From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:39:22 GMT

In <21461@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>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?

Isn't it kind of hypocritical of you to be asking me for references on
the abortion issue when you yourself REFUSE?  *YOU* are the one
demanding references all the time, John, but only when what someone
says doesn't accord with what you want to believe, apparently.  Hey, I
told you the first place to go look.  Go check Grey's Anatomy and look
for when the cerebrum and cerebellum are formed.  When you come back
with that one, I'll send you off to check another one.  You will
quickly find how ridiculous your claims of readable human brainwaves
at 40 days gestational age are.

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

That's nice.  Funny how you don't seem willing to give them, when you
demand them from everyone else.  And remember, no anti-abortion rags.
REPUTABLE references.

>>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.

Hey, neat!  That means the wealthy must be paying over $500 in taxes
for every dollar they earn.  Neat trick, that, but just a bit
unbelievable.  Why do I think you misread the statistic?

>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.

What percentage is a 'quite considerable', John?

>>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.

Ridiculous.  So, now we are to the point where you've said that
nothing Presidents do affects the economy (it was all predicted 90
years ago, after all), Reagan was responsible for the growth of the
80's which caused the predicted downturn in the 90s, and now WARS have
no economic effect either (except that in another note you talk about
how they HAVE had an economic effect).

I guess you're just a real believer in "consistency is the bugaboo of
small minds", right John?  You must be, because on this single issue
you have raised inconsistency to a new plane.

>>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%.

Let's look at those numbers, then.  Announced this morning (on
whatever network has the morning show with Bryan Gumbal on it - if you
can't figure it out from that, then you don't really want references
anyway; as I've been told, it doesn't have to be EASY to check -- just
possible): the percentage of people living in poverty in the United
States is now at the highest level since LBJ initiated the Great
Society.

If you look at things like jobs created, real growth in the economy,
disposable income in constant dollars, etc., George Bush has the 2nd
worst record for any President during a single term in the past 45
years. 

Sounds to me like you need to do some more thinking about those
numbers of yours and what they mean.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.