From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 11:32:59 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:36:37 GMT

In article <740@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.210311.2593@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov 
>(Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>nonpartisan approach to obtaining information and opinions on the
economy
>>has been quite refreshing. He has even hired some people who do not
agree
>>with some aspects of his economic plan. A sign that he is intelligent
>>enough
>>to realize he can't know everything
>>and flexible enough to adjust to the dynamic landscape of the national
>>economy.
>
>Let me guess, you really belive that nonsense like this econmic
conference
>is about "hearing ideas" instead of the reality that it's about trying to
>gain support for the programs he's already decided on.  Gawd, even the
>dunder heads in the media didn't need to bump their butts on the obvious
to
>figure this one out.

Oh, now you Republican spin-nerds like the media?

Have you watched any of the conference Paul or read any of the
transcripts?
If you had you would realize
how ridiculous you sound. There have been many people at this conference
with ideas which differ drastically from Clinton's and they are stating
their concerns openly. Clinton is showing alot of backbone taking an
approach like this since he is not surrounding himself with a bunch
of "yes men" like Reagan and Bush did. If he gains support for his
programs,
great. I happen to think the basic philosophies of his programs are both
sound and necessary. However, the economy is a highly dynamic, complex
system and working out the specifics of any economic program will
require the expertise of many people. The approach taken here by Clinton
shows that he is smart enough to know he can't possibly know everything
it will take to do so.

>
>>
>>You may feel "duped", but many of us are quite encouraged. I am more
>>encouraged than I thought I would be for the reasons stated above. I
>>would think that Clinton's shift of emphasis toward deficit reduction
>>would please you.
>
>His shift in emphasis or his stated shift shift?  I remember the
"emphasis
>on deficit reduction from Congressional Democrats in 1990.  Remember,
>ah just a little tax increase, mostly on the luxury items that those
nasty
>rich people buy and it's all for the great American cause of reducing th
>deficit.

Oh, another defender of the "downtrodden rich"....spare us. The FACT is
that the Rich made great gains under the supply-side system and the
great prosperity that was supposed to "trickle down" to the masses
never happened. Instead, we got insider trading, the S&L crisis, the
gutting of the clean air act, higher unemployment, lower salaries
compared to inflation, high business failure rates, massive lay-offs
coupled with record salaries for CEOs and high corporate executives,
an extreme drop in R&D investment, corporate raids on retirement
accounts, huge deficits, a ballooning public debt, stockpiles of
worthless strategic weapons and a bloated defense industry,...
etc ad nauseum.

>
>Shall I post the numbers for the defit that year and the years after?

Maybe you should post the deficit as % of GDP for each president. You
will find that Reagan and Bush had the largest deficits and amassed the
largest contribution to the public debt. These figures have been posted
many times here in this newsgroup. Furthermore, congress's submitted
budget ALWAYS had a smaller deficit from that submitted by Reagan or
Bush. These are the facts, despite the claims of the Stupendo dude.

>
>Shift in emphasis my aunt Tilly.  Let's talk a year or two from now, 
>after Bill tries to slip in the 100 billion + it's going to cost for 
>his health insurance plan, the cost of which he convienently buried 
>during the campaign.  Well see how much emphasis is on defict reduction
>when Bill has to pay the tab for all the promises he made.

As I have stated before, you are a master of exaggeration and
misrepresentation. The 100 million dollar figure is for 4 to 5 years.
Read Clinton's proposals before you embarass yourself. There is,
admittedly, a problem with the numbers (much smaller
than the inflated figure you are spouting and not as outrageous as
the Bush/Reagan deficits). However, the basic principles
are sound and prudent and the numbers and schedule could not have
possibly been worked out ahead of time due to the unpredictable
nature of the economy and the inevitable compromises with congress.

>
>
>Like I said, he gave people ear candy to get elected, now let's see
>the result.  So far not so good.

Jeez Paul... HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT YET. Sorry for shouting but all
this partisan belly-aching is giving me gas. Maybe you would like to
at least give him a chance to submit something BEFORE you squeal
like a pig?

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton