ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/25/84)
-- I'm neither fuzzy-headed nor a liberal, but I am voting for Mondale. >> 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. No, he promised to raise taxes, not necessarily personal income 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. So what? If the Federal deficit keeps up the way it's going, we'll all be paying what amounts to higher taxes anyway in higher interest rates and their economic effects. >> Under Mondale we will go back to a "punching bag" for a foreign policy. As opposed to the great macho victories scored by the Senile One in Lebanon. >> 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. What've you been smoking? Iran under the Shah and Salvador under Duarte were/are brutally repressive. I thought the US of A stood for democracy and good stuff like that. So why don't we ever support the good guys? In Salvador, the fascist military is losing in spite of the lavish aid we're all paying for. And they'll continue to lose until Ronnie decides to bomb the place into a parking lot. Makes you feel proud, don't it? >> Ronald Reagan is a strong president. Walter Mondale would be a "whimp". That's "wimp". But Ronnie is so weak, so out-of-control, his staff runs the country for him. Heck, he can't even emit a coherent sentence unless it's written down for him. That's why he's so unaffected by the numerous scandals committed by various buffoons in his cabinet. Anyone really in charge would be at least a tad embarrassed. Read the NY Times Magazine of 10/14 about how carefully staged all his appearances are. Oh, sorry, I forgot, the "liberal media"... >> Mondale would cave in to pressure from Tip O'Neal, Jimmy C. and >> the Soviets. As opposed to the Senile One, who's a mouthpiece for the New Right. Or whoever's feeding the TelePromTer (tm) this week. >> 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). Hey--really--stop smoking that stuff. How is the threat of nuclear war less when we and the Russians have got so many more nuclear weapons? Communism stopped? Where? So you think you're better off? Well, when you're ready to make that first big payment on your new yacht, I hope there's someplace you can sail it to without getting spat on. Then again, I hope there's someplace you can sail it to period. As for the $50, you're selling out the environment and the Bill of Rights mighty cheap. Me cry about higher taxes? Nope. What the Senile One is saving me just gets passed on to the ACLU. Can't help it, I jes' *LOVES* them rights. Face it, a vote for the Senile One is, when you get right down to it, a vote not for strength but for *INTOLERANCE*. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 24 Oct 84 [3 Brumaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
roy@eisx.UUCP (Steve Rojak) (11/02/84)
In 1964, Goldwater took an unpopular stand when he came out in favor of US involvement in Viet Nam. LBJ promised that we would never send troops. Goldwater was trounced in the election; we got the war anyhow. In 1984, Mondale took an unpopular stand when he came out in favor of ... eisx!roy
slf@teddy.UUCP (Scott Fisher) (11/03/84)
> Fuzzy headed liberal? What does the phrase "war-mongering redneck" mean > to you? > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz > Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are 2 major considerations in the political race: 1:war Mondale would have us make some sort of an agreement with the Soviets to limit production of nukes. They have proven they can't be trusted by playing around with chemical warfare stuff which is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. They probably feel they can't trust us to keep to such an agreement either so both sides will make polite noises at each other and either we will both keep making more weapons or we will diminish our supply while they build up theirs. Not a very good idea. While a nuclear war is not survivable, a laser war is. Mondale wants no part of the "star war's" weapons which are the only alternative to nukes. Of course the survivability depends on building up enough of these laser weapons so that we can get rid of our nukes which would be the prime targets for the Soviet's lasers. Personaly, I would rather have killer satellites destroying each other rather than nukes destroying each other. A side point to disarmament is the economy. Where do you think we get these weapons? Do you think we buy them from the U.S.S.R. or Japan? The answer is they are made right here in the U.S.A.. Building up of weapons builds the economy. More demand for weapons means more jobs, less people on the unemployment line, and more people with money to spend. 2:economy By raising taxes people have less money to spend. When people have less money to spend they tend to hoard it rather than spending it. This hurts businesses. When business is bad the gross national product goes down. The deficit is dependent on the GNP so guess what? Mondale just made it worse by his solution! Conclusion There is no stopping the arms race. As long as the Soviets know that when they push their button uncountable missiles will be sent to their country I don't believe they will push it. Deterance is the only answer. Scott Fisher
bruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) (11/04/84)
In article <837@teddy.UUCP> slf@teddy.UUCP (Scott Fisher) writes: > Mondale would have us make some sort of an agreement with the > Soviets to limit production of nukes. Shocking. :-) > A side point to disarmament is the economy. Where do you > think we get these weapons? Do you think we buy them from the > U.S.S.R. or Japan? The answer is they are made right here in the > U.S.A.. Building up of weapons builds the economy. More > demand for weapons means more jobs, less people on the unemployment > line, and more people with money to spend. And from where, pray tell, do you think these people derive their income? The money goes from one segment of the population to another. There is no more money, or, more accurately, there is no additional comsumable product, so how does it improve the economy? On the other hand, if you left the money in the private sector where it would be creating demand for consumables, it would result in higher employment and production of goods which contribute to the standard of living. The marginal utility derived (by me, anyway) from additional warheads is quite low. -- --Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA ihnp4!godot!bruce, bjn@mit-mc.arpa ... soon to be bruce@godot.arpa!
chenr@tilt.FUN (The 1200 baud hacker) (11/06/84)
> 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. HAH! That's the line that Reagan has been feeding you. I'm sure he'd be very happy to find out that you (and others) believe him. Let's rephrase the above quote. Reagan had the good fortune to be in office in a time when there were no major supply- side shocks. There were no major problems with the food supply (happened in 1979, I believe), nor were there any oil shortages (happened more times than I can count). People, there are TWO ways to cause inflation. The first is to increase the amount of money in circulation without having the economy expand along with it, thus decreasing the value of the money. That's "demand-fueled" inflation. The other way is to have the effective value of the money in circulation go down due to a shortage of some important good, causing a rise in the price of the good. This has the same net effect, the purchasing power of the money goes down. Reagan also had the fortune to be in office when Volker's anti-inflation policies finally began having some effect. The only thing that Reagan has done is to apply the traditional Keynesian/"demand-management" economic method of stimulating an economy out of a recession. It worked in WWII, it worked after WWII, it worked in 1963, and it worked in 1983. Stimulate consumption by increasing government spending and holding government taxes down. There's only one problem with that method. Unless used very carefully, it can lead to run-away inflation. Sorry, gents. The deficit won't magically go away and if government spending stays at the current level, the recovery we're having now is going to get wiped out by a very nasty bout with inflation. (And you don't want to know what the cure to that is. Volker and Carter put us through it in the mid-to-late '70s and it isn't pleasant.) Cheerio, Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr