From: joelp@cs.man.ac.uk (Joel Parthemore || Pharos Project)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Prediction of the Republican National Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:02:26 GMT

Drakon@cup.portal.com (HARRY BENJAMIN GIBSON) writes:

>First let me state that having read orc's and buckmr's articles on this
>subject. But i would like to point out, GHWB didn't ask for the tax hikes. The
>Demo's did. And they got just what they asked for.

I get really sick at the Democrats being roundly portrayed as the
tax-and-spend party.  *That* award, at least for the '80s (the period of my
coming-to-political-awareness), *has* to go to the Republican Party.  Sure,
they don't spend money on the same things, but the Republicans *definitely*
know how to spend money.

George Herbert Walker Bush will *never* (in a campaign year) ask for tax
hikes.  No, no:  raise defense spending, raise spending on popular
(Democratic-initiated) programs; but cut taxes.  Er, that's the idea, right?

Then *why* is it that after a decade of a Republican-dominated economic agenda
(Reagan's ``25%'' income-tax cut; income-tax ``reform''; etc.) -- helped out
early on by Southern Democrats and generally all along by a painfully passive
Congress -- my tax burden seems noticeably lighter in this country than it was
back in the States?   Why is it that that ``25%'' tax cut never really reached
my folks?  And just *who* are the capital-gains cuts supposed to help?

The General Accounting Office did a little study right at the end of Reagan's
term, which concluded that the average American was paying a *higher*
percentage in taxes after the '80s (due in part to the ``Social Security
reform/ `bipartisan' compromise'').  Sure:  the wealthiest Americans were a
*lot* better off.  But I've never really hobnobbed with them.

The Republicans' *own* record on taxing and spending is their own worst closet
story, IMHO.  Reagan came into office decrying Carter's piddly little $50
billion budget deficits and promising to balance the budget within two years.
I was a relatively young sprout then, but I really couldn't understand how
this guy promised to slash taxes, treble the military budget and balance the
checquebook.  Now we're running deficits of $300-400 billion *every* year --
it's kind of hard to tell *how* much the way Congress plays with the figures
and takes items off-line.  Who's bearing the burden of that cost? -- It's
coming from somewhere, and I don't somehow think it's the upper class in
particular.  Hmm:  as far as I can see, it's sucking in a huge amount of money
from abroad, which means that we're financing our lifestyle by giving other
folk control over our future; and it's playing havoc with the economy and my
friends' and family's jobs.

Why such a budget crisis? -- the Republicans are just as loathe as anyone to
cut spending where it might hurt re-election. But tax cuts *sound* so good!

Add in the savings-and-loan crisis, which started at $50 billion and last I
heard was over $800 billion and climbing.  Deregulation started under Carter,
but it was a key part of Republican policy in the '80s.  (As an aside, there's
that wonderful committee chaired by Dan Quayle, which exists to help companies
get around government regulations still remaining.)

The Republicans voted right along with the Democrats for a lot of expensive
programs.  The Republicans are not about to get rid of the Social Security
Administration.  The Republicans can pork-barrel just as well as the next guy.

The Democratic Party's hands are hardly clean.  But at least I hear Democrats
talking about raising taxes when and where they need to be raised.  Carter
talked national malaise, tough times.  Reagan said, just believe things are
the way you want them to be, and they will be.

The Republican Party is the party of glib solutions:  Stars-and-Stripes, Ollie
North, government intervention only where you really *need* it (in the
bedroom and abortion clinics), low taxes and everlasting prosperity.  The
Democrats try for glibness, but hell, they can't come close.

Republicans act like you can have the services (the *important* ones, like
Stealth bombers; and *certain* social services) and just keep slashing the
taxes.  And that's *exactly* what they've done, right?  Right?...  Er....
Well, actually....

Go ahead.  Vote the tax-and-spend party.  Vote Republican.

>The point I was trying to make s i can't afford either of these bozos. I doubt
>if any of us can.

I think I can.  (And this is for all that I seriously do not get into
Clinton.)

>Ben Gibson

 Joel,
       who gets pissed off when English Labourfolk tell him that ``the
       Democrats and Republicans are really the same, aren't they?''