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