From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Debate 2:  "Would you define in specific dollar goals how much..."
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:19:00 GMT

In article <ldtu7dINNar1@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes...
>Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
>You will note that Stephen gets real excited over Clintons "no" answer
>but ignores Perot's non-responsive answer and Bush's ducking the question
>altogether.

Hey, Clinton confirmed that the Democrats don't care about the deficit
and would rather just keep pushing it back -- that's notable. The GOPs
are no better -- it took both DEMS and GOPS pushing as hard as they 
could to send us $4 trillion in debt. (Again supposedly to expand the
the economy.) 

And the $1.5 trillion dollar budget passed by both DEMs & GOPs last 
week proves it. NO CUTS in borrowing or spending.

>|> Moderator:  I think we have a question over here.
>|> 
>|> Questioner: This is for Governor Clinton. In the real world, that is
>|>             outside of Washington DC, compensation and achievement are
>|>             based on goals defined and achieved. My question is about
>|>             the Deficit. Would you define in specific dollar goals how
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>             much you would reduce the deficit in each of the 4 years 
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>|>             of a Clinton Administration -- and then enter into a legally
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>             binding contract with the American People, that if you did
>|>             not achieve those goals that you would not seek a 2nd Term?
>|>             Answer "Yes" or "No" and then comment on your answer please.
>|> 
>|> Clinton:    No. And here's why. And I'll tell you exactly why. Because
               ^^^^
>|>             the deficit now has been building up for 12 years. I'll tell

The Democrats helped author and pass that build-up.

>|>             you exactly what I think can be done. I think we can bring 
>|>             it down by 50% in 4 years, and grow the economy. Now I could

"We can bring it down" but don't hold me to it. 

>|>             get rid of it in 4 years in theory on the books now, but to 

"I can get rid of it" but you don't want that.

>|>             do it you'd have to raise taxes too much, and cut benefits 
>|>             too much to people who need them, and it would even make the
>|>             economy worse. Mr. Perot will tell you for example that the
>|>             expert he hired to analyze his plan says that it will bring

One expert? Perot is well known for getting many expert opinions.

>|>             the deficit down in 5 years, but it will make unemployment
>|>             bad for 4 more years. So my view is Sir, you have to increase
>|>             investment, grow the economy, and reduce the deficit, by 

Same old story that got us here. Spin up the economy...

>|>             controlling health care costs, prudent reductions in defense,

Nationalize the health and the insurance industries, cut defense (but 
don't look at the miniscule cuts in the democratic plan)...

>|>             cuts in domestic programs, and asking the wealthiest Americans

which used to be called reform (cut here add there)...

>|>             and foreign corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.
>|>             And investing in growing this economy. I asked everybody 

And back to taking more taxes.

>|>             to look at my economic ideas and 9 Nobel prize winners and 
>|>             over 500 economists and hundreds of business people including

And ignore the fact that the democrats along with republicans authored
a $1.5 Trillion Federal budget for FY'93 (which we're now in).

>|>             a lot of republicans said this the way you gotta go. If you
>|>             don't grow the economy you can't get it done. But I can't
>|>             foresee all the things that will happen, and I don't think 
>|>             the president should be judged solely on the deficit. Let 

Nor put their own ass on the line. Hang the taxpayer though.

>|>             me also say we're having an election today. You'll have a
>|>             shot at me in 4 years and you can vote me right out if you

We're already kicking out the crooks. Why add one who's the epitome of a 
party puppet? The Democratic and Republican crooks have got to go -- and
Bill Democrat is no help now. So there's NO reason to wait.

>|>             think I've done a lousy job. And I would welcome you do that.
>|> 
>|> So I reckon there is no deficit reduction goals in Democrat Bill's plan
>|> which he himself will sign on to. All talk. So there ain't no problem 
>|> voting him out, since there ain't no reason to vote him in.
>|> 
>|> /                 \
>|>   Stephen D. Tice          Ever seen that ball cap... The one that says,
>|>   Arlington Texas             
>|> \                 /                         "Trust Me"  ?? 
>|> 
>|> 
>|> { ps. Thank you Mr. Questioner, whoever you are. }