Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow
From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: economy
Message-ID: <855@ihuxe.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 15:00:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxe.855
Posted: Thu Sep 20 15:00:15 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 19:46:31 EDT
Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 22


>Good point.  In fact, if you'll remember, when the economy was in REALLY
>bad shape (i.e., worse than it is today), Reagan quite specifically and
>vehemently denied that his administration's policies had anything to do
>with the economic situation.  Of course, he's doing as any politician
>would--if it's good, it's to his credit; if it's bad, it's not his fault.

Bad point. In fact, if you'll remember, when the economy was in REALLY
bad shape, Carter and a democratic administration were in office.
Reagan's campaign platform was mainly based on the ecomomic situation
and how his administration was going to change it. Democrats claimed no
way was it going to work. Nevertheless he was elected to office. Now, you
clearly state above that Reagan denied taking responsibility for 
Carter's economic situation four years ago. There is nothing wrong with this
and I don't see what you are complaining about. Now, four years later, after
implementing the policies he promised, the economic situation has greatly 
improved. Why shouldn't his administration take credit for it? He's 
responsible for it. We're talking reality here. Not politicking(sp?).

Robert