From: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Len Olszewski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Better Off ..)
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:06:50 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Aug25.235417.6163@oracle.us.oracle.com>, kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
|>

[deleted description of the movie "The Fly"]

|> Good things never happen by accident.  They're always the result of knowing
|> exactly what you're doing.  Clinton tries to capitalize on the voters' anger
|> which makes them want change for the sake of it, and I believe what we have
|> now will look real good in 4 years if Clinton gets elected.  Just inflation
|> and high tax alone will make you real nostalgic....

This is ironic. Clinton *is* capitalizing on the voters' anger, but ask
yourself who and what inspired that anger. To suggest he will be swept
forward on a surge of "change just for the sake of change" ignores the
detailed plans and well-organized positions he has presented in a long
and arduous campaign. Compare this with Bush, who proposes massive new
spending (with his job re-training by voucher system), no new taxes
(heard this one before?) and cuts *IN UNSPECIFIED PROGRAMS* to pay for
them, all at the last minute.  Why has he kept this miracle program
under wraps for so long, while denying (until very recently) that there
was no *NEED* for a program of this kind?  This is going to look *good*
in 4 years? He hasn't said what programs he will cut to pay for his 
proposals because *he doesn't know*.

With regard to inflation, nakedly asserting that "Clinton will cause
inflation" seems a bit thin. What in his proposals do you feel will be
inflationary?  Putting people back to work?  Or reducing the deficit?
Or investing in this country's infrastructure?  Or educating its
children?  Or perhaps passing a constitutional amendment banning
abortions is somehow *anti-inflationary*?  Or insulting gays?  Or
attacking career women?

With regard to higher taxes, explain to me how shifting the burden of 
providing services from the federal government to states and localities, 
who must then increase their tax revenues, results in a net decrease in 
overall tax burden? Here's one explanation; states and localities *don't* 
increase their taxes, and the infrastructure goes right down the crapper 
- like it is doing right now. In the meantime, spending under Bush 
continues to explode, right along with the deficit. *This* is going to 
make me nostalgic in 4 years, after someone who isn't fiscally *stupid* 
and intellectually *bankrupt* runs the country for a while?

I think not.
<-------------------------------^------------------------------------->
|  Len Olszewski                |  "Verbosity leads to unclear,       |
|  Technical Writer             |   inarticulate things."             |
|  saslpo@unx.sas.com           |                                     |
| "Have cursor, will curse."    |    - Vice-President Dan Quayle      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|
<-------------------------------v------------------------------------->
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3488 talk.politics.misc:42845 alt.politics.elections:11963