From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: nj.politics
Subject: Re: pres. election/ignorance of the dem. field
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:36:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: njitgw.1992Apr9.133654.23479
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Apr7.134307.95756@drew.drew.edu> wnorris@drew.drew.edu (Two Bills) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.215342.8826@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>
>Well, Tsongas won't get the nomination because he's not running 
>anymore.  Come on, keep up....Clinton = Tax/Spend?  Perhaps you'd 
>better do some reading.  Check his AK record, the man made 
>concessions to business at the expense of the classic liberal agenda 
>that the democratic party was so fond of in the 80's.  Harkin was the 
>only democratic candidate that was a "classic liberal" in the 
>tax/spend mode, and he's dropped out.  Still what's so wrong about 
>spending?  Read some economic theory, and you'll see that deficit 
>spending is the only thing that awakens a depressed economy.  It 
>worked for FDR in the late 30's/early 40's, it worked in England in 
>the late 30's, and more recently, it worked for Reagan in the early 
>80's.  It's after the economy is up and going again that things get 
>tricky, and the theory goes way over my head.

I took economics classes.  Deficit spending has a wonderful effect in
the short run.  It's disaster in the long run.  It was dumb under FDR
in the 30's, it was dumb in England in the 30's, and it was dumb for
Reagan in the 80's.

All it left behind as a legacy is a whopping huge deficit, and higher
taxes to pay for it.  Only the higher taxes didn't pay for it, because
they were spent on other programs before the deficit-reduction people
got a chance to do anything with what they thought would go to paying
off the debt.

And what happens when the public calls in this deficit?  All the money
is raised with bond issues.  When times get tough, people cash in
their bonds for extra cash.  This is when the government must pay up
on their deficit.  With the economy the way it is, who's going to buy
new bonds to fund this spending, especially as more and more people
will start cashing in the bonds they have.

Clinton wants to cancel all defense spending and give it to welfare.
That will ruin our technological edge forever.  Of course, in a time
of peace, there isn't much need for defense, but the money should be
used to encourage other hi-tech growth.  How about making it legal for
defense contractors to use their skills in commercial R&D?  Keeping
the funding levels where they are.

While I agree that some people need supplimental income to survive,
massive payments to welfare recipients will not improve the economy
one iota.  Giving welfare checks is like giving a man a fish - it'll
feed him for a short time and leave him starving tomorrow.  Giving R&D
money to corporations is like teaching him how to fish - it creates
new jobs and markets that these people can be hired into.  That will
be the only saving of the economy.

>> I'm voting for Perot.
>
>Any real reason, or just becasue he's kind of trendy now?

I've hheard a lot about his job in managing EDS.  While I think he was
a bit tough on his employees, he treated them well.  He also managed
to make it a hugely successful company.  If he can get anything passed
through Congress (may be impossible as an independant regardless of
proposals) I think he'll be able to make things work properly.

Of course, I would like to see his platform before I go and pull the
lever... 

In addition, he's a vote against Bush and a vote against Clinton.


-- 
David Charlap                   Q:"Where do these stairs go?"
dic5340@hertz.njit.edu          A:"They go up"
----------------------------
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!