From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Lets not blame Reagan for everything....
Organization: None
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:04:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.171711.25763@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.220028.2732@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>In article <92254.152550MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>In article <1685EB8C1.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu
>>>(Michael Edelman) says:
>>>>Speaking of clueless! That's the centerpiece of the revisionist 80s
>>>>history, isn't it? Reagan presided over the longest peacetime economic
>>>>boom in the nation's history-> ergo we will assert it didn't really exist.
>>>
>>>"Well, if you'd let me write $300 billion in hot checks every year,
>>> I could give you the illusion of prosperity too!"
>>>   -- Lloyd Bentsen, '88 vice-presidential debate.
>>>
>>>We'll be paying for Reagan's alleged boom for the rest of our lives, thank you.
>>
>>Do some homework.....It was the longest peacetime economic boom
>>in our history.
>
>Yeah, just like the then-famous and now-notorious "Massachusetts
>Miracle", right?  No, there never was any *real* boom, it was just an
>illusion caused by borrowing outrageous amounts of money.  

It was the longest peactime recovery in history, ask any economists.
True, too many people overextended themselves- but it still was
the longest peacetime recover in history, bar none.

>If you payed attention to what you read, you'd see that this was Bentsen's
>point.
>
>>                If we wish to blame anyone for:
>>1-Our high debt- blame ourselves for NOT kicking the tax/spend bums out of 
>>                 the Democratic Congress
>
>Nice try, but Reagan *cut* taxes in his first term and the debt
>ballooned, so obviously there is no correlation.  Anyway, how can
>taxing and spending incur a debt?  Think about it!  If you spend what
>you tax, you don't have to borrow anything.  On the other hand, if you
>cut taxes and increase spending, you have to borrow plenty, which is
>what Ronnie did.

To excerpt from the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 7:
"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
 but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as in other bills."
THUS: Congress authorizes spending.

and Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the power 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
 imposts and excises, to pay the debt and provide for the common defence and
 general welfare of the United States"
THUS: Congress is responsible for taxation.

That is why I said the 'tax/spend bums' in Congress. They are bums because
they will not give the President the line-item veto and we still have a
huge amount of Federal debt. The President cannot spend money that is
not authorized by Congress.

The President can propose a budget (which is why he submits it to Congress)
and can also propose taxes, levies etc BUT CONGRESS CONTROLS THE MONEY.

>>2-Our recession- recessions/expansions are part of the natural cycle. This
>>                 one is more difficult because we all splurged in the 1980s.
>
>Exactly--we all splurged in the 80s, *especially* the federal
>government!  And Reagan's policies made it easier for people like
>Keating to splurge all they wanted.  Now we're paying for it.

CONGRESS CONTROLS THE MONEY. Democrats have controlled Congress for
much of the last 30-40 years.

>Second, haven't you noticed anything bizarre about this "recession"?

All economists agree this recession ended and we have entered a period
of slow growth (Most recently the current issue of Business Week).
Nobody likes this anemic recovery but it certainly is not now a recession.

>Don't be so sure it's a regular part of the business cycle (which, if
>I recall correctly, Reagan claimed no longer existed)--it certainly
>doesn't *act* like one.  More likely, this is a slidedown from the
>illusion of the 80s to the *real* economic situation, which was
>ignored entirely under Reagan's administration.  Don't hold your
>breath for a dramatic recovery.  If, as I suspect, this is a
>depression and not a recession, and that this is a new economic
>situation and not part of the business cycle, don't expect Slick
>Willie to fix it.  Maybe having a president and Congress from the same
>party will help somewhat, but I'm not expecting too much.

I don't expect Slick Willie to fix it. BTW - this is a not a recession
or a depression. We are recovering (technically speaking) albeit very slowly.
Personally, I think we will have a healthy robust recovery within 18 months,
mainly due to the stunning drop in interest rates.

>>3-The end of the Cold War - Thank you Ron. My son will grow up in a SAFER world
>
>Communism doomed itself, and revisionists give Reagan the credit.

Go ask any Russian why communism failed- I have friends in
Moscow and St.Petersberg (formerly Leningrad) and they adore Reagan 
for the way he accelerated the decline of the USSR.

>Splendid.  Furthermore, I'm not going to get into an extensive
>discussion of international relations theory, but if you think the end
>of the Cold War has made the world safer, you're an idealist like that
>Fukeyama idiot.  The world was safer during the *peace* and
>*stability* of the Cold War than it is now.

?What?

Do you remember the Cuban Missle Crisis - I do
Have you ever been in air raid shelters as practice IN THE USA? - I have
Have your teachers ever told you 'if you hear the sirens, run down to
 the basement where the food/water is stored' - I have and this was
 in the 1960s on Long Island (NY).
Do you recall the President of the United States coming in nationwide
 TV alerting us we may go to WAR with the Soviet Union? - I remember
How about the Vietnam War where millions likely died, including
 some 55,000 Americans (I remember the weekly toll of dead Americans
 being broadcast - I remember eating dinner and watching the evening
 report from Vietnam - do you?). How long would North Vietnam lasted
 if it wasn't backed by the Soviets?
How about our diplomats being held hostage in Iran in the 1970s?
How about ordinary Americans held for years in Lebanon?
How about the antics of Libya's Qaddafi in the 1970s and early 1980s?
Do you remember the OPEC cartel holding us hostage and odd/even gasoline
rationing in the mid 70s? - I do

The world is *CLEARLY* a safer place now, IMHO.

So why do you think its more dangerous now?

>>4-The advance of Democracy - Thank you Ron.
>
>The advance of jingoism - Thank you Ron.
>
>>How about the Cuban Missle crisis, where we almost went
>>to war with Soviets?

>The Cuban Missile Crisis only served to show just how stable the Cold
>War was. The nuclear deterrent was SO strong that the Soviets backed.

And supposed they didn't.....Both sides had their army at a stage of 
very heightened alert and one foolish mistake by a commander in the field 
could have triggered a nuclear conflict.

>>How about the broad decline in the power of unions, after Reagan fired the
>>air traffic controllers back early in his first administration?
>
>Yeah, how about it?  We're paying for it now.

Airline fares from NY to Florida in 1973 were about $99 one way. If we 
adjust for inflation, they would be $228 one way. Instead, they are about 
$128 or so. So how are we paying for it now?

Inflation in the 1970s was about 7% or so. In the 1980s it was 5.055%. Now 
its 3.2% or so. So how are we paying for it now?

THANK YOU RON

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Usual disclaimers...







Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections