From: lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: Setting the Record Straight(er)
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Distribution: hsv
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:59:29 GMT

In article <wiley.719086466@crooks>, wiley@crooks.b11.ingr.com (Dave Wiley) writes:
> lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:
> 
> >Call it what you will. 150 billion in increased revenues has to come from
> >somewhere. The bulk of it will come from US. Say he does somehow mysteriously
> >come up with 1/3 of that from overseas sources (???).
> 
> Where did the 1/3 figure come from?

Same place that most of Clinton's figures came from - outta thin air. I felt
that this was a wildly optimistic percentage to expect from non-US taxpayers,
to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Also - assuming (from another of your postings) that he does sock it to non-US
corporations operating here - the IMMEDIATE and INEVITABLE outcome would be for
those foreign nations to retaliate against US corporations operating in THEIR
countries. Net result, ALL productive entities get a heavy hit, the world
recession goes deeper. Good plan. But wasn't this tried in Florida, a while
back, with the net result that many internationals just up and left, creating
a bunch more unemployment? But most unemployment is caused by government action
in the first place, with such liberal standards as the minimum wage laws...

> >So if you earn $50,000 or more, expect to pick up more like
> >$2000 or so in additional money to the government in one form or another EACH
> >YEAR to pay for these programs. And you can bet that he will deficit spend
> >even more, to worsen our primary problem even more. Tax and spend, tax and
> >spend, tax and spend, BOOM, .......[silence].......
> 
> If George Bush goes hoarse, can you fill in?

Gosh, I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to defend or encourage George
in any way, shape or form. I was referring to BOTH George and Willy, the
demopublican candidates. Can't tell the players without a program - and then
sometimes they look a lot alike! If only there were a REAL third party - BY
GOLLY, there IS! Think I will vote for their candidate. Nice of Perot to
provide some comic relief, too - but someone made a serious mistake in choosing
who could debate - at least they put on ONE of the candidates that got on all
50 ballots, instead of the original planned third debater, some bodiless head
from a burger empire, I think it was...

> >Also, from the Bush/Clinton/Perot debate, note that the "top 2%" of wage
> >earners that Clinton wants to soak really comes down to an annual income of
> >about $60,000, not $200,000.
> 
> I've heard Clinton and Gore say they are going to raise taxes on those
> earning more the $200,000 per year to bring them in line with tax
> increases for those earning less than $200,000 during the previous
> administrations.  There seems to be a peculiar hearing impairment which
> until today I would have said was unqiuely republican that prevents
> people from understanding this rather simple idea.  Now if you ask:
> "A Clinton administration couldn't get the amount a revenue they predict
> from such a hike, where is the difference to come from?"  This would
> be fair question.  One I can't answer, so don't even bother.

A Clinton administration couldn't get the amount a [sic] revenue they predict
from such a hike, where is the difference to come from?  :-) :-)

Actually, I don't HAVE to ask such as question - the answer is OBVIOUS to
everyone - the ONLY source of cash they can harvest is your friendly neighbor-
hod middle-class taxpayer - YOU AND ME. Get ready for the scythe... here it 
comes! Regardless of which demopublican gets in. Ohboy.

> And before we leave the topic, what is your source which says that only
> 2% of the American population earns $60,000 or more?

Sorry, this came from one of the morning network news programs - probably
just as wrong and unresearched as most things from such sources. Allow me to
retract that part. I have no other source for this. Only the one [network news]
that also reported, during the early hours of the last big SF quake [Danny
Rather] that the Golden Gate bridge had fallen into the bay.... bet the other 
newscasters still rib him about that one...

> >Larry "to hell with 'em all - I'm voting for Andre" Hughes
> 
> And good for ya.
> 
> --
> david wiley

This would all be hilarious, and make a fine American episode of "Yes, Prime
Minister", if it wasn't for the sobering fact that we are really going to have
to live for four years (if Clinton gets in, he will certainly repeat Carter's
fine second showing... and thank heavens Bush is legally prevented from a
THIRD term, *currently*) with the outcome of this farce. And the economy is in
a much weaker state at the start of the four years than it was with Carter -
who would like to take odds that before Clinton's four years are up (assuming
the worst possible outcome), we follow the former USSR into the history books?
GOSH - THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN HERE... wonder what part of the former U.S. will be
the best to live in? And who will be left to send US aid? Dark Ages II, here
we come!

Larry "ohboy - four more years of Carter! or <fill_in_the_blank>-storm! Take
your pick (right between the eyes?)" Hughes


Newsgroups: hsv.general