From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:41:21 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep3.171210.8090@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21424@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>Every day children survive abortions only to be killed by the doctor after
>>being born.  This is a well documented fact.  This is what "pro-choice"
>>stands for.  The return of the right of infanticide.
>
>Well documented somewhere besides one of your usual rags?  By that, I
>mean well documented in some medium that doesn't have its own policy
>axe to grind?

Isn't this kinda hipicritical for you to be asking me for references
on the abortion issue when you yourself REFUSE?

Please, if you want REFERENCES, start PROVIDING references.  And yes,
I got some numbers to back this one up with, too ...

>Interesting definition of 'fairness'.  I've seen this claim before,
>and what the person using it always fails to mention is that the
>reason that worked out is because the 'wealthy' are getting an
>INCREASING SHARE of income.  In other words, the rich are getting
>richer at a much faster RATE than the rest of us are doing anything
>(besides getting poorer).

1). It is based on taxes paid per dollar of income earned.  That is the
    "tax fairness" index.  The upper class pays 200+ times the amount of
    taxes per dollar earned.
2). The turnover in the "upper class" is quite considerable.  The people
    who were the "rich" in the 1970's are not all the same people as
    those who are the "rich" in the 1990's.

>Gee, you don't think the VIETNAM WAR could have had anything to do
>with any of this, do you?  No, of course not!

Yes, I know what effect the Vietnam War had on it.  None!  Johnson was
told what he could do to prevent the economy from turning down.  He was
advised to LOWER taxes in order to raise the money needed to pay for
both his social welfare program AND the war.  He didn't think it was
much of a sacrifice to ask people to accept lower taxes, so instead, he
decided to raise revenue by raising taxes.  It failed, and resulted in
Richard Nixon being elected president.

>I'm curious at what measure you're using to arrive at this conclusion.
>By practically any economic measure, George Bush has had the worst 4
>year term of any President since WWII, with the single exception of
>Eisenhower. 

Look at the number of people in poverty before and after Carter's
election (and use the real numbers, not some fake numbers that don't
include government assistance or which count the "elderly" as "in
poverty" because they are living on retirement investments and have
no "wages").  Then look at the poverty figures for Bush.  Remember that
under Carter, we thought 10% unemployment was bad.  Now we think 7.6%
(the current rate) is bad.  If Carter had managed to get unemployment
down to 7.6% in 1980, he would have beaten Reagan.  Think about the
inflation rate - Carter had 10+%, Bush has 4%.

The last two Democrats - Johnson and Carter - both demonstrated their
ability to take an economy and destroy it.  Clinton has been advised
what to do about taxes, and he has already proposed $220B in NEW
aid programs, plus $90+B in new taxes.  He isn't Carter II, as others
have said, he is Johnson II.  What we NEED is Kennedy II or Reagan II.
A truly repentent Bush might be acceptable, but an unrepentent Clinton
would spell total disaster.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton