From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:08:12 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

In article <1992Sep13.164548.29818@cs.cornell.edu>
allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
 
 [...]
Someone isn't paying attention:
 
>As has been posted before, unemployment peaked in 1987 under Reagan.
>The official numbers make it appear that it peaked under Carter, but
>the figures have to be adjusted so that they're all calculated the
>same way--the methods for determining unemployment were changed while
>Reagan was in office, yielding lower numbers that would have been
>given before.
>
The 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.
 
>
[...]
 
>That's a hypothetical argument and can be made both ways.  The Soviet
>Union was economically in miserable shape and fast heading toward a
>collapse anyway.  It's arguable that massive defense spending on the
>part of the US contributed to that collapse; it's also arguable that
>it didn't contribute at all.
 
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.
>
>But the point is no longer whether it was a good policy, the point is
>how it should have been (and now must be) paid for.  Reagan did it by
>borrowing heavily from "the future" by creating massive debt.  If the
>alternatives to massive military buildup were so horrible, why
>couldn't we pay for it then?  And somehow, despite the retoric
>supporting it, I'm disinclined to believe that massive tax cuts will
>do the trick.
 
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.
 
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.
 
  [...]
>Low interest rates and a massive deficit are discouraging investors
>from putting money into the US economy: why invest in the US at 3%
>when you can invest in Germany at 9%?
 
For one thing, 3% is a bank demand deposit rate. There are inventments that
pay higher returns. Of course, during Carter's era banks and S&Ls were paying
12% and more because inflation was peaking near 17.5% on a per month basis.
You'd think, according to the logic of the previous poster, that we would
have seen a massive inflow of capital. In fact, we had a massive outflow.
as seen in the figures I posted recently.
 
It's worse for domestic investors. If you're earning a 16% return under 12%
inflation it looks like you've got 4% real capital gains, but assuming a
a nominal 33% tax bracket you're actually paying an effective annual
marginal tax rate of around 107.5%.
>
>>The average American can clearly see that he was better off under Reagan
>>than Carter. And while I hold no particular admiration for Bush (who
>>pronounced Reagan's plans as "voodoo economics" back in 1980), he can't
>>possibly be as bad as Clinton.
>
>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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
>>Of course, if you LIKE the current recession, you'll LOVE what Clinton's
>>tax-and-spend economic plan will do to the country!
>
>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.
 
>probably prove beneficial over the long haul.  But putting them in
>place along with trying to fix up the massive damage done by Reagan's
 
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.
 
>and Bush's administrations is going to be quite painful.  My concern
>is that the plans of a Clinton administration will be seen as the
>culprit, when in fact it is a Republican legacy which is at fault.
 
See? They're already preparing the excuses. One reason the Democrats were
so stunned to lose in '84 was that they didn't think Reagan could turn the
economy around in only two years. Surprise.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY