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=