From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:12:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21424@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>Every day children survive abortions only to be killed by the doctor after
>being born.  This is a well documented fact.  This is what "pro-choice"
>stands for.  The return of the right of infanticide.

Well documented somewhere besides one of your usual rags?  By that, I
mean well documented in some medium that doesn't have its own policy
axe to grind?

>When Clinton was pressed on specific levels of revenue that he proposed
>to raise, it was determined that anyone with an income over $60K was
>considered to be "rich".  Furthermore, when "punish the rich" taxes have
>been raised, the outcome has always been that tax revenues DECLINE.  The
>"fairness" index (which shows how much of a percentage of taxes the
>wealthy pay compared to the poor) has been steadily improving.  

Interesting definition of 'fairness'.  I've seen this claim before,
and what the person using it always fails to mention is that the
reason that worked out is because the 'wealthy' are getting an
INCREASING SHARE of income.  In other words, the rich are getting
richer at a much faster RATE than the rest of us are doing anything
(besides getting poorer).

>Capital gains tax breaks create jobs by making riskier investments
>profitable.  If there is a 31% capgains tax rate, an investment will
>have to have either a higher rate of return (hard to control) or a
>lower level of risk (also hard to control, much less predict) before
>someone is willing to invest in that new business opportunity.  And
>MOST new business activity is NEW businesses, not large and existing
>ones.

The Republican capital gains tax cut doesn't do this.  What it does is
encourage leveraged buyouts, 'churning' investments, etc.  In other
words, it encourages the creation of paper wealth (at the expense of
the rest of us) while not actually producing anything.  The sorts of
targetted cuts recommended by Tsongas and Clinton make a lot more
sense when it comes to actually making the economy healthier.

>If you mean "keep hope alive!" and destroy the American economy,
>then yes, support Bill Clinton.  The policies that Bill Clinton
>wants to give us are identical to those of Lyndon B. Johnson.
>And it was THOSE policies that gave us a recession at the end
>of his presidency and caused the election of Richard Nixon.  A
>student of history will notice the similarities between the
>programs that Clinton is suggesting ("Investing in America")
>and those of Johnson.  The tax hikes and social welfare
>proposals are virtually identical.  The result on the economy
>will be, likewise, virtually identical.

Gee, you don't think the VIETNAM WAR could have had anything to do
with any of this, do you?  No, of course not!

>Under Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, the
>economy expanded (yes, it has done better under Bush than it
>did under Carter), 

I'm curious at what measure you're using to arrive at this conclusion.
By practically any economic measure, George Bush has had the worst 4
year term of any President since WWII, with the single exception of
Eisenhower. 


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4453 alt.politics.bush:2884 alt.politics.clinton:2988