From: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (William P. Jones)
Subject: Econmic Growth in Reagan/Bush Era (was Re: I loved Bush ...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center
Date: 22 JUL 92 12:03:24    

In article <1992Jul21.180653.315@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, 
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes...
>--------------
>[1] All major groups became better off during the Reagan years.  From page
>447 of "Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990", mean after-tax
>household income in constant (1986) Dollars:
> 
>                        1980    1982    1983    1984    1985    1986
>All households          21,652  21,499  22,173  22,763  23,082  23,683
>Whites                  22,424  22,293  23,011  23,614  23,936  24,570
>Blacks                  15,236  14,723  15,113  15,622  16,094  16,398
>Hispanic                18,030  17,371  17,660  18,324  18,265  18,817
> 
>And this general increase in income continued through 1990.  In general,
>incomes peaked in 1978 (although the tables I have didn't include '73, so
>it's possible that was the peak -- in fact I think it was) and then
>declined rapidly through 1982.  Because of the delay in economic effects,
>those are the Carter years.
> 
===========================================================================
This neglects the fact that during the 1980-1990, the peak of the baby boom 
generation was moving into their peak earning years. A different and more 
realistic way to look at things is to ask compare the earnings of people of a 
specific age and educational level with their counterparts 10 years earlier. 
By that measure, almost without exception, people have fallen behind. That's 
one reason that savings rates have fallen in half while inflation has decreased 
making saving more attractive (if you had anything left to save). Another quirk 
of economic statistics is that someone who has gone from a single full time job 
to two part time jobs improves the BLS employment statistics.
===========================================================================
>And the economic improvement was broad.  That is wasn't is a myth
>perpetrated by a media fundamentally opposed to Reagan and his policies.
>>From the Census Bureau:
> 
>                     Average Real Income (1989 Dollars)
> 
>                     Poorest 20%             Richest 20%
>        1978           $6,769                  $71,793
>        1980            6,494                   70,056
>        1983            6,291                   71,983
>        1985            6,470                   76,466
>        1988            6,777                   82,554
>        1989            6,994                   85,529
> 
>-------- (end of excerpt)
> 
>>The new wealth was limited to those who began with positions of economic (and
>>therefore, political) control.  Also, much of the wealth was moved out of the
>>US.
> 
>The total wealth of this country grew significantly in the 1980's. During that time,
>we were *importing* capital, not exporting it.  Others sent their wealth here,
>helping our economy.
> 
>>|> Bush did not continue with any such alleged plan.  His plan was further growth and
>>|> more jobs; the economy has not shown the vigor it did during the Reagan years.  
>>|> Of course, this is partly because Bush went along with the Democratic Congress'
>>|> plan to move more of 'our resources' to the Government.
>>|> 
>>|> "He has scuttled the Supreme Court"
>>|> He nominated two well-qualified men on the Supreme Court who were confirmed and
>>|> who are serving ably. The Supreme Court, as it has been for 200 years, is still the
>>|> highest court in the land, and it has made many excellent and wise decisions
>>|> in recent sessions. As such the statement is contentless.
>>
>>Bush has continued the Reagan agenda to appoint to the SC judges that would
>>support the position that companies were moral and do what is in the best
>>interest of society, but that people are basically immoral and need to be 
>>told how to run their lives.
> 
>This is not true. Reason magazine's interview of
>Thomas (many years ago) when he was at EEOC, showed that Thomas
>was much more a Libertarian than your inaccurate caricature.
>Your derogation of the Supreme Court and the SC judges is disheartening,
>misplaced and pointless.
> 
>>|> "He has ignored the environment"
>>|> By passing the Clean Air Act, implementing more regulation than any previous
>>|> administration, and signing the Rio treaty on global warming.
>>
>>But has seen that the Clean Air Act is under-enforced.  And only signed the
>>global warming treaty in Rio when he got it diluted to the point where there
>>is no "economic impact" on his constituency.  Bush -- the free lunch president.
> 
>I see in his environmental actions prudence and balance.
>The Clean Air Act is being enforced and will costs tens of billions of dollars
>in industry compliance - no free lunch there.
> 
>>|> "He has abandoned our education system"
>>|> He has proposed innovative programs to create schools for the next century,
>>|> in his America 2000 pilot projects. He supports educational choice in the form
>>|> of vouchers for schoolchildren. Under his tenure, funding for education at
>>|> the federal level has increased.
>>
>>Absolutely false.  By cutting the revenue sharing to the cities, the federal 
>>support for education has been drastically, although indirectly, reduced.
> 
>Absolutely false. (see, anyone can say it. But which part of my contention is
>"Absolutely false."? Bush's support for educational choice? hmm, true.
>He announced a proposal at the white house just last month.
>The 'new schools' pilot projects? hmmm, Lamar Alexander, his Education Secretary,
>is going around to schools that have already set up programs. Well, then
>"absolutely false" must refer to the " federal funding for education".
>I suggest you compare the current education budget with the budget from
>years past.
>The numbers do not support your case; if you had such numbers, please present them.
> 
>> And
>>programs such as the school lunch programs and head start have been drastically
>>cut.
>Any evidence to support the "head start drastically cut" statement?
>He has *increased* such funding, and another poster recently pointed out.
>Numbers for your contentions?
> 
>>|> "He has significantly reduced support for social program (sic)."
>>|> Under Bush, social spending at the Federal level has increased.
>>|> In 1992, we spent $32 billion dollars on Education,
>>|> $264 billion in Health and Human Services (non-Social Security),
>>|> $284 billion on Social Security,
>>|> $36 billion on Transportation, and almost $7 billion in the EPA.
>>|> In all categories, real levels of spending have been steady or increased.
>>|> If speaking about overall programs, the "significantly reduced support" is
>>|> clearly false.
>>
>>If necessary, I'd be happy to find 3 programs reduced.
> 
>I'd be happy too, if you could name one, let alone three, significantly reduced
>programs under Bush. Please prove me wrong. I would love to find out
>that Bush is a closet budget-cutter.
> 
>> If you are saying that
>>the Bush administration has **supported** maintaining social programs at their
>>existing levels (adjusted for inflation), I am interested in hearing that.
> 
>I find it fascinating that when I call you on your statement of drastic
>reductions, you evade the point, and switch gears, now asking 
>if Bush supports the current level of social programs.  Well,
>his latest budget proposal shows that he does. If you have evidence to support your
>claim, please present it.
> 
>>|> >Bash Bush Bash Bush Bash Bush Bash Bush ... <insert train whistle here>
>>|> 
>>|> Indeed. Frighteningly, Mr Polen is actually more reasonable and intelligent than
>>|> other posters, and also speakers at the Democratic convention, in the wild
>>|> accusation area. Blaming Bush for AIDS deaths ( despite an historically unprecented
>>|> effort by Federal researchers to find vaccines, treatments, and cures, and millions
>>|> of dollars in public awareness campaigns) really took the cake.
>>|> 
>>I think this is called "damned by faint praise."  As to the AIDS deaths, I
>>would have been much happier if Bush would have opened his eyes and supported
>>programs to halt the spread of AIDS.
> 
>Which he does. So be happy.
> 
>>I don't think BUSH is a bad person ("no man is a villian in his own eyes"), 
>>just the wrong person to represent the American people.
> 
>I am sure you are a good person too.  
> 
>