> > First thanks about the numbers. Right off I see Gore was wrong again
> because
> > the 1998 numbers are the same as the 1966 numbers which would have been
> the
> > Johnson, not the Kennedy, administration. (hehe)
>
> I know you're teasing a bit here but (in light of the fact that Gore is
> constantly being accused of inaccuracies and of exaggerating) I want to
> point
> out that Gore said the _number of Gov. employees_ was at its lowest point
> since JFK, not the employee per citizen ratio (stats Dan posted). I did
> see
> at least one post debate analysis that said his numbers were accurate.
I went to the source and the _number of government employees_ is the
same as 1966. I wasn't talking about the ratio. The government is not as
small as 1965, or 64 or 63 and so on. I meant what I said.
> All the hype about gov. being too large and too intrusive seems to me to
> be
> just that: hype. Reagan/Bush made _no_ concerted effort to eliminate the
> departments you mention or reduce gov. in any significant way when they
> had
> the chance. What is W's plan? I haven't heard anything substantive. The
> conclusion has to be that the Republicans are all talk, no action.
I'm not behind Bush about this. I said I want a candidate who would
make wholesale reductions. When Gore makes the government more efficient he
thinks that all the services are still necessary. I don't. I'm also not for
the libertarian view. It doesn't matter what I'm for, I just don't want Gore
to be put on a pedestal as the next coming of Aristotle, or Bush to be cast
as Shakes the Clown. (A great movie)
> > The last part was what I was worried about. I was more making the point
> that
> > the first poster was charging that Clinton's cabinet did and Gore's
> cabinet
> > would 'look like America' while for Bush it would be full of old white
> men,
> > maybe 'looking for America'. Yes I can see that the cabinet should have
> 50%
> > women and 11% black and all the rest, but I can't help it if there
> aren't,
> > yet, experienced people for the job who fit the profiles that others
> would
> > like.
> >
>
> But there are enough experienced people in those sub-groups and Clinton
> has
> proved that. Not only has he proved it, he's forced the Republicans to at
> least try to look like they are doing the same thing. But to any but the
> most
> casual observer, the minorities that they proudly parade around are little
> but
> window dressing. And even the window dressing has substantial differences
> of
> opinion with mainstream Republicans. Colin Powell, for instance, is pro
> life
> and pro affirmative action.
And I've said before that Powell hasn't formally aligned himself
with Republicans. I'm just pointing out the attacks of that first post were
groundless. If you don't believe they are fine. If you think I'm looking
through rose colored glasses fine. Heh, I was going to insert the first post
when I realized you made it Doug. Oh well.
> > I know there are inequities all around. In fact I would have a challenge
> to
> > Clinton's 'looks like America' cabinet. How many were single parents?
> How
> > many were the 'working poor'? How many had no health insurance? How many
> > were fearful that they could lose their job and all benefits that day?
>
> Now you're being disingenuous. Should we ask how many are crack cocaine
> addicts? How many are car thieves? Of course not. We ask that
> successful
> people from all walks of life fill important government jobs. We ask for
> diversity not for it's own sake but because we need our government to
> understand problems from every perspective in order to arrive at an
> equitable
> and sustainable solutions. And because people should be able to look at
> their
> government and say with pride that they are deservedly included.
Then why ask a President if he knows what the price of a quart of
milk is? I think it's important. I read today of an advocacy group for
single people. 40% of the voters are in the widowed, divorced, or never
married group but every commercial and pamphlet is for 'families' and 'child
tax credits' and so on. Heck single people are discriminated against in the
workforce. What I said stands. If the government is supposed to _feel our
pain_ then they should face the same issues. Your basing your arguments
solely on the race issue, but what about all the other problems. Just
because the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is black doesn't mean
he lived in the projects, or was homeless. Or is that the only way you see
it?
> We don't need bigger government and we don't need smaller government, we
> need
> _better_ government, regardless of size.
>
> Doug
