Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk
From: mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Social Programs Cause the Deficit
Message-ID: <134@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 11:09:50 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.134
Posted: Tue Apr 16 11:09:50 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 05:12:30 EST
References: <121@ttrdc.UUCP>, <1340018@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Teletype Corp., Skokie, IL
Lines: 47


 >From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
 >I may not be a "f*ckig genius," but it seems to me that the deficit is not
 >the problem.  Remember that the deficit is not a real quantity but the
 >difference between two real quantities, revenues and spending.  Thus,
 >either revenues (taxes, etc.) are too low, spending is too high, or taxes
 >are too low and spending is too high.  Note, it may be that spending
 >and taxes are both too high (spending being much more so), or that both
 >spending and taxes are too low (taxes being much more so).
 >

Ah, but Ronald Reagan ran for the Presidency of this country with three
promises: he was going to reduce taxes, increase military spending and
lower the deficit.  When asked how he could do that without using drugs,
he pulled out the already-discredited theory of some California economist.

The point is the theory didn't work.  He did reduce taxes -- for some.  He
did increase military spending -- enormously.  But he didn't reduce the
deficit.  In fact, he has, in four years, run up a higher debt than that
of all previous Presidents *combined*.  

He is undoubtedly the luckiest President since Dwight Eisenhower.  Massive
foreign investment has funded his deficit spending, and so far, the bubble
hasn't burst.  But when it does, he will go down in history as another
Herbert Hoover.  


 >Whether or not social security benefits some people or not is beside the
 >point.  What you must consider is if we'd be better off if people pro-
 >vided for their old age themselves, through savings, counting on their
 >children or whatever.
 >
 >I went to private primary and secondary schools  ...
 >I currently attend graduate school and receive no federal aid ...

Well, congratulations on being born into a family wealthy enough to
pay for all that.  That certainly was smart of you!  But, tell me,
what does NYU cost per year now, and how many students are attending 
without any financial aid?  And I believe that for most people, if they
did not directly benefit from the programs of the New Deal, their parents
or grandparents did, and that contributed to the priviledged position they
are in now.  Ronald Reagan, by the way, is an example of this; his father
held a WPA job during the 30s.

Mike Kelly