From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:04:02 GMT


Kenneth Mitchell <kmitche@eis.calstate.edu> writes:
>Zack Sessions writes:
>> Umm, I've been right here. I never denied the fact that Clinton's proposed
>> economic plan did NOT call for raised taxes, but the conservatives like to
>> generalize the issue by simple calling it "raise taxes" and not saying WHICH
>> taxes. And then, when the conservatives DO mention some specific middle class
>> tax increases, they are blowing steam since their comments are mere speculation
>> and are not based on hard facts or other comments in Clinton's plan. The
>> truth is that the ONLY PERSONAL tax increase proposed by Clinton is an increase
>> in income tax for those person's making more than $200,000 a year. And one
>> could consider this not an increase but a rollback to where they used to be
>> before Reagan lowered them and raised them on the lower and middle class.
>> 
>
>Lies and DAMNED lies.

I'm sorry you fgeel the need to make a fool of yourself. You have obviously
not read Clinton's plan. I have. And the statement of mine above is the truth.

> In 1981, the richest 1% of the poulation paid 28% of
>the federal income tax. In 1991, the richest 1% pay 37%! This is a tax
>cut? The tax RATE may have been cut, but TAXES PAID went up considerably.
>On the lower end of the income scale, but tax RATES and TAXES PAID dropped
>under Reagan. 

Oh, we pay taxes as a group, now? EACH PERSON pays taxes. The tax rate on
EACH PERSON is what is important, because THAT PERSON is the one person
who must pay THEIR OWN TAXES. The tax rate on the rich went down, YES THAT
IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT, and that is what is important, as the tax rate paid
by EACH RICH PERSON PAID was LOWER, THAT is what is important.

Sure, the "rich" as a group paid more in TOTAL taxes, because the RICH ARE
GETTING RICHER and the more money you make the more taxes you pay (if you
are honest).

Yes, I most certainly do call what happened in Reaganomics during Reagan's
and Bush's tenures as a TAX CUT, as that is EXACTLY what is was.

>And if you'd like to roll tax rates back to 70% again, do you plan to
>bring back the deductions that Reagan eliminated? Two sides of the same
>coin; you can't really complain about cutting the tax rates if you were in
>favor of eliminating the tax SHELTERS. Or could it be that you're really
>as ignorant as you SEEM to be?

70%!!! Whoever the hell said 70%!!! And no one has ever said they wanted
to bring back any tax shelters. In fact, the Clinton Gore ticket is in favour
of forcing foreign companies who do business in America to pay their fair
share of taxes on money made in America.

>> Huh? Either you haven't been listening or you are beleiving the lies and
>> innuendo of the RNC. Clinton is not for higher taxes across the board, only
>> for tax equity by the super rich, he is not for socialism, where in the
>> heck did you come up with that? He is not for lower quality health care,
>> he is for guarenteed health care for all who need it, and the term "larger
>> government" can also be equated to many of Bush's ideals.
>
>And how do you define "tax equity"? The top 1% of earners paying 37% of
>the federal taxes isn't enough for you? In point of fact, if the federal
>government were to confiscate EVERYTHING over $200,000 annual income, the
>extra money wouldn't pay for half of Clinton's proposals. 

Again, you skew the figures to meet your agenda. The rich pay more of total
taxes simply because they ARE rich! And, NO, I do not feel that they are
currently paying their fair share.

In your accusation that the proposed tax increase would not pay for the
porposed increases in spending IGNORES the PROPOSED CUTS which, along with
the proposed tax increase will more than cover the proposed spending
increased, thus LOWERING the deficit.


>About health care; the government screws up most of what it touches. As a
>career Navy man, I've seen more than enough government health care; and if
>you think that Clinton's proposals will produce anything better than the
>VA and "military medicine", then you'll believe ANYTHING. Want to buy a
>bridge? 

Clinton/Gore is not proposing socialized medicine. Merely the availability
of AFFORDABLE health insurance provided by PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Your comments are inconsistent with what Clinton's official position on
health care is. HAVE YOU READ Clinton's plan? It is plainly obvious to
me you haven't.

>And the fact that Bush has said some really stupid things doesn't make
>Clinton any smarter. 

No, Bush's ignorance does not reflect on Clinton's intelligence. But Clinton's
plan does speak well for him. It has been endorsed by six nobel prize winners
in economics. It has been endorsed by the Business and Professional Woman's
PAC, several CEOs of large key corporations, a former key economic advisor
to the Perot campaign, and many others.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7224 talk.abortion:42222