From: niepornt@beam.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 17:06:22 GMT

In<1993Jan12.214358.18942@netcom.com> lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
>In <1993Jan12.184256.23219@news.acns.nwu.edu> (Edward Ouellette) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan12.154753.23715@hubcap.clemson.edu> hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor) writes:
>>>edo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Edward Ouellette) writes:

>>>>I honestly can't believe anyone takes him seriously...
>>>>but I don't know why anybody takes this guy seriously... 

>>>... Ed, have you been paying any attention to the folks who *are* in
>>>washington? ... Do you actually take those people seriously? Why? 

>>I'm comparing Perot to the present two-party system we have.

>It's true that only two parties are dominant, but the "system" is not
>inherently two-party.  Many believe that other parties should also
>be allowed a voice.

That's irrelevant.  No matter what parties are out there, this will
always be a two party system.  Why?  Because we have winner-take all,
plurality-wins elections for the most part.

This discourages people from voting for the third party, ever, because
they're "wasting their vote."  Runoffs would solve part of this problem,

We also have a two party system because the Dems/Reps illegally (IMO,
though the SCt, especially the Rehnquist Court, doesn't seem to agree)
biases the system in it's favor with ridiculous ballot access rules, and
mandatory-false-advertising laws.

(Yes, many states *require* that the ballot be a lie.  They refuse to
put parties on the ballot for anyone except Dems and Reps, calling
everyone else Independent.)

>>While I'll be the first to admit that our system of politics isn't
>>perfect, the two parties have established where they are on the
>>political spectrum.

>Not really.  Republicans supposedly want to cut government spending,
>but we have found that the reverse happens under Republican administrations.

Have we?  We've never had a Republican Congress and a Republican
President.  Well, we have, but not recently.

Anyway, it's irrelevant, because people vote for deficits.  It doesn't
matter which party it is; if people want deficits, they'll get them.

>>While individuals within those parties often hold a variety of
>>opinions, I fail to see where Ross has ever explained exactly what
>>he stands on.

>Try his book, "United We Stand".

"His" book?  The one he didn't read before publishing?

The one that guesses at savings for plans he hasn't even chosen yet?
The one that double-spends money?

No thanks.

>>... How can our system be SO corrupt and still fixable by one certain Texan?
>>The reality is that Perot tried to capitalize on the public's (temporary)
>>malaise; once people notice the economy is in good shape they won't really
>>care about Perot and his 'agenda'.

>The econonmy may be OK today, but if you project current trends, the
>US Govt will eventually go bankrupt.  If you were a financial advisor
>and you saw a family doing this, wouldn't you tell them to get control
>of their budget?  OK, maybe you won't believe it if "one certain Texan" 
>tells you this, but since you are in love with the two "established" parties, 
>then maybe you'll believe it if THEY tell you the same story.

Well, when that one certain Texan doesn't seem to understand the concept
of borrowing money, that doesn't leave too much confidence in his
macroeconomic vision.

>So, if you are willing to recognize that there is a problem, then the
>question becomes, what will YOU do to help fix it?  You are right that
>it is not fixable by "one certain Texan".  And if you don't want to
>join his group, then you perhaps should join the "Concord Coalition",
>a "me-too" group which has the same objectives, but is headed up by
>establishment-types (Warren Rudman, Paul Tsongas), who might suit your
>tastes better.

I like these people, but it's irrelevant.
We get what we vote for.  People vote for deficits.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics