From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:36:13 GMT

In <1992Aug15.233234.19417@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>If increasing borrowing is a problem, then:

>Support the Balanced Budget Amendment, opposed by Bill Clinton,
>opposed by the House and Senate Democrat leaders, and voted
>against by a dozen hypocritical Democrats who claimed to support it
>(as co-signers) but who voted against it.

WHICH Balanced Budget Amendment?  I beleive there were some 16
different versions under discussion at one time.  Better not to have
one than to have a bad one.

>*Oppose* Bill Clinton's disaster of an economic plan, whose tax
>hikes and regulatory increases will stall out our recovery and *reduce*
>tax revenues, while his planned increases in spending will only
>contribute to a greater deficit. If his plan goes according
>to plan (which it won't), he will add almost $1 trillion more
>to the national debt. If it fails, which it will, we can expect
>an even wider gap, with an even deeper hole to dig ourselves out of.
>Bill Clinton is about to sell us down the river on "change", but
>he wants more than change .... he wants the whole damn piggy bank,
>to feed the plans of the borrow, tax and spend Democrat party.

Sure, so we can have more of George Bush's disaster economic plans.
This makes good sense to me.  NOT!  George Bush has the second worse 4
year administration insofar as almost any economic measure goes of any
President since the 1940's.  Job growth, economic growth, earnings
growth, and practically any other measure of economic strength you
care to measure are all practically non-existent.  The worst
performance, by the way, was Eisnehower.

>	 
>Republicans have proposed pro-growth initiatives that will
>keep taxes low while revenues rise (shunned by the Democrats), 

If Bush's version of a Capital Gains Tax cut is any example of these,
he should steal another idea from Clinton, instead.  All the Bush plan
does is provide incentives for the 'churning' of investments.  It does
nothing to differentiate between that sort of 'gains' and ones that
would actually be pro-growth.

>have
>bravely fought for spending caps and spending reductions (which have been
>demagogued by the Democrats), 

Bravely?  You must be kidding.

>have pushed budget deficit reduction
>legislation like the Gramm-Rudman bill (which have been gutted by the
>Democrats), 

Yes, the Democrats are to blame for every ill of mankind since the
beginning of time.  Sorry, but 12 years of this kind of bullshit
rhetoric have worn the excuses pretty damned thin.

>and have recently overwhelmingly voted for the Balanced Budget
>Amendment (which the Democrats voted overwhelmingly against).

If the Democrats voted overwhelmingly against it, how did it come so
close to passage?  Son, there AREN'T that many House Republicans.

>We need to dump the big-spending Democrat majority in Congress,
>and install a progressive pro-growth Republican majority.

No, we need to dumpt the Congress.  *ALL* of it.  Then we need to
dumpt the President.  Get new of each and see if it helps.  Replace as
necessary until we get a group who will:

>*Then* we will end the tax, borrow, and spend binge, and restore
>fiscal sanity to the Federal Government.

A Republican Congress with a Republican President won't do this,
either.  Partisan politics are the problem, and that most especially
includes the kind of divisive anti-person politics that the Republican
Party seems to have become so fond of in modern history.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2381 talk.politics.guns:19734