simard@loral.UUCP (Dramis Yar) (08/14/84)
[]
I've been hearing (like everyone) a constant stream of calls
to reduce the federal deficit by cutting the defense budget.
If you agree, I'd like to hear (well, read)
specifically what you'd like to see cut from defense. All I ask is
the following:
1. For this discussion, orient choices from an economic viewpoint.
While there is plenty of room for discussion of which military
projects are more valuable militarily, these should be deficit-
cutting approaches.
2. Be as general or specific as you like, however, if possible
mention specific areas of military spending, e.g. a certain
procurement program, weapons system, etc.
3. IMPORTANT: Unless requested by the author, responses may be
excerpted and included in future postings to the net. If you
want your response to be totally private, please indicate so.
4. Remember, the idea is to support or refute the idea that significant
reduction of our $170+ billion deficit can be made by cutting
defense spending. To be most useful, your suggestions should add
up to a major amount in relation to this figure.
------- Respond by e-mail and when time or response level is
appropriate, I will summarize the results. The tablulation
of responses will be strictly by the numbers; any personal
editorializing on my part will be separately posted.
Note: only mailed responses will be tabulated.
Reminder: responses may be exceerpted and posted unless otherwise
requested by the respondent.
Thanks in advance for participating!
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simardsimard@loral.UUCP (Dramis Yar) (08/14/84)
[Repondez, s'il-vous-plait]
I've been hearing (like everyone) calls
to reduce the federal deficit by cutting the defense budget.
If you agree, I'd like to hear (well, read) specifically what
you'd like to see cut from defense, to be tabulated and summarized
to this newsgroup. All I ask is the following:
1. For this discussion, orient choices from an economic viewpoint.
While there is plenty of room for discussion of which military
projects are more valuable militarily, this time, these should
be deficit-cutting approaches.
2. Be as general or specific as you like, however, if possible
mention specific areas of military spending, e.g. a certain
procurement program, weapons system, etc.
3. IMPORTANT: Unless requested by the author, responses may be
excerpted and included in future postings to the net. If you
want your response to be totally private, please indicate so.
4. Include (if you wish) some personal data: age, political party
if any, if you consider yourself conservative, liberal, or
whatever, who you would vote for for president if the election
were held today, anything else you find you'd like to include.
5. Remember, the idea is to support or refute the idea that significant
reduction of our $170+ billion deficit can be made by cutting
defense spending. To be most useful, your suggestions should add
up to a major amount in relation to this figure.
------- Respond by e-mail and when time or response level is
appropriate, I will summarize the results. The tablulation
of responses will be strictly by the numbers; any personal
editorializing on my part will be separately posted.
Note: only mailed responses will be tabulated.
Reminder: responses may be exceerpted and posted unless otherwise
requested by the respondent.
Thanks in advance for participating!
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simarddavid@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (08/15/84)
---------- >1. For this discussion, orient choices from an economic viewpoint. > While there is plenty of room for discussion of which military > projects are more valuable militarily, these should be deficit- > cutting approaches. I gotta say, this is one of the *sillier* things I've ever seen on the net...and there have been some dillies in the past... Using this approach one can advocate cutting a random $170-billion from the defense budget and thereby completely balance the Federal books without cutting social programs (heaven forbid!) or (gasp!) raising taxes (heaven AND hell forbid!!)...ignoring, or even subordinating, the military value of defense programs to economic concerns is a prescription for disaster...whenever I read something like this I'm reminded of Calvin Cooldige's remark when informed that the Army wanted an extra $100K or so to buy airplanes: "Let's just buy one and let them take turns flying it." Even I, militarist fascist that I am, could name several defense projects which could be harmlessly deleted from the Pentagon's wish-list...but careful consideration of the operational value of any proposed expenditure is and should remain the first and foremost concern in any discussion of defense budgeting. Economics is just a side issue. As for Reagan's comment about bombing Russia, while I too find such remarks inappropriate, it has prompted (as usual) such virulent Reagan- bashing on this net that I feel obliged to respond. Reagan referred to "Russia" instead of "the Soviet Union" not because he (paraphrasing) "doesn't see any difference between the people and their government" but because he was speaking off the cuff; most people informally call the USSR Russia. Why do some insist on drawing deeply profound effects from the most obvious of causes? Perhaps you would have preferred "the evil empire"??? C'mon, folks, let's try to be fair (isn't that what "liberals" are always screaming for? "Fairness?") and not let sophomoric ideology get in the way of assessing the real dangers we face....Reagan is a threat NOT because he's a "trigger-happy cowboy with his finger on the button," since a major nuclear conflict is about the most unlikely eventuality this side of a Martian lighting in your bathtub but because he's intent on undoing a half-century of social change which has, at least marginally, made this country a better place to live. Nuclear holocaust is a chimera, a dark fantasy, an issue drummed up by those who have nothing real to worry about, and it will remain so as long as the Helen Caldicotts of the world are prevented from having their dangerous way... the real problems we face are hunger and injustice, both here and globally. Unfortunately, these are not difficulties amenable to solution through reflexive ideology or rhetoric; careful thought and consideration are much more likely to bring relief....Can we see just a little more of both on this net?? [Soapbox stowed] Cheers. --- das NECESSARY DISCLAIMER: While the opinions expressed above are all depressingly correct, they do not neessarily reflect the views of the Rand Corporation or the sponsors of its research. So there.
bprice@bmcg.UUCP (08/20/84)
>From: david@randvax.UUCP > the real problems we face are hunger and injustice, both here and > globally. > --- das > So there. Yes, indeedy-poo, hunger and injustice, both here and globally--the real problems. [back off, Bill, this is politics, not flame. Be rational, especially about these things you feel so strongly about.] David has identified the symptoms of the real problems, surely enough. But the solution depends on the fact that they are symptoms. In order to solve them--hunger and injustice, that is--we must solve the problem that causes the symptoms. These causes are (bet you can't guess what I'm gonna say now) statism (or other misuse of the government monopoly on force) and so-called "liberalism," the philosophy that "If it makes me feel good, the government should make you do it." The solution is simple. Like most simple solutions, though, it ain't easy. The solution is to care enough for living--you and everyone else--that you insist that each and every one of us have the liberty to live. You damned sure aren't going to get this liberty from one of the major political parties, although Reagan will get closer--less hunger, less injustice--than Mondale will. The place--the only place--that's pushing liberty and actually has a chance of solving the problems, is named "Libertarian." Try it. You may like it. You may find the love for living, the caring about real individual people, the value of life that the "liberals" lost when they stopped being liberal and turned statist. -- --Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc