From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot: If He Runs, I Will Support Him... and hope for the best
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:25:33 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <visser.717436799@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> In <Bv39AK.1Ax@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
> 
> +>In article <Bv32D0.Fs5@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> +>>In article <1992Sep23.123457.1348@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> +>>>    Well, here we go again.  And I'm happy to see that Perot's people still
> +>>>have had enough faith in him to put him on the ballot in all 50 states.
> +>>>
> +>>>    First, I agree with many posters that neither Bush nor Clinton have a clue
> +>>>on how to attack $400,000,000,000,000 (that's 400 TRILLION) of the national
> +>>>debt.
> +>> 
> +>>   You're out of your mind.   Are all Perot supporters this wacked?  First
> +>>   we get Stephen ("God made me do it") Tice.  Then we get someone else 
> +>>   telling me under Perot I've got to pay more taxes until it hurts, and when
> +>>   I say "it already hurts" he tells me it doesn't hurt enough.  And now
> +>>   this.    We do NOT have a $400 trillion national debt.   

        What I said, was that we need a wake up call.  It's going to hurt, but
        you don't want pain, you want gain.

       "No pain, no gain."

> +>>
> +>>   I will say this for Perot's strategy: just one look around the country
> +>>   (or even around Usenet) and you can see that if he can capture the 
> +>>   wacko vote he's got the election locked up.
> 
> +>Persuasive argument, Peter!
> 
> +>Why do you continue to rave about how Perot's plan is going to ruin
> +>you, when it is obviously to everyone following any of these Perot
> +>threads that you have not read it?
> 
> 	Why do you continue to pretend that Perot's plan makes sense 
> when its rather obvious to anyone who has read his book that the figures
> just dont add up. 

  You got a better one by a candidate that can win??
 
> 	You people who have "read" the book go on and on about "the plan"
> as an abstraction, but dont seem to understand that what is presented in
> the book is a list of items to be cut, taxes to be raised and a graph
> showing the budget going to zero in five years.  

  The budget going to zero??  And someone calls me wacked out.. :)

  Seriously, I think there are too many NIMBY people in this country who have
their pet programs that could use a bit of trimming, if not outright cuts. 
You'd be surprised how much we can save if we actually have responsibility
running the government for a change.
 
> 	Nearly 1/7th of the money that he is going to raise to close
> the deficit is supposed to come from European and Asian countries.
> Anyone who knows anything about these countries knows that it would 
> be political suicide for ANY government to propose a transfer payment
> to the US military of 100 billion dollars. 

  But it's  not just one government that's going to provide the entire $100B. 
Also, who knows, I bet we could drastically scale down our presences in these
countries if they don't want to have us there.  There'd be some savings too.
 
> +>I recommend you either read the book or shut up; what few shreds of
> +>your credibility remain are being carried away by the torrent of
> +>effluent with which you have polluted the recent Perot threads.
> 
> 	I recommend that someone actually try to explain how the perot
> plan is supposed to close the deficit or why central
> planning for the economy is a good idea or why the pentagon/defense sector
> is a good model for the revitization of the american economy.

  Because, at least as I see it, we're going to need to make a lot of cuts to
do this revitalization, and the Pentagon is a good place to start.

  The Perot plan will close the deficit if it is given a chance to work; it
will take a lot of the money which is currently being wasted by the federal
government and make it disappear, because it's money this country doesn't have
in the first place.
 
> 	And I explicitly dont want to hear anything like "well, at least
> hes better that clintonbushmarrougritz".  Because thats negative campaigning
> which I thought was one of the things that this "new" perot politics 
> was against.  Then again, remembering past denials, he never promised not
> to be a negative campaigner, he promised a world-class campaign.

  The problem is, Lance, he is.

  I mean, all of the anti-Perot, pro-Republocrat people on USENET have
complained that he never had a plan.  He gave it to you, and it's on the
non-fiction best seller list.  People are interested.  I'd be interested to see
Perot debate Clinton on the economy  {we know Bush won't show up to debate, he
has nothing to debate}.

  We've been trying to tell you why it's better; Perot actually takes this
stuff seriously while the other candidates only pay it lip service.  Bush, if
he wins this election, would win it because Clinton dodged the draft.  Clinton,
many feel, could do a better job, but his plan, though endorsed by many, has
been seen by many more as fiscal fantasy.

  Perot is not a politician; on the economy, he'll make no promises.  He'll
just offer solutions.  If you don't want solutions, you're part of the problem.

						Mike Falkner
						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory