From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:59:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug26.020128.28016@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM
(QUOTE OF THE YEAR) wrote:

> >Name me one time in history that raising taxes on the rich ever proved to
> >be a boom for society.
> > 
> I seem to remember that taxes on the rich was highest during the later
> part of FDR's and during Truman's term. The late 40's and the early 50's
> could hardly be called stagnation years.

That was a time of great growth after a major world war.  It's not the same
situation now.  Let me give you an example.

Last night on PBS, I watched Gore say that they were going to tax the rich
(punish them) for doing well in the Reagan years.  So I got to thinking
about this.  I am a screenwriter.  If I do as well as I hope to, I may get
$500,000 for a piece I have been working on for the past 2 years.  Hard
work.  MY work.  So, let's say I get the money.  So, under the Clinton
plan, since I obviously did so well during the Reagan years (NOT), I am now
to be punished with a higher tax rate than, say, you.  Now let's say that
$500,000 is ALL I get for the next 10 years.  I will feel quite reamed. 
You know what I will probably do?  I will incorporate myself, give myself a
paltry salary and deduct just about everything I own.  So, in effect, I
will pay lower taxes than, say, you.  

Most "rich" people will do that.  They will move the money around.  They
will hide it.  Clinton will not get the bucks he thinks he will, and then
he'll have to raise taxes on people like you and me.  Not cool.

> >He did this during the Reagan years of massive growth.  For a person that
> >bashes Reagan, Clinton sure likes to take credit for the good business
> >climate that was created during the 1980's.  How much of the job growth was
> >Clinton's policies, and how much of it was Reagan's?
> > 
> The Republican's have been busy blaming the recession on Congress and 
> giving credit to Reagan for any growth in the 80's. Why should'nt 
> Clinton take credit, after all, Reagan is sure getting more credit then
> he deserves. Or will the Republicans start accepting some blame for the
> recession? 

You're evading the question: how much of the growth was due to Clinton's
programs?  What WERE these programs?
 
> >> Bush said: "Under Clinton's health plan, you won't be able to choose your
> >> own doctor."
> >> 
> >> The Truth: This is simply a lie. Clinton's plan offers all citizens the
> >> normal choice of doctors. It will also cut down on health care costs by
> >> taking on the insurance and drug industry giants.
> > 
> >Good luck.  Eventually, it'll be like Kaiser and we all know that.
> >
> We do? I seem to remember a poll of Canadians (universal health care topic)
> that asked them if they would want to change their health care system to 
> America's. 97% of them said no. (poll was about 2 months ago)

Let's talk British, who are moving toward our system.  I am from New York
State where I witnessed mass "border crossings" for people to purchase
things in the US at a much lower tax rate than they have now.  They liked
that.
 
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush