Shared sacrifice
Richard A. Mulac
So, Bill Clinton equates 'his' sacrifice of having to cut the size of
the White House staff to the sacrifices he will force the middle class to
endure, such as higher gasoline taxes, higher taxes on social security,
etc.. Wow - I guess now we'll be able to have empathy for each other.
I'll bet his staff reductions were actually designed to free up office
space for the Carvelle gang, since it came out on Friday that because
the Clinton administration is in the worse shape of any incoming
administration in recent history, all the advisors from the campaign
are now going to help him run the country. Witness the pitiful
performance of Mandy Grunwald on Nightline Monday trying to save face
for the administration in the Kimba Wood debacle. I'd actually
give some respect to Clinton and go along with his 'sacrifice' program
if he came out and said that salaries for the President and Congress
were to be cut in half. It would be a piece of cake for him if he
simply went on TV and asked the middle class to call their
congressperson and demand the pay cut. That would be a smart symbolic
move which would gear up the people for sacrifice. I said 'smart',
which is why I don't believe William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary
Nimrod Clinton will ever do it.
--
Richard Mulac ck...@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 election countdown - 1364 more days | These pontifications
until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House | are my own!
25358-bhatt
|>
|> So, Bill Clinton equates 'his' sacrifice of having to cut the size of
|> the White House staff to the sacrifices he will force the middle class to
|> endure, such as higher gasoline taxes, higher taxes on social security,
|> etc.. Wow - I guess now we'll be able to have empathy for each other.
|> I'll bet his staff reductions were actually designed to free up office
|> space for the Carvelle gang, since it came out on Friday that because
|> the Clinton administration is in the worse shape of any incoming
|> administration in recent history, all the advisors from the campaign
|> are now going to help him run the country. Witness the pitiful
|> performance of Mandy Grunwald on Nightline Monday trying to save face
|> for the administration in the Kimba Wood debacle. I'd actually
|> give some respect to Clinton and go along with his 'sacrifice' program
|> if he came out and said that salaries for the President and Congress
|> were to be cut in half. It would be a piece of cake for him if he
|> simply went on TV and asked the middle class to call their
|> congressperson and demand the pay cut. That would be a smart symbolic
|> move which would gear up the people for sacrifice. I said 'smart',
|> which is why I don't believe William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary
|> Nimrod Clinton will ever do it.
|>
|> --
|> Richard Mulac ck...@cleveland.freenet.edu
|
promises and he is damned if did not. There is no way you guys can be pleased
other than bringing in some old senile republecan who has 19th century ideas
and make him president!!!.
SBH
Randall Rhea
>So, Bill Clinton equates 'his' sacrifice of having to cut the size of
>the White House staff to the sacrifices he will force the middle class to
>endure, such as higher gasoline taxes, higher taxes on social security,
>etc.. Wow - I guess now we'll be able to have empathy for each other.
>I'll bet his staff reductions were actually designed to free up office
>space for the Carvelle gang, since it came out on Friday that because
>the Clinton administration is in the worse shape of any incoming
>administration in recent history, all the advisors from the campaign
>are now going to help him run the country. Witness the pitiful
>performance of Mandy Grunwald on Nightline Monday trying to save face
>for the administration in the Kimba Wood debacle. I'd actually
>give some respect to Clinton and go along with his 'sacrifice' program
>if he came out and said that salaries for the President and Congress
>were to be cut in half. It would be a piece of cake for him if he
>simply went on TV and asked the middle class to call their
>congressperson and demand the pay cut. That would be a smart symbolic
>move which would gear up the people for sacrifice. I said 'smart',
>which is why I don't believe William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary
>Nimrod Clinton will ever do it.
We might as well rename this group "alt.hillary.flame." Nothing
like getting a little jab in at the President's family.
Congress has already taken a 50% pay cut. Their salaries have
increased only slightly these past 30 years, but the cost of
living has more then doubled, especially in the DC area. "Cut
Congress pay" is right up there with Hillary flames as good ol'
fashioned, sensational, negative hype that does nothing save for
clouding the real issues.
I guess some people also forget the Tower fiasco during Bush's
first weeks in office. Maybe we forget the weeks of
unpleasantness with Congress, leading eventually to
his rejection, or that the sexual harassment charges against
Senator Tower set the stage for the Anita Hill / Clarence
Thomas debacle. We also seem to forget that Mr. Bush
had no major legislation for submission to Congress
in his early days either. We also forget that the thrust of
Reagan's legislation was introduced and passed after the
assassination attempt- 3 months into his term. Clinton hasn't
even been in office 1 month yet, but already a major piece of
domestic legislation (Family Leave) has been signed into law.
Kimba Wood's name was never submitted into nomination. Zoe
Baird's name never got to Congress. These were "fiascos"
only in the eyes of those who don't like Clinton and are
looking for any way he can to slam him.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc.
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Mike Van Pelt
>With people like you around, he is damned if he did followup on his campaign
>promises and he is damned if did not. There is no way you guys can be pleased
>other than bringing in some old senile republecan who has 19th century ideas
>and make him president!!!.
Sounds good to me. It worked out pretty well the last time.
--
Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe,
m...@netcom.com No whimper, no blast.
m...@lsil.com His life's goal accomplished,
Zero risk at last.
W. David Higgins
>In article <1993Feb10.1...@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> sar...@cypress.base.bellcore.com (25358-bhatt) writes:
>>other than bringing in some old senile republecan who has 19th century ideas
>>and make him president!!!.
>
>Sounds good to me. It worked out pretty well the last time.
You think a debt shooting thru the ionosphere due in large part
to a belief in "trickle down" economics is something that "worked out
pretty well" ?!?!? Good ghod, we'll be paying for the 80's 'boom' for
years to come.
Richard A. Mulac
In a previous article, ran...@informix.com (Randall Rhea) says:
>ck...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>
>>So, Bill Clinton equates 'his' sacrifice of having to cut the size of
>>the White House staff to the sacrifices he will force the middle class to
>>endure, such as higher gasoline taxes, higher taxes on social security,
>>etc.. Wow - I guess now we'll be able to have empathy for each other.
>>I'll bet his staff reductions were actually designed to free up office
>>space for the Carvelle gang, since it came out on Friday that because
>>the Clinton administration is in the worse shape of any incoming
>>administration in recent history, all the advisors from the campaign
>>are now going to help him run the country. Witness the pitiful
>>performance of Mandy Grunwald on Nightline Monday trying to save face
>>for the administration in the Kimba Wood debacle. I'd actually
>>give some respect to Clinton and go along with his 'sacrifice' program
>>if he came out and said that salaries for the President and Congress
>>were to be cut in half. It would be a piece of cake for him if he
>>simply went on TV and asked the middle class to call their
>>congressperson and demand the pay cut. That would be a smart symbolic
>>move which would gear up the people for sacrifice. I said 'smart',
>>which is why I don't believe William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary
>>Nimrod Clinton will ever do it.
>
>
>We might as well rename this group "alt.hillary.flame." Nothing
>like getting a little jab in at the President's family.
>
>Congress has already taken a 50% pay cut. Their salaries have
>increased only slightly these past 30 years, but the cost of
>living has more then doubled, especially in the DC area.
The only higher expense the overpaid Congress has to pay for is
the cost of housing close to downtown. Ever heard of the
Metro? If thousands of middle class federal workers can afford
to live out of town and take the subway in, so can a member of
Congress with half of his or her current salary. And besides,
even if they do choose to live in an expensive piece of property
close to town, they'll make a killing when they go to sell it
at retirement and move back to their home state. We had a
local congressman with no outside income recently exposed for
partnering with several other members in BUYING AN ISLAND IN
THE BAHAMAS! I suppose you think he's underpaid since he didn't
buy it alone. By the way, he decided not to run for re-election
in '92. Gee, I wonder why?
>Congress pay is right up there with Hillary flames as good ol'
>fashioned, sensational, negative hype that does nothing save for
>clouding the real issues.
The real issue is "The Economy, Stupid!". President Clinton is ready
to sacrifice middle class civil servants in order to bring down
the deficit, but refuses to do any cutting in his or Congress'
salary. A REAL leader would make that sacrifice. After all, this
is the man who said he was happy and content living in the squalor
of a $35,000 a year salary as Governor of Arkansas. My gosh, he
probably doesn't know what to do with over $200,000 a year now!
And whose now paying the tab for all the campaign mercenaries
(the Carvelle gang) that were just given 'jobs' in the White
House at a time when REAL federal employees are being given the
axe. Why are valuable tax dollars being spent on propagandists?
--
Richard Mulac ck...@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 election countdown - 1362 more days | These pontifications
Mike Van Pelt
And have you stopped beating your wife?
Supply-side economics worked. Revenues went up. The wealthy are
paying a bigger percentage of the taxes than they ever did. Raising
taxes on the upper brackets (all this "Soak the Rich" rhetoric) will
*decrease* revenues, not increase them. If the aim were to get more
money to lower the deficit, raising rates would not be contemplated.
The problem is too much spending, not too little taxes.
--
The Clinton Presidency: By 1996, double-digit unemployment,
triple-digit inflation or worse, median tax rate of 60%, and
10,000 American soldiers dead in the Balkans.
Broward Horne
In a previous article, w...@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins) says:
>In article <1993Feb13....@netcom.com> m...@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>>In article <1993Feb13....@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com> w...@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins) writes:
>>>
>>> (replying to Mike Van Pelt's belief the Reagan years were good)
>>>
>If it worked, why did the debt 4x during the Reagan years? A simplistic
>"Congress" answer will get buzzed: Presidents have veto power. The
>problem is when asked how would we pay for all the increases in spending,
>Reagan said give trickle down economics time to work. It didn't work.
>He was being either dishonest, or an idiot, and he has ended up selling
>us down the river. We had an economy based on Ronnie's military buildup
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, you should THANK Reagan for the boat trip. *Now*, you
have some real-time experience for the white-water ahead. :)
>Said another way, the problem is spending != taxes. That sort of thing
>will cause a huge debt. Reference the period in U.S. history 1980-1992.
>If you want to cut the spending, make the tax payers _pay_ for spending,
>don't ignore it, don't change the rules on reporting to hide the size
>of the debt (both Republican sins), don't make believe we're getting
>something for nothing.
Hey, the Demos have a chance to make spending == taxes.
Not gonna happen. :) Clinton's already spent $300 Million
on mostly frivilous innoculations. National Work For School
deal is being budgeted as we speak. Paid Family Health Care
is next on the list. The Gravy Train has arrived! Yeah, we
gonna have it ALL! :)
j>
>In the final analysis, alas, it is _our_ fault.
David Shackelford
In article <1993Feb13....@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com> w...@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins) writes:
We have a debt "shooting thru the ionosphere" because CONGRESS spends
OUR money any way THEY want to!! If Reagan and Bush had their way,
the legions of lazy bums on welfare and unenployment would have been
forced to get up off their butts and find a job instead of being paid
to do nothing. Don't try to tell me there is no work to be found. I'd
rather sweep streets than take a government handout. Take a look in
the help wanted -- lots of jobs nobody wants.
Rich people own companies. Companies put people to work. Working
people pay taxes. This is trickle-down economics. I challenge anyone
to prove any of these statements wrong.
If rich people have more money, they can hire more people and buy
more things. The economy expands both ways.
I am the perfect example of one who benefitted most during the Reagan
and Bush years. My income went from about $8k per year to roughly
$36k per year, a *450%* increase. Every penny is a DIRECT consequence
of Reagan's and Bush's policies. I am NOT rich, and I DID BENEFIT.
All I had to do was WORK a little.
Now Clinton wants to take that money away from me in higher taxes.
Why?? I guess we're going to be penalized for working. Only in
America could the public have the power to stop something like this
and allow it to happen in the name of "shared sacrifice".
Mark 'Mark' Sachs
gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
> You bet congress is the problem!
(snip)
>During the wimpy Bush presidency, taxes went up significantly.
>(remember one of the reasons Bush lost was he forgot to read his own lips.)
>BUT for every tax dollar raised Congress spent $1.73. Bush did not
>have the guts to back Congress down and make them keep their promises
>on holding spending.
>THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF TAXES, IT IS ONE OF SPENDING.
I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, but I feel forced to
remind you that in at least eight of the last twelve years the budgets
Congress passed were SMALLER than the ones the President proposed.
Now what was that about the big spenders in Congress, again?
"...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
[Your blood pressure just went up.] Mark Sachs IS: mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.
W. David Higgins
>In article <1993Feb13....@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com> w...@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins) writes:
>>
>>
>>to a belief in "trickle down" economics is something that "worked out
>>pretty well" ?!?!? Good ghod, we'll be paying for the 80's 'boom' for
>>years to come.
>
>paying a bigger percentage of the taxes than they ever did.
If it worked, why did the debt 4x during the Reagan years? A simplistic
"Congress" answer will get buzzed: Presidents have veto power. The
problem is when asked how would we pay for all the increases in spending,
Reagan said give trickle down economics time to work. It didn't work.
He was being either dishonest, or an idiot, and he has ended up selling
us down the river. We had an economy based on Ronnie's military buildup
and neglect of domestic issues, and now we have to pay for it. He should
have been honest enough to ask us to pay for it _then_.
>The problem is too much spending, not too little taxes.
Said another way, the problem is spending != taxes. That sort of thing
will cause a huge debt. Reference the period in U.S. history 1980-1992.
If you want to cut the spending, make the tax payers _pay_ for spending,
don't ignore it, don't change the rules on reporting to hide the size
of the debt (both Republican sins), don't make believe we're getting
something for nothing.
In the final analysis, alas, it is _our_ fault.
>And have you stopped beating your wife?
Never started. She made it clear she could take either of us two
out of three falls. You still kick your dog every morning?
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
> In article <1993Feb15.0...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
> gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
>
>> You bet congress is the problem!
> (snip)
>>During the wimpy Bush presidency, taxes went up significantly.
>>(remember one of the reasons Bush lost was he forgot to read his own lips.)
>>BUT for every tax dollar raised Congress spent $1.73. Bush did not
>>have the guts to back Congress down and make them keep their promises
>>on holding spending.
>
>>THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF TAXES, IT IS ONE OF SPENDING.
>
> I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, but I feel forced to
> remind you that in at least eight of the last twelve years the budgets
> Congress passed were SMALLER than the ones the President proposed.
>
> Now what was that about the big spenders in Congress, again?
Actually, if Congress is guilty of anything, it is for giving Reagan/Bush
what they wanted most of the time.
Also, Congress does not spend the money on themselves, they answer to
the voters. If anything the voters dictate spending via their representatives.
46% of the federal budget is for the elderly. The retired generation has
ripped the younger generation off quite nicely. Is it just a coincidence
that the majority of elderly voters vote Republican? Hmm...
-Garrett
(Don't bother sending email flames, they will just be deleted unanswered)
Jim Howe
|> gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
|>
|> >THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF TAXES, IT IS ONE OF SPENDING.
|>
|> I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, but I feel forced to
|> remind you that in at least eight of the last twelve years the budgets
|> Congress passed were SMALLER than the ones the President proposed.
|>
|> Now what was that about the big spenders in Congress, again?
|>
And spending still went from approx 21% of GNP to approx 25% of GNP,
in the meantime, tax revenues as a % of GNP remained fairly constant
in the 18 to 19 percent range. I don't care who you blame, the problem
is still one of *SPENDING* not tax revenues. Spending as a percentage
of GNP is at historic highs (not counting wartime), while tax revenues
are at approximately the same level that they have been at for 30
or more years. Raising taxes has much the same effect as borrowing
to eliminate the deficit. Both cause a crowding out effect on capital
markets by reducing the pool of capital available for private investment.
James W. Howe internet: j...@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943
David Garrod
THE PROBLEM IS SPENDING
The budgets passed by Congress don`t really matter, whether they are
higher or lower than those proposed by the president does not matter.
What is SPENT is what matters.
What COUNTS is what Congress appropriates and SPENDS.
For the record here are the last 10 or so years in billions of $:
YEAR PROPOSED SPENT
1980 543.2 590.9
81 633.6 678.2
82 757.6 745.7
83 773.3 808.3
84 862.5 851.8
85 940.3 946.3
86 973.7 990.3
87 994.3 1,003.8
88 1,024.3 1,064.1
89 1,094.2 1,144.1
90 1,151.8 1,251.7
91 1,233.3 1,409.6
92 1,445.9 -
JUST LOOK at the difference between proposed budget and spending!
David Garrod
P.S. THE PROBLEM IS SPENDING
Don Pajerek
>ck...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
[mindless flame deleted]
>We might as well rename this group "alt.hillary.flame." Nothing
>like getting a little jab in at the President's family.
>
[other stuff deleted]
>Kimba Wood's name was never submitted into nomination. Zoe
>Baird's name never got to Congress. These were "fiascos"
>only in the eyes of those who don't like Clinton and are
>looking for any way he can to slam him.
>
The anti-Clinton crowd wants to have it both ways. If Clinton
acts on a campaign promise, they shriek about 'tax and spend,
tax and spend', or some similar conservative mantra. If Clinton
fails to act on a campaign 'promise', then they scream 'liar, liar'.
On the issue of the White House staff reduction: during the
campaign, Clinton indicated that he planned to cut the White House
staff. He has now announced his plan to actually do this. What
apostle of fiscal responsibility can criticize this plan, other
than to suggest that it doesn't go far enough? (And indeed this
is probably valid grounds for criticism.) But to attack the very
*idea* of a plan to cut staff? This is simply the ranting of
a person who has become completely unhinged over the idea that
the hated one is actually the President.
>Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc.
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Don Pajerek
There are many, possibly including Mr. Van Pelt, who will respond
that Mr. Reagan was not responsible for the deficit, the 'Democratically-
controlled Congress' was. This allows them to have it both ways.
Mark Wilson
|In article <1993Feb15.0...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
|gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
|> You bet congress is the problem!
|(snip)
|>During the wimpy Bush presidency, taxes went up significantly.
|>(remember one of the reasons Bush lost was he forgot to read his own lips.)
|>BUT for every tax dollar raised Congress spent $1.73. Bush did not
|>have the guts to back Congress down and make them keep their promises
|>on holding spending.
|>THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF TAXES, IT IS ONE OF SPENDING.
|I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, but I feel forced to
|remind you that in at least eight of the last twelve years the budgets
|Congress passed were SMALLER than the ones the President proposed.
I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here. In terms of how much
money is spent each year, the budget is only a blueprint. During the
year, congress is free to, and often does, pass bills that exceed the
amount budgeted, and they also pass bills to spend money that wasn't in
the budget in the first place.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Richard A. Mulac
In a previous article, paj...@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) says:
>The anti-Clinton crowd wants to have it both ways. If Clinton
>acts on a campaign promise, they shriek about 'tax and spend,
>tax and spend', or some similar conservative mantra. If Clinton
>fails to act on a campaign 'promise', then they scream 'liar, liar'.
>
>On the issue of the White House staff reduction: during the
>campaign, Clinton indicated that he planned to cut the White House
>staff. He has now announced his plan to actually do this. What
>apostle of fiscal responsibility can criticize this plan, other
>than to suggest that it doesn't go far enough? (And indeed this
>is probably valid grounds for criticism.) But to attack the very
>*idea* of a plan to cut staff? This is simply the ranting of
>a person who has become completely unhinged over the idea that
>the hated one is actually the President.
Huh? I think it's great if federal spending (from which the White House
staff comes from) is cut. What makes me sick is all of you Clintonites
looking the other way while the campaign mercenaries like James Carvelle
and his gang (which provide NO service to the public) are hired on at
the White House at taxpayer expense, while everyday federal workers are
being let go. I think the real title of Clinton's supposed economic
plan was 'Putting MY People First'.
You Clinton weenies have absolutely NO credibility at all. Before
the election I posted a request that someone give me a guarantee
that Clinton would not screw over the 'middle class' with higher taxes,
and if you gave that assurance a lot of us would vote for Clinton. The
same people that are defending Clinton now posted all kinds of assurances
that we needn't be wary, Clinton's not playing 'mind games' with the wording
in his rhetoric. You said he would not raise the taxes of people making less
than $200,000. He lied and you lied. And what's even worse is that now
you all seem in your postings genuinely proud of the fact that he was able to
deceive the voters. Well, you better enjoy the moment quickly. Clinton's
ratings sank like a lead balloon over the weekend after portions of his
'plan' leaked out. Tonight (Monday) after his 10 minute propaganda pitch
the calls on C-SPAN were running 90% against him. I can't wait until
Thursday morning - this guy's in deep trouble!
--
Richard Mulac ck...@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 election countdown - 1359 more days | These pontifications
Mark 'Mark' Sachs
(Richard A. Mulac) says:
> Well, you better enjoy the moment quickly. Clinton's
>ratings sank like a lead balloon over the weekend after portions of his
>'plan' leaked out. Tonight (Monday) after his 10 minute propaganda pitch
>the calls on C-SPAN were running 90% against him. I can't wait until
>Thursday morning - this guy's in deep trouble!
On the other hand, Nightline polls, a rather more accurate source of
information, showed people AGREEING with Clinton's goals and plans by
over a two-to-one margin.
I don't trust call-in shows; they are too vulnerable to a) random lunatics
with too much time on their hands and b) mass attacks by special-interest
groups such as the Christian right, who used them to stir up such a fuss
over gays in the military and make it appear like anyone really cared.
Ken Michael Edwards
|> With people like you around, he is damned if he did followup on his campaign
|> promises and he is damned if did not. There is no way you guys can be pleased
|> other than bringing in some old senile republecan who has 19th century ideas
|> and make him president!!!.
|>
|> SBH
Thank you for bringing in 19th century republicians into this. Lincoln said
(and I am paraphrasing):
"You cannot strengthen the weak, by weaking the strong,
You cannot encourage thrift, by taking from those who save,
You cannot help the poor, by taking from the rich..."
Gee, these evil republicians are still in the 19th century, you're right.
DON"T LET POLITICIANS GET AWAY WITH BREAKING PROMISES, WE JUST THREW OUT
ONE WHO DID, AND THIS IS THE CHANGE ??? MORE MONEY (for the fed), MORE
MONEY (for ol' Bill) MORE MONEY (for congress) !!!
Lincoln said what republicians are saying today, don't punish those who
are trying in the name of helping others. Help should come from the
heart, not the barrel of (a federal) gun.
--
======================================================================
Ken M. Edwards, Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
(919) 481-8476 email: cnc...@bnr.ca Ham: N4ZBB
All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of
my employer or co-workers, family, friends, congress, or president.
Ken Michael Edwards
|>
|> Congress has already taken a 50% pay cut. Their salaries have
|> increased only slightly these past 30 years, but the cost of
|> living has more then doubled, especially in the DC area. "Cut
|> Congress pay" is right up there with Hillary flames as good ol'
|> fashioned, sensational, negative hype that does nothing save for
|> clouding the real issues.
|>
|>
|> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|> Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc.
|> Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Congress had a 50% pay cut ?? Please provide the date that was passed.
In the last ten years, the only pay adjustment I recall was a 33% pay
RAISE (more than slight). Cutting congress pay is a vital topic. They
are our employees, they haven't performed their job well.
Mark Wilson
|In article <randall.729479048@seashore> ran...@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
|>ck...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
|[mindless flame deleted]
|>We might as well rename this group "alt.hillary.flame." Nothing
|>like getting a little jab in at the President's family.
|>
|[other stuff deleted]
|>Kimba Wood's name was never submitted into nomination. Zoe
|>Baird's name never got to Congress. These were "fiascos"
|>only in the eyes of those who don't like Clinton and are
|>looking for any way he can to slam him.
|>
|The anti-Clinton crowd wants to have it both ways. If Clinton
|acts on a campaign promise, they shriek about 'tax and spend,
|tax and spend', or some similar conservative mantra. If Clinton
|fails to act on a campaign 'promise', then they scream 'liar, liar'.
If he follows through on his campaign promises then he is engaging in
tax and spend. If he doesn't than he is a liar. What's so hard about
that.
|On the issue of the White House staff reduction: during the
|campaign, Clinton indicated that he planned to cut the White House
|staff. He has now announced his plan to actually do this.
Only during the campaign Clinton said 25%. He is also trying to claim
that the cuts were 25%. Unfortunately he had to use a lot of smoke and
mirrors to make it look like 25%. To me it looks like he is lying again.
Mark Wilson
There are others, possibly including Mr. Pajerek who feel that Reagan was
totally responsible for everything that happens and that the 'Democratically
controlled Congress' bears no responsiblility for what happened.
This allows them to have it both ways.
Jackie Gratrix
>You Clinton weenies have absolutely NO credibility at all. Before
>the election I posted a request that someone give me a guarantee
>that Clinton would not screw over the 'middle class' with higher taxes,
>and if you gave that assurance a lot of us would vote for Clinton. The
>same people that are defending Clinton now posted all kinds of assurances
>that we needn't be wary, Clinton's not playing 'mind games' with the wording
>in his rhetoric. You said he would not raise the taxes of people making less
>than $200,000. He lied and you lied. And what's even worse is that now
>you all seem in your postings genuinely proud of the fact that he was able to
>deceive the voters. Well, you better enjoy the moment quickly. Clinton's
>ratings sank like a lead balloon over the weekend after portions of his
>'plan' leaked out. Tonight (Monday) after his 10 minute propaganda pitch
>the calls on C-SPAN were running 90% against him. I can't wait until
>Thursday morning - this guy's in deep trouble!
What are his ratings now, anyway? Could someone post these?
I too watched CSPAN after Clinton's commercial and noted
the outrage expressed, but I remember that prior to the election
the majority of calls into CSPAN after the debates seemed to
be in favor of Bush, with Perot coming in second and Clinton
a distant third, and yet we all know what happened on Nov. 3 :(
Jackie Gratrix
Dennis Tetreault
Clinton Supporters are using the Administration's euphemisms for taxes.
Shared Sacrifice = TAXES
Broadbased Revenue Enhancements = TAXES !
Social Donations = TAXES !!
Contributions = TAXES !!!
Gifts = TAXES !!!!
Grant = TAXES !!!!!
Levy = TAXES !!!!!!
Shared Responsibility = TAXES !!!!!!!
Penance = TAXES !!!!!!!!
Mutual Sacrifice = TAXES !!!!!!!!!
And, according to last night's speech
PATRIOTISM = TAXES !!!!!!!!!!
Most of these misleading euphemisms, however, leads you to think that
this is all *voluntary*! That you are giving your hard earned $$ to the
Gov't out of kindness and concern to others. But Slick Willy's plans
leave you NO choice. It's a mugging by a courteous gunman.
Now, I'm sure thare are more that there are more euphemisms out there
that I missed. Anyone care to add to the growing list?
Wait 'till Wednesday. Then we find out how deep Billary is going to
pick our pockets. And he doesn't give a shit.
Have you noticed how he and his clan are referring to every social
function as the "People's Whatever"? Same as they did in the USSR.
I imagine no one told them that Communism/Socialism *failed* over there.
I think, in 3 years, the quote of the day will be
"Slick Willy, we hardly knew ye."
DT
Kemp/Powell in '96
My opinions only. My company does not share them.
Bil Snodgrass
That was a lie. That is the whole point you are really after. Clinto
lied about not raising taxes....Fine, still has a way to go to match
the Republican's lie record!!!!
Bil Snodgrass
Don Pajerek
>In article <16010.2...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>>In article <93045.224...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>> In article <1993Feb15.0...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>>> gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
>>>
>>>> You bet congress is the problem!
>>
>
>
>
> Judy
>
How convenient to blame 'them'.
I suspect that Ross Perot was more accurate when he said, "If you're
looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror".
We send people to Congress every other year, and we invariably say
"We want something done about the deficit!". Then when something
actually gets proposed that might cost *us* something, we say,
"Hell no! Vote for that <budget cut | tax increase | whatever >
and you'll be out of there in a hurry!".
Someone posted an article the other day about Phil Gramm, of
Gramm/Rudman fame, making speeches on the floor of the Senate
demanding that funding for the Superconducting Supercollider
be left untouched. Why? Because the project is located in Texas.
If someone as apparently dedicated to fiscal responsibility as
Gramm finds it necessary to defend every local pork-barrel
project, or risk electoral defeat, we've got a problem all
right, and the problem is us, the voters, not 'them'.
David Garrod
> I've been looking thru this group, and I noticed that most of the
> Clinton Supporters are using the Administration's euphemisms for taxes.
>
> And, according to last night's speech
>
> PATRIOTISM = TAXES !!!!!!!!!!
>
> Most of these misleading euphemisms, however, leads you to think that
> this is all *voluntary*! That you are giving your hard earned $$ to the
> Gov't out of kindness and concern to others. But Slick Willy's plans
> leave you NO choice. It's a mugging by a courteous gunman.
>
> function as the "People's Whatever"? Same as they did in the USSR.
> I imagine no one told them that Communism/Socialism *failed* over there.
>
> I think, in 3 years, the quote of the day will be
> "Slick Willy, we hardly knew ye."
>
As someone who was a contemporary at Oxford, getting a D. Phil while
I beleive Mr. Clinton chose not to get a degree, I did hardly know
him. However, I did meet him and a few of his friends. Let me state
for a fact most of his ilk did indeed have socialist/communist leanings.
I had thought it was simply the inexperience and unreal idealism of
youth. Alas, I feel he may not have matured into sensibility.
David Garrod
Melinda Shore
> Let me state
>the inexperience and unreal idealism of youth.
"The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism." -- Tocqueville, 1852
Hence ReaganBush.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Pablo Fumero
|> In article <randall.729479048@seashore> ran...@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
|> >ck...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
|>
|> [mindless flame deleted]
|>
|> >We might as well rename this group "alt.hillary.flame." Nothing
|> >like getting a little jab in at the President's family.
Jab....
The problem with Bill Clinton is that I don't know were Hillary RODHAM
really stands on the issues. ;-)
--
Pablo Fumero Internet: ta...@flipper.csd.harris.com
Diagnostic Engineering UUCP: ...!uunet!travis!flipper!taco
Harris Computer Systems (305) 973-5167
Opinions expressed here are entirely my own and not of Harris Corporation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 'Henry' Komarinski
> I've been looking thru this group, and I noticed that most of the
>Clinton Supporters are using the Administration's euphemisms for taxes.
> [Stupidity Deleted]
>And, according to last night's speech
> PATRIOTISM = TAXES !!!!!!!!!!
>Most of these misleading euphemisms, however, leads you to think that
>this is all *voluntary*! That you are giving your hard earned $$ to the
>Gov't out of kindness and concern to others. But Slick Willy's plans
>leave you NO choice. It's a mugging by a courteous gunman.
>Now, I'm sure thare are more that there are more euphemisms out there
>that I missed. Anyone care to add to the growing list?
>Wait 'till Wednesday. Then we find out how deep Billary is going to
>pick our pockets. And he doesn't give a shit.
>Have you noticed how he and his clan are referring to every social
>function as the "People's Whatever"? Same as they did in the USSR.
>I imagine no one told them that Communism/Socialism *failed* over there.
Okay, so we're going to get taxed more. Whoopie. But the main
reason we're getting taxed is to pay for the 12+ years of $500 hammers
and billion-dollar planes. Have you ever taken a look at how much of the
budget is alloted for paying for *interest* against our deficit?? Imagine
paying 11% on $3 trillion. It gets to be a lot of money, and very quickly.
If I have to pay extra money for a few years to get that deficit down
and get the country back in order for the first time in 12 years, I'm all
for it.
Meanwhile, go back listening to Rush and his diahrea at the mouth,
and let us fix the mess people like you got us in.
-Mark
--
- Mark Komarinski - koma...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
Smile. It makes people wonder what you're up to.
Red Herring
The money is spent to get them re-elected.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Herring
>In article <1lpm7u...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Richard A. Mulac) says:
>>ratings sank like a lead balloon over the weekend after portions of his
>>'plan' leaked out. Tonight (Monday) after his 10 minute propaganda pitch
>>the calls on C-SPAN were running 90% against him. I can't wait until
>>Thursday morning - this guy's in deep trouble!
>
>information, showed people AGREEING with Clinton's goals and plans by
>over a two-to-one margin.
Clinton's sales pitch was short on specifics, so I wonder what was
the poll's question.
A recent Texas poll put Clinton's approval rating at 29%
(record low, Nixon had the second lowest - 36%), disapproval at 57%.
Today in the news: everyone who makes over $30,000 a year and/or
has health insurance is now considered to be a member of the economic
elite and, therefore, will have to "contribute".
>
>I don't trust call-in shows; they are too vulnerable to a) random lunatics
>with too much time on their hands and b) mass attacks by special-interest
>groups such as the Christian right, who used them to stir up such a fuss
>over gays in the military and make it appear like anyone really cared.
>
> "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
>[Your blood pressure just went up.] Mark Sachs IS: mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
> DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.
Steve Davis
>In a previous article, ran...@informix.com (Randall Rhea) says:
>>Congress has already taken a 50% pay cut. Their salaries have
>>increased only slightly these past 30 years, but the cost of
>>living has more then doubled, especially in the DC area.
>The only higher expense the overpaid Congress has to pay for is
>the cost of housing close to downtown. Ever heard of the
>Metro? If thousands of middle class federal workers can afford
>to live out of town and take the subway in, so can a member of
>Congress with half of his or her current salary.
This started out as a Clinton flame, but evolved into an argument
against our Congress. It's interesting to me to see just about
everything get blamed on our representatives in DC. In this case, the
argument has merit. Why can't Bob Dole and his hill rats ride the bus
in to work like everyone else? If congressional republicans are so
interested in cutting the federal budget, why don't they look at
themselves before casting the blame on everyone else? If Dole claims
to represent the working middle class, he should begin to resemble
them.
>Why are valuable tax dollars being spent on propagandists?
So they can propagandise. Next question.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
st...@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
The "War on Pot" makes Cocain look like an economical high. Brilliant.
DT
spoke to the press and has stated that "everyone making more
than $30,000 per year will be required to contibute more thru
his/her personal income taxes."
Billary Clinton = Benedict Arnold
DT
My opinions, not my employers.
Julie Kangas
{SARCASM ON}
Yes! Let's all band together against those *evil* Republicans
who took everything away from the people!
{SARCASM OFF}
Ahem. Anyway, did anyone else notice the "bogosity factors" in
Clinton's charts? The one showing the deficit was extrapolated
to 2007. What method did he use for extrapolation? Pausing with
my VCR I noticed that the last several years showed a somewhat
moderate rise but beyond the present the graph rises sharply with
some very odd bumps in it. The chart would give quite a different
impression if it were cut off at the present. Clinton certainly
didn't mention that half the chart was an extrapolation!
Also, the chart showing the "decline" of investment stops at
1980. Gee, weren't any data available after that? Or maybe
the data didn't look so good.
Julie
DISCLAIMER: All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
David Garrod
> den...@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault) writes:
>
> > I've been looking thru this group, and I noticed that most of the
> >Clinton Supporters are using the Administration's euphemisms for taxes.
>
> > [Stupidity Deleted]
>
> >And, according to last night's speech
>
> > PATRIOTISM = TAXES !!!!!!!!!!
>
> >Have you noticed how he and his clan are referring to every social
> >function as the "People's Whatever"? Same as they did in the USSR.
> >I imagine no one told them that Communism/Socialism *failed* over there.
>
> Okay, so we're going to get taxed more. Whoopie. But the main
> reason we're getting taxed is to pay for the 12+ years of $500 hammers
> and billion-dollar planes. Have you ever taken a look at how much of the
> budget is alloted for paying for *interest* against our deficit?? Imagine
> paying 11% on $3 trillion. It gets to be a lot of money, and very quickly.
> If I have to pay extra money for a few years to get that deficit down
> and get the country back in order for the first time in 12 years, I'm all
> for it.
>
> Meanwhile, go back listening to Rush and his diahrea at the mouth,
> and let us fix the mess people like you got us in.
>
> -Mark
>
So let`s solve the problem with a simple across the board
inflationary energy tax. Let`s drive up interest rates a notch or
two.
Let`s all have a shared sacrifice. To which god am I being sacrificed?
The god of stupidity?
It is a narrow line the U.S. has to walk. Normal coming out of recession
causes a rise in interest rates. If the government makes any mistake
which also causes a rise in interest rates, WE ARE GOING TO BE IN DEEP
TROUBLE.
David Garrod
Thomas Walsh
Is this the standard against which we will judge politicians in the future?
"He's not as bad a Reagan/Bush....yet!"
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh wa...@via.enet.dec.com Nashua, NH
:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Matt Landrum
In <93045.224...@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) writes:
|In article <1993Feb15.0...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
|gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) says:
|> You bet congress is the problem!
|(snip)
|>During the wimpy Bush presidency, taxes went up significantly.
|>(remember one of the reasons Bush lost was he forgot to read his own lips.)
|>BUT for every tax dollar raised Congress spent $1.73. Bush did not
|>have the guts to back Congress down and make them keep their promises
|>on holding spending.
|>THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF TAXES, IT IS ONE OF SPENDING.
|I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, but I feel forced to
|remind you that in at least eight of the last twelve years the budgets
|Congress passed were SMALLER than the ones the President proposed.
I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here. In terms of how much
money is spent each year, the budget is only a blueprint. During the
year, congress is free to, and often does, pass bills that exceed the
amount budgeted, and they also pass bills to spend money that wasn't in
the budget in the first place.
Yes, like for disaster relief and to start wars.
--
Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer | e-mail: m...@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200 | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS 39759 | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power
Mike Van Pelt
>There are many, possibly including Mr. Van Pelt, who will respond
>that Mr. Reagan was not responsible for the deficit, the 'Democratically-
>controlled Congress' was. This allows them to have it both ways.
Reagan shares some blame, but he was headed in the right direction.
His worst blunder (well, worst after George Bush) was trusting Congress
to live up to their part of a deal. The TEFRA tax increase in 1983 was
part of a package consisting of a dollar of spending cuts for every
dollar of tax increase. Instead, once they got their tax increase,
Congress increased spending over $1.50 for every dollar of tax increase.
George Bush fell for the exact same trick in 1990. If Clinton is at
all serious about reducing spending (yeah, right, ha ha) he will demand
that the spending cuts be passed by Congress first, and only then will
he sign the tax increases.
--
Mike Van Pelt "When Clinton said he was going to create 8 million
m...@netcom.com new jobs, I didn't think they were all going to be
tax collectors." -- Jay Leno
Richard Foy
>In article <1993Feb10.1...@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> sar...@cypress.base.bellcore.com (25358-bhatt) writes:
>>other than bringing in some old senile republecan who has 19th century ideas
>>and make him president!!!.
>
>Sounds good to me. It worked out pretty well the last time.
>
>Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe,
>m...@netcom.com No whimper, no blast.
>m...@lsil.com His life's goal accomplished,
> Zero risk at last.
Provided you like a $4 trillion debt and growing.
Richard Foy Redondo Beach, CA Standard Disclaimer
Mark 'Mark' Sachs
says:
>In article <93047.022...@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs
><MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>On the other hand, Nightline polls, a rather more accurate source of
>>information, showed people AGREEING with Clinton's goals and plans by
>>over a two-to-one margin.
> Clinton's sales pitch was short on specifics, so I wonder what was
> the poll's question.
They asked whether people agreed with President Clinton's (god, I love how
that sounds! Let me type it again... President Clinton) general plan. Two
to one were in favor.
Then they asked whether people were willing to pay a specific higher amount
of taxes to help reduce the deficit. THREE to one were in favor.
Most interesting, though, was when they asked if OTHER Americans would be
willing to pay more taxes. A majority polled said no. Interesting.
> A recent Texas poll put Clinton's approval rating at 29%
> (record low, Nixon had the second lowest - 36%), disapproval at 57%.
Maybe they're still bitter over how "Texan" George Bush lost the election.
The most recent national polls I've seen gave Clinton a decent approval rate;
to be fair, disapproval was highish too (about 30%.)
Mike Van Pelt
>Also, the chart showing the "decline" of investment stops at
>1980. Gee, weren't any data available after that? Or maybe
>the data didn't look so good.
Oh, that's simple. He's just going to plot the next point in
1994, and draw a straight line from 1980 to show us how much
better off we are as we look at the TVs in the windows while
standing in the bread lines.
Nosy
< "The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
< arms of despotism." -- Tocqueville, 1852
< Hence ReaganBush.
Shore thus once again displays her utter ignorance of
what despotism is, not to mention her blithe love
of socialism.
If Billary gets everything that is being asked for,
Shore and the rest of us may come to understand modern
socialism much, much better.
But even that won't save the precious tax-subsidized
dairy farmers of New York State...
Broward Horne
>lied about not raising taxes....Fine, still has a way to go to match
>the Republican's lie record!!!!
>
But, but, Bill. Just LOOK at how much Clinton has accomplished
in a mere 27 days. I have GREAT faith in his ability to blow
the HOLY FUCK out of the U.S. econmy AND start civil war. :)
>Bil Snodgrass
>
Richard Foy
>
>"The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
>arms of despotism." -- Tocqueville, 1852
>
>Hence ReaganBush.
>--
> Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Thanks for that quote. I have added it to my files.
One could add to your "Hence ReaganBush." One could almost say "Hence
90% of US history since the Tocqueville visited this country.
Broward Horne
In a previous article, sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) says:
>In article <1993Feb16.1...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>> Let me state
>>for a fact most of his [Clinton] ilk did indeed have
>>socialist/communist leanings. I had thought it was simply
>>the inexperience and unreal idealism of youth.
>
>"The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
>arms of despotism." -- Tocqueville, 1852
Ahhh, yes. The stuff that civil wars are spun from.
Okay, I'm clear, Bill. Blow the FUCK out of the American people.
Yeah!!! Two thumbs up here!
Broward Horne
In a previous article, koma...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) says:
> Okay, so we're going to get taxed more. Whoopie. But the main
>reason we're getting taxed is to pay for the 12+ years of $500 hammers
>and billion-dollar planes. Have you ever taken a look at how much of the
God! I suspect that you haven't worked the numbers out yet.
( this guy probably spent as much time studying candidates, too)
No. You're not going to "get taxed more". You're about to have
the HOLY FUCK taxed out of you. Try a minimum of $1,000 PER
MIDDLE-CLASS taxpayer. In addition, a large portion of the taxes
levied on the rich will "trickle-down". hehehehehehe.
Yeah. That should polish off the economy nicely. No wonder Bill
wanted that "National Police Force". He's going to need it for
the umpty million "unpatriotic" Americans who try to hang him!
MOST EXCELLENT!!!!!
Broward Horne
Hmm. You must have not been watching network news for the past
three weeks. We're ALREADY in deep trouble. Got myself a new
20 gauge this weekend. I fully expect a complete ban on firearms,
ammunition soon. In case nobody had noticed, the State department
has had some interesting, quiet changes in standing orders about
firearm related imports.
>
>
>David Garrod
>
>
>
David Shackelford
|>
|> Someone posted an article the other day about Phil Gramm, of
|> Gramm/Rudman fame, making speeches on the floor of the Senate
|> demanding that funding for the Superconducting Supercollider
|> be left untouched. Why? Because the project is located in Texas.
An alternative reason Sen. Graham wants to fund the Superconducting
Supercollider is that IT IS A GOOD INVESTMENT! Any money spent
on scientific research is well spent, IM(N)HO. We should at least
double spending on (HARD) scientific research (physics, chemistry,
biology, computer science, ...), in order to keep moving ahead in the
future.
Or would you rather have other countries take the technological lead??
(I see you're posting from what appears to be a technology .com site :-)
Dave
Joseph Askew
The record for Reagan and Bush is actuallly worse than that. Clinton's
lie was 'responsible' if I can put it that way. Reagan promised to
balance the budget but didn't - that was the easy way out. It cost
him nothing in terms of electoral support or at least nothing worth
mentioning. Clinton is not doing the cheap and easy thing, he is doing
the very unpopular but getting on to socially responsible thing. Which
would be worse, that Clinton broke this one promise or that he let things
slide down hill for four years like Bush?
Of course his speach was a joke.
Joseph Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32 Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>|The anti-Clinton crowd wants to have it both ways. If Clinton
>|acts on a campaign promise, they shriek about 'tax and spend,
>|tax and spend', or some similar conservative mantra. If Clinton
>|fails to act on a campaign 'promise', then they scream 'liar, liar'.
If Clinton lies, then calling him a liar is speaking in defense of truth.
BTW, Why do you put 'promise' in quotes - are we to assume that as
a general proposition we shouldn't take Slick Willie at his word on
anything?
If Clinton proposes unnecessary spending increases and playfully
calls them "investment" and "stimulus", while at the same time
proposing investment-destroying tax increases on energy, on middle-class
taxpayers, and on cash-strapped corporations, then he is engaging
in classic tax-and-spend behavior.
>If he follows through on his campaign promises then he is engaging in
>tax and spend. If he doesn't than he is a liar. What's so hard about
>that.
Exactly. But, if only it were an either-or proposition. Clinton *promised*
no to raise middle class taxes and *promised* not to increase spending
if the deficit targets could not be met. If only (sigh) he had broken
the liberal promises instead of the promises that he made to masquerade
as a moderate.
