From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:26:46 GMT

In article <nate.394@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> [Reagan's S&L policies statement by Nathan deleted]
>
>>Sorry to jump in the middle but...  Deregulation is not the major cause
>>behind the S&L problem.  The devaluation of real estate due to the 1986
>>federal tax law changes is the instigating and sustaining cause.  The
>>S&Ls, like ordinary citizens, saw real estate as a good investment for
>>a myriad of reasons.
>
>    In retrospect, I can only wonder whether that "myriad" of reasons was 
>actually based on sound, "conservative" investment strategies.

Dear Juggler, :)

It is difficult to make sound decisions when Congress is constantly changing
the rules (tax code) under which one operates.  How can you plan a the future
of an investment when the rules are changed.

>>Unfortunately, the Democrats saw people succeding and put an end to that.
>
>   Yep, I guess it was just those evil Democrats. They convinced people 
>that real estate was over-valued, and prevented those S&L managers from 
>using unoccupied, uncompleted properties to balance their books. Those
>evil Democrats.
>
I should say Congress, you are correct for rebuking me.  However, the
controlling party of Congress idealogically attacks the successful in
an attempt to make all of us equal.  The tax law is punitive in nature.

>>If you are claiming that the huge rise in economic prosperity is due to
>>government spending then I think you've come to an illogical conclusion.
>
>    I believe that my basic point is that Reagan's "huge rise in economic
>prosperity" was primarily fueled by a collection of short term fixes and 
>statistical/bookkeeping hocus pocus.
>
I see it differently, the problem is that mandated spending continued
to increase, which drives the deficit.  I believe that the current 
tax and spend philosophy must be modified in order to reverse the growing
deficit trend.  We are ultimately spending money to pay the interest on the 
debt which should be invested in this country.

I blame the Democrats in the House simply because they appropriate the funds,
they defined the Omnibus spending bill mechanism, and they generally are
in favor of more taxing/spending.  If the House had even capped the mandated
spending levels instead of allowing them to increase yearly (by law) then
we would all be much better off.

>>First of all, more than 2/3rds of the deficit spending is on entitlements
>>and interest on the debt.  Did entitlements fuel the economy?
>
>    Well, I'm sorry, but I am in favor of at least some of the entitlement
>programs our government sponsors. For instance, I believe that veterans of
>our armed forces and their families should be entitled to be supported
>by such programs. There is certainly room for debate on just which 
>entitlement programs are good and justifiable, however I think that it's 
>a mistake to try to use the term "entitlement program" as just another 
>code word for Democratic policies.
>
True, this argument can be expanded to describe the fact that the legislature
has a problem living within it's means.  However, it is not a mistake to 
point out that the Democrats would like to increase entitlement programs.
I state again that the entitlement programs are, with the mandated increases
performed yearly, driving the deficit and the deficit is the single largest
reason, the GAO argues, that personal savings are down.

>    Thus, in answer to your question, I would say "Yes, to a certain
>extent money spent on entitlement programs helped to fuel the economy."
>It continues to fuel the economy today. However, I would say that in at
>least some cases the money we spend on "entitlements" is partial-repayment
>for services rendered, and it would be crass and short-sighted to imply 
>that people receiving government benefits are unjustified in doing so.
>
No argument here, I simply argue that mandated spending increases are
the biggest problem (other than the makeup of the House :)).  The economy
_really_ did grow during the 80's but the rate of government spending
increased at the same time.  

Mike  Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh