martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (10/21/84)
I like Reagan's willingness to give howling 3rd world savages the ass-kicking they deserve. I like Reagan's willingness to speak the only language which the Soviets understand -- force (and no little Amy, there has not been a nuclear war). The economy is better than under Carter. The nation seems more confident although I do not think the USA has regained respect on the world scene. But Reagan is letting the environment get really messed up. And the political issues are ephemeral while the planet is permanent. Therefor, I am voting for Mondale. By the way, isn't it amusing, that in terms of deficit spending to stimulate the economy Reagan is the most democrat president ever.
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (10/23/84)
In article <52@mit-athena.ARPA> martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) writes: >...isn't it amusing, that in terms of deficit spending to >stimulate the economy Reagan is the most democrat president ever. No, it isn't amusing; it's incorrect. Reagan is not maintaining high spending levels to "stimulate the economy", he is unable to get the spending cuts he has requested, given the political realities of the federal government. If you want evidence, please refer to my previous postings regarding the line-item veto, and TEFRA, and other examples of the Congress protecting the spending structure it has evolved over the years. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/25/84)
>...I like Reagan's willingness to speak the only >language which the Soviets understand -- force (and no little Amy, there >has not been a nuclear war). Reagan is certainly willing to speak---but not to act. Carter took what were unpopular political measures in order to cause the Soviets discomfort---the grain embargo and the Olympic boycott, for example. Reagan does nothing but talk, and talk is cheap. (Some talk can be expensive, such as Reagan's suggestion that Star Wars technology be given to the Soviets if it is developed. Does he not realize that the technology of the thing would likey be applicable to other weapons?) >The economy is better than under Carter. If you mean expansion of the economy, you're wrong: while Reagan proudly boasts of the six million jobs in the last 21 months, he neglects the nearly one million that were lost in 1981-1982, and that the Carter administration created TEN million jobs over its four year tenure. As for inflation, it isn't Reagan fiscal policy that has done us good there, but rather the Fed's tight monetary policy (which those true to the supply-side faith roundly denounce). And as for the future, interest rates are not going to come down until the government reduces its demand in the money markets. So long as interest rates remain high, industry does not modernize, and we will suffer competitive disadvantage on world markets in the long-run. It's been a good year and a half, but not a good three years, and there is sound reason to believe the expansion may not last much longer. The trade inbalance is a warning that we need to modernize NOW, but investment is down under Reagan. >The nation seems more confident although I do not think the USA has >regained respect on the world scene. Agreed. Reagan has sold most Americans on the idea that we are "standing tall", though the rest of the world, Moscow included, judges us by our actions (or lack thereof), and are immune to the President's image making. >But Reagan is letting the environment get really messed up. And the >political issues are ephemeral while the planet is permanent. Therefor, >I am voting for Mondale. Reagan's neglect of the environment is part of a consistent pattern of taxing the next generation for the pleasure of this one. Someone's going to have to pay for the debt, the growing actuarial inbalance in Social Security (which neither party will touch until they must), and the clean-up of toxic wastes. My generation. Those who vote now are to be rewarded by exploiting the land for commercial advantage, while the losses of them are felt most keenly by those who follow. Hey, America, how about more than lip service to the principle of "no taxation without representation"? >By the way, isn't it amusing, that in terms of deficit spending to >stimulate the economy Reagan is the most democrat president ever. It's more than amusing, it's incredible. Reagan runs deficits of 180 billion dollars (now that's REAL money), a deficit which his budget REQUESTED, and then asks for a balanced budget amendment. Nixon said that we're all Keynsians now, but I thought Keynes was talking about deficit spending during recessions. I think supply-siders read only the "good parts" of Keynes... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/26/84)
Ahh, Ray blames Congress for the deficits. Ray, hear this: in the last fiscal year, Congress appropriated FIVE billion dollars more than Reagan requested. Out of 175 billion, that's less than 3% of the deficit. Reagan gets the credit for the other 97%... David Rubin
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (10/29/84)
Back to the drawing board Dave. Congress increased the budget by one heck of a lot more than 5 Billion. The 5 B was only attached to the Defense budget for Home terrritory pork barrel items. The increases (don't have figures at finger tips) came in the areas of social services and public works. By the way, Mondale keeps saying the RR CUT social services. He is flapping his jaws at the wind. The cuts came in the amount of increase to the budget, not a a decrease in the amount being spent. That is, if the increase to a service was supposed to be 10% more than the previous limit, the increase was cut to 8%. Thus, the actual spending went UP by 8%. Mondale seems to fail in telling the folks the real truth. In every case, more money was spent on a program, not less. Sure, some folks lost their eligibility, but I don't think we should be shelling out money to support abuses to the system such as some students who could well afford to pay their own way instead of letting everyone else foot the bill. T. C. Wheeler
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/30/84)
TC, you got the facts wrong. True, a bipartisan coalition increased
social program funding by more than 5 billion, but also trimmed enough off
Reagan's proposed 14% defense increase so that Congress appropriated
only 5 (count 'em) billion dollars more than Reagan requested overall.
Now, Reagan may beef that Congress spent the money on the WRONG
things, but not because they spent too MUCH. Reagan's original budget
called for the same tax levels and only five billion less on spending.
Thus, Reagan, had he had his way, would have reduced the whopping 180
billion dollar deficit to a mere 175 billion.
As far as Reagan increasing social spending in real terms, this is
true, but only because the Senate Republicans forced him to abandon
some of his more dramatic proposed cuts. However, many programs,
especially those targeted towards children (after all, they can't
vote), have suffered real cuts. It is ironic that the Reagan
administration is most avid about cutting those programs which are
among the few which may actually be working as hoped.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidsimard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (10/30/84)
In article <370@fisher.UUCP> david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) writes: >Ahh, Ray blames Congress for the deficits. Ray, hear this: in the >last fiscal year, Congress appropriated FIVE billion dollars more than >Reagan requested. Out of 175 billion, that's less than 3% of the >deficit. Reagan gets the credit for the other 97%... Hi Dave, Actually, I'm not referring to just the most recent fiscal year; I'm talking about five decades (the last two in particular) of expanding social engineering, income redistribution, pork-barrel, and unnecessary military spending that have become part of the Washington landscape. You and I and Reagan are all aware that dismantling this seemingly fixed structure of spending programs is more than can be accomplished in one or even two presidential terms, even if Uncle Tip and his flock were not blocking every effort to do so. The amounts spent by government for correcting social ills, whether considered as absolute sums or as percentages of GNP or other indices, are staggering. The problem is, these programs are only marginally effective at their intended purpose, and the wrong people are benefitting from them. Com- pare the levels of social spending to, say, JFK's era. The degree of increase since then is enormous, but the percentage of the population in the grip of poverty is only moderately improved. I am not opposed to programs to help the poor, infirm and elderly, but I think that I can demand that they be cost-effective. There would be little or no deficit if the programs we currently have cost only as much as the benefit they are providing. Any scientist knows that when you perform an experiment enough times, in enough different ways, and it doesn't work, you have to rule your theories invalid and look elsewhere. The theory that the government can cure poverty, disease and social injustice by spending everyone's money is just such a failed premise. This is not an attitude of greed, just reality. Reagan cut taxes to a level somewhat closer to the maximum that anyone should ever have to pay for the benefits of government. That spending levels are still high enough that these tax level cannot cover them means only one thing: spending is too high (I'm not excluding the military here BTW). THAT'S where the deficit comes from. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
ix127@sdcc6.UUCP (ix127) (10/31/84)
Ray, I think that the point David was making was that despite all of his budget-cutting rhetoric, Reagan doesn't have the huevos to take a real meat-ax to social spending. Maybe you should vote for someone who is more right-wing than Reagan. John "Don't blame me; I voted for Mondale" Mercer @ UCSD Biology
clt@pur-phy.UUCP (Carrick Talmadge) (11/01/84)
["All of you people of Earth are idiots."] >If you mean expansion of the economy, you're wrong: while Reagan >proudly boasts of the six million jobs in the last 21 months, he >neglects the nearly one million that were lost in 1981-1982, and that >the Carter administration created TEN million jobs over its four year >tenure. As for inflation, it isn't Reagan fiscal policy that has done >us good there, but rather the Fed's tight monetary policy [...] Don't you consider that you're perhaps being a bit hypocritical by (1) blaming Reagan for a economic mess which he inherited upon entering the office in January 1981? (Remember double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates which occured, by the way, under a goverment totally controlled by the Democrats...) while (2) not giving any credit to the subsequent recovery to Reagan, but rather the Federal Reserve? On another point, while it is true that we are facing a record trade deficit, according to a local newspaper (which quotes as it's source the US Chamber of Commerce), the US is the largest exporter of goods in the world at 12.5%. You can't even say the US has "lost ground", as our share of the world market has increased during the last five years from 12.2% of the total market share. As for Reagan being the primary culprit of the budget deficits, since you gave the Federal Reserve the credit for having the current high interest rates, why not (at least partially) blame the Fed? Anyway, I'm not at all convinced that the Congress shouldn't bear the brunt of the blame in this matter. I am not exactly pleased myself with Reagan's performance, but long-winded diatribes against Reagan only serve to convince me that there is nothing really positive that anyone can think of to say about Mondale, so they have to drum up things to say against Reagan. Given the stigma attached to Mondale as having been associated with the Jimmy "We'll have to learn to live with less" Carter administration, I'd have to say the articles appearing on the net lately seem to have more of a quality of "Let's vote for Mondale 'cause he's a Democrat", than let's vote for Mondale because of his qualifications (and no, I don't count "Not being Reagan" much of a qualification). Personally, I'm voting for Reagan because he's not Mondale! (Bring on Gary Hart!) Carrick Talmadge Physics Department Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47096 UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:clt INTERNET: clt @ pur-phy.UUCP
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/06/84)
The economy Reagan "inherited" (maybe the right word: the GOP seems to consider it their personal property) was one formed under 8 years of government "totally" controlled by the GOP (remember messrs Nixon & Ford?) during probably its "formative" years: the Oil Embargo & the rise of OPEC, the end of US fighting & the beginning of taxpayer paying for the massive cost of the Indochina War, the steady inflation since Nixon's first term, etc. 4 years isn't a magic number for busi- ness cycles or economic "laws". Reagan's only signifigant economic contribution, "Reaganomics" (which many economists & observers believe he'll attempt to revive if he wins big on Tuesday), was ABANDONED & considered a joke by the beginning of Reagan's second year. The Reagan administration's two key "movers & shakers", David Stockman & Paul Voelker, alternated between publically defying or simply utterly ignoring Reagan (usually the latter). Odd enough for a Republican politician, Reagan's an economic idiot. I think a lot of people are voting for Reagan because they want a Calvin Coolidge 1984-style, a flagrant figurehead.
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/07/84)
In article <1105@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >Reagan's only signifigant economic contribution, "Reaganomics" (which >many economists & observers believe he'll attempt to revive if he wins >big on Tuesday), was ABANDONED & considered a joke by the beginning of >Reagan's second year. Absolutely false. The fundamental principles of "Reaganomics": tax and spending cuts (or at lease, cuts in scheduled spending increases), business incentives, reduced regulation, and controlled monetary growth, all were realizeed to some degree or other. The tax and spending growth cuts were hardly "abandoned", since the voices of liberalism have been bemoaning them ever since, especially in this campaign. >The Reagan administration's two key "movers & >shakers", David Stockman & Paul Voelker, alternated between publically >defying or simply utterly ignoring Reagan (usually the latter). 1) No administration is a homogenous body. Thank God Reagan surrounded himself with thinkers, instead of "yes-men". 2) Paul Volcker is not part of the administration - the Federal Reserve Board is autonomous, and quasi-private. Anyway, it's not at all surprising to see people in these positions developing a fetish for one aspect of the economy or another. There are the deficit-fearers, the interest-rate-fearers, the inflation-fearers, the trade-deficit-fearers, and on and on. Reagan has shown an admirable ability to keep his eye on the big picture, and not let one small element of his policy blind him to other important factors. >...I >think a lot of people are voting for Reagan because they want a Calvin >Coolidge 1984-style, a flagrant figurehead. Nobody I know, and I know a lot of Reagan supporters. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (11/08/84)
In article <> Ray Simard reminds me of one of my bits of uneasiness: > > 1) No administration is a homogenous body. Thank God Reagan >surrounded himself with thinkers, instead of "yes-men". > In some ways, that's what bothers me. RR's right-wing "kitchen cabinet" pals (anyone want to bet on how long it'll take the *real* right to back off of George Bush. Even RR was a bit of a disappointment). The masses didn't vote for the people who make the *real* decisions. This, of course, depends upon whether or not you believe that Reagan is *really* making the decisions. Or *really* in control. >Reagan has shown an admirable >ability to keep his eye on the big picture, and not let one small element >of his policy blind him to other important factors. > I'd refer to the nice back to back summaries on the grounds upon which foreign policy decisions are made from the last debate. "evil empire" and "commies or totalitarians" vs. the more complex (that sort of thinking just doesn't sway the voters....) business of a foreign policy that assumes a certain knowledge of the unique history, politics, climate etc. of the area, and a genuine concern for the people involved. THat must not be the big picture we're talking about. >>.I >>think a lot of people are voting for Reagan because they want a Calvin >>Coolidge 1984-style, a flagrant figurehead. > > Nobody I know, and I know a lot of Reagan supporters. > I guess that I must agree with Ray here. I would say that a fair amount of Reagan's support stems rather from a normal desire to believe that the world is *not* a complex and scary place. RR did a really nice job of suggesting all along the way that those parts of our life that seem out of our control (everything from our jobs to what we do about the Libyans) haven't changed due to the times or the fact that the world is a different place, but because we've been lead astray. The present can be a mirror of some glorious past if we just (insert the campaign promise here). In the end, I must say that I think that that's a pleasant fiction, with the sort of appeal that would nearly guarantee victory to anyone who'd try it. Nor, do we point out, is RR alone in its use. It's a common tactic. I tend to be easily swayed by it myself. So do you, if you're honest. It's a common tactic for dealing with anxiety (the other is to live entirely in the present, and project the future as a linear development of the present. CUt your slice of the present thin, and this works well, too). BUt it's a cruel and contemptible lie *wherever* it come from ( LEFT or RIGHT, RICH or POOR, THE PULPIT or the SOAPBOX-no favorites). And it damages both the person who believes and follows it as well as the persons affected by the decisions made by anyone who holds it. That's what's *really* ugly about it. During the seventies, I thought that the "New Left" pretty much had the market cornered for this sort of stuff...and wound up looking too far right. I'm somewhat bemused to find that the New RIght does it better. But now I'm a Communist sympathizer, prophet of pessimism, or worse. And I didn't even move.