From: depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 15
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:47:30 GMT

>>In article <92327.160414MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs sez
>>>Heh. Yeah, he's so "in-touch" that his party lost the Presidency, the Senate,
>>>the House, and most governorships...
>
>>  The Republicans "lost" the House?  Actually they made gains in the
>>  House!
>
>Well, it's encouraging that you're looking at your bright side. Nevertheless,
>fact remains that this allegedly "in-touch" party has a minority in the House,
>and lost even more seats in the Senate. See, if they were REALLY "in-touch"
>they'd be WINNING... perhaps there's some different definition of the term
>I was not previously aware of.

It all depends on what you believe the definition of "in-touch" is. It is 
 plausible that the Republican party is not "in-touch" because it doesn't
 bow down to the whims of the public. There is no hope of Clinton pursuing
 any of his "Recommendations' (a.k.a. campaign promises), for dealing with
 the economy. I have seen his economic proposal, I have also seen who it
 is that he has supporting that program. The economists he has on his side
 are reknown for their upholding the idea of Fiscal Policy (i.e. Big Gov't
 spending). So, the Republicans could actually be "in-touch" with reality
 if they do not go for all the big spending policies that the public so
 demands. 

{{This last election showed Clinton coming out and promising to do a lot of
 things. Those things were nothing knew, he just packaged it differently.
 His contradictory method of evading issues, possible pitfalls, etc. was
 good enough to get him elected (barely). [I am still in favor of a class
 action suit, on the part of the whole electorate, to demand a revote, 
 since we have seen how much of a wimp Clinton really is].}}

So, the Republicans are out of touch because they don't see any realistic
 way to offer a National Healthcare plan that has any merit without 
 destroying what is one of the strongest economies in the world at the
 moment. The Clintonomics says that we are in THE worst economic growth
 period since WWII. No way, really? Hell, after WWII, we were the only
 economy in existence that had any punch. No wonder we saw such explosive
 growth. Now, Europe is unified, at peace, no more U.S.S.R., etc. and we
 wonder at the fact that we aren't leading the pack so much as before. 
 But the reality is that we are doing fine. There are just as many 
 economists, sociologists, etc .that say we are doing fine, just as the
 Repubs said and the Repubs are out of touch, and Dems are?!?

Where the hell do you think Clinton's brain is? In Jennifer Flowers bed
 still? We elected a pot smoking, cheating on his wife, draft dodging
 pretty boy, and the Repubs are out of touch? Hell, if I told all of you
 people what Clinton told you, you would have elected me.   

What the reality of the Clinton administration actually is became evident
 the other day. I have no beef with H.C., but I don't like to hear the
 future president saying things like his wife knows more than him and the
 upper echelon of Congress. But, beyond that, he claimed to want the 
 line item veto, and we all want that, I believe. So, that, along with a 
 bunch of other "Recommendations" came down the line and people went for
 it (BC/HC are laughing all the way here, remember). Then, Foley turns
 around and offers PEBC (President Elect Bill Clinton) the line item veto
 if Congress can override with a majority vote (no 3/4 stuff anymore). So,
 where is the line item veto then. The Dems have control of both house 
 and senate, and there is no line item veto. So, who is in touch here?
 
Seems like all of you Dems who voted for PEBC are in for a nasty surprise
 when the Camelot ideal, or whatever the hell you thought you were getting
 into, blows up in your face. You will be "in-touch," no doubt, in touch
 with your accountant, your lawyer, your local CIA/FBI agents...
>
>It's an interesting theory, I'll grant you, but it seems somewhat
>improbable. Let me get this straight: What The Great American People
>REALLY want is more Reagan-like policies, so they turn out in droves to vote
>for...
>...Bill Clinton?
>
Reagan-like policies probably got you where you are today. Don't go around
 giving crap like you are worse off now than you were 12 years ago, b/c
 it just won't wash. Hope you don't make more than 50K a year..Remember
 the "recommendation" of taxing only those over the 200K range...dream
 on buddy...It hasn't happened in the past...why? Because there is no
 way for that type of system to work. And Clinton already waffled on 
 that one...Middle Class = $20K-50K /year . Period. 

Now, who is in touch? 

Get a friggin life and quit coming out of the woodwork now to complain
 about Reagan and Bush so vehemently. Where were you with Mondale and
 Dukakis? Willie Horton, Ted Kennedy scare you away? If Kennedy and
 Jackson and Foley are supposedly "in-touch" then why aren't they 
 president? 

The Dems are "in-touch" with their feelings, or with what (whom) they are
 feeling at the time. 

Get the Log Cabin Maple Syrup out, because PBEC has some waffles coming
 down the line, better than the WH (America's Favorite Place To Eat).

Hasta,
	Craig.


___________________________________________________
|                                                 |
|	What I say is what I say, and doesn't mean|
|	anything to the University of Georgia,    | 
|	though I am usually right.                |
|                                                 |
---------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh