From: nuke@wam.umd.edu (root)
Subject: Time to change (our attitudes) was: PROVE IT
Keywords: Ignorance is bliss 
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:53:38 GMT

<1e6ct6INN1cd@network.ucsd.edu> rr@chem.ucsd.edu (Roxanne Rohmann) writes:
>nuke@wam.umd.edu (root) writes:
> > 
> > I disagree.  Personally, I think the Congress is *always* "to blame" for 
> > economic condition (good or bad).  The President does not hold the purse-
> > strings, at best he can wave his hands... and make suggestions.  In all
>> cases, Congress must either give him the green light, or at the very *least*,
> > do nothing to stop his propositions.  
> 
>Certainly it is true that the President does not hold the purse-
>strings.  However, he has two powerful tools, one of which is
>mentioned above.

Which of these tools do you feel is substantial enough for him to control
the budget of the United States?  Let's just admit that all of our leaders
are narrow minded, dealing only with their own narrow concerns, with little
thought given to the rest of us, save our votes.  If the President appointed
the congress, you might have a point.  If the congress had economic autonomy,
that other fellow might have a point.  As it is, both bodies are equally
guilty, and no degree of finger-pointing or retro-whining can possibly get
us out of the crisis we are now in.  What is important is for the public 
to see to it that they *all* snap out of this political-team world view and
start thinking about the economy.  

Who here thinks that the country can ever be entirely spiffy, if we are in
economic chaos?  Nobody?  Good.  Now, who here thinks that an improved 
(or even healthy) economy might just give us the steam to take care of our
other problems?  Not as many?  Okay... why not?  Do you really think that
we can continue to care for ourselves, our tired, our poor... if we don't 
*ourselves* have the means?  

I was directed, and am mentioning to those who have read this far, that a 
book exists which (albeit alarmist) is well-written and based on economic
realities (something you cannot find in politics or the press).
the title was "Bankruptcy 1996."  Haven't read it myself... based on the
excerpts, though... essential reading.

[The glory of leadership, and other filler deleted]
 
> In fact, the greatest
>deficits in history were those *proposed* by Reagan and Bush. 
>And *then* Congress got their hands on the budget. 

Nuff said.  May they all burn.

>The second tool that could have been used by a determined
>President during the budget process is the veto.  *If*
>Bush or Reagan had been serious about wanting a lean and
>mean budget and Congress failed to give them one that was
>even somewhat satisfactory, they should have vetoed the 
>damn thing, and let the country grind to a halt for a few
>days.  

Blahahahaha.   Thank you for providing, by example, why this method is
not recommended.  I seem to recall that something similar happened.
This wasn't due to a veto, but to the now-neutered Grahm-Rudman act.
Each time, congress scrambled to vote on increased spending, and a higher
defecit ceiling.  Yum, Yum, Yum!!!

[some aimless postulation deleted]

>However, for Reagan/Bush to have used the veto in this manner
>would have required that they had very clearly informed
>Congress of what they wanted to see out of them, and what 
>the consequences would be if it wasn't forthcoming.  Since
>a clear message of that sort never did happen, I must conclude
>that the recent Republican presidents weren't serious about
>their vaunted economic plans, and that all the hand-wringing
>that has gone on the in the last few years is simple theatrics
>designed to impress the electorate.  

So... we can only trust our economy to a congress under seige?
If this is the case, and the president is expected to hand-hold
the congress through the budget (and they would listen, I'm
certain), why not just give the president complete control of the
budget, and let the congress get back to raping pages, and passing
laws restricting unauthorized uses of oxygen?  Can you tell I'm 
losing patience with the whole thing, yet?  If nobody is responsible
for the economy, nobody will *do* anything about it.  Who is 
responsible, now, for the economy, now?  Bush?  Reagan?  Carter?
Ford?  Garfield?  Lincoln?  Call me mad (you'd be correct), but
I say the responsibility, accountability, and control of the economy
is in the hands of the president and the congress.  If we don't
achnowledge this, we deserve what we get.

>We weren't impressed.

I'd hope *not*.  Who was?   

>   ---Roxanne Rohmann

Take care.  
(There may be poor spelling in this message, oh horror.)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton