From: cka52397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Slartibartfast)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Actual Dan Quayle Interview
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:41:38 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

In article <92317.211208KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <BxLGut.7Kv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cka52397@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>(Slartibartfast) says:
>
>>>When Bush ended 'Reaganomics', the economy went south.  No surprise.
>
>>        Qualify this.  The current problem w/ the economy is NOT a recession.
>>It is a ****DEPRESSION***.  The main difference is not severity, of course,
>
>You must be kidding.  This is by no means a depression.  The debt hurts,
>of course, but it's been higher in the past (*as a percentage of GNP*).

	Well, Reagan did say he'd balance the budget by '84, and he did a 
hell of a job I might add.  Anyway, we are really hurting, and the problems 
aren't going to go away like in 1981-2.  Those high inflation rates and such
were caused by the oil embargos of the late '70's and Carter had to let the 
interest rates get high to offset the inflation.  Anyway, back to now, banks
aren't lending even though the prime is so low.  Why? because even though rates
are favorable to money creation, the banks can't lend, since the private debt
is so damn high (6trillion, up from 1.8trillion in 1989, _TIME_, Sept 28, '92)
Banks just can't afford to take on new loans, and won't be for a while, until
the loans are paid up, and banks feel reletively generous again.  So, the 
problem of turning the economy around is related to the problem of all the 
stupid leverage used during Reaganomics' heyday.  

>That's not at -all- what supply-side is about.  The 'rich' don't _give_ the
>poor (or the middle class) anything.  The lower taxes and easier creidt were
>to allow them to more easily expand the size of their busniesses, which would
>mean that they would -hire- more people.  In that way, sure, -everyone- would
>get a slice of the pie, but not because the 'rich' suddenly decided to give
>away money.  Nobody expects that, and it's not what happened.  The truth is,
>people in -all- income brackets, as a whole, did better in the 80s because
>of supply-side economics.  the 1990 tax increase, the second largest in
>history, which -everyone- seems to bash Bush for, was a departure from what
>had worked so well in the 1980s.  Higher taxes, right before a cyclical
>recession, didn't work very well at all, as we've seen.
>
	Well, you see, there is this thing about a $3 trillion debt we need to
worry about.  I don't how old you are, but I am 18, and I resent the fact that
the baby boomer generation is defaulting on the US debt, and my generation 
will be left to pick up the pieces.  So you admit, Bush is a liar, did you
still vote for someone who mocked your trust?  Well, the breaks that the rich
got went right into their pockets, which is why the real income of the to p
20% went up, while everone else's went down.  The rich didn't allow the wealth
to "trickle down."  Which is why DQ said, "Ever hear of this theory of trickle-
down?  Well, that's ridiculous..."  He knows it, too.
-- 
"You Poor Take Courage, You Rich Take Care, This Earth Was Made A Common Treas-
ury For Everyone To Share." <-- Billy Bragg "The World Turned Upside Down"
*******RUSH**YES**PEARLJAM**PETERGABRIEL**PAULSIMON**METALLICA**REM**U2********
The University of Illinois Go Capitals Go Illini Go Tarheels (c-amin1@uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle