From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:11:44 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: maine.ce.utk.edu

In article <1992Nov5.022517.15110@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

/>In <16894E956.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David 
Veal) writes:/>
/>>In article <1992Nov3.190159.2445@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
/>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
/>
//>>> That means that Clinton is trying to buy some votes,
/>>>Bush is trying to buy MORE votes, and the Libertarians are REALLY
/>>>trying to buy votes (since they want to give you back even more off
/>>>your taxes).
/>
/>>     Yes, Bush is trying to buy votes.  As for the Libertarians,
/>>they're promise is not to tax you less and somebody else more, but
/>>cut taxes as a rule.  They are opposed to taxes.  Clinton isn't opposed
/>>to taxes, only those for the people he wants to vote for him.
/>
/>Ah, I see.  Everyone who wants to change the tax structure is trying
/>to buy votes EXCEPT for, coincidentally, the people you favour.  Isn't
/>that SPECIAL?

       No, not every change in the tax structure.  We're not talking about
every change in the tax structure.  We're talking about targeting a specific 
class of voters and proposing a specific change in the tax code to appeal
to them and tax somebody else.  It isn't unique to Clinton or Bush, anybody
else.
       I, also, do not favor the Libertarian "tax noone" philosophy.  

/>>>>     Clinton's dreaming if he actually believes (and I don't for a 
/>>>>moment think he does) that he can raise taxes on the 200K+ group and 
/>>>>lower then for the 47K- group.
/>>>
/>>>Well, that must mean that George Bush is REALLY dreaming and that the
/>>>Libertarians are on acid!
/>
/>>      As they may well be.  However, you're failing the "perspective"
/>>portion of today's test.   The Libertarians are not intending to raise
/>>spending or implement costly new programs nobody really knows the cost
/>>for.   Clinton is.  Clinton hasn't promised to cut spending, he's
/>>promised "reinvestment."  Bush's rhetoric has nothing to do with reality.
/>>       The Libertarians pair their tax cuts with *bigger* spending
/>>cuts.  You might despise that, but it's at least a little more sane
/>>than Clinton's plan.
/>
/>Yes, about as sane as putting a tourniquit on your neck for snakebite
/>or cutting off your leg for athlete's foot.

     I agree, at least in the short term.  While I agree with the Libertarian
direction, I usually disagree with the speed or the final result.

/>>>>     That having been said, let's take just a little look at this 
/>>>>>savings. I'll wager that this "savings" is on total health care 
/>>>>>cost vs. total health>>>>care cost, *not* cost to the government.  As 
far as taxes go it doesn't>>>>matter the slightest bit whether the total 
health care industry saves money>>>>if government spending goes up.  Clinton'
s tax setup can't cover the>>>>government he's got *now*.  The *one thing* 
everybody agrees with as far as>>>>health care goes is that if the 
government does it it's going to cost the>>>>government *big bucks*.  
Clinton's plan sort of glosses that over.>>>
/>>>Well, no, everybody DOESN'T agree with that.  The government spends
/>>>big buck on health care NOW.  Reductions in overall cost of health
/>>>care save the government money, just like they save everybody else
/>>>money.  As for the rest, it all depends on what is implemented and
/>>>how.  Or are we not allowed to inject that much thought and reality
/>>>into a strictly political discourse?
/>
/>>     Excuse me.  Are you seriously suggesting what we spend on health care
/>>now will begin to cover *every* uninsured American?
/>
/>If by 'we' you mean the government, then no.  However, if by 'we' you
/>mean the United States, then you bet your bippy it will.  

     But that's the point.  "We" (as in American) spends far more than
what the government spends on health care.  Even if "we" (as in the 
government) spends less after the health care plan than "We" (as in 
America) spends now, if "we" (as in the government) spends more then the 
government previously did, you have to raise taxes to fund it.
     Totally aside from the fact that "our" doesn't belong to "us", and
it certainly doesn't belong to the government.

/>>>>     One more time:  I don't give a damn what George Bush thinks.  We're
/>>>>discussing Clinton's plan.  (Which will shortly be irrelevent one way 
or the>>>>other, anyway.)
/>>>
/>>>And you don't think that other peoples' plans and statements are any
/>>>way to measure relative merit?  How the hell do you make decisions
/>>>about anything?
/>
/>>     Ok, try this:  Every time I've brought up a fault with Clinton's
/>>plan *you've* said "And Bush is better?" as a defense.  That's not a
/>>defense.  *That* is what I object to.
/>
/>That's right, it's NOT a defense and it isn't INTENDED to be a
/>defense.  It's intended to point out that, warts and all, it's still
/>better than the other plans.

     Obviously I disagree, but beyond that, even if it is the best of the 
presented plans still doesn't mean it's a good plan, or that it should be 
implemented.  A plan should stand on its own merits, not just how it relates 
to others.

/>>>>     I've never considered it the President's job to control Congress, 
run>>>>the economy, manage health care, improve education, or any of the 
other ten>>>>thousand things Clinton and Bush are trying to do.
/>>>
/>>>Sorry, but working with Congress sure as hell BETTER be part of the
/>>>President's job.  Because he can't do anything if he can't or won't
/>>>work with them.
/>
/>>     Notice "work with Congress."  But maybe, considering the way things
/>>are going, the President *shouldn't* be trying so hard to "get things
/>>done."
/>
/>Gee, now there's an interesting philsophy.  "The country is in
/>trouble.  I think I'll decisively DO NOTHING ABOUT IT."  Yeah, right.
/>GREAT plan.  Hey, let's suggest it to doctors, too.  Just look at all
/>the people we wouldn't have to bother with anymore.

     Perhaps we should ask Congress to do something about it?  After all, 
legislation is *their* job.  I am not proposing we do nothing.  I am 
questioning the source of the action.

/>>>>     I, sir, have been totally consistant on this point, and I will ask 
you>>>>not to generalize Bush's words to me.  I do not support Bush.  It is
/>>>>possible, you know, to disapprove of Clinton's plan *and* Bush's plan 
at the>>>>same time.  Both are economic fantasy.  Both aren't worth the 
paper they're>>>>printed on.  Indeed, the paper could have been put to much 
better>>>>use.
/>>>
/>>>I, sir, don't much give a damn whether you like Bush, Marrou, Perot,
/>>>or Lola Falana.  It is necessary, you know, when making comparisons
/>>>among plans to actually LOOK AT ALL THE PLANS.
/>
/>>       I've seen the plans.  I wasn't comparing Clinton's plan to Bush's
/>>plan.  I discussing the possibilities of implementing Clinton's plan.
/>
/>And ignoring the impossibility of everyone else's?  Gee, that sure
/>strikes ME as real balanced.  Yes sirree bob!

       Yes, ignoring the impossibility of everyone else's.  Assume I think 
they're ten times worse than Clinton's and don't merit consideration if
it helps.  Assume they've been eliminated as possibilities and we're only
discussing what is good and bad about Clinton's plan.

/>>> You also have to look
/>>>at reality and see how those plans will play.  So far, Clinton's 
plays/>>>best in the real world, from what I can tell, whether you find
/>>>inconsistencies or not.
/>
/>>       I don't doubt Clinton's "plays best" in the real world.  But
/>>being six microns closer to reality doesn't do you a lot of good if you're
/>>starting point is never-never land.  A lot of Clinton's proposals make
/>>some snese.  They don't work together, though.  They don't "add up."
/>
/>You lost me on that last dodge.  Clinton's plan plays best in the real
/>world but doesn't, because it starts in never-never land?  Yes, and
/>Truth is Lies, War is Peace, and Love is Hate.

       Try this:  Imagine Bush's plan would cost a hundred billion dollars
and leave a million people uninsured and wreck the economy.  Imagine 
Clinton's plan would costninety billion dollars and leave five hundred 
thousand uninsured and only drive the economy into a depression.
       (All of this solely for example purposes.)

       Clinton's plan would be "better", but I still wouldn't want to
implement it.

/>>       It is highly unlikely we can ensure medical care for everyone
/>>and not increase spending.  It is a virtual impossiblity to do it with
/>>and reduce the deficit as Clinton has proposed without massive spending
/>>cuts, which Clinton *hasn't* proposed.  *Every time* he comes *close*
/>>to talking about real cuts we hear "re-invest."  That isn't going to
/>>help the deficit.
/>
/>The only way out of the deficit without destroying the economy in the
/>process is to GROW out of it.  Anyone with any sense recognizes that.
/>Re-invest is how you grow.  Growth is how you manage to start paying
/>down the debt.  

       So the idea is to grow the economy faster than we grow the
deficit?  That certainly seems dangerous if the economy doesn't grow
as fast as you hope.

/>>>>     You're confusing "getting some things done," with "getting the 
/right>>>>things done."
/>>>
/>>>No, you're assuming I don't know the difference.  The most appropriate
/>>>response to that would seem to be 'shove it'.
/>
/>>       No, I'm assuming we disagree on what is "right."
/>
/>Then what you've been saying doesn't make any sense, unless you think
/>the 'right' thing to do is just sit down and not do anything.

