Clinton campaign.
>Bush thinks that he blew it in 1990; Clinton disagrees, he thinks that
>Bush didn't go far enough in 1990.

Evidence for that statement of what Clinton thinks?

>If you liked the 1990 tax increase and spending plan and want more of
>the same, to go even further in that direction, Clinton's your obvious
>choice.

On anything other than the most simplistic level, I simply don't see
the comparison between the two that you seem to think exists.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.