From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Dear Democrats & Repubs too
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:08:36 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov5.182251.187@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>In article <1db70gINN6l@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov
>writes: 
>> In article <1992Nov4.181605.178@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>>>
>>>Well, that's only as it should be.  Everything bad that happened after 
>>>January 1981 was Reagan's fault; everything bad after January 1989 was 
>>>Bush's fault.  This is the "fact" that the left has been chanting for
>>>twelve years.  They can't change it now, because they chanted this lie so
>>>loudly for so long, it has assumed the air of truth. 
>>>
>>>And if it isn't Democrat Clinton's fault, then who ya gonna blame?   The
>>>Democratically-controlled Congress?  Talk about hoist on their own petard.
>
>> How about if they blame assholes like you? 
>
>Oh, Puh-Leeeze.  Such a witty retort, such brilliant repartee.  Guaranteed
>to make me receptive to the rest of what you may have to say, given the
>breathtaking logic of your insightful opening line.  
>

I apologize for attempting to be concise...
Lets see if I can make the opening line a *bit* clearer for you...I find it
"assholish" to try to *blame* someone for *all* problems instead of
trying to find a solution to those problems. I find it "assholish" for the
liberal left to be blaming Reagan/Bush for *all* the problems since 1981,
I find it "assholish" for Bush to be blaming all his problems on a gridlocked
congress, I find it "assholish" to attempt to blame all the problems for
1993 til ? on Clinton. Now, as far as *you* being an asshole, that depends...
*are* you attempting to blame all the problems for 1993 til ? on Clinton?
(as your previous post would seem to indicate..."if the shoe fits...":-)
If I misread an attempt at humor on your part, then I apologize...too much
coffee and not enough sleep tend to make a person resistant to humor...

>Now that you've endeared yourself to me -- and assuming I'm not dealing
>with some pimply hacker at a NASA keyboard, but rather an adult -- let's
>see what else you have to say.
>

Ouch, I'm mortally wounded by your scathing reply!! :-)

>> Paul, in case you haven't noticed,
>> *alot* of democrats ARE NOT blaming Bush for the recession, they're blaming
>> him for NOT RECOGNIZING that the country was in deep shit and badly needed
>> some leadership to get it out again. They're Blaming Bush for being proud
>> of his inability to compromize with congress to get *something* done. 
>
>Better.  Better.  Yes, there's truth in what you say -- but there's truth
>in what *I* said, too.  How many times were we brainwashed by the lines
>"Bush presided over the worst economy in 50 years" (a flat-out falsehood;
>it wasn't), "Bush is responsible for the biggest deficit" (and we thought
>Congress spent the taxpayers' money), etc etc ad nauseum barf.  To hear the

Probably about as many times as we were brainwashed by the lines "Congress
is gridlocked because they won't do what I tell them...". as far as *who*
had responsibility for the current debt & deficit...lets see, the President
submits a budget plan to congress, basically telling them what he would
*like* to do. Congress *generally* takes that as a starting point and
hammers out the details and sends it back to the President for approval/veto.
Now the budget *plans* submitted by the President for the past 12 years
have called for a high level of deficit spending. Congress has taken that
as a starting point and returned a budget proposal that *hopefully* the
President would accept. Within the last 12 years, 8 of the budget proposals
sent to the President have called for *less* deficit spending than was
*requested* by the President. Now, the question is, "would the President
*approve* a budget that differed *significantly* from his original plan?"
If yes, then both Congress and the President share equally in the
responsibility for the current debt/deficit. If not, then the President
is primarily responsible, with Congress bearing a lesser amount...
So, you see, neither the President nor Congress are totally responsible
for the debt/deficit.

>left tell it, Congress has been completely absent from any negative
>developments of the past 12 years.  And rather than flame me, you could

I my opinion, Congress has just been absent, period...

>> In case you were asleep at the time, 
>
>[Let it pass, let it pass...]
>
>> 90% of the nation (democrats and republicans alike)
>> were in support of Bush during the Gulf War, primarily because he *was* a
>> leader and he *had* a goal. After the war, he rested on his accomplishments
>> and ignored what was going on in the country, that there were alot of people
>> hurting because of the economy and social/ethinc tensions. *Many* people
>> felt betrayed because he *failed* to recognize what to them was painfully
>> obvious...
>
>Yes, this is true.  Bush had the election sown up, and what destroyed his 
>chances was the sense of betrayal by his attitude, his lack of action. 
>However, he -- and *everyone*, in the beginning -- had every reason
>to believe that this recession would be like most other post-WWII
>recessions -- a quick-and-dirty recession that would not last long.
>

Unfortunately, after the recession continued to plague the country long
past what would be considered a "quick-and-dirty" recession, he *still*
barely acknowledged that there even *was* a recession...

>Further, it's long been known to rational economists that government
>meddling does practically nothing to stimulate an economy under such 
>circumstances; aside from interest-rate cuts (which it did, almost too
>much), any Washington-directed plan always takes so long to implement, its
>effects are felt AFTER the recession is over (and precipitates inflation). 
>The economy isn't directed by fiat from Washington (at least not yet), but
>rather by the hundreds of thousands of decision-makers known as
>businessmen.  Bush had no reason to believe that this recession would be
>any different.  Hell, Congress felt the same way; their relief plan was to
>extend unemployment benefits. 

You are correct, there is little that Bush or Congress could, in reality,
do to quickly fix the recession without making things even worse or
more unstable in the long run...One *major* problem facing the economy
was/is a severe lack of consumer confidence in the country and the economy.
Basically, consumers are afraid to spend their money, and try to save it
any way possible. Unfortunately, when consumers *don't* spend, many companies
are forced to cut back which results in layoffs, which results in reduced
consumer confidence, which results in less spending...not a good situation.
Consumer confidence was made even worse by lack of direction for the
country as a whole (after the Cold War and Gulf War, where do we go???),
and Bush's lack of concern/realization at the economic situation...

I think that if Bush had even *appeared* to be in control of the situation
consumer confidence would have gone up, and the effects of the recession
would have been reduce or shortened...as it was, he spent his time bickering
with congress and trying to blame "gridlocked congress" for his lack of
action. The impression of many consumers was that nobody was "at the helm"
and the country was just drifting in the wind...

>
>What the White House did not see coming (nor did Congress) was the
>recession that would hit our major trading partners at about the same time.
>Our recession was made worse by the fact that our major trading partners,
>too, were having recessions.  The usual tide of exports would have made
>things a lot less painful -- but it didn't happen. 
>
>> Typical Republican tactics...try to figure out who's to blame instead
>> of trying to get the job done...
>
>And so we end as we began.  There now -- I've given you topics for debate.  
>Want to do so, or just fling darts?  :)

Oh, I don't just fling darts...:-) 

My primary contention is that this country spends too much time and
energy trying to blame someone for a problem and not enough time and
energy trying to find a solution to the problem. This in itself is a
*major* problem!! Bush is part of the problem for always blaming congress
and not working *with* congress. Congress is part of the problem for
always blaming Bush and not working *with* Bush. The "liberal left"
is part of the problem if they always blamed Bush, and never attempted
to work with him. The "conservative right" is part of the problem
if they always blamed congress, and never attempted to work with them.
Too many people blame one party or the other for all of the problems,
when in fact *they* are part of the problem...

John

>
>------
>
> Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
> Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
> "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton