From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:51:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.014254.3558@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.132255.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>, dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>> Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
>> the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
>> abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
>> that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
>> situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
>> for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
>> 1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
>>    insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.
>
>	Started by Carter.
>

Not to pick nits here, but I think that the increasing of the insurance level
(a reason suggested by another poster) had very little to do with the problem.
At the time of Carter's presidency, the banking industry was severely over-
regulated, as well as the S&L industry. Remember, back then, the S&L's couldn't
even issue checking accounts?  What Carter tried to do was jump-start a 
really horrible economy brought about by a worldwide inflationary recession.
Under Ronald Reagan's tutelage to "reduce fat" in the government, many 
regulatory departments were literally gutted. These were done through the
Executive Branch (who have the power of hiring and firing regulators). Carter
started the ball rolling for sure, but the idea (in 20/20 hindsight) of further
cuts in the Reagan era allowed for some of the more shady bankers to grease a
few palms and not get caught in some really dubious banking practices.



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.  With predictable results. 
>Statistics show that during the period from 1979 to 1988, approximately 85% of
>the "poor" rose to higher economic levels.
>
>> 3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
>> rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a 
>> monumental deficit in the 90's.
>
>	True enough, but congress has been doing it for a lot longer.  And
>Reagan's gone but congress is still spending.
>

I think that both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue can be equally blamed on this.
Granted, the Democrats have had a lot of problems with some of their spending
policies, but in several areas (like over-spending and allowing for some 
extreme waste in the Defense area) the Republicans can share the blame. After
all, they *did* have a majority in the Senate during Reagan's first term.
I'm really curious as to what's going to happen in the next couple of years,
as the turnover in the legislative branch is going to be  in huge numbers.
I personally don't see another Republican majority in the Senate, and 
definetely not in the House, but I do see a bit more forward-thinking, younger
group of people coming in.  PACs have to be eliminated or extremely reduced
in their influence- stacking HAS to go. When I hear about fatcats literally
buying politicians, both in Election funding and "perks", it's really
disgusting. 
 

>> Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
>> that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?
>
>	Read the "Derailing the Reagan Revolution" posts that start today.
>
>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!

:
-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39400 alt.conspiracy:9975