Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan and arms reductions: re to Albrecht
Message-ID: <576@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 10:18:49 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.576
Posted: Mon Mar 10 10:18:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 05:21:43 EST
References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 43

> 
> >As for Reagan being a pathological liar, one can simply circle
> >just about every statement in his latest stump for more funds for
> >the arms race.  Besides innumerable distortions, the most crass
> >and blatant lie was Reagan's statement that his defense budget
> >proposal involved a mere 3% increase.  In fact, his defense budget
> >contains a 12% increase which remains at an 8% increase after
> >adjusting for inflation.  The New York Times previously had an
> >editorial castigating Caspar Weinberger for precisely this lie -
> >I cannot believe that White House staffers could be unaware of
> >that editorial in the newspaper of record.  Yet Reagan repeated
> >it and will continue to repeat it until people believe it.
> 
> Imagine, someone actually _disagrees_ with the NY TIMES view of things.
> Obviously very sick.  I believe the idea is that the current request
> is supposed to be 3% more than what Reagan wanted last year. He is
> just trying to get back what Congress took away last year.  Perhaps
> this is not entirely clear, but it is within the normal bounds of
> political rhetoric in the US.  It is not pathological lying.
> 

1)Congress did not take money away from Defense last year - what they
  did was to cut an exorbitant *increase* in funds for war preparations.
 
2)It is common practice when talking about percentage increases to compare
  to the previous year's actual expenditures, income or whatever is 
  being compared.  Reagan never talks about a mere small percentage
  increase in welfare spending on the basis of planned funds.  Why should
  he do so when talking about the Pentagon?  Moreover if one is going to
  accept such logic then what's to prevent planning a 200% increase the
  previous year and when such a ludicrous waste of funds is defeated then
  claiming a 50% increase the next year is *actually a reduction*?
  Or why not claim that a 10% reduction in student financial aid is
  *actually* an *increase* since the previous year one planned on
  decreasing student aid by 50%?  Such playing with figures then
  becomes a ludicrous game of making up whatever figures you want.
  This is *why* it is common practice to talk about percentage changes
  based upon the previous year's *actual* figures.  While many politicians
  jumble up categories and often fail to adjust for inflation they
  almost never make up figures as Reagan and Weinberger have done.
  Such a ploy is outright deception and woefully wrong.
 
         tim sevener   whuxn!orb