----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:44 AM Subject: Re: Election - (was a "A more rational economics")
> Ray, > > It was the Democrat spokesman who gave those figures. Do you really believe > that Republicans are all rich and Democrats are all poor? Not on your Nellie. Well you weaseled out of that. The percentage of Republicans in corporate management is considerably higher than the working stiff. And always has been. It is a lot closer since the workers have been entering the stock market but the 1/2% that has most of the wealth is mostly Republican with a few Democrats. > Who got the most corporate money (obviously the Republicans) is not an > issue. The point is they got a large amount of money from their "grass > roots". The Democrats got much less, for they don't seem to have cultivated > a grass roots. Warm bodies at the polls has been their goal. It's biting > them now. I will say it again. Most of the grass roots couldn't possibly donate $5,000. And yes the Democrats who used to be good at house to house conversions still are. But they are now fundamentalist Republicans like Ralph Reed. That was a freeby to the Republican party when they left first over segregation and going to church with blacks and then put a better face on it with abortion or "right to life.". It will come back to bite them eventually. > Which is what the Democratic Leader was referring to. > > INDEPENDENT FILMS > > At a recent Oscar ceremony, all the winners were independents, so perhaps > you are wrong. Independent films often put up a good show at all the awards > shows. That has nothing to do with the balance of export deficit and you know it. > FRAGILE MUSIC BUSINESS > > Are you suggesting that the recording companies are not large? They are > powerful enough not to give their artists much of the money they earn. In > fact, they have to go on tour to earn some money. They don't get it from > the recording companies. You are making the point I made. Why don't you just say you agree. > MY WARNING > > My warning about Bush over many months was essentially not to assume he is > a dumbo. Yet, at times the reaction against him was almost vitriolic. Of course it was, he stole the election. And he demeaned the Supreme Court and plans to continue. These folks do think that a fair game is 70 to 0 and that means one liberal on the Supreme Court at most. > Democrat friends - never underestimate your enemy. I told you he was a > negotiator - an advocate of win-win. The latest Security Council decision > is a prime example of this. He backed down on a couple of things and > finished up with what he wanted. Every one of them voted "Aye". Incredible! Nonsense, he is a pretty good poker player but the key is whether he has the goods to run a Nation or not. Wars are unfortunately easy. Armies are also easy. The choices are simple and limited. > HE"S A CONSERVATIVE > > You complain he is a conservative (the US kind). But as the Economist said > (approximately) soon after his election: 'He came to power as a > conservative. He's not trying to hide anything. Expect him to act like a > conservative.' I do and Conservatives of the American type have a strong provencial bent that I find distasteful. They are also lovers of power and greed which I find immoral. > DEPRESSION > > Bush inherited a recession. But it could easily become a depression. Just > think about it. Economists not only don't know why the recession started - > they don't know how or why the boom continued for so long. Poor Bush. You will never know whether the Clinton team could have pulled us out of the recession and maintained a balanced budget. I contend they would have. Clinton worked with Republicans, against their will, but so much so that Mike Moore calls him a Republican. I tend to think he was just playing the cards dealt to him in spite of the harassment by the Republicans and the outrageous 50 million dollar bill that we all pay. If that is fair then lets put a rabid Democrat onto the Bush family record with a fifty million dollar budget. > With regard to the tax cut - which is good anyway - this is Keynes 101. > However, Clinton brought in a tax increase that Republicans said was the > largest in peacetime history - yet it didn't squash the continuing boom. > Maybe that's Keynes 99. > > The fact is that neither Republicans, nor Democrats know what to do. Tax > cuts and interest rate changes are pretty silly - perhaps intended only to > relieve an anxious constituency that doesn't know any better. Democrats and Republicans might not know what to do but I'm convinced that Bill Clinton would have found out. Primarily because I do believe in that old intelligence that Keith speaks about and most of all in the value of a first class education. I also trust poor boys who dug their way out more than those who sat on the top and frittered away their advantages. > I don't either, but I do know what the problem is. And it's pretty scary. > > HARD ON COMMUNISM > > It was Nixon who went to China - not a Democrat. I would make a far-out > prediction that in Bush's second term (if?) he'll make a rapprochement with > Cuba. It depends on how politically safe his brother is in Florida - but I > think he could do it. Again you make my point but you missed its completion. If a Democrat did it the Republicans would attach stones around his neck and throw him in the River or put people with guns in the park across from the White House or crash planes into the White House. What? You say that was done already? You bet, during the Clinton era but the Media played it down and Clinton played it cool. To a Republican, anything they do is swell but if a Democrat elects to put a master manager at the NEA or open a door to Cuba he become a pornographer and a Commie lover. That is what I can't stand about these folks and wouldn't want to live next door to them. > There you are. I'm on the hook, swinging in the wind. I don't get your point. You seem pretty stable to me. Ray Evans Harrell > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > > Ray wrote: > > >Harry, > > > >What rank and file worker do you know who can give $5,000 much less $10,000 > >or $20,000? That is the difference between people who consider the elite > >to be rank and file. The NYTimes wasn't fooled and called it all corporate > >money. Any Democrat who is going to get that kind of money will > >generally get it from someone like the Unions which will make the Unions > >even more of a target for the rank and file Republicans. I'm for the > >Unions. They have made it possible for the movie business to satisfy the > >deficit in exports for years. Today there is less since the Unions are > >weaker and dealing with independant producers who don't produce as much and > >high quality a product as the old studios did. Everybody gets less and > >the product is diminished except the money is more available to the few > >investors but even that is more speculative than ever. But you can > >forget the music business. It is hopeless. The lowering of standards and > >the lack of Unions and large companies has created a nightmare in a > >profession that is more fragile initially than the movie industry. But > >you live there and you know all of this already, which confuses me about > >what you advocate considering your background in radio. > > > >By the way, what was your "warning" about GWB? I think he is a > >conservative purely and simply and that we are in for a ride that could lead > >us into a depression. Isn't he making the same mistakes that Hoover > >made? Perhaps you economists could tell me how well tax reductions and > >gifts to the wealthy while reducing public programs worked during the > >Depression. Did they help? I keep remembering that Democrats who > >advocated half of the things that Republicans do politically beaten to > >death. It wasn't a Democrat who opened China or advocated Detente with > >Russia. If they had they would have been called unpatriotic socialists > >out to kill the country. And if Clinton had brought in a head of the NEA > >as competant as this one he would have been beaten by every fundamentalist > >in the nation. Republicans are not supposed to know about those things > >so they sneak them by or, in the case of Russia and China, they have the > >reputation of being hard on Communism so they aren't watched as closely by > >the Right Wing. > > > >Got to go, > > > >Ray Evans Harrell > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.416 / Virus Database: 232 - Release Date: 11/6/2002 >
