Conference back40::soapbox

    Churchill would be a bad choice.  He lost his last wartime election.
    I would keep a careful eye on Bill's top lip.  He's probably going to
    do Groucho impersonations any day:
    
    "I do not care to belong to a party that accepts people like me as
    member" 
    
    "A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child
    of five."
    
    I worked us all up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty"
    
    "This is no time to act like a gentleman. I am a cad and shall react
    like one."
    
    
    

    probably he's celebrating the fact that now that perot is in the race,
    it will be more votes siphoned off from dole and will help him to get
    re-elected. 
    
    in my heart, i'd like to see dole win, but if it came down to betting
    money, i'd have to bet on clintoon, although i suppose anything can
    happen between now and november. 

    Clinton went rafting on Saturday. 
    
	WHITEWATER rafting.
    
    Dole probably saved that clip for a campaign ad.

    The Clinton commercials are out now.  What a load of rubbish,
    half-truthes, and outright lies.  
    
    Welcome to the '96 campaign.

    What did it say? "Hi I'm Bill Clinton. Please vote for me in November."?

    .5
    
    It was geared to scare folks into voting for him by lying about Dole's
    position on medicare, etc.  "Bob Dole and the evyl Republicans will wipe
    out Medicare without Clinton in the WH to stop them", and other
    assorted lies and half-truthes.
    
    I was impressed at how many inaccuracies and scare-tactics were
    crammed into such a short commercial.  The visual effects were
    priceless, too.  8^p

    
    As much as I would like to believe that the media is entitled to the
    protections guaranteed in the Constitution, they are a very destructive
    force, particularly in the political process.
    
    I have seen the Dems and Clinton's ads and find them very personal and
    negative, yet the media only makes the "negative" claim against
    Republicans.  Also, both Clinton and Stephanopolous made tha outrageous
    statment that the Republican convention was the most mean-spirited
    negative convention ever.  If anything, it was exactly the opposite.  I
    don't think they took the opportunity to raise all of the incompetence
    of this administration to anywhere near the level it deserved.  Yet the
    media went along with it.
    
    I will be very interested to see how much the media will report on the
    "negatives" coming out of the Democratic convention.  I can assure you
    that every speaker will make personal, negative attacks against
    Dole/Kemp and the Republicans and I am sure almost nothing will be
    reported on the "harsh, negative" tone of their convention.
    
    My hope is that the American people will be able to see through teh
    partisianship of the media and get rid of the biggest embarrassment
    this country has seen as a President.
    

    >The Clinton commercials are out now.  What a load of rubbish,
    >half-truthes, and outright lies.
    
    True, but it amazes me that you think you won't be able to replace
    Clinton with Dole, in this comment, in the very near future.

    re: .0
    
    I agree with your sentiments about Clinton, but just for the sake
    of attempting to appear even slightly objective on the subject :-)
    I'll point out that I believe he has been known to enjoy a ceegar
    on occasion in the past.  Much to the dismay of his boss, I might
    add.
    
    As for the election... I believe that each candidate (and I *do*
    wish that the pest Perot would pull one of his paranoid disappearing
    acts; he's thoroughly spoiling the Good vs. Evil theme of this
    campaign) has an unshakable core of about 40% of the voters.  The
    other 20% hold the election in their hands.
    
    Included in Clinton's core 40% are the elderly, for the most part
    FDR Democrats, who fully expect what they "deserve" and what's "coming
    to them" from the government (my in-law's words), whether they need it
    or not.  For Clinton to concentrate on elderly scare tactics in his
    campaign ads is a complete waste of time and money, because he's
    merely preaching to his choir.
    
    If Clinton is to win this election, he must swing the majority of the
    20% in the middle, who he doesn't already have in his pocket.  I'm not
    convinced that he knows how to do this.  I'm not convinced that Dole
    knows how to do it, either.  I'm increasingly concerned that the 20%
    will decide in the last weeks and days of the campaign, based on
    whatever the headlines happen to be that week.
    
    Chris

 Z    Included in Clinton's core 40% are the elderly, for the most part
 Z    FDR Democrats, who fully expect what they "deserve" and what's
 Z   "coming
    
    I'm notorious.  I told my MIL to be ready to go vote when I pick her up
    on Wednesday.  She said she will try to be ready by 8:00, when the
    polls open.
    
    Damn....missed it by that much!

    RE .9 - Hi Chris

>    For Clinton to concentrate on elderly scare tactics in his
>    campaign ads is a complete waste of time and money, because he's
>    merely preaching to his choir.

    Elderly scare tactics are an excellent choice by Clinton. Terrible
    for the country, and *very* deceiving, but politically smart.

    .First, not all the elderly are in Clinton's camp. He pushed through
     increased taxes on SS benefits for many elderly (a move I supported).
     Of course most of these elderly were pretty wealthy, and probably
     voted Republican anyway.

    .Second, it tends to give evidence of the Republicans being mean.

    .Third....and this is the biggie....he's trying to scare the 
     younger middle class into believing the *they* will be forced
     into caring for their parents if Republican "cuts" in Medicare/Medicaid
     are passed. Listen to the words (of the AFL/CIO adds) I've heard:
       (elderly person speaking) "...we just don't want to be a burden..."


    						Ed     

    re: .11
    
    Howdy, Ed
    
    > .First, not all the elderly are in Clinton's camp.
    
    That's probably true, I'm just surrounded by FDR types in my own
    extended family, like my virtual mother-in-law, who cursed out her
    own son rather viciously for his audacity in actually voting for
    "a... a... *RePUBlican*, forrrrr WHATTT??"  She actually spat out
    the words... it was most fascinating to watch. :-)
    
    
    > .Third....and this is the biggie....he's trying to scare the 
    >  younger middle class into believing the *they* will be forced
    >  into caring for their parents...
    
    One can envision their reaction:   Gnahhh!  =:-O  Let's get outta here!
    
    This could be a tactic in that direction, true.  The same generation
    that seems to want the government to take care of their kids could
    also want the government to take care of their parents.  Scary stuff.
    
    Chris

    I think that one of the winners in this election could be if one of the
    candidates proposed the phasing out and elimination of SS and Medicxxx. 
    There can be  time frame and anyone under X age will not qualify for SS
    and Medicxxx and can chose from several programs to invest for their
    retirement and future medical costs.  thos presently on SS and Medicxxx
    will continue with minimal increases but improved earnings and tax
    savings i.e., capital gains.
    
    These would be winners as the younger voters will see that they will
    not be saddled with a failed program and seniors can continue with what
    they have been taking from the productive side of the economy, but
    there will be a sundown on this pyramid scheme.
    

    ne of the more interesting facts that has been basically hidden is that
    the latest Newsweek poll shows a vrtual tie between Dole and Clinton. 
    this same poll was widely reported when Clinton held a 20 point lead. 
    Now that it is down to 2 points, it is being ignored or buried in the
    print media on page 14 in a small box.
    
    Also th poll that showed 40+% of the people believe Elizabeth Dole
    would make a good First Lady as opposed to only 28% think the same of
    Hillary Clinton.  Why are these polls not getting front page coverage
    and lead story exposure on the talking head shows??  A bias, nah, can't
    be.
    

    One interesxting thing about Clinton's add on Medicare.
    
    
    It was only this January that Bob bragged that he had voted against
    Medicare in 196X and would still like to see it killed off.  Since he
    is now in "the second biggest fight of his life" he is now saying that
    medicare is sacro-sanct.  
    
    Not suprising, since he has participated in the downsizing of medical
    care for veterans and retired military (and dependants), but is
    bleeding about how the VA under Clinton is mistreating same.  (FWIW
    this started in the previous administration)
    
    meg

    .8
    
    >True, but it amazes me that you think you won't be able to replace
    >Clinton with Dole [...]
    
    Eh?  Wherever in my note did I suggest this?
    
    Fact is, I have yet to see a Dole commercial, so it would be a bit
    premature to condemn his tactics at this point. 

    |Fact is, I have yet to see a Dole commercial.
    
    it's prickly on the outside, sweet and juicy on the
    inside.  yep.

    
    <covers eyes>
    

    >Fact is, I have yet to see a Dole commercial, so it would be a bit
    >premature to condemn his tactics at this point.
    
    You've never seen a Dole commercial? He has been a politician for about
    175 years now. How could you have missed even seeing one?  :)

    one thing for sure, dole will never go negative in
    his commercials, it's just not in his nature.

   .20  even if he does go negative, we'll still know what the absolute value 
        of him is.

    re: .14
    
    They didn't miss the 2% gap on the nightly news in DC!
    
    I think that the 20 pt lead must have been one that finally caught one
    of those +/- 5% "margins of error".  I'm actually pretty much in the
    Democratic camp, historically, but Clinton doesn't sit all that well 
    for me.
    
    My biggest problem with Clinton is the Arkansas pond he seems to swim
    in.
    
    I think the opening rounds of the 96 campaign were Carvel's book: "We're
    right and they're wrong."  and Franken's: "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat 
    idiot."
    
    Expect to see many of the themes from these books over the next few
    months.  The opening scare ad's sound like they fit right in.
    
    If this is the case, then the Dole Tax Cut plays into their hands,
    for we will be informed that all of today's ills are the
    responsibility of massive Republican deficit spending.
    
    It has been Clinton's acheivement to finally get the country back on
    course:
    
    - Amazing reductions in the deficit
    - Carefully managed reductions in the Government workforce
    - Stable growth
    - Moderate unemployment
    - Almost no inflation
    
    Steadily the chant will go out: 
    
    "America hasn't been in this good shape for a long time!"
    
    "Why on earth would we consider changing this direction, and
    particularly not in favor of those that would gut demonstrably shining
    successes as Social Security, Medicare and Food Stamps."
    
    Frank

    .22
    
    Most of the items you credit Clinton for is in spite of him as opposed
    to because of him.  If the Republican Congress had not driven the
    budget issue, Clinton would still be talking about deficits into the
    next couple of decades.  Also, the reduction has come through GOP
    reductions in spending, plus the financial risky process of using short
    term financing for the national debt.  This gives lower deficits, but
    runs the real risk of being nailed if rates go up.  So far it has
    worked and that's good, the bad is that we will get one hell of a hit
    if rates increase.
    
    Remember this is the guy that tried to take control of 1/7 of the
    economy and have you pay for the privlege of getting lower medical
    care.  He also opposes any attempt to cut taxes as you should not be
    entitled to keep what you work for.  Bill and Hillary know how to spend
    your money better than you do.  This, if no other issue, should get
    this clown out of office.  The arrogance to claim that I should not
    have the earnings that I work for and that taking care of myself and my
    family is better handled by the government, after they decide just how
    much money I should have.
    
    Anyone who cuts taxes and really cuts spending, on all programs, gets
    my vote.
    

>    - Amazing reductions in the deficit
>    - Stable growth
>    - Moderate unemployment
>    - Almost no inflation
 
All the result of the economy he inherited from the previous administrations. 
(Read: Clintons economic policies had no impact one way or the other, which
 can be taken as a pro or con I suppose).
 
>    - Carefully managed reductions in the Government workforce

I'm still skeptical on this one. I can't help but think they are playing
with the numbers ...

Z    (Read: Clintons economic policies had no impact one way or the other,
Z    which can be taken as a pro or con I suppose).
    
    What about the Admionistrations financing of the debt using short term
    low interest bonds...giving the facade of reducing the debt?

    So, if Dole wins and the positive trend continues, it will be his
    doing. If Dole wins and the economy begins to hemorrhage it will be the
    inheritance from the previous administration.

    
    Exactly.  Just like it is with Clinton now.
    

>   So, if Dole wins and the positive trend continues, it will be his
>    doing. If Dole wins and the economy begins to hemorrhage it will be the
>    inheritance from the previous administration.

   Possibly, but not necessarily so.

    Let me put it this way.

    If Clinton wins and the economy continues to flourish, then he's still
    riding on the inheritance from the previous administration. If Clinton
    wins and the economy begins to hemorrhage, then he is finally showing us
    that he cannot run the country and his administration destroyed all the
    gains made by the previous administration.

 What part of "Clinton has to do something before you can give him
 credit/blame" don't you understand?


 For instance, the lack luster growth and recent rise in the interest rates
 we've seen are likely the result of the 1993 tax increase. One could argue
 that Clinton's policies have hurt the economy, but not bad enough to get
 anyones attention.

 Now, the same economy under Bush drew harsh critism as the worse economy
 in 50 years ....

  Doug.

 

    You started this by saying all of the good things listed were an
    inheritance. I'm just showing the underlying partisan logic that is
    always applied to any sort of economic metric.

    This little gem is what started it.

    >It has been Clinton's acheivement to finally get the country back on
    >course:

    Clintons acheivements? He didn't
    achieve anything on that list (Well, short term refinancing, but lets
    see where we are when the short notes come due before we make judgement).

    The country was on course when Clinton took over.

    So, what actions did Clinton take to get the country back on course?
    Does anyone know? Or shall we leave this string dangling ...

    Doug.

    RE: .29

>    If Clinton wins and the economy continues to flourish, then he's still
>    riding on the inheritance from the previous administration. If Clinton
>    wins and the economy begins to hemorrhage, then he is finally showing us
>    that he cannot run the country and his administration destroyed all the
>    gains made by the previous administration.

    I remember reading an op-ed piece in September '92 (before Clinton was
    elected) giving Clinton credit for upswing in the economy.  If that
    wasn't partisan <r.o.> then I don't know what is.  It defininately
    takes a certain amount of time before a presidents policies have any
    impact on the economy.  It takes 9 months before there's a budget that
    the newly elected president has any influence over, and it will take
    time before that budget impacts the economy in any significant way.

    The economy was growing at about 4.7 percent the last quarter that Bush
    was president.  It's now growing about 1/2 that.  Since this economy is
    worse than when Bush left office, and that one was the worst in 50
    years, what does that make this one?

    -- Dave

    P.S.  I don't believe that the economy is the worst economy is 50
    years, but it is the worst economy that I've experienced since
    graduating college.

    He's obviously been riding on George Bush's coat tails. It's the only
    explanation.

How about,

   The economy is growing slower than it could be because
	a) the 1993 tax increase pulled too much money out of the economy
	b) the president refuses to commit to a balanced budget
	   thus affecting federal monetary policies negatively
	c) unnecessary spending increases for politcal gain but of
	   no real value to the tax payers
	d) wasting two years pursuing government expansion policies
	g) short terms bonds are maturing and will have to be refinanced
	   at a higher rate resulting in overall increases in interest cost
	   over the term of the loans
	f) all of the above
	g) all of the above plus a few

Doug.

    How about,

    The economy could be growing slower than it currently if it were not
    for:

    	a) tax increases which helped reduce the deficit.
    	b) maintaining realistic budgets in order to not shock the economy
    	c) the necessary spending to help stimulate the economy.
        d) Implementation of new government expansion policies.
    	e) or g) if you like ) long term bonds are not maturing so interest
    	costs are nominal.
    	f) all of the above
    	g) all of the above plus a few

    .36
    
    The refusal of the Republican Congress to pass spending increases has
    had more of an impact on the deficit than the Clinton tax increase.  I
    would like to see the % of taxes paid by those at whom the tax
    increase was supposedly directed before and after the tax increase. 
    the middle class folks are the ones who really got nailed.  Now remeber
    that acording to Clinton anyone making over $36,000 is rich.  So, by
    name, the rich paid more, but I don't think $36,000 is rich.
    
    Also, as was stated earlier.  Clinton and Gore claimed that an economy
    growing at over 4% was the worst in 50 years and the economy has not
    reached that level under Clinton, then he should resign, not just get
    beaten.  He set the rules, he should live by them.
    
    Also, the maintaining budgets so as not to shock the economy is a real
    hoot.  Let's see, we cut 50% of the programs to ), hold the rest to
    inflation and refund the difference to the tax payers.  the resulting
    "shock" to the economy would be an expansion and low interest rates
    would create an economic engine that would more than make up for any
    misses.
    
    I really hope your entry wwas a rhetorical, intellectual note as
    opposed to any honestly held position.
    

    Well, you see, this is where my argument falls to the ground. I was
    hoping you wouldn't make that particular point, but I can see you're
    more than a match for me.

>    	a) tax increases which helped reduce the deficit.

    Increasing taxes only reduces deficits in the short term.  Reagan's
    tax cuts double tax revenues in 8 years.  The growth in the deficit
    during Reagan's term is from:

>    	c) the necessary spending to help stimulate the economy.

    Here you have a contradiction with item (a).  The other issue is what
    spending do you consider to be good for stimulating the economy? 
    Specifically, which of Clinton's spending packages were aimed at the
    stimulating the economy versus just being a wealth transference from
    the working class to the non-working class?

    -- Dave

    Clearly it is impossible for anyone not belonging to the Republican
    party to make any right decisions.

    I don't know about Perot sure made sense to me on Larry King Live last
    night.

    RE: .40

>    Clearly it is impossible for anyone not belonging to the Republican
>    party to make any right decisions.

    Who ever said that?  Or are you confusing critizing Cliton's failure to
    live up to his economic promises during the '92 campaign as wholly
    supporting any and all Republican plans?

    Clinton promised a middle class tax cut.  He gave us a middle class tax
    increase.  Clinton promised to balance the budget in 5, 7, 9, and 10
    years (depending on when you were listening to him).  It was until
    after the '94 elections that he even revisited the issue.

    Please don't do the Democratic Party such a disservice by trying to
    paint them all as Bill Clinton.

    -- Dave

    >>>>Perot made sense
    
    
    Manson was a jive talking convincer as well.
    -ss

    .43
    
    Perhaps to stoned out hippies...

    
    	re: .44
    
    	you make it sound like a bad thing. :)

    If he could make sense just ONE TIME without using some stupid
    irrelevent story or metaphor then maybe I could think of him as a
    respectable candidate.
    -ss

    .46
    
    He's talking to the working class people, not you highfalutin' folks!

    I think my .22 has led to confusion.  .22 is in fact what I expect the
    main line of the Clinton "message" for the 96 election.
    
    I had it all in "quotes" but though it wasn't necessary for
    sophisticated boxers.
    
    And I agree that Clinton does not get much credit for the economic
    status (I hesitate strongly to call it a turn-around).  Nor do Bush or
    Reagan.  It is cyclical, and the moderation in the cycles we currently
    enjoy can be credited much more to the Federal Reserve than anything
    else.
    
    The deficit explosion during Reagan's and Bush's years were due in
    large part to Democratic congressional activity, but neither side can
    escape the blame.  Congress has to pass 'em and the Prez usually needs
    to sign 'em.  Both fulfilled these roles in spades.  It was the last
    thing, of any possible outcome, I expected from Reagan.  I still don't
    quite understand how it could have happened unless he really was a
    total vegetable during his entire term.  Of course, there is the
    outside chance that he was a deliberate, calculating liar his entire
    political career.
    
    None of that has anything to do with a Presidential campaign.  Truth is
    the last thing on anyone's mind.
    
    I believe that Clinton does get the credit for trimming the deficit. 
    And it is due to both his tax increase, his trimming the federal
    payroll and perhaps to squeezing the armed forces.  You may not like 
    how he did it, but I think it is real.  But that is about all I'll give
    him.  He certainly has delivered little else in four years, as far as I
    can appreciate.
    
    RE: .20 Was the crack about "Bob-Mr. Attack Dog Hisself-Dole, the
    ax-murderer of the Ford campaign" not going negative supposed to be
    serious?  The whole convention was just a warm up for going negative!
    
    We are gonna need rolls of paper towels by the TV.
    
    FJP
    

    <--- There, someone who sees things in grey. Thank you.

    What the heck is highfalutin?  I'm really a poor, uneducated dummy.
    -ss

 really?

    
    <smirk>
    

    I think Clinton should play up the fact that he's better at dodging
    bullets than Dole.  This is a useful ability for any political leader.

>    Clearly it is impossible for anyone not belonging to the Republican
>    party to make any right decisions.
    
     This is a great ploy to avoid actually having to think. Well done.
    You've earned a case of, you guessed it, Bumblebee tuna.
    
     Aside from the OJMs and Rocushes of 'boxland, nobody really thinks in
    such black and white terms. So attempting to avoid having to actually
    analyze the issues by making such ill-considered blanket pronouncements
    is really a sham (of a travesty). It's not that you can't do it, is it?
    Obviously there are those that will disagree with your assessment (of
    anything); the issue is whether you can construct a reasoned argument
    which exposes their unwillingness to approach the subject objectively.
    You like to claim that such mindless adherence to political orthodoxy
    is a republican trait, yet we have seen in this very conference a
    myriad of counter-examples. Face it- the nature of partisanship is that
    some number of individuals are going to stick with the party line
    regardless of what the facts show. There's a sense of stability and
    comfort in unquestioning faith in one's own assumptions, and that's a
    very difficult thing for people to give up. That's what makes one issue
    voting so attractive- little has to be questioned. A simple litmus test
    tells you all you need to know.
    
     In my mind, cavalier dismissal of one's opponents such as the one
    above does little more than show that you are not up to the challenge
    of showing your opponents are wrong and that you are right. Then again,
    if you aren't right in the first place, I suppose it's about as
    effective a strategy as any.
    
     So what's the deal, Glenn? Are you simply not up to the task of
    responding point for point? Is just throwing rocks enough? Or can you
    actually show that your opponents aren't all they think they are? It's
    not like the arguments of your foes are flawless. Let's see you go
    beyond the "Beverly" level and rub a coupla synapses together, for old
    time's sake.

>re: .49 POLAR::RICHARDSON
>
>    <--- There, someone who sees things in grey. Thank you.

Not pointing out that Clinton says one thing and does another
is seeing things in grey? Not pointing out that Clinton
takes credit for himself that which should go to others, is
seeing things in grey? 

Is that all it takes to meet your analytical requirements?

Sorry, but black and white are also in the spectrum and shouldn't
be ignored.

.48 got it pretty close, he just left out a whole bunch of stuff ....

   silence, please, while Glenn gets his thoughts together.

    >I believe that Clinton does get the credit for trimming the deficit. 
    
     Yup.
    
    >And it is due to both his tax increase, his trimming the federal
    >payroll and perhaps to squeezing the armed forces.
    
     Yes, he increased taxes (majorly!). Yes, he squeezed the armed forces.
    Yes, he trimmed the federal payroll, but from what I heard, he made up
    for that savings through the use of "consultants" to perform the jobs
    of the layed off federal workers and ended up paying more in total.
    Reminds me of a certain computer company I know- trimming "headcount"
    while adding "consultants" (and contract workers).
    
     But I do have to agree that Clinton gets credit for trimming the
    deficit. He loses points for vetoing the first balanced budget in a
    generation, though. He loses points for countering a real balanced
    budget with a budget that even his own people admit doesn't really
    balance, and only balances on paper with absurd cuts (that'll never
    really happen) in programs after he leaves office.
    
     He gets credit for NAFTA and GATT. 

    
    <I smell wood burning in Canada>

    I'm trapped in a wet paper bag and I can't get out.

    The Republicans here are proceeding on the false assumption that I am a
    Democrat. Beyond the fact that I can't use my brain or nary a synapse to 
    come up with some counter arguments/explanations, may I draw some
    parallels to my country, Canada, in which partisan politics is just as
    strong? First off, campaign promises that can be kept are but if you
    are voting for someone because of campaign promises you are in for a
    disappointment. The same things have happened here, more or less,
    regarding the economy. The left and the right trade jabs of fiscal
    measurements based on their partisan slant in order to win political
    points. It's always been that way. The way I see it, governments have
    very little control over the economy, they just ride the wave and work
    at getting points for artistic merit.

    Mark, you can list the points that Clinton has lost in your eyes until
    the cows come home. The fact is, you want him to lose points because
    he's not your guy, he's a Democrat.  It's always easy to criticize the
    administration because they are the ones that are under the real
    pressure that the country is facing. They are the ones who have to try
    things and see if they work or not, or plan things and _try_ to
    implement if they can. All this country running plus being attacked by
    political rivals plus trying to keep balanced on the political
    landscape. Can you see this? Can you see how difficult it would be? Do
    you really actually think that Dole would keep all of his campaign
    promises? If so, you are most definitely in for a disappointment if
    Dole wins.

    I came into this debate as a devil's advocate in order to make a
    point. None of the issues are black and white and partisan logic
    dominates all debate. Admit it. You're a puppet, parroting all that your
    Republican heros are saying. So if you're going to pluck the splinter
    out of my eye, first remove the elephant that is sticking in yours then
    you can help me for I am a mere mass of conflicting impulses that so
    badly needs your guidance.

    I am not a Republican. I am not of the body. Help me Mark! Help me,
    help me, help me!

    Go ahead, pick away at me again. You enjoy it. Go full throttle. Insult
    me again. I love the smell of gun powder and burnt feathers, shoot me
    again!

    Diedra:
    
    You failed to even consider what I stated yesterday...that the national
    debt was financed by short term low interest bonds; thereby cutting the
    deficit.  It's all smoke and mirrors.
    
    -Jack

	Glenn has apparently collected his thoughts in a non-indexed
	file.

    .59
    
    |The way I see it, governments have very little control over the
    |economy, they just ride the wave and work at getting points for
    |artistic merit.
    
    that's the way i see it also.  politicians do not make history;
    history makes (or breaks) politicians.

    Memorable quote from Stephanopolis:
    
    "The president kept all the campaign promises he intended to keep."
    
    (I've got the source buried away somewhere.)
    
    Go figure.
    
    FJP

    true or false.  campaign promises are made to win an election.

  .64  False for Republican candidates.  True for everyone else.




     whaddoo i win?

    >The way I see it, governments have
    >very little control over the economy, they just ride the wave and work
    >at getting points for artistic merit.
    
     This is more true over the short term (for some that would appear to
    be the only term) and much less true over the longer term. Policies do,
    in fact, have a demonstrable effect on the economy. These effects are
    rarely felt over the short term. Over the long term, however, the
    effects are real, they are significant, and they make a difference in
    our everyday lives. 
    
    >Mark, you can list the points that Clinton has lost in your eyes until
    >the cows come home. The fact is, you want him to lose points because
    >he's not your guy, he's a Democrat.  
    
     It's not quite that simple. I am perfectly willing to give him credit
    for what he's done, and blame for what he's done. Sorry if that doesn't
    fit your purported model of how I think. Note that I also criticize
    republicans when they come up with boneheaded ideas. I clearly fail the
    strict partisan test. I am also clearly more closely aligned with
    republican ideas- because I think they are better ideas. This is no
    sin. I didn't start out as a republican, I started out as a democrat. I
    abandoned "the team" when I decided they weren't working in my best
    interest, and there's no reason I won't do it again.
    
    >It's always easy to criticize the
    >administration because they are the ones that are under the real
    >pressure that the country is facing. They are the ones who have to try
    >things and see if they work or not, or plan things and _try_ to
    >implement if they can. All this country running plus being attacked by
    >political rivals plus trying to keep balanced on the political
    >landscape. Can you see this?
    
     Saw it during the last two administrations- what makes you think I
    forgot in the last couple of years?
    
    >Do you really actually think that Dole would keep all of his campaign
    >promises?
    
     Of course not. It's not all within his power. I would, however, expect
    to see some sort of middle class tax cut. I would not expect President
    Dole to announce on the eve of his inauguration that not only were we
    not going to be getting a middle class tax cut, but we'd be getting a
    middle-class tax increase. And if he did, I'd call for his head. I'm
    rather consistent that way.
    
    >None of the issues are black and white 
    
     None of them are so gray that we are relegated to handwringing and
    inaction either. 
    
    >and partisan logic dominates all debate. 
    
     That's mostly true, but there is plenty of factual discussion if you
    open your jaded eyes long enough to see.
    
    >Admit it. You're a puppet, parroting all that your Republican heros 
    >are saying.
    
     Well that's the easy way out of thinking, isn't it? Declare that your
    opponent is a puppet and isn't thinking and therefore you don't have to
    refute anything they say. Tr�s convenable. Seems to me that either
    someone is right, or they're wrong or there are elements of both. It
    also seems to me that unless someone is right, it's pretty trivial to
    show where they are wrong (even if there is disagreement over what the
    truth is, the points of contention should be trivial to delineate). You
    don't bother even doing that. Much easier to throw rocks and hide
    behind claims of groupthink on the part of your opponents.
    
    >Go ahead, pick away at me again. You enjoy it. Go full throttle. Insult
    >me again. I love the smell of gun powder and burnt feathers, shoot me
    >again!
    
     I think the cry towel shipment is going to have to be rerouted au
    Canada. (Wouldn't you rather think than resort to these histrionics?)

    .65
    
    rong.  sorry.  the one and only answer: true.

  damn.  well, i always did better on multiple choice anyways.

    .64: True.  Tautology actually.  Would they make the promises in order
    to lose elections?
    
    The interesting question is on keeping promises.
    
    Once again, promises are only KEPT if it will lead to ANOTHER win in
    the polls:  True or False?
    
    ;-)
    
    FJP
    

I always preferred oral exams myself.

    
      I dispute the claim that US politicians of either party in the USA
     universally make campaign promises merely to get elected.  There are
     numerous politicians of both parties in office today who would
     rather lose than abandon various causes.  There have been recent
     presidential candidates who held positions out of conviction, and
     would not abandon them in the face of opinion polls.
    
      In fact, even Clinton is not entirely phony.  Although he mostly is.
     I think Al Gore feels very strongly about environmental matters.
     There's not a doubt in my mind Jack Kemp really believes in tax cuts
     and supply side.  Dole is rather unusual, the consummate deal maker.
     In fact, he, like Clinton, has often changed his views.  Thus, it will
     be hard, THIS TIME, for either party to gain much ground with the
     charge of inconsistency.  But that's not always been true.  If it
     had been Ronald Reagan vs. Ted Kennedy, nobody would be saying that
     they represented nothing but public relations ploys.  It's just the
     nature of this year's candidates.
    
      bb

    >Once again, promises are only KEPT if it will lead to ANOTHER win in
    >the polls:  True or False?
    
     So you're saying no President has ever kept a promise in his second
    term? I don't think so.

  
   <calling maintenance to have the AC checked>

    and what of dole's promise of a 15% tax reduction?
    do you honestly believe that he honestly believes
    this is doable?  c'mon!

    we'll probably never find out.

    Oh, he'll probably get elected, and we'll probably get the 15% cut. 
    Or, I should say that I'll be getting an 8% cut and the people making
    twice what I do will get a 23% cut.
    
    And, we'll probably see the debt double again.
    
    I really ought to try this approach with my creditors:  If I can't make
    the payments, lend me more money.  I'll work so much harder that I'll
    make up for the deficit in payments with volume.

    
    The latest poll shows Clinton's lead is down to about 4%. It was 16-20%
    a couple of weeks ago. Oh, Chicago is going to be a happening
    Democratic place next monday. I can't wait.

    It'll pop back up to 15% after Chicago. He's going to tell everyone
    "don't worry- be happy." And they will.

    well, it sure was the last time it had a convention.

    re: .72
    
    Promises are kept all the time.  First or Second term.  That's not the
    point.  The point is that politicians always have their eyes on the
    polls and have to work within the limits set by the electorate.  They
    also have to make hard decisions that may go against their promises.
    
    To a certain extent, that's their job.
    
    Clinton found out the hard way about campaign promises with the Health
    Care and opening up the military to Gay personnel.
    
    The Republican freshmen found out that even enthusiastic support isn't
    always what it seems.
    
    Bush found out that you need to be very careful what you promise with
    his "No new taxes".
    
    Clinton indicated in the Rather interview that he is not going to make
    any such pledge that national circumstances could force him to break.
    
    He'll just pledge "more of the same" and let you figure it out ;-)
    
    FJP

    
    .54
    
    I'm really not sure why you made the statement you did, but apparently
    you have a greater insight into me than is readily available.
    
    I do not see issues in only black and white, but I do believe there is
    a lot less grey than many would like to contend.
    
    I'd suggest you get to know someone a lot better before you make
    blanket statments.
    

    .81
    
    you are wrong again.

re: .59 POLAR::RICHARDSON "So far away from me"


>    The Republicans here are proceeding on the false assumption that I am a
>    Democrat.

     Rubbish!

>    Mark, you can list the points that Clinton has lost in your eyes until
>    the cows come home. The fact is, you want him to lose points because
>    he's not your guy, he's a Democrat.  It's always easy to criticize the
>    administration because they are the ones that are under the real
>    pressure that the country is facing. They are the ones who have to try
>    things and see if they work or not, or plan things and _try_ to
>    implement if they can.

     More rubbish! ANY andministration, democrat,republican or
     pedestrian, which won't walk it's talk or can't talk a consistent
     line, is setting themselves up for the critism they deserve.
     GHWB is a most recent example of repubs distaste for this behaviour.

     Seems to me you can't differentiate between a mudsling and a legitimate 
     critique if either is launched by the opposition.

     Doug.

    Re. a Pedestrian who can't walk his talk
    
    
    Would this be with, or without, chewing gum?

    
    there is an old adage. never discuss politics or religion. seems to
    fit in today's environment.

    If Reagan had told you he would raise interest rates to 20+%, would you
    have voted for him?

    And what do you mean rubbish? I am not a Democrat.

    Who is slinging mud? I'm certainly not.

    I have however been told that I can't think, that is to say, rub two
    synapses together and that all I can do is throw rocks and hide.

    Never once did I call anyone names in this debate until Mark's
    insulting reply came along. Now I'm up to my arm pits in cry towels and
    the deliveries aren't stopping!

    
    .86
    
    hey, hey I've got a shipment of towels being sent my way too.

>>>    The Republicans here are proceeding on the false assumption that I am a
>>>    Democrat.
>>
>>     Rubbish!
>
>    And what do you mean rubbish? I am not a Democrat.


     What don't you understand? That the republicans here are not proceeding 
     on a false assumption that your a democrat?

>>    Seems to me you can't differentiate between a mudsling and a legitimate 
>>    critique if either is launched by the opposition.
>
>     Who is slinging mud? I'm certainly not.

     Did anyone say you did? Did you not understand that repubs can have
     legitimate critiques of a democratic president and his policies
     despite being in the opposition party?

>>   Let's see you go
>>   beyond the "Beverly" level and rub a coupla synapses together, for old
>>   time's sake.
>    I have however been told that I can't think, that is to say, rub two
>    synapses together and that all I can do is throw rocks and hide.

     Actually, this was a request to actually join in the discussion
     with some solid input, such that you have provided none so far.
     failure to recognize that just supports your own interpretation.

     .54 says it best.

     Throw away your assumptions, state your point, and back it up with real
     content.

     Doug.
     

    re: 776.74 and 776.76
    
    If you read the Dole plan, it is a 15% cut in the *TAX RATES*
    apportioned at 5% per year.  This means that if you are paying 28% then
    year one it would be 26.6%, year two 25.3%, and in year three 24.0%.
    
    This would basically offset the bracket-creep caused by inflation, so
    it is a bit of a shell game.
    
    /jim

	Well, a shell is a good thing for a turtle.

    15% cut in INCOME tax rates.  FICA and Medicare aren't being discussed
    here, and everyone sees the same FICA and Medicare tax rates ('ceptin
    those who pay the whole bill before the end of the year).
    
    Therefore, a 15% cut in tax rates to someone in the 15% bracket means
    a lower percentage in overall tax relief than someone in the higher
    (43%?) bracket.  (That is 15% less 15% plus the 8% or so for FICA vs
    43% less 15% plus the 8% or so for FICA).
    
    I'll stand by my previous statement:  Means a greater percentage in tax
    break to those what make twice what I do (who are incidentally those
    who can take greater advantage of the simultaneous proposed cut in
    capital gains taxes than I can (note that I generally see cuts in
    capital gains taxes as a good thing otherwise)).
    
    It is a shell game, but one that's baised against those on the lower
    end.

    >I have however been told that I can't think, that is to say, rub two
    >synapses together and that all I can do is throw rocks and hide.
    
     If you honestly believe that to be the content of .54, then I have
    overestimated your reading comprehension skills. I never said you
    couldn't think. Read it again if you don't believe me.

	Glenn, before you do what Mark asks, think about it. :-)

    Sure, now he uses the EDP maneuver.
    
    You overestimate me, you underestimate me and you berate me whenever
    you get the chance.

   <compiling list of lawyers for Glenn>

    We've got the cry towels coming by courier, Glenn. Sorry, Mark. Your
    allotment was diverted to the greater need.

    Thanks!

    {sniff}

    don't mention it.

    Its a 15% cut across the board. If you pay less in taxes, your cut will
    be smaller. It also includes the $500 per child tax credit. This cut
    works to a greater advantage of the middle class as it takes $500 per
    child of the tax bill. If you owe $50,000 in tax it is a 1% cut, if
    you owe $2000 in tax it is 25% tax relief. It is tax cuts for everyone,
    weighted heavily towards middle class families. It is good plan and it
    will work as long as the next congress is willing to restrain spending
    unlike the democratic congresses of the 80s that spend $1.25 for every
    dollar of increased revenue brought in by the Reagan tax cut.
    Government revenues doubled under Reagan, expenditures almost tripled.
    Supply side works as long as it is practiced with fiscal restraint.
    
                              Steve J.

    
      Canadians have synapses ?
    
      bb

    -1
    Does that mean I,m Contagious?
    
    
    
    joan

Don't be expecting to see the kind of revenue increases seen during
the Reagan terms. Cutting the rates from %75+ down to below %40 is a 
far greater impact than a %15 rate reduction.

The reductions in capital gains will have the biggest impact on the
economy.

Doug.

    rep
    500/kid?  Won't that just encourage people to go out and make more
    babies to get more money?

    
    > 500/kid?  Won't that just encourage people to go out and make more
    > babies to get more money?
    
    You're kidding, right?

    Well, isn't that a raise?
    
    Seems that that amount or a bit more "just encourages women on welfare
    to have more kids.", so why not the middle class?

    It still ain't a 15% cut across the board if it don't affect FICA,
    meaning it's still a larger percentage cut for the higher bracket
    people.
    
    And don't get me started on paying middle class people to have
    children.  I am no more anxious to do that than to pay lower class
    people to have children.

    
    > And don't get me started on paying middle class people to have
    > children.
    
    No problem as nobody pays the middle class to have children.

    Allowing people to pay less taxes just because they had unprotected sex
    is a subsidy, just as if your town decided that people with children
    don't have to pay property taxes.  I am in no mood to be the one making
    up the difference on the other end in either example.
    
    If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids.  It applies to
    lower, middle and upper classes.

    
      This is exactly what the Democrats have been saying.  When they
     say "massive tax cut for the wealthy", "tax cut for the rich", etc,
     they basically mean "any tax cut".  Because, any tax cut is mostly
     for the wealthy.  The homeless on the streets pay no tax, so a tax
     cut benefits them nought.  Since the bottom half of the American
     population pays effectively no income tax, and certainly no capital
     gains, cutting these is for the rich.  And any cut in FICA or
     Medicare withholding, if applied on a means-basis, is viewed as a
     conservative ruse to undermine the program's public support. Which
     is correct - means-testing Social Security would threaten the whole
     deal.  In fact, the various tax cuts proposed by Clinton would ALSO
     be tax cuts for the "very rich", which he defines as everybody
     making over $30 K, using the exact same logic.
    
      bb

    If us rich people quit working they sure would have a tough time paying
    us all.
    
    Dennis

    >Allowing people to pay less taxes just because they had unprotected sex
    
     Assumes facts not in evidence.
    
    >is a subsidy, 
    
     Yeah, just like having a debt retired is income.
    
    >I am in no mood to be the one making
    >up the difference on the other end in either example.
    
     Of course, when these kids are supporting you in your retirement, you
    won't be sending any money back.
    
    

	If I pay 28% in taxes, and I am getting a 15% cut, I want to be paying
just 13% in taxes. :-)

    Math is hard, eh, Barbie?

    
    You kind of have to have unprotected sex in order to have the child
    that entitles you to the $500 tax credit/deduction (I forget which it
    is) unless you're using a turkey baster.
    
    

    What I find most amusing is that the vaunted 15% Dole tax cut is in
    fact NOT a 15% tax cut.  It's 5% per year for three years.  That's only
    a 14.26% cut.

Unless contraception fails.  Or your kids are adopted.  Or...

    A fetus will not gestate in a turkey baster.

    so much for campaign promises!

    But if you jump on the bulb, the sperm will fly with meteoric impunity.

    
    I bow to Gerald's corrections.
    

    re: .111
    
    Of course, if you take away Social Security, there won't
    be any one "supporting" me in my retirement except my
    own hard work and investments, and in that case, why *should*
    they get the tax credit?
    
    I can stomach an across the board property tax to pay for
    basic education (Johnny or Jenny don't need to play lacrosse
    on my tax dollars), with the "extras" being paid for by
    the families who required them.  
    
    However, I'd rather lower, simpler taxes and *no* deductions,
    than various "feel good" measures which probably don't do
    anything for us in the long run.  
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
>      This is exactly what the Democrats have been saying.  When they
>     say "massive tax cut for the wealthy", "tax cut for the rich", etc,
>     they basically mean "any tax cut".  Because, any tax cut is mostly
>     for the wealthy.  The homeless on the streets pay no tax, so a tax

    Well as an independent who usually votes democrat that thought
    process doesn't work for me.

    IMO Republican proposals for tax cuts do overwhelming favor the rich ...
    capital gains tax cuts and big reductions in the income tax (bigger
    reductions in rates for higher rate payers) are the two favorites.

    If they proposed a tax cut that lowered revenue by the same amount but
    which came out of FICA, Medicare, and the lowest tax rates they'd have a
    much better job of convincing me they really believe in tax cuts and
    not in taking care of the rich.

    The idea that money returned to the rich will have a bigger influence
    than money returned to the less well off is beyond me.  The less well
    off folks will immediately spend the bucks in some business owned
    (directly or indirectly) by the better off folks anyways.

    Greg
                                                         

    
      Oh, and by the way, it isn't the measly deduction for
     dependent children that is the subsidy - it's the much lower
     rates of single people as opposed to married-filing-jointly
     or married-filing-separately.  The federal government currently
     tries to break up families with a tax reward for divorce and
     running away from your children, but since the lawyers get it
     all in a divorce, the chief beneficiaries are those who live
     together and make lots of babies without getting married.  It
     should come as no surprise that these pampered few are all
     democrats, mouthing platitudes about fairness as they get away
     with paying less than everybody else.
    
      bb

    The marriage penalty is definitely a bummer, and as you say, a subsidy
    for the single.  No problems with that assertion.
    
    It hit its low during the early Reagan years when they had that special
    computation for couples to help eliminate the "marriage tax."  It
    rebounded back to its original levels with Reagan's "Tax reform."
    
    Reagan is just as responsible for the perpetuation of the marriage tax
    as any democrat, so it ain't just the democrats' penalty.

    
      Well, I agree that Republicans have been accomplices.  Family
     values, indeed !  If they meant it, there would be a marriage
     tax BENEFIT.  But then, we might actually DO something for the
     institution, instead of paying it lip service, subverting it at
     every turn, and then decrying the collapse of morality.
    
      There are, in fact, marriage subsidies on some countries.
    
      bb

    Well, you must be speaking of countries with a sense of work ethic
    sensitivity sensualness.

    A family of 4 making $36k per year will realize a 56% reduction in
    federal income tax under the Dole plan. If this is what you consider
    rich,..... Of course the people who pay the most tax will get the
    biggest break in dollars but if you break it down by percentage to
    actual dollars middle class families get the bulk of the tax relief.
    
                             Steve J.

	Read .115, and then .116. Now while they don't really go together, when
they are put together, it's kind of funny.

| <<< Note 776.125 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

| Well, I agree that Republicans have been accomplices. Family values, indeed!  
| If they meant it, there would be a marriage tax BENEFIT. But then, we might 
| actually DO something for the institution, instead of paying it lip service, 

	Errr.... since when is a bribe a benefit? :-) Don't ya think the
divorce rate would go up even higher????



Glen

>      <<< Note 776.128 by BIGQ::SILVA "quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/" >>>

>	Read .115, and then .116. Now while they don't really go together, when
>they are put together, it's kind of funny.

	i thought .117, .118 were funnier together.

    8)

    OK, so here's what I don't get, Mark. I come into this debate and
    debate seriously and you say I'm still at the Bumblebeetuna/Beverly
    level.

    So why the hell should I bother? I wasn't throwing rocks, you started
    throwing rocks with your condescending statement about synapses and so
    on. And when I point this out to you, you say I'm a cry baby and here
    are your weeping towels.

    I was trying to make a point that economic numbers can be slanted to
    make anyone look good or bad, but you call that rock throwing and
    bumblebeetunaheaded/beverlyheaded. Had I stayed in my supposed
    neuronical depolarizing state I wouldn't have come in here would I?
    I read all the partisan comments and jumped into the fray and I'm still
    just a twit to you. So why do I bother? If I waste CPU cycles or try to
    enhance them I still get the same amount of disdain.
    
    Now I think I'll go have a beer and a good cry.

| <<< Note 776.130 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| i thought .117, .118 were funnier together.

	Yes, you are correct!

    can you describe what a republican and a democrat is to you? everyone
    gets tied up in i'm a democrat or i'm a republican i can't go against
    my party's plan, we're all in the same damn country can't the politics be
    put aside and we find a way to be one. Politics is just a be game to
    see who can out do the other.
     Each party wants to say we won because we had a better plan.
     Get rid of the party thing, work together and say we 
    worked together to make things better for all.
    Special interest groups.....Can them.....their only out for themselves
     ..not out for the best interest of all. 
    Put enough money/perks in front of a person/politician and of course
    he'll pay attention to these groups. But in the end who will it benefit
    ..one group of people.  what's in it for the rest of the people ..who
    will most likely have to pay for it in someway....We have become a
    nation of who cares about your neighbor....who is your neighbor?......
    as long as I have everything i want sc#$@ the those that don't....We're
    not one....we're many in the same nation ...trying to eliminate the
    other....be it rich/poor..race...etc. who controls most of us....
    politicians and corporations.
    We the people are suppose to have a say in how the country is run but We
     the people are just pawns led by the politicians effected by
    corporations and special interest groups once their elected. 
    Maybe its time that they learn that without the little people these
    groups and corporations are nothing. Isn't it the corporations/interest
    groups who get the tax breaks , etc. why we the people pay? Something
    just don't sound right, what happen to the government for the people?

Sodium Hydride.

Never work.

Show this guy the door!

Next.

    >IMO Republican proposals for tax cuts do overwhelming favor the rich ...
    
    By the same token, if there were no tax for people earning less than
    $50k per year and 99% tax for those earning more than $50K per year and
    some awful republican proposed a reduction in the tax to 75% on those
    making more than $50K per year that would "overwhelming(ly) favor the
    'rich'" as well. The bottom line is that the government has an
    insatiable lust for revenue, and upper income taxpayers get screwed
    disproportionately already so that any attempts to pare down the
    screwing are OBVIOUSLY going to benefit the "rich", because they are
    the ones being screwed. Lower income taxpayers pay practically nothing
    in taxes, so it's pretty difficult to help them by reducing the already
    miniscule taxes they pay.

    >I can stomach an across the board property tax to pay for
    >basic education 
    
    
    >(Johnny or Jenny don't need to play lacrosse on my tax dollars), 
    
    Too bad english grammar isn't included in "basic education". :-)
    
     

    >I wasn't throwing rocks, you started throwing rocks with 
    >your condescending statement 
    
     So either you figure I'm the author of .40, or you don't consider .40
    to be throwing rocks, I guess.
    
     In neither .38 nor .40 did you respond to any specific arguments. You
    just generally threw mud. Yeah, I suppose that is, in fact, a
    microscopic improvement over sophomoric repetition of phrases and words
    of dubious comic value. Here's half a kudo. Now go the rest of the way
    and actually respond to the arguments you purportedly engaged. I mean,
    if you can piss on 'em, it would seem that you'd easily be able to find
    specific fault with them. You disagree?
    
    >I was trying to make a point that economic numbers can be slanted to
    >make anyone look good or bad, 
    
     I had no objection to that point; I even agree with it. Lies, damned
    lies, and statistics. What I objected to was your subsequent casual
    dismissal of specific arguments that others had raised by making snide
    and uncalled for comments. How would you like it if you were engaged in
    a serious discussion about, say, why you thought living in Canada is
    better than living in the US and after you made a specific, detailed
    argument in your favor you were blown off with a snide and sarcastic
    comment that didn't address a single thing you brought up? That would
    be up to your standards of discussion? That's in effect what you did,
    and I found it to be sufficiently disingenuous that I gave you a hard
    time about it. And I didn't even fully agree with your opponent's
    position.
    
    >I read all the partisan comments and jumped into the fray and I'm still
    >just a twit to you.
    
     You weren't a twit when you observed that the partisan spin on the
    same economic facts can support either side in a debate. I thought that
    was a reasonably insightful comment. You were a "twit" when you ignored
    the actual argument being proferred to land a sarcastic parting shot.
    And you were so close to making it interesting. 
    
     Look at it this way, if I didn't think you had potential, I wouldn't
    have wasted the energy on you. 

>   and upper income taxpayers get screwed
>    disproportionately already so that any attempts to pare down the
>    screwing are OBVIOUSLY going to benefit the "rich", because they are
>    the ones being screwed.

Ain't it the truth. The folks who contribute the largest sums to the coffers
and never use the services are the democrats scapegoats.

And what is the percentage of the "rich" in the US? It's a small number 
(depending on where you draw the line).

So any reduction in tax that benefits the rich as a group, benefits the
middle and lower classes by a far greater margin, as a group.

But lord forbid we should treat the rich with an even hand.

Doug.

 >   can you describe what a republican and a democrat is to you? everyone
 >   gets tied up in i'm a democrat or i'm a republican i can't go against
 >   my party's plan, we're all in the same damn country can't the politics be
 >   put aside and we find a way to be one. Politics is just a be game to
 >   see who can out do the other.

 Democrat and Republican politicians are all members of the same family
(inbreeding?) and every family has its black sheep.

Whatever their motive, they all have the power to affect the american
way of life. Each with their own idea on how things should be run, and grouped
together with others with views closest to their own.

Strength comes within the group, with little advantage going to those who
venture out on their own.

Only on rare ocassions to the two groups work together for the common good of
the people, while most of their enegery is spent trying to prevent the other
from accomplishing anything. (Recent example was the democratic effort to
deny Mr. Dole any achievements before the election, but passed previously
block legislation after Dole resigned the senate).

So, some folks vote the group even when the individual is known to be a poor
choice. In this election, this is especially true.

My vote will fall to the group is most likely to reduce government spending.
The pubs have done more in the last two years to this end than the
dems in the last 30. A democrat president has proven to be an impediment
to that end.

    
    Here that Glenn, you have potential!! As of now your a minor leaguer,
    but you might move up to the major league level if you  put forth a
    little more effort. Just watch for those low and away curveballs, and
    you'll do ok.

    Democrats believe government can solve all our problems if we just
    give them all of our money.
    
    Republicans think people can solve their own problems if we just let
    people keep their money.
    
                                Steve  J.
    
    P.S. of course there are exceptions to every rule

>         <<< Note 776.141 by ACISS1::BATTIS "New Chevy Blazer owner" >>>

    <snicker>


    yeah, that was pretty bad, doctah.  

    Well in the UK the old saw goes:
    
    The Republicans, well they're almost the same as the Tories, but a little
    bit different.
    
    The Democrats, well they're almost the same as the Tories, but a little
    bit different.
    
    FJP

    |Look at it this way, if I didn't think you had potential, I wouldn't
    |have wasted the energy on you. 

    Well then, I guess I should feel privileged to be worthy of your
    energy from time to time.

    
    oh, Glenn. can you send a couple of cry towels to Chicago when you
    have time? thanks.

    I'll trade you some of my cry towels for some of your grovel mats.

    
    ok, i think i have a couple of extra handy. i'll put one in the
    mail for you. hope you like pink, it's the only color I have left.

    My cry towels are a little snotty, but you can throw them in the wash I
    guess.

    Democrats believe anything can be solved by the government if you throw 
    enough money and resources at it.
    
    Republicans "know" this is only true for law enforcement and the
    military.  

>            <<< Note 776.150 by CSC32::M_EVANS "watch this space" >>>
>    Democrats believe anything can be solved by the government if you throw 
>    enough money and resources at it.
>    Republicans "know" this is only true for law enforcement and the
>    military.  

Bingo.

I like the Repubs on economics and a few other things, but they really do
have this little oppressive big-brother problem when it comes to drugs and
crime, and a couple of religious-fundy sore points.

The Dems are just too far into hippy-dippy utopian dream-world to even bother
about.

    RE: .105
    
>    Seems that that amount or a bit more "just encourages women on welfare
>    to have more kids.", so why not the middle class?

    Because the middle class can afford them?  

    Actually, I think that they should just make it a flat deduction.  If
    they think that most people will deduct 1.5 kids ($750) then make it a
    flat $375 for a single person and $750 for a married couple.

    - Dave

    RE: .115

>    What I find most amusing is that the vaunted 15% Dole tax cut is in
>    fact NOT a 15% tax cut.  It's 5% per year for three years.  That's only
>    a 14.26% cut.

    Similar, but not as extreme as Clinton's vaunted 100,000 extra police
    officers ... 20,000 officers for 5 years (with plenty of federal
    strings attached).  If you pointed out that hypocrisy and/or little
    amusement at the time, I must have missed it.

    -- Dave

    RE: .150

>    Democrats believe anything can be solved by the government if you throw 
>    enough money and resources at it.
>    
>    Republicans "know" this is only true for law enforcement and the
>    military.  

    Doesn't this depend on the type of law enforcement.  Isn't it Clinton
    and the Democrats that are pushing for tougher "anti-terrorism"
    legislation to allow the feds to conduct more covert surveillances of
    Americans?

    It would be nice if we could get rid of the hypocrisy/inconsistencies
    within both parties.

    -- Dave

>>    It would be nice if we could get rid of the hypocrisy/inconsistencies
>>    within both parties.
    
    It would be enough if we could just recognise all of them!
    
    FJP

    The feds have no place in law enforcement, IMO.
    -ss

    Law enforcement should be left to god.

    amen