Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I have definitely decided upon one who I will not vote for in November!
    
    It scares me to think that there is a legitimate chance that Bush
    will get elected in November.  My view on the abortion issue is
    much the same as yours.  Not only that, but this guy believes in
    the death penalty.
    
    He will carry the torch that Ronnie has carried for the last eight
    years, and that worries me.  Defense spending will continue to increase
    while social areas will continue to be overlooked.  The budget for
    school loans has continued to be cut- and isn't education one of
    the most important factors in the success of our youth?  Social
    programs for the young, the poor, and the old have been cut to the
    bone.  Everyone must be saying "this woman is a liberal".  What
    is so wrong with the word liberal?  Anything to an extreme is in
    a sense bad- and I am not suggesting an extreme.  The republicans
    major weapon in Dukakis-smashing is calling him a liberal. 
    
    It is my opinion that the republican administration is pushing for
    Bush so much, because they don't want anyone else to get in office
    to uncover all the ratholes that exist in the present administration.
    Bush will simply carry on Ronnie's torch.
    
    Now I do have some reservations about Dukakis- and many could debate
    on and on, but I do know that this vote will NOT go to Bush.
    
    I would like to note that this is my opinion and is not expressed
    to insult anyone, or their political views.
    
    Terri

    
    Dukakis.  A little less enthusiastically after last night's debate,
    yet still a vote for Dukakis.
    
    - Beckie

    
    for myself the answer is not real easy.
    
    
    
    I've always been of the opinion that the 2 elected branches of
    government need to have both major paries represented. What I mean
    by this is if the administrative branch is Republican, then the
    congressional branch must be Democratic, and vice versa.  I rationalize
    that BOTH parties have positive contributions to society.  During
    election time, the negative of each is highlighted by the other.
    
    I do not believe that either "party philosophy" should have
    _un-checked_power, or you (we) begin to experience the negative
    as well as the positive infuences.  I guess what I'm trying to say
    {maybe not too well ;)} is that the best of compromises are reached
    and the "check and balance" of power is more available with this
    approach.
    
    BUT. . . . ,
    
     with a Democratic majority in congress now . . I'm still having
    ALOT of trouble aligning with the mindset of Bush/Quayle.
    
     
     I don't want to experience the TAXES that I understand have gotten
    extreme in Mass. , but I certainly DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT removing
    my right of choice when it comes to giving birth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    [just some southern rambling . . . ]
    
    Robin
    

    Definitely not Bush/Quayle.  Imagine if something should happen
    to Bush if he were elected president.  Do you really want Dan Quayle
    in charge of this country?  I know I don't.
    
    I agree with .2  - What is so wrong with the word liberal??  I think
    Dukakis is the choice when it gets down to "women's issues"
    

    BOth candidates are big yawns, but the party platforms are *quite*
    clear, as is the performance of the party in power for the last
    8 years. Human rights and "women's" issues notwithstanding, the
    future of this country has been turned over to foreign investment
    to a degree that scares the * out of me. 
    
    It's gotta be Democrats for me.
    
    On the other hand, when the Sh*t finally hits the fan from the last
    8 years, maybe we should vote Bush in, and let him take the fall
    rather than have people blame it on the Dems!
    

    re: 6  Yes, SOMETIMES a woman has a choice of using birth control.
           But what if that birth control fails for some reason - then
           what?
           
           I did not intend for this to be a discussion on abortion
           so, please, let's not get down that rathole.  This note
           is to discuss how women will vote or if they even will.
    
           Sue
    

    Pardon my stupidity, but isn't paying for one's house and
    supporting one's family a woman's issue? 
    
    --bonnie

    re:  .6
    
    I do not believe in abortion as "birth control", however,
    we all know that certain birthcontrol methods are NOT 100%
    effective. Even vasectomy has a slight risk. If I have 
    religiously taken birth control but still get pregnant,
    (maybe I would be in the ".05%") I would be VERY thankful
    that abortion was at least my last option. At least abortion
    would be there if I did happen to get pregnant.
    
    pat
    

    Please do not continute the abortion discussion in this note
    there are two other active notes on abortion.
    
    Bonnie J
    comoderator

    I agree that the choice is not that great, but out of the two, it's
    Dukakis for me.  I look at it as the lesser of two evils!!  

    re .3
    
    Marge- I respect your opinion, and your concern for economic issues
    such as mortgage interest rates.  
    
    I'm a little curious though- with the deficit that the U.S. has,
    the problems in the social security system, the amount of foreign
    trade that the U.S. does, and the fact that over half of the budget
    is spent on defense spending- putting outrageous amounts of money
    into rebuilding the same stuff only bigger, perhaps the interest
    rates will be skyrocketing no matter what party is in office.
    
    The U.S. is in a huge "rathole" where the budget is concerned. 
    Our economy is dangerously teetering on the brink, and the recent
    stock market crash has not been heeded enough by our politicians.
    
    Perhaps the real question here is- can we continue on as we have
    for the last 8 years (Bush being merely a continuation of Reagan's
    policies), or can we try to change things?  ( I don't know if I
    am necessarily suggesting that Dukakis has all the answers, but
    I suppose anything other than the path we are currently taking is
    some serious food for thought).
                     
    Terri
    

    I'm going to vote for Dukakis.  I have no illusions that he's going
    to solve all the country's problems if he's elected, but at least
    I agree with his views more than I do those of Bush.  Bush is far
    too conservative (and hawkish) for me.
    
    Lorna
    
   

    I'm not voting FOR Dukakis as much as I'm voting AGAINST Bush, so
    the Duke has another one.
    
    Barb

    I'm definitely voting against Dukakis, which means that I'm voting
    for George Bush. I like the fact that Bush is pro-life, and
    I'm afraid that I still have bitter memories of my 15.5% mortgage
    during the Carter administration (I wasn't wild about the run-away
    inflation of that era, either). If Dukakis really has a plan to pay
    for all his proposed programs without a tax increase, I'd like
    to hear it, but I suspect that his method would be to "enhance
    revenue" by the creating of new taxes, which explains why he seems
    to always duck the question. 
    
    As for dealing with women's issues, I have this vague recollection
    that when the governor threw his hat in the ring, he wanted to take a
    leave of absence and appoint a special consultant (Hi Challenger(?),
    the Harvard professor) to run the state rather than turn things
    over to Evelyn Murphy. It kind of galls me that we have a part time
    governor collecting full time salary here. It is popular to bash
    Reagan for not doing anything for women, but he did appoint the
    first woman to the Supreme Court, and he appointed a woman to his cabinet.
    These women are NOT token figureheads the way Lt. Gov. Murphy is
    forced to act; they are functioning, contributing appointments.
    I should add, I think that Murphy could do a darn good job if she
    were *allowed* to. Come to think of it, I haven't heard too much
    about about Susan Estridge since Mr. Sasso came back to run Mr.
    Dukakis's campaign.
    
    But over all I think the thing that I dislike the most about Dukakis
    is his arrogant, autocratic  "I don't care what you people want, I know
    what is best for you" attitude. So much for democracy. Luckily, the
    voters repealed the seat belt law, and and People for Limited Taxation
    forced his hand in removing the surtax, and distributing the surplus to
    the taxpayers.

    Deb

    George Bush is a former head of the CIA. While he was head of
    the CIA the policy of using drug sales to fianance covert activities
    grew greatly. One result of this policy was that drugs poured into
    the United States in record amounts. The money used to prop up
    right wing governments was essentially responsible for a tremendous
    increase in drug use in the USA. For this reason I cannot vote for
    Bush. I feel that he is part of a mind set that will use anything
    expedient to achieve a short term goal without caring for the effects
    on the long term.
    
    Bonnie

    I believe that the high interest rates during the Carter administration
    were a result of the Federal Reserve Bank no longer being told to
    hold rates artificially low, the massive spending during the Vietnam
    War having exerted tremendous pressure on interest rates.  Inflation
    was rising during Nixon and Ford's administration - remember Ford's
    "WIN" buttons?  It's not fair to blame the high rates on Jimmy Carter,
    who was inheriting twelve years of massive military spending (starting
    with Lyndon Johnson).  Remember that money spent on weapons is 
    effectively removed from the economy.
    
    				Steve

    Will the Duke raise taxes?  Of course, he will. So what?  Yeah,
    I know I'm going to grumble, too, when April 15th rolls around,
    but what we are currently saving in cold hard cash we are paying
    for in other ways because of the disgustipatin' lack of social
    programs.
    
    --- jerry

    I don't know about anyone else, but my property taxes went down
    in Mass. while Dukakis was in office, and my federal income taxes
    have gone up during the last 8 years of Reagan and Bush.
    
    Another vote for Dukakis here.
    

    Hi, all:
    
    A few points on George Bush.  As someone else mentioned, GB was
    indeed haed of the CIA and as such promoted use of drug money to
    finance covert operations.  GB was also head of the CIA when Nixon
    used that org. to spearhead many anti-human-rights operations and
    incursions on civil rights against anyone Nixon perceived to be
    an 'enemy'; all with nary a squeak of recorded protest by GB. I
    have noting against GB's being from a 'privileged' background, or
    for his spoked stance on pro-life; on the latter matter, Congress
    has the ability to enact legislation according to the wishes of
    the majority if the majority will take the effort and time to speak
    up and make some noise.  However, I do have some serious questions
    about GB's qualities to head a government that is supposed to be
    compassionate and empathic for all its people.  The possibilities
    implied from his past background are cause for some serious thought.
    
    Ray

       
       Mr Bush has pledged to lower the deficit.  The only way that the
       deficit can be lowered is to reduce the amount of money that the
       government is spending, increase the amount of money that the
       government is taking in, or both. 
       
       In terms of reducing the amount of money the government spends, Mr
       Bush apparently does not want to reduce defense spending. When
       asked about existing or proposed systems that he would cut, Bush
       named three programs -- all of which had already been dropped (one
       as far back as 1985).  
       
       In terms of increasing the amount that the government takes in, Mr
       Bush supports a cut in that part of the capital gains tax that
       would reduce taxes for people earning more than $200,000 per year.
       This obviously does not increase revenues. 
       
       The only area left is social security payments.  Bush has not come
       out in favor of cutting existing payments (though he has dodged
       direct questions), but he did vote to reduce the cost-of-living
       adjustment (COLA) for SS payments.  The COLA would have
       automatically increased SS payments based on inflation indexes --
       when the cost of food, rent, and fuel goes up, the monthly checks
       for retirees would have gone up, too.  But Mr Bush cast the
       deciding (tie-breaking) vote against the COLA.
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    With due respect to the men - the question was "How will women vote?"
    So far, of the "women" who voted, the ratio is 12 to 3 in favor
    of Dukakis.  I would suggest a separate topic for men if they want
    to state their preference.
    
    Let's hear from the rest of the women in the community.
    
    Sue
    

    A historical note: 
    
    A major reason for the economic troubles under Mr. Carter's
    administration was the oil embargo.  Remember that?  OPEC,
    crude oil selling at more than $25 a barrel?  No driving to
    visit Grandmother because you couldn't get gas for the car?
    Buying extra quilts because you didn't have enough fuel oil
    to get through the winter if you kept the house warm?  Prices
    of everything made of plastic skyrocketing because plastic
    is made from hydrocarbons which are derived from oil?
    
    Oil prices have been half that for most of Mr. Reagan's
    administration.  [I suggest only a chronological, not a causal,
    relationship.]  That goes a long way toward cooling inflation,
    reducing interest rates, and making the economy look better.
    
    --bonnie

    I would have to say I am voting against Bush - It was really scary
    listening to that guy talk about abortion "Well I haven't sorted
    out the penalties yet..."  I disagree with everything that he stands
    for and will be voting for Dukakis.
    
    As far as interest rates go, we will be paying for the deficit in
    the way of interest rates in the very near future no matter who
    gets into office.  Perhaps Bush should get into office so then he
    can take all of the heat for the past 8 years.
    
    Suzanne

    
    I can hear it now...(sung to the tune of "where have all the
    flowers gone") "Where have all the ob/gyn's gone, long time passing...?"
    
    I'm not a big fan of "the Duke", but George puts the fear of god
    in me.

    Ann Marie

    re .23
    
    I agree that this topic is for women, however- I think it is important
    to get as many people's opinion as possible.  I am discovering an
    extreme amount of information about our candidates, and all too often
    many people don't collect enough info about the candidates to cast
    a vote.
    
    If men don't reply in here- please let's start another general topic-
    I think this one is very important...

    re:.23
    
    You might note, that none of the three (that I noticed off the
    bat) replies from men stated any kind of voting preference.
    Though it might seem obvious who their preference is, they were
    simply responding to comments made in previous notes.
    
    In fact, speaking as one of the male respondents, I intentionally
    avoided explicitly stating a preference.
    
    --- jerry

Re: (.6)
>    necessary.  As far as "forced pregnancy", rape and incest, Bush
>    supports abortion in those extreme cases.  

   I am definitely pro-choice, so I'm probably prejudiced, but 
   Bush's support of the right to choose abortion in the cases
   of rape and incest puzzles me. 

   How does Bush plan to decide if the pregnancy really was a result
   of rape or incest? Can the woman just say so? Or must she go
   to the police, file a report, wait for a trial, and then,
   should the man involved be convicted, THEN she can have the
   abortion? By that point the baby would be a couple years old!

   And if the woman does have to file a report with the police,
   does she have to press charges? Can anyone realistically see
   14-year-old pregnant incest victims going to the police to
   press charges (or even make out a report) against their
   father (brother/uncle/whatever)?

   I find this issue a larger gap in Bush's view on abortion
   rights than his lack of thought about penalties. 

    My wife, a woman last I checked, says she is voting for Bush. His
    stand on abortion is a big part of the reason why. But it goes far
    deeper. Dukakis is anti-jobs and in favor of everything that makes
    life better for working people. He only wants to support those who
    don't work by making those who do pay. The only jobs he's added
    are those on the public payroll. The man is bad for the economy.
    He represents only the very poor and those rich enough not to feel
    big tax bites.
    
    Bush believes in creating private sector jobs, training over welfare,
    and maximizing everyones opportunity. He also has courage of his
    convictions or he would not have given a straight answer to the 
    abortion question. He would have avoided and waffled as Dukakis
    did.
    
    			Alfred

    re: .30
    
    In the bad old days, the procedure was that the pregnant woman
    went privately before a judge and explained why she wanted an
    abortion.  The judge would usually approve or disapprove the
    petition right then.  
    
    --bonnie

I am very interested in what this note had to say about the
presidential candidates (or lack of candidate). When George said
that he hasn't sorted the "penalities", Mike said that he would
penalize the "aborter", not the "abortee". This morning
(27-Sept), George's campagne folks said that George will look at
outlawing the "aborter" and not charge the woman seeking the
abortion. At least Mike says that he is pro-choice (a position I
take; though I would prefer the child be taken to birth and be
given up to adoption).

Back in the earlier replies, some of the folks said their too
poor to pay more taxes; please remember that the Reagan folks
passed the extra costs to you in "revenue enhancements" and cuts
in services.

cal hoe

    I'm voting against Bush this time, like I voted against Reagan
    last time.
    
    At this point, there is no "clearly correct" answer in my mind,
    only one that is "less wrong".  I sincerely hope we have a better
    selection of candidates four years from now, though...
    
    -Jody
    

    
    As was mentioned a few notes back...I heard another person this
    morning state that we should all vote for Bush, because whoever
    is elected will have a VERY tough time succeeding at anything, as
    the deficit, trade, defense, and social troubles are so severe.
    The reasoning follows---let Bush take the blame,,,, then in 92 there
    should be strong Democrat and Republican candidates to pick from,and
    maybe for the first time in a decade we will actually be able to
    vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone.
    
    Well, if we could be sure that the 4 years would pass in peace,
    and no Supreme court justices would need to be appointed, and the
    congress would remain in democrat control, I might agree....but
    I fear we will not keep peace, and justices will step down (aren't
    there 3 nearing the 80 year mark?) ....so, I'm torn.  
    
    I really don't like the Duke, but Bush scares me.
    
    tough call this time.
    

Note 207.26                   
>    By the next day, he had stated that
>    he would only consider as criminals those individuals who perform
>    illegal abortions, not those who make use of them.
    
Well who knows Marge.  Maybe he'll change his mind again tomorrow and 
decide on the death penalty for all women who seek abortions.

I'm voting against George Bush... I don't trust him, I don't respect him,
and I don't like him.

Mary



Note 207.31                  
    
    I don't believe Dukakis is "anti-jobs".  Whats wrong with making life 
    better for working people?  Thats what we are you know.  

    The economy is holding on by a thread now.  It may cost as much as 
    a hundred billion dollars to bail out the saving and loans.  The deficit
    has made us extremely vulnerable financially.  We are going to have
    economic problems no matter who wins.

    Bush believes in maximizing everyones opportunity?  Is that why he had
    on his campaign staff the men Nixon used to compile lists of Jewish
    workers?  Was he maximizing Noriega's opportunity when he worked drug
    deals with him to finance his covert activities?  Bush is interested
    in maximizing opportunities for the rich and the right wing... period.
    I'd vote for anyone running against him.

    Mary

    Returning women to the coat hanger.....what a marvelous legacy.
    

re .37

>    Returning women to the coat hanger.....what a marvelous legacy.

	That is no worse than being ripped apart by a vacuum cleaner,
	as is done in abortion chambers now. And the innocent babys
	have no say in the matter.

							Tom_K

    Any further notes on abortion will be moved to note 183.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator
    

    	Did anyone else feel deja vu watching George Bush speak?
    	He reminded me so much of Reagan; foggy on details, out of
    	touch with issues that did not effect him personally, and
    	confused.  Dukakis should show up for the next debate in
    	cordouroys and a t-shirt, his suit looked like it was still
    	on the hanger.  I would feel better if he would give some
    	sign that he does not consider his judgement infallable.  
    	How will I vote - anti-Bush.
    		Linda

    
    re .36
>       I don't believe Dukakis is "anti-jobs".  Whats wrong with making life 
>       better for working people?  Thats what we are you know.  

    	There's nothing wrong with making life easier for the working
    people.  But the way the Duke likes to go about it, making it tough
    on bussiness, will only hurt the worker in the end. 
    
    	Sure we're all workers. But we also work for a bussiness. Whats
    good for the bussiness is good for the worker. If you regulate and
    stifle bussiness then *poof* no more place to work.
                                   
    It's kinda funny the way people lose sight of this, makes me think
    they have their eyes shut.
    
    		 sigh  . . . A.J.
    

    
>    	Sure we're all workers. But we also work for a bussiness. Whats
>    good for the bussiness is good for the worker. If you regulate and
>    stifle bussiness then *poof* no more place to work.
                                   
    I have to disagree with you on this. What's good for the
   business is not always good for the worker. Are you saying
   that there shouldn't be child labor laws? Before they existed,
   things were certainly good for business--incredibly cheap
   labor to work incredibly long hours. How about a minimum
   wage?

   As far as Dukakis regulating businesses to death, I find that unlikely.
   If that were so, why would so many (mostly high-tech) companies 
   be expanding so strongly in Massachusetts (DEC, for one)?

    
    	re: .40
    
    	I saw a blurb in the Globe the other day, that when Bush left
    	the meeting with the Soviet FM, (ok, I'll admit it, I can't
    	spell his name!) he was walking with his right
    	arm held away from his body, and with a distinct swagger.
    	His walk looked so different that a reporter was heard to 
    	remark (not exact quote) "Look, it's Ron!"
    
    	The Bush campaign office disavowed any knowledge of any
    	changes in characteristics . . .

    
    	For me, it will be a vote for Dukakis, unless Ann Richards
    	suddenly enters the race!
    
    	Sharon

re .42

>   As far as Dukakis regulating businesses to death, I find that unlikely.
>   If that were so, why would so many (mostly high-tech) companies 
>   be expanding so strongly in Massachusetts (DEC, for one)?

	Like ZKO1, ZKO2, ZKO3, MKO1, MKO2, TTB ?

					:-)

						Tom_K

    I'll have to agree with .42.  Big business has run this country
    for the last 8 years.  Business is important in the U.S. there is
    no one that would deny that.  However give businesses a chance and
    they will run every political arena, as well as every consumers
    market.  Regulation is needed to ensure that the workers do not
    become engulfed in the main goal of business- to work at a profit.
    
    For the last 8 years, the U.S. under Ronnie (or should I say under
    the people behind Ronnie) has been putting more money into weapons 
    (will they really even deter anything in the end?) that have been made 
    before, but are just bigger versions of the same old stuff.  Perhaps a 
    swing towards things that live and breath (humans) through much needed 
    programs for the young, sick, poor, and the education of all will be a 
    nice change.  
    
    With Bush being (in my opinion) nothing more then an even weaker
    extension of Ronnie (Did anyone ever see those Bonzo movies anyways?), 
    it appears that nothing will change- and change is what this country needs.
                    
    

>	Like ZKO1, ZKO2, ZKO3, MKO1, MKO2, TTB ?
>
>					:-)

   I definitely see your point, but (seriously) if you
 drive in the west-of-495 sections of Mass, you'd be amazed
 at all the DEC facilities, many still under construction.

    re .44
    
    Yes, and LKG1, LKG2, MSO, ASM, BUO, BXB, CTC, APO, MRO, PDM
    and many more.
    
    By the way- state taxes (which are a pain to pay when you live in
    NH, and work in MA- but that's a different topic altogether) existed
    in MA long before Dukakis or Bush.
    
    

    Whats good for business isn't necessarily whats good for workers.
    We live in a country where a head of household can work full time
    and still not make enough money to keep the family above the poverty
    level... and the minimum wage hasn't changed in eight years.  
    
    College expenses are getting beyond the reach of the average working
    person.  Young people can't afford a home of their own and if they do 
    manage to get a mortgage, they are in debt for the rest of their lives.
    Health care seems to be failing for those without money.  The Justice
    system seems to work primarily for those with money.  We are being
    divided by class.  I don't see how we can continue on like this
    for much longer.
    
    Mary

    Another negative about Bush for me comes from the book "Fall
    From Grace" by Shelley Ross which is about the scandals in American
    politics since 1702. The books points out that at last count of
    the House Subcommittee on civil service over 225 Reagan appointees
    have faced allegations of ehtical or criminal wrong doing. This
    number is unprecidented in American history (according to the author).
    The vast majority of these situations involved conflict of interest
    and financial irregularities. 
    
    It would bother me to have elect as president a man who was vp in
    such an administration.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .49 There have been a number of scandals in Dukakis'
    administration as well. The difference being those people
    were not appointed by his boss but by him or his subordinates.
    I heard an editorial a year ago on WEEI that listed several
    other incidents brought before the Democratic controlled
    MA legislature where they refused, in the face of evidence,
    to investigate suspicions of corruption in the Dukakis
    administration. These cases usually involved conflict of interest
    and financial irregularities. 
    
    It would bother me to have elect as president a man who was in charge
    such an administration.

    		Alfred

    I recognize that we are all going to disagree on the interpretations
    of current events, because I have some vast differences in viewpoint
    from some of the opinions previously cited.
    
    In particular, someone rejected the idea that whats good for business
    is good for workers.  Granted, not in all cases, the child-labor
    laws being a semi-reasonable example (years and years out of date,
    though, so our cultural-matrix to evaluate that is skewed...). 
    They also included the minimum wage law as an example of something
    thats good for workers....I simply cannot agree.  That level of
    interference (setting an artificial floor price) is bad economics
    and messes up all kinds of things.  My reasoned evaluation of it
    is that it costs jobs.  Thank the forces of reason that the Republican
    filibuster just stopped an attempt to raise it further.
    
    While I hate the fundamentalist underpinnings of the religious rights
    influence on the Republican Party, and hate their policies on abortion,
    sexual preference, and imposed morality, I have to say that women
    and all of us are better off under an expanding economy that creates
    jobs and reduces individual tax rates.  Mr_Topaz mentioned something
    about cutting taxes "obviously" not raising revenues.  I hate to
    burst your bubble, but the reports I've seen state that revenues
    *increased* following the tax rate cuts of the early 80s, for 2
    hugely significant reasons: 1) less dodging, people felt that the
    rates were more fair and 2) private spending increases and the economy
    expanded, creating more real wealth to increase the taxable base.
    So from where I sit, the evidence I read shows that *obviously*
    tax cuts *increase* the amount of money the government takes in.
    
    DougO

    Uncle Ronnie's cuts in student grants many years ago came pretty
    damn close to making me drop out of college...in spite of him,
    I clawed my way through college.  There are alot of unfortunate
    people who weren't as lucky and didn't survive.
    
    What a pity...
    
    I forgot who said this, but...
    
    "Twenty years ago, you voted for the person who, you thought, would
    do the most good for this country.  Nowadays, you vote for the person
    who would do the least harm."
    

    As one recent college graduate- I'd have to say I agree totally.
    I did some clawing, but moreso- I saw some of the most brilliant
    minds forced to drop out and work, because they couldn't afford
    an education (not to mention the ones that never even went).
    
    And the hardest bone to swallow is the fact that we continue to
    increase the funding for defense spending, among a few other behind
    the back programs (aid to the contras), while we as a nation watch our 
    young people's education go down the tubes.
    
    Who is America's future anyway? -- Bombs or people --  I'm really
    afraid to find out the answer.  
       
    Terri
    
    

    Another vote against Bush.
    
    .45  and .52 brought up points with which I can relate, education
    and creative plans to build on the strengths of the people of this
    country are important.

Interesting that Soapbox is about 70% (or more) in favor of Bush, while
this community is about 70% in favor of Dukakis.  I wonder whether this
reflects divisions in the outside world?

Martin.

    re: .50
    
    A person in authority is at least partly responsible for the
    behavior of the people to whom she delegates authority.  If she's
    not actually accountable for the behavior, she's accountable
    for having chosen poorly or for not having made clear her
    expectations. 
    
    Having that many people brought to task for ethics violations
    tends to indicate that the person who made the appointments
    created a climate that indicated it would not be harsh on
    violations of ethics.
    
    This appears to apply to both Mr. Bush and Mr. Dukakis, though
    the poor way in which Mr. Bush handled his advisors during
    selection of a vice presidential candidate hints that perhaps
    he is even worse at it than Mr. Dukakis.
    
    --bonnie

	I have a question, prompted by a talk show at noon I heard yesterday
	from the most liberal talk show host in Atlanta.

	This particular talk show host is pro-choice on the abortion matter.
	He says that government shouldn't legislate morality.  He also takes
	many positions on the side of transfer payments for much of the
	so-called liberal agenda; he supports additional welfare programs,
	supports nationalized medicine, etc.  When individuals call in and
	oppose him, he says that government should be compassionate.  This
	sounds like legislating morality to me.  We should be compassionate
	to the poor; therefore, government must make us be compassionate.

	Does this seem inconsistent to anyone else ?  I would think that
	those people who want the government to allow us to make more
	choices regarding our personal lives would also be the same people
	that would say that the government shouldn't be involved in what
	essentially amount to charity work.  I would think that those
	people who think that government should be involved in establishing
	the proper social order (including equalizing people's means, to
	whatever extent the government chooses) would also realize that the
	government's role in determining the proper social order also could
	include an expanded role in the private lives of its citizens.

    re: .52
    
>    Uncle Ronnie's cuts in student grants many years ago came pretty
>    damn close to making me drop out of college...in spite of him,
>    I clawed my way through college.  There are alot of unfortunate
>    people who weren't as lucky and didn't survive.
    
        I'd be hard pressed to find it again, but I remember reading
    a study saying that if you take two groups of high school graduates
    with similar views and one group goes to college that group will
    be more liberal than the group that didn't.  I don't think that
    Uncle Ronnie wants more liberals.
    
    ASP

    	It is always quite easy to find fault with the sitting president
    if you look only at very specific moments of his/her leadership.
    
    	I doubt anyone can argue very strongly against the problems
    Reagan has had with political appointees.  But his eight years have
    been much more than the sad behavior of some of his appointees.
    
    	As mentioned in other notes, Reagan ran on a platform of reducing
    the size of the Federal Gov't.  Reducing the college grant/loan
    program was consistent with this platform.  (A platform which won
    the presidency twice!)
    
    	Rather than attack specific programs or appointees and use your
    negative evaluations to justify voting for or against the two current
    candidiates how about reacting to the candidiates based on their
    stated positions and the facts of their contributions to people
    durint their years in public life.
    
    	As an aside on Reagan, I believe he has been the best president
    since Truman and would welcome the opportunity to argue the social
    and plotical results of his years as president - though not in this
    note.
    
    Douglas

    I will be voting for Dukakis....
    
    Personally, I think everyone who was involved in the whole Iran-scam
    situation should be put on trial for treason for selling arms to
    the enemy....
    
    And yes, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils...
    
    I also think that in the years to come a lot will come out about
    just how corrupt the Reagan administration is...  I think all that
    has come out up to now is just the tip of the iceberg....
    
    Linda

	It's got to be Dukakis, Bush is just against too many things I
       believe in, little things like not letting the CIA create a
       dossier on me just because my car is parked on the same street as
       someone who is suspected of not supporting the right wing.

       In addition, most of the jobs created the last 8 years are low
       level ill paying and undesireable jobs in the service sector.

       But the biggest reason - we must decide as a society whether we
       are civilized and will support the lower levels of our society or
       whether we will take the stand that if they are poor they must
       deserve to be poor and therefore are not entitled to things like
       medical care.

       To those who bring up the subject of welfare cheats - lets just
       compare what they cost the taxpayers with what dishonest defense
       contractors cost the taxpayers. And guess who goes to jail, it's
       not the defense contrators. liesl

    Hi. I am going to do something here that I rarely do. I'm going
    to answer this note without reading all the other replies first.
    I, too, watched the debate last Sunday and I am very glad I did.
    I learned a few things and reinforced many of my opinions.
    
    I am quite upset that, out of so many people in this country, these
    are our two choices for a position as important as President. 
    
    In November, I will vote against Bush.
    
    I think the wording of that statement is very important. I am not
    voting *for* Dukakis, per se.
    
    The issue of Bush's stand against abortion is one that bothers me
    greatly. The fact that he "has not yet worked out" what would be
    the penalty to the woman who has had an abortion (if it's against
    the law, there must be some penalty) also bothers me. I think perhaps
    he has indeed "worked it out" but felt it would be politically
    incorrect to say so.
    
    Another thing that has me voting against him is the Supreme Court.
    "Ronnie-baby" has so packed the Supreme Court with such staunch
    conservatives that if Bush were to continue this trend (as would
    surely happen) it would be many, many, MANY years before these effects
    could be reversed. The potential ramifications in the "women's rights" 
    arena, as well as the "human rights" arena, are staggering.
    
    I could go on and on, here, but my point is made. It is scary to
    contemplate the future with either of these men as President. All
    I can hope to do is influence the choice of which scary direction
    we go.
    
    -Amy.
         
    

    A curious phenomenon I've noted in talking with various people over
    the last few days is that those who already had a clear idea of
    which candidate they'd vote for ended up with a slanted view of
    how the debate turned out.
    
    Both my mother and I, for example, support Dukakis (or, to be more
    precise, don't want Bush as President under any condition) thought
    that Dukakis dominated the debate. That he was more controlled,
    more straight-forward, more sure of himself, and in general just
    came off better than Bush and thus "won" the debate. On the other
    hand, a couple of guys here at work who are pro-Bush thought Bush
    made mincemeat out of Dukakis. A quick and dirty poll on my part
    determined that this seemed to be a common trend.
    
    It's also interesting to note that those I asked who didn't really
    have any strong leanings one way or the other seemed for the most
    part to think that Dukakis had the edge.
    
    --- jerry

    RE: .52
    
    I graduated high school in 1984.  I had my social security payments
    cut off at this time (A Reagan/Bush policy).  I had been receiving
    these payments since the time of my father's death in 1977. In 1977 my
    mother was back in the workforce to support our family making wages
    comparable to secretarial pay (not very good).  In 1984 she just
    managed to pay off the house she and my father purchased in 1972--
    a long hard struggle!
    
    For me, I had the choice of taking out MANY loans or asking my mother
    to take out a mortgage on her home (which she had struggled so hard
    to finally pay off). 
    
    My older siblings had their social security payments to help out
    with school (along with loans) that I would not get.  Therefore,
    I decided I just *could not afford* to go to school.  I did not
    want to have to be in debt for the rest of my life to get an education.
    
    I joined Digital in December of '84 as a secretary (something I
    had practically no training for) -- with hopes of having school
    paid for.  Now that they have their taxable tuition laws (another
    Reagan policy) it is making my life more difficult today to stay
    in school.
    
    With the effects that Reagan and Bush had on my life (I *always*
    wanted to go to college - a dream I had taken away), I WILL NOT
    vote for Bush.
    
    Julie

    Re: .63
    
    Jerry, your observations on the effects of the debate coincide with
    my own and with the analyses I've read in the newspapers, especially
    the part about those who are neutral swaying towards Dukakis.
    
    				Steve

I'll be voting for Dukakis.  Though I think Dukakis will be a good 
president, I am voting more against Bush and the past eight 
years.  I don't understand how anyone can vote for Bush in 
light of the Iran Contra scandal.  Someone should make a tv movie of the
week about a president who misuses US military resources and tax 
dollars for his own secret and illegal purposes, who ignores 
the constitution, the congress and our system of checks and 
balances.  Maybe then, undistracted by Ollie and his uniform, 
people would be more alarmed at how little respect Reagan, 
Bush and crew have for democracy.

Sue Kallas 

    I'll be voting for the Duke as well, and I'm sorry to the moderators,
    but the issue for me is the abortion thing.  I don't necessarily
    agree that abortion is a good thing, but will fight to my death
    for the CHOICE...I don't want to go back to the coat hangers in
    the alleyway...scary, isn't it?
    
    Jill

    Jerry, Steve, re: analyzing the debate-
    
    We had four people watching, 2 conservatives who were more
    comfortable with George, and 2 liberals who preferred Michael. 
    As the debate rolled on we kept informal track of points made,
    questions ducked, gaffes we expected to see jumped on... 
    We all felt that Bush had shown more strongly.
    
    The two liberals were absolutely amazed at the leftward-slant put
    forth by the press (Donaldson, et al) and we were all vastly amused
    that Jennings kept ducking when asked what he thought of it.  Our
    interpretation was that Jennings was afraid to say that Bush won,
    but certainly he'd expected other commentators to have already said
    that by the time he ran upstairs from the panel.  In fairness, we
    also considered that perhaps he was restraining himself because
    he felt a conflict-of-interest between his panel and anchor roles.
    (...nahhh!)
    
    DougO

    re:.68
    
    I fully expect that not *everyone* will fit the pattern I described.
    In fact, there were responders to my informal poll that didn't fit.
    That's why I called it a "trend".
    
    --- jerry

    Although this isn't true confessions, I'll start by admitting that
    I haven't registered yet. Dislike of a candidate is not a good
    incentive for me.
    
    However, I read today an article in Blacknotes that really made
    me lose my coffee. It was a hypothesis of how Reagan, with a LOT
    of PERSONAL ASSISTANCE from Bush as CIA director, halted/stalled
    Carter's negotiations with Iran for the hostages, and revealed to
    Iran Carter's military strategies for the October surprise so that
    Carter would lose the election and then continued to have the hostages
    held until Reagan got into office so that it would reflect on Reagan's
    record. These negotiations involved both personal bribery of Iranian
    officials and interlinked arms deals through Iran, America and Israel.
    
    If I had been of voting age 8 years ago, I would have voted for
    Carter. (I was 16.) At some point, I need to motivate myself to
    support Dukakis since he is pro-choice, even if he has totally shafted
    his black supporters... I hope this new revelation is sufficient
    to send me to the registration office.
    
    I believe the note is in OPHION::BLACKNOTES 368.0. To me, if its true,
    its more scandalous than Watergate, and the people involved should be
    arrested. Especially Bush. (Who made several trips abroad to negotiate
    the bribes.) 

    
    RE: .64
    
    With the Federal government has such a big deficit, do you really
    expect the US government should help you finish the college.  In
    my opinion, your parents should.  If they can't, it is your problem.

    Bush may be saying anything against abortion, I don't think he will
    do anything about it if he got elected.  The reason is there are
    so many people againt or for abortion.  Also it is not possible
    to get through the Democratic controled congress.  
        
    If the thrend of the noter here is correct,  we should start selling
    the stocks right NOW.  If Duke was elected into office,  it will be much
    like Carter - one term president.  Poeple, especially woman voter,
    will finaly understand what kind of person they choice to vote(marry)
    with and divorce is the only way.

    re: .71
    
        Carter was able to successfully run the college tuition program
    and reduce the federal deficit (as a percentage of the GNP).
    
        Below are the deficit levels for 1974-1985 and an estimate for
    1986.
    
        In all fairness to Tom Krupinski during these years except 1981
    and 1982 the Senate was more than 50% Democratic and the house was
    more than 50% Democratic for all of the years.
    
    Year      Deficit      % of     President
             (Billions)    GNP
    ----     ----------   -----     ---------
    1974         4.7       0.3
    1975        45.2       3.1      Ford
    1976        79.4       4.0
    1977        44.9       2.4      Carter
    1978        48.8       2.3
    1979        27.7       1.2
    1980        59.6       2.3
    1981        57.9       2.0      Reagan
    1982       110.6       3.6
    1983       195.4       6.1
    1984       175.3       4.7
    1985       202.8       5.3
    1986       220.5 (est) NA
    
    Note the deficits for 1946 to 1973 follow this form feed for those
    who want more information.
    
    Year      Deficit      % of     President
             (Billions)    GNP
    ----     ----------   -----     ---------
    1946        15.9       7.8      Truman
    1947        -3.9     surplus
    1948       -12.0     surplus
    1949        -0.6     surplus
    1950         3.1       1.2
    1951        -6.1     surplus
    1952         1.5       0.4
    1953         6.5       1.8
    1954         1.2       0.3      Eisenhower
    1955         3.0       0.8
    1956        -4.1     surplus
    1957        -3.2     surplus
    1958         2.9       0.7
    1959        12.9       2.7
    1960        -0.3     surplus
    1961         3.4       0.7
    1962         7.1       1.3      Kennedy
    1963         4.8       0.8
    1964         5.9       1.0      Johnson
    1965         1.6       0.2
    1966         3.8       0.5
    1967         8.7       1.1
    1968        25.2       3.0
    1969       - 3.2    (surplus)   Nixon
    1970         2.8       0.3
    1971        23.0       2.2
    1972        23.4       2.1
    1973        14.8       1.2
    
    Note: The fiscal year ends Sept 30, (June 30 prior to 1977)

    ASP
    

    re : .64
>           For me, I had the choice of taking out MANY loans or asking my mother
>    to take out a mortgage on her home (which she had struggled so hard
>   to finally pay off). 
    
>    My older siblings had their social security payments to help out
>    with school (along with loans) that I would not get.  Therefore,
>    I decided I just *could not afford* to go to school.  I did not
>    want to have to be in debt for the rest of my life to get an education.
    
>    With the effects that Reagan and Bush had on my life (I *always*
>    wanted to go to college - a dream I had taken away), I WILL NOT
>    vote for Bush.
    
 
      I sense (correct me if I am wrong) from your note that you feel 
    you are in some way owed money for college from the government
    and George Bush stole it from you.
    People forget that the government is simply the taxpayer. Can you
    give me a reason why someone who chose not to go to school when
    they were younger should pay (taxes) for you to go to school?
    Please no answers like "we waste billions on defense . . . ", that
    is not justification for misuse of money somewhere else. 
                                      
    
    			- A.J.

    re: .73
    
    is it misuse of our money to educate/improve the population?
    
    if a person seeks to get a higher education, that person will
    most likely be earning higher wages and paying more taxes in the
    future.
    
    leave it to conservatives to take the short view and save a 
    couple thousand dollars today and lose tens of thousands in
    a few years/decades from now.
    
    ............................................jonathan
    

    Jonathan:
    
    	I believe education is one of the best places for us as a nation
    to invest.  The question, in my opinion, is just where the investment
    income should come from.  Of course, it must come from the taxpayers
    but the middle group, responsible to collect the monies, distribute
    them and collect that which is loaned is best situated as close
    to the people as possible.  This, to me, is the state.
    
    	I strongly believe the federal gov't should concern itself with
    national issues - individual equality, national defense, etc. and
    the state gov't's should concern themselves with administrating
    to the rules.  
    
    	As earlier mentioned, Carter managed to invest a great deal
    on tax money in education.  But at what cost?  Carter cut the defense
    budget, leaving us badly exposed and keeping money out of manufacturing
    (remember macro economics and the impact of spending money in
    manufacturing as compared with service industries such as education
    - monies spent in manufacturing have a higher multiplier than monies
    spent in service industries such as education.)  Let the federal
    gov't dictate basic requirements to the states and let the states
    implement and administer.  The federal gov't can assist the needy
    states when necessary.
    Douglas

    .74
    
    want to talk about a misuse of "education" funds? I was in college
    in the early 1970s, and while I did receive some NDSL loans (which
    by the way, *I* paid back), a lot of my classmates used these loans
    to buy things like cars and stereos. As someone who was working 3 jobs
    to pay my way through school, while I was sorry to see the low interest
    student loan programs go away, I could understand it because of
    the rampant abuse. I guess it is one of life's hardest lessons when
    a few people abuse things they ruin the system for everyone.
    
    Deb

    a point I want to make about the disbursement of social security
    funds.
    
    Social Security is a government insurance program to provide pensions
    and insurance benefits in case of death.
    
    Children who have parents that die before they are able to support
    themselves are the recepients of social security benefits.  A few
    years ago the government terminated those benefits for college age
    children.
    
    I do not feel that the original plan was a move to support college
    education it was an insurance plan to provide for children in the
    same manner as the parent would have had they lived.
    
    The change in social security is an indication that maybe we as
    a society do not feel we want to support college education for our
    children.

    re .77:
    
    > ...maybe we as a society do not feel we want to support college 
    > education for our children. 
    
    Maybe "we" do not think that it is right to fund "our" child's
    education though fear and intimidation of others.
    
    If a man came up to you and offered you $30,000 that he had just
    managed to beat out of the rich man up the street, would you take
    it? Isn't that exactly what the government is doing through the
    IRS?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    With the college education more expensive today, I don't
    dispute that the students needs help.  But the parents are
    responsible also.  Evidentially you shouldn't blame it on
    Reagan/Bush.
    
    The government should have tax free saving account for parents/
    students to save college money.  It should also have student
    load available if the misuse and collection of loan money
    is no problem.  

    I will be voting for Dukakis. Mostly for his pro-choice
    position, support of education and national health plan.
    Bush scares the s**t out of me. "Specially since I heard
    he was involved the the "arms Supermaket" in central America
    and the Iran-Contra fiasco.
    

Loans are just that moneys borrowed and ment to be repaid.

Student loans are qualified, and the government gets stuck with the
bill if the lending instutition did not fully check out the applicant.
Now the Government is stuck paying many loans.. How many times will
the taxpayer get shafted before he elects someone to office who will
tighten the purse strings.

Social Security.  HA, HA!.  The program as intended was good,
however it cannot work the way that things are going now.  I am 48
and intend to retire sometime in 20xx.  I am planning on my own
retirement funds, and the Digital program.  If I ever see one cent
from the social security program, I will be surprised.

What is the problem with SS, well for one thing the system is built
like an upside down pyramid.  Few payed very much in, in the beginning,
and they drew out several times what they payed in to the program.
Then the program got tapped as life insurance for the people who
were too poor or ignorant to insure their own life.  Then we got
all the other ills, to go along with that.

CURE:  YES there is a solution, but you won't like that









Go to a program like Scandanavia, or England, to mention two examples.
You pay in about 50 percent of your salary, into social security, and
they your old age, medicine and other things are provided.  And in some
countries you can even go to college FREE provided You are willing to
Pay some more(a lot more) in taxes.  

YOU CAN NOT HAVE YOUR CAKE, AND EAT IT AS WELL.

I plan to vote AGAINST George (where was he, and what did he know) BUSH.

Better another one term democrat than another Reagan.

Dave

> Go to a program like Scandanavia, or England, to mention two examples.
> You pay in about 50 percent of your salary, into social security, and
> they your old age, medicine and other things are provided.  And in some
> countries you can even go to college FREE provided You are willing to
> Pay some more(a lot more) in taxes.  

I went to college in Sweden.  College is free.  You can get a "student
loan" that pays minimal living expenses for 9 months.  1/4 of this is
given as a grant, the rest is repaid over a 20 year period.  (Interest
is collected, and you start paying when you graduate.)

Pension in Sweden comes in three forms:

-- "people's pension" which is given to all Swedish citizens (and no
   non-citizens).  There is a flat-rate disbursment, and citizens pay
   for it in their national taxes.

-- "general pension" which is given to all persons who work in Sweden.
   It is funded by a payroll tax (12-15%) and you receive 3/4 of the
   average of your best five years of salary.  This plus "people's
   pension" should give you about 90% of your average salary in pension.

-- You are allowed to purchase additional pension benefits (through insurance
   companies) on the open market.  If I understand correctly, these are
   similar to IRA/Keogh plans, in that the principal/interest are not taxed
   until you begin withdrawing money.  Dec included one of these as an
   employee benefit.

Medical benefits (including perscription drugs) are routinely provided to
all residents.  The coverage is much like an HMO, and you can go to private
physicians (with reimbursement) if you wish.  When I scraped my leg while
running in a race in Sweden this summer, I received medical treatment
with no paperwork, and at no cost.

If you are sick, or must stay at home to take care of a sick child, you
receive health insurance income benefits.  You take a pay hit for the
first day. After that, you receive more-or-less 90% of your current salary
in insurance payment (it is taxable) with an upper-maximum of, roughly,
a median income level.

If you are sick during vacation, YOU GET THE VACATION TIME BACK!  (This is
reasonable, given that people have 6 weeks vacation per year.)

When I was living in Sweden, my well-payed engineer's job was taxed
at, roughly,

22%	local (town) taxes (water, streets, snowplowing, schools) (flat rate)
 5%	province (hospitals and medical costs) (flat rate)
20%	national (defense, foreign aid, health insurance, etc.) (progressive)

Although the taxes were high, the economy worked well, and Swedish industry
is quite competitive with that of countries with lower taxes.

Martin.

    My vote goes to Dukakis, primarily because I like his
    philosophy.  In particular, I like his stands on women's
    rights (the abortion issue), and his support of public
    education.  My parents have been in elementary education in
    the public school system for many years--I'm probably
    biased.

    Even if Dukakis is only a one-term president, at least he'll
    have an opportunity to leaven the Supreme Court with less
    conservative viewpoints.

    -- Linda

    I used to know who I was going to vote for, but after all the mud
    slinging, I am more confused the convinced!
    
    vivian

    re: .79 (and his previous...)
    
    "But the parents are responsible also."
    
    Hmmph.
    
    A couple of different thoughts sprang to mind here.  First, it's
    so easy to toss off responsibility on the parents; after all, they
    had the choice of having kids, right?  They should have thought
    about the potential cost of college before they jumped in bed, and
    then nine months later, little Johnny comes out of the cabbage patch.
    (Large grain of salt here.)
    
    Second, *my* parents have not assisted me very much in financing
    my education...  I work, I study, and as a result, I know that my
    grades are not as high as they could be, due to time constraints
    in terms of working, etc.  It is also taking me much longer to
    graduate, due to my having to continually take a leave of absence
    from school to work and save, to pay for school when I return. (Which
    is what I'm doing here at Digital.)  To date, I've paid roughly
    90 percent of the total cost, and I've only got three semesters
    to go.  (I also have too much pride for student loans.)
    
    It really hurts when I go to a school where something like 85 percent
    of the student population receive some kind of financial aid from
    either the state or federal government, and *they* have time to
    participate in the things that I would like to, but don't have time
    for.  It also hurts when they get better grades, and I know I can
    do better.
    
    When it comes time to graduate, what will employers look at?  "Hmm,
    this person has a 3.4 GPA...  This guy over here only has a 2.9
    (that's me, folks), but he's got a good story about how *he* had to
    pay for it?"  hardly.  I only hope that the recruiter is sensible
    enough to examine resumes - with all these jobs, I am beginning
    to have trouble keeping it to one page.
    
    Why don't parents pay for their kid's education?  Mine had a good
    reason: they figured I'd blow it, and not appreciate it, unless
    I had to do it myself.  Oh, there have been times when I've thought
    they were hard and heartless, but looking back, I can see that *I*
    have turned out a better person because of it, and when I graduate,
    that peice of paper is MINE.  Not 1/4 goes to federal aid, 1/4 goes
    to state help, 1/4 goes to mom and dad, and 1/4 is still being paid
    for from the student loan.
    
    All mine.

    (wipes brow.  Flame off.)
        
    For those who were not lucky enough to get the breaks that I did,
    and could not go to school, I'm sorry.
    
    
    Everybody seems to take it for granted that Dukakis will only be
    at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for one term.  Who's on the horizon, casting
    a shadow 4 years from now?  If he's in, let him do his job...  2
    terms, barring screwups (which seem to be real frequent as of late.)
    
    Bill

    <--(.86)
    
    Bill, if you want the (well-deserved!) credit for your hard work,
    be sure to write up your educational experience as
    
    	"BSCS, 1999, Mumble University (Alternated school with work so
         that I could pay all costs out of my own pocket)  GPA 2.9/4.0
    
    That way, the recruiter/hiring manager will understand both why
    your grades aren't perfect (a B isn't exactly chopped liver, y'know)
    and what you have to offer by way of self-respect, sense of
    responsibility, and perseverance.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .86
    
    Bill,
    
    I don't know if this will help you at all, but...
    
    I have spoken with many recruiters who say the opposite of what
    you expect. They DO look at things other than grades. All of the
    jobs on your resume will probably be a big help, BUT SO WILL THE
    EFFORT YOU PUT IN TO PUT YOURSELF THROUGH SCHOOL.
    
    Just last week, in one of my evening classes (MBA program, Babson
    College), I was speaking with someone who does and has done a lot
    of hiring for a number of different companies. We were discussing
    this very issue and he told me that they (he and other hiring managers
    he has known) are much more interested in someone who has put him(her)-
    self through school despite the fact that that person's grades may
    not be as high as someone else who didn't have to work so hard to
    pay for it. 
    
    Am I making sense? I hope so. I guess the bottom line is, this was
    straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak...they DO look at things
    other than grades!
    
    So, have some faith.
    
    And good luck.
    
    -Amy.
    

    What drubbing???  I listened to the entire thing on the radio and
    thought, for the first time during this election, that there was
    a clear winner.  And that "winner" was Dukakis.  I've been told
    that Bush "looked" better on the tube, though.  Bush sounded a lot
    like Reagan back in '80 and '84.  Incoherent and as if he were already
    losing his ability to articulate.
    
    After hearing some of the results this morning, when I run for
    president I'm going to sound like a bumbling fool and when asked
    questions I don't want to answer I'll use words that are too big
    for the average audience and cite facts about things which no average
    person could possibly know anything about (re: Bush and what defense
    item he would cut).  They really should limit voting rights to those
    people with IQs greater than a ripe turnip (don't take this too
    seriously, please).

	I thought that Dukakis had won the first debate by a small
	margin, but Bush clearly won this one. (I listened to all but 
	a 20 minute portion in the middle). Bush was confident and on
	the attack, while Dukakis seemed on the defensive and off 
	balance all the time. Dukakis's closing statement sounded
	to me more like a farewell speech than a campaign speech.

						Tom_K

    I don't plan to vote based on how well somebody comes across on
    the little tube -- unless I'm voting for the academy awards.
    
    --bonnie

    A poll taken by ABC immediately after the debate showed that
    the percentage of people believing the candidate X won the debate
    nearly exactly matched the percentage of people planning to vote
    for candidate X. In other words, if you like the candidate, you
    believed he won, and the other lost.

    Bush stated there would be no more debates!
    
    Dukakis stated that he would like another debate.
    
    What do the people want?
    
    Who has a say in whether this does or does not happen (is one of
    the candidates in charge of deciding).
    
    I am a little annoyed that Bush decided that there would be no more
    debates, therefore we the people will not be seeing/hearing another
    debate.  I don't like to be told there is not a choice.

Re:  .94

>    Bush stated there would be no more debates!

>    Dukakis stated that he would like another debate.

>    Who has a say in whether this does or does not happen (is one of
>    the candidates in charge of deciding).

Whether we voters like it or not, these debates (actually more joint press
conferences than debates) happen only if both candidates agree to them.  If
either candidate says "No more debates", then no more debates it is.

There is nothing in the constitution (or any other law) that requires can-
didates to talk to one another at all.

My thoughts on last night's "debate":  Both candidates seemed to present their
positions rather well, and I thought they articulated their differences in
some useful detail.  However, I thought that the quality of questions
was very poor.  I wanted to hear both candidates forced to talk about how
they planned to balance the budget in some detail, what their domestic plans
were, and more about relations with the Soviet Union.  Instead, we got ques-
tions about the rape of Kitty Dukakis, who each candidate's heros were, and
junk about more debates.  Boring!

If each candidate is well prepared neither one should really look foolish in
these debates, and I don't think anyone did last night.  It was unrealistic
to expect Dukakis to knock Bush out of the ballpark (I don't care for him as
a candidate, but he's no Dan Quayle, either).  Ultimately the real use for
these joint appearances is to help clarify our own feelings about each can-
didate, and to help us decide what we think.  In that context it doesn't really
matter if either candidate "hit a home run" or not.

					--Q (Dick Wagman)

Dukakis didn't break a promise: the question of further debates was
asked by one of the panelists.

I suspect that "The American People" are sick of Bush/Dukakis debates,
but would relish another mud-match between Bentsen and Quayle.

M.

	The channel I watched last night (can't even remember which one)
       had a followup with Connie Chung and group of stated "undecided"
       voters. They leaned towards saying that Dukakas had won, the
       women more so than the men, but the newscasters all said Bush.

       These same independants also stated that they would now probably
       vote for Dukakas. I don't want him to but I believe Bush will
       win. The battle now will be to get congress to make laws that
       protect our civil and abortion rights so the court can't return
       us to the 18th century.

       Mark Russell had a good line the other night - being vice
       president is the political equivalent of "barefoot and pregnant"
       liesl

    I also had the impression Dukakis won, and was rather surprised
    to wake up to the morning news heralding Bush as the winner.
                                                          
    The problem is that the news reporting probably has more influence
    than anything the candidates might actually do or say.

re .97

>I suspect that "The American People" are sick of Bush/Dukakis debates,
>but would relish another mud-match between Bentsen and Quayle.

	Actually, the debate I'd like to see most is between Dukakis and 
	Bentsen.

					Tom_K

    Although this is the most coherent I've ever heard Bush be, I think
    the only real "lashing" Dukakis took was from the press--for not
    "naming" a hero, for crying out loud!
          
