Conference nyoss1::market_investing

       There will be nothing in the State of the Union that has not 
       been eluded to, trial ballooned or leaked before hand. Any 
       correction will probably happen early this week or has 
       already happened, IE last weeks fall.
       
       Just my cut at it.

>       been eluded to, trial ballooned or leaked before hand. Any 
    
    That's "alluded to".
    
    The other possibility is that something will sneak through that hasn't
    been leaked.  Something that might not affect U.S. citizens but will
    affect foreign counties, like the once-mentioned notion of taxing foreign
    companies more than before.  The sort of thing that presumably doesn't
    need floating first, but which may scare foreign companies and/or
    the financial markets.  Besides the above, some sort of dollar-trashing
    or increased control of the FED are things that come to mind.
    
    I'm not sure anything good can come out of this, only bad news or none.
    Feb options expire Saturday, so there is a great spec play available on
    the OEX, for those ready to lose or maybe make a bunch.
    
      John

    I concur, John.  Not that I'm unwilling to pay my fare share, or
    anything unpatriotic like that, but there's not likely to be much fuel
    for the fire this week.  I think the market will react more like  to
    the President like a wet blanket.
    
    
    
    						Fred

    Just to stir the pot 8^)...
    
    New taxes = New spending.  We need to significantly reduce SPENDING.  I
    don't mind paying my fair share, however, I want to see $$ in go
    directly to deficit.
    
    BTW:  Did you know that:
    
    1.  The INTEREST on long term debt approx equals the deficit.  If we
    had no debt, we would have no deficit.
    
    2.  All federal income tax paid from every individual tax payer west of
    the Mississippi goes to paying debt interest.  Not a dollar received
    from that group goes to government programs.
    
    There are many more little tidbits, but I figured I'd share those...
    
    Jack B.
    

    
    	Re: .4
    
    	The interest on the debt is "only" around $200 billion a year.  The
    deficit is in the $350+ billion a year range.  Even without the debt
    we'd still be running a deficit level that up to a few years ago would
    have been considered atrocious.
    
    							-craig

	Well, whatever Clinton said last night, the market hasn't liked it.
	DJIA is down more than 50 points this morning. 

  ...goes to Clinton. But what I don't understand is why people are
  complaining. It's not taxes, folks. It's "contributions". 
  And contributions are usually voluntary. :-) ;-)

  Nari

    re: last few
    
    Excuse me,but the president of the United States prefers tobe called by
    her maiden name,Rodham.
    
    IAS,the market reaction is to be expected. Higher taxes will stop the
    recovery in its tracks. 
    
    

In my opinion, we are paying the penalty for the last 6 years of Republican
mismanagement.

George Bush broke his blatant promise to the American people.  Maybe, he
believed that real cutting was going to happen.  When it didn't, the
Republicans in the White House cowtowed to special interests and the continued
increasing budgets proposed by Congress.  Remember, this is the year that
Ronald Reagan promissed a break even budget.

I believe that there will be some tax increases, but more importantly, some
real government cuts in spending.  Its going to be somewhat painful, but, in my
opinion, truly necessary.  The Clinton proposals, when we see them, will be far
less Draconian than the Perot proposals (and I voted for Perot.)

I expect, in all honesty, that my take home pay will go down between $2 and $5
per week.  I expect that my gasoline costs will go up by 10�/gallon or, with
the driving I do, about $6.00/month.  These are not huge increases, by any
means.

The thing that must be done is make sure that cust happen along with the
increases in taxes.  I heard my Congress Creature wimpering that Clinton wanted
bigger defense cuts, yet my Congress Creature has been ineffectual in staying
to a national budget.

IMNSHO, the place we need to put the squeeze is on Congress, not bitch about
the President, who's trying to clean up the mess left by inept and inapt
predecessors.

As for the snipe at Ms. Rodham, who the #3|| cares what she calls herself?  If
you go to a Dr. Jane Jones, do you care that she's a Mrs. John Smith.  She
earned her credentials as a single woman.  That's what it says on the diploma. 
Mrs. Clinton (n�e Rodham) earned her Doctorate in Law ans Ms. Rodham.  Don't
snipe and snicker -- its just a distraction from trying to deal with the real
issues of the Deficit and the Debt.

Lastly, and back to the topic here.  John H. (I believe) presciently called it.
He said that the market would go down no matter what Clinton said.  It was a
case of "buy on rumor, sell on news."  pure and simple, and in hindsight, dead
on.

BobW

>================================================================================
>Note 387.8              State of the Union Predicitions?                  8 of 8
>KYOA::LAZARUS "David Lazarus @KYO,323-4353"           9 lines  16-FEB-1993 13:56
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>            -< Market reacts to economic stupidity from Washington >-
>
>    re: last few
>    
>    Excuse me,but the president of the United States prefers tobe called by
>    her maiden name,Rodham.
>    
>    IAS,the market reaction is to be expected. Higher taxes will stop the
>    recovery in its tracks. 
>    
>    
>
> 
> 

	Re. .9 

	Hear! Hear!

	Re. .8

	That crude comment was in an extremely poor taste. 

	How many of you, who have spouses/SO's/partners, make the decisions
	about your finances, personal business without consulting with them?
	And they without consulting you?

	I would guess not too many. The same is true of the president of the
	US or for that matter any country or organization. At least Ms. Rodham
	Clinton uses her plentiful brain, not astrology, while assisting her
	husband. You have to either accept the Clintons as a pair or not 
	at all. 

.8>    IAS,the market reaction is to be expected. Higher taxes will stop the
.8>    recovery in its tracks. 
    
    You are now qualified to be a TV news commentator :-)
    
    So, where's the market going fom here?  IMO, down 'til the end-of-month.
    
      John

	Re. .11

	> So, where's the market going fom here?  IMO, down 'til the 
	> end-of-month.

	Or, until Elaine Garzarelli shows up on NBR or W$W :-).

Re: several previous -

  This has GOT to be part of Billy's overall plan --

  Make a few more speeches like last night, drop the market a few
  thousand points, and then. . . . there won't be any "millionair"
  folks left to take advantage of the all those nasty tax cuts they
  were given over the last two administrations.  Certainly is one way
  for the Clinton administration to "spread the pain".

  He probably hasn't figured out yet that it might also hurt the rest
  of the people that own stocks, etc.

  IMHO - Clinton Administration will self-destruct within 6 months. 
  Democratic party will reject Clinton and combined with Republican
  resources will put forward economic, foreign and domestic plans 
  independant of Clinton.  A lame duck right out of the shute! 

Three weeks in the office and its TAX and SPEND, TAX and SPEND....
Last night was pathetic... "Sorry, I didn't think I'd have to raise
taxes this much, but..."

This WILL PUT A DAMPER on any kind of recovery!!  The public sector is the
most inefficient place to do business, sorry, that's a fact... go back to
your Public Finance classes....  or, ask any of the WS analysts that sold 
today and contributed to the > 50pt loss.... seems everyone has confidence 
in Uncle Billy's plan for economic "recovery"  Can you say '76?

RE: Back a few....
    
As for Mrs. Clinton, I don't remember seeing her on the ballet!!

FWIW. -BDJ

>    So, where's the market going fom here?  IMO, down 'til the end-of-month.

John,  what happens at the end of the month that would turn the market up,
in your opinion?  Are you still holding to your interest rates "up, possibly 
sharply, into late Feb" prediction (note 316.7)?

John Piekos

>John,  what happens at the end of the month that would turn the market up,

    I believe bonds, currently making all-time [futures] highs, are going
    to top out no later than Friday and skid until early March.  Then hold
    or move up.  Seasonality says we should have a decent first week in March
    for both stocks and bonds.

    BIG rally coming mid-March to mid-April.  New all-time highs.  
    DEC joins in the rally, though not the new all-time highs :-)

    SPOILER for contrarians only:

    Back to Clinton:  What looks like the most contrary investment of all?
    What's been beaten down with no hope of recovery?  What is likely to
    be selling VERY cheaply?  Why, defense stocks!  All those defense
    industries are on the outs and can be bought and held on the theory
    that (a) they're about as low as they get (but wait for 2/26) and
    (b) Democrats are the War Party, even if they talk peace.  Stand by
    to beat plowshares into swords, NATO style.

      John

    OBspell:  "chute" and "ballot"

    Re .16:
    >Back to Clinton:  What looks like the most contrary investment of all?
    
    I don't know John, he seems to be doing a pretty good job on drugs.

HMO's


michael

Thanks, John.  One more question.  Back in note 333.13 you stated that you
felt "that on May 1 the market will be well under today's level, and then 
would be a better time to invest."  Does that mean that since you are
predicting a "BIG rally coming mid-March to mid-April." that there will be
a BIG crash between mid-April and May 1?  What has changed since Christmas
time to change your opinion from a market being "well under" the Christmas
time level, to a "BIG rally" in the April/May timeframe?

John Piekos

re: .10

>	How many of you, who have spouses/SO's/partners, make the decisions
>	about your finances, personal business without consulting with them?
>	And they without consulting you?

When I make decisions about personal finance and business, I always consult 
with my wife. However, Bill Clinton was not elected to run "personal" business. 
He was elected to run the country. If people wanted Mrs. Clinton to run the 
country, they would have voted her for president. 

Back to the original note... It was reported yesterday that President Clinton 
"shrugged off" the news about the 82+ point stock market drop. Do you think he 
really believes that the country will get an economic recovery while the its 
stock market faces a potential crash? I wonder where he got his economic 
advise? 

    The stock market and the American people were going to balk
    at anything President Clinton said. Their expectations were
    out of line with reality, we expect to much from government.
    This problem will only get solved if everyone puts pressure
    on their representatives and the President to cut spending.
    They also have to be willing to accept some loss in service.

    The funny thing about this age of instant communication is
    that Clinton was accused of breaking campaign promises less
    than a week after taking office.  His honeymoon seems to be
    up already ready too.

    Martin

    Well, it seems like I had the right idea in .0 but the wrong timing.
    I think the stock market might take another hit on Friday at which
    point I'll probably wait 2-3 days and take a plunge. I think either:
    - Clinton's bill won't be passed or
    - Clinton's bill will be passed in a form more favorable to business
      and special interests.
    And as this realization sets in, the stock market will recoup it's
    losses. 

re: .21

>    This problem will only get solved if everyone puts pressure
>    on their representatives and the President to cut spending.
>    They also have to be willing to accept some loss in service.

You got it right! I guess there are quite large a population out there who 
are willing to pay their "fair share" if they know what they pay will help to 
reduce the national debt. But, it is also troublesome to see so many people 
who are willing to accept whatever bullsh*t the government tries to jam down 
their throat. And, they give various reasons trying to justify it. It is true 
that people deserve the kind of government they get. Here we are, living in a 
supposedly "free society" with "freely elected officials". We the voters have 
to take the responsibility on watching what these people do in our government. 
Until people stop pointing fingers at each other and start taking on 
responsibilities for themselves, we are not going to see our economic problems 
getting resolved. We should forget about whether it is the Republicans or the 
Democrats to blame for our problems. We should concentrate on HOW TO solve our 
problems. I for one will not be willing to pay anymore taxes until the 
government cuts its spending significantly. Because, I don't want to see my 
hard earned money to be used to support an ever growing bureaucracy. Now, I've 
got it out of my chest, I'll get out of this soapbox.

Mike

Just like my household budget.  The best way to improve the bottom line is to
stop spending money, and do with a little less.

michael

    
    The market didn't move down on just the announcement of tax increases,
    everyone knew that was coming. The market seemed disappointed by the
    complete lack of emphasis on spending cuts in Clinton's Monday night
    address. He was focused on OUR wallets and not GOVT spending; it was
    barely mentioned. I was home Tuesday watching CNBC and that was the 
    big factor. The fear that taxes will increase, slightly choking down
    the recovery, and that Congress will not be able to toe the line on
    spending, and instead of cutting, start proposing new areas to spend.
    Spending bill get quick approval, while cuts get delayed. Add to that
    the fear of the '94 congressional election and 22 Democratic senate
    seats and you have the makings still of a fiscal nightmare.
    
    I liked Perot because he emphasised cuts and supplimented the recovery
    with direct-to-debt type taxes. I am willing to pay more if needed. But
    I want it to go towards debt reduction and not another ant farm study
    at UNLV.
    
    When asked yesterday where the money would be moving to in the coming
    year, the comments on CNBC were: Tax free munis and high tech stocks.

re: .*

OK, my 2 cents.  This mess (the deficit) took years to get into, and it
will take years to get out of.  Personally, I prefer the Clinton team
(including HRC), to the one of former President Ronald Brain-dead, but 
that's my own personal bias.  With all the bickering (including this reply!)
going on here, why should we expect that things would be different in
Washingtoon?  The stock market is an emotional creature, and as we all
know comes down more rapidly than it goes up.  

We must all hang together, etc., etc.  You don't have to like it, but it you
want to be part of the solution, you're gonna have to do it.  


                                                Fred

I'll pay the extra taxes.....if congress gets with a deficit reduction program.
The solution......

      Thank you for your recent electronic mail message to the White
 House.  As soon as practicable it will be sent to the appropriate office
 for consideration.  You should receive a written reply in due course.
 Unfortunately, we are not yet ready to respond substantively
 to your message by electronic mail.  We appreciate your patience as we
 implement our new electronic systems.

          As you know, this is the first time in history that the
 White House has been connected to the public through electronic
 mail.  We welcome your comments and suggestions for ways to improve
 your Public Access E-mail program.

      Regards,
      Jock Gill
      Electronic Publishing
      Public Access E-mail
      The White House
      Washington, D.C.

      [email protected]
      CLINTON PZ on America Online
 
 PS: If you did not include your U.S. mail return address in your
 message and you want a reply, please send your message again and
 include that information.
 

keep those cards and letters coming!

michael     
                                                

re: .26

> We must all hang together, etc., etc.  You don't have to like it, but it you
> want to be part of the solution, you're gonna have to do it.  

I may be a little slow here. But, I am not ignorant. 

So, what's your point?

    My point is that ANY plan is better than no plan.  I'm sure either
    party could tear large holes in a plan put forward by the other.  But
    could we at least get started doing something!?
    
    
    						Fred

We could start with the Federal Budget.

/mtb

    I was really disappointed with Clinton's Tuesday night speech.
    All he did was to ask us, ordinary folks, to sacrifice and mentioned
    nothing about spending cut.  I believe the problem is not we are
    taxed too little.  The problem is we spend too much.  I also worry
    too much tax will take away people's incentive to produce and invest.
    Unless we have a solid plan to reduce the spending, I don't see
    any way out of this mess.
    
    Wendy

Clinton's speach was disappointing.  When Leon Panetta went for his confirmation
hearing he stated that for every dollar of increased taxes the Federal Budget 
needs to be cut by two.  I would like to know the reasons why we suddenly can't
find that second dollar.  What has changed?  Has special interest stepped in?
Was/is Clinton too optimistic?  I suspected this would happen when it became
clear that Clinton was going to win the election.  His youthful optimism captured
the voters, but rose colored outlook could lead us to trouble.  I just keep 
thinking about what I friend of mine who worked at the state department for over\
40 years told me right before the election.

A year before the election, when it was time to choose to run for President, did
Bush look beatable (Gulf war had just ended, approval rating in the stratisphere).
It didn't look possible, all of the quality people Democrate and Republican didn't
think it was possible, so who joined the race.  Was it the best this country had
to offer (Pat Buchannin on the Republican side, and a host of Democrates)?  He
thought that the Democrates picked a bunch of people who could use the experience.
Unfortunately they won.

I'm not a Democrate nor a Republican, and neither is my friend at State (he's 
worked for both kinds of administrations, some good some bad, from both sides).
I hope that we will be better off in for years.  I wish this for my children.

Good luck Mister Clinton, you're going to need it.


okay off the soapbox.

michael

    re: .29
    
    I don't think I can bring myself to agree with you that "any plan is
    better than no plan". If the plan is a bad plan, it will only bring 
    us deeper into the hole. We can not just close our eyes and blindly
    follow the government. This country has problems and we elected our
    officials to fix these problems (knock on wood). We have to hold them
    accountable for it. If they screw up, we through them out and get
    someone else in there who CAN do the job. A good plan is better than no
    plan. A bad plan has to be stopped right away!!!
    
    re: .30
    
    I can't agree with you more! A government is an overhead. It does not
    produce and it only consumes. When an economy is in trouble, the first
    thing we should look at is cut spending on overhead - cut the
    government. 

Can someone please put in this note, how one goes about sending electronic
mail to Clinton in the White House.

What is the command string that you have to put in the send location:

vmsmail = ???

All-in-one = ???

Thanks ahead of time.
Dave

    I would like to think that on Monday night Clinton got the worst news
    out first i.e. taxes. Any shrewd politician would do that. I won't be
    surprised if he saved all the goodies for tonight (I don't wish to
    guess what they might be)! I predict that market will go up by 50+
    points tomorrow. This reminds me of how most DECies felt when major
    layoffs started after BP took over. After Q2 results, most people
    seem to be happy with BP's business plans.
    
    But then again, BC is no BP!

    re: .34
    
================================================================================
Note 5478.1        Internet E-mail address for The Whitehouse             1 of 3
CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist"                   14 lines  29-JAN-1993 16:08
                        -< compuserve address as well >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That's one address. It's for the America On-line (a private service)
    connection to the White House. The White House also has a Compuserve
    address. 

    [email protected]

    From the Easynet use DECWRL::"[email protected]" or
    			 DECPA::"[email protected]"

    It's novelty enough that it might actually get read. If you send Email
    I suggest you also include a USPS (paper mail) address. They're not
    completely set up for substantive Email replies yet.

    		Alfred

    In the interests of equal time, here is Rush Limbaugh's address:
    
    [email protected]
    
    VAXmail:  DECWRL::"[email protected]"
    
    (Whozat?  Rush Limbaugh is Mr. Right Wing Talk Radio, USA)

    Rush who, the only Rush I know is the Canadian band from the 70's and
    80's.
    
    mtb

    Clinton said if you're patriotic, you'll support his plan.
    Bennet said its not and never has been patriotic to support stupidity.
    I'll give him his chance tonight but, I'm afraid tomorrow may make
    yesterday look like a blip.

    
    It think there was an in-White-house fight.  Leon Panetta and
    Llyod Bentsen, who advocated spending cuts 2:1 versus taxes increases,
    lost; Hillary, Robert Reich, and Donna Shalalah won.
    
    Frankly, I'm concerned about Hillary's influence in these matters.
    After all, one has to ask the question: "What's more important to
    Bill Clinton, the country or his marriage"?
    
    In any event, he's outright wrong in stressing tax increases 
    over spending cuts.
    
    -Michael

The American people think that a person whose profession is LAWYER (the L word)
can come in an fix the Health Care system without it costing a bundle.  When's
the last time a lawyer didn't cost you a bundle?  Maybe it's just my LAYERphobia
kicking in, but it makes you say hmmmmmm.



michael

    A random question.  Are treasury bonds callable?
    
    If we ever get our fiscal house in order and balance the budget
    that should cause interest rates to fall.  Could the goverment
    call high interest rate bonds and issue a replacement bond at
    the lower rate?
    
    Martin

    No. They are not callable.
    
    As you have probably have noticed, the administration is now currently
    planning to avoid issuing longer term debt, preferring to finance our
    spending with the near term maturities.
    
    This strikes me as somewhat odd. I'd think that with interest rates
    low, you'd want to borrow as much as possible for as long as possible.
    Corporations seem to be doing this now. I wonder if the administration
    is planning for a depression where interest rates will be really low.

    re .44 
    
    It makes sense--the yield curve is steeply upwards, so borrowing
    short is much cheaper than borrowing long.
    
    In other words, there isn't one interest rate, but several, one
    for each maturity (and borrower!  But we're talking about just
    one, the US Government).
    
    If you can borrow at 2% (annually) for a one month term or 7%
    (annually) for a ten year term, you have the option of using the
    cheaper short-term rate and rolling over your debt every month.
    It might be worth the risk of future interest rate increases 
    during the ten years.
    
    Corporate borrowers may not be presented such a steep curve by
    the market.
    
    		-John Bishop

>================================================================================
>Note 387.41             State of the Union Predicitions?                41 of 42
>KYOA::LAZARUS "David Lazarus @KYO,323-4353"          32 lines  17-FEB-1993 23:51
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    
>    1) How Clinton lied to the American people while Bush told the truth
>    about him.(October 19 debate when Clinton said he would get all needed
>    revenue from those over $200,000 and Bush told the middle class to hold
>    on tight to your wallets). 
The deficit is 100,000,000,000.00 worse than George Bush claimed it was in the
campaign.  Please, count the zeros.  That is the number of zeros I credit the
past Republican administration.  Either King George knew this and lied or he
didn't know and was incompetent.  Pick one.  My cut is that, were the past
administration re-elected, we would just continue to hear more denial of a
problem.  Bill Clinton is speaking painfully, because, the truth is often
painful.  Happy days ain't here again.
    
>    2) The stupidity of raising taxes on corporations and thinking they
>    will hire more. The energy tax which will cause inflation all over the
>    place. Everyone is affected by higher energy prices and the higher 
>    costs WILL be passed on. Socking it to the wealthy-penalizing success-
>    many wealthy(doctors & lawyers come immediately to mind) will just pass
>    their increased costs on,more inflation.
We agree here.  Corporations NEVER pay taxes.  They either pass them on to
customers or go bankrupt.

>    3) The deception of hiding Hilary during the campaign and immediately
>    springing her on us to be the most influential decision maker in the
>    country. There's no doubt she made a deal with Slick Willy during the
>    campaign to keep her mouth shut about his infidelity and in return he 
>    would give her unprecedented power. 
As far as I can tell, no one hid the Honorable Ms. Rodham, Esq.  It seems that
a bunch of luddites simply didn't like the fact that she didn't take her
husband's name at marriage and are using that as a whipping stick - you know,
lots of noise and no substance.  By the way, Digital can be sued for libel
because of your accusation of infidelity.  Are you prepared to defend yourself
and Digital in court?

>    And before you think I'm frightened by powerful women,that's entirely
>    wrong. I have no problem with ELECTED or appointed women,but what did
>    this person EVER do(raised Arkansas from 50th to 49th in education) to
>    merit her power.
Mrs. Clinton is excercising no more power than Martha Washington, Dolly
Madison, Elanor Roosevelt, Barbara Bush, Roslyn Carter, or Nancy Reagan. 
Remember that the War-On-Drugs was the most important thing in the Reagan
administration and 'Ol Nancy got to run (I originally wrote ruin) that. 
Barbara Bush developed the only education proposal from the Education
President.  So, LAY OFF HILLARY.  I'm tired of your sound-bite snipes without
meaningful content.

>    If you can't see her influence and really think Slick Willy is in
>    charge,then your eyes are closed.
No, I think you are, as the song goes, "Blinded By The Right."  with apologies
to Manfred Mann.

BobW

    Clinton and Clinton are so Bad for this country that even Dan Quayle
    sounds good!
    
    Ken

    I've taken a lot of my heat for calling Bill Clinton -the president's
    husband,but I'm not the only one who has that opinion.
    
    Set /soapbox = on
    
    What really galls me is :
    
    1) How Clinton lied to the American people while Bush told the truth
    about him.(October 19 debate when Clinton said he would get all needed
    revenue from those over $200,000 and Bush told the middle class to hold
    on tight to your wallets). 
    
    2) The stupidity of raising taxes on corporations and thinking they
    will hire more. The energy tax which will cause inflation all over the
    place. Everyone is affected by higher energy prices and the higher 
    costs WILL be passed on. Socking it to the wealthy-penalizing success-
    many wealthy(doctors & lawyers come immediately to mind) will just pass
    their increased costs on,more inflation.
    
    3) The deception of hiding Hilary during the campaign and immediately
    springing her on us to be the most influential decision maker in the
    country. There's no doubt she made a deal with Slick Willy during the
    campaign to keep her mouth shut and in return he would give her 
    unprecedented power. 
    
    And before you think I'm frightened by powerful women,that's entirely
    wrong. I have no problem with ELECTED or appointed women,but what did
    this person EVER do(raised Arkansas from 50th to 49th in education) to
    merit her power.
    
    If you can't see her influence and really think Slick Willy is in
    charge,then your eyes are closed.
    

    >.47
    let's not get crazy.

What a bunch of whiners!  Does anybody think Clinton is doing this because he
wants to???  Oh yeah, he's got a sure fire re-election strategy going here.  

Do any of the whiners have any constructuve suggestions, besides "Make some 
one else pay for my share of the problem."?

I won't even get into the fact that all this is to reduce the *deficit*, the 
national debt continues to grow...

Ok... I'm in my asbestos suit now :-)
Mark

re: .49

> What a bunch of whiners!  Does anybody think Clinton is doing this because he
> wants to???  Oh yeah, he's got a sure fire re-election strategy going here.  

I don't think we are "whiners". We are just alert tax payers. If we are asked 
to pay for something, we want to know what we are paying for. Bill Clinton 
knew exactly what he was getting into before he decided to run for the 
presidency. Nevertheless, he chose to run. Nobody claims he has an easy job. 
But, just because he has a tough job to do, it doesn't mean we tax payers can 
not ask him any questions or have disagreements with him. He was elected to 
do the job and to fix the economy. Getting re-elected should NOT be his first 
priority. 

> Do any of the whiners have any constructuve suggestions, besides "Make some 
> one else pay for my share of the problem."?

Well, do you??? 

If anyone watched "Primetime" last night, you can see what kind of waste is 
going on within our government. There definitely alot of "fat" can be cut. To 
start with, let's cut the $57K job to study ketchup and pickles, the $70K job 
for "International Boundary Commissioner" who only works 7-days a year, the 
$59K job that does 3-weeks worth of work in 3 YEARS, the parking attendants 
who don't park any cars and the automatic elevator operator who sits there 
push the "up" and "down" buttons all day long, the RTC and etc and etc....
The list can go for a long way. Now, for those of you out there who think we 
should just keep our mouths shut and eyes closed and pay "our dues", WHY 
should I pay these people for either doing nothing or doing useless work??? 

I, by no means being rich and I EARN my living. I am very careful on where and 
how we spend our money to buy food and cloth for our family. You tell me why 
you think the government should have the right to spend MY MONEY so 
carelessly???

> I won't even get into the fact that all this is to reduce the *deficit*, the 
> national debt continues to grow...

Nobody is saying we should not reduce the deficit. All we are saying is that 
we don't want to just hand over the government a blank check so they can do 
whatever they want with it.

> Ok... I'm in my asbestos suit now :-)

You should be.  

	Re. .50

	Mike,

	I for one am all for asking valid questions. Some of the points you 
	raise re. the PrimeTime live program are valid. But, these are not
	Clinton's creations. They have existed before. Where were you then?
	Why weren't you asking questions then? You were still paying taxes,
	weren't you? Just because Clinton is asking you to pay more, that
	gets your goat? 

	Besides, those savings are minor compared to the savings by making
	cuts in the defense. I'm disappointed that Clinton did not make 
	much deeper cuts there - like completely scapping Star Wars initiative
	the most stupid defense program in the whole world. Since this is the
	investing notesfile, let me comment that investing in defense in the
	current global climate is the *worst* investment anyone can ever make.
	The return on your dollar is so small; the whole defense industry is
	rampant with corruption, what with charging astronimical fees for
	ordinary items, passing defective components as good by mucking with
	the test data, bribing govt. officials. Just because this country
	feels good being macho and the world's bodyguard, so much of the tax 
	dollars are being sunk into that hole. 

	If you are as a careful investor as you claim to be in .50, you would
	have screamed against all of this long time ago, not waiting for
	Clinton to make his speech, but when Reagan was making his speech
	12 years ago. Where were you then? 

	When billions of dollars were being spent on attacking Panama, just
	to get a criminal out, were you complaining? When billions of dollars
	were being spent to defend a lousy despot in Kuwait, were you
	complaining? And you claim to be a smart investor who want to make sure that the
	govt. is not spending your dollars carelessly? 

	What I object to here is the juvenile display of attacks on Hilary
	Clinton - stupid kneejerk reactions like "Billary" and bringing in
	their personal lives. Some people here have definitely to grow up.

    Wow, the soapbox note!  People seem to be seeing in the State of the
    Union address whatever they want to see.
    
    IMO, Clinton has handled all this very shrewdly, changing the tone and
    direction of public debate over the last few weeks.  Notice how
    everyone is now focused on substantial cuts, whether or not they
    approve of new taxes.  This is a welcome improvement; let's hope the
    country gets AT LEAST spending cuts.  The next step is obviously going
    to be a move to judging programs on their effectiveness.
    
    Some historical facts for the whiners:
    - The stock market averages vary by a factor of 2:1 or more over most
    business cycles. Impact of a 3% correction in the long term -- not
    much.
    - Every president from Johnson on (except Ford) has increased the
    budget deficit considerably over his predecessor.  The obvious comeback
    to "tax and spend" is "don't tax, but spend anyway."  One or the other
    quip can be applied to all except GRF.
    - The influence of First Ladies is often a topic for sniping.  Rosalynn
    Carter and Nancy Reagan both went through charges of "undue influence
    over the President."  Nothing much came of it in the end.
    
    Again IMO, it's depressing to see anonymous notes like .41 from Mr.
    System in this forum.
    
    As a citizen, it's depressing to see the mortgage ads in West Coast
    papers these days.  The link between this and long-term government
    spending policy is clear.  If for nothing more than tough talk,
    Clinton's speech represents a welcome change.
    
    Wes

    >
    > Again IMO, it's depressing to see anonymous notes like .41 from Mr.
    > System in this forum.
    >

    Note that .41 wasn't originally from Mr. System - in fact the original
    (with the original address) has been duplicated sometime after .41 in
    another reply.

    Apparently, .41 was subsequently changed to attempt anonymity...

    L.

    I think this bears repeating AGAIN. The president can ask for or
    outline anything he wants (or you want to hear). It's the CONGRESS!!!!
    that must either act or not act on the president's wishes. In this
    case, a near fully autonomous Democratic Congress (57 Dems in the 
    Senate make a simple, but not super, majority. 60 is needed)
    
    It's the CONGRESS that has control of the purse. That's why presidents
    are such good foriegn affairs workers. That's the PRESIDENT's JOB under
    the Constitution.
    
    In 1990, Bush went back on his "no taxes" pledge in return for CONGRESS
    to enact spending cuts. It didn't happen but your taxes went up anyway.
    
    As the numbers begin leaking out from the White House, the size of the
    cutting is sliding backward. With most of the spending cuts coming due
    in the FIFTH YEAR of the plan.
    
    The one year freeze of government salaries is counted as a budget cut
    as is the increase in SS taxes on the most wealthy (>35k/yr). Do you
    think the govenment won't want additional money next year, as the 
    'economy is heating up', to compansate those sacrificing GS12's for
    the freeze? Do you think the extra SS money will be placed back into
    the SS fund? 
    
    My point here is that you have to do just what Clinton said you must do:
    Lobby your SENATOR and CONGRESSPERSONS to meet or exceed the
    president's spending cut goals. Tell them to cut spending everywhere
    they can find it. Seek out new area to cut spending. Act more like a
    servant than a patrician. Tell them you will go-along with tax
    increases if they do the right thing with them. And remind them, and 
    yourself, that you get to vote again nationally in Nov of 1994. 
    
    Or debt is only 5% of our GNP. That's still not bad as a % basis goes
    but this deficit spending needs to stop very soon. Just turning that
    around and increasing our GNP at a better than 3%/yr rate and we can
    dig ourselves out of this mess and keep interest rates low and the 
    market fairly strong, especially DEC. 
    
    If the tax increases succeed, and there is no doubt they will, without
    enacting the counterbalancing spending cuts, then I believe we are in
    for a major interest rate move upward and a major market correction
    downward. The dollar will continue to weaken and we'll all be voting
    for Ross Perot in 1996. 
    
    FWIW, my $0.02 (borrowed from next week paycheck)

      The  bottom line is that no president and no congress will balance
      the budget until we elect them to do so.   In  spite  of  all  the
      rhetoric,  we  currently choose our elected officials based on the
      short term benefits they deliver.  I am afraid that it  will  take
      something very traumatic to change this political reality.

    
    re: .54
    
    > debt is only 5% of our GNP.
    
    This is inaccurate, we owe 4 trillion.  If it were true, it would
    imply a GNP of 80 trillion, which would be nice, but is not true.  I
    think you mean the deficit is around 5% of GNP and it may very well be.
    Just for clarification, the deficit is not the debt.  It is the
    shortfall, that is the amount added to the debt at the end of the year.  
    We still owe the 4 trillion.  The question is will we owe an additional 
    3 or 4 hundred Billion on top of that?  
    
    So, how do we get into the black again?  First, get the deficit down to
    zero.  Then a couple generations of paying off the existing debt.  Of
    course, the longer we wait to do it, the more generations it will take
    to pay it all off.  Boy, are we going to be popular with our children, 
    grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc..  :(  
    
    /John

Are these some of the "substantial" cuts that have been alluded 
to?

daryll

[Headers deleted]

From USA Today [Reprinted without permission]:

A Tax By Any Other Name
Richard Wolf

The deficit reduction plan proposed Wednesday by President 
Clinton claims an equal amount of spending cuts and tax 
increases.

But the plan appears to get there through some rose-colored 
glasses:

An income tax boost on Social Security is listed as a spending 
cut: to the tune of $21 billion over five years.

Fee increases for evrything from grazing on federal land to 
registering at the Securties and Exchange Commission are counted 
as spending cuts.

More than $40 billion of the five-year spending savings comes 
automatically in reduced interest costs on the federal debt.

The five-year, $376 billion reduction in spending does not take 
into account $160 billion in spending INCREASES that would be 
occurring the first four years, halving the net spending 
reduction.

But when the deficit reduction plan comes to the tax increases, 
all those are real.

re: .51

This may be a surprise to you. If you think I am a Republican trying to defend 
Reagan and Bush and to beat up on Clinton, you are WRONG! As a matter of fact, 
I am not even a Republican. But, that's beside the point. As I said in my 
earlier Note, this should not be a Republican nor Democrat thing. It is a 
taxpayer and big government thing. I did not like what Reagan and Bush did 
either. And, I HAVE voiced my objection to the wars and the reckless 
government waste during the Republican years. You may not have heard me. 
Because, I hardly know you and this Notes File is NOT the place to register 
our complains.

There is no waste that is "too small" or "unimportant". The examples shown by 
Primetime may sound small to you. But, they can easily be multiplied by the 
thousands or even tens of thousands. Then, they are not small or unimportant 
any longer. The $7.1 MILLION paid by the RTC to make Xerox copies certainly is 
not small by my standard. Nobody held Bill Clinton responsible for these 
reckless wasteful spending (at least I didn't). But, he is the president who 
claims will fix our national deficit problem (and I must admit, he appears he 
is trying). He wants to raise our taxes. Then, he IS responsible for making 
sure all the government wasteful spending is stopped before he has the right 
to ask us to pay more. I said this before and I'll say it one more time. I am 
willing to pay for my fair share as long as the government has shown me that 
it has done all it can to cut spending first.

Now, I have a few words for you Mr. Shah. Why don't you take off your boxing 
gloves and get out of your "Republican vs. Democrat" shadow. Join us in making 
sure that our government is doing what we want it to do, and it does not abuse 
the power its people give to it, and it does not waste the valuable resources 
this country has. There is nothing wrong for tax-paying citizens asking about 
their government. Don't automatically assume he or she is out to get someone 
when people ask a question that is not to your own liking.

Mike

    re: .51
    12 years ago when Ronald Regan was making his speach I was voting in my
    first election, guess I actually did inhale, cause it didn't seem to
    matter then.  Now, 12 years later, one child and 8/9th of a child later
    it seems to matter much much more.  Not for me, but for my kids.  
    
    Back to the cuts....do we still subsidize tobacco farming with millions
    of dollars, and then spend millions more on anti-smoking campaigns?
    
    Does it make sense that taxpayers foot the bill for 3 former House
    Speakers for rent-free offices, 3 assistants, and free mailing rights,
    in addition to thier pensions, and other perks to the toon of $430000
    in salaries last year?  The offices are provided to wrap up officail
    business and answer letters...pretty good Carl Albert retired in 1976!
    
    
    michael

    one more thought...it looks like cuts now, but we haven't seen health
    care yet....is the plan going to pay for itself?
    
    /m

    re: .41 comments
    
    I did not intend to hide behind any anonymity. I just toned down the
    original note.
    
    I was not totally happy with Bush's handling of the economy either. I
    also saw the Primetime story and it turned my stomach to see all the
    waste.
    
    The only real way to get out of this mess is with a balanced budget
    ammendment which will force real spending cuts.
    
    

    Fred Barnes put it succinctly:  
    
      "Spending cuts in the out-years never happen".
    
    If you think Clinton and Congress will actually reduce the deficit, 
    you are suffering from hypocynicism.
    
    How to make money off that?  Sell short U.S. Treasuries.
    
      John

    Somewhere somehow, the deficit must be eliminated and the debt
    reduced. Everybody agrees on this, its not possible to keep on
    borrowing more and more forever. The buck must stop somewhere.
    
    And Clinton seems to be trying, ... so far so good. Could it
    be that the lack of details in spending cuts, are simply because 
    he has not yet had the time to do it yet. After all its not a
    simple or fast thing to collect and analyze in detail the USA
    governament expenses, and he has only been on the job for a month.
    
    Lets give him some time before complaining that he is not doing
    what he promised. 
    
    Gil

    re: .63
    
    Maybe you are right about he hasn't got enough time to find out all the
    cuts. I'll give him the benifit of the doubt (for now). However, he was
    quite specific about what taxes to raise and whom he's going to tax it
    to. He even gave numbers such as "$17 per month"... etc. (I'll have
    something to say about that later). During his campaign, he told the
    voters that he will not raise tax for the "middle class", he would only
    raise tax for the "rich" who makes $200K or more a year. Well, Now,
    less than a month after President Clinton get in office, the "rich" is 
    the one who makes more than $30K a year. What do we call that? A lie! 
    OK. Given that he wants to raise the tax "to reduce our deficit". If 
    this is true, I'll bite the bullet and pay my share of "contribution". 
    But, before I do that, I want to make damn sure that the government is 
    doing its part to reduce spending and eliminating waste first. I don't 
    want my "contribution" to fall into a "black hole" and to support an 
    ever growing monster - government bureaucracy. If Mr. Clinton doesn't 
    know where the government wastes are, I'll be glad to send him a copy 
    of the book "Government Waste From A to Z" (by Martin Gross). 
    
    Now, back to the rathole of "$17 a month". What bothered me is that
    this is a trick we often seen used by car salesmen. Instead of telling
    you what the total cost is, they divide the total by the number of
    month, number of weeks or even the number of days to make the figure
    look small. I was wondering why don't we use $0.57/day ($17 divided by
    30 days). It looks even better - "that's less than the cost of one cup
    of coffee per day". But, that isn't the point, is it?! Why the
    President didn't just come out and tell us that we need to raise $50
    BILLION (I hope I got the number right) to reduce our national
    debt? We can understand that and we are more than happy to contribute
    if the money is going where it said it would go. After all, we got
    ourselves into this mess and we have to get ourselves out again.
     
    I do have a question for everyone reading this file. What impact do you 
    think this tax increase will have on our economy in the short term? I
    also heard yesterday (on the radio) that the Clinton Administration is
    proposing a 2nd (yes SECOND) wave of tax hikes to pay for the yet to
    come "Universal Healthcare Plan". Do you think DEC, IBM, GM, Boeing and
    the other Fortune 500 companies will have more layoffs and cutbacks? Do
    you think you and I will have a job a year from now? Or, maybe two
    years? I am not so sure. I may have a healthcare plan, then. But, I may
    not have a job. Oh well, like .63 said, we'll just have to waite and
    see. I am not writing everything off, yet. But, one thing I have to
    thank President Clinton is that he finally brought the deficit problem
    on the table and now everyone is talking about it. 

    It's great eveyone is talking about the deficit.  Maybe some of the
    waste will really get cut out this time.  Still from what I've been
    reading our debt is 4.1 trillion.  We'll add another some 300 billion to
    that this year.  Then our taxes will get raised so instead of adding
    300 billion next year we'll only add about 200 billion.
    
    My question is when will we stop adding to the overall debt and start
    paying off the 4 trillion?  I can't get too excited about these taxes
    and spending cuts when it's not even going to get us to a balanced
    budget.  The cuts need to be way deeper from my layman's point of view.
    
    Don

re: .,61
>    The only real way to get out of this mess is with a balanced budget
>    amendment which will force real spending cuts.
    
      An  amendment to our constitution which requires a balanced budget
      is a bad idea.  There is no way  to  have  such  an  amendment  be
      flexible  enough for those times when a temporarily out of balance
      budget is necessary (eg. WWII) and still be rigid enough  to  hold
      congress  in  check.  Also, if congress decides to ignore it, what
      happens?  (Hint: if you think something good comes of this, please
      re-think!)   As  long  as  the majority of our fellow voters elect
      legislators who are willing to continue  spending  more  than  the
      government  takes in in taxes we will continue to get just what we
      deserve.

      

    Please keep the focus on the investing aspects of the Clinton economic
    plan.

    	I'm amazed that this note has gone on this long without any
    serious suggestions of WHERE the cuts should be made.  Sure
    seems like everyone wants spending cuts first, but where are
    the suggestions?!  I've got a full suit of armor ready, so I
    will suggest, and seriously so, that we eliminate (yes, you
    read correctly) the entire welfare program.  No, I'm not
    interested in cutting it back - I'm interested in eliminating
    it entirely.  This would clearly set the tone that there is
    NO free lunch any more.  We might be surprised at how many
    people suddenly feel more motivated to somehow provide for
    themselves.  The time is right, but I'll wager the liberals
    don't have the stomach for it.  By the way, don't bother
    pointing out to me that there really are some people who
    need welfare - I don't believe it.  There are PLENTY of
    other ways to survive; hunger is a great motivator.  And
    no, I'm not running for office (for obvious reasons!).
    
    Cheers!
    Dave Eklund
    

    re: .68
    
    While I'll agree that the welfare system could use some major overhaul,
    my list of areas for major cuts would include:
    
    	o Star Wars/SDI
    	o NASA
    	o DEA
    	o Farm subsidies
    	o Arts subsidies
    	o and... the IRS!
    

re: -.2

	70% of the people on welfare are under the age of 18. What is their 
alternative, get a job? NOT! Maybe put them to work for Wal-Mart making 
shirts:-) NOT! The fact that most of the remaining 30% are parents of the 70% 
under 18 should give you a clue to formulating a plan. Why would the parents go 
to work when they can make more on welfare than a minimum wage job (if they 
can find one) Think about it, $4.xx an hour times 40 hours times 52 weeks minus 
taxes is less than a family of 4 can make on welfare in most states.

	Besides this is the investing notes file. How can we profit from this?
Perhaps Privatize the welfare system like some states have with prisons?
The overhead could be reduced. Then the private company could force those that 
can/should to work for their check. Maybe by landing a contract or two with the 
fed & state governments to provide temporary workers for those that use 
Billy Bobs 4 month family leave plan. If the correct controls where in place 
they could even use some the of the able bodied to adminster some of the 
program. I could invest in this type of setup if the private company got a cost 
plus award fee deal from the feds/states.

	

I think money can be made from the family leave bill. I know thats not offically
part of Clinton's Economic Plan but... Are there any publicly traded companies 
that do temporary workers for the white collar segment? I am thinking about
accountants, doctors, lawyers, PA's, etc... that might be take a 4 month
leave and have to be back filled with a temp

    Mr. Eklund, 
    
    	Which welfare system were you proposing to eliminate ?  The one for
    the rich or the one for the poor ?
    
    	Welfare is another word for income redistribution, right ?  Well
    now about these "welfare" programs ?  Mortgage interest deduction,
    interest deduction for a second home, IRA tax free status, Depreciation
    deductions, Capital loss deduction, Travel and Entertainment deduction,
    etc.  
    
    	When you add it all up I would guess that the government spends (in
    the form of less tax receipts) more on the welfare of the rich than on
    the poor.  We just don't classify all these tax deductions as welfare.
    
    	Think about it.
    
    

    Re: .71
    
    Manpower is publicly traded and has been going more and more upscale
    the past few years.
    
    Re: .72
    
    Mr. Eklund can speak for himself (and I'm sure he will).  I just want
    to point out that I'll go along with "Capital loss deduction" as soon
    as you go along with "No capital gains tax", like most of the rest of
    the industrialized world.
    
      John

    re: .70
    
    I think your though of privatizing welfare is coming from good
    intention. However, I don't think it will work properly. In my personal
    opinion, it's a bad practice to mix government with private business.
    Because, greed is always part of human nature. When there is a will,
    people will always find their ways. Just look at the most recent
    example of the Savings & Loans situation. Even if we can make our
    welfare system private, who is really going to pay for all the bills?
    - We the tax payers (well, through "our government" of course). There
    is too much room left for someone to abuse the system. It doen't make
    me feel comfortable. 
    
    However, I do believe that the majority of people on welfare can work
    but they won't. Who can blame them? We are the ones made an offer to
    them to stay home and we'll pay for everything. I also believe that
    there are some people who really need welfare (like the totally
    disabled). We may have to find some ways to provide these people with
    means for minimum living standards. Once that is worked out, I am all
    for abolishing the entire welfare system. 
    
