From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:57:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.152714.7722@nmsu.edu> usenet@nmsu.edu writes:
>In article <Bxqsvz.6Dv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>In article <DSTEINBE.92Nov12082825@grace.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
   ( >>>=David Steinberg  >>=Scott Roby >=David Steinberg)
>>>I would hope so.  Lowered taxes and little spending is a cornerstone
>>>of the Libertarian Party...

>>The Libertarian Party is for little or no taxes for EVERYONE, as I understand 
>>it.  That is NOT the idea behind trickle-down economics(T-D E).  In T-D E, 
>>the idea is to give as many tax breaks as possible to the RICH, so that they 
>>will naturally and nobly invest in more business and jobs.  They didn't, and 
>>T-D E failed as method of promoting employment.

>>Spending is separate from T-D E, IMHO.  And besides, Republicans are quite 
>>good at spending -- look at Reagan's defense budget and his deficit.
>>Although I think Democrats have abandoned their old habits of "tax and spend" 
>>I must still admit that it makes more fiscal sense than "DON'T tax and spend" 
>>which is what Reagan did -- hence our deficit.

>O.K., we have different def.'s of T-D-E.  I always thought it meant
>that if you lower taxes in general (including those on the rich) then
>the economy will improve...

Well, at least mine explains the phrase "trickle-down"...  :-)

>>You'll have to do better to convince me that the Libertarians are for T-D E.

>Again, different def.'s  Perhaps you're right.  I'm not a huge fan of
>the Repub.'s; it wouldn't suprise me if I got their propagandra wrong...

Okie doke.

>         (Stuff deleted)
>>I don't see the connection.  Bush has been fairly strong on Capital 
>>Gains tax cuts, which is more T-D E, consistent with Reagan.  I don't 
>>think that single tax increase had profound effects, except for Bush's 
>>credibility on campaign promises.
>
>   You could be right, but economics is much more of a religion than a
>science.  

Agreed!!

>You believe in your liberalism, I'll believe in my
>libertarianism, and we should both be able to find economists who
>agree with us...

Maybe we should have separation of state and economics?  :-)

>> [initial discussion of my examples of 80's Republican rhetoric deleted]

>>Hmmm...  Yeah, you're right...  (no sarcasm here)
>>I was definitely writing to the already converted, wasn't I?  
>>Oh, well. I hope someone enjoyed it.

>Ah, glad you agree :@)

>>Well, If you can make any of those issues I mentioned sound worthy 
>>of defending, I will be willing to try to give them serious argument.
>>I didn't state them in a positive light, because I don't see them 
>>as positive things.  Good luck.

>Maybe, but I don't know if these newsgroups are the forum to do so...
>  E-mail maybe?

To be perfectly honest, my political interest is beginning to wind 
down, now that the elections are over.  Can't say how much time 
I would put into such discussions now.  Sorry.
    
  [deletia]
>>Of course, maybe we can both spend our times more wisely on other things, 
>>since these Republican administrative positions are going to be academic 
>>for at least four years.  :-)

>That's true.  Who's to say change is bad.  I'm sick of mocking
>Republicans; let's mock Democrats now :@)

Well, that did strike me as funny.   :-)   But, I'll wait til they 
do something really stupid.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: soc.women