From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 5 Sep 1992 17:43:04 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <21461@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

Truly common sense is elusive in the Republican party!

>1). It is based on taxes paid per dollar of income earned.  That is the
>    "tax fairness" index.  The upper class pays 200+ times the amount of
>    taxes per dollar earned.

I (among others) have pointed out before that this is untrue. If the
upper-class's share of total income is increasing, we expect its share
of taes paid to increase. Under Reagan/Bush, it has increased at a
lesser rate: the upper class is shouldering LESS of the tax burden. Of
course, we are told this is so the upper class can create jobs for the
rest of us. Too bad Marie Antoinette didn't think of tha in her defense.

>2). The turnover in the "upper class" is quite considerable.  The people
>    who were the "rich" in the 1970's are not all the same people as
>    those who are the "rich" in the 1990's.

Why not post some statistics on class mobility? Perhaps because upward
mobility is decreasing under Reagan/Bush.

>Yes, I know what effect the Vietnam War had on it.  None!  Johnson was
>told what he could do to prevent the economy from turning down.  He was
>advised to LOWER taxes in order to raise the money needed to pay for
>both his social welfare program AND the war.  He didn't think it was
>much of a sacrifice to ask people to accept lower taxes, so instead, he
>decided to raise revenue by raising taxes.  It failed, and resulted in
>Richard Nixon being elected president.

Actually, I was alive then, and I'd say the war and the 1968 Chicago
convention and the Wallace campaign had much more to do with Humphrey's
defeat than the economy. You're telling me that LBJ, one of the
craftiest politicians of the century, wanted to increase taxes and lose
instead of decrease taxes and win. Right.

BTW, after the 1989 earthquake here, the governor called for an emergency
tax INCREASE. Why didn't he (and other governors faced with sudden
disaster) call for EMERGENCY TAX DECREASES?? After all, in your math
lower taxes -> more revenue?

>Look at the number of people in poverty before and after Carter's
>election (and use the real numbers, not some fake numbers that don't
>include government assistance or which count the "elderly" as "in
>poverty" because they are living on retirement investments and have
>no "wages").  Then look at the poverty figures for Bush.

I'm looking, they were in today's paper (after you made this stupid
post). And they show: BIG INCREASE IN POVERTY UNDER BUSH.

>Remember that
>under Carter, we thought 10% unemployment was bad.  Now we think 7.6%
>(the current rate) is bad.  If Carter had managed to get unemployment
>down to 7.6% in 1980, he would have beaten Reagan.  Think about the
>inflation rate - Carter had 10+%, Bush has 4%.

1. It has been observed REPEATEDLY that the way of calculating
unemployment has changed under Reagan to the disadvantage of Carter.
Under the current formula Carter's unemployment peaked out in the low
7s.

2. We had very low inflation (deflation, actually) under Herbert Hoover.
Does that mean the Great Depression was a Republcan Economic Success? I
guss so, since we look to be headed for a re-run, and you're all
thrilled about it.

Get a clue.

andy
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton