From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:47:35 GMT

In article <C12qnu.17Ko@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>In article <1993Jan16.182205.2427@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ipadavic@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Irene Padavic) writes:

>>> The reality is that every man, woman, and child (the collective "we, the
>>> people of the United States ...." is up to his/her ass in debt.
>>> $4 trillion and mounting.  Either we fix it, or we start learning
>>> Japanese en masse.  Get it?

>>It is dismaying, and funny, I supposed, how those who propose to be so
>>clear-eyed about the state of the nation lapse immediately into
>>nationalist and corporatist sentiment as soon as they try to talk
>>about remedies.  With an urgent sweep of the hand all class
>>distinctions are swept aside - we are all "up to our ass in debt" and
>>we all face the prospect of having a serious linguistic deficit added to
>>our fiscal one.

>Clever.  Except that I'm no "corporatist", although I accept the
>label of patriot.  Fact is, if the debt is not paid, we all lose.
>You cannot prove otherwise.

Prove it.   We've had a debt for 200 years.  No problem, unless it gets
*too* big.

>>  I would guess that the poster's ass, as well as mine, is
>>a lot mor fiscally immersed than HRP's, and that our responsibilities for
>>that state are inversely proportional.

>Perhaps, Irene, our collective asses are on the line more than
>Perot's. ;-)  But this isn't about personalities.  I frankly
>wouldn't want to go out and party with Ross - he's not my type.
>But he has some suggestions on how to fix the problem, and he's
>spent a LOT of his own money trying to get the point across.

He's got a lot; I don't think he's hurting.  What else does he have to
spend it on besides his ego-tripping?

>>  His debt proposals, purportedly
>>so tough-minded, stunk of deference to wealth and power, and were
>>tough-minded only to the extent that they ignored that the unwealthy and
>>unpowerful still vote, and would object to losing the few perks they have.

>Huh?  The entire movement is predicated upon educating Americans that
>we need to get tough on these problems, that its gonna cost all of
>us a lot of hard work and money to fix it, and that basically politicians
>stink.

Which explains Ross Perot, who, of course, was a used-car salesman, not
a politician.

>> For all its shortcomings, Kennedy's S&L bill at least paid more than lip
>>service to the simple idea that the burden of a remedy should be
>>proportional to the benefits previously gained from the problem to be
>>remedied.  That would involve a heavy hit for Ross, who make large chunks
>>of his startup wealth from governemnt contracts, and who according to a
>>number of reports was just another slimeball when it came to obtaining them.  

>Oh please, Ted Kennedy is one of the biggest criminals in Washington, DC.

Huh?  I've heard some people say Chappaquiddick was criminal, but other
than that, what are you referring to?

>His tax and spend liberal policies have been one of the reasons we're
>in this mess.  That he uses a progressive tax structure to cover up
>for his mindless crimes only means he believes we are suckers indeed.

Oh, and I'm sure Ted Kennedy has been making a lot of policy for the
last 12 years.   (As an aside, if we had been doing tax-and-spend, there
wouldn't be a huge deficit.  We were doing borrow-and-spend.)

>>What is sad about this is that I would guess that the poster is not
>>particularly thrilled about HRP, and probably doesn't find my argument all
>>that implausible.

>I agree with much of what you say, but I want you to consider looking
>beyond the personalities involved (all of whom, frankly, make me
>want to reach for the Alka-Seltzer).

>>  For my part, I can appreciate his sense of disgust with
>>the present political order.  But I am not about to get caught up in some
>>putative cross-class coalition that is held together by rhetorical spit
>>coming out of the mouth of a guy who preaches technocracy and but practices
>>the usual corporate barbarism - security checks, bugging,
>>hyperdiscipline, etc.  It is attractive that he can miraculously bankroll
>>himself, he does seem to offer a way around mass powerlessness, but he
>>really would only reaffirm it.  

>Fine, don't get caught up in what you deem a "putative cross-class
>coalition."  Just stay out the way and we'll fix the problem for you.
>You can choose to sit on your ass, or you can choose to fix the
>problem.  If you choose the latter, try to be effective alone.

>OK, sorry for the strong language.  I'll behave.  :-)

>Frankly, you're right:  I'm not a starry-eyed fan of Ross, and I think how he
>ran EDS was wrong.  But I *am* a fan of straight talk, of
>action, and of clear goals worthy of committment.  That he's willing to
>help solve the problem, and put his own money in to do it, says something
>for the person.

It says he's a meglomaniac.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:5944 talk.politics.misc:70067 alt.activism:21453 alt.politics.usa.misc:975 alt.politics.reform:259 alt.politics.economics:256