From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!eisx!whuxlb!ech
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Re: reagan - (nf)
Article-I.D.: whuxlb.985
Posted: Sun Feb  6 17:45:12 1983
Received: Mon Feb  7 05:42:36 1983

#R:dadla-b:-32300:whuxlb:10600004:000:1387
whuxlb!ech    Feb  6 17:13:00 1983

Bravo!  There is little doubt that administration policy has SOME effect
on the general state of the economy, but to credit the President with
good news is as absurd generally as to blame him for bad.

The stock market may (over)react to news from Washington, but the overall
trends in the economy are much more deeply rooted than that.  Reagan
has correctly observed that the long-term tendencies to socialistic programs
has affected the economy; his errors (lies?) have been the suggestions
that those trends can be rapidly modified with no major dislocations.

Pogo once again comes to mind: we have met the enemy, and he is us.
A large majority of the electorate voted in 1980 for lower taxes and lower
inflation; today an equally large majority is denouncing policies which
attempted to do just that because they weren't painless.

In the final analysis, the people get the economy, as well as the government,
that they deserve.  I happen to agree that Reagan's policies (except on
Defense!), if carried for the long term, would result in a stronger, more
efficient economy.  But it's increasingly clear that the electorate has
no intentions of continuing the "small (government) is beautiful" experiment
past the '84 elections.  About the only way that would happen is if the
Democrats nominate Kennedy (who just may be scary enough for people to prefer
Reagan...).

=Ned Horvath=