jsg@rlgvax.UUCP (Jeff Grunewald) (03/29/84)
Ah yes, a student who wants to know what the government has done for him recently (I refer to eneevax!phaedrus). Well, I was a student not to long ago and understand the problems inherent with going to school. My question for you, sir (?), is, "What have you done for your government lately?" You want the government to help pay for your education, but have you considered getting (or do you have) a part-time job, to help cover some of the expenses? You want the government to help pay for your education? Have you registered for the draft? This does not mean that I agree or disagree with registration, but it is the law that all 18 year-olds must register. What has Reagan done for you? Well, if you ever graduate, or choose to end your education, the current low unemployment rate (for which you can thank Mr. Reagan) may just help you in your search. Sure the defense budget could be cut somewhat, this administration isn't perfect, I can't think of one that was. As for me, at this point (i.e. we still *DON'T KNOW* who the candidates will be) if I had a choice, I would take my chances with Reagan for four more years, rather than the carter clone. PLEASE NOTE: WHen I say you above, I am using the term generically, and am not attacking any one person. Jeff Grunewald [seismo, mcnc, allegra]!rlgvax!jsg -------- The opinions stated above are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer, Computer Consoles Inc., or my associates.
jas@drutx.UUCP (ShanklandJA) (03/30/84)
... the current low unemployment rate
(for which you can thank Mr. Reagan) ...
Until very recently, "the current low unemployment rate" was higher
than when Reagan took office. It may still be -- I haven't checked
lately. If it's lower, it's not by much. And yes, we can all thank
Reagan for it, as well as for the record high unemployment that
preceded it.
Jim Shankland
..!ihnp4!druxy!jasphaedrus@eneevax.UUCP (03/30/84)
First of all, yes, I am a sir (ie. I am male). Second, yes, I do hold a
part-time job (for which I'm very grateful to the math department here
at the University of Maryland). Third, yes, I registered for the draft.
By the way I registered for the draft as a legal alien *I WAS NOT A CITIZEN
WHEN I REGISTERED*.
Now yyour ask "What have you done for my government lately?"
What do you expect me to do for my government? I pay my taxes and am
a relatively responsible person (excusing all stupid things that people
<21 years old do).
My point really was not "What has Raygun done for me?". My point was
look at how many things he has screwed up, and how many things he has
lied about. With or without his help I know I'll get a job. So the
statement,
"...the current low unemployment rate (for which you can thank
Mr. Reagan) may just help you in your search."
is non-sense. There is no- thing that he has done for which I am thankful
for (except maybe for letting James Watt go. It's not *me* that I am concerned
about it's the laid-off steel and auto workers that I am worried about. I am
sure a person with a degree in both math and EE can find a job very easily.
What about the person who has worked all his adult life in a steel mill, the
steel industry is dead in his neck of the woods, he's laid off, and he doesn't
have the training to work in a new job (what about the money to relocate!)?
What are you going to tell him?
All this I wrote just about his "Loosening the Safety Net". I could go on
for pages and pages about his foriegn policy (supporting butchers in South
America etc.), this prayer in school business, ......
Personally, (as Au said a couple of days ago) I would vote for the damn monkey
that he acted with before I'd vote for him.
--
From the contorted brain, and the rotted body of THE SOPHIST
ARPA: phaedrus%eneevax%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!eneevax!phaedrusphaedrus@eneevax.UUCP (03/30/84)
{please don't eat me}
OK I have been waiting to do this for a long time.
Many people on the net seem to believe that having a president who
does things is better than having a president who does not. Specifically,
I am talking about Ronnie and Jimmy.
Now for decapitating Ronnie. (FLAME ONNNNN!)
Come on guys I am a student what the hell has he done for me recently. Let's
see.... He's cut off massive amounts of student aid; he's cut taxes for the
corporations, and the upper middle class; he's removed lot's of people from
food stamps etc. because "there's tremendous cheating and inefficiency in
those programs"; he taxes welfare payments (Now that's the height of vul-
garity, since it costs a hell of a lot to collect taxes, and he's supposed to
be saving me money); he has raised defense spending (of course, there is no
inefficiency there), anyway I could go on ad nauseum.
*
The guy's a real knee-biter, a real gorf.
None of the Democrats seem to be an alternative either so I don't know who
I'm going to vote for yet (I just became a citizen last August).
*gorf is a trademark of eneevax!spam who is an occasional contributor
(FLAME OFF)
--
From the contorted brain, and the rotted body of THE SOPHIST
ARPA: phaedrus%eneevax%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!eneevax!phaedrusmyers@uwvax.ARPA (03/30/84)
We have Reagan to thank for the "current *LOW* unemployment rate"? Low compared to what? Is this lad nuts?
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (03/30/84)
+ > It's not *me* that I am concerned > about it's the laid-off steel and auto workers that I am worried about. I am > sure a person with a degree in both math and EE can find a job very easily. > What about the person who has worked all his adult life in a steel mill, the > steel industry is dead in his neck of the woods, he's laid off, and he doesn't > have the training to work in a new job (what about the money to relocate!)? > What are you going to tell him? How can you blame Reagan for the decline of the American Steel Industry? The Steel Industry in this country has been going down hill since the early 60's when Kennedy imposed price controls on steel. Blame Kennedy! Allen ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
ted@teldata.UUCP (Ted Becker) (03/30/84)
********* Why in hell should I pay for your student aid. I am out in the world trying to earn a living to support my family and I get stuck paying thousands of dollars per year in taxes to help support a bunch of free-loading assholes. Specially those people who come here from some other country and bitch about the way things are here, if it's that bad go back. (Exceptions are certain refugees from Viet Nam, Cambodia etc. who have been cast out due to their loyalty to the US.) When you become a contributing member of this society then you have earned the right to complain. Reagan is not against student aid or any other social program. He just favors putting the responsiblity back where it belongs, in the hands of the private sector or local government. If the bleeding hearts would just direct their efforts to supporting private charities there would be a net gain in payout to the needy. The cost of a federal handout program is tremendous, I can't quote references or exact figures but approximatley 75% to 80% of every dollar collected by private charity reaches the beneficiaries while only 20% of federally collected funds reaches the needy. Please be damn careful before you go out and vote against Reagan or any other candidate. Consider the realistic probabilities of that candidate making a significant improvement. Look beyond the campaign rhetoric, which is usually is just so much bull-shit. Also remember that any one person is not solely responsible for any thing that happens in this country and in order for the president to have significant influence he needs the cooperation of many other people and agencies. You may vote in a president who will give you a free education only to graduate into an economy that has gone to hell and no jobs, or the job market is flooded other graduates of the free educational program, or your tax burden will be so high your quality of life will suffer.
giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (03/31/84)
I've been sitting on the sidelines long enough.... >> You want the government to help pay for your education, but >> have you considered getting (or do you have) a part-time >> job, to help cover some of the expenses? Yup, even during the recession. Of course the fact I was earning money disqualified me from a couple sources of loans & grants. Let's see: I made around $4k and was disqualified for probabily twice that. Seems fair, doesn't it? Not only that, but I moved in with my parents for 2 months at one point, just to cut expenses. But my parents (justifibly) are hesitant to release *their* income to the government for aid purposes when I'm trying my hardest to make it on my own. That saved me perhaps $300 in rent, but cost me two years of financial aid OF ANY KIND! >> You want the government to help pay for your education? Have >> you registered for the draft? This does not mean that I >> agree or disagree with registration, but it is the law that >> all 18 year-olds must register. Not only did I register for the draft immediately after that law was passed, I talked to both the Navy and the Air Force during my last semester of my undergraduate studies. I heard that they needed people with a strong technical background, and I felt a duty to help protect the country as I was in college when many of my High School classmates were in the military. *THEY* decided they didn't want me (due to allergies) instead of the other way around. >> What has Reagan done for you? Well, if you ever graduate, or >> choose to end your education, the current low unemployment rate >> (for which you can thank Mr. Reagan) may just help you in your >> search. I highly doubt that anyone on this net would directly feel the effects of unemployment. My understanding was that high-tech areas are such a small portion of the workforce that the overall unemployment rate was only weakly correlated to the high-tech unemployment rate. Besides, I know I will benefit far more from increased defense spending than a low unemployment rate. Now: anyone else who tries to claim that all current & recent college students are bums had better have a large mailbox spool available! ave discordia going bump in the night ... bruce giles decvax!ucf-cs!giles university of central florida giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay orlando, florida 32816
phaedrus@eneevax.UUCP (03/31/84)
First of all, when I put in quotes "...You can thank Reagan for the low
unemployment.." I did *NOT* say that myself. I was responding to
someone else who said that, so stop flaming at me.
Secondly, in response to Allen (ihnp4!ihuxb!alle) - so you put the blame
of the demise of the steel industry on Kennedy. What about the demise
of American heavy industry in general in the past couple of years? Who are
going to blame for that, Nixon, Carter, LBJ, maybe Kennedy again? I would
like to see your explanation for the heavy unemployment that exists TODAY.
--
From the contorted brain, and the rotted body of THE SOPHIST
ARPA: phaedrus%eneevax%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!eneevax!phaedrusbitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (04/01/84)
xxx A recent, scornful letter by phaedrus@eneevax made some "ad nauseum" comments, among which was the statement that "he's [Reagan has] cut taxes for corporations." [from the tone, this is supposed to be something bad, I guess]. If so, it was presumably because he signed a law passed by Congress. However, I was under the impression that Reagan's tax cut did not include cutting taxes for corporations. Does anyone know? Sam Hall ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/03/84)
#R:ucbtopaz:-43000:iuvax:2000013:000:485 iuvax!scsg Apr 2 19:17:00 1984 Reagan's plan DID include cutting taxes for Corporations. I do not know the specific amounts. I do know that not only did Reagan's plan include cutting Corporate taxes but it also included "Corporate Welfarism" whereby Corporations that lost money in given years could trade off their taxes in later years, or transfer them to other Corporations. Reagan does believe in Welfare--but only for the biggest Corporations. tim sevener Indiana University, Bloomington pur-ee!iuvax!scsg
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (04/04/84)
*
The demise of the steel industry and the heavy industry in general
is due almost entirely to the liberal atmosphere (anti-business pro-union)
which allowed the union leaders and their followers to demand and get
non-competitively high wages, ant prevented the businesses from modernizing.
Thos stupid bastards hurt the rest of us for a while, but, as the free
market would have it, they cut their own throat in the world market. That's
just as it should be, thank you.
Note: in the Nat'l Review mag a year ago, there was a news item
about a steel plant in the Appalachians which told its workers that they
needed to take a 10% pay cut to keep the plant afloat. The workers and
local union agreed, but the parent union overuled them. The plant went
under increasing the unemployment rate, and hastening the demise of the
US steel industry. Who do you blame for that ?!
Alan Algustyniak (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!alan)
(ucbvax!ucla-vax!sdcrdcf!alan) (allegra!sdcrdcf!alan)
(decvax!trw-unix!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan)brahms@trwspp.UUCP (04/04/84)
[}{]
> Until very recently, "the current low unemployment rate" was higher
> than when Reagan took office. It may still be -- I haven't checked
> lately. If it's lower, it's not by much. And yes, we can all thank
> Reagan for it, as well as for the record high unemployment that
> preceded it.
I seem to recall that Reagan stated, when he took office, that the economy
would get worst before it got better.
In fact, that is what has happen.
I don't agree with a number of things Reagan has done, yet he has done,
in my opinion, a much better job than Carter did and is better
for the presidency than any other person currently running.
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@USC-ECLCken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/04/84)
-- >> The demise of the steel industry and the heavy industry in general >> is due almost entirely to the liberal atmosphere (anti-business pro-union) >> which allowed the union leaders and their followers to demand and get >> non-competitively high wages, ant prevented the businesses from modernizing. Egad, there's allegedly intelligent people who believe this myth. Businesses have not been prevented from modernizing, they have chosen not to because they wanted to maximize short-term profits. This is a consistent strategy of over-stratified, top-heavy American management, where success is measured only by percentage gains in quarterly reports. Of course, successful foreign competition is forcing them to clean up their act, just as we Americans have forced them to clean up Love Canal. Actually, forsaking long-term for short-term interests is a very American way of thinking, certainly shared with management by unions that would rather get their members a pay hike than ensure their safety. But that too is changing. >> Note: in the Nat'l Review mag a year ago, there was a news item >> about a steel plant in the Appalachians which told its workers... Seriously now, you can't really believe that the National Review presents any realistic picture of American industry. To get another perspective try working on an assembly line for a while. Neither the problems nor the answers are so cut and dried. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 04 Apr 84 [15 Germinal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
jlilien@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Joel Lilienkamp) (04/05/84)
I just split a gut laughing when I heard someone post that they though Mondale was a Carter clone! I just can't stop. I think Mondale is a Hubert Humphrey clone. Carter was from the south, and had a definite southern perspective. Ol Walt is the friend of big labor. Just because he was Jimmy's VP doesn't mean he's Jimmy's clone! When George B. runs for the nomination in 1988, do you think he'll be a Reagan clone? Not me? (This is not meant as an endorsement of either Mondale, Humphrey, Kennedy, or the democratic party. I don't think living in the past is the way to go. My opinion of where the major candidates are living are: Mondale 1968 Hart 1961 Reagan 1953 (Go get em, Joe) Jackson ? I don't know where to put Jackson, since in part he is living in the sixtys, but in part he is actually living today. I think I'll vote for him in June) Joel
jj@rabbit.UUCP (04/05/84)
Regarding the shortsightedness of US businesses:
The prime reason why businesses in the US insist on maximizing
short term gainsis that the GOVERNMENT is so determined to change
the rules every 5 years that the business has no reason to feel
that any long-term plans will come to fruition. Unions are only one
of the symptoms of this attitude, even though they have an inordinate
effect on the business. ("Gee. They made money this year, let's take
all of it." In other words, the ENFORCED socialism caused by shortsighted
labor unions is one of the reasons that businesses cannot plan for
the future.) There are other (particular methods of taxation, regulation,
tarriffing, etc) reasons that also pressure US businesses into being
shortsighted.
If one wishes to criticize the US business community, one
should do so for not resisting the destruction wrought by government.
At one time, labor unions were a necessity. The laws enacted at
that time, and since then, by unions, have made unions into a costly
luxury.
Enjoy it while it lasts!
--
TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY!
(If you go out in the woods today ... )
(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jjken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/05/84)
-- >> At one time, labor unions were a necessity. The laws enacted at >> that time, and since then, by unions, have made unions into a costly >> luxury. I thought Congress passed the laws, but what is it about working conditions now that obviates unions? There are still lots of unsafe plants with hungry workers with no benefits. If unions were once a necessity (and I agree that they were), what would keep conditions from reverting to those pre-union times if you took them away? If you say "But this is the 1980's" you've not witnessed the plight of farm workers. How can you believe that only the unions are greedy? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 05 Apr 84 [16 Germinal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (04/12/84)
> From: bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA > Date: Mon, 2-Apr-84 01:14:54 PST > > Perhaps you'll accept a possible reason from me, instead. > > A statistic that comes to mind (from dim memories) is that the > number of people EMployed, as a percentage of all possible > workers (i.e., not just of those "looking for work or already > employed) is at an all time high. This would seem to indicate > that many people (as "types" rather than individuals) who did > not choose to work in the past (e.g., women in particular, I'd > guess) are now desiring or have employment. > > Also, I seem to recall hearing, several years ago, that > economists felt that the base percentage for unemployment such > that the economy was chugging along with what they call > (something like) "full employment" would have to be raised. (I > guess that implies that they don't think that the unemployment > rate could be any lower than a certain rate, under normal > circumstances). > > Sam Hall, UCB > decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap In the economics classes I took, the theory was that you would always have some percentage of the workforce as `hardcore' unemployed. The type of worker who was outlined was one who worked in `smokestack industry' which is dying off or automating, and the worker (for whatever reason) cannot be retrained. Erik E. Fair dual!fair@Berkeley.ARPA {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!fair Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California