From: sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders)
Subject: Re: Charities in the '80's (was Whining bastards)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 22:50:49 GMT

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.192617.27344@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, 
sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders) writes:
>|> Hmmmm.  Looks like a *few billion* 'points of light' to me.  Face it: the
>|> Eighties *worked*.  The rich got richer, *and* the poor got richer.

>This is the stupiest thing I have ever seen posted on the
>net.  The POOR GOT RICHER?   Go tell that to all of the
>GM workers who lost their jobs, all of the steel mill 
>employees.  Tell it to the homeless and those trapped
>on welfare.  They'll laugh in your face.

>Not only did the poor get poorer, the middle class joined
>the poor.  Check it out.  Record numbers of people slipped
>below the poverty line during the eighties.

>We're all poor anyway, thanks to VOODOO ECONOMICS and 
>the Reagan-induced NATIONAL DEBT!

Jared,

Well, take a look at these "stupid" numbers from the Congressional
Budget Office . . .

Under the Carter administration, the poorest fifth of the population
suffered a 17% decrease in real family income.  From 1983-1989 (the
years of so-called "voodoo" economics), the poorest 20% saw a 12%
*increase* in family income.  Now, you tell me, did the poor get
poorer?  During the Reagan years, in fact, family income levels rose
*across the board* (i.e., we all got richer).

As for your claim that we're all poorer because of supply-side
economics, take a look at this quote from Paul Craig Roberts of 
*The Wall Street Journal*:

  "All of the propagandistic claims of supply-side failure that
   dominated the economic news of the 80s have been laid to rest.  We
   know for certain that the United States did not disinvest, the
   United States did not suffer declining productivity growth, did not
   become uncompetitive, did not create primarily dead-end, low-
   skill jobs and did not experience declining real family income in
   the 1980's.

  "Prompted by criticism from economists that U.S. government
   statistics were failing to detect a weakening in the nation's
   industrial base, the Commerce Department undertook a two-and-
   a-half-year study of American manufacturing.  The study, released
   earlier this year, shows the 1980s were years of an almost
   unbelievable revival by U.S. industry.  In a front-page story that
   must have been galling for that paper's editorial writers, the *New
   York Times* reported on Feb. 5 that the rate of U.S. manufacturing 
   productivity growth had tripled during the 1980s and was now on
   a par with Japan and Europe, and that manufacturing's share of
   gross national product had rebounded to the level of output
   achieved in the 1960s when American factories hummed at a 
   feverish clip.  Far from losing its competitiveness then, the report
   revealed the U.S. had experienced an unprecedented export boom.

  "As far as jobs are concerned, the charge that Reaganomics had
   created a nation of hamburger flippers was destroyed in 1988 when
   the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the percentage of new
   jobs in the higher skill categories was much larger in the 1980s
   than in the 1970s.  The commisioner of the bureau testified before
   Congress in August 1988 that low-skilled jobs are not growing as
   fast as those that require a lot of training.  The Reagan expansion
   created skilled jobs at a more rapid pace than our educational
   system could produce to fill them.

  "To paint a picture of the rich getting richer as the poor get
   poorer, the partisan Congressional Budget Office and a bevy of
   Democratic economists had to use unadjusted census data to
   construct a measure of average family income biased by rising
   divorce rates and the growth of single-parent households.  What
   these critics discovered was the effects of the decline of the
   institution of marriage on family income, not Reagan economic
   policies."

I'd be interested in any facts you have to support your claims that
the 80s made us all poorer.  Pointing to the national debt, and that
alone, is somewhat simplistic.  Not all debt is bad; recessions
become recoveries largely due to deficit spending.  Of course, not
all debt is good, either, and we must to work to control our
debt (especially that which is owed to foreign investors).  So,
Jared, aside from calling this post "stupid", what do you have to
say on the subject?

--
Scott Borders
sborders@nyx.cs.du.edu
borders_scott@tandem.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion