From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: VP Debate -- impressions & facts
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:56:00 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.163752.13707@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.234720.4818@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
> demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
...
>>	Not so much wrong as being inventive.  Gore does indeed propose an
>>environmental marshall plan, but doesn't provide any numbers.  The Reps
> simply
>>took what the actual Marshall plan would cost in today's dollars.
> 
> A  really illogical and misleading thing to do.

	Why?  Gore calls for an economic Marshall Plan, but gives no numbers. 
What's a better number?

>>	If Al really wants to refute that charge, he will provide another
>>number.
> 
> He shouldn't have to defend against stupid tripe like that.

	It's nice to  know that asking the Dems for the figures behind their
plans is "stupid tripe".

>>>  to post it), he was wrong about the
> lobbying-companies-to-move-overseas 
>>>  issue,
>>
>>	Not wrong on that one either.  The US has been helping the Americas
>>develop economically for over a decade.  This does not constitute using
> tax
>>dollars to send jobs outside the country.  The economies that develop
> south of
>>the border trade mainly with the US--providing more jobs.
>>	The only losers are people like the overpaid union workers, who are
>>discovering that many poor people in Mexico and Honduras will do their
> jobs for
>>1/10 the money.  The consumers here benefit by paying less.  The union
> workers
>>who lose their jobs need two things: retraining, and non-union jobs :).
> 
> This is crap for reasons too numerous to mention. However, our government

	This is really too easy :).

	"Bush was right when he said such agreements stimulate net gains of new
US jobs.  Rising US exports ahve been responsible for more than half the growth
of the US economy in the past five years.  The emigration of low-wage,
low-skill US jobs overseas is happening regardless of trade agreements.
	But the US is likely to gain about 130,000 more jobs on net--better,
higher-paying jobs producing goods for export--than it would lose under the
pending free trade [agreement] with Mexico...."

	This is from our local, liberal, Clinton endorsing paper.  Dayton Daily
News, Oct 16, page 4a.

> has
> no business setting up these countries directly to take our jobs. Gore's
> Decatureville example was right on the mark.

	They're not "setting up these countries directly to take our jobs". 
Aid goes to establish an economic base in the area, and to help the locals form
companies and attract business.  This in turn increases the demand for US
goods, and raises the standard of living for the locals.
	I'm amazed that the Clinton crowd wants to keep the Latin American and
Caribbean regions in abject poverty to protect overpaid union workers.

>>> and he was wrong about Gore's opposition to the Caribbean Basin
>>>  Initiative.  It'll be interesting to read the newsgroups to see what 
>>>  else you guys found.  :-)
> 
> Again Gore only voted for the whole trade bill of which the CBI was a
> SMALL part.

	Yes, but he did vote for it.  I mean this is Dan Quayle he was debating
against.  Why not say "the vote you speak of was for a larger bill containing
important FOO legislation...and it is more than offset by two NO votes for
Caribbean Aid only bills.
        But he didn't, it wasn't in his programming.

>>	He was right about that too!  Gore voted YES on a 1990 bill that
>>included money for the Caribbean Initiative.
>>
>>>  Summary:  Flailing wildly -- some hits, mostly misses.
>>
>>	Au Contraire.  Many hits, some off-center, some lucky.
> 
> I wonder which debate you were watching....

        Certainly not the one you watched through rose-colored glasses.

>>> Gore:  Wooden -- but solid.  I was disappointed that he didn't come
> back
>>>  with specifics immediately when Quayle attacked the line out of his
> book,
>>>  but I felt that he had a lot of VERY good statements -- "When are you
>>>  guys going to concentrate on the U.S.?" and his question to Quayle
> about
>>>  the failure of trickle-down economics.   His facts sounded correct,
> and
>>
>>	Which is a lie.  Supply-side economics worked very well during the
>>1980s.  Only when Bush abandoned them did the US slide.  (Read the
> "Derailing
>>series for more info.)
> 
> Reagan used some short-term policy to sweep the real problems under the
> rug. These dust bunnies are now biting our butts.

        Nope.  Ample proof in the "Derailing" series.

        Even more in the forthcoming "Look Back in Anger" series.

>>>  he really appealed to the listeners' intellect.  He was helped
> immensely
>>>  by appearing to know more about Perot's program than Stockdale did. 
> :-)
>>> 
>>>  Summary:  Took the hits and dished some out.
>>
>>	Looked like a robot.  His entire presentation was obviously
>>choreographed.  Turns off most voters.
> 
> Wishful, desparate thinking on your part.

        Not at all, the consensus opinion among unbiased evaluators.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!