>|On the issue of the White House staff reduction: during the
>|campaign, Clinton indicated that he planned to cut the White House
>|staff. He has now announced his plan to actually do this.
>
>Only during the campaign Clinton said 25%. He is also trying to claim
>that the cuts were 25%. Unfortunately he had to use a lot of smoke and
>mirrors to make it look like 25%. To me it looks like he is lying again.
Expect more of the same. Meaningless symbolism, bashing the rich,
and populist garbage make the spectacle more disgusting and
despicable, but doesn't change the essential nature of the beast ...
The Liberal Democratic elite are attempting to increase the market share
of Government. In our finite economy, that means less for the
rest of us - less freedom, less disposable income, and, because of
the wealth-destroying nature of large Government, a lower standard
of living.
Clinton, the last of the BOHICANs!(tm)
Pat,
PS, Further notes on the "Broward Horne" investment strategy:
The Dow was down *how* much today?.... hmmm, quite a reaction
to a 10 minute speech.
Meanwhile, telebras is at $17, up from $12 just a few months ago.
Red Herring
>They asked whether people agreed with President Clinton's (god, I love how
>that sounds! Let me type it again... President Clinton) general plan. Two
>to one were in favor.
>
>Then they asked whether people were willing to pay a specific higher amount
>of taxes to help reduce the deficit. THREE to one were in favor.
>
>Most interesting, though, was when they asked if OTHER Americans would be
>willing to pay more taxes. A majority polled said no. Interesting.
Let me decipher it for you: a majority of the polled believed that the
amount they would have to "contribute" in new taxes would be trivial,
hence they were in favor; it was the OTHERS who were going to be paying
through the nose, so naturally they were expected to oppose.
The sheep is going to be mad as hell once finds itself being sacrificed,
and the deficit reaching new highs.
Randall Rhea
>The only higher expense the overpaid Congress has to pay for is
>the cost of housing close to downtown.
This statement is false. Housing costs have increased
dramatically in the DC suburbs, particularly areas that
are accessible to Metro.
>Congress with half of his or her current salary. And besides,
>even if they do choose to live in an expensive piece of property
>close to town, they'll make a killing when they go to sell it
>at retirement and move back to their home state.
Not necessarily. Just ask someone who bought a $300,000 fixer-upper
during the boom in 1989. These people are taking a beating.
>We had a
>local congressman with no outside income recently exposed for
>partnering with several other members in BUYING AN ISLAND IN
>THE BAHAMAS!
By underpaying Congress, you guarantee that only rich guys
will be able to afford to run. Of course, this is already
guaranteed by the (lack of) campaign finance laws. You've
either got to be rich or sell out to the big-money interests.
Then we wonder why Congress is so controlled by the interests
and has so much corruption. If you don't pay public servants
enough, then they will be corrupt. It always works out that way.
The George Will "gentleman government" crap is just naiive BS.
>The real issue is "The Economy, Stupid!". President Clinton is ready
>to sacrifice middle class civil servants in order to bring down
>the deficit, but refuses to do any cutting in his or Congress'
>salary. A REAL leader would make that sacrifice.
He has cut the size of the White House staff. I think this is
basically PR BS, but he is showing that he is willing to
sacrifice too. Cutting pay would have no effect on the
budget but plenty of effect on the government.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc.
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Where are the Prawns?
In article <93045.224...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|>
|> I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, but I feel forced to
|> remind you that in at least eight of the last twelve years the budgets
|> Congress passed were SMALLER than the ones the President proposed.
|>
|>
||> And spending still went from approx 21% of GNP to approx 25% of GNP,
||> in the meantime, tax revenues as a % of GNP remained fairly constant
||> in the 18 to 19 percent range. I don't care who you blame, the problem
||> is still one of *SPENDING* not tax revenues.
OK, "the" problem is whatever you choose to pay attention to.
1. Spending more than you take in is a problem. This problem can be
solved either by taking in more or spending less.
2. Spending on things that don't return value is a problem. This is
independent of the amount of income, the amount of outgo, and the
ratio between the two. We spend money on armaments and make a
privileged few very wealthy while our roads and bridges crumble,
the Germans spend money on trains and other infrastructure and have
an increasing standard of living and shortening work week.
3. Some assert that to the degree government collects and spends
money, that is a problem. Whether or not this is true, it is
independent of the ratio between income and outgo.
||> Spending as a percentage
||> of GNP is at historic highs (not counting wartime), while tax revenues
||> are at approximately the same level that they have been at for 30
||> or more years. Raising taxes has much the same effect as borrowing
||> to eliminate the deficit. Both cause a crowding out effect on capital
||> markets by reducing the pool of capital available for private investment.
I'm always interested in what, specifically, people who make
statements like this would like to cut. David Stockman recounts a
humorous exchange between himself and Reagan, in which Reagan was
reluctant to make any of the specific budget cuts Stockman had
presented as possible alternatives, then when Stockman asked him about
which revenue enhancements he wanted to pursue, Reagan became agitated
and said pretty much what you said above, that the problem is
SPENDING, not revenues. Oblivious.
-- JC
Randall Rhea
>> Have you noticed how he and his clan are referring to every social
>> function as the "People's Whatever"? Same as they did in the USSR.
>> I imagine no one told them that Communism/Socialism *failed* over there.
>>
>As someone who was a contemporary at Oxford, getting a D. Phil while
>I beleive Mr. Clinton chose not to get a degree, I did hardly know
>him. However, I did meet him and a few of his friends. Let me state
>for a fact most of his ilk did indeed have socialist/communist leanings.
>I had thought it was simply the inexperience and unreal idealism of
>youth. Alas, I feel he may not have matured into sensibility.
Yep, you're right. Clinton is a communist. A card-carrying red.
A pinko fellow-traveller. Where's Joe McCarthy and Dick Milhouse
when you need them?
I thought that reactionaries had given up the "he's a commy" line.
I guess not.
David Marc Nieporent
>In article <1993Feb10.1...@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, sar...@cypress.base.bellcore.com (25358-bhatt) writes:
>|> With people like you around, he is damned if he did followup on his campaign
>|> promises and he is damned if did not.There is no way you guys can be pleased
>|> other than bringing in some old senile republecan who has 19th century ideas
>|> and make him president!!!.
>Thank you for bringing in 19th century republicians into this. Lincoln said
>(and I am paraphrasing):
No, you are not paraphrasing. You are wrong.
> "You cannot strengthen the weak, by weaking the strong,
> You cannot encourage thrift, by taking from those who save,
> You cannot help the poor, by taking from the rich..."
I'm glad you watched Reagan's speech at the convention. But you might
want to remember one of his other aphorisms before you begin quoting
him: "Facts are stupid things."
Lincoln never said that.
"Weaking?" William Safire is rolling over in his grave.
>Gee, these evil republicians are still in the 19th century, you're right.
>DON"T LET POLITICIANS GET AWAY WITH BREAKING PROMISES, WE JUST THREW OUT
>ONE WHO DID, AND THIS IS THE CHANGE ??? MORE MONEY (for the fed), MORE
>MONEY (for ol' Bill) MORE MONEY (for congress) !!!
>Lincoln said what republicians are saying today, don't punish those who
>are trying in the name of helping others. Help should come from the
>heart, not the barrel of (a federal) gun.
--
David M. Nieporent | Great r.s.b quotes of the 1990s:
niepornt@phoenix. | "Driving in runs has as much relevance as driving
princeton.edu | in traffic"
Baltimore Orioles 93 | Joseph Sheehan, 9 February 1993
Randall A Helzerman
|> Hey Reagan and Bush promised to balance the budget. Didn't come close!
|> That was a lie. That is the whole point you are really after. Clinto
|> lied about not raising taxes....Fine, still has a way to go to match
|> the Republican's lie record!!!!
You have an excellent point--which is why I joined the Libertarian Party.
1. No, the haven't elected anyone to national office.
2. They also don't lie about what they'd do if elected.
Is there a correlation between fact 1 and fact 2 above? You be the judge.
Bil Snodgrass
So far he has delieverd on everything I wanted. He has given back
the full right for women to have choice. He has smacked the hell
out of the last bastion of federally sanctioned bigotry....the armed
forces....
I am excited about the road we are taking.
Please do come up with an idea on specific ways we should reduce the
National Debt......
>
>
>>Bil Snodgrass
>>
>
Bil Snodgrass
>|>
>|> Congress has already taken a 50% pay cut. Their salaries have
>|> increased only slightly these past 30 years, but the cost of
>|> living has more then doubled, especially in the DC area. "Cut
>|> Congress pay" is right up there with Hillary flames as good ol'
>|> fashioned, sensational, negative hype that does nothing save for
>|> clouding the real issues.
>|>
They need to close a base around D.C. and house Congress in the Military
housing on that base! If it was good enough for me it is good enough
for them!
Bil Snodgrass
>|> --
>|>
>|> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>|> Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc.
>|> Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
>
>Congress had a 50% pay cut ?? Please provide the date that was passed.
>In the last ten years, the only pay adjustment I recall was a 33% pay
>RAISE (more than slight). Cutting congress pay is a vital topic. They
>are our employees, they haven't performed their job well.
>
>--
>======================================================================
>
>Ken M. Edwards, Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
>(919) 481-8476 email: cnc...@bnr.ca Ham: N4ZBB
>
>All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of
>my employer or co-workers, family, friends, congress, or president.
Mark Wilson
|In article <1993Feb16.1...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
|> Let me state
|>for a fact most of his [Clinton] ilk did indeed have
|>socialist/communist leanings. I had thought it was simply
|>the inexperience and unreal idealism of youth.
|"The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
|arms of despotism." -- Tocqueville, 1852
|Hence ReaganBush.
What I find interesting is that Ms. Shore finds this quote at all relevant.
1) The qoute infers that the fear of socialism is insane. Quite a few
rational people do not like socialism, for a lot of reasons.
2) It implies that the alternative to socialism is despotism.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Mark Wilson
|Just a quick note: I heard a news report that Dee Dee Meyers
|spoke to the press and has stated that "everyone making more
|than $30,000 per year will be required to contibute more thru
|his/her personal income taxes."
Does this mean that Clinton feels that $30,000 = rich?
Jim Howe
|>
|> Please do come up with an idea on specific ways we should reduce the
|> National Debt......
|>
If the national debt were a real problem, we could start to pay it off
by simply selling government assets, like land. At a minimum, the U.S.
Government could start selling land to mining (and other) interests at
someone approximating a market price, not the current giveaway price
that was established decades ago. Perhaps Washington D.C. could be
sold to someone like Walt Disney. With very little work they could
turn it into a new theme park called Fantasyland II.
James W. Howe internet: j...@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943
joseph.m.knapp
>I thought that reactionaries had given up the "he's a commy" line.
>I guess not.
Here's a handy summary of their typical thought process:
Democrat->Socialist->Appeaser->Communist->Traitor
It's amusing, yes, but please -- try not to get them mad (cf. JFK).
---
Joe Knapp j...@cbvox.att.com
Jim Howe
|> In article <1lo9lc...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> j...@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> In article <93045.224...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> |>
|> |> I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, but I feel forced to
|> |> remind you that in at least eight of the last twelve years the budgets
|> |> Congress passed were SMALLER than the ones the President proposed.
|> |>
|> |> Now what was that about the big spenders in Congress, again?
|> |>
|>
|> ||> And spending still went from approx 21% of GNP to approx 25% of GNP,
|> ||> in the meantime, tax revenues as a % of GNP remained fairly constant
|> ||> in the 18 to 19 percent range. I don't care who you blame, the problem
|> ||> is still one of *SPENDING* not tax revenues.
|>
|> OK, "the" problem is whatever you choose to pay attention to.
|>
|> 1. Spending more than you take in is a problem. This problem can be
|> solved either by taking in more or spending less.
|>
The problem is that it isn't always easy to take in more. Raising
tax rates is no guarantee that *revenues* will increase accordingly.
In addition, history has shown that the tendency if for Congress to
spend $1.50 of every additional $1 received in revenue.
|> ||> Spending as a percentage
|> ||> of GNP is at historic highs (not counting wartime), while tax revenues
|> ||> are at approximately the same level that they have been at for 30
|> ||> or more years. Raising taxes has much the same effect as borrowing
|> ||> to eliminate the deficit. Both cause a crowding out effect on capital
|> ||> markets by reducing the pool of capital available for private investment.
|>
|> I'm always interested in what, specifically, people who make
|> statements like this would like to cut. David Stockman recounts a
|> humorous exchange between himself and Reagan, in which Reagan was
|> reluctant to make any of the specific budget cuts Stockman had
|> presented as possible alternatives, then when Stockman asked him about
|> which revenue enhancements he wanted to pursue, Reagan became agitated
|> and said pretty much what you said above, that the problem is
|> SPENDING, not revenues. Oblivious.
|>
Start with agricultural and other business subsidies. Reduce defense
expenditures by cancelling unneeded weapons systems and closing
bases that aren't needed. Eliminate the welfare system and replace it
with a negative income tax. Eliminate the DEA and other useless
agencies. There are actually plenty of areas that can be cut. I have
a list produced by the Heritage Foundation that gives numerous examples.
The simplest approach would be to simply freeze spending at current
levels. Allow money to shift around among existing programs and new
programs, but don't let the total level of spending exceed what is
currently being spent today. Reduce the capital gains tax rate and
index it for inflation. Doing so will result in a rush of new revenue.
Leave the rest of the tax code alone. The economy is starting to
recover, let it do so on its own. As the economy regains strength,
GDP will increase and so will tax revenues. If spending remains frozen,
it won't take but a few years for the revenue and expenditure lines
to cross. If you look at the Reagan years. you see expenditures rising
until about 1983 and then the line descends until the end of Reagan's
term and the start of Bush's. Once Bush took office, expenditures
began rising sharply once again. If additional revenue is needed,
the government should consider selling off some of its assets, particularly
property. It currently sells property to mining interests for virtually
nothing. Selling property at prices which approximate reality would
generate additional revenue without the need for coercive taxation.
Peter Nelson
>
>|Just a quick note: I heard a news report that Dee Dee Meyers
>|spoke to the press and has stated that "everyone making more
>|than $30,000 per year will be required to contibute more thru
>|his/her personal income taxes."
>
>Does this mean that Clinton feels that $30,000 = rich?
No, according to The Boston Globe (front page) yesterday, Clinton
apologized to the American public saying that he would not be able
to honor his pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class. What
I want to know is, is $30K is considered a high enough income to
even be middle-class these days? Remember the good old days when
owning a house was a hallmark of being "middle class"? Around
here, and in many parts of the country, there is no way that some-
one making $30K would be qualified under GNMA standards and the like,
for a mortgage for even a cheap house.
---peter
Thomas Walsh
> independent of the amount of income, the amount of outgo, and the
> ratio between the two. We spend money on armaments and make a
> privileged few very wealthy while our roads and bridges crumble,
> the Germans spend money on trains and other infrastructure and have
> an increasing standard of living and shortening work week.
Please elaborate. Give examples of crumbling roads and bridges lowering
our standard of living and please explain how German infrastructure spending
has increasing standard of living and shortening work week. What's the
correlation. Not a flame, I'm just looking for more information then is
avaiable in the above "sound bite".
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh wa...@via.enet.dec.com Nashua, NH
:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Julie Kangas
>|> With people like you around, he is damned if he did followup on his campaign
>|> other than bringing in some old senile republecan who has 19th century ideas
>|> and make him president!!!.
>|>
>
>Thank you for bringing in 19th century republicians into this. Lincoln said
>(and I am paraphrasing):
>
> You cannot encourage thrift, by taking from those who save,
> You cannot help the poor, by taking from the rich..."
>
>
>
>DON"T LET POLITICIANS GET AWAY WITH BREAKING PROMISES, WE JUST THREW OUT
>ONE WHO DID, AND THIS IS THE CHANGE ??? MORE MONEY (for the fed), MORE
>MONEY (for ol' Bill) MORE MONEY (for congress) !!!
Don't forget that Hillary wants her own tax now for health care...
Julie
DISCLAIMER: All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else
Julie Kangas
>
>|Just a quick note: I heard a news report that Dee Dee Meyers
>|spoke to the press and has stated that "everyone making more
>|than $30,000 per year will be required to contibute more thru
>|his/her personal income taxes."
>
>Does this mean that Clinton feels that $30,000 = rich?
He must as he's still saying that the "middle class" will "benefit"
from his plans. Just who does he think the middle class is?
Chicken farmers in Arkansas?
Patrick J. McGuinness
>In article <komarimf....@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> koma...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
>>den...@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault) writes:
>>
>>> I've been looking thru this group, and I noticed that most of the
>>>Clinton Supporters are using the Administration's euphemisms for taxes.
>>> PATRIOTISM = TAXES !!!!!!!!!!
>
>Ahem. Anyway, did anyone else notice the "bogosity factors" in
>Clinton's charts? The one showing the deficit was extrapolated
Most of them were very bogus.
Add to this, the standard Clinton-groupie lines:
1. "quadrupling the deficit in 12 years"
FALSE - In real terms it may have doubled; it did not triple or quadruple.
In terms of debt/GNP
If Carter/Mondale/Dukakis were in office, the problem would have
been no better - the budget busting deficits, each and every one of them,
were crated and passed by *Democrats* in the House.
Also, they *don't mention is that it is spending which has increased
exponentially. Taxes and spending are at all-time highs in our
history - the problem will not be solved by yet-another-tax-increase.
2. "Middle-class fell behind in the 80's, while their taxes went up."
FALSE - all groups advanced in the 1980's. Clinton used this lie
so much in the campaign, it's become an embedded myth - Goebbels
would be proud. As for taxes, Reagan's 1981 across the board tax cut
substantially *reduced* the tax burden on poor and middle income Americans.
Claims of 'higher taxes' comes about *only* by falsely including payroll
taxes that were increased by Carter and the Democratic Congress in 1977.
3."These tax increases will pay down the debt"
FALSE. Is Clinton so dense he doesn't realize that the
debt can only be paid down if we are in surplus, and that
Clinton's own proposals are to continue deficit spending beyond
the year 2000? There will *not* be paying down of debt, only
(if his plan works, which it won't) smaller increases in debt.
4.".... we call it patriotism"
So the man of the draft-card burning generation says that prinicpled
opposition to an incorrect Government policy is UNpatriotic??!!?
That is hypocritical garbage meant to intimidate
political opponents, combining the worst elements of "political
correctness"-think and jingoistic (right-wing?) "love it or leave it"
attitudes.
5. "rich paid less tax in the 80's"
Clinton wants to raise the greed and envy level of the average voter,
so they will feel better about being soaked simply because someone
else will get it worse. Well, the total amount of incomes taxes
paid by the upper income taxpayers *grew* in the 1980s; the share
of income tax paid by upper income taxpayers *grew*.
Bill Clinton (yet again) is lying, to turn a tax grab into a populist
crusade against the "rich". Since the facts don't comport with
such attitudes, he ignores the facts and spreads lies.
>to 2007. What method did he use for extrapolation? Pausing with
>my VCR I noticed that the last several years showed a somewhat
>moderate rise but beyond the present the graph rises sharply with
>some very odd bumps in it. The chart would give quite a different
>impression if it were cut off at the present. Clinton certainly
>didn't mention that half the chart was an extrapolation!
Yup. Clinton doesn't want you to realize that economic growth,
by itself, will reduce the budget deficit by *more* than his
target of $145 over 4 years. AMAZING! He doesn't need to do *anything*
to reach his now enfeebled budget deficit goals.
If we had the same rate of growth that we had under Reagan,
we would exceed these targets - through GNP growth alone bringing
in more revenue to the Govt coffers.
But Brave Bill has chosen to raise our taxes. Why? To pay for
*additional* "stimulus" spending, at a time when our economy
is recovery.
>Also, the chart showing the "decline" of investment stops at
>1980. Gee, weren't any data available after that? Or maybe
>the data didn't look so good.
Oh, the data would look very good .... both private and public
investment spending increased in the 1980's, as the economy overall
expanded by 30%. Of course, he could try to make it look bad
by only speaking of public investment as percentage of GNP,
but really, that number is neither meaningful nor terribly bad.
It also is less an indictment of the Government in Washington than
a reflection of the priorities of Democratic administrations in States
and cities, who neglected roads and bridges while expanding social
spending during the 70's and 80's. New York City and Massachusetts under
Dukakis are excellent cases in point.
Pat
Melinda Shore
>|"The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
>|arms of despotism." -- Tocqueville, 1852
>What I find interesting is that Ms. Shore finds this quote at all relevant.
What I find perfectly predictable is that you don't.
People do have a completely irrational fear of socialism,
which is why David Garrod thinks that saying that Clinton
has socialist leanings discredits him in some way. It's
like calling someone a faggot. It's incumbent on those who
use terms like 'socialist' or 'faggot' as invective to
explain why that's bad. As it stands it's just content-
free name-calling, and hardly useful as criticism intended
to convince.
As for there being alternatives other than despotism,
well, of course there are. However, history has shown that
Toqueville was correct. The Red Scare of the 1950s led
not to increased democratic participation in government, but
to McCarthyism. Fear of Communism in the 1950s and 1960s
led to the Vietnam War. Fear of Communism led the Reagan
Administration into secret criminal acts. It would be
nice if most people could be rational about socialism and
communism, but that apparently is not the case.
Judy McMillin
>
[stuff deleted]
>If someone as apparently dedicated to fiscal responsibility as
>Gramm finds it necessary to defend every local pork-barrel
>project, or risk electoral defeat, we've got a problem all
>right, and the problem is us, the voters, not 'them'.
>
>
>Don Pajerek
>
Bingo!
Eat lead, Froggies!
Don Pajerek
>In article <91...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>In <1lrc5e$i...@transfer.stratus.com> den...@sw.stratus.com (DT) writes:
>>
> No, according to The Boston Globe (front page) yesterday, Clinton
> apologized to the American public saying that he would not be able
> to honor his pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class. What
> I want to know is, is $30K is considered a high enough income to
> even be middle-class these days?
What you want to look at is which quintile a $30,000 income falls
into. You will be surprised at how high it is.
>---peter
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Bil Snodgrass
>In article <1993Feb17....@lclark.edu>, snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>|>
>|> Please do come up with an idea on specific ways we should reduce the
>|> National Debt......
>|>
>
>If the national debt were a real problem, we could start to pay it off
>by simply selling government assets, like land. At a minimum, the U.S.
>Government could start selling land to mining (and other) interests at
>someone approximating a market price, not the current giveaway price
>that was established decades ago. Perhaps Washington D.C. could be
>sold to someone like Walt Disney. With very little work they could
>turn it into a new theme park called Fantasyland II.
No more give aways!!!! I am tired of giving everything away. People keep
saying that give away is a recent phenonemon. It isn't. The government
gave land away in the 19th Century. The Government gave away right
aways to the railroads. The govenment subsidized vetern loans for the GI
bill and VA loans. Countless times.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>den...@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault) writes:
>
>> PATRIOTISM = TAXES !!!!!!!!!!
>
>>Most of these misleading euphemisms, however, leads you to think that
>>this is all *voluntary*! That you are giving your hard earned $$ to the
>>Gov't out of kindness and concern to others. But Slick Willy's plans
>>leave you NO choice. It's a mugging by a courteous gunman.
.....
> Okay, so we're going to get taxed more. Whoopie. But the main
Tax increases destroy wealth, destroy jobs, and will damage our recovery.
Whoopie.
>reason we're getting taxed is to pay for the 12+ years of $500 hammers
>and billion-dollar planes. Have you ever taken a look at how much of the
Wrong. Defense is only a small part of the budget, currently less
than 21%. Defense spending as a fraction of the budget, and of GNP,
has been falling since 1985.
The areas of growth in spending have been 'entitlements'.
We do not need to raise taxes to cut the deficit.
Pat
Bill Clinton, the last of the BOHICAns
Patrick J. McGuinness
>and get the country back in order for the first time in 12 years, I'm all
>for it.
Was the country "in order" in 1980? Do you want to go back to the economic
conditions that Carter left for Reagan? If not, why not say 'last 16 years'
or last 25 years, etc.
Also why do you speak of the last 12 years with such disregard?
You don't think the economic performance of 1983-1990 was good
enough? Growth rate of 3.5%, interest rates dropping by one half,
unemployment dropping, inflation dropping, 18 million new jobs,
thousands of new business enterprises and new industries.
All income groups gained during this boom, which was the longest
peacetime boom in our history.
And despite all this Reagan managed to leave with a deficit that
was only marginally higher (as a %age of GNP) than the deficit
Carter left him with.
The 1980's, specifically 1983-1990 was one of the most successful
periods in our economic history. If you really are dumb enough
to long for the 1970's, have no fear: if Clinton gets his way,
we'll be living it all over again.
Pat
William M. Everett
>Hey Reagan and Bush promised to balance the budget. Didn't come close!
>That was a lie. That is the whole point you are really after. Clinto
>the Republican's lie record!!!!
>
Why don't you look at the RATE of breaking promises. How long has slick
been in office? If you wanted a man of action, you got it. He must be breaking
promises faster than any president in history.
*********************************************************
* William Everett Tan, Rested, and ready *
* Harvey Mudd College NIXON in '96 *
* *
* These opinions are mine- you can't have them *
*********************************************************
Patrick J. McGuinness
>
>|In article <1993Feb16.1...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gar...@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>|> Let me state
>|>for a fact most of his [Clinton] ilk did indeed have
>|>socialist/communist leanings. I had thought it was simply
>|>the inexperience and unreal idealism of youth.
>
>|"The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
>|arms of despotism." -- Tocqueville, 1852
>
>|Hence ReaganBush.
>
>What I find interesting is that Ms. Shore finds this quote at all relevant.
Indeed, judging by the current Clinton rhetoric, wouldn't this be more
apropos?
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money." Alexis de Tocqueville
>1) The qoute infers that the fear of socialism is insane. Quite a few
> rational people do not like socialism, for a lot of reasons.
>
>2) It implies that the alternative to socialism is despotism.
Yes, it also proves the point that was made (by you?) about the common
knee-jerk response to criticism of Clinton:
"Well, ReaganBush was worse." etc.
It serves their purposes well to demonize the enemy, and drive people,
by fear, into supporting their own causes as the 'least evil' of bad
alternatives.
I have only this to say:
"The insane fear of Reaganism throws the Liberals headlong into the
arms of socialism." -- McGuinness, 1993
:-)
Pat
Patrick J. McGuinness
>
>|Just a quick note: I heard a news report that Dee Dee Meyers
>|spoke to the press and has stated that "everyone making more
>|than $30,000 per year will be required to contibute more thru
>|his/her personal income taxes."
>
>Does this mean that Clinton feels that $30,000 = rich?
Dan Quayle at the Vice Presidential debate in Michigan last October:
" Everybody making more than $36,000 a year will have their taxes
increased if Bill Clinton is president of the US."
My, my, my. Dan Quayle was smarter than the whole Democratic
team in figuring out what they were going to do.
Here's the full quote:
"
QUAYLE: What plan is that that's just going to raise taxes on those
making over $200,000 a year? You may call that your plan, but
everyone knows that you simply can't get $150 billion in new taxes by
raising the marginal tax rate to a top rate of 36 % and only tax those
making $200,000 a year. It's absolutely ridiculous. The top 2 %
which you refer to, that gets you down to $64,000; then you have about
a $40-billion shortfall--that gets you down to $36,000 a year.
Everybody making more than $36,000 a year will have their taxes
increased if Bill Clinton is president of the US.
And I don't know how you're going to go to urban America and say
that raising taxes is good for you. I don't know how you're going to
go to urban America and say, well, the best thing that we can offer is
simply to raise taxes again. This is nothing more than a
tax-and-spend platform. We've seen it before. It doesn't work.
Final thought:
Quayle said "everyone knows" - Clinton claims he didn't know, despite
Perot's deficit-doom talk, despite the fact that he explicitly
refused to use the revised August numbers in his PPF plan, despite the
fact that he signed on CBO officials to his administration who are
*responsible* for knowing these things.
So was Clinton lying about being 'shocked' at higher numbers, or was
he just stupider than Quayle and everyone else?
Pat,
Bill Clinton, status-quo candidate, BOHICAn President,
Julie Kangas
[....]
>
>4.".... we call it patriotism"
>So the man of the draft-card burning generation says that prinicpled
>opposition to an incorrect Government policy is UNpatriotic??!!?
>That is hypocritical garbage meant to intimidate
>political opponents, combining the worst elements of "political
>correctness"-think and jingoistic (right-wing?) "love it or leave it"
>attitudes.
This combined with the anti-rich rhetoric starting to emerge will
do a good job of whipping people into shape for an anti-wealth
frenzy. Some of statements about the "rich" coming from Clinton's
aides and staffers are full of hatred. It's rather scary. I'm sure to
be labelled a panicked right-winger by some on this net, but
I must say that some of that hatred is starting to sound
awfully familiar...
>
>5. "rich paid less tax in the 80's"
>Clinton wants to raise the greed and envy level of the average voter,
>so they will feel better about being soaked simply because someone
>else will get it worse. Well, the total amount of incomes taxes
>paid by the upper income taxpayers *grew* in the 1980s; the share
>of income tax paid by upper income taxpayers *grew*.
>Bill Clinton (yet again) is lying, to turn a tax grab into a populist
>crusade against the "rich". Since the facts don't comport with
>such attitudes, he ignores the facts and spreads lies.
Yes. I think he wants to start a real crusade against the
"rich." (And his definition of "rich" seems to be changing
everyday. Is he so out of touch with the people that he can't
realize that what's outrageously wealthy in Arkansas is at the
very low end of middle class in many other states? Where's the
guy who was "in-tune" with the people?)
(I wrote this... >>)
>>Also, the chart showing the "decline" of investment stops at
>>1980. Gee, weren't any data available after that? Or maybe
>>the data didn't look so good.
>
>Oh, the data would look very good .... both private and public
>investment spending increased in the 1980's, as the economy overall
>expanded by 30%. Of course, he could try to make it look bad
>by only speaking of public investment as percentage of GNP,
>but really, that number is neither meaningful nor terribly bad.
Well, I meant that the data wouldn't look good to *him*.
Broward Horne
In a previous article, jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) says:
>The record for Reagan and Bush is actuallly worse than that. Clinton's
>lie was 'responsible' if I can put it that way. Reagan promised to
>balance the budget but didn't - that was the easy way out. It cost
>him nothing in terms of electoral support or at least nothing worth
>mentioning. Clinton is not doing the cheap and easy thing, he is doing
>the very unpopular but getting on to socially responsible thing. Which
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes, yes, it's a VIRTUE. I got news for you,
oh incredible example of an American gumby:
Clinton is FORCED to balance the budget, as Bush or Perot would
have been. Just what the HELL do you think the government's
economic simulations have been showing for the past year or two?
Clinton's balances the budget now, creating a substantial
depression. Or he waits, and our entire financial and currency
system blows while HE is in office.
Which would YOU choose?
>would be worse, that Clinton broke this one promise or that he let things
>Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
>One China One Korea One Eire32 Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
>
Broward Horne
In a previous article, snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) says:
>In article <1lro5p...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>So far he has delieverd on everything I wanted. He has given back
>the full right for women to have choice. He has smacked the hell
>out of the last bastion of federally sanctioned bigotry....the armed
>forces....
Yep, Bill "Santa" Clinton has delivered the goods.
I suggest you look into a really HIGH mileage car. Both
Saddam and Iran have smelled blood, and our oil supply
is going away. Maybe next year, maybe '95, maybe '96.
I served in the U.S. Army in the late 70s. It was a
piece of disreputable trash, filled with incompetents and
drug-users. I still stand in AWE at what I saw in the
Gulf war. I don't consider destroying that, or our oil
supply, for frivilous, symbolic gestures, as an acheivement.
Broward Horne
In a previous article, ju...@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) says:
>>
>>Does this mean that Clinton feels that $30,000 = rich?
>
>He must as he's still saying that the "middle class" will "benefit"
>from his plans. Just who does he think the middle class is?
>Chicken farmers in Arkansas?
No. Potato farmers in Idaho. Yeah!
Broward Horne
In a previous article, j...@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) says:
>ran...@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>>I thought that reactionaries had given up the "he's a commy" line.
>>I guess not.
>
>Here's a handy summary of their typical thought process:
>
> Democrat->Socialist->Appeaser->Communist->Traitor
Hmmm. I guess this would be somewhat akin to branding,
beforehand, anyone who questions the " New Contributions "
is unpatriotic. Ahhh. I can see clearly now.
The pain is gone.
Denise Chuk
And lack of fear of socialism/communism led to Eastern Europe, USSR, and
The People's Republic of China.
To disagree/dislike the ideologies of socialism/communism does not
necessarily mean a liking for despotism. McCarthyism was wrong, but so is
socialist/communist agendas hidden under the pretense of democracy/liberty.
--
------
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent --Salvor Hardin
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
> In a previous article, jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) says:
>
>>The record for Reagan and Bush is actuallly worse than that. Clinton's
>>lie was 'responsible' if I can put it that way. Reagan promised to
>>balance the budget but didn't - that was the easy way out. It cost
>>him nothing in terms of electoral support or at least nothing worth
>>mentioning. Clinton is not doing the cheap and easy thing, he is doing
>>the very unpopular but getting on to socially responsible thing. Which
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes, yes, it's a VIRTUE. I got news for you,
> oh incredible example of an American gumby:
>
>
> Clinton is FORCED to balance the budget, as Bush or Perot would
> have been. Just what the HELL do you think the government's
> economic simulations have been showing for the past year or two?
>
> Clinton's balances the budget now, creating a substantial
> depression. Or he waits, and our entire financial and currency
> system blows while HE is in office.
>
> Which would YOU choose?
>
Heh. This reminds me of a quote from a Woody Allen movie - Woody said
something to the effect of
"We are now at a crossroads in our history. One road leads to
total annihilation and the other to desperation and despair. Let
us pray we choose wisely."
Anyone have the actaul line? It seems appropriate these days...
-Garrett
Broward Horne
In a previous article, snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) says:
>In article <1lro5p...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>In a previous article, snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) says:
>So far he has delieverd on everything I wanted. He has given back
>the full right for women to have choice. He has smacked the hell
>out of the last bastion of federally sanctioned bigotry....the armed
>forces....
>
>I am excited about the road we are taking.
I am, too, but probably not for the same reasons. :)
>
>Please do come up with an idea on specific ways we should reduce the
>National Debt......
>
Let me give you hint. We're going to reduce the deficit
the old-fashioned way. We're going to PAY it. Think on
that one awhile.
>>
>>
>>>Bil Snodgrass
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Broward Horne
In a previous article, sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) says:
>Toqueville was correct. The Red Scare of the 1950s led
>not to increased democratic participation in government, but
>to McCarthyism. Fear of Communism in the 1950s and 1960s
>led to the Vietnam War. Fear of Communism led the Reagan
>Administration into secret criminal acts. It would be
>nice if most people could be rational about socialism and
>communism, but that apparently is not the case.
>--
> Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Baby, you're about to get your wish, and I'm ON BOARD!
Come on, freebies! Good-bye thinking and deciding about
my rights! Yeah!
What I find absolutely hilarious? Is that nobody believes
a MAJOR portion is really looking into emmigration right now.
Go ahead, check it for yourselves. I now know people who are
actively considering Brazil, Belgium, Korea, Australia, Canada,
Venezeula. I'm astounded. I thought I was the only one. :)
>
Broward Horne
In a previous article, ju...@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) says:
>
>This combined with the anti-rich rhetoric starting to emerge will
>do a good job of whipping people into shape for an anti-wealth
>frenzy. Some of statements about the "rich" coming from Clinton's
>aides and staffers are full of hatred. It's rather scary. I'm sure to
>be labelled a panicked right-winger by some on this net, but
>I must say that some of that hatred is starting to sound
>awfully familiar...
Remember, *I* predicted it, less than two months ago.
The use of PC methodology to enforce the new administration's will.
We're looking at an amazing recreation of mid-30s Germany in the
making.
I'm already planning on shutting my mouth down. Soon.
Mike Jones
> In <1993Feb16.1...@tc.cornell.edu> sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> |"The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
> |arms of despotism." -- Tocqueville, 1852
> What I find interesting is that Ms. Shore finds this quote at all relevant.
Dear, dear Mark. I've read quite a few of your postings, and while I don't
agree with your politics terribly often I usually find that your reading and
reasoning skills are pretty good. Hence my disappointment.
> 1) The qoute infers that the fear of socialism is insane. Quite a few
> rational people do not like socialism, for a lot of reasons.
No, the quote quite clearly refers to fear of socialism taken to the extreme
of being (practically) insane. It's one thing to dislike socialism; it's
another to become Joe McCarthy. Not everyone who dislikes socialsm is a
Libertarian, or even a Republican.
> 2) It implies that the alternative to socialism is despotism.
No, it implies that the bourgeois will willingly embrace despotism as a
recaction to an irrational fear of socialism. When you look at the history
of HUAC in the 1950's, Tocqueville appears quite prescient. When you
realize that a Presidential candidate in the 1980's was able to make a
fairly significant campaign issue out of another candidate's opposition to
*requiring* recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, you must realize that
that irrational fear is not entirely dead. The continual labeling of Clinton
as a socialist for policies that are in fact relatively moderate when
considered in the context of the politics of Western nations is another
symptom. It is labels substituting for rational debate.
Mike Jones | AIX/ESA Development | mjo...@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
99 Reasons Baseball is Better Than Football - Number 2:
Baseball has a bullpen coach blowing bubble gum with his cap turned around
backward while leaning on a fungo bat; football has a defensive coordinator
in a satin jacket with a headset and clipboard.
- Tom Boswell, "The Heart of the Order"
Melinda Shore
> What I find absolutely hilarious? Is that nobody believes
I believe it. There were lots of us who did the same during
recent Republican administrations (including Nixon's).
Mike Van Pelt
>In article <1lti5s...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> j...@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Feb17....@lclark.edu>, snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>|> Please do come up with an idea on specific ways we should reduce the
>>|> National Debt......
>>If the national debt were a real problem, we could start to pay it off
>>by simply selling government assets, like land. At a minimum, the U.S.
>>Government could start selling land to mining (and other) interests at
>>someone approximating a market price, not the current giveaway price
>>that was established decades ago.
>No more give aways!!!! I am tired of giving everything away.
Usenet would be a lot more useful if people would just read the
articles they are responding to.
--
Mike Van Pelt "When Clinton said he was going to create 8 million
m...@netcom.com new jobs, I didn't think they were all going to be
tax collectors." -- Jay Leno
Allen R. Willson
>Hey Reagan and Bush promised to balance the budget. Didn't come close!
>That was a lie. That is the whole point you are really after. Clinto
>lied about not raising taxes....Fine, still has a way to go to match
>the Republican's lie record!!!!
>
>Bil Snodgrass
I can see how this ideal will lead to a very productive ethic
on which our government should be run for the next 4 years.
get real, if this is what people are willing to accept, we might
as well throw in the towel now, or as Bill would say:
"Sometimes you just have to know when to quit."
What the hell difference does any of this make if spending is still
greater than revenues anyway. The fact is, politicians as a whole
do not care one way or the other, and there are decades of deficit
to back up that statement. What is the common denominator here?
-allen
Peter Nelson
>In article <1lu3c4...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>> What I find absolutely hilarious? Is that nobody believes
>> a MAJOR portion is really looking into emmigration [sic] right now.
Where would you emigrate to?
---peter
jason 'Think!' steiner
> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> >In a previous article, snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) says:
> >
> >>match the Republican's lie record!!!!
> >
> > accomplished in a mere 27 days. I have GREAT faith in his
> > ability to blow the HOLY FUCK out of the U.S. econmy AND
> > start civil war. :)
> So far he has delieverd on everything I wanted. He has given back
> the full right for women to have choice. He has smacked the hell
> out of the last bastion of federally sanctioned bigotry....the armed
> forces....
>
> I am excited about the road we are taking.
gosh darn it, our economy & people are in for a real reaming, but at
least there'll be gays in the military! hallelujah.
to tell the truth, i'm also excited about the road we are taking.
this country is going to fall & fall hard. Clinton's making it happen
sooner than expected is all. wonderful. the sooner we crash, the sooner
we can start rebuilding.
burn, baby, burn.
jason
--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` Democrat: Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican: Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems. `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems. `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jste...@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Julie Kangas
I was thinking about the rhetoric of 1917, but your example is
good too.
>
> I'm already planning on shutting my mouth down. Soon.
Don't want to be labelled an unpatriotric, dirty rich scum.
Peter Nelson
In my life I have to match spending plans to projected revenues.
So much for taxes, mortgage, the car, retirement savings, food,
etc, etc, etc. I'd LIKE to live as a wealthy man (and indeed,
by Ross Perot's daffy defintion I am "wealthy"). But I have to
live within my means. The government ought to take a similar
approach. They have what?, a 1.2 or 1.3 trillion dollar
revenue stream? I mean that's not exactly chickenfeed. We're
not talking some libertarian minarchy with that kind of money.
I remain unconvinced that any tax increases are required; I think
it ought to be possible to have a government for that sort of
money that can perform a wide variety of the usual government
functions, including defense, looking after the truly unfortunate,
justice, parks, and all the other stuff that major industrial
societies have come to expect in the postwar period. Indeed,
as a % of GDP such a revenue stream would exceed that of many
US governments in the last 45 years.
---peter
Broward Horne
In a previous article, sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) says:
>In article <1lu3c4...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>> What I find absolutely hilarious? Is that nobody believes
>> a MAJOR portion is really looking into emmigration [sic] right now.
>
>I believe it. There were lots of us who did the same during
>recent Republican administrations (including Nixon's).
Believe me, I seriously doubt you can imagine what's ahead.
I try every day now, and it's still eluding me.
Try L.A. Riots, Part II for starters. Clinton's Nazi
National Police Force. Did you know that certain
forces are trying to have the 150 year law of "No military
intervention within U.S. borders" repealed? Try on this
one: As best as I can figure, using South American
countries as a composite model, the U.S. is looking at
a MINIMUM of 15% unemployment for 2 to 4 years, with an
additional 5-7 years of 10% or so. And THIS model assumes
we still have ( as South America still has ) someone to
export to. My own personal guess, barring protectionism,
is a peak of around 20%.
Imagine California and New York bankrupt.
Imagine "gas rationing" to reduce movement about the country.
I HIGHLY suspect your "travails" under 'Republicans' will
dim in distant memory. You think Clinton doesn't KNOW this?
He's already working on controlling media access.
Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418
>
>And lack of fear of socialism/communism led to Eastern Europe, USSR, and
>The People's Republic of China.
>
>To disagree/dislike the ideologies of socialism/communism does not
>necessarily mean a liking for despotism. McCarthyism was wrong, but so is
>socialist/communist agendas hidden under the pretense of democracy/liberty.
The lack of fear of socialism also leads through Sweden, with
significant paths through the social policies of most of the rest of
Western Europe as well.
To disagree/dislike the ideology of communism does not mean rejecting
all aspects of a socialist agenda. Socialism != Communism.
If "socialism" is so bad, why can't we touch the Social Security
system? Hint: there aren't many loud voting liberals collecting
benefits. It's hypocritical greed in action once again.
Hmmm, let's make SS benefits taxable income if they're not already,
*and* subject them to FICA. That might slow the hemmorage a little bit.
-dB
--
Windows/NT - the VMS of the 90s
Broward Horne
In a previous article, nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:
>In article <1993Feb17.1...@tc.cornell.edu> sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>>In article <1lu3c4...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>> What I find absolutely hilarious? Is that nobody believes
>>> a MAJOR portion is really looking into emmigration [sic] right now.
>
> Where would you emigrate to?
>
>---peter
>
>
I thought everybody knew by now. ;)
I've done extensive research for around six months now. I won't
mention #1 ( I've gotten too greedy now :) )-
#2 would probably be Uruguay. It has an amazing number of
advantages, one of the foremost being that it has already passed
through it's "Freebies -> Military Junta -> Democracy" stage.
The process *we* are just entering. Immigration for skilled
workers is easy. It has a tradition of democracy during this
century ( except the Junta phase from mid70s to mid80s ),
the population distribution apears to put me into a comfortable
retirement ( unlike the U.S. where I end up getting fucked around
2020 or so ). Culture is easy-going and accepting of other
cultures, a tradition of working women, one of the few hispanic
cultures which emphasis education, mild climate, no war-like
tendencies, etc, etc.
Termed the "Switzerland of South America" until the mid70s.
#3 would probably be Venezuela, although there's several things
that bother me. Still, I think it would be preferable (
especially with cashed-out assets :) ) to a Nazi-Style U.S.
#4 - I'd been toying with Mexico, perhaps Chile. Still
preferable ( as a rich gringo ) to a republican-hunting Nazi
U.S.
Actually, I have to admit, until the Clintonistas get up the
gumption to hunt me down, Idaho is the best I can imagine.
There's an interesting file floating around, "hasanb", about
a penpoint developer who's already figured it out and bailed off
to goddamn Ecuador. Pretty interesting, it's like finding my
twin brother.