From: mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush 'n Phil (Was:Re: Bruce Herschensohn and Lots Of Other Stuff)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:13:06 GMT

coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:

>In article <mlbruce.718410646@husc11>, mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

>|> May add another voice to the too many already here? I wish you could do better
>|> than simple name-calling in voicing your objections to Rush.

>I can and have. Repeatedly. It's easy :^) But I'm under no obligation to 
>do so in each posting, especially since I'm reading in and posting from 
>alt.fan.dan-quayle, where the customs are, shall we say, somewhat unique. 
>And, no, I'm not editing the Distribution line because I have no immediate 
>idea where this was posted first - though from its odor I suspect strongly 
>it was from alt.rasty-limburger - and I don't want to hide my reply from 
>anyone who might have provoked it. And we *are* in the alt world, yes?

>|> Anyway, didn't it used to be just "Rush Slimeball", or do you all 
>|> just hold a name-calling contest every so often?

>It's not so much a contest as a test of manhood. A right of pissage, so
>to speak :^) (yes, I did check the spellings). "Slimeball" is so...pedestrian,
>don't you think? Unimaginative. And doesn't really apply (hint - that's no
>compliment to Your Man).

>|> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
>|>  
>|> >|> What do you have against Gramm?  He may not be perceived as a great speaker,
>|> >|> but he is brilliant, especially at economics where are biggest problems,
>|> >|> according to the polls, are.
>|> 
>|> >Brilliant??!!?? This of the co-author of the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction 
>|> >Act??? Gimme a break! This "brilliant" economic mind still believes that 
>|> >mandating huge reductions in government services will help the economy. 
>|> >And of course the last twelve years' evidence to the contrary is blithely
>|> >dismissed as irrelevant, since it isn't congruent with his preconcieved
>|> >notions.
>|> 
>|> As you may recall, one of the biggest reasons Gramm-Rudman didn't work is
>|> that certain liberal congressmen found loopholes. Nay, SUED so as to have
>|> those loopholes created for them via creative court interpretation. By the
>|> way, in the Reagan years, the deficit shrank as a % of GNP, while the
>|> economy experienced 84 straight months of robust growth.

>Revisionist running dog! :^)

>Let's look at more the facts, not just the convenient ones with your
>favorable interpretation of them. Let's include the ones favorable to
>*my* position, too.

>A) Gramm-Rudman cannot work, "certain (unnamed) liberal congressmen"

Since you seem to think the "unnamed" has some significance, I'll bite:
I believe Mike Synar (D, Ok) was instrumental in the lawsuit itself,
although he had support from many other Democrats...

>or no. There simply isn't enough money left over after paying for interest 
>on the national debt, mandated entitlement programs, and the ever-bloated
>defense appropriation, to do anything *useful*. In fact, the current year's
>deficit is *larger* than that remainder, so if we only paid for those
>three things, we'd still have a deficit and still be in violation of
>Gramm-Rudman.

Your definition of useful? And this is important, considering how many
people are mooching Uncle Sam (royalties to Rush for his suckling pig
allegory).

>Only a fool actually believes that Gramm-Rudman was intended to control
>the deficit. It's really a gross sham. It was simply meant to be a 
>continuation of the Reagan Administration's central goal to de-fund the Left. 
>Read David Stockman's book...

Why? I have better sources for my money than the already-thick pockets of
a hypocritical opportunist. Also, your line of argument above is pretty
shoddy. Anyone who says "only a fool would believe...", and then gives no
substantiated evidence to refute that belief, has found some sort of truth
that he does not like but cannot change.

>B) The loopholes were the only thing that allowed G-R to pass in the first
>place. Reagan Democrats wanted to look like they were against the deficit,
>but also realized that it would be political suicide to rip out the other
>social projects, and, yes, also the pork, that their constituents wanted. 
>But they had no stomach for facing reality and raising the money needed 
>to do what the citizenry wanted. So, they did the expected, convenient,
>hypocritical thing.

You're probably right. On a similar subject, isn't this tendency towards
the "expected, convenient, hypocritical thing" itself an indication of the
necessity of a Balanced Budget Amendment? After all, if there's no other way
the Democratic incumbents can cut out the pork, one of three things is
necessary: bringing new, fiscally conservative blood into Congress (not
necessarily advocating Term Limits, so don't respond as if I have);
exercising the Line Item Veto power; or passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.

>Politics is ugly.

>C) Now for your economic chestnuts: The deficit did indeed shrink as a 
>percentage of GNP over the course of the Reagan years. Of course, that 
>was after it had first ballooned to record levels in the first few of them.
>Considered over the entire eight years, the overall deficit was a larger 
>percentage of the overall GNP than at any time in our history other than 
>during World War II. And it keeps getting worse.

>D) I would differ strongly with your use of the word "robust". The
>GNP grew at an average of less than 3% per annum during that time, 
>which is pretty anemic (in Japan, less than 5% is cause for worry). 
>In reality it was even worse than that, because inflation grew at a 
>faster rate than the economy. During your "robust" growth, the actual
>earning power (corrected for inflation) of the average American declined
>significantly. 

Here I challenge your facts. In a factual disagreement, I suppose one must
check one's sources. Mine are Ed Rubinstein's columns in National Review, 
particularly in the recent issue on the Reagan years. What are yours?

>I'd say that the Boston Red Sox' offense this year was similarly
>"robust", eh? :^)

I return your compliment about imagery.

>|> Then Bush, who
>|> ABANDONED good conservative economic principles, caved in under pressure
>|> and signed into law a massive tax increase and reams of overregulation.
>|> The deficit ballooned as a % of GNP (and since taxes were increased,
>|> government "services" had to be increasing even faster. Pardon me, but if
>|> I wish to be so "serviced" I can find better sources than Uncle Sam) and
>|> the recession hit harder than a Roger Ailes campaign ad.

>Good imagery! Irrelevant, of course, but have you considered advertising
>as a career path?

>Of course, "trickle-down" could *never* be mistaken for good economic
>principles, conservative or otherwise. And I'd be beholden to you if you
>could point out a few of the "reams of overregulation" you so confidently
>invoke. While you're at it, don't forget to consider the effects of Dan
>Quayle's Council On Competitiveness (See! This does belong in a.f.d-q! :^),
>whose sole purpose is to gut regulations, and at which it is spectacularly
>successful.

Okay, this one's easy. Try the "no net loss of wetland" policy, from which
homebuilding and farming were brought to a screeching halt on areas which
may have had a mud puddle on LandSat maps ten years ago. For more info,
see the article in Reader's Digest a few months ago by a Louisiana
congressman whose name escapes me.

>Finally, the deficit's increase was due almost entirely to the continuing 
>recession, not the tax increase, as any sophomore Economics major could 
>point out to you, and which I'm sure you realize deep down in your heart. 
>Fewer jobs -> less national income (quite different from GDP) -> lower tax 
>revenues than expected.

This freshman potential economics major submits to you that the tax
increase was a major contributing factor towards the recession, (Exhibit A
the destruction of the US yacht industry. Look around you for Exhibits B
thru ZZ) and by logical extension contributed to the decreasing tax
revenues (Laffer is vindicated!!!!). Besides which, if you had read my
comment correctly, you'd have noted that my argument was that the for the
deficit to balloon as the tax rate increased, spending must be increasing
even faster, evidence of a clean break from fiscally conservative policy.

>Gee! I guess George _did_ keep his pledge to reduce taxes! Just not the way
>we thought he meant it! :^)

>|> >He's a much better speaker than economist. He's an excellent example of the
>|> >hissing viper school of oratory. Not to mention that he likes to take credit
>|> >for things he's opposed, if they finally go through and succeed. I suppose
>|> >that makes him suitable Presidential timber, given King George's propensity
>|> >to do the same...
>|> 
>|> You're slightly off on that point. George's major sin is, after he opposes
>|> what should be opposed, he betrays us by allowing it to "succeed" in its
>|> metamorhpisis from bad bill to bad law.

>Exhibit A: Bush opposed the Clean Air Act tooth and nail, and only signed it
>when it passed both Houses by a veto-proof margin. He now trumpets it as his
>major environmental point of light, while he dispatches Quayle and Company
>to gut it.

>Exhibit B: The Americans With Disabilities Act got the same treatment.

>Exhibits C,...: Every bit of civil rights legislation that's come up during
>either the Bush or Reagan years has been opposed, sometimes successfully,
>and claimed as his own whenever one managed to pass.

>The prosecution rests, mostly to get some real work done. Get a job, kid!

The defense rests, confident of victory, to get some real work dome
myself. Cleaning toilets isn't too glamorous, but it makes decent spending
money. As for the "Get a job kid": as they'd say back in my elementary
school, stop dippin' a lippin' when ya don't know what's hippin'!!!
	---Matt

>- Don Coolidge