From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 16:42:49 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> In article <610BqB9w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> >> If the alternative is to run off the cliff, yes.  I do prefer stagnation
> >> to a quick disaster.
> >>
> >> Branley seems to believe that "Bush is clueless" implies "Clinton will
> >> do good".  It doesn't.  As bad as Bush is, we could do worse.  Branley
> >> argues that Clinton will do more of the things that Bush has done
> >> wrong.  Branley prefers the sure thing, running off the cliff, to the
> >> random chance of wandering aimlessly around at the top of that cliff.
> >>
> >> >Freeman fails to realize that Bush's blaming of Congress is going to get
> >> >nowhere.
> >>
> >> No, I assume that that's true.  Then I listen to Branley tell us what
> >> Clinton's plan is, that it is the worst mistakes that Bush has made,
> >> only magnified.  Clinton will get his way on this with Congress,
> >> because it's their plan too.
> >>
> >> While Bush doesn't have a direction, he also doesn't have Clinton's
> >> "right off the cliff" aim.
> >
> >You continually claim that Clinton will drive us off a cliff.  How about som
> >specifics?  We're heading constantly down under GHWB.  What is there about
> >Clinton *specifically* that will hasten what GHWB has already begun?
>
> Branley forgets that he's agreed that Clinton's tax and "invest" plan
> is a bigger version of the 1990 tax increase plus the spending pattern
> since then.  (If someone else wants to dispute the point, step up.)
> We also know that, on this point, if Clinton had been President
> instead of Bush, Clinton would only have disagreed on the magnitude;
> he'd have gone further on both the tax and spending increases.  (We
> know this because we've read Clinton's plans in 1992.)

Sorry, I didn't agree that Clinton's plan is a bigger version of 1990.  The two
have some similarities, but they also have some big differences.  Clinton's
plan also calls for some significant cuts in spending, so that the concept of
'investing' is a re-direction of funds already being spent.  Yes, he's looking
for higher taxes on people whose taxes were lowered.

Now, are you ever going to explain how this will cause the economy to 'fall off
of the cliff?'  You're just re-hashing things and dodging the challenge to put
up or shut up.

>
> Apart from the "I have no lips" effect, the 1990 tax increase plus the
> spending was a POLICY mistake.  Bush bungled into it; Clinton wants to
> do it again, only more so.

So, you want to return a bungler to the White House.  That's really an
excellent platform from which to run.

>
> We've been following a mild version of the Clinton plan since 1990.
> Does anyone want to argue that more of the same is a good thing?  (The
> last time I asked this question, Branley went back to "Clinton is a
> leader with a plan and Bush is a dweeb", which is true, but let's look
> at the plan.)
>

What Clinton proposes is more dramatic than 1990, since that was a compromise
that was hammered out by two diametrically opposed groups.  Clinton's economic
plan calls for tax increases to control the deficit and re-direction of
spending from areas where it is not necessary (certain defense expenditures,
for example) into areas where the government can make a contribution to the
overall economy, such as job training, education, etc.

You keep dodging the questions, and I must say, it's quite skillful.  Yet
you've failed to show where the Clinton plan will be bad.  All you've stated is
that it is bad.  When challenged for specifics, you try this third-person
rhetoric, and it's just not working.  If you have problems with what Clinton
has proposed, let's hear them.  Tell us *why* it won't work.  Don't tell us why
the 1990 deal won't work, tell us why *Clinton's* plan won't work.  There are
big differences, so the comparison doesn't hold water.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4024 talk.politics.misc:43654 alt.politics.clinton:3987 alt.politics.elections:12376