    Another great idea suggested by .69 is to get rid of the IRS. Now, this
    is one of the biggest bureaucracy I have ever seen. The government
    takes our money and creates this monster to make that we "the little
    people" will not refuse to pay them one dime less. I am sure we all
    know how the IRS conducts it business. So, I don't have to go into
    details here. I am definitely for getting rid of the IRS!

    re: .72
    
    Which group of "rich people" you are referring to?  :-)
    
    You mean the "rich" like us who has a family income over $30K/year, or
    you mean the people who makes over $200K/year?

    or the people making over $250,000 a year subject to the 
    "millionaire" surtax!!

    
    I think you can make money from the fuss over domestic help. The local
    paper had an interview with a domestic help agency that basiclaly said
    they had a lot of new clients that threw the towel in at doing the tax
    paperwork. They'd rather pay agency rates and be safe. I  think the
    company was Merry Maids.
    
    Simon

RE: .75
    
Class Warfare!  Welfare for the rich!  I love this stuff.

Take 1988:

All itemized deductions for all income levels:    388 billion
	Subtract charitable contributions         -50
         and state and local taxes               -119
        But add in IRA and Keough money           +30
                                                 -----
        I subtracted the above because
        they represent non-federal additions
        to the nation's social welfare. Total     249 billion
                                                       
        Lost taxes due to welfare for working      @30%=
         people (@ 30% tax rate)                   75 billion 

        Proportion of all income taxes paid by
        top 20% of earners despite welfare
        for the rich...............................46% (up from 1980)

Total federal, state, and local expeditures for 
      social welfare                               885 billion 
                     Subtract social security     -300
           (paid for by separate tax)
                     Subtract Education           -219
           (mostly stae & local anyway)
                                                  -----
                     US social welfare 
                     programs                      366 billion


Conclusions:  The rich get about half of that 75 billion in tax
              breaks sometimes called welfare for the middle class 
	      or rich.  If all were eliminated, they would still 
	      get a standard deduction.  (avg itemized ded. = $12000)

	      If you took all of this money, then levied another 
	      surtax of 40% on the rich, you might just balance
	      the budget.  There would still be no leftover money
	      for housing, education, AIDS research, or healthcare.

              This amount pales in comparison to federal, state, and
              local social programs. 

              The rich pay most of the taxes and pay a larger
	      percentage than in 1980.  Even after deductions 
	      the net tax/AGI increases with income. 

I challenge anyone who claims that the rich are bad and made out well
in the 80's at the expense of the poor to rank the following moneymakers
from top to bottom in terms of value to society:


	Entertainer ..........   10 million
	CEO of fortune 500 Co.    5 million
	Athlete...............    4 million
	Head of super mutual fund 1 million
        Doctor (MD)...........      250,000
	Stockbroker...........      200,000
	Lawyer................      150,000
 	Doctor (Engineering)..      100,000
	Congressperson........      134,000
  	Minister..............       25,000
	Wal-Mart clerk........       21,000
	Tobacco farmer........       20,000
	Dairy Farmer..........       20,000
        Unemployed technician.            0
	Homeless person.......            0       	      

I can't give any value judgement about the rich versus the poor in my list 
by just knowing their occupation and income.  Apparently some people can.

The rich should pay more than the poor in taxes, and they do - in dollars 
per person - as a percentage of their income - as a proportion of all taxes
paid - by any measure the rich pay more than the poor and they pay more than 
they did in 1980.     

We, through our elected leaders, have built up entitlements and a budget
deficit. The budget will never decrease.  The deficit will never decrease
as fast as claimed, if at all.  Eventually something will give - social 
security for our generation will be gone or the international bond market will 
not allow us to continue funding our rising debt, or a depression will 
bankrupt the government.  The courageous response of our Congress: Forego
next year's automatic pay increase.  Well, I'm relieved - glad to see such 
bold action.

    Foreign aids.
    

    
>    Mr. Eklund can speak for himself (and I'm sure he will).  I just want
>    to point out that I'll go along with "Capital loss deduction" as soon
>    as you go along with "No capital gains tax", like most of the rest of
>    the industrialized world.
    
 
	humph, does this mean the Uk isn't classified as part of the
	industrrialised world?

	Heather

    The cuts should start with every member of congress cutting their
    bloated staffs by 40%. Their staffs are mainly a tool to help keeping
    them get re-elected. 
    

re: soak the rich

I am in no way being rich (if $30K/year is considered rich, then I am). But, 
as far as taxes is concerned, I believe in everybody paying their fair share. 
I can't understand why some people think it is alright for us to take more from 
the rich? Most of these people worked hard and took on alot of risk to become 
rich. Why can't they keep what they've worked hard for? That is what a 
capitalistic society is all about, isn't it? You take more risk and you work 
hard. At the end, you hope you'll get rewarded for it. If we forcefully take 
the wealth away from those who worked hard for them, why should they continue 
to work hard? If people lost their will and motivation to work hard, then, 
what is going to drive this country's economic engine? This reminds me of an 
old saying: "Don't slaughter the chicken to get the egg". (Because if you do, 
that will be the last egg you'll ever get.) Is this "get the rich and give 
their wealth to the poor" a Robinhood thing? Or, better yet, is it a Communist 
thing? I may have gone to a little too extreme here. But, somehow, it sounds 
soooooo familiar... 

Btw, have we decided who the "rich" is, yet?

Soaking the rich is a prevalent theme because those who
are poor are jealous of those who are not.

Soaking the rich is a prevalent theme among those in
Congress because those who are poor vote for those who
talk this way.

Soaking the rich is popular with those who are unhappy
we live in a capitalistic country and much prefer socialism
where you are not overrewarded for your efforts but
rather overrewarded for your lack thereof.

Your point about the desire to get ahead when the system
starts soaking you is quite valid and explains when most
people prefer to buy a lottery ticket than put in the
effort.  

Collis

    
    re. 78 & .83
    
    .78
    
    The rich pay a higher percentage of the taxes than in 1980 because they
    now have a lot more money than they did in 1980 to pay taxes on.  Even
    with the lower tax rates(than 1980), the percentage they(top 20%) pay
    of the overall taxes is up because their assests/income has increased
    so much.  The poor and lower class can't pay a high percentage because
    they don't have the money.  To substantiate your claim that the rich 
    didn't do well in the 80's the percentage of taxes paid by the top 20%
    should've decreased, not increased.  
    
    .83
    
    	How much further is a single mother going to get with extra effort
    at most jobs when they other considerations(children's welfare) to
    occupy their non-working time.  It's not like everyone can put in the 
    long hours and work towards increasing their pay potential.  
    
    As far as welfare for the rich, that is what a lot of the tax code is.
    If we limited deductions on home interest deductions to a reasonable
    amount(what that is I'm not sure) to provide everyone who can afford a
    house the right to deduct the interest, and eliminate the second home
    interest deduction, that would be a first step.  We should also
    re-adjust the income tax levels.  A suggestion would be that everyone
    should be able to make at least the poverty level before having to pay
    taxes on the income.  After that you levy taxes and increase the
    amounts as you go upwards.  The jump from 15% to 28% is too big.  I
    prefer the brackets similar to that of pre-87, just not as high.
    
    Of course with any change to the tax policy, I'd love to see the
    federal budget gutted of a lot of the crap that we pay for today.
    
    -Steve
    

    re: -1
    
    I did not say in .78 that the rich didn't do well.  I said they didn't
    do well at the expense of the poor [due to the tax code].  
    
    The Bush tax increase of 1990 is all the arguement I need that a gas
    tax and higher taxes on the rich (and 50 billion from our Desert Storm
    allies] will not lead to a balanced budget because the economy will
    slow and the Congress will spend more.  But we deserve the government
    we elect.
    
    Dave

    
    Editorialist Martin Schram pointed out recently that approximately
    19% of federal workers leave the government voluntarily every year
    (retirement, other opportunities, etc.).
    
    With over 2 million federal employees, this means that about 400,000
    workers leave each year.
    
    Wouldn't it have made sense for Clinton to have said he would not
    replace these workers rather than cutting 100,000 people over 4 years?
    
    There are so many ways Clinton could have made meaningful budget cuts;
    but he didn't do it.  He's basically a coward, afraid for his
    reelection.

    -.1
    
    >>> Wouldn't it have made sense for Clinton to have said he would not
    >>> replace these workers rather than cutting 100,000 people over 4
    >>> years?
    
    That's exactly what he said he would do - cut the government by 100,000
    through attrition.
    
    Jerry.

re:  cuts

Easy:
	1.  Beltway bandits - Substantially reduce/eliminate external
            contractors.  Require government employees to actually
            do work to get paid.  Why pay some outside legal office
            $1500/hour for legal work when there are hoards of
            gov't lawyers available.

        2.  Review and eliminate federal government land sale waste.
            FedGov currently sells large pieces of it's land, without
            regard for location or free market value, for $2/acre.  This
            includes land in Nevada near growing casino towns with
            estimated values in the millions/acre.

	3.  Eliminate "national service" and it's attendant costs.

	4.  Spending caps on foreign aid

	5.  Give the president line item veto on budget issues.

	6.  Complete elimination of pension plans for senators.  Serving
            one's country as a senator or representative should be
            a patriotic contribution to the country, not a fast track
            to an easy $100,000/year.

	7.  Eliminate costly subsidies to obvious pork-projects like
            "SteamTown" and other "national parks."  


Sorta Hard:

	1.  Farm Subsidies:  Completely, totally, 100% eliminate.
            Paying farmers not to grow makes about as much sense as
            paying me not to work.  Let free enterprise and competition
            take its inevitable toll on farmers and let's get on with
            life.

	2.  Reduce health care costs:  legislate sensible limits on
            malpractice jury awards; other common sense things to
            substantially reduce health care costs will reduce gov't
            spending in medical welfare programs, and will also help
            to make health insurance more affordable.

	3.  Meaningful campaign finance reform & term limits on
            congress critters.  Government service should a patriotic
            endeavor, not a career.

Really Hard:

	1.  Commence project to reduce/phase out social security.  This
            is a depression-era government agency which has outlasted
            it's usefulness.  Begin by allowing individuals to sign
            contracts pledging to save for retirement and opt-out of
            social security.  Target total elimination of the program
            to 30 years from now to avoid destroying poor old folks.

	2.  Completely overhaul welfare programs from top to bottom.
	    No easy answers here, but clearly things are amuck.


The obvious:

	4.  Avoid expensive, ill-conceived, pork barrel schemes to
            "stimulate the economy."

	5.  Immediate pension-plan reform to avoid underfunded pension
            plans from being the S&L crisis of the early 2000's.

	6.  Every revenue increase should accompanied by $5 in permanent
            spending cuts.

	7.  No new increases in deficit-spending.  Everything must be
            pay as you go, and must fit into an established run rate.


Chen writes in .82:
>  Btw, have we decided who the "rich" is, yet?

Why sure..."the rich" are anybody who has more money than you.  

I saw this in a newspaper column a few years ago and found it amusing.

/chris

    Clinton's Economic Plan -  On home strech, passed in House and Senate.
    
    After a few differences are compromized on by some comite or other, 
    its on for the final vote ?, and then to the President.
    
    (My own) Additional Cuts:
    
    1/ Cut this food-dragging, money-eating, expensive two body system.
    We don't need both the house and the senate and worse we can't afford
    the time, trouble, and money it costs us. Specially in hard times.
    
    The easier thing to do is to get rid of the SENATE, the house reps
    already represent their states better then they do, there is more of
    them. And they do it with population proportional representation.
    
    2/ Get rid of inflation,  inflation is just you and me paying another
    tax. It happens when the governament pays for things by just printing 
    the money (i.e. adding cash to the money supply).
    
    Gil

|    Clinton's Economic Plan -  On home strech, passed in House and Senate.
|    
|    After a few differences are compromized on by some comite or other, 
|    its on for the final vote ?, and then to the President.
|    
|    (My own) Additional Cuts:
|   
|    1/ Cut this food-dragging, money-eating, expensive two body system.
|    We don't need both the house and the senate and worse we can't afford
|    the time, trouble, and money it costs us. Specially in hard times.
|    
|    The easier thing to do is to get rid of the SENATE, the house reps
|    already represent their states better then they do, there is more of
|    them. And they do it with population proportional representation.

     Sorry, I feel this is a ridiculous statement. This part of the longest 
running Democracy in the world handles Treaty's, Cabinet Appointments 
soley and along with the House of Reps passes laws. I think it 
serves the purpose for which it was intended just because member of 
the Senate want to run it to there own liking is no reason to 
eliminate it. 


|    2/ Get rid of inflation,  inflation is just you and me paying another
|    tax. It happens when the governament pays for things by just printing 
|    the money (i.e. adding cash to the money supply).
|    
|    Gil

     How do you propose we do this?? The U.S. government does not just 
print money to pay bills, they must raise taxes and that is the only 
way the U.S. Government makes money. If they just printed useless money 
and paid there bills with it the country would have collapsed long 
ago. 

     Inflation is cause by US, regular people. Example A logger wants a 
raise so the logging company gives him one. Then the logging company 
raises its prices of lumber, then the lumber yard raises its prices to 
the Builder, then the builder raises the prices of the house he's 
building, then the logger requests a raise so he can afford a house. 
It's a vicious cycle. So if you and the rest of Humanity is willing to 
never ask for a raise. And all the Mfg's in the world don't want any 
additional profits & all the salesmen don't want more money for there 
work we'll never have inflation again. Think it's ever going to 
happen?? I didn't think so.


Vern

||    1/ Cut this food-dragging, money-eating, expensive two body system.
||    We don't need both the house and the senate and worse we can't afford
||    the time, trouble, and money it costs us. Specially in hard times.
    
|     Sorry, I feel this is a ridiculous statement. This part of the longest 
|running Democracy in the world handles Treaty's, Cabinet Appointments 
|soley and along with the House of Reps passes laws. I think it 
|serves the purpose for which it was intended just because member of 
|the Senate want to run it to there own liking is no reason to 
|eliminate it. 
    
    Just because something exists for a long time in the USA or anywhere
    else does not mean that it is perfect.  When Americans stop changing
    their governament its when the USA will go down hill.
    
    Luckelly that is not the case, just look at all the amendements to the
    constitution.
    
    And yes, the HOUSE/SENATE system has "kind of worked" so far, but that
    does not mean that the system can't be improved. And it is my belief
    "ridiculous" if you want to call it, that getting rid of one of them
    will improve things, by making it easier and faster to get things done.
    
    Now if you want to keep the SENATE instead of the House, you will just
    have to make it a bit more democratic. For example by making each 
    senator's vote proportionaly equal to half of his state's population.
    
    While we are at it, there is another thing I would like to get rid of
    "indirect presidential elections"... Do you think that because this
    has also existed a long time,   it is too perfect to be improved on.


||    2/ Get rid of inflation,  inflation is just you and me paying another
||    tax. It happens when the governament pays for things by just printing 
||    the money (i.e. adding cash to the money supply).

|	 If the "governament" just printed useless money 
|and paid there bills with it the country would have collapsed long 
|ago. 

    I agree the USA does not get ALL of its money by printing it. But it
    does get a fraction of it this way...    Otherwise were does all the 
    circulating cash come from.   In addition it allows banks to create 
    credit money as well (economic history shows that the less banks are 
    allowed do do it the better the economy performs.)
    
    And that is what I am against, I think the US governament creates and 
    lets just a bit too much money be created. (Of course it is not alone 
    in doing this, everybody else does it too)  But that is not  a reason 
    not to try to do better.
    
    Inflation happens when there is more money then goods and services in
    the economy. Allowing people to pay more for those goods and services
    then they otherwise would. If people didn't have the extra money they
    they would just not buy those higher priced logs, they would either
    wait until the prices became reasonable or go somewhere else.
    
    There are two ways to create an inflation free ecomomy, set the money
    supply equal to the amount of goods and services, or better yet set 
    the money supply directly proportional to the number of people. Either
    would require that the money supply become solely a means of economic
    interchange and give up its role as a macro-economic control.
    
    Gil

    If two legislative bodies slow things down and one gets things done
    faster, why not get rid of both?

    re: .90
    
    If inflation is caused by the "greed" of regular people, how do you
    explain periods of deflation?

    I was going to start another topic on this. But, since we are talking
    about "Clintonomics" here, I'll enter it as a reply to this Note...
    
    Now that the so called "budget reduction plan" (aka tax and spend plan)
    has passed both houses. We will be hit with hugh tax increase for sure.
    What makes this even more interesting is that this tax increase will be
    made retroactive since January 1 of 1993 (that's right folks - 1/1/93). 
    I'll be quite interested to hear Bill Clinton tonight and find out how
    he's going to explain to the American people that higher taxes is good
    for the economy and higher taxes will generate more jobs, higher taxes
    will pull us out of this recession, etc. 
    
    But, besides that, we all have to prepare to dig into our pockets
    deeper to support the ever growing monster - the government. My
    questions are: 
    
    1.	Now that we are already seven months into the year. This tax
    	increase is made retroactive to January of this year. For many of
    	us, we certainly may not have enough federal tax withholding for
    	the year. What should we do? By the current law, if we don't have 
    	enough tax withheld by the end of the year, we'll paying a penalty.
    	Don't tell me the government can not penalize us because IT cahnged 
    	the rules in the middle of the course. The government CAN DO
    	ANYTHING it pleases. There were certain people among us who didn't
    	believe such a ridiculous tax package would pass congress. It did. 
    	So, whay can we do to avoid the tax penalties?
    
    2.	What can we do to legally pay less taxes? I know the answer to this 
    	question is almost certain a disappointing one. But, the human
    	nature of survival instinct prompt me to ask that question. I am
    	sure they (the politicians) have already plugged all the loopholes 
    	they could find. But maybe, just maybe they have left something
    	out. If someone finds it out, please post it here so that we all 
    	can share.
    
    Mike

Interesting... I heard on the radio this morning that "we the people"
would like to make the tax increase retroactive back to last November
1992 - then we could re-vote at the same time! :^) :^)

Seriously, something has got to give.  It's just getting too expensive.


-Brian

>    I'll be quite interested to hear Bill Clinton tonight and find out how
>    he's going to explain to the American people that higher taxes is good
>    for the economy and higher taxes will generate more jobs, higher taxes
>    will pull us out of this recession, etc. 
 

	What will put you deeper into recession is an increaseing deficit,
	and finding the money to fund the interest on the increasing deficit.
   
	I'm not sure about how increasing taxes will affect a recession,
	it depends on where the taxes are, and how the whole budget fits
	together.

	Let us know what Clinton says, we could do with some pearls of
	wisdom ourselves.

	Thanks,
	Heather

Mike,

Let's try not to go down the same path this note took back in February when it
was started.  I went back and read all the notes we put in there, and found it
interesting.

I still am a strong believer in annuities that invest in common Mutual Funds. My
wife and I have Scudder annuties.  There are no fees, no loads, and internal
fees are about 1.4% per year for the Capital Growth Series.  There are no 
annual caps on the amount invested.  There are no decending loads for early
withdrawel (federal penalties still apply of course).  The withdrawal options
are very flexible....(I wouldn't annuitize, prefer to withdraw what and when
I want).  I max both our 401K's, put $2000 in each of our IRA's, and then I
take ~25% of our capital gains for the year and move them into annuites.  I 
will continue to do this, until they close that loophole (probally to pay for
health care).

Michael

    The retroactive increases are only supposed to apply if your AGI is
    over $140K.

Something has got to be done about the deficit.  How much, as a percentage of
the total governmental budget, do we spend on interest for the national debt?
If we never had the debt, we'd never have to pay the interest.  If we don't
take care of this festering mess today, we'll pay even more tomorrow for it.

Look what Weld did to MA.  He got the budget balanced, etc.  Maybe it is
time for time to step in and help out with the Fed.Govt.

Personally, I'd like to see at $ 0.50 /gallon gas tax.

I'm not opposed to deficit reduction.  I have always felt that the gasoline tax
is too low (as is the tax on cigarettes).  I don't have the details of the plan,
but how much will the deficit be reduced by under Clinton's plan in the next
three years?

Michael

    re: .98
    
    What? $140K for me? No way! I work for DEC you know.  :-)
    
    But, I do feel sorry for those people who makes over $140K. I guess
    that's where you and I differ. I'll let it stay at that. 
    
    re: Michael
    
    You've been in this discussion all along. So, you must understand how I
    feel about this whole deal. I guess I let my emotion get loose a little
    bit. What I am trying to find out is how we can avoid (legally) to pay
    as much taxes as possible. And, how we can avoid from being penalized
    because of this retroactive situation? (I have't heard about the $140K
    limit. Is it true?) I heard on the ABC News this morning that the new
    taxes "will affect singles making $34K or more and married couples
    making $44K or more". What does this "will affect" mean? I haven't had 
    a clue. Maybe we can find more about it as time goes along.
    
    re: deficit reduction
    
    As far as *I know*, there is not much (if any) deficit reduction in
    this plan just passed the Senate. The *earliest* reduction we can see
    is in 1997. But, who knows what's going to happen between now and then? 
    I am against ANY tax increases BEFORE spending cut has been seriously 
    looked at.
    
    Mike

    Nobody is arguing in favor of large deficits.  But counting on taxation
    to reduce deficits is sheer folly.  Regardless of the rhetoric, and
    there is plenty of that around, the cold light of history reveals that
    tax increases invariably result in a slower economy, higher unemployment
    and therefore reduced tax collections and increased entitlement claims.
    The reverse is also true:  after tax cuts, the economy invariably heats
    up increasing employment and tax receipts.
    
    In the 1930s Roosevelt and a Democrat Congress pumped out laws by the
    truckload, whenever they could agree on terms.  One thing they agreed
    on was that the budget should be balanced by raising taxes.  Every year
    tax receipts were below expectations and expenditures above expectations.
    So every year they raised taxes with the same result the following year.
    
    Doesn't anybody get it???  Higher taxes kill the economy, even if the
    underlying motivation is pure.  (It often is...pure envy).
    
      John

A journalist (don't remember which one) before the election, made a point about
health care reform.  It seems that it takes the forefront whenever unemployment
is high...why....because employment used to provide health care insurance.  
Seems like a vicious circle to me.  If anyone out there belives that the
current administration is not doing the same things that ALL (Democrat and
Republican) other administrations have done they are kidding themselves.  Lets
look at the energy tax....it was much larger until the lobbyist from the oil
belt got at it.  I see the only alternative is to cut spending.  I don't mind
paying tax, but I believe the government needs to make the same sacrifices all
Americans are making...CUT BACK OUR SPENDING.

And now to fulfill the spirit of the notes conference (and not to get
sanctioned)....BUY ANNUITIES WHILE THEY'RE STILL LEGAL.

/mtb

    John is of course 100% correct about raising taxes being a known loser.
    The only point I was trying to make is if we're going to discuss the
    current plan, we should have a grasp on what its all about. The retro-
    active taxes are income taxes on people making considerably more than
    $100K. However, if you drive your car to work, you're going to be
    paying the gas tax. Making that retroactive to the first of the year
    would be a neat trick (not that I doubt they'd try it if they could
    think of a way). The lower bound on everything comes from the fact
    that if you don't make enough, the folks bringing you this fiasco
    are going to give you money back through tax credits so its like you
    don't have to pay the gas tax.

    So he only wants $2-$7/mo from all taxpayers under $200k ???
    
    If that's all their goal was/is: wouldn't it have been a whole lot
    cheaper/easier for all of us, to just change the tax tables with the
    1040 form and add $24 to the lower range and $84 to the higher range.
    
    I'm suspicious whenever I'm told:
    "Sure you're taxes are going up now,but trust me: I'll cut out the
    waste in 1996 and 1997" - right !!
    
    How about zero-based budgeting. Start with $0 and justify each program.
    Don't talk to me about "cutting" proposed increases and calling that a
    "cut". 
    
    While I'm ticked off, (the reason I dialed in was to find a conf
    with internet address for rep/senators in Wash), couldn't we save a lot of 
    money if all these people in Wash went home. Let them get a real job.
    
    Want to really deal with budget? Let the 60 minutes crew investigate
    some of the govt programs,or Sam Donaldson, or Frontline. Give them
    free reign to look at anything. Give all the saved money to folks that
    need it and get it out of  Dole's and Foley's pockets. Have a nice day.
    

	The news over here says the new budget will cut the deficit by 500 
	billion over the next 5 years.

	It also says the vote will be very-close run, and the plans may not 
	get through.   

	Is this the info you are getting?

	Heather

>	The news over here says the new budget will cut the deficit by 500 
>	billion over the next 5 years.
    
    That's what they say here.  In reality the deficits will run ~$250 Bill
    (as in 2.50E+11) every year, increasing the National debt by > $1Trill.
    What's being "cut" are expected increases in the mid-1990s.
    
    In short, more "business as usual".  Until the markets force a real change.
    Which they will when the economy tanks again, which it surely will.
    
      John

Yesterday on CNN the Democratic Rep from Alabama was on Business Insiders.  He
is voting NO on the budget bill.  His reasoning was this.  In the first year
there are $9 of new taxes for every $1 in cuts.  Second year $8 taxes, $2 cuts.
Third $7 taxes, $3 cuts.  His point is.....only the first year is valid....each
year a new budget will be voted on and the equilibrium will never be reached.
It's funny....he didn't go past the third year (can you say one term president).

/mtb

For all noters who voted for Clinton's solution to our fiscal mess.......

This is not a deficit reduction bill, it is a tax increase bill.  There is 
nothing in the bill that specifically causes the deficit to go down.  Indeed,
there are increases in spending to fund programs to get the economy moving.  
Please, which noter believes that a Federally funded wind shelter for ice 
skaters in Connecticut (one of the richest per capita states) is going to get an
economy moving?????
 
All projections of deficit reductions are based on slowing down the growth of
spending, primarily due to lower interest rates on the debt.  Any references
to actual spending cuts, as opposed to smaller increases, are to promises (from
politicians, no less) to make cuts in the future.  Please, which noter(s)
believes that will happen?????

As for all of the taxes falling upon the rich.....  Retirees earning more than 
$30K will be taxed on more of their SS payments than they now are. Those who
make $30K per year will find it a bit shallow to know their President considers
them rich. Those who earn so bloody much they might fall into the upper bracket
will simply pop more of their assets into tax-free municipals. Taxing the rich 
(remember what happened to the US Yacht industry) just does not work.  Along the 
way to getting rich, most of them discover how to keep from sharing with the IRS.  

EVERYBODY will pay for the tax increase on gasoline and diesel fuel. If you 
don't pay at the pumps, you pay at the store in higher cost-of-good-sold.

EVERYBODY will pay for the reduced Medicare coverage.  Today, Drs. and Hospitals
simply charge insurees more than what would otherwise be customary and reasonable
to pick up their lost profit margin from servicing Medicare recipients.  Since
Medicare will pay less, all others will pay more.  Does our President really
think Drs. and Hospitals are going to give up some profit margins?  Y'know, maybe
he does think that.  

Passage of this bill simply means that:

	*  My cost of living will increase

	*  I will regain the high ground in political arguements from those who
	   said Clinton will break gridlock, end the deficit, and not increase
	   gas taxes ala Perot.

	*  The news media will have to find something else to boor us with.  


Non-passage will simply mean that status will 

	* Status will remain quo

	* Clinton will likely be fired ala what's-his-name, the peanut farmer

	* Some congresspeople will take some heat at next re-election

Now, wait until you see how this Rhodes Scholar will propose we pay for the
re-organized Health Care system.

Kind of makes you think Digital has it's act together, no?

    
    
    There should be some kind of truth-in-politicizing law that bans the
    use of the phrase 'reducing the deficit'.  Replacing this phrase with
    'increasing the debt' will do much to keep the electorate focused on
    the goal. 
    
    Imagine our politicians promising that, if only their legislation is
    passed, that in a few years we will be 'increasing the debt'.
    
    that if, despite partisan opposition, the strong support of the 
    American people contacting their congressmen and senators will convince
    them to curb their spending ways so that we can at last 'increase the
    debt'.
    
    I propose that whenever a politician or newsperson uses the phrase
    'reduce the deficit', that a laugh track be played and a picture of the
    energizer bunny be superimposed on the screen. 
    
    ugh!
    

    I saw a great clip a few weeks ago. It was Foley and Sasser gloating
    over the 1991 budget "agreement" that was going to "cut" the deficit
    by...you guessed it, 500 billion dollars. 
    
    Where is that 500 billion now? 
    
    This will be a close vote. Will the market panic if it fails? I doubt
    it. But it will look bad for the Democrats.

    Since this bill will be voted on in this week, I think all (or most) of
    us should call the hotline number and tell them how angry we are about
    this BS. Forget about that the Democrats claim they already have enough
    votes to pass this bill. If enough people call their Senators and
    Representatives, we might just change some people's mind. Especially if
    they still think about getting re-elected the next term. Even if you
    know your Senators and Reps. are voting against this bill, call them
    also - just to show your support. After all, it's the people of this
    country who should decide which way this country should go. Don't let
    those clowns in Washington jam all this sh*t down our throats and tell
    us it's only chocolate ice cream.
    
    re: .110
    
    I wrote down the number (202) 224-2131 last night. Are you sure it's
    3121, not 2131? Maybe that's why the number was always busy when I
    called.   :-(

    Not sure on the number; 3121 has been busy all morning, or 
    "all circuits are busy"  I was scrambling for a pen last night,
    so I could be wrong.  If some one get through please post the number
    here.  An if you are from MASS, you MUST call :*).
    
    It's going to be a close vote. Last I heard it wouldn't pass.  There
    were 44 reps against and 7 democrats against.  I'd like to put all this 
    partisan stuff aside and have the folk vote on the issue, but from what 
    the news said, lots of the democrats were just voting yes to save face 
    for the party :^(....
    
    Sounds like business as usual.
    

re .114

>> An if you are from MASS, you MUST call :*).

Do you really think that Ted is going to break rank?

/mtb

      It  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  many  of  our  senators and
      representative have found out or are finding out  how  politically
      painful it is to vote for big tax increases. It is also reasonable
      to  speculate  that  even   politicians   sometimes   learn   from
      experience.

      If  you accept that health care reform will cost big bucks you may
      conclude  that  not  even  the  Clinton  Machine...  ah,  I   mean
      administration...  will  be  able  to  get  all  the  senators and
      representatives who voted for tax increases... ah, I mean, deficit
      reduction...  to  take  the heat again for health care reform.  If
      this is the case, then there  may  be  some  face-saving  bill  go
      through,  but  real  health  care reform is dead for at least this
      year.

      How might such a belief influence an individual investor's actions
      at this point?  Keep in mind that such an  investor  also  expects
      that increasing taxes and increasing deficits will cause inflation
      and recession in the next 12-18 months.

    Charlie,
    
    	I think the spin on Health Care reform would go quite the opposite.
    Our Senators would say "Well we had to raise taxes and cut spending to
    address the budget deficit, but we are now able to provide quality 
    health care to all Americans.  Maybe the health care reform package
    will be the "bone" that they throw to voters.  It very well could
    pass.
    

    
    
        I would like to hear how this country is going to get out of the
        mess we are in.  It's very easy to complain without even looking at
        the most fundamental problems.  Our attitudes say a lot about
        ourselves.  We want a solution yet we don't want to be part of 
        the soulution.  Unless I hear something constructive I will assume
        we are just talking Democrats versus Republicans. Let's not forget
        they got us into this mess.
    
        'Oh !!   Don't even mention Perot his nose is getting larger (from 
        not telling the truth) and his charts are getting smaller.
        He doesn't have a solution if you ask for real facts he doesn't
        have the specifics.
    
        
        JQ

In general, this reply was worth the writing only if it generates discussion.

re .118
   
>   'Oh !!   Don't even mention Perot his nose is getting larger (from 
>        not telling the truth) and his charts are getting smaller.
>        He doesn't have a solution if you ask for real facts he doesn't
>        have the specifics.

Hmmm,
 
Perot said we would need a $0.10/per gallon/per year for 5 years increase in 
gasoline tax. Clinton said no way. We now have a $0.045 increase that even 
Clinton admits is insufficient; 'twould seem the Rhodes scholar has the longer
nose, there.

Perot said he would avoid "gridlock" by pulling together both parties to help
deliver legislation. (THIS particular noter finds that quaint concept to be 
entirely logical) Clinton continues to demonstrate an arrogant refusal to work 
with Republicans; that arrogance stems, in no small part, from superior numbers. 
If any noter feels that having the VP cast the winning vote is a demonstration 
of "mandates" and "ending gridlock", I STILL have that bridge to sell. 

I'm not out there selling Perot, just suggesting that noters in an investment
conference should look beyond the hype and media and look to the substance of 
the issues. That is, actions speak louder than promises. As long as we have a 
representative democracy, we are going to be blessed with Congresspeople who 
vote for the best interests of THEIR constituents.  That, of course, means 
CUT THE OTHER GUY's FAT, but leave in MY meaningful, jobs creating spending.  
This is not new, it has been that way since the days of our FIRST government, 
the Continental Congress.

Clinton did not get a mandate last November, Bush was fired for non-performance
(a step in the right direction) and Perot attracted a significant number of 
mad_as_hell_etc voters who felt that a short, big mouthed, shoot_from_the_lip 
billionaire would likely not screw up any more than anyone else.  As events 
unfold, of course, we are seeing that Clinton is not the answer, nor would 
Perot have been the answer.  About the most we would have had any right to 
expect from a Perot election is many more interesting press conferences and, 
perhaps, our Congresspeople getting the message that the majority of voters 
felt they were so poorly served that they were willing to actually elect 
"None of the above".

The only way we are going to have a change in the way that our elected 
government runs (or ignores) its fiscal matters is for US to change.  We have 
not, yet, done that.  Do you have personal debt?  Credit cards?  Auto loan? 
Education loan(s)?  A home mortgage?  If it's OK for you, why not for the 
federal government? 

If you want fiscal responsibility in government, you will have to campaign 
(lobby) long and hard to get it.  Of course, in doing so you will become a part
of the dreaded establishment since you will be getting representatives to vote
YOUR way instead of the other guy's way.

If you want fiscal responsibility in government, you will have to be willing
to pay MORE taxes up front to buy down existing debt (which is the single, 
biggest cause of the growing deficit).  You will have to be willing to cut
entitlements (and your representatives willing to face voters' wrath).  There
are more sacred cows out there than any one coalition can butcher. 

If you want change, participate!!!!  Your "good ideas" are no more/less valid
than anyone else's.  If you are looking for fiscal responsibility, it's EASY
to see what is wrong with the way we govern, today - EVERYTHING!!!.  Personally,
I don't have any easy answers.  

What I DO know is this:  I run my household budget in the black.  I recognize 
that a mortgage is a necessary evil.  Other than that, I have no debts.  But
it was a long, hard effort to get there and our family elected NOT to take
expensive vacations, but expensive home, flashy car, new appliances.  Of course,
once we got in the black, we noticed that we could now afford tuition payments
each month, new cars when needed, vacations, etc because we put the money away
BEFORE we spent it.  

For a goverment to do that, it needs to SEVERELY limit spending.  STOP the 
giveaways.  RAISE taxes to pay down debt.  Then, and only then, when new 
spending bills are passed, attached to the bill MUST be a raise in taxes.  
It's know as pay_as_you_go.  The Grahmm, Rudman, Hollings bill proposed just 
that.  However, since it was not a Constitutional amendment, Congress could 
just write loopholes forever; and they did.  No backbone.  And how many noters
went to the polls and voted to cast OUT their respective congresspeople who
ignored the G,R,H bill?  Hah!

If you want change, participate!!!!  Your "good ideas" are no more/less valid
than anyone else's.  If you are looking for a place to start, get in touch with 
Rudman's and Tsongas' Concord coalition or Perot's United We Stand America.

Personally, I have a neverending faith in the greediness of mankind in general 
and the dissapointing apathy of American voters in particular.  Although I often
embark on Quiotic tilts at governmental windmills, my money is invested in
places that benefit from the continuation of Status Quo.

As always, for what it's worth.

Dave

    
    Last week's Barron's contained the first idea I've ever heard proposed
    about how to eliminate the deficit (_and_ the debt) that is nearly sure
    to work.  The idea is to give the pol's 5% or so of the money off the
    top for each $ that they manage to cut the debt by.
    
    Of couse the idea is proposed toungue-in-cheek, but as the article
    suggests, that'd get rid of our debt in a hurry...  tomorrow...  a.m.
    
    actually, 5% seems a pretty small price to pay
    
       

re: .118 (JQ)

If you go back and read this Note from the beginning, you'll see that many of 
us in here have said that we are more than willing to pay our fair share to 
reduce the national debt IF the government cuts spending FIRST. That has not 
happened. All the Clinton Administration did was some "goodwill" (at best) 
type of gesture. We are not stupid. We can see what has been done and what 
has not. Being part of the solution does not mean we have to go along with 
whatever Clinton and company throws our way. I said this before and I'll say 
it again. Change is not necessarily good unless it's a change for the better. 
During the election year of '92, people wanted "change" so desperately. They 
would do anything just for the sake of having change. Look what that get us 
into?!! You are right that the national debt is not a Republican vs. Democrat 
issue. It's a people vs. big government issue. Raising taxes is not going to 
fix this problem. It will only encourage increased spending. The government can 
only increase its tax revenue by promoting economic activities. And, increase 
taxes will do just the opposite. This is a simple and proven economic theory. 
Somehow, the people in Washington DC just don't get it. 

So, what can we do??? To start, lets vote for term limitation, zero-based 
budgeting, line-item veto and limit (or eliminating) entitlement.

Mike

    re .118
    
    Yes, let's not forget who got us into this mess...
    
     1) The Democratic Congress of the last 10 years (as you have just been
          witness to, Congress controls the budget. How many times did
          Tipper and Foley pronouce Reagan and Bush budget DOA BEFORE they
          even came to Congress! Get of the Reagan bashwagon and take a
          look at the Congress in those years.
     2) The voters for not having the courage to "change"
     3)	Special Interest group with lots of $$$ that buy the influence
          we can't get from the persons we don't vote out of office.
     4) Add your favorite here
    
    Look, if the economy is doing well, we have jobs and pay taxes. As we
    get pay increases, so does Uncle Sam get more money. So raising taxes
    does not sound like the answer to me since we were doing well for the 
    80's. CUT SPENDING FIRST then raise revenue if it's needed (which I
    would also be willing to pay).
    
    Congress as it now is comprised, including Republicans, will never cut
    spending. Never. It will take a strong showing at the polls to either 
    reverse every election, elect an new comer or take a strong third party
    election to reverse the process of TAX and SPEND. (Term limits will
    never happen until Congress is reversed).
    
    Health care should provide an interesting look at the Congress in
    action. BTW, I watched the C-Span coverage of the votes and these guys
    are really out of work actors on both sides. (Exception: Sen Nunn. Good
    speech)
    
    I feel better now. Thanks. Bob

> What I DO know is this:  I run my household budget in the black.  I recognize 
> that a mortgage is a necessary evil.  Other than that, I have no debts. 

One problem is the encouragement of debt - including mortgage debts by
making the interest payments tax deductible.

Perhaps the time has come to encourage savings and STOP the tax
deductibility of interest.

Gim

   ...I wouldn't be too sure about that. *YOU* may feel that way but so far
   starting with the SuperCollider down to that great Liberal Soldier
   Sam Donaldson (asking Al Gore the question about retroactivity being fair,
   him earning millions of dollars - what a surprise! Huh!) to the elderly
   not being satisfied with living upto a ripe old age of 106, having two
   houses one in a warm place and one in a "cool" place.....Can't let that
   cost of living increase be touched in any way. How will I pay the guy
   who comes in and mows my two acre lawn?

   Spending in my backyard is investment, everywhereelse it's Pork.
   Limits for all Congresspeople, except mine!

   Way to go to solve a problem!!

   Nari

The first thing we need to do is eliminate both the Republican and Democratic
partys.  The two-party system is uneffective and out-dated.  There are plenty
of people (Kerrey from Nebraska, for instance) who'll vote w/ their party
because it is their party.  If there are no partys, then the us vs. them
phenomanon will go away and people will vote for things they want, rather then
align w/ their party.  Raygun, Bushwacker, and Clinton all complain about
the other party getting in the way of progress.  Yet another reason to dump
our antiquated two-party system for a NO party system.

BTW all you Clinton investing bashers out there:

	The stock market is at at all-time high.

re: .125

> BTW all you Clinton investing bashers out there:
>
>	The stock market is at at all-time high.

This may be more than what meets the eye. Has it ever occurred to you that 
people may think the economy is going nowhere with this new "deficit reduction 
package"? Right now, the stock market is not what I worry about. I would worry 
about the job market first. See how many jobs Clinton's plan will generate. 
When people no longer have jobs, then, they will loose their homes. And, the 
stock market will follow.

Let me get something clear here. Are you a supporter of Clinton's plan?

Just curious...

> Perhaps the time has come to encourage savings and STOP the tax
> deductibility of interest.

	They already did for most of it.  How if you STOP it for
	debt like home ownership and on investments then you are
	discouraging more than just debt, but also will deny alot
	of people the feeling of home ownership and will discourage
	investments.  If EVERYONE saved we wouldn't have an economy!

.126> See how many jobs Clinton's plan will generate. 
    
    But it won't generate jobs, it will destroy them.
    
    Small business creates 80% of all jobs in the country.
    Over 80% of all "the rich"� are small business owners.  Their profits
    are used to hire new employees in the hopes of creating further profits.
    With the new tax plans (and restrictive business regulation) "the rich"
    will find it in their best interest not to expand but rather put their
    money in gold or municipal bonds or French stocks.  Clinton's "plan"
    will tell the hardest-working segment of America to take it easy. 
    Hardly a recipe for job growth.
    
    Repealing the tax deduction for home mortgages could be done slowly
    over time, as is often the case in tax changes, or existing mortgages
    could be "grandfathered" if you oppose retroactive taxation. :-)  Note
    that non-deductible mortgage interest would result in lower home prices
    since the government subsidy would mean fewer buyers.  Very few people
    would end up being adversely affected.
    
    The stock market is at an all-time high, not because of optimism but
    rather pessimism.  Current interest rates are so low that the public
    sees no other alternative.  Of course in 18 months the public will sing
    another tune as they find their portfolio valuations have been chopped
    in half.  If they're lucky it'll "only" be half.
    
      John
    ______________________________________________
    �I.e., those hit with the new, higher brackets

re                      <<< Note 387.126 by WOODRO::CHEN >>>
                      -< It's jobs market I worry about. >-

>Let me get something clear here. Are you a supporter of Clinton's plan?


can't say i hate it, and i can't say i like it.  my commute to work is
4.5 miles, so the tax impact on me is going to be very small.  i certainly
do not make enough money to think about being in danger.

    re: -1
    
    John, I think we are saying the same thing. It's just that I did it in
    a much abbreviated version.   :-)  
    
    Mike

    re: .130
    
    That was meant for .128.
    
    re: .129
    
    Don't think the gas tax will only hit you in your gas tank. It will hit
    you from all directions. Everything you buy most likely will need some
    kind of transportation. When the cost of transportation goes up, your
    cost goes up. Period. But, that is not the biggest problem this plan
    has. The biggest problem this plan has is that it does not reduce our
    national debt, it will not create any jobs and it kills our economy. It
    will make our economy to stand still at best. Or, it has a better
    chance to bring us into deeper recession. The bottom line is, this is
    the WRONG thing to do. It's not just how much this is going to hit my
    pocket book.
    
    Mike

    
    I'm usually read only, but I will throw one thought into this
    conversation.
    
    There is only one direction to point blame.  It is not at the President
    for having foolish economic ideas, or congress for being party oriented
    and spend happy, or even the media for buying into the complete lies 
    they all tell daily.  The blame falls squarely at the feet of voters 
    who believe they elect people to bring home some financial benefit to
    their state/district.
    
    Front page Monday.  Senator Kerry from Mass criticizes Gov. Weld for
    proposing a tax cut "because it will make congress think we don't need
    anymore money" so it will be harder to get Mass projects funded.  It 
    was the best example of what is wrong with the system I have ever seen.
    Kerry is not asking how to fix the problems or balance the budget or
    improve the economy, or god forbid let us keep more of our money; he is
    simply focused on getting more money for Mass.  What he and all the
    rest of them continually forget is that they are getting the money from
    us, not some magic pot of gold in the sky.  
    
    Until 51% of the voters decide they are better off solving their own
    problems, with their own money, primarily at the local level, the
    federal government will continue to grow and grow and grow until we
    wake up one day and find every imaginable tax concept implemented, zero
    growth in GNP and no jobs.
    
    Lets stop trying to blame everyone else and look at ourselves and our
    neighbors and figure out how to help each other instead of depending on
    some strangers in Washington to pay our health care, fund our
    retirement, or guarantee our quality of life.
    
    In the mean time I will take my novice investing skills and try my best
    to build on whatever I have left when they get done.
       
    Ken

    re: .132
    
    Very good piont, Ken. That's why Ted Kennedy and the likes keep on
    getting elected. But, I don't know how we can get the majority voters
    to wake up and to think soberly?
    
    Regarding to building your own nest egg... with the way our government
    is going today, expect youself get "crushed" and get no benefits when
    you retire. Because, that's how the system works. People like us who
    think about our future while we are young and preparing for it all of
    our lives, will get punished at the end. That's how our system works
    today. And, I don't expect it to change much unless something dramatic
    happens. 
    
    Mike