From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bush's accomplishments
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:52:55 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <3353@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> kwgst+@pitt.edu (Filip Gieszczykiewicz) writes:
]In article <14cse2INN4qp@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
]>Ok, since someone asked what accomplishments Bush has made:
]>
]>He put together a successful coalition through the U.N. which handily
]>pushed Iraq out of Kuwait.  
]
]Well I don't know If I would call that something positive that he has done 
]for the country but I'll let it slide.

Considering the alternatives, it was damned positive.
]
]>
]>He has shown more rational environmental views than any other world leader.
]>At the Brazil Earth Summit, Bush was the ONLY one to say, "Wait, what are
]>we really doing here?"   Global Warming is a hoax.
]
]Is that so... What you are trying to get us to believe is that out of 150some 
]countries the only one to think that Global Warming is a hoax is that U.S.
]hmmm... that seems pretty one sided to me dont you think.  You are saying that
]the U.S. somehow has some special knowledge that all 150some other countries 
]did not have which disproves the notion that when certain chloroflourocarbons
]and other organic gasses meet with O  that it really doesn't disintegrate?
]				    3
]
]I see that you are a student (or faculty maybe?)  have you had your organic 
]chemistry?  Ozone does disintegrate and the temperature of the earth is 
]increasing.  Just because we don't have enough data to prove it doesn't mean 
]that it is a hoax.  Thats like saying until they send a space ship to the sun.
]I wont belive there is nuclear fusion going on there.  

You are sure confused! Global warming has NOTHING to do with ozone
depletion. Bush has not opposed measures to reduce ozone depletion, but
has wisely opposed strong government intervention on the global warming
front. Even if the global warming theories are true, waiting five to ten
years until we understand the problem better will have NEGLIGIBLE effect
on the global warming trend. See "The Heated Controversy" by Ballard
for details.

The Summit was redistributionist to the extreme. The US had the most
to lose, because we would have been hit the hardest by the transfer of
wealth to the third world. The summit goals would have done almost nothing
for the environment, but would have wrecked our economy. If you like our
economy now, imagine it with the sudden imposition of carbon taxes, along
with a simultaneous increase in transfers to foreign governments of
fifty or 100 billion dollars.

]>And if Clinton were
]>President, he would have signed away a huge chunk of our economy to 
]>incompetent governments in the Third World.
]
]So what you are saying is that our government is competent as oposed to them?

Our government had much to lose. Most of those 150 had a lot to gain
(our money and restrictions on our competitiveness).
]
]> The Earth Summit was less about
]>the environment than it was about wealth redistribution and kicking around
]>the West.
]
]Boy... Whew... I am so glad Bush was there otherwise the West would have gotten
]terrible.  I mean can you imagine,  helping to stop global warming, saving 
]endagered species, man I am glad that Bush was there that way nothing at all 
]got acomplished.
Look at the actual policies, not the rhetoric, if you want to make an
informed conlcusion.
]
]>
]>On the domestic front, Bush has had problems but it's certainly not been
]>a catastrophic 4 years.  The recession has hit hardest on the coasts because
]>of corporate debt, skyrocketing health care costs, defense cutbacks, the
]>S&L crisis and the lack of passage of things to stimulate the economy like
]>a capital gains tax cut
]
]Why is it that only the rich and the upper middle class benefit from a capital
]gains tax cut.  See, in the last twelve years we have had the trickle down 
]theory of economics "let the rich have money and they will invest and make 
]the economy better."  It hasn't worked, my friend, the people who got the 
]capital gains took their money and ran.  You see if you give money to the rich
]they don't often go out and invest it on somthing that is going to improve the
]economy they are going to invest is things that are going to make them more 
]money.  If you give money and jobs to lower middle and poor income people what
]do they do?  Do they go out and buy junk bonds?  Do they invest in Municipal
]Bonds?  Do they go out and put it in swiss bank accounts?  No they spend it.
]Spending is the basis of our whole economy.  If people dont buy things then
]the economy goes down the shitter.  The reason that these days consumers aren't
]buying things is that they are afraid of losing their job tommorrow and not 
]having the money to pay for all of those wonderful gadgets.

What do you think the rich do with the money, eat it? Who do you think 
spends a lot of capital gains taxes? How about the small businessman who
retires and sells his business?

The Reagan years produced an enormous number of jobs. It produced the
strongest and longest economic growth period since the war. Junk bonds
are better investements for the economy than municipal bonds (which are
already tax free) because the junk bonds typically (although not always)

]
]>Inflation has been kept low, which has allowed
]>the fed to cut interest rates.  In a lot of areas of the economy, the U.S.
]>is definitely recovering.  The slow rate of growth (2.7% in the first
]>quarter of 1992) was expected. 
]>The German
]
]	Homey the German economy is slow because they just absorbed several 
]hundred million people that had like no money and little training.  And I don't
]think that after next year there will be much arguing about japan.  The moment
]that the EC goes into effect... We are in a world of deeeeeeeep  Shhiiiit. 
]Pardon my french. 
Based on my experiences in Europe, I'm not at all afraid of the EC. The
competitiveness of the worlds largest socialist economy, run by unelected
Brussels bureaucrats, is not much of a threat.
]
]>A tax
]>increase will NOT cause the economy to grow.  A cut in the capital gains
]>tax will. 
]
]Id like you to do two things for me.   One explain how capital gains would help
]the economy when they haven't as far as I can remember?  and two How do you 
]know that Clinton WILL raise taxes.  Just because Bush did doesn't mean that 
]Clinton will.

To fund Clinton's programs would require 2/3 of ALL corporate profits in
the US. How do YOU think he will fund all this "investment" (spending)
that he calls for?
]
]He did not promise to raise taxes he promised to cause the economy to grow 
]better than bush has.

Would you like to buy a bridge? Besides, Bush and Reagan said that
also... why is it that you trust Clinton but not Bush and Reagan?

The ONLY way to help the economy is to significantly reduce federal
spending. Nothing else is going to work!

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc