From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:32:40 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.92Nov10075437@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>To: In article <BxGq5z.LLo@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott
>W Roby) writes: 
NOTE: >   > = adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)


>   > [Bush] was NOT Reagan.  He made deals with the Demos.  

>   Mostly he made vetoes.

>Yes but he agreed on a huge tax increase.  This is why most people
>would say Bush is NOT a believer in trickle-down economics.  Bush
>didn't believe in anything...

I read in the newspaper that Reagan also increased taxes *after* 
1982 in a failed attempt to help the deficit.  These were 
not income taxes, but other forms of taxes, like boating fees, etc.

Even Reagan began to recognize that trickle-down wasn't working, but 
he kept up the rhetoric anyways.

>   >He didn't take action when
>   >people thought he should.  Many Republicans hated him.  I voted against him
>   >because he didn't deserve reelection.  Nor did I vote for Clinton.
>
>   So you voted against trickle-down economics, since Bush was the ONLY one 
>   still supporting this tired idea. 
>
>What about Andre Marrou.  No chance of winning, but a good protest
>vote. 

Are you saying Marrou supports trickle-down economics?

    [deletia]
>   I never said the mandate was in FAVOR of Clinton's economic plans.  I said 
>   the mandate was to GET RID of trickle-down economics.  I still think so.

>I think it was to get rid of someone who would decide his posistion by
>checking the polls...

So you think people were voting on character and leadership, rather than 
on their wallets/pocketbooks.  I disagree.

>            (more stuff deleted)          
>   I think the 80's Republican rhetoric simply fails without the charisma 
>   of Reagan to back it up.  Examples:

[NOTE: at this point I decided to list *any* examples of Republican 
rhetoric that I felt the public was no longer buying...  The list 
simply grew and grew... :-)  

>   Let's cut taxes, raise defense spending and in the process, balance
>   the budget. 
>   (yeah, right.)
>   If we ignore minorities, the environment, and the homeless, then these 
>   problems will go away.
>   (yeah, right.)
>   Let's unregulate businesses like airplanes and S&L's, that will be good 
>   for everybody.
>   (yeah, right.)
>   Let's give tax breaks to the rich and hope they will then invest it in 
>   business growth IN AMERICA (more jobs).  
>   (yeah, right.)
>   *Let's talk about school prayer and pretend we're doing something about it.
>   *(yeah, right.)
>   *Let's say we're pro-life, but confess we're pro-choice where our daughters 
>   *are concerned.
>   *(yeah, right.)
>   Let's offer $1000 school vouchers, which the rich can use as a discount 
>   off their prep school tuitions and the poor will just give back to the 
>   public schools, not being able to afford the remainder of private tuition 
>   (another [hidden] tax break for the rich).
>   (yeah, right.)
>   *Let's wrap ourselves in the flag (America! No. 1!) and support petty 
>   *dictators to stabilize Panama and Iraq.
>   *(yeah, right.)
>   *Let's buy off terrorists with arms and then lie to our constituents 
>   *about it. (I don't remember, I was out of the loop)
>   *(yeah, right.)
>
>What do any of the things I have marked with stars have to do with
>economics.  How is trickle-down economics invalidated as a theory
>because of the arms for hostages deal?  It's completely unrelated.

The points marked with stars don't deal with economics, and I don't 
think those issues had much impact on the election, which was about 
the economy.  However, they are still examples of Republican rhetoric 
that once worked (with Reagan's charisma) that no longer seem to work 
-- thank goodness.

>I also particularly like your method of argument.  Proof by saying
>"(yeah, right)".  I wonder if me real analysis prof. will let me get
>away with that...

Well, I stated each position in a such way that the average reader 
would see why they are pretty silly positions.  I find most of 
these positions as indefensible to start with, and therefore not in 
need of serious refutation.  A simple, sarcastic "yeah, right." is all they 
are worthy of.  

I haven't proved anything.  I simply think the public isn't willing to buy 
most of these arguments anymore.  (Actually, I think some people are  
still ignorant of the actual effect of a $1000 school voucher, and 
so I explained that position in more detail.)



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men