#Jeffrey Toobin Is Obsessed With Clinton's Sexual Perversions

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Glutathione

unread,
Jan 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/11/00
to
Clinton Stooge Jeffrey Toobin!

For months leftist Clinton-supporting ABC News, and its liberal
anchors, pretended to be doing a balanced coverage of the impeachment.
They used a little two-faced phoney named Jeffrey Toobin as their legal
correspondent, so-called. This hypocrite Toobin pretended to be
balanced, but always shaded and warped the coverage for the Clintons'
benefit. ABC News - they're the liberals who just fired conservative
Bill Kristol.

Now the truth comes out, the truth many of us long knew - Toobin was
and is just another Clinton stooge. He revealed that in his
self-serving new book that was just shredded as one-sided trash in the
New York Times' review. And I advise everyone to log on to the Times'
site, find it, and read how Toobin gets shredded for the partisan shill
he is. http://www.nytimes.com/books/

TODAY'S REVIEW A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal
That Nearly Brought Down a President By JEFFREY TOOBIN Reviewed by
MICHIKO KAKUTANI "A Vast Conspiracy," the title of Jeffrey Toobin's new
book. And that is therefore in agreement with Hillary's demagogic
assertion. And there was no "sex scandal"; it was about obstructing
justice, contempt of court, perjury, sexual harassment, and that's just
for starters!

>Although Toobin says he believes that Mrs. Clinton's remarks were
delivered before she learned the truth of her husband's involvement
with Monica Lewinsky, and although her remarks also reflect the
self-pitying, go-on-the-attack stance routinely assumed by the
administration whenever it has been under fire, Toobin comes to the
conclusion that "there was indeed a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to get
the president."

>Toobin's highly partisan book does a dexterous job of showing how
Kenneth Starr's office bungled its investigation of Clinton through a
combination of zealotry, infighting and ineptitude; this portion of the
book was recently excerpted in The New Yorker. But the book
consistently plays down the role that the president himself played in
triggering and sustaining the ordeal the country went through for so
many months.

>Toobin makes the dubious assertion that not only the Paula Jones case
but the Whitewater investigation as well exist "only because of the
efforts of Clinton's right-wing political enemies." He goes on to argue
that scarcely "a single prominent Democrat or Clinton supporter" was
"convinced by the evidence to change sides," never mind that longtime
Clinton allies like Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and the president's former
aide George Stephanopoulos, among many others, harshly criticized
Clinton's behavior.

>Whereas the legal expertise of Toobin -- a former assistant U.S.
attorney and an associate counsel in the office of the independent
counsel Lawrence E. Walsh -- helped him present a powerfully argued
assessment of the O.J. Simpson case in his last book, "The Run of His
Life" (1996), the narrowly legalistic approach here often results in a
tin ear when it comes to the subjects of politics and governance. . .

(Read the complete Times review)


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Pithy

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
In article <389dc60f...@news.mindspring.com>, Volt...@geocities.com
says...
>
>Jeffrey Toobin's "A Vast Conspiracy" Pulls A Few Punches
>

>Toobin introduces three categories of players in the "Vast
>Conspiracy" that tried to destroy President Clinton:
>
>The first were the often sex-obsessed Clinton haters who simply
>wanted the guy destroyed because they didn't like him

Then Toobin must *really* hate Clinton!!!

Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
want to be a voyeur like Toobin, go to:

http://www.randomhouse.com/atrandom/toobin/

>The second were the profiteers who didn't really care one way or
>the other about what happened to Clinton, just so long as they
>could make a quick buck off the scandal industry

That's Toobin!!!

> Volt
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic . . .
sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human
behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two--racial and
sexual discrimination--is a convenient but invalid argument."
--Gen. Colin Powell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Loren Petrich

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
In article <CXPe4.1324$_4.11...@news1.epix.net>,

>>The first were the often sex-obsessed Clinton haters who simply

>>wanted the guy destroyed because they didn't like him
>Then Toobin must *really* hate Clinton!!!

>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you

>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...

It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
national-security issue.

--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

rose...@idt.net

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:

>
>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>
> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>national-security issue.

Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?

The ageless "tax cuts", the PRIMO star in republican politics, was IGNORED by
America.

That must REALLY suck.

Pithy

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...

>
>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
>>
>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>
>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>national-security issue.
>
>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>
Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!

>That must REALLY suck.

Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!

Now go back to your bowl of gleet, Rosie!

Zepp

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:37:47 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
wrote:

>In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...
>>
>>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>>
>>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>>national-security issue.
>>
>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>>
>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!

Could you tell us how those big tax cuts they want balance the budget,
Pissy?


>
>>That must REALLY suck.
>
>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!

Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
They lost every budget battle they fought.
**********************************************************
>Bush dodged a question about what he would do if the government
>surplus grew at a slower rate than he projected in his $483 billion,
>five-year tax plan.
>
>``I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses will decline if I were
>president,'' Bush said.
>
Newsday, 12/6/99

**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!

For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.html
Warning: Contains ideas
For all things liberal/leftist
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
************************************************************

Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.


rose...@idt.net

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:


>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?

>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!


Bullshit.

Balancing the budget was a Ross Parrot issue. The 4 trillion that the
california turnip ran up was going to be added to by the ONLY fucking issue
republicans have EVER been serious about is TAX CUTS for trickle down voodoo
economics.

>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!

Irrelevant.

He TOOK them, made political capital out of them

THAT, not sex, Is what politics is about.

In the end, ALL republicans had was a reliance on a smear campaign because NONE
of their other issues were either theirs anymore, or liked by Americans.
Together with SINGLE DIGIT popularity (because of their shutdown) prompted them
into the stupidity we've suffered from for the last 4 years.

>Now go back to your bowl of gleet, Rosie!

better that than your humble pie.

Pithy

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
In article <387bf7dc....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...

You sound pretty angry that the only thing Clinton could do was
*steal* Republican issues and pretend that they were his own!!!

>>Now go back to your bowl of gleet, Rosie!
>
>better that than your humble pie.
>

I've never had any. But tell me--how does it taste?

Pithy

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
In article <387bef6b....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net says...

>
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:37:47 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...
>>>
>>>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>>>
>>>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>>>national-security issue.
>>>
>>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>>>
>>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!
>
>Could you tell us how those big tax cuts they want balance the budget,
>Pissy?

Oh--they stimulate the economy to the point where the lower the tax
rates actually bring in *more* money!

We are living the benefits of it now!!!

>>>That must REALLY suck.


>>
>>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!
>

>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
>They lost every budget battle they fought.

Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then,
if we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!

Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
and dug in his heels!!!

Zepp

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
wrote:

>In article <387bef6b....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net says...
>>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:37:47 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...
>>>>
>>>>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>>>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>>>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>>>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>>>>national-security issue.
>>>>
>>>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>>>>
>>>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!
>>
>>Could you tell us how those big tax cuts they want balance the budget,
>>Pissy?
>
>Oh--they stimulate the economy to the point where the lower the tax
>rates actually bring in *more* money!

Quite aside from the catastrophic result when Reagan tried that, what
makes you think the economy NEEDS more stimulation?


>
>We are living the benefits of it now!!!
>

But, but, but, PISSY! Clinton had the biggest tax raise in history,
according to you guys, and before him, Bush had the biggest tax raise
in history, according to you guys, and before HIM, Reagan had the
biggest tax raise in history. Three biggest "tax raises in history",
and you claim that we are seeing the benefits of supply-side
economics?

>>>>That must REALLY suck.
>>>
>>>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!
>>
>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
>
>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then,
>if we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!

With absolutely no help from Republicans, who fought him and lost on
every tax proposal, every federal budget. Gosh. Clinton balanced the
budget seven years before he originally thought he would! That cad!


>
>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
>and dug in his heels!!!

And the GOP "forced" this by losing every single budget battle?

You really can't think for yourself, can you?


>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic . . .
>sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human
>behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two--racial and
>sexual discrimination--is a convenient but invalid argument."
> --Gen. Colin Powell
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

**********************************************************

rose...@idt.net

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:


>>Together with SINGLE DIGIT popularity (because of their shutdown) prompted
>them into the stupidity we've suffered from for the last 4 years.

>You sound pretty angry that the only thing Clinton could do was
>*steal* Republican issues and pretend that they were his own!!!

Why would kicking right wing asses make me "mad"??

It wasn't US that had to start a smear just to stay in the game.

>>>Now go back to your bowl of gleet, Rosie!
>>
>>better that than your humble pie.
>>
>I've never had any. But tell me--how does it taste?

Zepp just waxed your pathetic ass.

Are you telling me that your head has been up limpballs ass so long everything
tastes like him?

silverback

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:37:47 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
wrote:

>In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...
>>
>>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>>
>>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>>national-security issue.
>>
>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>>
>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!

sorry pissant Clinton balanced the budget the republiCONs tried to
fuck that up, but Clinton is cutting the lottless's one welfare for
dependent corporations to rebalance the budget.

>
>>That must REALLY suck.
>
>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!
>

>Now go back to your bowl of gleet, Rosie!

>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic . . .
>sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human
>behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two--racial and
>sexual discrimination--is a convenient but invalid argument."
> --Gen. Colin Powell
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

*****************************************************

GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster

For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm

Do your patriotic duty and vote for your favorite blithering idiot at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/award.html

======================================================

Michael Ejercito's solution to global warming

If the goverment wanted to end global warming, it would use its
nuclear arsenal to put enough dust into the atmoshpere
to reduce sunlight, creating a nuclear winter.

And just to prove to the world that Dan Quayle
has nothing over him, Micheal wrote.

"the problem is not people are not being
paid enough,but the costs of goods and
services are too high."


************************************************

Loren Petrich

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
In article <0a0bc822...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com>,

Glutathione <ridgewood...@Juno.com.invalid> wrote:
>Clinton Stooge Jeffrey Toobin!
>
>For months leftist Clinton-supporting ABC News, and its liberal
>anchors, pretended to be doing a balanced coverage of the impeachment.
[...]

A bunch of capitalists being left-wingers???

SemiScholar

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:37:47 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
wrote:

>In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...
>>
>>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>>
>>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>>national-security issue.
>>
>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>>
>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!
>

>>That must REALLY suck.
>
>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!

Interesting how he DID both of them, though, eh?

That must REALLY suck.


- SemiScholar

SemiScholar

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
wrote:

>In article <387bef6b....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net says...


>>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:37:47 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...
>>>>
>>>>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>>>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>>>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>>>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>>>>national-security issue.
>>>>
>>>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>>>>
>>>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!
>>

>>Could you tell us how those big tax cuts they want balance the budget,
>>Pissy?
>
>Oh--they stimulate the economy to the point where the lower the tax
>rates actually bring in *more* money!
>

>We are living the benefits of it now!!!

I thought you ClintonHaters claimed that Clinton gave us the "biggest
tax increae in history"?

>
>>>>That must REALLY suck.
>>>
>>>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!
>>

>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
>
>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then,
>if we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
>

>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
>and dug in his heels!!!

But he did it. Can't argue with success...


- SemiScholar

Pithy

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
In article <387ccc3b....@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com says...

>
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:37:47 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...
>>>
>>>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>>>
>>>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>>>national-security issue.
>>>
>>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>>>
>>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!
>>
>>>That must REALLY suck.
>>
>>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!
>
>Interesting how he DID both of them, though, eh?
>
>That must REALLY suck.
>
No--it's great.

The only downside (far outweighed by the benefits) is that Clinton
stole both issues and claimed them for himself.

>- SemiScholar

SemiScholar

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:03:08 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
wrote:

>In article <387ccc3b....@news.visi.com>, nos...@spamfree.com says...
>>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:37:47 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <387bdb66....@news.idt.net>, rose...@idt.net says...
>>>>
>>>>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
>>>>>>want to be a voyeur like Toobin, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the Clinton-haters who are the real voyeurs here; otherwise,
>>>>>they would have made every effort to avoid public discussion of President
>>>>>Clinton's sex life. They would have tried to confine it to closed sessions
>>>>>as much as possible, as if they were dealing with some sensitive
>>>>>national-security issue.
>>>>
>>>>Then what OTHER issue or idea would they have had for the last 7 years?
>>>>
>>>Welfare reform and balancing the budget, for starters!
>>>
>>>>That must REALLY suck.
>>>
>>>Yeah--Clinton hated *both* of them!!!
>>
>>Interesting how he DID both of them, though, eh?
>>
>>That must REALLY suck.
>>
>No--it's great.
>
>The only downside (far outweighed by the benefits) is that Clinton
>stole both issues and claimed them for himself.

How come you people blame Clinton for every bad thing that happens
during his presidency - like Waco - but you give him no credit for the
things he actually worked hard for - like balancing the budget?


- SemiScholar

walker

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to

> How come you people blame Clinton for every bad thing that happens
> during his presidency - like Waco - but you give him no credit for the
> things he actually worked hard for - like balancing the budget?


good point. somehow it seems to have been lost in the shuffle that Waco
started on the Bush watch. While the FBI certainly screwed it up -- the
act of starting the whole thing was also a bad judgment call.

bre...@no-spam.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:49:07 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>wrote:


Someone wrote:
>>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
>>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
>>
>>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then,
>>if we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
>>
>>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
>>and dug in his heels!!!

No, he balanced it in spite of them. He won every battle. They all thought
his 1993 budget wouldn't work (inclding Greenspan) adn voted against it.
Same ever since.

Cheers,
Bredon


>
>But he did it. Can't argue with success...
>
>
>- SemiScholar
>

--------------------
Classic Moral Principles Message Board:
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb303987
http://www.geocities.com/athens/thebes/4809
I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)

Replicant

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:49:07 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
> >wrote:
>
>
> Someone wrote:
> >>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
> >>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
> >>
> >>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then,
> >>if we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
> >>
> >>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
> >>and dug in his heels!!!
>
> No, he balanced it in spite of them. He won every battle. They all thought

Clinton balked at every turn. He promised...and promised...and promised to
submit a budget that balanced (finally even promising to do it with CBO numbers)
and didn't until the very end. He thought he might be able to balance the
budge in 10 years....or 3...or 7...or..etc. The Republicans wanted it done NOW.
They got their way, and got welfare reform.

> his 1993 budget wouldn't work (inclding Greenspan) adn voted against it.
> Same ever since.

Had Clinton continued as per his budget plans, they wouldn't have. He's the guy
who tried to take over 1/7 of the economy, which would have required an eventual
huge raise in taxes. The only thing that kept these things from happening were
the republicans. His budget plans really didn't have a fighting chance at doing
anything. The people voted in reps. to help ensure it.

Zepp

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:39:31 -0500, Replicant
<a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

>In article <38984f18...@news.sonic.net>, bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:49:07 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>> Someone wrote:
>> >>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
>> >>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
>> >>
>> >>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then,
>> >>if we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
>> >>
>> >>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
>> >>and dug in his heels!!!
>>
>> No, he balanced it in spite of them. He won every battle. They all thought
>
>Clinton balked at every turn. He promised...and promised...and promised to
>submit a budget that balanced (finally even promising to do it with CBO numbers)
>and didn't until the very end. He thought he might be able to balance the
>budge in 10 years....or 3...or 7...or..etc. The Republicans wanted it done NOW.
>They got their way, and got welfare reform.

Even the balanced budget battle, Clinton won. Both sides claimed to
want a balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the
middle class. If you go back and look at that battle, more Democrats
than Republicans voted for the plan, and the Republican right was
screeching that Newt sold them out.


>
>> his 1993 budget wouldn't work (inclding Greenspan) adn voted against it.
>> Same ever since.
>
>Had Clinton continued as per his budget plans, they wouldn't have. He's the guy
>who tried to take over 1/7 of the economy, which would have required an eventual
>huge raise in taxes. The only thing that kept these things from happening were
>the republicans. His budget plans really didn't have a fighting chance at doing
>anything. The people voted in reps. to help ensure it.
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bredon
>>
>>
>> >
>> >But he did it. Can't argue with success...
>> >
>> >
>> >- SemiScholar
>> >
>>
>> --------------------
>> Classic Moral Principles Message Board:
>> http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb303987
>> http://www.geocities.com/athens/thebes/4809
>> I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
>> II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
>> III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
>> IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
>> V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
>> VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
>> VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
>> VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)

**********************************************************

Mozeman

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
> The only downside (far outweighed by the benefits) is that Clinton
> stole both issues and claimed them for himself.
>

Kind of like the Repubes stole Social Security, and being a "big-tent
party." After getting spanked by senior citizens in 1992 and 1996, Repubes
are acting like they invented concern for SS, when we all know they feel it
is a bloated, wasteful social program. Now they're claiming to be a "big
tent" party despite a '96 convention that had a 3% minority showing.

--
Mozeman
*****************************
tmo...@waypointinc.com
*****************************
Pithy <paulw...@mailexcite.com> wrote in message
news:gt2f4.1394$_4.1...@news1.epix.net...

Replicant

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
In article <sodn1q9...@world.std.com>, <no-spam-...@world.std.com>
wrote:

> >>>>> Replicant writes:
>
> Replicant> In article <38984f18...@news.sonic.net>,

> bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:49:07 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Someone wrote:
> >> >>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from
> >> >>>Republicans.
> >> >>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
> >> >>
> >> >>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then,
> >> >>if we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he
> >> >>screamed
> >> >>and dug in his heels!!!
> >>
> >> No, he balanced it in spite of them. He won every battle. They all
> >> thought
>

> Replicant> Clinton balked at every turn. He promised...and
> promised...and promised to
> Replicant> submit a budget that balanced (finally even promising to do
> it with CBO numbers)
> Replicant> and didn't until the very end. He thought he might be able
> to balance the
> Replicant> budge in 10 years....or 3...or 7...or..etc. The Republicans
> wanted it done NOW.
> Replicant> They got their way, and got welfare reform.
>
> The reason the budget got almost balanced (it is not
> quite balanced) so much more quickly is not because
> the GOP cut spending, it is because the economy grew

Yes, this is the reason, despite Clinton's best efforts, that the budget
balanced SOONER then even the Republicans had planned.

> much faster than assumed and the revenue grew much
> faster than planned. Spending is on target, revenue
> is higher, almost balance is quicker.

Replicant

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
In article <387de779...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp)
wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:39:31 -0500, Replicant
> <a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:
>

> >In article <38984f18...@news.sonic.net>, bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:49:07 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Someone wrote:
> >> >>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
> >> >>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
> >> >>
> >> >>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then, if
> >> >>we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
> >> >>and dug in his heels!!!
> >>
> >> No, he balanced it in spite of them. He won every battle. They all thought
> >

> >Clinton balked at every turn. He promised...and promised...and promised to

> >submit a budget that balanced (finally even promising to do it with CBO

> >numbers) and didn't until the very end. He thought he might be able to
> >balance the budge in 10 years....or 3...or 7...or..etc. The Republicans
> >wanted it done NOW. They got their way, and got welfare reform.


>
> Even the balanced budget battle, Clinton won. Both sides claimed to want a

..but only one was willing to prove it from the get-go.

> balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the middle class.

By giving them lower taxes?

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:16:36 -0500, Replicant
<a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

>In article <387de779...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp)
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:39:31 -0500, Replicant
>> <a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <38984f18...@news.sonic.net>, bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:49:07 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Someone wrote:
>> >> >>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
>> >> >>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then, if
>> >> >>we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
>> >> >>and dug in his heels!!!
>> >>
>> >> No, he balanced it in spite of them. He won every battle. They all thought
>> >
>> >Clinton balked at every turn. He promised...and promised...and promised to
>> >submit a budget that balanced (finally even promising to do it with CBO
>> >numbers) and didn't until the very end. He thought he might be able to
>> >balance the budge in 10 years....or 3...or 7...or..etc. The Republicans
>> >wanted it done NOW. They got their way, and got welfare reform.
>>
>> Even the balanced budget battle, Clinton won. Both sides claimed to want a
>
>..but only one was willing to prove it from the get-go.
>

No Republican was willing to vote for the 1993 laws which did the most
to reduce the deficits - scored by CBO, the arbiter on these matters
per Republican and Democrat alike, as reducing such deficits 490
billion over five years. That was the heavy lifting to balance. All
the other laws have so far done only a smaller share of the job.

And, of course, balance is a pretty odd notion since the feds use odd
accounting. No one even bothers to calculate in detail whether we have
a balanced budget in the good accounting sense. So it's a rather
political debate. What matters is cutting deficits way back.

Clinton and the Dems did a good job, and so did the Repubs when they
came in.

>> balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the middle class.
>
>By giving them lower taxes?

By increasing their relative burden for paying the debt, of course.

THe Repub plan for a tax credit for kids, for instance, would have
benefitted only the top half of kids. The big money in their proposals
is for cap gains and stuff - breaks for financial instruments mainly.
And the top one percent owns some amazing percent of such financial
instruments.

THe repubs used what I consider unfair accounting gimmicks to hide how
heavily skewed their tax benefits were. The PResident and dems forced
them to be more fair.


>
>> If you go back and look at that battle, more Democrats than Republicans voted
>> for the plan, and the Republican right was screeching that Newt sold them
>> out.
>
>>

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:04:54 GMT, <no-spam-...@world.std.com>
wrote:

>>>>>> Replicant writes:


>
> Replicant> In article <38984f18...@news.sonic.net>, bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:49:07 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Someone wrote:
> >> >>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
> >> >>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
> >> >>
> >> >>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then,
> >> >>if we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
> >> >>and dug in his heels!!!
> >>
> >> No, he balanced it in spite of them. He won every battle. They all thought
>

> Replicant> Clinton balked at every turn. He promised...and promised...and promised to
> Replicant> submit a budget that balanced (finally even promising to do it with CBO numbers)
> Replicant> and didn't until the very end. He thought he might be able to balance the
> Replicant> budge in 10 years....or 3...or 7...or..etc. The Republicans wanted it done NOW.
> Replicant> They got their way, and got welfare reform.
>
>The reason the budget got almost balanced (it is not
>quite balanced) so much more quickly is not because
>the GOP cut spending, it is because the economy grew

>much faster than assumed and the revenue grew much
>faster than planned. Spending is on target, revenue
>is higher, almost balance is quicker.

CBO says that the 1993 laws also played a big role.

Other laws a lesser role.

ANd Alan Greenspan used to always say that the economy could not grow
very well until govt passed what he called "credible deficit
reduction."

Mr. Greenspan testified that the 1993 laws comprised such "credible
deficit reduction" so, if he is right, some of the better economy is
also fairly attributable to those 1993 laws.

And to other laws since them, to a lesser degree.

And, of course, we don;t have a good measure of the "balance" of the
govt's books, since they are on a weird cash basis.


George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:14:45 -0500, Replicant
<a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

>In article <sodn1q9...@world.std.com>, <no-spam-...@world.std.com>

>Yes, this is the reason, despite Clinton's best efforts, that the budget
>balanced SOONER then even the Republicans had planned.

Republicans propose big tax cuts which would delay balance. Clinton
proposes smaller tax cuts and spending increases generally paid for
with new revenues, like tobacco tax increases.

I think the implication that Repubs are the budget angels is the
opposite of the truth, at least lately.

Deficits are the excess of spending over revenue. Proposing huge cuts
in revenues will likely lead to bigger deficits.

It's an irony. THe republicans are now the wild budget busters while
the Democrats are the green-shade "let's watch the numbers boys" guys.

Is life odd or what?


>
>> much faster than assumed and the revenue grew much
>> faster than planned. Spending is on target, revenue
>> is higher, almost balance is quicker.

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

zepp, a weasel

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:16:36 -0500, Replicant
<a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:39:31 -0500, Replicant
>> <a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <38984f18...@news.sonic.net>, bre...@no-spam.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:49:07 GMT, nos...@spamfree.com (SemiScholar) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:16:45 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Someone wrote:
>> >> >>>Clinton balanced the budget without any help at all from Republicans.
>> >> >>>They lost every budget battle they fought.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Clinton said the budget could be balanced in 2007, then 2005, then, if
>> >> >>we *really* worked at it, in 2002!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Clinton was forced by the GOP to balance the budget while he screamed
>> >> >>and dug in his heels!!!
>> >>
>> >> No, he balanced it in spite of them. He won every battle. They all thought
>> >

>> >Clinton balked at every turn. He promised...and promised...and promised to

>> >submit a budget that balanced (finally even promising to do it with CBO

>> >numbers) and didn't until the very end. He thought he might be able to
>> >balance the budge in 10 years....or 3...or 7...or..etc. The Republicans
>> >wanted it done NOW. They got their way, and got welfare reform.
>>
>> Even the balanced budget battle, Clinton won. Both sides claimed to want a
>
>..but only one was willing to prove it from the get-go.

And so they "proved it" by losing? That's quite a trick. Smart
fellows, those Republicans.


>
>> balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the middle class.
>
>By giving them lower taxes?

By giving 90% of the tax breaks to the top 10%.

>> If you go back and look at that battle, more Democrats than Republicans voted
>> for the plan, and the Republican right was screeching that Newt sold them
>> out.

No response here, I see...
>
>>

**********************************************************
"Newt Gingrich showed the country that when he was Speaker
of the House, he was banging more than just his gavel."
-- Mark Russell

For political commentary by Zepp, visit
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.html
For links to all things Liberal/Leftist, go to
http:/www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Warning: Contains ideas

cyndi...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/16/00
to
In article <CXPe4.1324$_4.11...@news1.epix.net>,
paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
> In article <389dc60f...@news.mindspring.com>,
Volt...@geocities.com
> says...
> >
> >Jeffrey Toobin's "A Vast Conspiracy" Pulls A Few Punches
> >
>
> >Toobin introduces three categories of players in the "Vast
> >Conspiracy" that tried to destroy President Clinton:
> >
> >The first were the often sex-obsessed Clinton haters who simply
> >wanted the guy destroyed because they didn't like him
>
> Then Toobin must *really* hate Clinton!!!

>
> Face it--this guy is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. If you
> want to be a voyeur like Toobin, go to:
>
> http://www.randomhouse.com/atrandom/toobin/
>
> >The second were the profiteers who didn't really care one way or
> >the other about what happened to Clinton, just so long as they
> >could make a quick buck off the scandal industry
>
> That's Toobin!!!
>
> > Volt

> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic . . .
> sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human
> behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two--racial and
> sexual discrimination--is a convenient but invalid argument."
> --Gen. Colin Powell
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>

Toobin missed the entire conspiracy. Everybody knows that the
Jones allegations are absolutely bogus and now he's claiming
Sherlock status? This is thre real conspiracy.

Dear Monica:

Just tell the people the truth

http://welcome.to/thenews

Men who are the victim of a Viagra-style
chemically induced erectile have to unload,
in order to do the business of State without
projectile interference?

http://welcome.to/thenews

every Tom, Dick and Harry knows that


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Replicant

unread,
Jan 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/18/00
to
In article <387f905d...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a
weasel) wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:16:36 -0500, Replicant
> <a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

> >> Even the balanced budget battle, Clinton won. Both sides claimed to
> >> want a
> >
> >..but only one was willing to prove it from the get-go.
>
> And so they "proved it" by losing? That's quite a trick. Smart

Getting what you wanted, a budget that balanced by CBO numbers, is "losing"?
Hardly. Clinton's much better at PR then he is at actual leading. I guess he
can fool you into thinking whatever he wants.

> fellows, those Republicans.
> >
> >> balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the middle
> >> class.
> >
> >By giving them lower taxes?
>
> By giving 90% of the tax breaks to the top 10%.

BZZZT. Most taxes are already paid by the wealthy. You can't give FAIR tax
breaks without reducing taxes by percent equally without the wealthy getting
more money back in total. I guess it's just a logic thing with libs.

> >> If you go back and look at that battle, more Democrats than Republicans
> >> voted
> >> for the plan, and the Republican right was screeching that Newt sold
> >> them
> >> out.
>
> No response here, I see...

No need. The dem's have been screaming the same thing about Bill for the past 8
years. The Republicans got rid of their percieved problem, but the Democrats
coddle theirs.

silverback

unread,
Jan 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/18/00
to
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:23:35 -0500, Replicant
<a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

>In article <387f905d...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a
>weasel) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:16:36 -0500, Replicant
>> <a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> >> Even the balanced budget battle, Clinton won. Both sides claimed to
>> >> want a
>> >
>> >..but only one was willing to prove it from the get-go.
>>
>> And so they "proved it" by losing? That's quite a trick. Smart
>
>Getting what you wanted, a budget that balanced by CBO numbers, is "losing"?
>Hardly. Clinton's much better at PR then he is at actual leading. I guess he
>can fool you into thinking whatever he wants.

ya you damn republiCON fools lost the battle for PR when you have been
yammerin gon about the evils of an unbalanced budget since the days of
Eisenhower and then when a Democrat balances the budget and runs a
surplus you are the fools whining it doesn't matter and we need to cut
the taxes for the rich instead of paying down the national debt. Sorry
but you fools look like a carp flip flopping around on dry land.

>
>> fellows, those Republicans.
>> >
>> >> balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the middle
>> >> class.
>> >
>> >By giving them lower taxes?
>>
>> By giving 90% of the tax breaks to the top 10%.
>
>BZZZT. Most taxes are already paid by the wealthy. You can't give FAIR tax
>breaks without reducing taxes by percent equally without the wealthy getting
>more money back in total. I guess it's just a logic thing with libs.
>
>> >> If you go back and look at that battle, more Democrats than Republicans
>> >> voted
>> >> for the plan, and the Republican right was screeching that Newt sold
>> >> them
>> >> out.
>>
>> No response here, I see...
>
>No need. The dem's have been screaming the same thing about Bill for the past 8
>years. The Republicans got rid of their percieved problem, but the Democrats
>coddle theirs.

***********************************************

GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster

For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm

*********************************************

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

unread,
Jan 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/18/00
to
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:23:35 -0500, Replicant
<a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

>In article <387f905d...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a
>weasel) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:16:36 -0500, Replicant
>> <a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> >> Even the balanced budget battle, Clinton won. Both sides claimed to
>> >> want a
>> >
>> >..but only one was willing to prove it from the get-go.
>>
>> And so they "proved it" by losing? That's quite a trick. Smart
>
>Getting what you wanted, a budget that balanced by CBO numbers, is "losing"?

Clinton always said that we could balance the budget without gutting
important priorities, such as education, the environment, and so on.

THe balanced budget adopted did in fact protect the priorities
President Clinton had stressed.

The Republicans, you may recall, wanted to ELIMINATE the Dept of
Education. But the laws adopted have provided hefty increases in its
budget.


>Hardly. Clinton's much better at PR then he is at actual leading. I guess he
>can fool you into thinking whatever he wants.

He has used his skills to convert Republicans to Clintonistas, on many
budget matters.

PR and actual leading go hand in hand, actually.

>
>> fellows, those Republicans.
>> >
>> >> balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the middle
>> >> class.
>> >
>> >By giving them lower taxes?
>>
>> By giving 90% of the tax breaks to the top 10%.
>
>BZZZT. Most taxes are already paid by the wealthy. You can't give FAIR tax
>breaks without reducing taxes by percent equally without the wealthy getting
>more money back in total.

The top ten percent do not pay ninety percent of tax.

Remember not to fall for the Republican scam of looking only at
federal personal income taxes - which comprise only about 28% of all
taxes.

In addition, since the income of the top one fifth has risen fifteen
percent in recent years, while the comparable figure for the bottom
fifth is only about one percent, perhaps the breaks should go to those
more in need of them than those skating on easy street.

>I guess it's just a logic thing with libs.

I guess you're not smart enough to understand that the Republicans
have scammed you into focusing on only one tax. Most people pay more
in social security taxes than in personal income taxes. They both are
taxes on income. They both go into the giant pot of federal money. How
come Repubs propose breaks only in one of the two comparable taxes?
Because their rich contributors only pay one of them to any large
degree.

Don't let Republican demagogues make a fool of you like this. Stand up
to their disrespect for you. Learn the score and stop being their
dupe.

Plus the conservative thing is to pay off the debt so the next
generation won't get stuck with our bills.

That has a big advantage, too - it will do more to produce investment
and economic growth than the flurry of consumerism which will flow
from an imprudently large tax cut.


George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

Replicant

unread,
Jan 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/19/00
to
In article <m3g98s4ciiemg9mrb...@4ax.com>, "George Leroy
Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:23:35 -0500, Replicant
> <a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

> >Getting what you wanted, a budget that balanced by CBO numbers, is
> >"losing"?
>
> Clinton always said that we could balance the budget without gutting
> important priorities, such as education, the environment, and so on.

Clinton said he though the could do it in 5 years...or 7 years...or 10
years..or... I guess whenever he thought he could do it and be out of office and
not have to deal with it himself.

He really had no stomach to do it at all. He was forced into getting it
balanced by the Republicans. He wanted a huge socialized medical takeover which
would have required mucho dinero. Unless he was going to jack up taxes, that
doesn't lend itself well to a balanced budget.

> THe balanced budget adopted did in fact protect the priorities
> President Clinton had stressed.

Then he could have proposed a budget that balanced by CBO numbers and protects
his "priorities" at the get go, like he promised he would. It was only after
the Republicans forced his hand (and he shut down the government) that he
decided to keep his word and do so. He talked big, but until forced, that was
all it was...talk.

> The Republicans, you may recall, wanted to ELIMINATE the Dept of
> Education. But the laws adopted have provided hefty increases in its
> budget.

Clinton never proposed a budget, with or without the Dept. of Ed. that balanced
until the Republicans forced him.

> >Hardly. Clinton's much better at PR then he is at actual leading. I
> >guess he
> >can fool you into thinking whatever he wants.
>
> He has used his skills to convert Republicans to Clintonistas, on many
> budget matters.

You have to give and take. The Republicans taught Clinton well.


> PR and actual leading go hand in hand, actually.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

> >> fellows, those Republicans.
> >> >
> >> >> balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the middle
> >> >> class.
> >> >
> >> >By giving them lower taxes?
> >>
> >> By giving 90% of the tax breaks to the top 10%.
> >
> >BZZZT. Most taxes are already paid by the wealthy. You can't give FAIR
> >tax
> >breaks without reducing taxes by percent equally without the wealthy
> >getting
> >more money back in total.
>
> The top ten percent do not pay ninety percent of tax.

Did I say they did?

> Remember not to fall for the Republican scam of looking only at
> federal personal income taxes - which comprise only about 28% of all
> taxes.

But we WERE discussing income taxes. It would be hard to get a cut in S.S.
taxes because it's just a ponzi scheme which will eventually run it's course
anyways.

> In addition, since the income of the top one fifth has risen fifteen
> percent in recent years, while the comparable figure for the bottom
> fifth is only about one percent, perhaps the breaks should go to those
> more in need of them than those skating on easy street.

How can you give an income tax break to a guy who pays ZERO income tax? That's
WELFARE, not a tax break.

> >I guess it's just a logic thing with libs.
>
> I guess you're not smart enough to understand that the Republicans
> have scammed you into focusing on only one tax. Most people pay more

I'm smart enough to know that you're not going to be able to cut S.S. taxes
without first making HUGE changes to the way retirement savings are implemented
or raising taxes somewhere else. Cut income tax, and fix S.S., and most people
won't have a problem. I'm also smart enough to know that I probably won't ever
benefit from S.S., based on the math skills that I do have, and believe that
it's not the government's responsibility to make sure that I have money to
retire on.

> in social security taxes than in personal income taxes. They both are

Because many people don't pay ANY income taxes. They allow others to pay their
fair share for them. Republicans suggest that we should be doing what we can so
that EVERYONE pays less in income taxes. SS is another matter. I'm sure they'd
love to cut those taxes too, but the more important thing is to reform the
system. We simply won't be able to afford it the way it is now.

> taxes on income. They both go into the giant pot of federal money. How
> come Repubs propose breaks only in one of the two comparable taxes?
> Because their rich contributors only pay one of them to any large
> degree.

Rich people don't pay SS?

> Don't let Republican demagogues make a fool of you like this. Stand up
> to their disrespect for you. Learn the score and stop being their
> dupe.

*yawn*

> Plus the conservative thing is to pay off the debt so the next
> generation won't get stuck with our bills.

We are paying on the debt already. No reason we can't do both.

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

unread,
Jan 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/19/00
to
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:39:18 -0500, Replicant
<a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:

>In article <m3g98s4ciiemg9mrb...@4ax.com>, "George Leroy
>Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:23:35 -0500, Replicant
>> <a_rep...@hotmail.NOSPAM4ME.com> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> >Getting what you wanted, a budget that balanced by CBO numbers, is
>> >"losing"?
>>
>> Clinton always said that we could balance the budget without gutting
>> important priorities, such as education, the environment, and so on.
>
>Clinton said he though the could do it in 5 years...or 7 years...or 10
>years..or... I guess whenever he thought he could do it and be out of office and
>not have to deal with it himself.

He said that you could pick any particular number of years in which to
balance the budget that you wanted, but that we should remember WHY we
were seeking to balance the budget: to improve the economy. Thus, if
you cut spending on business infrastructure, education, research, then
you would get balance only briefly - because eating your seed corn is
not a good weigh to get ahead. You eat one year - but then you die.

And, of course, Mr. Clinton also said that you could balance the
budget without eating seed corn, so to speek, since that is what we
have done.

Repubs were wrong when they assumed we had to eliminate the educ dept
and so on.


>
>He really had no stomach to do it at all. He was forced into getting it
>balanced by the Republicans. He wanted a huge socialized medical takeover which

No. Socialism is the govt owning the means of production. That is not
what was proposed. What WAS proposed was reform of our current health
insurance system, in ways which I think would likely have been a good
idea. For instance, requiring firms to offer standard products, with
information on price and quality, would have lead to a more efficient
marketplace, IMO.

>would have required mucho dinero. Unless he was going to jack up taxes, that
>doesn't lend itself well to a balanced budget.

Canada, which also does not have socialized medicine (thought
experiment - if a Doctor has an XRAY machine which breaks, who pays
for a new one - govt or Doctor? If more business walks in the door -
who keeps the money - Doctor or govt?), manages to deliver a lot more
medical care (30% more doctors visits) for consideraly less money.

You seem not to know how many insurance bureaucrats do duplicative
work in our country. Zillions. If we can get rid of millions of them,
then there will be a lot of money left over.

And even were it to cost more money, if we got universal medical
coverage, that would probably be well worth the extra dough.


>
>> THe balanced budget adopted did in fact protect the priorities
>> President Clinton had stressed.
>
>Then he could have proposed a budget that balanced by CBO numbers and protects
>his "priorities" at the get go, like he promised he would.

He promised to cut the deficit in half in four years, and he did
exactly that. Promise made, promise kept.

Your claim he broke a promise on the budget is not true.

> It was only after
>the Republicans forced his hand (and he shut down the government)

Even many Repubs concede it was they who shut the govt down. 1. Newt
in April and early July, on TV shows I saw, said that pushing to a
shut down was the Repub strategy. He said he would take every Repub
bill Clinton vetoed, and bind it to a continuing resolution. He then
said something like this: who do you think can stand the political
heat of a shut down better - me or the PResident?

It was PREPLANNED by the Republicans. In addition, when the Repubs
voted DOWN a clean continuing resolution the Republicans CHEERED and
the Demos were furious. If one group cheers the failure to keep govt
open, are they the ones pushing for it? ANd Mr. Livingston, before
Christmas recess, yelled to the House Shut the Sucker Down" as I
recall, again to cheers of his Repub colleagues.

So what you say is obviously revisionist history inconsistent with the
facts.

that he
>decided to keep his word and do so. He talked big, but until forced, that was
>all it was...talk.

He did what he promised, to a large degree. You can look up his
promises in his written plan from 1992 published as Putting People
First. An historian looking systematically at recent presidents
concluded Clinton has been best as keeping political promises.

>
>> The Republicans, you may recall, wanted to ELIMINATE the Dept of
>> Education. But the laws adopted have provided hefty increases in its
>> budget.
>
>Clinton never proposed a budget, with or without the Dept. of Ed. that balanced
>until the Republicans forced him.

That could be true. Hard to say exactly why he submits balanced
budgets. But that does not refute that he took steps to get deficits
under control, just as he said he would when he ran for office. And
the heavy legislative lifting getting us to balance was accomplished
without any Repub votes. The CBO confirms that that 1993 Clinton plan
has been far more important in cutting recent deficits than other laws
have been. The CBO is the outfit REPUBS say is the best arbiter of
debate on the causes of deficits.


>
>> >Hardly. Clinton's much better at PR then he is at actual leading. I
>> >guess he
>> >can fool you into thinking whatever he wants.
>>
>> He has used his skills to convert Republicans to Clintonistas, on many
>> budget matters.
>
>You have to give and take. The Republicans taught Clinton well.

Not one agency Repubs said they would eliminate has been eliminated,
and, indeed, spending alltogether is UP for those agencies.

I think it safe to say that CLinton has had good success preserving
his (and our) priorities.

>
>> PR and actual leading go hand in hand, actually.
>
>Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
>
>> >> fellows, those Republicans.
>> >> >
>> >> >> balanced budget, but the Pubs wanted to do it by screwing the middle
>> >> >> class.
>> >> >
>> >> >By giving them lower taxes?
>> >>
>> >> By giving 90% of the tax breaks to the top 10%.
>> >
>> >BZZZT. Most taxes are already paid by the wealthy. You can't give FAIR
>> >tax
>> >breaks without reducing taxes by percent equally without the wealthy
>> >getting
>> >more money back in total.
>>
>> The top ten percent do not pay ninety percent of tax.
>
>Did I say they did?

No. I did.

>
>> Remember not to fall for the Republican scam of looking only at
>> federal personal income taxes - which comprise only about 28% of all
>> taxes.
>
>But we WERE discussing income taxes. It would be hard to get a cut in S.S.
>taxes because it's just a ponzi scheme which will eventually run it's course
>anyways.

SS Taxes are a tax on personal income. Personal income taxes are a tax
on personal income. Both taxes go into the same big pot. To ignore
one, when most people pay more of it than the other, is odd. And is
designed to rig the discussion to help the affluent, IMO.

You can fund SS with taxes on personal income which you call SS tax,
or with taxes on personal income which you call Monique. The name is
irrelevant. The substance is what counts.


>
>> In addition, since the income of the top one fifth has risen fifteen
>> percent in recent years, while the comparable figure for the bottom
>> fifth is only about one percent, perhaps the breaks should go to those
>> more in need of them than those skating on easy street.
>
>How can you give an income tax break to a guy who pays ZERO income tax?

By cutting taxes on his income, which are not zero.

Let me repeat this - the NAME you apply to a tax is not all that
important. What matters is - the substance of the tax. SS tax and
personal income tax are both taxes on income. The receipts both go
into the Treasury. Who CARES what NAME you attach to them?

You can call the damned things Mr. Earl and Speedo and it won't make a
whit of difference in any rational way.

That's
>WELFARE, not a tax break.

No, that is the Republican party scoring another dupe tricked by their
sleight of hand. Have you no pride? How can you just LET them con you
like this? Don't you understand the CONTEMPT they have for you, for
how easy it is to trick you?


>
>> >I guess it's just a logic thing with libs.
>>
>> I guess you're not smart enough to understand that the Republicans
>> have scammed you into focusing on only one tax. Most people pay more
>
>I'm smart enough to know that you're not going to be able to cut S.S. taxes
>without first making HUGE changes to the way retirement savings are implemented
>or raising taxes somewhere else.

Friend - all govt receipts go into one big pot - the bowels of the
federal reserve, a massive dungeon with what seems all the money in
the world, sort of like Uncle Scooges vault.

Those dollars do not have labels attached to them.

Really.

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages