From: usenet@nmsu.edu
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:27:14 GMT

In article <Bxqsvz.6Dv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <DSTEINBE.92Nov12082825@grace.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
   ( >>=me  >=Scott W Roby)
>>I would hope so.  Lowered taxes and little spending is a cornerstone
>>of the Libertarian Party...
>
>The Libertarian Party is for little or no taxes for EVERYONE, as I understand 
>it.  That is NOT the idea behind trickle-down economics(T-D E).  In T-D E, 
>the idea is to give as many tax breaks as possible to the RICH, so that they 
>will naturally and nobly invest in more business and jobs.  They didn't, and 
>T-D E failed as method of promoting employment.
>
>Spending is separate from T-D E, IMHO.  And besides, Republicans are quite 
>good at spending -- look at Reagan's defense budget and his deficit.
>Although I think Democrats have abandoned their old habits of "tax and spend", 
O.K., we have different def.'s of T-D-E.  I always thought it meant
that if you lower taxes in general (including those on the rich) then
the economy will improve...

>I must still admit that it makes more fiscal sense than "DON'T tax and spend", 
>which is what Reagan did -- hence our deficit.
>
>You'll have to do better to convince me that the Libertarians are for T-D E.
Again, different def.'s  Perhaps you're right.  I'm not a huge fan of
the Repub.'s; it wouldn't suprise me if I got their propagandra wrong...

         (Stuff deleted)
>
>I don't see the connection.  Bush has been fairly strong on Capital 
>Gains tax cuts, which is more T-D E, consistent with Reagan.  I don't 
>think that single tax increase had profound effects, except for Bush's 
>credibility on campaign promises.

   You could be right, but economics is much more of a religion than a
science.  You believe in your liberalism, I'll believe in my
libertarianism, and we should both be able to find economists who
agree with us...
>
> [initial discussion of my examples of 80's Republican rhetoric deleted]
>
>>   >I also particularly like your method of argument.  Proof by saying
>>   >"(yeah, right)".  I wonder if me real analysis prof. will let me get
>>   >away with that...
>
>>   Well, I stated each position in a such way that the average reader 
>>   would see why they are pretty silly positions.  I find most of 
>>   these positions as indefensible to start with, and therefore not in 
>>   need of serious refutation.  A simple, sarcastic "yeah, right." is all they 
>>   are worthy of.  
>
>>No, you stated the positions in ways that the average person who
>>didn't agree with them would feel was stupid.  
>
>Hmmm...  Yeah, you're right...  (no sarcasm here)
>I was definitely writing to the already converted, wasn't I?  
>Oh, well. I hope someone enjoyed it.

Ah, glad you agree :@)

>
>>Being a somewhat
>>critical reader, I translated back from what you said that they said,
>>to what they actually did say. 
>
>Well, If you can make any of those issues I mentioned sound worthy 
>of defending, I will be willing to try to give them serious argument.
>I didn't state them in a positive light, because I don't see them 
>as positive things.  Good luck.
>
Maybe, but I don't know if these newsgroups are the forum to do so...
  E-mail maybe?
    
     (me beating a dead horse deleted)
>
>I know what you mean.  I'm willing to seriously tackle any of the issues 
>I raised if you want to present them in a serious and advantageous light.  
>I should also warn you that I am no political or financial expert, so 
>you may find my arguments lacking in details.
>
>Of course, maybe we can both spend our times more wisely on other things, 
>since these Republican administrative positions are going to be academic 
>for at least four years.  :-)
That's true.  Who's to say change is bad.  I'm sick of mocking
Republicans; let's mock Democrats now :@)

>-- 
>Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************