Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:27:08 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.111650.5053@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.221116.3588@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug18.164035.1471@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>> > In article <1992Aug18.014254.3558@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > 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.
>> >> 
>> >> 	Reagan cut taxes for everyone.  Congress re-instated them for that
>> >> portion of society that had income to invest. 
>> > 
>> > Why is it that when there was a tax cut "Reagan cut taxes" yet when there
>> > was a tax increase "Congress re-instated them"?  What is the basis for
>> > giving the credit to Reagan for the cut but not for re-instating them?
>> > 
>> > In both cases, congress passed and Reagan signed the legislation.
>> 
>> 	Reagan's tax cuts were all his, pushed through congress when Reagan
>> went over their heads to the American people.
> 
> You have an interesting concept of how proposed legislation becomes law.

	Out of the country when Reagan would hold his TV shows telling the US
people to show their support by phoning/writing their congresspeople?

	Political commentators keep wondering why Bush never did that during
the (ahem) "budget summit".

>> 	Congress came back the next year and said "if you expect to pass
>> anything else, you better back off the tax cuts".  They promised to cut
>> spending if he would reinstate some of the taxes.  He agreed.
> 
> Do you really believe that Congress would agree to cut spending without
> getting Reagan to agree to those cuts (sharing the blame of those that 
> get cut)?  Could you give more details of this alleged promise?

	More details as in quotes, or  more details as in what was supposed to
happen?  It was never in writing.  But everyone who was there (on the white
house side) comments on it whenever the issue is brought up.

>> 	The problem was (and still is) that congress never did their part in
>> cutting spending.  They pulled the same scam on Bush.  Although Bush seemed all
>> too eager to raise taxes in the first place.
> 
> Reagan was quite eager to raise taxes in 1983 (increase the Social Security 
> tax) and 1986 (Tax Reform).  I think Reagan also proposed tax increases in 1982 
> and 1984, but I'll have to double check.

	In 1986 he traded taxes for SDI.  Don't know why he still thought
congress would hold up their end of the bargain.  How many presidents will
believe congress when it says "sure we'll cut spending, just give us more
taxes".

	Addicts are that way, though.

>> 	In addition, a signal that a veto is futile is when the margin a vote
>> passes by is larger than that needed to override a veto.  For a president to
>> veto the bill anyway (and waste time and effort) when there is a government to
>> be run isn't a good tactic.
> 
> Are you claiming that the *Republican* controlled Senate was going to override
> Reagan's veto?  

	Since when does the Senate deal with budget matters?  I know you know
better than that.  And don't try any of this "Senate must vote on it too".  If
it never gets out of the House, the Senate doesn't vote on it, does it?

>> 	Reagan had no reason to believe that congress would go back on its
>> word.  Bush should have known better.  He should have gotten it in writing.
> 
> What spending did Congress allegidly agree to cut?  Please provide some details.

	You want me to document what they didn't do? :)  How much disk space do
you have?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39045 alt.flame:11990