Inerrantist Clinton (fwd)
walter nusbaum nusbaum@iglobal.net
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:13:03 -0600 (00885643983, 19980124061300921.AAA123@nusbaum.iglobal.net)
Walt(1/23)
At 05:29 PM 1/23/98 -0800, Farrell Till wrote:
>At 12:44 PM 1/23/98 -0600, Miracle wrote:
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 98-01-23 00:53:01 EST, you write:
>>TILL
>><< They probably swung the
>> election of 1980 to Ronald Reagan, whose ass they kissed for eight years.
>> Reagan was probably the biggest religious phony who has ever been in the
>> White House. Reagan, however, espoused the pro-life position; Carter was
>> pro-choice. >>
>>
>>MSFITT
>> Thinking back, I seem to remember something like a 25% interest rate,
>>American Hostages, a failed rescue mission, Billy beer. (just to name a few)
>> My point is. smiling Jimmy had more problems than the Christian right.
>> I really do not want to discuss Ronnie Boy. And wife.
>>
>>RJV 1/23
>>As much as people didn't like Reagan, his economic program turned this
>>country around and is responsible for the economic boom we see today. I
>>don't agree with all of his policies, but when you look at how he turned
>>the economy of the country around, he is probably the smartest economic
>>president we've had this century.
>>
>
>TILL
>Oh, my, you're very young, Jason. I guess you don't remember the
>trickle-down theory, which when put into practice did nothing but trickle-up.
>
>Farrell Till
>Skepticism, Inc.
>jftill@midwest.net
>
WALT
Yes, Jason is very young, but he is at least is on target. I'm not certain
why Jason says,"As much as the people didn't like Reagan". In point of fact,
he raised the country's morale to new heights after Carter's "malaise", and
made the people believe in their country as well as themselves. This, I
think was his legacy.
It is true that he never submitted a balanced budget, but that was quite
impossible because of the mandatory spending(plus inflation), that was
already built into the budget from previous budgets. Don't forget that the
"evil empire" crumbled on Reagan's watch and we are now reaping the rewards
of a greatly reduced defense budget, not to mention his tax cuts that were
supposed to be accompanied by spending cuts. He got his tax cuts, but the
congress failed to provide the spending cuts.
Yes, he was pro-life(For two terms). The rank and file of the unions voted
for him much to the chagrin of the union bosses. He was far from perfect,
but his defense build-up restored pride in the uniformed services and was
largely responsible for the military readiness that blew Sadam's fourth
largest army in the world away in 100 hours with fewer than 500 casualties.
I never cared for Bush, but he at least allowed his generals(With the
exception of Collin Powell,"The reluctant warrior", who opposed the war), a
free hand and they responded with as stunning a victory as anyone could have
hoped for.
For Till on "Trickle Down"
"Trickle down" is not a theory, it's an economic fact of life. Anyone who
has ever bought a used(pre-owned) car or a "starter" home or equivalent is
the recipient of "trickle down". Some one before had the wherewithal to buy
these new and pass them down. Did you ever ask a poor man for a job? Why
not? 'Cause he don't have one for you! Every time you contribute clothes,
furniture, etc., to Goodwill(or equivalent), you are providing "trickle
down" for others.
Yes, there is "trickle up" that benefits a few, but "trickle down" impacts
tens-of-thousands and allows them the use of things they otherwise could
never afford. Our TV's, VCR's, computers, and other similar appliances are
available to the masses(Us, or at least me), because of the previous
purchases of the middle-class and above that allowed the manufacturers to
gear up and provide in quantity these same goods at much lower prices than
when they first arrived on the market. "Trickle down", for sure. There's
more, but you get the idea.
Best wishes,
Walt