Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!microsof!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!cbosgd!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim
From: tim@isrnix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan"s Press Conference
Message-ID: <270@isrnix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Jul-83 10:19:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: isrnix.270
Posted: Fri Jul  8 10:19:24 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 15:49:23 EDT
References: hou5e.625
Lines: 49

The Duke of deNet talks about Reagan's efforts to "stay the course"
and thus "inspire business confidence".  So long as you make over $50000
a year and don't care about anybody making less I suppose that's 
reasonable-Reagan has given more tax breaks to the rich than any
President in a LOOOOONNNG time.  However ultimately that course won't
benefit even the rich. Why? Because if income is not redistributed to
those who will spend it there will be no market for many consumer
goods, business will fall ,and ultimately profits will fall too.
There is a great myth perpetrated in the media that Reagan has cut
gov't spending. He hasn't- rather he's "staying the course" right into
the biggest deficits in this nation's history. Once again in the short
term it may be great for the big, capital-intensive corporations that
Reagan plans on spending $1.6 trillion, more than we spent in ALL OF
WORLD WAR II on war, and preparations for war.  However imagine if that
were spent developing solar or other alternate energy supplies so we
won't get zapped like in 1973 again? We wouldn't have to worry about the
Middle East and all their oil and turmoil if we got our energy act 
together. But no, instead we spend trillions  to be able to go over
and protect a few billion dollars in oil and other resources. That
doesn't make much economic sense to me!  The FED has just announced
a new rise in interest rates--so much for the economic boom.
Meanwhile the latest figures show we still have 10% unemployment.
So long as one has a job who cares? Well, if you care about people
being able to work rather than be forced to receive gov't handouts
to survive you should care!  If those people are not working it means
1) the gov't (that's us!) has to pay half their unemployment benefits    
as long as they last (one thing which has added greatly to the current
deficit I might add)
2)if they still don't get a job and their unemployment runs out then
the gov't provides food stamps and aid so they don't starve to death.
Unemployment costs us money! Besides the psychological impact it has
on people's feelings of self-worth and initiative.  Some people get in
a rut they find it very difficult to get out of because they begin to
'feel they are useless human beings.
Thus I think Reagan's economic policies have been an unmitigated disaster.
Right now we are cruising on the temporary oil glut. What's being done
to prepare for the next energy shortage? Nothing. Instead Americans are
buying bigger cars again, and the gov't is doing nothing to encourage
energy conservation itself.  Instead of energy conservation Reagan
axed the railroads which are the most efficient forms of transportation
over medium distances.  When asked why they chopped AMTRAK, David
Stockman said "well, nobody wants to ride the trains anyway".
It just so happens that those "nobodies" many routes booked solid for
months in advance!  I think it is instructive that Reagan replaced
the portrait of Thomas Jefferson with one of Calvin Coolidge in the
White House.  Like Coolidge and Hoover , Reagan's policies will bring
us long-run economic disaster.
      Tim Sevener
      decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim