rfs@loral.UUCP () (10/20/84)
You 'fuzzy' headed liberals must always have your head in the sand. How could one even think of voting for Mondale. Mondale has promised to raise your income tax. This means less money in your pay check and less in mine. His answer to all problems is to raise income taxes. Do you realize that between federal, state, county and city taxes the average wage earner in this country pays 42% if his gross income to a government agency in taxes. Thats not counting property taxes, sales tax and various licenses (taxes). Every governing entity in this country has its hand out demanding a tax. If Mondale is elected he will raise taxes. He has pledged to reduce the deficit with the extra revenues. What if the deficit does not go down. Mondale will probably raise taxes even higher. Under Mondale we will go back to a "punching bag" for a foreign policy. Under the Carter/Mondale administration the president of the United States was negotiating with the student terrorists in Iran. RONALD REAGAN freed the american hostages held in Iran the day he took office. Iran knew it could "punch" the Carter/Mondale administration around but not Ronald Reagan so they let the hostages go the day (the hour) Reagan took over. The Carter/Mondale administration 'let' two of our allies get over thrown by hostile governments. Because of this the U.S. has had nothing but trouble from Iran and Nicaragwa. Carter/Mondale almost let El Salvador get over taken by communist rebels. Ronald Reagan has stopped this trend. Ronald Reagan is a strong president. Walter Mondale would be a "whimp". Mondale would cave in to pressure from Tip O'Neal, Jimmy C. and the Soviets. In summary, Under Reagan I am better off than I was four years ago. I'm taking home $50 more each week in my pay check because of Reagan's TAX CUTS! America is much better off than it was four years ago. We are stronger. The threat of nuclear war is less because of our strength and the spread of communism has stopped. You 'fuzzy' headed liberals will be the first to CRY when your pay check is reduced because of Mondale's tax increase(s).
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (10/23/84)
(Sometimes I think this newsgroup is proof that *anyone* can learn to use UNIX) >Ronald Reagan is a strong president. I guess you can't tell the difference between an actor and a role. Don't worry, you're in good company. President Reagan believes that John Wayne was a Great American Hero, after seeing all those war movies. >In summary, Under Reagan I am better off than I was four years ago. I'm taking >home $50 more each week in my pay check because of Reagan's TAX CUTS! > You 'fuzzy' headed liberals will be thefirst to CRY when your pay check is > reduced because of Mondale's tax increase(s). I do not evaluate my life in dollar terms. I saved thousands of dollars in taxes last year due to President Reagan. I took the money, but I would honestly rather have kept the EPA, the Interior Department, and the National Endowment for the Humanities intact and have lower worldwide interest rates. Mr. Reagan will probably be re-elected. You 'greedy' headed conservatives will be the first to SQUEAL when your purchasing power is reduced because of Mr. Reagan's VAT. Baba
mrh@aluxz.UUCP (HUDOCK) (10/23/84)
> You 'fuzzy' headed liberals must always have your head in the sand. > How could one even think of voting for Mondale. Mondale has promised > to raise your income tax. This means less money in your pay check and > less in mine. His answer to all problems is to raise income taxes. > > Do you realize that between federal, state, county and city taxes the > average wage earner in this country pays 42% if his gross income to > a government agency in taxes. Thats not counting property taxes, sales > tax and various licenses (taxes). Every governing entity in this country > has its hand out demanding a tax. > > If Mondale is elected he will raise taxes. He has pledged to reduce the > deficit with the extra revenues. What if the deficit does not go down. > Mondale will probably raise taxes even higher. > > Under Mondale we will go back to a "punching bag" for a foreign policy. > Under the Carter/Mondale administration the president of the United States > was negotiating with the student terrorists in Iran. RONALD REAGAN freed the > american hostages held in Iran the day he took office. Iran knew it could > "punch" the Carter/Mondale administration around but not Ronald Reagan so > they let the hostages go the day (the hour) Reagan took over. > > The Carter/Mondale administration 'let' two of our allies get over thrown by > hostile governments. Because of this the U.S. has had nothing but trouble > from Iran and Nicaragwa. Carter/Mondale almost let El Salvador get over taken > by communist rebels. Ronald Reagan has stopped this trend. > > Ronald Reagan is a strong president. Walter Mondale would be a "whimp". > Mondale would cave in to pressure from Tip O'Neal, Jimmy C. and the Soviets. > > In summary, Under Reagan I am better off than I was four years ago. I'm taking > home $50 more each week in my pay check because of Reagan's TAX CUTS! America > is much better off than it was four years ago. We are stronger. The threat > of nuclear war is less because of our strength and the spread of communism has > stopped. > > You 'fuzzy' headed liberals will be the first to CRY when your pay check is > reduced because of Mondale's tax increase(s). ONE OF THE FEW ARTICLES ON THIS NET WORTH READING.
grunwald@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/24/84)
Besides not being able to spell "wimp", there are several errors in your critique of Mondale. While Reagan lowered federal taxes, he has not dramatically reduced spending while maintaining the same programs. This is the true measure of someone who saves you money. While he has not raised federal taxes, I know that my state taxes increased last year, largely to offset shortages due to reduced federal grants. Additionally, the deficit spending is not smoke -- it does not dissipate of its own accord. It must still be accounted for, either now or in the future. At some point, a dramatic reduction in your paycheck will happen because of the loans you (and the rest of america) took out these four years. At that time, the chunk will be larger than it would have been if the money had been deducted now, as interest will need to be added in. Is that a true savings? It seems to me that Reagan will probably raise taxes, most likely through some regressive scheme such as the V.A.T.
sofo@ihuxm.UUCP (Terry Bermes) (10/24/84)
First of all, get off of the damn name calling(fuzzy headed liberals).! Why
is it that when someone disagrees with you you have to resort to this sort
of thing? I understand that your position is very shaky and maybe this is
the best you can do.
Ronald Reagan did not free the hostages in Iran anymore than Jesse Jackson
freed the pilot from Syria. These were both instances of opposing governments
jumping on the opportunity to embarass the current U. S. administration.
At least with his tax hike, Mondale is making an attempt to do something
to reduce the deficit. Reagan thinks that if we all just close our eyes
and wish it away the deficit will disappear. Maybe that's why it is called
"voodoo economics". I find it interesting that once he was given a place on
the ticket, George Bush suddenly saw the "light" in regard to Ron's
economic policies. This is the same man who so strongly opposed these same
policies during the primaries. Speaking out of both sides of the mouth?
> Under Mondale we will go back to a "punching bag" foreign policy.
Our current President has not made us a punching bag but rather has
made us a bull's-eye. This is evident in the barracks bombing in Lebanon and
the various embassy attacks we have seen. Under Reagan's "peace through strength" policies, we certainly have shown the world that they can't mess with us!
Your point about our overthrown allies is also invalid. Those wonderful leaders
such as the Shah of Iran and Marcos in the Phillipines are the types of leaders
that we should not be backing. When the U. S. backs a repressive government, the people of that nation have no recourse but to seek help wherever they can find
it.
Judging from the emphasis of your statements, I'd have to say the bottom line
for you is your wallet. This is a shallow and selfish attitude. There are many
important issues here. Reagan has an abominable record on the environment, education, human rights, deficit spending, cities etc. Don't make this a single
issue election.
Terry Bermesbwm@ccice2.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller) (10/24/84)
> You 'fuzzy' headed liberals must always have your head in the sand. > How could one even think of voting for Mondale. Mondale has promised > to raise your income tax. This means less money in your pay check and > less in mine. His answer to all problems is to raise income taxes. > We should install a new device in voting machines: As you press the lever for Mondale, a hand can pick your pocket! Brad Miller -- ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/25/84)
I am not voting for reagan because of my pocketbook. I do so because I feel he will be able to keep the peace far better than a cowering mondale. I do so because he is fighting to stop the american genocide murdering 1.5M defenseless babies a year (the nazi's only killed 6M jews, we have them beat hands down). I vote for him because he is percieved as being strong abroad, esp. in the USSR. How many countries have fallen to to communism during this administration? Answer: -1 (greneda). I do it because he will install supreme court justices who will not try to legislate, and will move for more common sense in our nonsensical legal system. I am darned good at doing what I do, and I'd be well off during a mondale administration too, but if we all get burned up in a nuclear war, all that money wont do a bit of good. This president stands for a merit oriented employment policy, not one that discrimates on the basis of race or sex (Affirmative Action isnt colorblind). Reagan is fair. Reagan believes the Fed. Govt. has few true duties. The support for the Nat. End. for the Arts isnt one of them. I am voting for Reagan for a lot of reasons. And a lot of people feel the same way I do, tho the may not be engineers.... Milo
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/25/84)
>You 'fuzzy' headed liberals must always have your head in the sand. >How could one even think of voting for Mondale. Mondale has promised >to raise your income tax. This means less money in your pay check and >less in mine. His answer to all problems is to raise income taxes. I got news for you. Reagan's going to raise taxes, too. The question is: do you raise income taxes or create a value added tax (a sales tax with extra paper work)? If you believe that the deficit is going to be reduced without raising taxes, then, my friend, you must be the one with the head in the sand. >If Mondale is elected he will raise taxes. He has pledged to reduce the >deficit with the extra revenues. What if the deficit does not go down. >Mondale will probably raise taxes even higher. It's either higher taxes or reduced spending. Since Reagan will not seek cuts in areas acceptable to most Americans, he, too, will choose the taxing route. Cutting taxes raised deficits, so it would be incredibly perverse for raising them to have the same effect... >Under Mondale we will go back to a "punching bag" for a foreign policy. >Under the Carter/Mondale administration the president of the United States >was negotiating with the student terrorists in Iran. RONALD REAGAN freed the >american hostages held in Iran the day he took office. Iran knew it could >"punch" the Carter/Mondale administration around but not Ronald Reagan so >they let the hostages go the day (the hour) Reagan took over. Sure you can argue that Carter was too easy on the Iranians, but not if you're supporting Reagan. Iranian sponsored and supplied terrorist organizations have bombed US installations in Lebanon three times, with three hundred Americans killed in the process. Reagan has done nothing, and I don't think anything he's said has cowed the Ayatollah into submission. At least Carter tried (though failed) to correct the situation (desert disaster in Iran on rescue mission); Reagan is so paralyzed that he has not even tried, and could not even erect a gate or dig a ditch in the year between the second and third bombings. Yes, Carter refused to risk the lives of the hostages of Iran, but that is not craven; refusing to fight back after the murder of the Marines is. Maybe the failure of the rescue mission reflects poorly on the Carter administration, but if Carter's inability to stage a complex, risky rescue mission indicates lack of competence, what does Reagan's failure to erect a gate or dig a ditch in the year between the second and third bombings in Beirut indicate? As for the timing of the hostage release, as Iran is obviously not intimidated by Reagan, it would be more logical to assume it was to spite Carter. Or perhaps they realized that Reagan was far less likely to retaliate (as action is not the thing Reagan is concerned with), so it may have been safer to hold onto the hostages until Carter no longer was in office. >The Carter/Mondale administration 'let' two of our allies get over thrown by >hostile governments. Because of this the U.S. has had nothing but trouble >from Iran and Nicaragwa. Carter/Mondale almost let El Salvador get over taken >by communist rebels. Ronald Reagan has stopped this trend. Somoza and the Shah got what was coming to them. Whether or not we prefer their successors, we had no choice in either case, as we cannot keep in power a leader universally detested by all whom he rules. What would Reagan have done? I'll tell you: he would have reacted in the same way he did to the disasters in Lebanon: with bluster (just as he does now). As for El Salvador, it seems to me that Reagan is only continuing Carter policy, favoring the centrists in the government and providing aid to the government while encouraging negotiations. Here, at least, the Reagan administration has shown some sense. >In summary, Under Reagan I am better off than I was four years ago. I'm taking >home $50 more each week in my pay check because of Reagan's TAX CUTS! America >is much better off than it was four years ago. We are stronger. The threat >of nuclear war is less because of our strength and the spread of communism has >stopped. And where do you think that money's coming from? It is being borrowed by the government in order to pay its expenses. You're not getting an extra 50$ a week: you're borrowing that money (at market interest rates) until such time as the deficit becomes so unmanagable that your taxes are raised sufficiently to pay it back. Sure, you're better off today, but you're going to pay for it tomorrow. The fiscal hangover from this binge is going to be terrible to behold. >You 'fuzzy' headed liberals will be the first to CRY when your pay check is >reduced because of Mondale's tax increase(s). If you think that it's NOT going to be reduced in a second Reagan term, I've got some land in Florida you may be interested in ... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) (10/25/84)
The original article by rfs, while it concluded in a manner equivalent to
my thinking ( i.e. Reagan/Bush a superior ticket to Mondale/Ferraro ), made
some statements that I doubt even Reagan would want to be associated with.
While I think Carter's handling of the Tehran embassy situation pretty bad,
I think that Reagan would not claim that he was instrumental in releasing the
hostages. Reagan, in consultation with the Carter administration, made it
clear to the Iranian government that it would be in their best interest to
negotiate with the Carter administration before he took office as all bets
would be off so to speak. The Iranian government believed this and arranged the
hostages release. The Iranian government then deliberately slowed the process
so that the hostages would be released moments after Reagan took office to
embarrass Carter. Reagan then asked Carter to meet the hostages when they
arrived because he rightly concluded that the Iranian's attempt to embarrass
Carter should not be supported.
More interesting to the election at hand is that when Lt. Col. Charles
Beckwith ( the commander of the aborted raid to free the hostages ) arrived
at the White House prior to the raid to brief them on it he found the
President and his advisors in jeans and tennis togs. Even more surprising to
him was the fact that Mondale paid no attention whatsoever and in fact spent
the whole briefing fiddling enraptured with a pair of handcuffs he had found
somewhere. Beckwith came away with a quite disappointed view of the
professionalism of the While House staff and occupants.
--
Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916
TTI Zone V4 aka Buskirk the Valerian
3100 Ocean Park Blvd Death to Tyrants !
Santa Monica, CA 90405
UUCP: ..!ucbvax!ihnp4!vortex!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb
or {cadovax,flick,philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex,wtux2}!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb
or ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb@RAND-UNIX.ARPAdavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/26/84)
I just want to respond to a few of Milo's reasons for supporting Reagan: >I vote for him because he is percieved as being strong abroad, >esp. in the USSR. This is a statement of faith, not fact, as there is no emprical evidence that the Soviet Union has modified its behavior due to Reagan being in office. And why should they? Reagan is scrupulous about taking no action against them while he exhorts our allies to. Any rational Soviet leader has long ago dismissed him as all talk... >..............................How many countries have fallen to >to communism during this administration? Answer: -1 (greneda). The Reagan administration claimed it intervened in Greneda in order to (1) preserve the security of the Caribbean and (2) to safeguard American medical students. The only substantive support for the first that was provided was the description of the new airstrip (which the Cubans were building with Western European financial backing) as being primarily for military purposes. Reagan had dismissed the claim of the Bishop government that the airstrip was necessary to accomadate tourist traffic as "absurd", yet is now helping finish the strip in order to -- get this -- promote tourism. As for the students, I would not question protecting their safety, but I have yet to have heard anything even suggesting they really were in danger. Listen to the students themselves. They talk of being cut off from the outside world, and of having observed armed Cubans near campus. Reason enough for worry and even fear on the part of the students, but they were never threatened and the Reagan administration has not seen fit to explain why it believed they were. Sure, being on an island cut off from the US while a violent coup is underway is damn scary, but there is a difference between being scared and being in danger. >I do it because he will install supreme court justices who will >not try to legislate, and will move for more common sense >in our nonsensical legal system. I have no trouble understanding our legal system, and I don't see why so many prosecutors and police departments are so anxious to expand their powers rather than perform their jobs correctly. As far as the courts "legislating", this is a charge made by those who resent the courts from restraining legislative perogative, but that's what they're SUPPOSED to do. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/27/84)
=================
I am voting for Reagan
for a lot of reasons. And a lot of people feel the same way
I do, tho the may not be engineers....
Milo
=================
An a lot of peepul dont, tho the may be edookated, to.
Not ohnly engineers think, yu no.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtmedin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/29/84)
If there's some doubt as to what was going on in Greneda, there is a book coming out showing captured govt documents. Its done by a professors here at Berkeley, one of which I have taken several classes from and talk to quite often. Its called 'The greneda papers', and one of the authors is Paul Seabury. Its coming out soon. There is little editorializing, just photocopies of documents. If you dont think a communist coup was going on, read the book. Even the 'wimp' has changed his mind on greneda after seeing previously classified data. I'm sure you will too. Its very blatent. No matter what Ferraro thinks. Milo
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/29/84)
Beckwith is not a disinterested observer of White House behavior. As I recall, he came under much criticism for his slavish devotion to the letter of the plan, some of it from the White House (who essentially remarked that they had thought that it was the INITIATIVE of the American officer corps which made it superior to the Soviet one). It was Beckwith who insisted the mission could not go on, and it is very much in his own interests to pass the blame on. Perhaps those criticisms were unfair, but either way, they provide him sufficient motive for portraying his superiors in the worst possible light. David Rubin
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (10/30/84)
In article <790@flairvax.UUCP> baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: >I do not evaluate my life in dollar terms. I saved thousands of dollars >in taxes last year due to President Reagan. I took the money, but I would >honestly rather have kept the EPA, the Interior Department, and the National >Endowment for the Humanities intact and have lower worldwide interest rates. Is the federal government the origin of our "humanity"? Is it our role to look to Washington for spiritual guidance? I think not. During Mr. Reagan's tenure, programs to improve the safety, cleanli- ness, and general usefulness of our national parks have been implemented. The attitudes that have risen against the Interior Department seem to be oriented around the "don't put it in my neighborhood" mentality; we want oil for our cars and homes, and wood for houses, but we don't want wells drilled or forests harvested for them. How do you propose to satisfy these markets? Some people believe that the one-third of the continental United States that already belongs to the federal government is not enough. I think it's too much, by far. >You 'greedy' headed conservatives >will be the first to SQUEAL when your purchasing power is reduced because >of Mr. Reagan's VAT. This is buying into the Mondale line. HE invented "Reagan's (whatever tax)", and it's nothing but a bogus campaign ploy. What about Mr. Mondale's taxes? Won't they reduce your purchasing power? He makes no bones about it - if he's elected, those taxes WILL HAPPEN, with the energetic support of T. P. O'Neill & Co. I don't need that, and neither do you. -- [ 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
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (10/31/84)
This is just a question, so drop that flame thrower! The conservatives out there claim that they want government out of people's lives (the Libertarians are another matter). But, it would appear that the legislation that many of them advocate would have the government control our lives more than ever. A few examples I've seen are: 1. creationism and prayer in public schools 2. abortion legally defined as murder 3. descrimination against homosexuals 4. 21 year old drinking age and vigorous drug enforcement I could go on but I think this shows what I am talking about. So, could someone out there (preferably semi-rational) explain to me this seemingly contradictory philosophy? And can they do it without using the "man is evil and that makes it necessary" argument? As Milo the Magnificent would say "FACTS! I WANT FACTS! NUMBERS! DATA! INPUT! COMPUTE!" and on, and on, and on................. (Public school system responsible for any spelling errors contained herein) errors contained herein) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/01/84)
(This is probably not worth the effort) >From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) >In article <790@flairvax.UUCP> baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: >>I do not evaluate my life in dollar terms. I saved thousands of dollars >>in taxes last year due to President Reagan. I took the money, but I would >>honestly rather have kept the EPA, the Interior Department, and the National >>Endowment for the Humanities intact and have lower worldwide interest rates. > > Is the federal government the origin of our "humanity"? Is it our role > to look to Washington for spiritual guidance? I think not. What are you talking about? Do you even know what the National Endowment for the Humanities *is*? Oh, well, you probably don't like books, art, music, or dance anyway. > During Mr. Reagan's tenure, programs to improve the safety, cleanli- >ness, and general usefulness of our national parks have been implemented. >The attitudes that have risen against the Interior Department seem to be >oriented around the "don't put it in my neighborhood" mentality; we want oil >for our cars and homes, and wood for houses, but we don't want wells drilled >or forests harvested for them. How do you propose to satisfy these markets? Markets are not savage tribal gods that must be fed, they are systems of interaction between people. The majority people of northern California are willing to pay more for fuel if that's what it takes to keep the coast intact. But again, you probably don't understand how anyone could value such a thing. >>You 'greedy' headed conservatives >>will be the first to SQUEAL when your purchasing power is reduced because >>of Mr. Reagan's VAT. > > This is buying into the Mondale line. HE invented "Reagan's (whatever >tax)", and it's nothing but a bogus campaign ploy. What about Mr. Mondale's >taxes? Won't they reduce your purchasing power? He makes no bones about it >- if he's elected, those taxes WILL HAPPEN, with the energetic support of T. >P. O'Neill & Co. I don't need that, and neither do you. I'm not getting the notion of a probable VAT from Mondale's rhetoric. It's simply that: 1) There is no possibility that economic expansion can produce enough revenue to cover the deficits. Ask anyone personally knowledgeable in economics or finance. 2) Mr. Reagan has publicly stated that a VAT is the sort of tax that he might find acceptable. 3) Throughout the campaign, Mr. Reagan has promised no new taxes ON INCOME. He used that qualifier consistently in the debates. 4) A VAT is a sales tax rather than an income tax. Baba
dave@garfield.UUCP (David Janes) (11/02/84)
| Article <569@loral.UUCP> by rfs@loral.UUCP | | Under Mondale we will go back to a "punching bag" for a foreign policy. | Under the Carter/Mondale administration the president of the | United States was negotiating with the student terrorists in Iran. | RONALD REAGAN freed the american hostages held in Iran the day he | took office. Iran knew it could "punch" the Carter/Mondale | administration around but not Ronald Reagan so they let the hostages | go the day (the hour) Reagan took over. Reminds me of a certain Doonsbury (sp?) cartoon: (two Iranians speaking to each other) 1: What's black, flat, 5 miles around, and glows in the dark? 2: Sounds like us 5 minutes after Reagan gets elected... However, the Iranians never released the hostages when they did because Ronald Regan was elected, rather, they did it to spite good ol' Jimmy. I tend to think that in 1980, the Iranians would have welcomed an attack by the US (the Great Satan) or at least they would have said so. Of course, if it ever happened they would change their minds fairly quickly. | Message-ID: <186@aluxz.UUCP> | From: mrh@aluxz.UUCP (HUDOCK) | | [a followup to this article] | [intire text of parent article deleted] | | ONE OF THE FEW ARTICLES ON THIS NET WORTH READING. unlike yours... dave (the Mercenary Programmer) ------- "Flames to /dev/console" David Janes "Come in, come out of the rain" Internet: dave@garfield.UUCP UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,utcsrgv}!garfield!dave
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/03/84)
In article <804@flairvax.UUCP> baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: >What are you talking about? Do you even know what the National Endowment >for the Humanities *is*? Yes. >Oh, well, you probably don't like books, art, music, or dance anyway. A bad call, Baba. I am very much an appreciator of the arts. (Take a moment to count the number of people you know who have purchased season tickets to the opera. I have.) I just happen to think that I should pay for such benefits at the box office, not in my tax bill. >Markets are not savage tribal gods that must be fed, they are systems of >interaction between people. The majority people of northern California are >willing to pay more for fuel if that's what it takes to keep the coast >intact. But again, you probably don't understand how anyone could value >such a thing. It just can't be so easily reduced, Baba. I place great value on clean air and water, unsullied landscapes, and natural beauty, and I spend much of my liesure time in such environments. You don't know me; please stop writ- ing as if you did, without data. The point is, if we as a society demand a product, we sometimes have to sacrifice something for it. For some, it means the spidery outlines of oil rigs on the horizon. For others, it means woodlands harvested as timber forests, or cleared to build communities. Naturally, there must be a bal- ance, preserving some land for parks and wilderness areas, concern for endangered wildlife and resources, etc. That doesn't bother me; I support it. What does is people who raise hell whenever anything is put to commer- cial use, and who raise the "profit-grubber" pejorative whenever it happens. The Reagan administration has done a much better job of this than is generally perceived. Those who seem to want a return to the romanticized images they carry of a pristine world free from the hand of man are unhappy unless some company or other is in the pillory every week. Forget it - that's emotion, not environmentalism. >There is no possibility that economic expansion can produce enough revenue >to cover the deficits. If the deficit is X, and total spending is reduced by X, the deficit goes away, right? I'm not necessarily suggesting that, but when the commerce-hampering effects of current spending levels are reduced, the defi- cit drops on two fronts: reduced expenditures themselves, and the improved tax base from lower burdens on commerce. Beyond that, when the private economy is vigorous, more people are working, government relief demand is lower, and that helps reduce deficits too. >Mr. Reagan has publicly stated that a VAT is the sort of tax that he might >find acceptable. If and ONLY if some tax becomes required. Check his speech - many things would have to happen, all of them extraordinary, before he'd consider such a thing. >A VAT is a sales tax rather than an income tax. Roughly. I'd like to see an end-user sales tax nationally - but only if the income tax system is entirely scrapped, and the sales tax replaces it. (A VAT is not quite a sales tax). -- [ 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
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (mophead) (11/03/84)
> This is just a question, so drop that flame thrower! > The conservatives out there claim that they want government > out of people's lives (the Libertarians are another matter). > But, it would appear that the legislation that many of them > advocate would have the government control our lives more than > ever. A few examples I've seen are: > 1. creationism and prayer in public schools > 2. abortion legally defined as murder > 3. descrimination against homosexuals > 4. 21 year old drinking age and vigorous drug enforcement > > I could go on but I think this shows what I am talking about. > So, could someone out there (preferably semi-rational) explain > to me this seemingly contradictory philosophy? And can they > do it without using the "man is evil and that makes it necessary" > argument? As Milo the Magnificent would say "FACTS! I WANT FACTS! > NUMBERS! DATA! INPUT! COMPUTE!" and on, and on, and on................. > > (Public school system responsible for any spelling errors contained herein) errors contained herein) > > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Rob, I think you have some of the issues confused. What most conservatives support are the following: 1. creationism of pumpkins with respect to public schools 2. abortion legally defined as not encompassing "shear killings" in prisons 3. (I assume you meant "discrimination") against all those who wear outlandish clothing 4. vigorous enforcement of mandatory drinking for all those over 21 TRUTH
robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) (11/08/84)
Zarcone posted an article with the above subject line questioning the fact that
persons, calling themselves conservative, were in fact advocating large gov't
control i.e. school prayer, anti-abortion laws, etc.
I must remind both Zarcone and Milo that the fundamentalists may call
themselves conservative but a lot of us conservatives aren't too pleased by
their alleged company.
I have considered myself "conservative" since long before it became popular.
I must say that I and a lot of non-fundamentalist conservatives do not favor
prayer in school legislation, anti-abortion legislation or any of the other
issues the d****d fundamentalists introduce to American politics. I in fact
resent any politicians I see courting their influence. I look forward to
taking the Republican party away from the direction they wish to take it.
I consider a conservative agenda to be:
* trimming the Federal budget
* Increased efficiency within the DoD budget as well as others
* Agressive, pro-democracy, pro-American interests, Anti-Soviet
foriegn policy.
* Decreased Federal ( and State ) regulation where feasible.
Gee, I didn't see God mentioned even once! Isn't that refreshing!
--
Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916
TTI Zone V4 aka Buskirk the Valerian
3100 Ocean Park Blvd Death to Tyrants !
Santa Monica, CA 90405
UUCP: ..!ucbvax!ihnp4!vortex!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb
or {cadovax,flick,philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex,wtux2}!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb
or ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb@RAND-UNIX.ARPA