    I agree that the questions posed by the panel were very disappointing
    (and yes, it was they and not Dukakis who brought up the question
    of another debate).   
          
    -Tracy

	Kitty Dukakis wins on write-in vote.

    I'm disappointed in Dukakis, though I still plan to vote for him.
    He has missed too many great opportunities:
    
    1) The "L" word -- When Bush started using "liberal" as a nasty
       label for Dukakis, Mike should have gone ahead and endorsed the
       label, PUTTING HIS OWN DEFINITION TO IT, instead of ignoring
       it and trying to brush it off.
    
    2) In the last debate, he missed a marvelous opporunity when asked
       that badly-phrased first question.  He should have said what
       he would FEEL like doing to anyone who could rape and kill Kitty,
       thus showing himself a man of feeling, and THEN gone on to say
       what his policies would be because they would be based on evidence
       and reason, not blind emotion.
    
    I believe the Democrats have a history of favoring more compassionate 
    legislation, but Dukakis certainly has failed to be the least bit
    convincing on that score...

I personally don't want to choose a candidate on one issue, no matter how
important that issue is to me.  So I sat down the other night with a piece
of paper and started listing the issues that I care about, and which
candidate I agree with on each one. Bottom line is that I don't like
either candidate, and would vote for a "none of the above" option in a
skinny minute if it were available.  But, alas, we don't have the right to
force the parties to retreat and choose other candidates, so I gotta pick
one. 

Here's the result:

Abortion				Dukakis

Women's rights in general		Dukakis

Increasing taxes			Bush; I have some idea of the kind 
					of taxes "Taxachusetts" residents 
					pay!

SDI					Bush

Defense spending in general		Bush

Capital punishment			Bush

Crime					Both candidates are too soft on crime
					to suit me

Voluntary prayer in schools		Bush

Aid to the Contras			Bush

Campaigning tactics			I think both candidates should be 
					thrown out of this election and
					barred from ever holding office again

Beefing up the IRS			Bush

Drugs					Neither will advocate the sort of 
					harsh punishment I'd like to see 
					doled out to drug dealers

Vice presidential candidate		Dukakis; the phrase "President 
					Quayle" causes fear to strike my 
					heart

Housing					Bush doesn't have any great ideas, 
					but we considered jobs in western 
					MA a year ago and I *remember* what
					real estate prices were like!!!  It's 
					Bush by default on this one!

Gun registration			Bush

In addition, I have serious reservations about teaming a spend-happy
president with the spend-happy Congress we're already "blessed" with.  I
would hope that Bush would try like Reagan has to clip the Congress'
spendthrift wings whenever possible. 

Soooooo...

since I can't vote for my first choice (none of the above), or my second
choice (Bentsen), the list I made pretty well made up my mind to vote for
Bush.  But I don't like it!!!!!!!

							Pat
    

    <--(.105) Pat, from whatever I've heard, Massachusetts is number 35 in
    size of the tax burden (i.e., there are only 15 other states whose
    residents pay fewer taxes).  Not sure how true it is, but I've heard it
    from several different sources. 
    
    						=maggie

re Note 207.4 by RAVEN1::AAGESEN:

>     I've always been of the opinion that the 2 elected branches of
>     government need to have both major paries represented. What I mean
>     by this is if the administrative branch is Republican, then the
>     congressional branch must be Democratic, and vice versa.  I rationalize
>     that BOTH parties have positive contributions to society.  During
>     election time, the negative of each is highlighted by the other.
>     
>     I do not believe that either "party philosophy" should have
>     _un-checked_power, or you (we) begin to experience the negative

I understand how you feel.

I'm an (unenthusiastic) Dukakis supporter, and at first I was mystified by the
heated dislike of Dukakis by so many current and former residents of
Massachusetts.  I've lived here (Massachusetts) for 20 years, through
Republican and conservative Democrat governors as well as Dukakis.  Things just
ain't that bad, although there are the usual set of problem areas.

I think that the visceral dislike of Dukakis comes in part from the fact that
Massachusetts is a one-party state, and if anything seems to be getting more
so.  People who have a dislike for current policies or personalities have only
an ineffective local Republican party to turn towards. Of course, they could
work for an alternate Democratic nominee, but that is much harder to do in many
cases because you don't have an established political organization from which
to mount a campaign.  (Political parties aren't recursive!)

Thus those who wish change have a much harder time in Massachusetts than they
would in another state where both parties were effective.  I can understand
that such a situation would leave the "minority" with no weapon more effective
than anger and sarcasm.  They are effectively disenfranchised.

Bob

re Note 207.55 by BOLT::MINOW:

> Interesting that Soapbox is about 70% (or more) in favor of Bush, while
> this community is about 70% in favor of Dukakis.  I wonder whether this
> reflects divisions in the outside world?

My highly biased opinion is that Bush's campaign has been carefully crafted to
hit all the emotional chords by choice of issues and by how the issues are
raised.  Dukakis, on the other hand, is almost entirely "intellectual" rather
than emotional in his appeal (to a fault).

(Compare how many times you have seem people make fun of Dukakis' name, or
rhyme it in an insulting way, vs. Bush's name.  Have you ever seen a bumper
sticker that insults Bush?  Issues don't fit on bumper stickers.)

Soapbox deals with public issues in highly emotionally charged ways.  
Womannotes deals with highly emotional issues in thoughtful ways.  They would
tend to attract very different types of people.

Bob

>(Compare how many times you have seem people make fun of Dukakis' name, or
>rhyme it in an insulting way, vs. Bush's name. 

I don't know if anyone _really_ did this, but I heard the possibility of

'Lesbians love Bush'

That's probably _too_ outrageous though...
	Mez

    Cute.  I heard some comedians talking about the election and decided
    that in '92 we should have comedians draft ALL the campaign commercials
    etc.  Won't have any less content and at least it'll be fun to listen
    to.
    
    One of the best I heard was poking fun at the Bush/Quayle ticket:
    
    "The Bush and Quayle".  Makes you think its a hunting magazine for
    wimps, doesn't it?  Ahh, good, me issue of Bush and Quail just
    arrived. 

>   (Compare how many times you have seem people make fun of Dukakis' name, or
>   rhyme it in an insulting way, vs. Bush's name.  Have you ever seen a bumper
>   sticker that insults Bush?  Issues don't fit on bumper stickers.)
    
    On the forth of July at the Esplanade in Boston a man was selling
    t-shirts and buttons that said "Lick Bush".

Re:  .111

>    Has anyone seen numbers which reflect the overall popular vote broken
>    down by gender?

NBC carried such a breakdown a couple of times, and the local stations in
Massachusetts had similar stuff for the state.  Both nationally and locally,
men were several percent more likely to vote for Bush than were women.  I
don't recall the exact breakdowns, though.

						--Q

    re:.110
    
    The other "Bush and Quayle" line I've heard is that it sounds like
    the name of a pub.
    
    "'Ey, 'ow about going down ta th' ol' Bush'n'Quayle for a pint?"
    
    re:.111
    
    I dunno. When Humphrey won the popular vote in 1968 (though not
    by a whole lot) there was some mumbling about rethinking the
    electoral college business, but that died pretty quickly.
    
    --- jerry

    re .114:
    
    > ...When Humphrey won the popular vote in 1968 (though not by a whole 
    > lot) ...
    
    Ummmm, jerry, I don't want to insult your integrity or anything,
    but could you substantiate this? Every list I've ever seen claiming
    that the electoral vote went against the popular vote has *not*
    included the '68 RMN v. HHH election.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Memory must be slipping. I could *swear* that it was the case.
    I withdraw the comment until I can find something that says
    otherwise.
    
    --- jerry

    Nixon       31,785,480
    Humphrey    31,275,166
    Wallace      9,906,473
    
    ASP

       Has anyone seen the stats on how women actually voted? I heard on
       NPR that women were split between Dukakas and Bush but that Bush
       won on the white male vote which was heavily for him. The
       minorities went with the Duke. liesl