From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:48:21 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1993Jan4.183927.8268@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
->In article <1993Jan4.112422.2886@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
->>
->>In <C02Mws.CtK@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
->>> Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
->>> : mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
->>
->>> I did not video tape Wall Street Week, nor do I have a transcript of it.
->>> The best of my recollection is what I wrote.  I apologize for saying that
->>> the DEBT decreased.  But the defecit did indeed decrease.  Since you ask
->>> me to do your research for you, I will provide you with the data, as found
->>> in my 1992 Universal Almanac.  All dollar figures are in BILLIONS.
->>>
->>> 1980 GNP 2732.0, defecit = 73.8, %GNP = .0270
->>> 1985 GNP 4014.9, defecit = 212.3, %GNP = .0529
->>> 1987 GNP 4536.7, defecit = 148.0, %GNP = .0327
->>> 1988 GNP 4864.3, defecit = 155.1, %GNP = .0319
->>> 1989 GNP 5200.8, defecit = 152.0, %GNP = .0292
->>
->>Mike, unless you plan on arguing that .0270 > .0292, you just disproved your
->>own assertion.
->>
->>The deficit as a percentage of GNP was higher at the end of the 1980's than
->>it was at the start of the 1980's.
->
->You are not giving mike his due credit. Let us not forget 1992, with its
->399 billion dollar deficit. I do not have the figures on estimated GNP for
->the year available, but I am sure that it does not reach the 14.8 trillion
->dollars needed to mark an overall reduction in the deficit/GNP ratio in
->the reagan/bush years

 From 1983 to 1990 "The Seven Fat Years" we experienced the longest 
peace time economic expansion and the longest general economic expan-
sion since the Kennedy Tax Cuts in the 60's. What happened in 1990 to
1992 was due to the 1990 Budget compromise. This compromise had nothing
to do with Reagan and involved Bush "caving" into the Democrates on the
hill. We Conservatives and Classical Liberals believe that Bush caved in
to easily (ie - he lied about taxes and lost the election).
 The socialist naysayers cry that "The Seven Fat Years" were caused by 
deficit spending. That of course requires the listener to actually believe
that deficit spending has the ability to spurn economic growth. This also
requires belief in Keynes.
 What we all need to worry about is the latest theory held by many leftward
leaning economist. This theory uses "The Seven Fat Years" as empirical proof
that deficits dont matter. They think that the current government deficit 
is meaningless and if they persuade President-Elect Clinton of this, we can
all expect deficits to skyrocket through the roof. The Keynesians are back
and using Reagans success as proof that their theories work. They are ignor-
ing the fact that all the economic growth in the 80's was due to small co-
mpanies having access to investment capital. The Keynes large centralist
corporations all lost jobs...

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
               "Just imagine what the deficit would be like if The Seven
                Fat Years never occurred. Remember when Social Security
                would not last till the next decade."
               I hope my work schedule permits further reading here !
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion