From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: This "Bush is just like Reagan" thing...
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:45:14 EST
Summary: George Bush is no Ronald Reagan
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1bk7s1INNeh4@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <Bw4z9r.467@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
> 
>>In 1980, when the highest tax bracket was 70%, the top 10% of income 
>>earners in the US payed 46% of federal income taxes. The top bracket
>>was later reduced to 50%, and then to 28%. In 1990, the top 10% of
>>income earners in the US payed 53% of taxes.
> 
>>	The point here? Lowering taxes does NOT necc lead to less revenue.
>>In fact, in many instances it leads to INCREASED revenue. Why? Those who
>>were in the 70% bracket before did more to make money when the tax rates
>>were dropped, because they could keep more of it. Sure, the rich made a
>>bona fide killing in the 80's, but they also payed more taxes? They also
>>hired more people!! The reason that Reagan's two terms had the lowest
>>misery index for the last 40 years is because of the tax cuts that he
>>initiated. The economy is stifled by taxes. 
>>	Things were going well under Bush too, until he and congress decided
>>to raise taxes on the American people. Then everything went to hell. Bush
>>is not the be-all end-all of presidents, but he is a hell of a lot better than
>>Clinton. Raising taxes is only gonna make things worse.
> 
> 1. You posted absolutely *nothing* to show that revenue increased. That
> would require dollar totals, not percentages. Federal Funds (i.e. NOT
> trust funds like Soc Sec) revenue were LOWER in '83 than '82, and in '84
> they were lower than '82 in constant dollars. Revenue took a big hit,
> one of the sources of the current deficit.

	If you have the numbers, then you know better than that.

	Federal Revenues, as a % of GNP rose steadily from 1982-1990.  We had a
GNP that was rising at an annual rate of 3.6%.  So what does that say about
revenue?

>... 
> 3. Again (and again) George Bush raised taxes in 1990 because the unpaid
> debt of the Reagan administration was finally catching up. He was facing

	Debt has been accumulately for three decades.

> a $500 BILLION deficit. Things were not going "well" with respect to the
> deficit at all. It was rising OUT OF CONTROL because of the insane
> BORROW AND SPEND FREE LUNCH of the Reagan Administration: the free lunch

	No, because of the insane spending of the congress.

> you want to eat again. George Bush has welshed on the budget agrreement
> but he has never dared to tell us what spending cuts he would make in
> lieu of taxes if he had it to do over again.

	This is more than a bit funny.  It is congress that has failed to
address the spending cuts *that they promised to make*.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9327 alt.politics.bush:8355 alt.politics.marrou:1511 alt.politics.correct:5641 alt.sex:32425