From: jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle: Attack Puppy Unleashed
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:22:35 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.093212.26630@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <92288.020931U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>> RHETORIC: "He will raise your taxes..."
>>
>> REALITY: The Clinton/Gore plan includes $60 billion in middle class
>> tax cuts and $12 billion in tax cuts for the working poor.  It will
>> only increase taxes on the wealthiest few, those making more than
>> $200,000 a year. 
>
>If you confiscate every penny that everyone earns over $200,000, you
>will get about $60 billion -- That's assuming that they continue to
>earn it, and don't mysteriously discover that they can find something
>else to do with their time than work for nothing.  "Soak the Rich"
>taxes have never come close to bringing in the projected revenue.
>
>And taxes on corporations are nothing more than a sales tax.  

	Excuse me Mike, but read/learn some economics before you spout
such bullshit.  Anyone who's taken even one semester of econ will tell
you that the amount of the tax passed on to the consumers depends on the 
elasticity of the market.  For example:  If you levied a corporate tax on
prescription medication, sure most of it would be passed on.  However,
if you raised the price on, Soda, or milk, or steak, MUCH less would be 
felt by the consumer.  That's the nature of economics.  You are evidently a
computer scientist.  Stick with your chosen field.

>> [Putting People First]   George Bush said "Read My
>> Lips: No New Taxes" and then signed the second-largest tax increase
>> in history.  He raised taxes on the middle class.  [Wall Street
>> Journal, 8/12/92]
>
>A reason to be upset with Bush, but hardly a reason to prefer Clinton.
>I can't believe the Democrats have managed to summon up the colossal
>gall to act as if this tax increase was something they were against.
>Bush agreed to the tax increase the Democrats were demanding as part of
>a compromise to break the gridlock.  Spending cuts were part of the
>agreement, but Congress trashed that part of the agreement as soon as
>they got their tax increase.

	The Democrats never said they didn't like it.  They just said
Bush SAID he would veto it and then didn't.  I think he more than 
deserves the criticism.

>Bush should have known better.  Congress pulled this exact same scam
>on Reagan.  He should have demanded spending cuts first.

	Bull.  Bush said "The congress will push me to raise taxes and
I'll say 'No.  Read my lips.  No New Taxes' ".  The congress DID push
him to raise taxes and he went along.  All he had to say was "No,
give me a budget without higher taxes and I'll sign it.  Otherwise
forget it"   But he didn't.  THAT (among other things) is why we think 
he's worthless

>-- 
>Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
>mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
>mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
>                                          Zero risk at last.

-Jason
-- 
"Just like the Pied Piper, led rats through the street
We dance like marionettes, Swaying to the symphony...
Of destruction"	
					-Dave Mustaine


-- 
"Just like the Pied Piper, led rats through the street
We dance like marionettes, Swaying to the symphony...
Of destruction"	
					-Dave Mustaine