Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Fuzzy headed liberal Message-ID: <610@loral.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Nov-84 14:53:36 EST Article-I.D.: loral.610 Posted: Sat Nov 3 14:53:36 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 5-Nov-84 20:57:38 EST References: <570@loral.UUCP> <924@opus.UUCP> Reply-To: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA Lines: 65 Summary: In article <924@opus.UUCP> rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes: >Seriously (barely), when are you thick-headed conservatives going to wake >up to the fact that if you spend more dollars than you got, you go into >debt? Arithmetic doesn't start working backwards when you go over a >billion, and dollars spent on defense don't count as income. >-- Well, looks like the name-calling has come full circle. Your head is either fuzzy, pointy or thick. The response to the above has been expressed before, but somehow missed by the writer. I'll repeat: The deficit is not caused by low taxes - it's caused by high spending! Period. Only. Solely. Nothing else. The approach of the past 50 years has been to spend other people's money to solve social programs. We've spend the money. Then spent more. And more. And more. And no solution yet. Look: 1. In 1966, when the "War on Poverty" began, there were 28.5 million poor, representing 14.7% of the population. 2. Since then, we have spent half-a-trillion dollars on "poverty". The benefit from that spending: in 1982 there were 34.4 billion poor, or 15% of the population. Allowing that some of these were so because of the then-current recession, the results are about even. In simple terms, FIVE-HUNDRED-BILLIONS of the dollars that you and I earned at our chosen professions were taken from us to help the poor. If that had worked, fine. The actual, empirical results of that spending: NOTHING! ZIP! ZILCH! It's as if it had never been spent. We got poorer; the poor stayed poor. Any wonder I meekly suggest we stop doing what we've been doing? And that Ronald Reagan is not selfish and heartless for concluding similarly? The fact is: no amount of government activity will ever cure poverty. There are legitimate areas of involvement, but not where it has been involved. Time to look at the facts and stop doing what looks good, and start doing what works. And, on the whole, Reagan's approaches have worked: 1. Who were the worst victims of inflation? The elderly poor on fixed incomes. Reagan's is the first administration to implement policies that helped reduce inflation by nearly two-thirds in decades. That's a win. 2. Deficits are high. They are also applying anti-spending pressure on the profligates in Congress. Maybe, just maybe, they'll get the truth: THEY are the engineers of the deficit; not Reagan. 3. Unemployment, while not better than when Reagan took office is neither any worse. And it is trending favorably. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard