From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 5144@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.160219.6206@rock.concert.net> black@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
->
->Bush said: "Gov. Clinton's plan would raise taxes on anybody who has
->a job."
->
->The Truth: Clinton's plan would raise taxes ONLY on people making more than
->$200,000 per year. Apparently President Bush doesn't know anyone who has a
->job that pays less than $200,000.
->
>
>The Real Truth: And one that little liberal tax and spend brains can't 
>seem to figure out is that this proposed tax like every other tax will 
>eventually be paid for by consumers who generally are people with jobs.
>Just exactly what do you think those people making over $200,000 will do
>when they get their tax bill?  I can tell you what they won't do, they
>won't simply eat it.  They will raise the fees for the services they provide
>raise the prices for the products they produce and ultimately the tax
>will trickle down and the people least able to afford it will pay them 
>by way of higher prices - welcome home inflation we missed you!
>
Like the multi-million dollar salaries don't do that now anyway.  If the
president of Degenerate Motors feels he's worth enough to raise the price
of cars, say, $100 each, who cares if they raise it to cover his taxes?
Isn't this what competition is about?
It ain't as simple as you make it sound.

>That alos doesn't take into account the proposed taxes on electricity,
>natural gas and other utilities Clinton and Gore have proposed.  Or do
>you believe only people making over $200,000 a year use those things in 
>their homes and companies?  
>
Only thing I've heard about this is, Gore's book suggested these tax
increases.  Should we attribute to Bush everything in Millie's book?
>
->
->Bush said: Clinton's tax plan will raise taxes on the middle class.
->
->The Truth: Clinton's plan will CUT taxes on the middle class.
->
>
>Read above and do some reading on the impact of tax increases on economic
>growth.  You might start with the "luxury tax" as an example.
>
Read the above again.  Agreed, the "luxury tax", which Bush signed, was dumb.

->Bush said: "Under Clinton's health plan, you won't be able to choose your
->own doctor."
->
->The Truth: This is simply a lie. Clinton's plan offers all citizens the
->normal choice of doctors. It will also cut down on health care costs by
->taking on the insurance and drug industry giants.
>
>Reality:  What happens when, as is the case with Pennsylvania's medicare
> program, doctors refuse to accept the limited fees the government program
> will pay and simply refuse to see patients that are covered by government
> plan?
>
> What happens when large employers are forced to choose between paying ever
> increasing Blue Cross premiums for their employees and just dropping the
> benifit altogether now that the government will step in and pick up the tab?
> 
> Let's see 10,000 employees at $600 a month equals *WOW*!  Or pay this "tax"
> and ... Oh sirs I think I found a way to increase our annual profits! 
>
PA health plan != Clinton health plan.  I hope.  Let's get some serious
details first.  It might even be better than the marvellously efficient
system we have now!

->
->Quayle said: Congress is to blame for the recession because they didn't
->implement the President's recovery package.
->
->The Truth: Congress passed 6 of 7 items in the recovery package but Bush
->veteod them all. He rejected his own bill to protect some wealthy special
->interests.
->
>
>Yup he sure did!  And every one of those bills had a tax increase bill 
>attached to them and that's why they got vetoed. 
>
And when Bush's original proposals were put before the house, they were
OVERWHELMINGLY voted down.  I think 30-40 voted for them.  Congress took
the proposals and attached a way to pay (which GB left out), as required
by the 1990 budget agreement.  He's still leaving out the way to pay.

->Bush said: I have tried to balance the budget, but Congress wouldn't let me.
->
->The Truth: A President can submit a balanced budget at anytime. Bush NEVER
->did. Under Bush, the national deficit has doubled to $400 billion. Gov.
->Clinton balanced the Arkansas budget 11 times in a row.
->
>
>And Bush as well as Reagan have submitted plans to reduced the deficit of
>over several years.  This is with out doubt the most disingenous aspect of
>the current Democratic Presidential candidates propaganda.  
>
>NO ONE, absolutely no one has suggested that the deficit can be eliminated
>in a single year and pointing to the fact that the President hasn't proposed
>a balanced budget is just cowardly bullshit.  The deficit and debt problems
>have been decades in the making and with take nearly as long to solve and
>suggesting that any President could or should enact a balanced budget in
>a single year plan is utterly irresponsible..
>
Absolutely correct.  But how come each plan that RR/GB submitted had a
"starting date" some time in the distant future, and any savings this year
had to come from unrealistic growth estimates and accounting tricks?
>>
->These were just a few things I wanted to set straight. I was going to
->include the 128 tax increase bullshit in here but I gigured it had been
->covered here well enough already.
>
>Gee Rob all that work and you didn't get any of it right *tsk* *tsk*.
>Better luck next time!
>
>PSG
Go ahead.  Argue that there really were 128 BC tax increases.

--f2
--------------------------------------
  "Time has changed me..."
  --either David Bowie or George Bush, I can't remember which
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc