From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:56:27 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>Someone isn't paying attention:

Well, I never claimed to have a perfect memory...

>The [unemployment] figures
> peaked  when we were still operating under the effects of the
>Carter policy. It takes a year or more for the effects of a new administration
>to take effect. Of course, once it did we had ten good years, until the
>next administration decided to adopt the Democratic party's platform.

It turns out that either the previous post I was thinking of was
wrong, or my memory of that post was wrong.  In any case, the
unemployment percentage rates peaked in 1982 and 1983 at around 9.6%.
During the Carter era, unemployment ran around 7-8%, and in the late
80's to early 90's, it ran around 5-6%.  As of February, 1991, the
rate was 6.5%.  I'm sure the news indicates more current rates.

It seems to me that it's unclear whether the 9.6% rate can be blamed
on Carter policies that had not yet faded, or on Reagan policies that
were just beginning or had started (recall the huge tax cuts in 1981).
My guess is that it can easily be argued either way and, therefore,
that it's pointless to do either.

>But it is very clear that US policy, particularly in Afghanistan, resulted
>in increased setbacks to the USSR's foreign adventurism during the 80s. This
>helped destabilize the regime.

Could be.  I still think that most of the wonderous effect of US
policy is hypothetical.  I readily concede that US policy did not SLOW
the "fall" of the soviet regime; it is less clear to me that it sped
that fall.

>Continued nonsense. There was no "massive military buildup". Spending was
>only 0.6% more in the 80s than in the 70s, and it was 2.2% less than in
>the 60s. Insignificant. All the significant growth in spending was in
>social spending, government administration, entitlement payments and the
>like which certainly do *not* fuel growth.

Hmm.  The figures I found were:

	 Yr	Defense		Social welfare
		(billions $)	(billions $)

	1980	136 (23%)	303 (53%)	percent is of total outlays
	1985	244 (25%)	452 (48%)	by Federal government
	1990	300 (28%)	523 (49%)

Unfortunately, the stupid almanac didn't do a very good job of going
back before 80 (it did, but with different years for each column,
making it difficult to compare).  I believe that much of the drop in
social welfare payments was because of "burden shifting" which caused
the states to pick up more of the cost.  However, it's pretty clear
that defense spending also went up by more than 0.6%.  (NOTE: The
numbers I list are not CPI-adjusted, but the percentages give measures
that are adjusted roughly the same.)

>There was, of course, a much bigger military buildup in the 1940s, and1
>we paid for it through increasing debt until it was *three times* (read
>that carefully: That's 3x) the 1990 debt level. At the time many made the
>argument for increased taxes, but the decision was made to go with debt
>instead. Increased productivity and growth paid that debt pretty quickly.

Is that quite true?  In 1943, outlays were three times income; in 44
and 45, outlays were twice income.  (Then the deficit dropped back to
"normal", including an occasional surplus.)  Whatever.  I'm not too
strongly attached to the idea that the debt is the source of all our
problems.

[Comments about interest rates omitted.]
I waive this point.  My intended comment was that high interest rates
aren't necessarily bad, and low interest rates aren't necessarily
good.  The response said the same thing, but a bit better.

>>Hmmph.  I can't even begin to believe that the country was better off
>>under Reagan than under Carter.  Things certainly looked better, but
>>it was mostly an illusion--and as the Hollywood trimmings are slowing
>>ripping apart, it's more and more apparent what damage was done behind
>>the scenes.
>>
>Here we're dealing with either a short memory, a willful diregard for the
>data, or someone who simply was too young to remember Carter's era. We
>had a weak US presence around the world, record high inflation, record
>high unemployment in the postwar era, and the numbers were getting worse
>every week.

One of the few (positive) things that Reagan accomplished was to give
the US a better opinion of itself.  Whether the best way to do that
was to build up our "presence" in the world is unclear.  Unemployment,
as discussed above, is not so clear: it was at 8.5% in 1975 and 7.1%
in 1980, so how did Carter do so bad?  (Inflation was rampant, though
weren't many of the cost increases due to oil price increases?  I'm
not too young to remember Carter's era, but I am too young to have
paid a great deal of attention then.)

>It took two years for Reagan to completely reverse this trend. We finished
>the Reagan era with high employment, negligible inflation, record high
>productivity, record high charitible giving and so forth.

Isn't charitible giving a red herring?  It was needed to pay for the
programs which were no longer adequately provided because of budget
re-alignments and tax cuts.  Further, it's unclear that charitible
donations are doing a great job.

>We've published all these data- interesting that all the claims that the
>Carter era was better than the Reagan era never seem to refute the figures
>showing otherwise. In fact, they have no figures at all.

Hogwash.  Most of us (and you, I believe) have the intelligence to
recognize that figures can be interpreted many different ways.  Just
as you choose to doubt the implications of my figures, I choose to
doubt yours.

>Assuming Carter was so great, how did Reagan win with such landslide
>victories twice in a row? Let me guess: He "fooled" us. That's the usual
>Democratic answer- massive ignorance of the electorate, right?

Here, unfortunately, I have to fall back on my memory.  I don't
believe that Reagan won a "landslide" victory twice in a row by any
measure other than the electoral college.  He definitely had the
majority of the popular vote in both cases, but I don't think he had
the mandate you believe he did.

Further, Carter was a mediocre president who, despite good intentions
and many good ideas, did not know how to run the office.  He suffered
in the polls at least partly because of the hostage crisis, part of
which he bungled, and part of which was beyond anyone's control.
Reagan had a vision of a bright future which was very appealing, and
he was vastly more telegenic than Carter, making his vision appear
even more appealing.

I don't claim the electorate was "fooled"; I merely claim they chose
an attractive option which was really only attractive on the surface.

>>Actually, I admit that's my big concern with all this.  Clinton has
>>some very good proposals that are worth implementing and which will
> 
>Which we never seem to hear the specifics of.

I have a better feel for the specifics of Clinton's proposals than I
do for the specifics of ANY Bush proposal.

>If Clinton wins, what you'll hear in four years is that it's still
>Reagan's fault that the economy is doing so poorly.

Actually, yes, that's my opinion.  I believe that's the reason the
economy is doing so poorly right now, and I doubt that Clinton will be
able to magically repair things in four years.

>See? They're already preparing the excuses. 

Wouldn't you?  :-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties