From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush 'n Phil (Was:Re: Bruce Herschensohn and Lots Of Other Stuff)
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:42:19 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <mlbruce.718410646@husc11>, mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

|> May add another voice to the too many already here? I wish you could do better
|> than simple name-calling in voicing your objections to Rush.

I can and have. Repeatedly. It's easy :^) But I'm under no obligation to 
do so in each posting, especially since I'm reading in and posting from 
alt.fan.dan-quayle, where the customs are, shall we say, somewhat unique. 
And, no, I'm not editing the Distribution line because I have no immediate 
idea where this was posted first - though from its odor I suspect strongly 
it was from alt.rasty-limburger - and I don't want to hide my reply from 
anyone who might have provoked it. And we *are* in the alt world, yes?

|> Anyway, didn't it used to be just "Rush Slimeball", or do you all 
|> just hold a name-calling contest every so often?

It's not so much a contest as a test of manhood. A right of pissage, so
to speak :^) (yes, I did check the spellings). "Slimeball" is so...pedestrian,
don't you think? Unimaginative. And doesn't really apply (hint - that's no
compliment to Your Man).

|> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
|>  
|> >|> What do you have against Gramm?  He may not be perceived as a great speaker,
|> >|> but he is brilliant, especially at economics where are biggest problems,
|> >|> according to the polls, are.
|> 
|> >Brilliant??!!?? This of the co-author of the Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction 
|> >Act??? Gimme a break! This "brilliant" economic mind still believes that 
|> >mandating huge reductions in government services will help the economy. 
|> >And of course the last twelve years' evidence to the contrary is blithely
|> >dismissed as irrelevant, since it isn't congruent with his preconcieved
|> >notions.
|> 
|> As you may recall, one of the biggest reasons Gramm-Rudman didn't work is
|> that certain liberal congressmen found loopholes. Nay, SUED so as to have
|> those loopholes created for them via creative court interpretation. By the
|> way, in the Reagan years, the deficit shrank as a % of GNP, while the
|> economy experienced 84 straight months of robust growth.

Revisionist running dog! :^)

Let's look at more the facts, not just the convenient ones with your
favorable interpretation of them. Let's include the ones favorable to
*my* position, too.

A) Gramm-Rudman cannot work, "certain (unnamed) liberal congressmen"
or no. There simply isn't enough money left over after paying for interest 
on the national debt, mandated entitlement programs, and the ever-bloated
defense appropriation, to do anything *useful*. In fact, the current year's
deficit is *larger* than that remainder, so if we only paid for those
three things, we'd still have a deficit and still be in violation of
Gramm-Rudman.

Only a fool actually believes that Gramm-Rudman was intended to control
the deficit. It's really a gross sham. It was simply meant to be a 
continuation of the Reagan Administration's central goal to de-fund the Left. 
Read David Stockman's book...

B) The loopholes were the only thing that allowed G-R to pass in the first
place. Reagan Democrats wanted to look like they were against the deficit,
but also realized that it would be political suicide to rip out the other
social projects, and, yes, also the pork, that their constituents wanted. 
But they had no stomach for facing reality and raising the money needed 
to do what the citizenry wanted. So, they did the expected, convenient,
hypocritical thing.

Politics is ugly.

C) Now for your economic chestnuts: The deficit did indeed shrink as a 
percentage of GNP over the course of the Reagan years. Of course, that 
was after it had first ballooned to record levels in the first few of them.
Considered over the entire eight years, the overall deficit was a larger 
percentage of the overall GNP than at any time in our history other than 
during World War II. And it keeps getting worse.

D) I would differ strongly with your use of the word "robust". The
GNP grew at an average of less than 3% per annum during that time, 
which is pretty anemic (in Japan, less than 5% is cause for worry). 
In reality it was even worse than that, because inflation grew at a 
faster rate than the economy. During your "robust" growth, the actual
earning power (corrected for inflation) of the average American declined
significantly. 

I'd say that the Boston Red Sox' offense this year was similarly
"robust", eh? :^)

|> Then Bush, who
|> ABANDONED good conservative economic principles, caved in under pressure
|> and signed into law a massive tax increase and reams of overregulation.
|> The deficit ballooned as a % of GNP (and since taxes were increased,
|> government "services" had to be increasing even faster. Pardon me, but if
|> I wish to be so "serviced" I can find better sources than Uncle Sam) and
|> the recession hit harder than a Roger Ailes campaign ad.

Good imagery! Irrelevant, of course, but have you considered advertising
as a career path?

Of course, "trickle-down" could *never* be mistaken for good economic
principles, conservative or otherwise. And I'd be beholden to you if you
could point out a few of the "reams of overregulation" you so confidently
invoke. While you're at it, don't forget to consider the effects of Dan
Quayle's Council On Competitiveness (See! This does belong in a.f.d-q! :^),
whose sole purpose is to gut regulations, and at which it is spectacularly
successful.

Finally, the deficit's increase was due almost entirely to the continuing 
recession, not the tax increase, as any sophomore Economics major could 
point out to you, and which I'm sure you realize deep down in your heart. 
Fewer jobs -> less national income (quite different from GDP) -> lower tax 
revenues than expected.

Gee! I guess George _did_ keep his pledge to reduce taxes! Just not the way
we thought he meant it! :^)

|> >He's a much better speaker than economist. He's an excellent example of the
|> >hissing viper school of oratory. Not to mention that he likes to take credit
|> >for things he's opposed, if they finally go through and succeed. I suppose
|> >that makes him suitable Presidential timber, given King George's propensity
|> >to do the same...
|> 
|> You're slightly off on that point. George's major sin is, after he opposes
|> what should be opposed, he betrays us by allowing it to "succeed" in its
|> metamorhpisis from bad bill to bad law.

Exhibit A: Bush opposed the Clean Air Act tooth and nail, and only signed it
when it passed both Houses by a veto-proof margin. He now trumpets it as his
major environmental point of light, while he dispatches Quayle and Company
to gut it.

Exhibit B: The Americans With Disabilities Act got the same treatment.

Exhibits C,...: Every bit of civil rights legislation that's come up during
either the Bush or Reagan years has been opposed, sometimes successfully,
and claimed as his own whenever one managed to pass.

The prosecution rests, mostly to get some real work done. Get a job, kid!

- Don Coolidge
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle