From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 8 Sep 1992 21:31:37 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hailstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <21471@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <18arj8INNh51@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>In article <21461@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>OK.  We are only going to do this once.

>At the start of Reagan/Bush, the ratio of lower-class to upper-class
>tax payments, as a percentage of each dollar EARNED was about 100 to 1.

Presumably you have this ratio reversed.

>The wealthy had all manner of tax dodges and other tricks for getting
>out of paying taxes, even though the incremental (or "marginal") tax
>rate was near 50%.  Therefore, they paid a smaller total percentage of
>the tax revenues, even though the marginal rate was so high.  One of
>the things which happened during the Reagan administration is that many
>of the tax breaks for the rich were removed.  At the same time, the
>marginal tax brackets were lowered.  There were several interesting
>effects, not the least of which was 30,000,000 new jobs, but we aren't
>talking about jobs, so I'll ignore that.  The other interesting thing
>which happened was that tax collections from the upper class increased
>dramatically.  Along with that, there was a 10% decline in the poverty
>rate - and simulateously, the "tax fairness" ratio increased to about
>200 to 1.

You're claiming that the rich pay 200 x PER DOLLAR what poor people do??
The implication of this -- assuming that the rich pay 100%, which is too
high of course
-- is that the poor pay only half a cent on the dollar. Whatever
number is in the documentation by your leg, you aren't explaining it
correctly. What statistic are you taking about?

>And I have the documentation sitting in a giant heap right by my leg to
>prove it.

>>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.

>LBJ refused to listen to his economists.  He was advised at certain
>times in his administration to cut taxes, and he balked.  Then he was
>advised to raise taxes to rein in the inflation that the cut in the
>tax rate produced.  Again, he balked.  He eventually did raise taxes
>and trashed the economy.  Nixon was elected because of high inflation,
>high taxation, and high government spending.  Had LBJ not wanted to
>go down in history as another FDR - "guns and butter" - he would have
>been re-elected.  But he escalated an unpopular war, trashed a growing
>economy, and failed to follow the timely advice of his political
>advisers.

Uh, how old are you?

LBJ was pushed out of the race by the campaign of Eugene McCarthy, when
McCarthy polled over 40% in the NH primary. McCarthy was running his
campaign on one isse: the Vietnam War.

Every few months there were protests about the war (although these were
even worse in the Nixon years). No one was protesting about inflation.

When the Democrats met in Chicago to pick a candidate, blood ran in the
streets. The protesters were against the war, or maybe society in
general. They were not protesting against inflation.

The picture of the Democratic party at this point was awful and Humphrey
started out way behind. He consistently closed the gap, but not enough.

Why don't you post osme documentation of your theory that people were
really against inflation, and the terrible bloody conflict in Vietnam
(that was coming home to America's streets) was the sideshow.

>>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?

>What is the budget deficit in California today?  How much did that tax
>increase help reduce the size of California's growing deficit?  How many
>more bonds is California having to float to make ends meet?

of course, our budget is now balanced for better or worse!
Why was our (conservative) Governor so deluded? How big would our
deficit be if he hadn't gotten some emergency money? (Earthquake cleanup
isn't a line item.) Why didn't he call for zero taxes so the money would
really pour in? (Sarcasm mode on.)

>>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.

>This is hilarious.  Please, explain this "change".

Sure, but you could have found it in the almanac yourself if your brain
rate. Under Carter, the miltary was excluded from the calculations. Now
it's included.

I believe there was also some fiddling on how discouraged workers were
calculated, but on this I'm not sure.

>Even when "discouraged" workers are included, the current unemployment
>rate is about 10.5%.  Under Carter and the "old" system, unemployment
>most certainly exceeded that level.

False. Nice try though. Peaked under Reagan.

Why don't you ask some of the older folks -- like 40 -- about 1968.

andy