Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ccieng2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk
From: kfk@ccieng2.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Ronnie, Ronnie, he's our man.
Message-ID: <109@ccieng2.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 17:10:15 EST
Article-I.D.: ccieng2.109
Posted: Wed Feb  8 17:10:15 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 03:24:31 EST
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY
Lines: 52

----------
	From uiuccsb!grunwald Sun Feb  5 22:30:33 1984
	Subject: Re: Re:  Ronnie, Ronnie, he's our man. - (nf)

 	> I really do wonder at people who look at todays's economy as good.
 	> We've been down so far that anywhere up looks to be the top of the
 	> mountain.

	Nobody said it was the top of the mountain, but better is better, that's all.
	/* ---------- */

	America is the only place where we applaud when someone digs a hole, falls in,
	climbs halfway out and says "Look at the great thing I've done."
----------
Now just hold on a second...

I was just remembering something I heard around the time when the unemploy-
ment situation was getting particularly nasty.  Some broadcaster (national
news, but I have no idea at this point which network) brought up the point
that, when Reagan was running for office, he said repeatedly that things
were going to get worse before they got better.  I believe they had 32 docu-
mented instances of Reagan saying this during his campaign speeches.  Frankly,
folks, if you didn't like what he was going to do, you shouldn't have voted
for him.  By and large, it seems evident that a lot of people *did* vote for
him, so they seem to have missed this very important point completely.

I think it's perfectly obvious that things got worse before they got better,
just as he claimed.  Reagan didn't dig the hole, he just fell the rest of
the way to the bottom.  We *are* climbing out.  Inflation is *way* down,
and unemployment is also coming down (finally).

(I feel perfectly justified in saying that about unemployment: I used to
work for Storage Technology until the bottom fell out of their stock.  I
am a victim of the unemployment problem, and the fact that this particular
problem got out of hand still doesn't bother me.)

The one thing that worries me a lot at this point is the deficit.  That's
the one truly important thing which I resent Reagan not having fixed.  Why
can't we just make it really simple and disgustingly blunt?  Don't sign
any budget until it's balanced!  Argue over the fractions of the budget
that each program will get (defense gets 35%, social welfare programs get
20%, and so on), and then just use as many dollars as there are available.
Why is that so tough?  Sigh.

Of course, everyone's favorite program is going to get hurt, including
defense (which I think could *afford* to get hurt some).  But at least
we'd have a bona fide balanced budget.  Why won't somebody do this?
Specifically, why won't Reagan?  Yes, I voted for him, but I do have
problems with him.
-- 
Karl Kleinpaste
...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk