From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:13:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <16862726D.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.164548.29818@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:

> [...]
>Someone isn't paying attention:
 
>>As has been posted before, unemployment peaked in 1987 under Reagan.
>>The official numbers make it appear that it peaked under Carter, but
>>the figures have to be adjusted so that they're all calculated the
>>same way--the methods for determining unemployment were changed while
>>Reagan was in office, yielding lower numbers that would have been
>>given before.

>The figures peaked  when we were still operating under the effects of the
>Carter policy. It takes a year or more for the effects of a new administration
>to take effect. Of course, once it did we had ten good years, until the
>next administration decided to adopt the Democratic party's platform.
 
Does that mean that this is really Reagan's recession?  This is the
silliest argument I've heard in a long time.

The Democratic party's platform?  I don't think so.  We wouldn't be
pouring billions of dollars down the War on Civil Liberties rathole if a
Democrat was in charge.  (While few Democrats have the political courage
to oppose the WoD directly, they at least question the focus on law
enforcement and want to divert that money to treatment, the only
possibly effective approach.)

>[...]
 
>>That's a hypothetical argument and can be made both ways.  The Soviet
>>Union was economically in miserable shape and fast heading toward a
>>collapse anyway.  It's arguable that massive defense spending on the
>>part of the US contributed to that collapse; it's also arguable that
>>it didn't contribute at all.

>But it is very clear that US policy, particularly in Afghanistan, resulted
>in increased setbacks to the USSR's foreign adventurism during the 80s. This
>helped destabilize the regime.

Sort of like Vietnam, right?

>>But the point is no longer whether it was a good policy, the point is
>>how it should have been (and now must be) paid for.  Reagan did it by
>>borrowing heavily from "the future" by creating massive debt.  If the
>>alternatives to massive military buildup were so horrible, why
>>couldn't we pay for it then?  And somehow, despite the retoric
>>supporting it, I'm disinclined to believe that massive tax cuts will
>>do the trick.
 
>Continued nonsense. There was no "massive military buildup". Spending was
>only 0.6% more in the 80s than in the 70s, and it was 2.2% less than in
>the 60s. Insignificant. All the significant growth in spending was in
>social spending, government administration, entitlement payments and the
>like which certainly do *not* fuel growth.
 
In the 1960's and early 1970's, we were at war.  Or didn't you notice?
Comparing peacetime levels of spending to wartime, and then concluding
that we spent less while we were at peace, doesn't prove much.
Furthermore, your statement seems to prove Reagan/Bush were lying when
they claimed it was their policies which led to the end of the Cold War.

>There was, of course, a much bigger military buildup in the 1940s, and1
>we paid for it through increasing debt until it was *three times* (read
>that carefully: That's 3x) the 1990 debt level. At the time many made the
>argument for increased taxes, but the decision was made to go with debt
>instead. Increased productivity and growth paid that debt pretty quickly.
 
>  [...]

>>Low interest rates and a massive deficit are discouraging investors
>>from putting money into the US economy: why invest in the US at 3%
>>when you can invest in Germany at 9%?
 
>For one thing, 3% is a bank demand deposit rate. There are inventments that
>pay higher returns. Of course, during Carter's era banks and S&Ls were paying
>12% and more because inflation was peaking near 17.5% on a per month basis.
>You'd think, according to the logic of the previous poster, that we would
>have seen a massive inflow of capital. In fact, we had a massive outflow.
>as seen in the figures I posted recently.
 
That's because real interest rates are what count, not nominal rates.

>It's worse for domestic investors. If you're earning a 16% return under 12%
>inflation it looks like you've got 4% real capital gains, but assuming a
>a nominal 33% tax bracket you're actually paying an effective annual
>marginal tax rate of around 107.5%.

>>>The average American can clearly see that he was better off under Reagan
>>>than Carter. And while I hold no particular admiration for Bush (who
>>>pronounced Reagan's plans as "voodoo economics" back in 1980), he can't
>>>possibly be as bad as Clinton.

>>Hmmph.  I can't even begin to believe that the country was better off
>>under Reagan than under Carter.  Things certainly looked better, but
>>it was mostly an illusion--and as the Hollywood trimmings are slowing
>>ripping apart, it's more and more apparent what damage was done behind
>>the scenes.

>Here we're dealing with either a short memory, a willful diregard for the
>data, or someone who simply was too young to remember Carter's era. We
>had a weak US presence around the world, record high inflation, record
>high unemployment in the postwar era, and the numbers were getting worse
>every week.
 
That "high inflation" was a phenomena of the 1970s -- not just of Carter.  
It's become really fashionable (among both Democrats and Republicans)
to make Carter into something he wasn't.  Actually, it was *Carter* that
*began* the defense buildup.  It was *Carter* that began derregulation.
And it was *Carter* who appointed Paul Volcker, whose monetary policies at 
the Fed helped bring an end to the inflation of the Ford-Carter years.

Furthermore, it was *Carter* who reacted decisively to the Afghanistan
invasion by immediately imposing a grain embargo on the USSR, and Reagan
who decided to prop up the Soviet Union by selling them the grain they needed. 

>It took two years for Reagan to completely reverse this trend. We finished
>the Reagan era with high employment, negligible inflation, record high
>productivity, record high charitible giving and so forth.

>We've published all these data- interesting that all the claims that the
>Carter era was better than the Reagan era never seem to refute the figures
>showing otherwise. In fact, they have no figures at all.
 
>Assuming Carter was so great, how did Reagan win with such landslide
>victories twice in a row? Let me guess: He "fooled" us. That's the usual
>Democratic answer- massive ignorance of the electorate, right?

It makes as much sense as the Republican answer to how Democrats keep
getting elected overwhelmingly to Congress.

(Actually, there WAS no landslide in 1980.  Despite the perception of
Carter as a pathetic excuse for a president, The Great Communicator got
just over 50% of the vote.  Carter finished at 41% or so, which
definitely showed him to be unpopular.  But Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly
loved by the masses in 1980, either.)

>>>Of course, if you LIKE the current recession, you'll LOVE what Clinton's
>>>tax-and-spend economic plan will do to the country!

>>Actually, I admit that's my big concern with all this.  Clinton has
>>some very good proposals that are worth implementing and which will
 
>Which we never seem to hear the specifics of.
 
Read his plan -- whether you like his ideas or not, he's listed them,
specifically.

>>probably prove beneficial over the long haul.  But putting them in
>>place along with trying to fix up the massive damage done by Reagan's
 
>If Clinton wins, what you'll hear in four years is that it's still
>Reagan's fault that the economy is doing so poorly.
 
>>and Bush's administrations is going to be quite painful.  My concern
>>is that the plans of a Clinton administration will be seen as the
>>culprit, when in fact it is a Republican legacy which is at fault.
 
>See? They're already preparing the excuses. One reason the Democrats were
>so stunned to lose in '84 was that they didn't think Reagan could turn the
>economy around in only two years. Surprise.

This from the person who claimed the worst recession since the Great
Depression in 1982 was caused by Jimmy Carter? 

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh