From: dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Bill Dostalik)
Subject: Re: Poor maligned Reagan (was Re: Predictions for USA campaign)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:09:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.115632.11225@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.224239.7608@spdc.ti.com>, dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Bill Dostalik) writes:

>>But you're right the media (with help) has cozened a great deal of
>>the public into believing that eight years of growth was eight years of greed,

>Oh right, it's all a media conspiracy...  We don't *really* have a
>$4,000,000,000,000 debt.  We didn't simply buy our "growth" on credit.  That's
>a big relief, thanks.

Ah, the deficit.  I agree Reagan gets the "blame" for the part of the deficit
due to the military build-up.  However, the events of the past three years,
particularly last Aug., have completely vindicated that spending.  RR's build-
up hastened the inevitable collapse of most monstrous empire the world has 
known, (the USSR, not the USA, smart-ass).  Certainly more monstrous than the
third reich, if you want to count bodies.  If it fell one year sooner than
it would have without RR, then the money was well spent, but it appears it
collapsed many years (decades?) sooner than if Carter had remained.  Remember
the arms race we "cannot afford?"  If we couldn't afford it, certainly the
USSR could not, or did RR have nothing to do with it?  Make up your mind.

The rest of the deficit: domestic spending, entitlements, etc.?  If you're 
arguing RR should have cut these more, I agree.  Of course, he cut very
little, except the rate of increase.  But that isn't the position you're 
taking, is it?  Well, did he spend too much or too little?  Make up your
mind.

Growth was growth.  More jobs were created, more money was made by more people
across the board (including ethnic minorities).  The numbers don't lie.  This
is being undone by Congress' and Bush's big government policies.  (See, for
instance, changes in real estate regulation and taxes).  Agree with RR or not,
but admit he was a strong leader.  Bush could be, but for some mystifying
reason, refuses to do so.

>>and that RR was responsible for the S&L's,

>You're right again!  Deregulation of S&L's had *nothing* to do with them
>glutting themselves with risky investments.  And the multibillion dollar (or
>is it in the trillions?) bailout is, again, a media ploy to make Ron look bad.

S&L's:  If anyone would really research this they might find that Regulation Q,
(I think it was called), which limited the amounts of interest to be paid was
removed in *1980*.  Also, the FSLIC/FDIC insurance limit increased from $40K to
$100K under the Carter administration.  These two regulation changes are what
caused the S&L problem.  Note that RR took office in Jan. 1981, which is later
than 1980.  If you want to blame the S&L's on the Republicans, better make J.
Carter a Republican.  

>>aids, etc.

>Nobody ever accused Reagan of engineering the virus, but he couldn't have done
>less to stop it's spread if he'd tried.  But hey, it's just a bunch of queers
>and addicts, right?

We spend and have been spending more on AIDS than any other disease, including
heart disease and cancer which kill far more than AIDS does and likely more
than it will ever in the U.S.  There is no evidence to make me believe that we
would find a medical solution any faster if we took every researcher in the 
world and 100% of the GNP and dedicated it to AIDS research.  There are ways to
protect yourself, however, that a rather effective.  But these methods require
a certain amount of personal responsibility, so I won't bother to list them.

>>Besides even if you're wrong can we survive four years of Bill & Hillary?  Do
>>I want to find out?

>Yes, you do.  Although even if he's elected and the country doesn't crash and
>burn, I wouldn't be surprised if you attributed it to the wonder of the 80's-- 
>Ronald Reagan, and his faithful sidekick George.
>-- 
>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
>Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
>Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham

I see the Clinton/Democrat/Liberal/PC Big Government is already at work:  they
are telling me what I want.  I'm sure a Clinton-led federal government knows
what I want better than I do.  So, I won't bother wasting my time thinking or
making decisions for myself, I'll let Mr. Clinton do it for me.

Seriously, if Clinton wins (and that looks like the smart money now), I'll
pray for his (our) economic success, (don't worry I won't do it on gov't.-owned
property).  However, I consider his chances for economic success less likely
than, say, the Colts winning the Super Bowl next January.


Your fellow American,   Bill D.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8703 talk.politics.misc:34936