From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:28:31 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> >He has already told us he would raise taxes, where have you been?
> 
> Umm, I've been right here. I never denied the fact that Clinton's proposed
> economic plan did NOT call for raised taxes, but the conservatives like to
> generalize the issue by simple calling it "raise taxes" and not saying WHICH
> taxes. And then, when the conservatives DO mention some specific middle class
> tax increases, they are blowing steam since their comments are mere speculation
> and are not based on hard facts or other comments in Clinton's plan. The
> truth is that the ONLY PERSONAL tax increase proposed by Clinton is an increase
> in income tax for those person's making more than $200,000 a year. And one
> could consider this not an increase but a rollback to where they used to be
> before Reagan lowered them and raised them on the lower and middle class.
> 

Lies and DAMNED lies. In 1981, the richest 1% of the poulation paid 28% of
the federal income tax. In 1991, the richest 1% pay 37%! This is a tax
cut? The tax RATE may have been cut, but TAXES PAID went up considerably.
On the lower end of the income scale, but tax RATES and TAXES PAID dropped
under Reagan. 

And if you'd like to roll tax rates back to 70% again, do you plan to
bring back the deductions that Reagan eliminated? Two sides of the same
coin; you can't really complain about cutting the tax rates if you were in
favor of eliminating the tax SHELTERS. Or could it be that you're really
as ignorant as you SEEM to be?


> >|> On the contrary, every vote for Clinton is an intelligent choice.
> >
> >How true, an Intelligent choice for class envy, higher taxes,
> >socialism,
> >lower quality healthcare, and larger government. 
> 
> Huh? Either you haven't been listening or you are beleiving the lies and
> innuendo of the RNC. Clinton is not for higher taxes across the board, only
> for tax equity by the super rich, he is not for socialism, where in the
> heck did you come up with that? He is not for lower quality health care,
> he is for guarenteed health care for all who need it, and the term "larger
> government" can also be equated to many of Bush's ideals.

And how do you define "tax equity"? The top 1% of earners paying 37% of
the federal taxes isn't enough for you? In point of fact, if the federal
government were to confiscate EVERYTHING over $200,000 annual income, the
extra money wouldn't pay for half of Clinton's proposals. 

About health care; the government screws up most of what it touches. As a
career Navy man, I've seen more than enough government health care; and if
you think that Clinton's proposals will produce anything better than the
VA and "military medicine", then you'll believe ANYTHING. Want to buy a
bridge? 

And the fact that Bush has said some really stupid things doesn't make
Clinton any smarter. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion