bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/07/84)
Mike Kelly reports (Re: voting (more FLAME): >If anyone doubts that Ronald Reagan's politics are >anti-democratic, they (sic) need only look at his record: >opposition to the Voting Rights Act; opposition to equal rights for >women; advocate of federal aid to schools that discriminate >racially; strong opponent of affirmative action. Mr. Kelly seems to be assuming the opposition to, say, the E.R.A. is to be equated with oppostion to equal rights for women, and that opposition to policies that may, on the surface, *sound* as if they will promote *democratic* results is the same as being *undemocratic*. Is this the same Mike Kelly who took someone to task for making the (logically unprovable) statement that a decrease in violence against women was causally linked to legalization of pornography in Denmark [I think that was it], saying that such statements could not be proven (logically)? In a later (on my net) article "Re: VATs That!!!", Mr. Kelly says >Reagan's tax policies have gone a long way towards standing this >on its head, actually effecting a net transfer of wealth from >low-income tax payers to high-income tax payers. It is unclear to me how this net transfer took place, and how much money it involved. Analysis, figures, please: How much money was taken from the low-income tax payers and given to the high-income tax payers? Don't forget, also, that inflation is perhaps the cruelest tax on low income, fixed income poor. In that respect, we're much better off now than we were when Jimmy & Fritz were running things. As someone who has "gotten by on $8000 /year, let alone $8000 -20%" for several years, I think you're way off base, Mike. Sam Hall