From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:14:23 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Aug18.1684780F8MEDELMA@clm.cc.wayne.edu>
MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug17.133543.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>
>dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>
>>
>>Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
>>the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
>>abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
>>that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
>>situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
>>for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
>>1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
>>   insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.
>
>The first dereg bills, referred to as DIDMCA, were signed in 1980. Correct
>me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Carter president then? You might read "Mandate
>for Change", a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (1980).
>It's a summary of the state of the economy, the philosophy behind the
>the regulations, etc.
>
>>2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
>>American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
>>back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
>
>Not true. If you look at the overall tax burden (income taxes, SSA,
>etc.) it's different. And if only the rich got a tax cut, how could
>that have worsened the deficit, given that the wealthy are such a small
>minority?
In what sense are the wealthy a minority?  You can only mean in the sense
of shear numbers.  In terms of wealth they, the upper 2 percent of our
society, are the clear majority:  the upper 2 percent of Americans receives
as much money in straight earnings as the lower 51 percent of the population.
This number becomes much more skewed when you take into account money
returned on investments.  So, since the upper 2 percent clearly make up the
majority of this nations income it's easy to see how cutting their taxes could
have a significant impact.

Futher evidence:  The upper 2 percent, dispite earning as much as the lower
51 percent, only pay 35 percent of all taxes collected.

>
>>3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
>>rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a
>>monumental deficit in the 90's.
>
>Absolute nonsense. Military spending spending as a % of GNP barely changed.
>It was, in fact, downward from 1984 on. The Regan buildup was quite small.
>It was certainly a fraction of that during the Johnson era. If you look
>at the actual figures, instead of just repeating the common ignorance,
>you'll see that the vast bulk of the increase in debt was entitlements
>spending- it's still increasing.
Not true.  Defense spending, as a percentage of our national budget, doubled
in Reagans early years.  It's true that entitlements increased, but the defense
budget increased much faster.  Also, don't forget a big source of our spending
every year now is payment of debt on the national debt, which also soared under
Reagan.  ...I know, 'But Reagan TRIED to force a balanced budget ammendment.'.
Still, he himself never submitted a balanced budget to congress.  He never
even submitted anything reasonable for congress to start from.  Anyone
want to defend Reagans plan to cut social security in half??
>>
>>Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
>>that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?
>
>Yes. We had the longest peacetime economic boom in recorded US history. We
>had tremendous upward mobility across race, sex and ethnicity. Everyone
>benifited until spending again exploded in the 90s.
...WHAT??  The problems that we have now have been building for a long time.
Unemployment under Reagan was always high.  Remember, he made it LOOK lower
by changing the way it was determined: including the military for example.
During the 80's our standard of living stalled: ours is the first generation
that won't live better than our parents.  Real GNP under Reagan was always
'projected' to be rising at a decent level, but never did when the revised
figures came out.  Manufacturing jobs left this country at a higher rate
in the 80s than they have since the Depression.  In the 80s, and continuing
into the 90s, 1 out of 5 college grads can't a job requiring a degree and are
working at fast food chains; this hasn't happened since the Depression.

Now, there is one distinction between the 80s and the 30s.  In the 30s
we didn't have a deficit to contend with so we were able to work our way
out.

MORE ABOUT THE TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT:

The 80s saw personal income for people making over $200k per year increase
600 percent.  During this same time the other 98 percent of us got an average
pay increase of a mere 35 percent: not enough to outpace inflation.  So that
'trickle down' effect that you've heard so much about is pretty much the upper
two percents way of saying 'Piss on them'.

Marty L. Dart
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections