From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:03:54 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1993Jan06.235447.13927@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:

->In fact, my assertion (left in the mass above) was that there is no
->meaningful way to claim this. Yes, you can pick two points and show a
->decline, but why did you pick those points? The 85-89 (or sometimes -90)
->points are often chosen by Reaganista True Believers, but I've always been
->puzzled by why they seem to be able to swallow the idea that it took four
->years for Reagan to turn around what they claim were Carter problems (with
->the help of a Republican senate, no less!), but no time at all for that
->noted socialist George Bush to make hash out of the goodness which flowed
->from the pen of Saint Ron.

 The recession of 1982 (very tight fed money) and the delayed tax cuts
(net cut in 1983) slowed the launch of the seven fat years. If you remember
the late 1970's was a period of economic catastrophe. Inflation looked out
of control (latin america) and that layed the framework for the surging
soviet threat. A lot of us thought we would be living under socialism by
now. Boy, were we ever wrong :>
 Some of the roots for the 1990 to 1991 recession were created in 1986 when
the republicans had no senate majority. The tax cuts were lost and many
other tax restructures hurt certain industries. The real fault of the Bush
years is the Doubling of the federal yearly deficit. It appears now that 
the sole person responsable might have been Richard Darman. As a real funny
coincidence, the Clinton Transition Team has decided to back off on their
possible deficit reductions and now blame this on Darmans incorrect numbers.
It looks like the deficit spenders found a fall guy. Its very possible 
that Darman is a member of this spenders cabal. He is providing the cabal
with a reason to back off potential deficit reductions. "My numbers were off
by 18 billion last october". Where was the media ? Our yearly federal deficit
doubled and the media was silent. Now that Darman says the figures were off
by 18 billion, watch the media howl. 
 Like Mr. Limbaugh has pointed out, Clintons economic plan to reduce the
deficit is similar to Darmons. Its even worse when you add in the socialist 
redistribution schemes. Darmon doubled it. Will President Clinton Triple it?. 
Probably not that bad but definitely over 400 and maybe 500 billion a year.
Lets pray that the GDP can keep up with it. A true Reaganista would agree
that his BS degree in Classical Economics was behind his statement that tax
increases wont cause tax revenue increases. He was of course assuming that
the tax rate was over the laffer curve peak. The questions right now is where
does this peak sit. If were are on it, any tax change will lower revenues.
This leads us to the possiblity that it might be very difficult to impossible
to lower the deficit with tax changes. The only solution is the creation of
real jobs. Let the markets run and give us access to the capital that the 
elites are denying us. We will create new companies and new technologies.
Who knows better than us, what we want to buy ? Unless of course you want to
tell us what to buy.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
             - "Read My Lips er Book. I'll cut the deficit in half by 1997."