From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:20:09 GMT

In article <1ee9d8INN8kg@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.005636.5028@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov8.105951.22000@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>The Clue Patrol sees more nonsense about Reaganomics....

er, you mean "Andy cluelessly spews more nonsense about Reaganomics...."

>>Spending increased? Yes, but at a reduced rate (compared with Carter/Bush).
>
>Hogwash. Discretionary spending--on defense-- soared during the early
>Reagan years.

"Hogwash?" What you said doesn't refute my statement one iota. 
So spending on defense increases for two years - BFD.
Spending overall increased at a reduced rate during the Reagan years.

>>"taxes actually collected (as opposed to tax rates) increased"
>>Well, that's the wonder of pro-growth, supply-side economics.
>>He was successful enough to pay for the expanded state.  :)
>
>Actually, Federal Funds Receipts (excludes trust funds), which is where
>Reagan made tax cuts, PLUMMETED during the first Reagan Administration.
			
This is truly absurd.  During Reagan's first Admin, tax receipts increased
from $517 billion to $666 billion. It "plummeted" from $517 billion in
1980 to $909 billion by 1988. (see below).  Strange plummeting.  

In billions (%GNP):

year  GNP    receipts     outlays        deficit    unempl%       admin
====  ====   ===========  ============   =========  ======        =======
1980  2674    517 (19.3)    591 (22.1)    74 (2.8)     7.9        Carter
1981  2986    599 (20.1)    678 (22.7)    79 (2.6)     8.4        Reagan
1982  3130    618 (19.7)    745 (23.8)   127 (4.1)    11.0        Reagan
1983  3325    601 (18.1)    808 (24.3)   207 (6.2)    10.9        Reagan
1984  3688    666 (18.1)    852 (23.1)   185 (5.0)     8.6        Reagan
1985  3958    734 (18.5)    946 (23.9)   212 (5.4)     8.1        Reagan
1986  4177    769 (18.4)    990 (23.7)   221 (5.3)     7.9        Reagan
1987  4442    854 (19.2)   1004 (22.6)   150 (3.4)     7.1        Reagan
1988  4771    909 (19.1)   1064 (22.3)   155 (3.2)     6.3        Reagan
 
source: Statistical Abstract of the US

>Since spending went up, we got a big increase in the deficit.

Ah, a glimmer of wisdom! Deficits relates to spending, not just taxes ...
(gee, these Liberals come around slowly. How big was that 1990 tax increase,
anyway? And Foley said he wanted to do it again.)
And yet, spending as a percentage of GNP was no higher at the end
of Reagan's terms, in 1988, than at the beginning. Similarly, the
deficit as a percentage of GNP was no higher at the end of Reagan's
terms than at the beginning.
	So the "big increase in the deficit" is misleading.

>During the
>early Reagan years, we could have controlled the
>deficit. Now the deficit controls us.

Oh no, Andy. Sorry, you're out-of-step with the BigLiberalConspiracy. :-)
The deficit stopped being a concern after the election. Some major Liberal
thinkers have called for Keynesian-style increases in the deficit.
(reported in the New York Times).  Wonder of wonders.

As for "being controlled", your anti-Reagan compulsions are
controlling you, forcing you to write illogical non-sequitors
regarding Reagan's golden years as most excellent President of our Republic.
Fight the compulsions! Resist the urge! :-)

Pat

       " The 1990 Budget agreement was a big sucess " - Foley

       " We'll have to increase the deficit for the next two years,
         otherwise we'll have to raise taxes " - Democratic coalition
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history