From: giao@informix.com (Giao Tien Vu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: [POL] Re: Bush
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:00:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <55qH02ld25N701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> vqt00@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Married With Children) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct7.204125.10676@news.media.mit.edu> 0005359961@mcimail.com writes:
>>
>>     Bush the anti-crime president? He gotta be kidding! A
>>statistics released this week shows that felony crimes have
>>increased since Bush took office in 1988. Rape, murder, and drug
>>related offenses all grow in double digit figures. 
>
>While I am still undecided on whom to vote for, I feel that Pres. Bush
>is not responsible for the increase rapes and murder in this nation.
>He did something about these crimes: more prisons, tougher sentence on
>drug smuglers.  What else can he do ?

There were arguments from some critics for better correction/rehabilitation
programs.  Building jails alone is not a solution.  If a prisoner did
not learn how to avoid a life of crime, when released, he would continue
that life.

>Besides the crime rate in the US has always been rising in the last 50
>years.
>
>>     The environmental president? Bush forgot that it was he who
>>embarrassed America by failing to take the lead in the Earth Summit
>>earlier this summer! He failed to protect the America's wetland by
>
>I agree with you on this.  I think the the issue here is the cost.
>At what cost should we protect the environment ?

On the flip side, at what cost should we NOT protect the environment?
Granted, some regulations may be strangling some businesses.  However,
using that excuse to totally destroy some sensible regulations is 
dishonesty, in my point-of-view.  If the logging companies up in
Oregon continues this logging, in a few years, there would be as few
loggers as owls.  When the forests are gone, the big logging companies 
could just move to another state/nation (GM did that, why can't the logging
companies do the same?)  The costs and benefits of everything have to
be weighted with proper consideration for everybody impacted.  If the
benefits are better, I have nothing against letting things run its
course.

>
>>     Then there's a thing called S&L. Go ask Continental Savings
>>depositors! Billions and billions dollars have been wasted in order
>>to bail out those collapsed institutions. And all the crooks and
>
>Bush did not cause the S&L mess.  He inherits the problem.

Who was the VP when the S&L mess started?  Who participated in
loosening up the pre-80 tight regulations?  We know the answer.

>>     Back to the real world and the 1990's. Need not to say, Bush's
>>handling of the economy is very terrible. He has denied the R-word
>>for so long that one must have wondered in which world he lives in.
>>He blames it on everyone, except for his administration, from the
>>cyclic nature of capitalism to Saddam Hussein to the gridlock
>>congress. So, he asks the American people to replace another
>
>The economy is not only bad in the US, it's also bad in Japan, England
>Italy, France, Soviet Union, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Laos, Cambodia, almost
>everywhere.  I think it's bad in the US but it may be even worse some
>where else.  Unemplyment rate in the US is around 8%, it's even higher
>in England, VN, Soviet Union and many other countries.  The bad economy
>in the US is not caused by Bush.  The whole world experinces it.  The
>US economy is also affected globally, by events happening in other
>countries.

And vice versa, the IMF is calling the USA to raise the interest rates
(and Germany to lower the interest rates) because the policy is hurting
the world economy.  Blaming the ailing world economy while not considering
the US policies as one of the root causes of the problem is missing
the point.  Because the US consumers are buying less products from Japan,
Japan businesses are in troubles.  Because the real estate crashes in
many parts of the USA, Japanese banks are in troubles.  Because the
USA devalued the US dollar, every foreign company that sells products to
the USA is losing money.  In a way, the world is experiencing recession
because the recessions in the USA and Japan and the ill-advised German
reunification drag the whole thing down.

>
>>Bush failed this test.
>>     Lack of judgement can not be a good leader.
>>     Lack of compassion can not be a good leader.
>>     Lack of leadership can not be a good leader.
>>the expenses of historic developments in recent years. Bush is not
>>a good leader!
>
>So you point out problems.  What are the solutions ?
>Who should be the President of the USA ?  Some body told me that in an
>election you choose between a bad and the worse.  The question to be
>asked is who is the worse.

That is the question every voter has to ask.  Some would conclude
that Bush is still a better candidate.  Some would conclude that
Clinton's proposals are better.  I agree that Bush does not deserve
all the blames that he is getting at this point (just like I think
that Carter did not deserve all of the bashings he got.)  However, it's
galling to see a President who presided over the troubled years trying to
blame all the problems to the Congress.  When a leader refuses to accept
the responsibilities, he is not a good leader.  Especially when he
tries to dodge the important issues of the time ($20000 per capita of debts
should be something to REALLY worry about.)  Especially when he
tries to promise something that deep down we don't believe that it's
true (cutting taxes and balancing the budgets AND all of those additional
spending at the same time.)

Giao
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese