From: sam2980@tamsun.tamu.edu (Stephan Mazzucco)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: RE: Presidential Leadership (response to earlier post)
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:03:54 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

In article <1992Oct16.135919.14428@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.034050.24739@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

*stuff deleted*
>|> Sheesh. Do you know what the misery index is?
>|> 

>Oh, yeah.  Happy days are here again.  Get a clue geek.
>Go to south-central LA.  Go to steel-town PA.  Ask them
>what they think of the "misery index."
>
>Jared Dahl

Dear Mr. Dahl:

	The misery index represents the summation of inflation and un-
employment (percentage points), and it is used an an economic gauge of the
relative misery of the people in an economy, and you would expect it to be
higher that its currently low level with of all the complaining about the
state of the economy done by the media and many of the Democrats, neither of 
which have a very firm grasp on the subject of economics.  All the hoopla 
about how bad the economy is represents nothing more than that - hoopla. 
Propaganda. Exaggeration. Hyperbole. Distortion. Etc., etc.  
	Here are the FACTS:

 (something which some Democrats avoid at there convenience)
 (aside: no offense intended towards informed Democrats.  In fact, to those
         who are informed and argue in an logical, consistent, and intelligent
	 manner, I salute you - I much rather prefer discussions with your 
	 breed than those who have no reasons behind their opinions, but 
	 nonetheless hold those opinions to be the ultimate truth.  But, I 
	 digress ...)

FACT: 	Out of the post-war recessions in the history of the U.S., this
     recession has been the mildest ever.  
	The slower recovery that has accompanied it might very well be a boon:
     it prevents the economy from entering an overheated boom and throwing it
     back into recession.  Long, SUSTAINED growth is more desirable than 
     bouncing back and forth between recession and recovery.

FACT:   No matter how bad certain groups of people are, the U.S. has the 
      highest income per capita in the world. the top ten percent of wage 
      earners in the U.S. make on the average more money per person than
      the top half of workers in the lesser developed countries.  "Bad" is
      a relative term - compare those that we consider "poor" in America 
      to the "poor" in India, Thailand, or Chad.

OBSERVATION:

	Returning to the issue of the recession, let's examine for a moment
it's probable cause, discounting the old 'post-war recession' route of 
causation, since many economists believe that this country was well on the 
way towards recession before the start of the war.  I'm sure that you 
remember the President's recantation of his "no new taxes" pledge, but 
do you remember why he reniged?  In order to pass a "budget reduction"
package that Congress pushed.  Before I continue, let me state that this
set of legistlation was proposed by the Democrats.  It also included 
raising taxes as a means to "reduce" the deficit.  The President might have 
made a tragic error when he chose to sign the bill, and not just from his
loss of credibility.  Raising taxes is a contractionary fiscal policy.
It is very, very possible that this legislation is what threw the economy 
into recession, legislation espoused as "good" by the Democrats then, and
now they blame the President for the results of their programs.  Granted,
he should not have signed the bill, but Democrats shouldn't have proposed it,
especially since "deficit reduction" means not a real decrease in the size of
the deficit, but rather, a cut in the increase of the deficit - the deficit 
still gets bigger, but just not as much.  What this proposal translated into
was higher taxes and, most likely, in a recession.  The key is that the 
President is blamed for the failure and consequences of Democratic
legislation.  

4)  The Democratic Presidential Candidate's "Tax Cut"
    (well, while I'd thought I'd throw in some information on the
     Democratic candidate while I was at it)

     Purportedly, Mr Bill Clinton favors taxing households with an 
income of over two hundred thousand dollars to pay for a tax break for 
the midddle class, the middle class being defined as families that make
between fifteen and fifty thousand dollars (if I am a little off in my
interpretation of what Mr. Clinton's definition of "middle class" actually 
is, it doesn't change the following numbers too much).  Out of five hundred
families, only about one or two make the proscribed over two hundred thousand,
whereas the middle class represents about 350-400 of 500  families.  How does
Clinton expect to finance a tax cut from such a small group to such a large 
one?  Answer:  He can't - even taking 100 percent of the income earned by all
families earning over 200 thousand dollars, you could not finance a significant
tax break for the middle class. It can't be done.  It's good politically
(makes numerous middle class like you), but it makes absolutely no sense 
economically.  Period.  Just a political manuever to sucker in voters.

Final comment:  (and by now, I'm sure all of you are thinking,
		 it's about time)

	To those men who disagree, as is the nature of man to disagree, do
so in a rational, intelligent manner.  State your arguement in a clear, 
logical way, and either I will refute it, or I will be forced to accept it 
until I can find an adequate way to refute it (which may be never).
	To state it differently, criticism and name-calling of the author 
(as Mr. Dahl did in his response to the misery index) is not how to establish
your point.  It only lends credence to those who argue against you.  It also
is rude.

		Sincerely,

			- Stephan Mazzucco
			  stephan@tamsun.tamu.edu









-- 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  
*  Stepan Mazzucco    *       Some really impressive quotation    *
*  sam2980@tamsun     *       could go here, but is it really     * 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion