From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Reasonable men may differ: Capital Gains Tax
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:17:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: news@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <1992Oct16.204812.13095@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.033632.24581@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>>						I lived through the eighties
>>with open eyes and excitement, instead of moping about the fact that
>>America was properous, and my party had nothing to do with it. 
>
>Yeah, I did well in the 80's as well.  Unfortunately we'll be paying for a 
>borrow-and-spend economy for a long long time.  You can buy a lot of short
>term prosperity by borrowing over $3,000,000,000,000.00, but in the end 
>someone has to pick up the tab.

Like I've said in previous posts, I agree that we can't return to the
spending policies of the 80s. But I do believe that Supply Side economics
will work with reduced spending. The private sector is much more efficient
in its handling of capital than Unca' Sam.

>BTW, I've never been affiliated with any political party, so it would be hard
>for 'my party' to have anything 'to do with it'.

As an aside, I'm currently registered Independant. In the past, I've been
registered as both a Republican and Democrat. Currently, I'm opposing the
closed primary system of my state by registering independent -- and, for
the most part, denying myself the franchise in local elections.

I lean towards the Republicans because I agree with their fiscal policies
much more than those of the Democrats. On the other hand, I'm pro-choice,
and have similar views on other civil liberties issues. I suppose that
makes me a Libertarian, but they won't get my vote next month because
I believe that Clinton's economic plans will ruin our economy (like that
Slick Willy sound-alike on Rush said today). I feel that I should vote
for Bush since, among those with what I feel is a sound economic plan,
he's (wow) in the best position to win. Though I (and others like me)
will, along with Perot supporters, split the electoral college. Damn.


>>it was the prosperity of the 80s  -- and the Democrats taking it away in
>>1990 -- that shapes my political views of today.
>>
>
>Were you robbed by democrats?  Or were you just blaming someone for the fact
>that it's time to pay for the last decade?  I have no special love for 
>democratic politicians, but they are just part of a bigger problem.

Like I said, we need to pay for the last decade. But lower spending is
the answer -- not taxing my employer to death.

>>I'll stick with the proven winner, thank you.
>>
>
>Who, Michael Milken?  The Keating five?  The fact that 29 of the 30 biggest 
>bankruptcies in history occurred in the 80's?  The fact that due to 
>deregulation, only 10 of the top 30 trucking companies in 1980 are still in
>operation?  That during the 1980's, tax revenue from individuals increased 
>1041%, while tax revenue from corporations increased only 264%?  That the
>number of manufacturing jobs decreaced while the number of Federal Govt.
>jobs increaced under a republican administration?  What makes the economic
>policies of the '80s a 'proven winner'?

Growth.

Ya know, during times of economic prosperity, high-profile white-collar
crime like the ones you mentioned *are* nore likely. Business got lots
of tax breaks in the 80s, more than individuals. That's one reason why
the tax revenue increased by a disproportionate amount. And, our economy
is becoming more and more service oriented. What was that chart Rush showed
-- something like 3 in 4 employed Americans work in the service industry?
Yes, the factories are closing and the consulting firms are opening. Which
is why we need to promote better schools by providing some competition.


							- greg
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7619 talk.abortion:43028