       Why is the President the only one capable of doing something?  I 
haven't said we shouldn't do anything, I've said I'm not sure the President
is the appropriate place for plans to come from.

/>>> Reagan managed it, with an equally
/>>>hostile Congress.
/>
/>>     Reagan was the "Great Communicator."  The Democrats knew they
/>>couldn't beat him.
/>
/>And Bush was the Great Procrastinator, and nothing got done.  

       On the contrary.  A great deal "got done."  Nothing "got better,"
and that's a big difference.

/>What
/>does that have to do with anything.  The point is that Ronald Reagan
/>was able to work with a hostile Congress and get things done.  George
/>Bush was and is unable to do the same.  Hence, George Bush should be
/>replaced with someone who can do the job.

        No argument.  Nor do I think Clinton can't do the job.  Like many
do with Reagan, I do not criticize his ability, but his (in Clinton's
case proposed) actions.

/>>> Clinton, too, will have to work with Congress to
/>>>get HIS plan implemented instead of theirs.  So will anyone else who
/>>>we send to the White House.
/>
/>>     At that point it will be to the Democrat's advantage to produce
/>>"a plan."  Unfortunately, it will still be to their advantage to sell
/>>big government to their constituents.  Little is likely to change.
/>
/>Then they won't be in power long.

       Maybe, maybe not.  Bush did very well for things being like they
are, and public perception being what it was.  Being an incumbant is a
huge advantage.

/>>>>     We don't need a President who will "work with" Congress.  We need
/>>>>voters with the backbone to tell their reps they're willing to give up 
their>>>>pork first.  Failing that, we need a President who'll veto any 
uneccesary>>>>spending which comes out of Congress regardless of what is in 
the bill.>>>
/>>>Well, what we really need is a huge fairly with a magic-flaming-wand
/>>>to mystically fix everything, BUT IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.  So you have
/>>>to put people in office that you think will do the right things.  What
/>>>the hell is your problem with that?
/>
/>>       Ummm, I think I just described wanting to get a President who will
/>>do the right thing.  I've been told Bush has shown no leadership.  What
/>>I have suggested would *be* leadership.
/>>       What's wrong with that?  It's what *I* think would be right.
/>
/>Other than trying to do ANYTHING by strictly negative means being
/>unworkable, what's wrong with it?  Ok, let's say the President vetos
/>EVERYTHING that comes his way, no matter what it is.  Guess what.  We
/>STILL run a deficit, because all that 'mandatory spending' doesn't
/>need to be signed -- if you do nothing, it continues.  So doing
/>nothing is a stupid policy which will fail to deal with the problem. 

       Which, I suppose, explains why Bush couldn't submit balanced
budgets.  Which, also, illustrates my point.  The President, when all
is said and done, can't balance anything.  Congress has to do it.

/>>>>     President Bush proposed the budgets (and contrary to popular belief
/>>>>only a small portion of that was really up to him, since much of the 
money>>>>was allocated by law during previous years) and Congrsss passed 
them.  The>>>>two are quite similar.
/>>>>     Neither Bush nor Congress are innocent in this matter.  Clinton 
alone>>>>will change nothing.
/>>>
/>>>And just who the hell said he would?
/>
/>>       Clinton, actually.  Gore, too, for that matter.   Most of the DNC.
/>>Cuomo and Jackson, I'm positive.
/>
/>Oh, hogwash.

       I'm certain Clinton said he'd change things.  Come to think of it,
I'm sure he said "change" at least twice.  He said he'd "work with" the 
congress.  Now, if we're talking the same congress, it must be Clinton 
changing things.
       Same Congress, different President.

/>>>Gee, we can't fix the whole
/>>>problem in one swell foop, so we shouldn't even try?  Right.  Stay at
/>>>the university, Dave.  I don't think you're ready for the real world.
/>
/>>       I don't expect anything to be fixed in one fell swoop.  Clinton's
/>>plan doesn't even point in the right direction.
/>
/>Gee, it's the most realistic approach in the real world, except that
/>it points in the wrong direction?  I think you should see someone
/>about this problem you have with contradicting yourself like this.

       Clinton's plan won't reduce spending, the deficit, and violates the 
Constitution on at least half the points.  *I* call that in the wrong 
direction.
       And its "the most realistic approach in the real world of those
offered," which isn't saying much.  Being better than a worse plan only
means you aren't at the bottom.  It doesn't mean your plan isn't a good
plan.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism