Sen. Wellstone is consistent
Robert Martin
As a conservative, and as a registered Republican, I have very little
in common with our current senator.
I'm told that Sen. Wellstone, who is up for reelection this November, is
the ONLY vulnerable liberal politician who voted against welfare reform
this past week. His vote will be THE major campaign issue during the
coming months.
While I disagree with the senator's position, I certainly admire his
integrity, and his determination to maintain his stated positions. If
only our president was as consistent...
Bob Martin
rib...@sihope.com
--
Bob Martin
rob...@sihope.com
Daniel Goodman
In article <4tvsos$k...@darla.visi.com>,
Robert Martin <rob...@unix2.sihope.com> wrote:
> As a conservative, and as a registered Republican, I have very little
>in common with our current senator.
>
> I'm told that Sen. Wellstone, who is up for reelection this November, is
>the ONLY vulnerable liberal politician who voted against welfare reform
>this past week. His vote will be THE major campaign issue during the
>coming months.
>
> While I disagree with the senator's position, I certainly admire his
>integrity, and his determination to maintain his stated positions. If
>only our president was as consistent...
changes. (Whether they can be properly called a _reform_ depends on how
they work out in practice.)
I believe the question "What if the President and the other Senators were
as consistent as Wellstone?" belongs in alt.history.what-if.improbable.
Dan Goodman
--
Dan Goodman
MPLS, MN, USA
"The only peace is that interior in us."
Drew Lanz
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960805095223.1878A-100000@freenet>, Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> says:
>Yea, I wish we had a Liberal president, too...
Sadly, we may have a chance at this. If Mr.Clinton wins the
next election, he will have no need to shift positions to reflect
the actual wants of the voting public. For the first time ever,
we may learn what Mr.Clinton actually stands for, if anything.
I suspect that it would be a frighteningly liberal experience.
Regards,
Drew ---------------------------------------------
| I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back. |
| drew...@skypoint.com |
| http://www.skypoint.com/members/drewlanz |
Russ Anderson
On 3 Aug 1996, Robert Martin wrote:
> As a conservative, and as a registered Republican, I have very little
> in common with our current senator.
>
> I'm told that Sen. Wellstone, who is up for reelection this November, is
> the ONLY vulnerable liberal politician who voted against welfare reform
> this past week. His vote will be THE major campaign issue during the
> coming months.
I'm sure the Republicans will try to shift attention away from the
rest of their agenda (that resulted in Newt's 60+% disaproval rating).
> While I disagree with the senator's position, I certainly admire his
> integrity, and his determination to maintain his stated positions. If
> only our president was as consistent...
Yea, I wish we had a Liberal president, too...
Russ Anderson
John Pirner
In <3207244d...@news.winternet.com>, ej...@winternet.com (july) writes:
>The one thing about Wellstone is that he tells you where he stands. He
>does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
>not avoid delivering the message.
I used to agree with that statement until this year. He refused to state
his position on the Oberstar/Grams Boundary Waters legislation so he
could stradle the fence in an election year. Only after it was clear the
legislation was going nowhere did he come out of the closet. He also
abruptly changed his mind on welfare reform. And what about his
insistance 5 years ago that he wouldn't accept PAC money or contributions
over $100? Mister Wellstone is a melting idealist. He's enjoying his
perks of power and $133K salary.
John
july
drew...@skypoint.com (Drew Lanz) wrote:
>
>Sadly, we may have a chance at this. If Mr.Clinton wins the
>next election, he will have no need to shift positions to reflect
>the actual wants of the voting public. For the first time ever,
>we may learn what Mr.Clinton actually stands for, if anything.
>I suspect that it would be a frighteningly liberal experience.
>
>Regards,
>Drew ---------------------------------------------
>| I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back. |
>| drew...@skypoint.com |
>| http://www.skypoint.com/members/drewlanz |
Sadly, we may have a chance at a poor President. If Mr.Dole wins the
next election, he will have no need to shift positions to reflect
the actual wants of the voting public. For the first time ever,
we may learn what Mr. Dole actually stands for, if anything.
I suspect that it would be a frighteningly bad experience.
Words can be turned around to fit any experience or perspective.
I am trying my best to understand where Dole stands? What in Dole's
character makes him better than Clinton?
Russ Anderson
On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, july wrote:
> drew...@skypoint.com (Drew Lanz) wrote:
>
> Sadly, we may have a chance at a poor President. If Mr.Dole wins the
> next election, he will have no need to shift positions to reflect
> the actual wants of the voting public. For the first time ever,
> we may learn what Mr. Dole actually stands for, if anything.
> I suspect that it would be a frighteningly bad experience.
I think that Bob Dole showed in his 35 year in Washington that
he is actually a sensible moderate person. He's never been
a "revolutionary", he's a consensus builder.
What's unfortunate is the way that he's willing to change his
positions for each political campaign. He's never believed in
Voodoo economics and still doesn't. It's sad that he's willing
to say anything to get elected, instead of standing up for what
he believes. The truth is that his economic policies will be
closer to George Bush than Ronald Reagan.
> Words can be turned around to fit any experience or perspective.
>
> I am trying my best to understand where Dole stands?
Bob Dole has shown where he stands for the last 35 years.
> What in Dole's character makes him better than Clinton?
He divorced his wife! :-)
> The one thing about Wellstone is that he tells you where he stands. He
> does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
> not avoid delivering the message.
And he's the same in person as on T.V. or in Washington.
Russ Anderson
John Pirner
In <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960806120711.1348A-100000@freenet>, Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
>
>On 6 Aug 1996, John Pirner wrote:
>> In <3207244d...@news.winternet.com>, ej...@winternet.com (july) writes:
>>
>> >does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
>> >not avoid delivering the message.
>>
>> his position on the Oberstar/Grams Boundary Waters legislation so he
>> could stradle the fence in an election year.
>
Like I said, he refused to state his position on the Oberstar/Grams
Boundary Waters legislation until it was clear it wouldn't pass. Instead
he chose to hide behind his federal mediator. Suprise, he finally decided
he was against the legislation. A good decision but safely late
to deflect criticism.
>
>> Only after it was clear the
>> legislation was going nowhere did he come out of the closet.
>
>Paul's gay? :-)
>
>> He also
>> abruptly changed his mind on welfare reform.
>
>What are you talking about?
>
Before the vote he said he could support the legislation that was
before Congress. When it came time to vote he suddenly decided
he was against it.
>> And what about his
>> insistance 5 years ago that he wouldn't accept PAC money or contributions
>> over $100?
>
>And for his first four years he kept that promise even while the
>Republicans were building up a war chest to defeat him.
>
Fine. He lied and broke his promise. You acknowledge that fact.
>> Mister Wellstone is a melting idealist. He's enjoying his
>> perks of power and $133K salary.
>
>And Rudy wants his old seat back because it sucked.
>
What does that have to do with Wellstone's mythical flawless character?
John
Russ Anderson
On 6 Aug 1996, John Pirner wrote:
> In <3207244d...@news.winternet.com>, ej...@winternet.com (july) writes:
>
> >The one thing about Wellstone is that he tells you where he stands. He
> >does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
> >not avoid delivering the message.
>
> I used to agree with that statement until this year. He refused to state
> his position on the Oberstar/Grams Boundary Waters legislation so he
> could stradle the fence in an election year.
When has Welstone EVER refused to state his position?
> Only after it was clear the
> legislation was going nowhere did he come out of the closet.
Paul's gay? :-)
> He also
> abruptly changed his mind on welfare reform.
What are you talking about?
> And what about his
> insistance 5 years ago that he wouldn't accept PAC money or contributions
> over $100?
And for his first four years he kept that promise even while the
Republicans were building up a war chest to defeat him.
> Mister Wellstone is a melting idealist. He's enjoying his
> perks of power and $133K salary.
And Rudy wants his old seat back because it sucked.
Russ Anderson
Drew Lanz
In article <3207244d...@news.winternet.com>, ej...@winternet.com (july) says:
>drew...@skypoint.com (Drew Lanz) wrote:
>>the actual wants of the voting public. For the first time ever,
>>I suspect that it would be a frighteningly liberal experience.
>Sadly, we may have a chance at a poor President. If Mr.Dole wins the
>next election, he will have no need to shift positions to reflect
>the actual wants of the voting public. For the first time ever,
>we may learn what Mr. Dole actually stands for, if anything.
>I suspect that it would be a frighteningly bad experience.
>Words can be turned around to fit any experience or perspective.
Yes, and you can even believe them, but it takes more than your
saying so to convince me.
I was not a big Dole supporter. I was not happy to see him taking
the lead among Repubs, because I didn't see him making a stand
and promoting conservative policy.
That changed on Monday. He finally did what our Repub candidate
needs to do to win this election and lead this country. His
economic policy is the Reagan plan revisited, and that I can
support.
I wager that Mr.Clinton will now offer tax breaks, perhaps smaller
than the Dole plan, while slamming the Dole plan for the tax cuts.
>I am trying my best to understand where Dole stands? What in Dole's
>character makes him better than Clinton?
Perhaps it's presence and Clinton's abscent character ?
>The one thing about Wellstone is that he tells you where he stands. He
>does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
>not avoid delivering the message.
Yes, that's what he did in the BWCA issue, right ? he saw two sides
split too-close-to-even for him to pick the "winner", and took no
stand whatsoever.
The $100 campaign contribution limitation, does he still stand for
that, or was that big check from the Rockefellers (SP?), not the
"little-fellers" convincing enough for him ?
Lonny Isenberg
In article <4u7br6$6...@blackice.winternet.com>,
John Pirner <jpi...@winternet.com> wrote:
>In <3207244d...@news.winternet.com>, ej...@winternet.com (july) writes:
>
>>does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
>>not avoid delivering the message.
>
>his position on the Oberstar/Grams Boundary Waters legislation so he
>legislation was going nowhere did he come out of the closet. He also
>abruptly changed his mind on welfare reform. And what about his
>insistance 5 years ago that he wouldn't accept PAC money or contributions
>perks of power and $133K salary.
Don't let facts stand in your way, John. Wellstone said right from the
begining that he didn't support either the Grams/Oberstar bill or the
Vento bill. He prefered to see if mediation could resolve some of the
disputes, it remains to be seen if this works, but a large majority of
Minnesotans, according to recent polls, feel this is worth trying.
5 years ago his position on PACS was that they needed to be from
Minnesota and I believe it still is his position, although he has tried
to reduce PAC influence in his campaign finance reform bills that keep
getting shot down by first the Dems and now the Republicans in Congress.
You're confusing the $100.00 limit with John Marty's campaign 2 years ago,
which by the way he did abide by.
William Gray
ej...@winternet.com (july) writes:
[snip]
>I am trying my best to understand where Dole stands? What in Dole's
>character makes him better than Clinton?
Dole may actually have a character to evaluate. Clinton does not.
Given the electorate's indifference to character OR issues, it is hard
to say whether Dole's possible character falls on the asset or liability
side of the ledger.
>The one thing about Wellstone is that he tells you where he stands. He
>does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
>not avoid delivering the message.
True. That was also part of the appeal of Reagan. You didn't
necessarily like him, but you pretty much knew what you were going to
get from him. With Clinton, you really never know what, exactly, he
will do because he lies so often and so easily (and because his media
cohorts _will_ not call him on it). But you can usually count on being
appalled at whatever he does.
Wellstone is more predictable. You not only know he's going to make you
sick, you can also anticipate pretty accurately how he's going to do it.
Regards,
Bill
--
gr...@visi.com, a former Winternet customer
Democrats want to saw an inch off my right leg. Republicans want to saw
an inch off my left leg. I don't want to get cut on--especially by quacks--
so I'm voting Libertarian. A pox on both their houses!
Lonny Isenberg
In article <4u81bt$1...@blackice.winternet.com>,
John Pirner <jpi...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>Like I said, he refused to state his position on the Oberstar/Grams
>Boundary Waters legislation until it was clear it wouldn't pass. Instead
>he chose to hide behind his federal mediator. Suprise, he finally decided
>he was against the legislation. A good decision but safely late
>to deflect criticism.
>
First, Oberstar's and Grams' bills were never going anywhere. The Republicans
were getting too beat up because of their extreme anti-environmental bills
over the past 18 months to open the most popular wilderness in the nation
to more development, especially in the middle of an election.
Second, did you ask Wellstone where he stood on the Grams bill? I talked
to him 2 days after it was introduced and he said he couldn't support it.
He wasn't "hiding" behind mediation, almost 2/3 of Minnesotans support
the effort. The only ones that don't it looks like are the knee-jerk,
anti-Wellstone people who would criticize him no matter where he went on
the issue.
Lonny Isenberg
In article <4u88bf$k...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>I was not a big Dole supporter. I was not happy to see him taking
>the lead among Repubs, because I didn't see him making a stand
>and promoting conservative policy.
>
>That changed on Monday. He finally did what our Repub candidate
>needs to do to win this election and lead this country. His
>economic policy is the Reagan plan revisited, and that I can
>support.
>
to explode by about the same magnitude as it did under Reagan. If
lightning should strike and Dole gets elected and gets his tax cut
through we should see a 16 trillion dollar debt at the end of his
presidency.
>
>Yes, that's what he did in the BWCA issue, right ? he saw two sides
>split too-close-to-even for him to pick the "winner", and took no
>stand whatsoever.
>
resolve some of the conflicts. Except for the few hundred members of
the Ely wise use group, conservationists with common sense, most of
the real criticism of mediation comes from people who could care less
about the BWCAW debate, but need some flimsy excuse to bash Wellstone.
Most of the rest of the State would like to see mediation run its course.
>The $100 campaign contribution limitation, does he still stand for
>that, or was that big check from the Rockefellers (SP?), not the
>"little-fellers" convincing enough for him ?
You must not have been around for the 1990 Senate campaign, Wellstone
never limited his contributions to $100.
Drew Lanz
In article <4u8dak$d...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
>In article <4u88bf$k...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
>Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>>I was not a big Dole supporter. I was not happy to see him taking
>>the lead among Repubs, because I didn't see him making a stand
>>and promoting conservative policy.
>>That changed on Monday. He finally did what our Repub candidate
>>needs to do to win this election and lead this country. His
>>economic policy is the Reagan plan revisited, and that I can
>>support.
>I agree that it is Reagan revisited. As such we can expect the deficit
>to explode by about the same magnitude as it did under Reagan. If
>lightning should strike and Dole gets elected and gets his tax cut
>through we should see a 16 trillion dollar debt at the end of his
>presidency.
Did the federal revenues increase or decrease under the Reagan reign ?
They increased, in fact, nearly doubled.
Imagine that: Lower tax rates caused increased total tax revenues !
It's not intuitively obvious how this works, so the Democrats can
easily lie to those who only understand the intuitively obvious.
The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate increases in
Federal spending over the same period.
This is not opinion. This is not subject to debate.
The raw numbers are available in the Statistical Abstract,
John Pirner
In <4u8765$r...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) writes:
>In article <4u7br6$6...@blackice.winternet.com>,
>John Pirner <jpi...@winternet.com> wrote:
>>In <3207244d...@news.winternet.com>, ej...@winternet.com (july) writes:
>>
>>>does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
>>>not avoid delivering the message.
>>
>>his position on the Oberstar/Grams Boundary Waters legislation so he
>>could stradle the fence in an election year. Only after it was clear the
>>legislation was going nowhere did he come out of the closet. He also
>>abruptly changed his mind on welfare reform. And what about his
>>insistance 5 years ago that he wouldn't accept PAC money or contributions
>>over $100? Mister Wellstone is a melting idealist. He's enjoying his
>>perks of power and $133K salary.
>
>Don't let facts stand in your way, John. Wellstone said right from the
>begining that he didn't support either the Grams/Oberstar bill or the
>Vento bill.
Huh? All right then roll out the facts and provide us the quote where
he stated that position before he got his mediator appointed. I heard
him repeatedly dodge taking a position on Jason Lewis's show when
asked whether he supported or opposed the legislation.
John
Russ Anderson
On 5 Aug 1996, Drew Lanz wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960805095223.1878A-100000@freenet>, Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> says:
>
> >Yea, I wish we had a Liberal president, too...
>
> Sadly, we may have a chance at this. If Mr.Clinton wins the
> next election, he will have no need to shift positions to reflect
> the actual wants of the voting public.
And what positions are those?
> For the first time ever,
> we may learn what Mr.Clinton actually stands for, if anything.
So far, all we know is that Clinton stands for anything that
will get him elected.
> I suspect that it would be a frighteningly liberal experience.
Why? When has Bill Clinton ever been "frighteningly liberal"?
Even in the '60's he was "me too, but not as much and not as
fast", just like he's been with the Republican Congress.
My guess is that Clinton won't do much of anything in his
second term, other than oppose and water down anything that
Congress (Republican or Democrat) wants to do. I don't
think he'd do much screw up Al Gore's 2000 campaign.
Ironicly, a good argument could be made that Bob Dole would
be more liberal than Bill Clinton. Clinton has consistently
moved right to look moderate, while Dole would be moving left
to look moderate.
Russ Anderson
John Pirner
In <4u883f$i...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) writes:
>In article <4u81bt$1...@blackice.winternet.com>,
He never stated his Boundary Waters position publicly. In fact he refused
to take a position saying it was best for Minnesota that he act as
a facilitator for Minnesotans of all persuasions to come together and
search for common ground. Blah-blah-blah.
John
Greg Abbott
Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>
> Ironicly, a good argument could be made that Bob Dole would
> be more liberal than Bill Clinton. Clinton has consistently
> moved right to look moderate, while Dole would be moving left
> to look moderate.
>
> Russ Anderson
In some respects this would be true, although in other it would be
disasterously wrong. While Dole might go a little left for old-standby
programs like food stamps, etc., he would probably go far right for
judicial appointments. Unlike Clinton, whose sense of political realism
results in moderate appointments like Breyer and Bader Ginsburg, Dole's
sense of political realism would result in hard-right appointments to
offset his moderate actions in other areas.
Dole would be a lot like Bush as president. Probably OK on foreign
policy, with absolutely no interest in domestic policy except as it
affects him politically. And even though Dole is not himself a far-right
winger, he'd be hard-pressed to veto some of the really ludricuous bills
sent to him by a Republican Congress. Would Dole veto the "partial-birth"
abortion act? No. Would Dole veto a budget that includes steep and unwise
cuts in social programs? No. Veto repeal of the assault weapon ban? No.
Severe restrictions on the EPA (via the "property rights" lobby)? No. The
list goes on and on.
Altogether a scary proposition.
Greg
----------------------------------------------------
Greg Abbott Attorney-at-Law Minneaspolis, MN
abb...@winternet.com; (612) 399-0272
"... while reason embraces a cold mediocrity, ourpassions hurry us with rapid violence ..." --Edward Gibbon
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew J. Frahm
Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
>On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, july wrote:
>> drew...@skypoint.com (Drew Lanz) wrote:
>>
>> Sadly, we may have a chance at a poor President. If Mr.Dole wins the
>> next election, he will have no need to shift positions to reflect
>> the actual wants of the voting public. For the first time ever,
>> we may learn what Mr. Dole actually stands for, if anything.
>> I suspect that it would be a frighteningly bad experience.
>I think that Bob Dole showed in his 35 year in Washington that
>he is actually a sensible moderate person. He's never been
>a "revolutionary", he's a consensus builder.
>What's unfortunate is the way that he's willing to change his
>positions for each political campaign. He's never believed in
>Voodoo economics and still doesn't.
"Voodoo economics"?
It's sad that he's willing
>to say anything to get elected, instead of standing up for what
>he believes. The truth is that his economic policies will be
>closer to George Bush than Ronald Reagan.
That will be his downfall, then. (economic policies closer to
Bush[/Clinton])
--
Matthew J. Frahm________________________mailto:mfr...@visi.com
Stillwater, Minnesota http://www.visi.com/~mfrahm/
"Bureaucracy, credentialing, taxation, litigation, and regulation. These
are the five great enemies that killed the entrepreneurial spirit."--N.G.
Matthew J. Frahm
l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) writes:
>In article <4u88bf$k...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
>Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>>
>>I was not a big Dole supporter. I was not happy to see him taking
>>the lead among Repubs, because I didn't see him making a stand
>>and promoting conservative policy.
>>
>>That changed on Monday. He finally did what our Repub candidate
>>needs to do to win this election and lead this country. His
>>economic policy is the Reagan plan revisited, and that I can
>>support.
>>
>I agree that it is Reagan revisited. As such we can expect the deficit
>to explode by about the same magnitude as it did under Reagan.
You mean Congress isn't going to make the recommended reductions in the
rate of increase again? Yep... that is very possible, even with a
Republican Congress.
If
>lightning should strike and Dole gets elected and gets his tax cut
>through we should see a 16 trillion dollar debt at the end of his
>presidency.
How can you walk slanted so far to the left from vertical? :) Can you
say "weasel out of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings"? I thought you could. That's
only part of it. Yep, some of it is Reagan's fault too... but guess who
else gets blame?
Lonny Isenberg
In article <4u8j98$k...@blackice.winternet.com>,
John Pirner <jpi...@winternet.com> wrote:
>In <4u8765$r...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) writes:
>>In article <4u7br6$6...@blackice.winternet.com>,
>>John Pirner <jpi...@winternet.com> wrote:
>>>In <3207244d...@news.winternet.com>, ej...@winternet.com (july) writes:
>>>
>>>>The one thing about Wellstone is that he tells you where he stands. He
>>>>does that with people he disagrees with and people he agrees. He does
>>>>not avoid delivering the message.
>>>
>>>I used to agree with that statement until this year. He refused to state
>>>his position on the Oberstar/Grams Boundary Waters legislation so he
>>>could stradle the fence in an election year. Only after it was clear the
>>>legislation was going nowhere did he come out of the closet. He also
>>>abruptly changed his mind on welfare reform. And what about his
>>>insistance 5 years ago that he wouldn't accept PAC money or contributions
>>>over $100? Mister Wellstone is a melting idealist. He's enjoying his
>>>perks of power and $133K salary.
>>
>>Don't let facts stand in your way, John. Wellstone said right from the
>>begining that he didn't support either the Grams/Oberstar bill or the
>>Vento bill.
>
>Huh? All right then roll out the facts and provide us the quote where
>he stated that position before he got his mediator appointed. I heard
>him repeatedly dodge taking a position on Jason Lewis's show when
>asked whether he supported or opposed the legislation.
I don't depend on a right-wing talk radio host to get my information,
so I can't comment on Lewis's show, but I heard Wellstone state in a
number of other forums, including asking him directly, that he wasn't
supporting either Grams' bill or Vento's bill. It's kind of a novel idea
that Wellstone has to explore other solutions in resolving conflicts,
such as getting the opposing sides talking through mediators. I'm sure
you would prefer a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other, because it's
much easier to criticize him then. As far as facts go, you didn't
mention anything about your bogus claim that Wellstone said he wouldn't
accept contributions over $100 5 years ago. Since Wellstone never had
such a limit during the 1990 campaign, maybe you picked it up on one
of the right-wing talk radio shows where facts really don't matter,
do they?
Lonny Isenberg
In article <4u8g5h$m...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>In article <4u8dak$d...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
>
>>lightning should strike and Dole gets elected and gets his tax cut
>>through we should see a 16 trillion dollar debt at the end of his
>>presidency.
>
>
>They increased, in fact, nearly doubled.
>
>Imagine that: Lower tax rates caused increased total tax revenues !
>It's not intuitively obvious how this works, so the Democrats can
>easily lie to those who only understand the intuitively obvious.
>
>The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate increases in
>Federal spending over the same period.
>
reduced taxes significantly for the wealthy, reduced social spending,
which was a small part of the total budget, and then gave us a massive
increase in military spending, which ballooned the deficit and the debt.
>This is not opinion. This is not subject to debate.
>The raw numbers are available in the Statistical Abstract,
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this wasn't subject to debate, I
must have misplaced my rule book.
Russ Anderson
On 6 Aug 1996, Drew Lanz wrote:
> In article <4u8dak$d...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
> >In article <4u88bf$k...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
> >Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> >>I was not a big Dole supporter. I was not happy to see him taking
> >>the lead among Repubs, because I didn't see him making a stand
> >>and promoting conservative policy.
>
> >>That changed on Monday. He finally did what our Repub candidate
> >>needs to do to win this election and lead this country. His
> >>economic policy is the Reagan plan revisited, and that I can
> >>support.
>
> >I agree that it is Reagan revisited. As such we can expect the deficit
> >to explode by about the same magnitude as it did under Reagan. If
> >lightning should strike and Dole gets elected and gets his tax cut
> >through we should see a 16 trillion dollar debt at the end of his
> >presidency.
>
> Did the federal revenues increase or decrease under the Reagan reign ?
There are only two years since WWII that total Federal revenues
were lower than the previous year: 1971 and 1983. In both of those
years tax rates were cut. Note also that most of the total revenue
increase was in Social Security revenues, where rates were increased,
not in income tax revenues, where rate were lowered.
> They increased, in fact, nearly doubled.
If total increase in revenues is the measure, then you have to conclude
that tax increases increase tax revenue, because EVERY year that
there has been a tax increase total tax revenues have increased (since
WWII). Federal revenues increased faster in the 1970's than the 1980's.
> Imagine that: Lower tax rates caused increased total tax revenues !
In the long run that is true (according to Keynsian economic
theory). In the short run, say the first year, that is not
necessarily true.
> It's not intuitively obvious how this works, so the Democrats can
> easily lie to those who only understand the intuitively obvious.
I look at the economic facts, not the political rhetoric of either
party.
> The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate increases in
> Federal spending over the same period.
Spending increased faster than Revenues. That is a fact.
It is also a fact that Reagan never submitted a budget with
low enough spending to match revenues.
> This is not opinion. This is not subject to debate.
> The raw numbers are available in the Statistical Abstract,
Russ Anderson
Russ Anderson
On 7 Aug 1996, Matthew J. Frahm wrote:
> Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
> >On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, july wrote:
> >> drew...@skypoint.com (Drew Lanz) wrote:
> >>
> >> Sadly, we may have a chance at a poor President. If Mr.Dole wins the
> >> next election, he will have no need to shift positions to reflect
> >> the actual wants of the voting public. For the first time ever,
> >> we may learn what Mr. Dole actually stands for, if anything.
> >> I suspect that it would be a frighteningly bad experience.
>
> >I think that Bob Dole showed in his 35 year in Washington that
> >he is actually a sensible moderate person. He's never been
> >a "revolutionary", he's a consensus builder.
>
> >What's unfortunate is the way that he's willing to change his
> >positions for each political campaign. He's never believed in
> >Voodoo economics and still doesn't.
>
> "Voodoo economics"?
That is the George Bush term for it.
> It's sad that he's willing
> >to say anything to get elected, instead of standing up for what
> >he believes. The truth is that his economic policies will be
> >closer to George Bush than Ronald Reagan.
>
> That will be his downfall, then. (economic policies closer to
> Bush[/Clinton])
Yup. For four years it would be the downfall of the country
(dealing with a repeat of the Bush stagnation - the slowest rate
of economic growth of any presidential term since Herbert Hoover),
but in the long term it would be the downfall of the Republicans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross domestic product (In constant 1992 dollars)
year(1Q) start end ave % GDP growth (compound)
1947-53a 1239.5 1687.3 5.27% Truman
1953-61 1687.3 1977.4 2.00% Eisenhower
1961-69 2245.6 3376.9 5.23% Kennedy/Johnson
1969-77 3376.9 4181.8 2.71% Nixon/Ford
1977-81 4181.8 4741.3 3.19% Carter
1981-89 4741.3 6008.7 3.01% Reagan
1989-93 6008.7 6327.0 1.30% Bush
1993-95b 6327.0 6763.2 2.70% Clinton
a (my stats only go back to 1947)
b (thru 3Q-95)
source: U.S. Commerce Dept
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
sources are available at the U of Michigan econ server:
gopher://una.hh.lib.umich.edu/11/ebb/indicators/BCIH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Anderson
Drew Lanz
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960807121551.23205A-100000@freenet>, Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> says:
>
>
>On 6 Aug 1996, Drew Lanz wrote:
>> In article <4u8dak$d...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
>> >In article <4u88bf$k...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
>> >Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>> Did the federal revenues increase or decrease under the Reagan reign ?
>There are only two years since WWII that total Federal revenues
>were lower than the previous year: 1971 and 1983. In both of those
>years tax rates were cut. Note also that most of the total revenue
>increase was in Social Security revenues, where rates were increased,
>not in income tax revenues, where rate were lowered.
I don't care what happened in any one year, but throughout the policy.
I'm willing to accept one lean year in exchange for seven fat ones.
>> They increased, in fact, nearly doubled.
>If total increase in revenues is the measure, then you have to conclude
>that tax increases increase tax revenue, because EVERY year that
>there has been a tax increase total tax revenues have increased (since
>WWII). Federal revenues increased faster in the 1970's than the 1980's.
>> Imagine that: Lower tax rates caused increased total tax revenues !
>In the long run that is true (according to Keynsian economic
>theory).
No, according to the established case in the Statistical Abstract.
>In the short run, say the first year, that is not
>necessarily true.
Should economic policy be based on what feels good right now ?
>> It's not intuitively obvious how this works, so the Democrats can
>> easily lie to those who only understand the intuitively obvious.
>I look at the economic facts, not the political rhetoric of either
>party.
OK, I will. Throughout the Reagan years, the tax rate was decreased
and the federal revenues nearly doubled. Tax rate cuts can cause
increases in total revenue. That's not opinion nor rhetoric.
>> The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate increases in
>> Federal spending over the same period.
>Spending increased faster than Revenues. That is a fact.
They also increased at a rate faster than any previous period
in history, aside from wars.
>It is also a fact that Reagan never submitted a budget with
>low enough spending to match revenues.
Funny, each budget was larger than the previous one. Each had
increases, once Congress was through with them.
Decreasing tax rates caused increased total revenue. It just wasn't
enough for the insatiable spending wants of the congress.
If spending increases per-capita were held to the inflation rate,
while tax rate decreases caused increases in total revenue ...
Kiss the deficit goodby.
During the Reagan years, the minority party in Congress was not
allowed have bills submitted, amended, and voted. The House and
Senate leadership held a tight reign, as permitted by their own
rules. The rules were re-written in 94.
>> This is not opinion. This is not subject to debate.
>> The raw numbers are available in the Statistical Abstract,
Drew Lanz
In article <4u9vhq$q...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
>In article <4u8g5h$m...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
>Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>>In article <4u8dak$d...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
>>>to explode by about the same magnitude as it did under Reagan. If
>>>lightning should strike and Dole gets elected and gets his tax cut
>>>through we should see a 16 trillion dollar debt at the end of his
>>>presidency.
>>Did the federal revenues increase or decrease under the Reagan reign ?
>>They increased, in fact, nearly doubled.
>>Imagine that: Lower tax rates caused increased total tax revenues !
>>It's not intuitively obvious how this works, so the Democrats can
>>easily lie to those who only understand the intuitively obvious.
>>The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate increases in
>>Federal spending over the same period.
>Exactly, a huge increase in "defense" spending to be more exact. Reagan
>reduced taxes significantly for the wealthy, reduced social spending,
>which was a small part of the total budget, and then gave us a massive
>increase in military spending, which ballooned the deficit and the debt.
>>This is not opinion. This is not subject to debate.
>>The raw numbers are available in the Statistical Abstract,
>I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this wasn't subject to debate, I
>must have misplaced my rule book.
As I said "The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate
increases in Federal spending over the same period."
Well, you didn't debate the facts which I stated, so I guess I
was right.
Great, it seems that you now accept that decreasing tax rates will
increses federal revenues. At least, you don't seem to dispute it.
Now, the evil empire has been stratigically defeated, and there is no
need for defense increases . Great.
(unless you wish to see more failed "nation building" exercises)
Therefore, we decrease tax rates, see increases in federal revinue,
hold spending increases down to the inflation rate ...
and Kiss the deficit goodby.
It sounds like you see ... as I do .. that the tax cut part of
the Reagan plan is the way to go.
John Pirner
I'm sorry. I should know better. Paul Wellstone being interviewed on
the radio, giving his own responses, is not a forum! It's vicious hate
mongering! Why Jason Lewis probably never had Paul on the show! He
probably synthesized his voice to make Wellstone sound stupid, which he
did. You have not given a specific time, place, or date as to when
Wellstone publicly sided against the Oberstar/Grams legislation. We could
at least refer to Wellstone's own verbal quotes from Lewis's show. I'm
sorry if you don't like his show but it was Wellstone talking.
Does it make a difference where he states his opinon as long as
it is for the PUBLIC record? I think not.
Your own personal experiences with him hardly serve as proof of him
stating a public position.
I ask again. Please provide proof that he has always taken a public
position against the Oberstar/Grams Boundary Waters bill.
>It's kind of a novel idea
>that Wellstone has to explore other solutions in resolving conflicts,
>such as getting the opposing sides talking through mediators. I'm sure
>you would prefer a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other, because it's
>much easier to criticize him then.
You kind of missed the point of my original post which isn't all to
surprising since you seem intent on being a Wellstonian apologist
regardless of the issue. I'm happy that Wellstone sided against the
legislation. I suspected that he opposed it and was frustrated that he
hid in Mother Governments closet by calling in a mediator to
make up his mind for him. That's knee jerk? I think you are knee
jerking to any hint of criticism of your hero. It's a politicians job
to have an opinion and lead. He is elected and paid handsomely for
that responsibility. In this election year he's decided to hide.
As far as facts go, you didn't
>mention anything about your bogus claim that Wellstone said he wouldn't
>accept contributions over $100 5 years ago. Since Wellstone never had
>such a limit during the 1990 campaign, maybe you picked it up on one
>of the right-wing talk radio shows where facts really don't matter,
>do they?
Why are you baiting me? If you are right about the $100, and I don't
think that you are, then why are you ignoring his scuttled pledge not to
accept PAC money? I chose not to pursue the $100 because I cannot
provide proof that he made that pledge. You however did not deny
that Wellstone broke his promise not to accept PAC money so I pursued
an issue we both agreed on.
You are pathetically ignoring the meat of the argument: that Wellstone
is capable of deceit and breaking promises when it suits his claim to
power. He's been thoroughly undistinguished as a Senator and the only
claim he had, being righteously moral, is now floating in a scum pond.
Wellstone may be a close personal friend of yours and you may feel it's
your duty to defend what's left of his honor him but he's a politician
who can spin dry a lie with the best of them and never blush.
John
John Pirner
In <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960807140212.23205D-100000@freenet>, Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
>
>On 6 Aug 1996, John Pirner wrote:
>> >On 6 Aug 1996, John Pirner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> abruptly changed his mind on welfare reform.
>> >
>>
>> before Congress.
>
>but not the one that passed.
>
>> When it came time to vote he suddenly decided
>> he was against it.
A little more than a week before Congress voted on the bill Minnesota
Public Radio, 91.1 FM, reported that Wellstone was supporting the bill
although he had some concerns as it affected children.
>Welstone argued against the GOP bill and urged Clinton to veto it.
No, for a time he supported it. He changed his mind right before the vote.
He is now urging Clinton to veto it. It's called election year flip-flop.
>
>Have you been listening to talk radio again?
Yeah, hate mongering MPR.
John
Russ Anderson
On 6 Aug 1996, John Pirner wrote:
> In <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960806120711.1348A-100000@freenet>, Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
> >On 6 Aug 1996, John Pirner wrote:
> >>
> >> He also
> >> abruptly changed his mind on welfare reform.
> >
> >What are you talking about?
>
> Before the vote he said he could support the legislation that was
> before Congress.
Which legislation? Welstone has supported other welfare reform bills,
but not the one that passed.
> When it came time to vote he suddenly decided
> he was against it.
Welstone argued against the GOP bill and urged Clinton to veto it.
Have you been listening to talk radio again?
Russ Anderson
Matthew J. Frahm
l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) writes:
>In article <4u8g5h$m...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
>Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>>In article <4u8dak$d...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
>>
>>>I agree that it is Reagan revisited. As such we can expect the deficit
>>>to explode by about the same magnitude as it did under Reagan. If
>>>lightning should strike and Dole gets elected and gets his tax cut
>>>through we should see a 16 trillion dollar debt at the end of his
>>>presidency.
>>
>>Did the federal revenues increase or decrease under the Reagan reign ?
>>
>>They increased, in fact, nearly doubled.
>>
>>Imagine that: Lower tax rates caused increased total tax revenues !
>>It's not intuitively obvious how this works, so the Democrats can
>>easily lie to those who only understand the intuitively obvious.
>>
>>The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate increases in
>>Federal spending over the same period.
>>
>Exactly, a huge increase in "defense" spending to be more exact. Reagan
>reduced taxes significantly for the wealthy, reduced social spending,
>which was a small part of the total budget, and then gave us a massive
>increase in military spending, which ballooned the deficit and the debt.
Citations please.
>>This is not opinion. This is not subject to debate.
>>The raw numbers are available in the Statistical Abstract,
>I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this wasn't subject to debate, I
>must have misplaced my rule book.
--
Drew Lanz
One Wellstone campaign snippet:
"... not for the Rockefellers(sp?) but for the littlefellers ...."
Doesn't quite jive with the videotape of Wellstone arriving at the
Rockefeller(sp?) estate in New York.
John Pirner
In <4ubgm5$q...@stratus.skypoint.net>, drew...@skypoint.com (Drew Lanz) writes:
>One Wellstone campaign snippet:
>
>"... not for the Rockefellers(sp?) but for the littlefellers ...."
>
>Doesn't quite jive with the videotape of Wellstone arriving at the
>Rockefeller(sp?) estate in New York.
Or how about the Hollywood types he's been collecting money from?
I can imagine Wellstone exchanging compassionate hugs and globaly
responsible ideas with deep thinking policy wonks like Barbara Streisand,
Woody Harelson, and Alan Alda (sp?). Just so long as the check is in his
campaign treasurers brief case.
John
Lonny Isenberg
In article <4ub2me$l...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>Funny, each budget was larger than the previous one. Each had
>increases, once Congress was through with them.
>
than Reagan's proposed budgets. The difference was usually considerably less
defense spending in the House budgets.
>Decreasing tax rates caused increased total revenue. It just wasn't
>enough for the insatiable spending wants of the congress.
>
>If spending increases per-capita were held to the inflation rate,
>while tax rate decreases caused increases in total revenue ...
>Kiss the deficit goodby.
>
>During the Reagan years, the minority party in Congress was not
>allowed have bills submitted, amended, and voted. The House and
>Senate leadership held a tight reign, as permitted by their own
>rules. The rules were re-written in 94.
>
Which "minority" party? The Republicans controlled both the White House
and Senate from 1981 through 1986.
Russ Anderson
On 7 Aug 1996, Drew Lanz wrote:
>
> During the Reagan years, the minority party in Congress was not
> allowed have bills submitted, amended, and voted. The House and
> Senate leadership held a tight reign, as permitted by their own
> rules. The rules were re-written in 94.
For the first 6 year of the Reagan Administration, Bob Dole was
the Senate Majority leader. I guess your point is that Democrats
in the Senate could not "have bills submitted, amended, and voted".
Those 6 years saw the large increase in the deficit. There was
no way to get a spending bill through the Senate without Bob
Dole's support.
Russ Anderson
Russ Anderson
On 7 Aug 1996, Drew Lanz wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960807121551.23205A-100000@freenet>, Russ Anderson <and...@freenet.msp.mn.us> says:
> >On 6 Aug 1996, Drew Lanz wrote:
> >> In article <4u8dak$d...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
> >> >In article <4u88bf$k...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
> >> >Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> >> Did the federal revenues increase or decrease under the Reagan reign ?
>
> >There are only two years since WWII that total Federal revenues
> >were lower than the previous year: 1971 and 1983. In both of those
> >years tax rates were cut. Note also that most of the total revenue
> >increase was in Social Security revenues, where rates were increased,
> >not in income tax revenues, where rate were lowered.
>
> I don't care what happened in any one year, but throughout the policy.
> I'm willing to accept one lean year in exchange for seven fat ones.
My point was that your question "Did the federal revenues increase or
decrease under the Reagan reign ?" is meaningless in determining whether
tax cuts result in higher revenue because simply using federal revenues
as a measure also leads to the conclusion that higher taxes lead to
increased revenue because federal revenues were higher at the end of
the 1970's than at the start.
You did not comment on Social Security tax revenues (with an increased
tax rate) accounting for more of the tax revenues increase than
income tax revenue (with a lowered tax rate).
> >> They increased, in fact, nearly doubled.
> >If total increase in revenues is the measure, then you have to conclude
> >that tax increases increase tax revenue, because EVERY year that
> >there has been a tax increase total tax revenues have increased (since
> >WWII). Federal revenues increased faster in the 1970's than the 1980's.
>
> >> Imagine that: Lower tax rates caused increased total tax revenues !
> >In the long run that is true (according to Keynsian economic
> >theory).
> No, according to the established case in the Statistical Abstract.
What does your "No" refer to?
> >In the short run, say the first year, that is not
> >necessarily true.
> Should economic policy be based on what feels good right now ?
Yuh? The issue is whether lower tax rates result in higher tax
revenues.
> >> It's not intuitively obvious how this works, so the Democrats can
> >> easily lie to those who only understand the intuitively obvious.
> >I look at the economic facts, not the political rhetoric of either
> >party.
>
> OK, I will. Throughout the Reagan years, the tax rate was decreased
> and the federal revenues nearly doubled. Tax rate cuts can cause
> increases in total revenue. That's not opinion nor rhetoric.
Question: Were OVERALL tax rates lower in 1989 than 1980? Some
tax rates were reduced (federal income taxes, capital gains tax)
but many others were increased (Social Security, many State and
local taxes, tax "loopholes" eliminated). Was the revenue increase
due to the taxes that were lowered or raised? Social Security
tax revenue accounted for more of the total revenue increase than
federal income taxes.
Clinton cut taxes on the working poor (while raising taxes on
the wealthy) and federal revenues increased. Does that prove anything
without looking at tax revenues from the different groups. Note
that tax revenue from the wealthy have increased during Clinton's
term, because the wealthy are getting richer, dispite the 1993 tax
rate increase.
My point is not that raising taxes on the wealthy makes them richer,
just that simplistic analysis like you are suggesting can "prove"
all sorts of things.
> >> The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate increases in
> >> Federal spending over the same period.
>
> >Spending increased faster than Revenues. That is a fact.
> They also increased at a rate faster than any previous period
> in history, aside from wars.
>
> >It is also a fact that Reagan never submitted a budget with
> >low enough spending to match revenues.
>
> Funny, each budget was larger than the previous one. Each had
> increases, once Congress was through with them.
>
> Decreasing tax rates caused increased total revenue. It just wasn't
> enough for the insatiable spending wants of the congress.
Do you mean Senate Majority leader Dole? No budget could get through
the Senate for Reagan's first 6 years without Dole's support.
> If spending increases per-capita were held to the inflation rate,
> while tax rate decreases caused increases in total revenue ...
> Kiss the deficit goodby.
Yup. David Stockman points that out in his book and that Reagan
and the Republicans did not want to hold down spending.
Russ Anderson
Russ Anderson
On 7 Aug 1996, Matthew J. Frahm wrote:
> l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) writes:
> >In article <4u8g5h$m...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
> >Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> >>In article <4u8dak$d...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
> >>
> >>>I agree that it is Reagan revisited. As such we can expect the deficit
> >>>to explode by about the same magnitude as it did under Reagan. If
> >>>lightning should strike and Dole gets elected and gets his tax cut
> >>>through we should see a 16 trillion dollar debt at the end of his
> >>>presidency.
> >>
> >>Did the federal revenues increase or decrease under the Reagan reign ?
> >>
> >>They increased, in fact, nearly doubled.
> >>
> >>Imagine that: Lower tax rates caused increased total tax revenues !
> >>It's not intuitively obvious how this works, so the Democrats can
> >>easily lie to those who only understand the intuitively obvious.
> >>
> >>The deficit increase was caused by disproportionate increases in
> >>Federal spending over the same period.
> >>
> >Exactly, a huge increase in "defense" spending to be more exact. Reagan
> >reduced taxes significantly for the wealthy, reduced social spending,
> >which was a small part of the total budget, and then gave us a massive
> >increase in military spending, which ballooned the deficit and the debt.
>
> Citations please.
Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, details exactly
why Reaganomics resulted in ballooning deficit and debt in
his book, "The Triumph of Politics". It should be available
at your local public library.
Russ Anderson
Drew Lanz
In article <4ucn00$p...@walter.cray.com>, l...@cray.com (Lonny Isenberg) says:
>In article <4ub2me$l...@stratus.skypoint.net>,
>Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>>Funny, each budget was larger than the previous one. Each had
>>increases, once Congress was through with them.
>The budgets proposed by the House during Reagan's terms were usually less
>than Reagan's proposed budgets. The difference was usually considerably less
>defense spending in the House budgets.
The "evil empire" was defeated, problem solved.
Great, keep spending increases limited to inflation.
Increase Federal revenues by reducing tax rates.
There you have it, "Reagan Plus."
>Which "minority" party? The Republicans controlled both the White House
>and Senate from 1981 through 1986.
The supermajority required to change the rules occurred in 94.
Did you like the old rules ?