From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Miscellaneous Musings (re: 1/22 Update)
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:07:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

> 
some snippets from the (un)official summary-- 1/22:


> o       "With all of the hubbub of this week" nobody noticed that
> Reginald Lewis died Tuesday. Lo Bianco gives Rush a quizzical
> look, and "H.R." tells him that Lewis was founder of and chairman
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^
> of the board of Beatrice Foods. Interestingly, Lewis was black
> and he still managed to live the American dream and die with a
> fortune of $400 million.
> 
	my understanding was that mr. lewis acquired beatrice 
	through a leverage buyout with the legitimate help of
	michael milkien (sp?)...  so this is a real 80s success
	story... a *true capitalist* was how many reports 
	characterized mr. lewis.  why does rush have to twist
	the facts here??!  his point would've had more hit-home
	effect if he told the truth (just MHO).


> Now, though, he is the one lone voice criticizing Clinton,
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and people are attacking him, his patriotism, his judgment, etc.

	oh how pedestrian...  maybe he is the only one with his
	audience numbers, BUT certainly not the shakespearean
	tragic figure he would have us believe.

> 
> Continuing on with the update, Hillary Clinton will be the Health
> Care Reform Czar in the Clinton administration. However, the
> Anti-Nepotism Act was enacted after Bobby Kennedy became JFK's
> Attorney General, and the Act states quite clearly that a member
> of the President's family cannot be given a position making
> public policy.
> 
	what's his take on this??  does he think it is a bad
	move that hillary might be a health czar?  the bobby
	kennedy rule aside, i think it would be a perfect fit
	for her... it would keep her out of trouble at a
	minimum and she might just outshine the rest of
	clinton's dumbos ;-)


> In other Congress-related news, a front page story on the Wall
> Street Journal reports that tax increases are inevitable, even on
> the middle class. The story bets that taxes will be increased on
> Social Security benefits, corporations, liquor and cigarettes, as
> well as higher taxes on the rich.
> 
	BZZZZT... wrong, but thanx for playing rush... if he
	read the wall street journal piece (instead of scanning
	the sub-headings) he would've seen that the WSJ ISN'T
	betting on a corporations tax... and the social security
	tax isn't a separate category from the soak-the-rich
	scheme--  the taxes on SS are part of the screw-the-rich
	democratic plan...


> "If we're going to do something about the deficit, the middle
> class is going to have to pay more taxes," according to Glenn
> Hubbard, economist at Columbia University. Perhaps the most
> visible tax on the middle class will be increased energy taxes,
> including a hike in gasoline taxes.
> 
	funny how rush failed to mention that mr. hubbard was
	an employee of the BUSH administration... another
	twisted story from the king of conservative reporting
	(this is not to say the liberal media doesn't twist
	 the story...  i just wish rush would report the facts
	 b/c they alone would put the screws to the new 
	 administration...  when he dips to liberal lows,
	 he's only making himself look foolish)


peace out,
pjm.