From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The Myth of the Spendthrift Democrat
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:50:31 GMT

In <3920@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>Bill Clinton's
>>economic plan?
>>Raising taxes - yes, for those with incomes over $200,000, and
>>its about time they paid their share.
>	Raise taxes on the few and watch everyone get hacked. The more
>money that goes into the government, the less there will be for
>investment or philanthropy. Kiss those struggling orchestras, museums,

Sounds like you bought the 'trickle down' idea, trouble is the rich
did not invest in business, especially new business.

>and theaters goodbye in your small hometowns if taxes are hit on the
>rich.
>	The example that is used in the recent luxury tax on yachts.
>Since the luxury tax was increased, those wealthy who wanted to purchase
>yachts became discouraged. Sales of yachts went down, and those
>companies that built the yachts laid off hundreds of workers.

>>Cuts in spending - Yes, from defence and possible putting a
>>freeze on some entitlements.
>	I'd like to see how much money you want to cut from defense, and
>what the priorities of entitlements that should be "immune" to such cuts
>should be. There are many items in the government that should no longer
>be funded as it is a waste of time. But don't tell Lawrence Walsh or the
>prosecutors of the "October Surprise" that.

Well, he is one cut, how about star wars, the B2, the new fighter,
especially as there does not seem to be anything out there that
can match the F-15 or F18.

>>Balance the budget - Would be nice, but raising taxes on a
>>broad basis right now would probably make this recession
>>another 30's style depression, so no can do right away.
>	So cut spending. That's also tough to do, but if I'd love to see
>a balanced budget too.

I'd like a balanced budget too, but if we don't spend on some
items, this recession will never end.

>>Regarding the Germany/Japan economic miracle(s) vs the U.S.,
>>they rebuilt new after the war, while they were doing that we
>>had free run of the world's markets. Our oh so wise business
>>leaders (most of whom couldn't find their ass with both hands),
>>did not spend a thin dime replacing outdated equipment.
>	Ask businessmen why they can't replace outdated equipment. Could
>it be costs of replacement? If you want to motivate businesses and move
>the economy, you have to offer incentives. Tax breaks generally help.

Hey!, After WWII! I'm talking about the 50s and 60s when profits
were good and interest rates low. That's when they didn't invest,
and that's how we lost our textile industry.

>>In the 80's, the Republicans spent money we didn't have on
>>the military and nothing on the infrastructure. Four years
>>of Bush and Quayle put us in the toilet, and now you want to
>>give them another four so Dan can pull the chain? Idiotic.
>	The President cannot spend money in the federal budget without
>having had an appropriations bill pass the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The
>Republicans were not in control of the House, and I don't think they
>have in over 30/40 years. If you want to blame any fiscal
>irresponsibility of the Executive, remember that the Legislative Branch
>(i.e., CONGRESS) should share the blame too.

Sure, and a lot of it was because we voters bought the GOP pig-in-
a-poke and pressured them. Besides, the Republicans can't even
control themselves, let alone the House, or else they would have
Quayle under house-arrest :-).

>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
>Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!

REB

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8948 talk.politics.misc:35412