cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (07/16/84)
> What > is a $300 billion military budget but a huge payoff to Reagan's > defense industry supporters? What is the cuts in enforcement at the > NLRB, EPA, CPSC, FCC, etc. except pandering to Republican special > interests -- big business? At least the Democrats are open about > their contituencies. > > Mike Kelly Mondale and I disagree with you about the military budget. For me this budget is also a thing which increases the likelihood of my being alive and reading your net articles criticizing this budget several years from now. I don't know exactly what Mondale thinks, but his suggestion to increase 85 defense spendings by 6 (7?) percent is hardly a payoff to Reagan's supporters. Mike Musing
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/18/84)
A correction: Mondale, and most of the Democratic leadership, favor
continuing the policy established under Carter of a 4-5% real increase
per year for defense, not the 6-7% mentioned in the referenced
article. The Reagan administration favored a 13% real increase, but
reduced its demands to 7% at the insistance of Senate Republicans.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/19/84)
Let's get it right folks. Mondale favors a 4% defense budget increase ABOVE the inflation rate. Let's see now......Hmmmm.....that comes out to about 10.5% right now doesn't it? Seems like someone is wanting to spend more than RR doesn't it? T. C. Wheeler
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (07/20/84)
There have been a number of followup articles to my statement that the $300 billion defense budget is a payoff by Reagan to his defense industry supporters. Let me clarify my point. First, I am not against defending the United States. I strongly doubt that $300 billion is necessary to defend the United States. I think there is enough evidence to support that belief, and freely enough available, that it isn't necessary to make this a ten-page treatise on defense spending. It seems clear that our defense needs did not double in the last four years, although our defense spending did. It seems clear that the so-called window of vulnerability was a campaign red herring. Second, I do believe that the defense industry, privately held in the U.S., has an enormous interest in producing the highest possible level of defense spending they can. They spend millions each year trying to boost the defense budget. They fuel the fear that causes Americans to support these increases. More sinisterly, they fuel the hatred of the Soviet Union that seems as much a part of being American today as apple pie. Remember, that hatred didn't exist forty years ago. While the Soviets certainly don't deserve praise, I wonder how long the two most powerful nations in the history of the world can go on hating each other. Third, I believe the defense industry contributes to both parties, since the Democrats, contrary to their image, are hardly "anti-defense". Indeed, some of the highest defense budgets in history have occurred under Democratic Administrations. Of course, no one has been able to even approach Ronald Reagan for absolutely through-the-ceiling peacetime military spending. Besides, the defense industry is interested only in money. They want to be sure that no matter who loses in November, they win. So why are the Democrats any better? My fifth point. The Democratic Party contains some of the worst, and most of the best people in this country. It contains Southern segregationists; it also contains the entire civil rights movement. It contains war profiteers; it also contains most of the peace movement. In short, it holds our best hope for progressive change. I don't support Walter Mondale because I see him as the peace candidate, who is going to ride into Washington on a white horse to rid the world of all vestiges of Reagan. Walter Mondale is not the realization of progressive government; he is the necessary first step towards that. Reagan is such a threat, to civil rights, to civil liberties, to survival, that turning him out is an overriding goal. Only then can we begin to talk about where we will go from there. Mike Kelly
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/20/84)
>Let's get it right folks. Mondale favors a 4% defense budget increase >ABOVE the inflation rate. Let's see now......Hmmmm.....that comes >out to about 10.5% right now doesn't it? Seems like someone is >wanting to spend more than RR doesn't it? >T. C. Wheeler Since the inflation rate is at about 3%, that's 7%. Also Reagan WANTED 13% after inflation (~16% unadjusted) and was forced to settle for 7% (10% unadjusted) by Senate Republicans. The difference between Mondale's propsed budget and Reagan's actual budget is about 12 billion dollars, and the difference between what they each propose is 30 billion dollars. Hey, soon we'll be talking about some REAL money! Of course, the difference accelerates greatly a few years down the road (in constant dollars), as the 4-10% difference compounds. If Reagan is to have his way (which it is admittedly unlikely), there would be a 100+ billion (current dollars) difference in three years. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
myers@uwvax.UUCP (07/20/84)
<Let's get it right folks. Mondale favors a 4% defense budget increase <ABOVE the inflation rate. Let's see now......Hmmmm.....that comes <out to about 10.5% right now doesn't it? Seems like someone is <wanting to spend more than RR doesn't it? <T. C. Wheeler Let's get it right, T.C. Figures cited for desired increases in the defense budget are nearly always adjusted for inflation. In all the previous articles which I've seen in this newgroup lately, the figures cited have been adjusted in the usual manner. Reagan wants a much steeper increase in spending than Mondale (which is hardly surprising, considering the adventures he'll embark upon if and when he's a lame duck). J. D. Myers
mwm@ea.UUCP (07/24/84)
#R:ihuxi:-97900:ea:10100066:000:532 ea!mwm Jul 23 18:40:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / tty3b!mjk / 9:54 pm Jul 19, 1984 */ So why are the Democrats any better? My fifth point. The Democratic Party contains some of the worst, and most of the best people in this country. Mike Kelly /* ---------- */ This statement, of course, is only true if agree with the way the "good" Democrats want to run the country. If you don't think that way, then it's utter gibberish. Of course, if you do a "g/s/Democrat/Republican/g", you get exactly the same truth content in all the preceeding. <mike
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (07/26/84)
Mike:
A few points:
The $300 billion defense budget (I think that number is high, but won't
press it) may seem enormous, but look at it sometime in constant dollars,
which is the only approach that means anything. On that basis,
a smaller part of each hour you work, and pay taxes on, goes to defense
than did during the Kennedy administration.
The Democratic party does not contain the "entire civil rights movement"
unless you mean only the certain orthodox vocal pressure groups arguing for
more government social engineering all the time. Reagan has
opposed only pseudo-civil-rights policies that were designed to
treat persons of a certain race or sex preferentially; de facto
discrimination (forget this 'reverse' garbage - equal opportunity
either means what it says or nothing at all).
On Soviet life: my comments of life under the Soviet government
are based on the testimony of current and former Soviet citizens
who have found the opportunity to speak freely of their experiences,
and the known history of the USSR, the enslavement of eastern Europe,
and expansionist adventures in southeast Asia, Cuba, Angola, and
a little disagreement with the population of Afghanistan, in which
the government policies are communicated to the populace with
military force, nerve gas and mycotoxins. Charming group, they.
--
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard