Fuzzy headed liberal
r...@loral.uucp
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.
Do you realize that between federal, state, county and city taxes the
average wage earner in this country pays 42% if his gross income to
a government agency in taxes. Thats not counting property taxes, sales
tax and various licenses (taxes). Every governing entity in this country
has its hand out demanding a 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.
Under Mondale we will go back to a "punching bag" for a foreign policy.
Under the Carter/Mondale administration the president of the United States
was negotiating with the student terrorists in Iran. RONALD REAGAN freed the
american hostages held in Iran the day he took office. Iran knew it could
"punch" the Carter/Mondale administration around but not Ronald Reagan so
they let the hostages go the day (the hour) Reagan took over.
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.
Ronald Reagan is a strong president. Walter Mondale would be a "whimp".
Mondale would cave in to pressure from Tip O'Neal, Jimmy C. and the Soviets.
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).
Walter Mitty
> Under Mondale we will go back to a "punching bag" for a foreign policy.
> Under the Carter/Mondale administration the president of the United
> States was negotiating with the student terrorists in Iran. RONALD
> REAGAN freed the american hostages held in Iran the day he took office.
> Iran knew it could "punch" the Carter/Mondale administration around but
> not Ronald Reagan so they let the hostages go the day (the hour)
> Reagan took over.
OK, lets be fair about this. While I agree with the rest of the article it
seems to me that Iran released the hostages not to Ronnie, but to someone
who was NOT Jimmy Carter. I had the distinct impression that if it hadn't
been an election year, or if Carter had been re-elected, they would have
been released a month or 2 sooner. Iran wasn't afraid of Reagan, they
wanted to make Carter look bad. I think most people recognized this for
what it was and instead of thinking less of Carter over this they thought
less of the ayatollah (I know, it's spelled wrong, but it's not in my spelling
guide).
Have you hugged a wombat today? No no no, thats been taken. Lesse,
From the ledge of the seventh cornice. No no no, thats been taken too.
I am NOT an animal. I am a software engineer! What?? Thats been used
too??? Well then, how about
Jim Harkins
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest, akgua, decvax, ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdccs6!loral!jlh
Much better. No ones used that one yet.
Andrew Banta
a switch on the other end, and slide this sulphur over next to that ...]
FLAME ON ...
> 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.
Fuzzy headed liberal? What does the phrase "war-mongering redneck" mean
to you? I guess in your case, it's a compliment, seeing as I would
rather not post what I really think you are. I don't want my paycheck to
go down because of increase taxes, but I'm not going to insult people
because they don't think the same way as I do. I think your just a
little starved for net attention ...
> 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.
I didn't think that it was a wise idea either, but it still amazes me
how people can vote for Reagan based on one issue. It seems to me that
people think the only issue this year is the budget. Well think again,
there are many other issues that are equally important.
> 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.
Hmm, let's see. I don't seem to remember them asking for a whole lot of
help from 'us'. If this is your idea of foriegn policy, thank god you
aren't in the White House. I don't really think I'd like us continually
being at war. there are other things I'd rather do with my life than
die for someone else's country ...
> Ronald Reagan is a strong president. Walter Mondale would be a "whimp".
> Mondale would cave in to pressure from Tip O'Neal, Jimmy C. and the Soviets.
> 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.
Yea, I used to believe everything the newspaper told me too ... Now I
make my own decisions. If you look the right places, you can probably
find what really happens. Have you ever looked at the _Congressional
Record_? Nope, didn't think so. That'll give a real good idea of what
happens in congress.
> You 'fuzzy' headed liberals will be the first to CRY when your pay check is
> reduced because of Mondale's tax increase(s).
If this was in reference to people who don't like your style, I won't
complain when Mondale raises taxes, because I won't be voting for him.
There ARE a lot of things you have to look at, and if I went thru them
all, you'd probably fall asleep. You don't seem like the type that is
too big on listening ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz
Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thru the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes,
I can barely perceive the shape of this momnet in time ... "
B. M. Thomas
>Record_? Nope, didn't think so. That'll give a real good idea of what
>happens in congress.
If you believe this, you don't know how the Congressional record is
written. Every participant in every floor discussion is allowed to
edit, without any indication of its having been done, any or all of
the transcriptions from the day's session.
Rich Rosen
> 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.
This sounds like the author (loral!rfs) would rather vote for the candidate
who tells him/her the most pleasant stories, regardless of their veracity, than
vote for the candidate who tells more realistic (perhaps) but less pleasant
stories. Perhaps Mondale's biggest mistake was attempting to be realistic
with the American public instead of being peppy and charismatic and
concentrating on substance rather than image.
> RONALD REAGAN freed the
> american hostages held in Iran the day he took office. Iran knew it could
> "punch" the Carter/Mondale administration around but not Ronald Reagan so
> they let the hostages go the day (the hour) Reagan took over.
Funny how they still "punch" Reagan around in Lebanon (the Islamic Jihad
terrorists affiliated in part with Teheran). They must have been real
scared. Some people have interesting perceptions of the analysis of cause
and effect: take an observed beneficial effect, and claim that something you
like was the cause.
> 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 overtaken
> by communist rebels. Ronald Reagan has stopped this trend.
Yeah, we should have helped the Shah and Somoza oppress more people more
efficiently. When you engage in oppression, you foment rebellion, and when
someone else is perceived as helping your oppressor oppress you, you're likely
to side with their enemy. We got what we deserved for our stupidity.
Stupidity that Reagan considers a national perogative.
> Ronald Reagan is a strong president. Walter Mondale would be a "whimp".
I somehow knew that the crux of this person's argument was that he/she
perceives Reagan as strong (after viewing his movies no doubt), returning
this country to the glory it deserves, with macho marines off showing
everyone in the world who's boss. Never mind that it DECREASES our prestige
in the world. Never mind that it foments exactly what we're trying to stop.
What's more important is the bullshit of "national pride" felt by beer drinking
football watchers who need to feel macho. Watch where it gets us, tough guys.
--
AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
kau...@uiucdcs.uucp
Shame on you for voting for Reagan partially because he will put - or
leave - more money in your pocket. In some circles, that is bribery; I'll just
call it selfishness. And I thought one big gripe about "fuzzy-headed liberals"
was that they were unwilling to make sacrifices for their country. I would
rather base my vote on who I think will keep this country - and this world -
safer and more tolerable to live in. Judging from the two debates, we are
offered two widely differing philosophies on the subject; I'll base my choice
on the one I believe the most. I suggest you do the same. (that is, the one
you, not I, believe in most :-) )
Democratically yours, (not referring to any party here)
Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman)
Phil Gunsul
I find the best way to watch Congress is tuning in "C-Span".
It is really hard to believe your eyes and ears sometimes. I don't
believe a Congressman stands up without first saying "I reserve the right
to revise and extend my remarks" at which time good ol' Tip wakes
up and say..." ... without objection...".
P.S. C-Span also has a weekly newspaper (it leans slightly to the left!).
Phil Gunsul
ken perlow
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 *** ***
M. Conrad Geiger
raise our taxes. Instead vote for anyone who promises to spend
trillions of dollars we don't have for more military weapons
that we most desperately need. In doing so there will be less
unemployment (think of all those workers that can be used to
put together our warheads and rockets). Of course, out national
deficit will go sky high, but don't worry about that. We will
never have to pay off those incurred debts. Those weapons will be
used to completely eliminate our debts.
Conrad Geiger
Stephen C. Woods
Arm halon fire supression system, don flame proof suit.
>[Excuse me while I move this gasoline over near this spark plug that has
>a switch on the other end, and slide this sulphur over next to that ...]
>
>FLAME ON ...
>
>
>Fuzzy headed liberal? What [...] way as I do. I think your just a
>little starved for net attention ...
I suspect that he is just flapping his jaw to hear the wind.
>
>> If Mondale is elected he will [...] taxes even higher.
>
>I didn't think that it was a [...] are equally important.
Hear, Hear!
>
>> The Carter/Mondale administration[...] has stopped this trend.
>
>Hmm, let's see. I don't seem to remember them asking for a whole lot of
>help from 'us'. If this [...] things I'd rather do with my life than
>die for someone else's country ...
Me to, but sometimes you gotta put it on the line or loose it altogether.
>
>> Ronald Reagan is a strong president.[...] Tip O'Neal, Jimmy C. and the Soviets.
> [no comment?]
I agree (sorta) with him on this, Mondale would (I suspect) be an appeaser.
>> In summary, Under Reagan I am better[...]ength and the spread of communism
>> has stopped.
Boy is this guy an optimist.
>
>Yea, I used to believe everything the newspaper told me too ... Now I
>make my own decisions. If you look the right places, you can probably
>find what really happens. Have you ever looked at the _Congressional
>Record_? Nope, didn't think so. That'll give a real good idea of what
>happens in congress.
Sounds to me like you STILL believe everything your newspaper tells
you. The \Congressional Record/ is so full of crap that I can't really
believe that anyone wouldn't read it without several pounds of salt.
Do you know that the Members of Congress are allowed to edit their
speeches however they want in the \CR/ (they can even make up a
completely different speech and have it inserted in place of the one
given). They can also change the record of how they voted (iff [if and
only if] it won't change the outcome of the vote).
>
>> You 'fuzzy' headed liberals [...] tax increase(s).
>
>If this was in reference to people who don't like your style, I won't
>complain when Mondale raises [...] don't seem like the type that is
>too big on listening ...
>
I won't vote for him either, but if he wins (doesn't seem all that likely
right now) I'd sure as hell complain if he jacked up taxes again.
On a slightly different subject, the Democrats can't seem to make up their
minds as to the status of 'Star-Wars Defense' Mondale says ~'It's a piece of
crap' but Gerry says ~'it's a Vital defense Secret' (this in reference to the
implied plan to give the plans to the CCCP [as a stability improver] see
\The High Frontier/ TOR Sep,83 ISBN 0-812-59420-7). Note that the only thing
Regan wants now are some feasibility studies on this.
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
Al R. Zantow
One of the best things about this group is these discusions,
which can range all over the place, from sane to raving loonie. I
personaly like to see all the various opinions, because it makes for
some good reading.
By the way, shouldn't we the people do something about this
current situation over the presidency, such as push for a "None of
the Above" box on the ballot so we can get rid of both candidates if
they are less than desirable. I am not so hot on either "Bonzo goes
to the Fallout Shelter" Ron or "wishy washy, raise the taxes anyway"
Fritz.
It is my concerted opinion that the primary's, secondary's,
government, organized crime, religion, and a multitude of other
all fall under the same group of things that are full of pure,
uncut horeshit and are to be ignored or gotten rid of at the first
chance.
Thank you,
The King of Cluge,
!ihuxx!ndsss
"Benson, you are so free of the ravages of intelligence."
- from movie "Time Bandits" -
Ethan Vishniac
The point about the editing power of congress is well taken.
There was an incident in the mid 70s in which an unknown
(fortunately) congressional aide took advantage of this to
insert his own versions of two congressional speeches.
One was by a Nebraska representative named Landgrebe (sp?)
who was the diehard Nixon supporter who declared his willingness
to stand by Nixon to the bitter end, even if that end were a
firing squad. The bogus speech had him saying that many of
his constituents had written him urging just that course of
action.
The other speech was (I think) by Chiles and had him
lauding the respect of the Chilean government for human rights.
All of congress was deeply outraged over the incident
(at least in public).
"I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac
knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712
Dick Dunn
> > 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.
>
> raise our taxes. Instead vote for anyone who promises to spend
> trillions of dollars we don't have for more military weapons
> that we most desperately need.
(How did he know I'm fuzzy-headed?)
Well, what loral!rfs (> >) forgot to mention, and what conrad (>) seems to
be ignoring, is that Mondale wants to raise taxes and Reagan doesn't
because Reagan has magic arithmetic that Mondale doesn't. You see, Conrad,
it isn't really NECESSARY to raise our taxes; Reagan can increase defense
spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget (including servicing the
existing debt) all at once.
Just look at Reagan's success so far. He got his tax cut, he got some of
his defense increases, and managed to do it all and get a massive increase
in the deficit at the same time. (What? Huh? You say a deficit is
negative? Like a debt? Oh, geez, that's terrible...hey, don't tell Mr.
Reagan. You didn't? Oh, OK then...yeah, just let him dream on...)
Seriously (barely), when are you thick-headed conservatives going to wake
up to the fact that if you spend more dollars than you got, you go into
debt? Arithmetic doesn't start working backwards when you go over a
billion, and dollars spent on defense don't count as income.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Simpler is better.
Will Martin
Ray Simard
>Shame on you for voting for Reagan partially because he will put - or
>leave - more money in your pocket.
>In some circles, that is bribery; I'll just
>call it selfishness.
Selfishness is being unwilling to contribute of oneself for the good of
others. This opposition is being unwilling to allow government to
FORCE contribution to others, inefficiently, to the wrong benefactors,
without accountability, using methods that have been empirical failures
for decades. Quite a difference.
As for the "bribery" suggestion: how can you "bribe" someone by offering
them their OWN wealth???? The government does not legitimately have
any prior claim on one nickel of what you or I earned last month or
last year. Its attitude is that our earnings belong to it, and it
"allows" us to keep what it doesn't want. Wrong!!!
When we, as a compassionate society, direct the government to enact programs
to help others, we have the right to demand that they be cost-effective.
Currently, virtually all are very far from that.
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
ren...@uiucdcs.uucp
> make my own decisions. If you look the right places, you can probably
> find what really happens. Have you ever looked at the _Congressional
> Record_? Nope, didn't think so. That'll give a real good idea of what
I beg to differ. The Congressional Record will tell you what Congressmen
*want* you to think happens in Congress. Congressmen have essentially
unlimited editing power over the CR, and use it shamelessly. Entire
speeches are frequently read "into the record" and are indistinguishable
from those read on the floor. True, records of what actually happens in
Congress are kept -- but you aren't allowed to read them. All you get is
the sanitized version.
Now, you might want to look at a publication called *Congressional
Quarterly*, which comes out in quarterly almanacs and weekly "updates."
It should be available in a quality library.
Scott Renner
{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
lma...@uokvax.uucp
> Damned right. We must never vote for anyone who will promise to
> raise our taxes. Instead vote for anyone who promises to spend
> trillions of dollars we don't have for more military weapons
> Those weapons will be used to completely eliminate our debts.
>
> Conrad Geiger
So why not rent out the U.S. Military as Mercenaries To The World?
Instead of some third world country buying masses of planes and
guns without having troops trained well enough to use them effectively,
they can hire Our Boys directly, and we'll go in and annihilate their
enemy for them, on a cost-plus basis. A few points:
1) Obviously only volunteers are used for this - no one has to go.
2) It gives our forces combat training and an opportunity to field
test new equipment.
3) It improves our Balance of Payments (no Credit. When their
cash runs out we do too).
4) If the two sides were equal, then whoever forks over the most
cash (or minerals, or UN voting rights, or whatever is worth it
to us) gets the victory, instead of a prolonged, bloody struggle
that solves nothing.
5) We won't take both sides (then again, maybe we should, and just
tell both sides we're fighting, but actually fake the fighting).
6) We don't fight the Israelis (this may be the same as Point 5,
or it may be so we don't embarass ourselves by losing).
7) We don't fight Russian troops (unless Russia wants to earn some
foreign currency hiring out its troops too), because confrontations
between superpowers are *a bad thing*. Cubans are OK, though.
8) Instead of poking our noses into places we're not wanted, we'd
only be intervening at the request of whoever has the cash.
(Just in case anyone thought I was serious, :-) :-) :-) :-)
Flaming won't do you a bit of good anyway, I'm off to Fermilab
and won't be back for 3 months.)
"Wait a moment, maybe he has something there..."
Carl
{allegra,ihnp4}!convex!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher
Will Martin
Wouldn't the sand wear the fuzz off?
gree...@acf4.uucp
I don't know about that last comment (specnding more money than you have
puts you in debt). Sometimes when I'm at a restaurant and I don't have
enough cash on me I put it on the good old plastic. Now the deficit
is large, no sh=t! But then again I often use my credit line on my
American Express card for the "larger" purchases. So I get to pay
18% (or more? !!! ) on what I owe. I knew that. Just like the guys who
made our deficit knew they'd have to pay it back one day.
To continue the analogy, I was able to buy a new computer on my credit,
and that allows me to make additional income, so I can pay off my
debt faster. If I hadn't spent the money, my income would be lower!
Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
Stephen Hutchison
!> 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 nuclear war is less because of our strength and
!> the spread of communism has stopped.
! Yea, I used to believe everything the newspaper told me too ... Now I
! make my own decisions. If you look the right places, you can probably
! find what really happens. Have you ever looked at the _Congressional
! Record_? Nope, didn't think so. That'll give a real good idea of what
! happens in congress.
Before I flame at Banta.... WHAT makes you think America is much better off
than four years ago? We have a national deficit which is larger than any
before (except last years) and no sign of improvement. We have a president
who never graduated from high school, whose entry into politics came about
as a result of the fact that he is a competent actor. (Not a GREAT actor or
he would have spent his time acting instead of .... Hmmm, maybe he IS a
great actor.) The threat of nuclear war is GREATER because not only is Reagan
willing to use them, but the USSR is undergoing internal upheavals. Admittedly
the latter cannot be blamed on Reagan. I hope. And we don't even begin to
look at the problems of the jobless, the wholesale rape of the environmental
protection agencies, the increasing waste in government... Better off indeed!
Now, as for the Congressional record... That rag is a piece of fiction.
ANY congressman who wants to can edit the record. They ALL do it. In fact,
the Congressional record on a typical day shows speeches which would take
in excess of 30 hours to make. This is absurd. On a TV scandal news show,
when they were investigating the Record,. they pointed out the case of one
congressman who made what had to be a 45 minute speech, one afternoon.
Unfortunately, that congressman had died in an accident over 30 miles from
Washington DC, earlier that morning. The Congressional Record is a JOKE.
Hutch
Ken Olsen
> When we, as a compassionate society, direct the government to enact programs
> to help others, we have the right to demand that they be cost-effective.
> Currently, virtually all are very far from that.
> --
> [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
>
> Ray Simard
> Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
> {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
And what about the *very* cost-effective military spending?
(A :-) would be appropriate in net.jokes, but this is real life.)
Ken Olsen
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!kmo
Steve Rojak
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
Martin Taylor
Selfishness is being unwilling to contribute of oneself for the good of
others. This opposition is being unwilling to allow government to
FORCE contribution to others, inefficiently, to the wrong benefactors,
without accountability, using methods that have been empirical failures
for decades. Quite a difference.
Emprical failures for decades? You can say that in the face of the
longest period of sustained prosperity in the modern history of
the Western World (1945 until the oil shock).
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
rowley
I'd rather go back to a "punching bag" than forward to Armageddon...
A. J. Rowley
--
There is no dark side of the moon really; as a matter of fact, it's all dark...
-"Eclipse", Pink Floyd
Scott Fisher
> 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"
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Mike Van Pelt
>up to the fact that if you spend more dollars than you got, you go into
>debt? Arithmetic doesn't start working backwards when you go over a
>billion, and dollars spent on defense don't count as income.
Wow, that is really a turn-around. Up until this administration, the
liberal types have poo-pooed the idea that there was anything bad about
deficits. In fact, they have acted as if they thought that deficits were
a positive good.
Ray Simard
>Seriously (barely), when are you thick-headed conservatives going to wake
>up to the fact that if you spend more dollars than you got, you go into
>debt? Arithmetic doesn't start working backwards when you go over a
>billion, and dollars spent on defense don't count as income.
>--
Well, looks like the name-calling has come full circle. Your
head is either fuzzy, pointy or thick.
The response to the above has been expressed before, but somehow
missed by the writer. I'll repeat:
The deficit is not caused by low taxes - it's caused by high
spending! Period. Only. Solely. Nothing else.
The approach of the past 50 years has been to spend other
people's money to solve social programs. We've spend the money. Then
spent more. And more. And more. And no solution yet. Look:
1. In 1966, when the "War on Poverty" began, there
were 28.5 million poor, representing 14.7% of the
population.
2. Since then, we have spent half-a-trillion dollars on
"poverty". The benefit from that spending: in 1982
there were 34.4 billion poor, or 15% of the population.
Allowing that some of these were so because of the
then-current recession, the results are about even.
In simple terms, FIVE-HUNDRED-BILLIONS of the dollars that you
and I earned at our chosen professions were taken from us to help the
poor. If that had worked, fine. The actual, empirical results of that
spending: NOTHING! ZIP! ZILCH! It's as if it had never been spent.
We got poorer; the poor stayed poor. Any wonder I meekly suggest
we stop doing what we've been doing? And that Ronald Reagan is not
selfish and heartless for concluding similarly?
The fact is: no amount of government activity will ever cure
poverty. There are legitimate areas of involvement, but not where it
has been involved. Time to look at the facts and stop doing what looks
good, and start doing what works. And, on the whole, Reagan's approaches
have worked:
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.
2. Deficits are high. They are also applying anti-spending
pressure on the profligates in Congress. Maybe, just maybe,
they'll get the truth: THEY are the engineers of the deficit;
not Reagan.
3. Unemployment, while not better than when Reagan took office
is neither any worse. And it is trending favorably.
Gordon A. Moffett
They are a positive good if used correctly. In Keynesian economics,
when there is a recession the government is advised to pump money
into the economy to avoid depression -- EVEN IF IT HAS TO BORROW TO
DO THIS. The consequences are to have a depression of the magnitude
of the early 30's, which the US and the world could not allow.
The bad news is that you have to pay off the debt, but that is easier
to do if you have a healthy economy, which is what the debt was
guarenteeing.
While people (even Reagan) are writing off Keynesian economics as
ill-fated, they seem to be using its principles anyway.
--
(It's only a model)
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam
[ This is just me talking. ]
Bruce Nemnich
> 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, b...@mit-mc.arpa ... soon to be br...@godot.arpa!
Andrew Banta
Record_ is editted by the Congressmen. I hate to tell you this, but it
DOES tell what issues were brought up on the floor, and a GENERAL idea
of which way the legislators debated on them. Gawd, how much time do you
think I have? I wouldn't even think about wading thru what was said in
it ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz
Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And the red blood spread like the anger you'd made ... "
Ray Simard
>==================
>Ray Simard:
>Selfishness is being unwilling to contribute of oneself for the good of
>others. This opposition is being unwilling to allow government to
>FORCE contribution to others, inefficiently, to the wrong benefactors,
>without accountability, using methods that have been empirical failures
>for decades. Quite a difference.
>==================
>Emprical failures for decades? You can say that in the face of the
>longest period of sustained prosperity in the modern history of
>the Western World (1945 until the oil shock).
The failure to which I referred is the failure of government
largesse to cure poverty. Yes, the economy as a whole has done well
for the interval you mention. I wasn't refering to that - only that
some half-trillion dollars have been spent since the War on Poverty,
and the poverty rate is barely changed. The experiment hasn't worked,
and it is long since time to re-think it.
FreemanS
even though Reagan gave us a tax cut is that they are really not
better off, but are really about where they were. I saw on PBS about
a week or two ago an election special where the commentator said
that most states had to raise state, local and property taxes to
offset the federal cuts in programs to aid states. This effectively
eliminated the Reagan tax cuts to the middle class which bear the
brunt of the taxes anyway.
Now if you're middle class and have kids, this means that you may
will have to pay for your childrens college education. Which is
going up at least 10% a year. Most private universities cost 10,000
a year, and public universities about 5,000. With all the
conservatives screaming for more cuts, these poeple will probably be
the first to complain about bad roads, expensive college costs,
waste dumps, and city services. Wake up people something has to pay
for all this!
What all the left-wing and right-wing advocates have to understand
is that there is a middle road. What goverment has to understand is
how much is enough. Do we need all the military and social services
spending. I think that we could probably cut about 10% of each and
still have a strong defense and still preserve the safety net.
As for the deficit I think we all agree that this is probably the
most important economic issue. Whoever is in office is going to
raise taxes, maybe not personal taxes, probably a VAT, taxes on
corporations, elimination of exemptions. Regardless of where it
comes from the middle class will get the shaft they always do.
RR's foreign policy has been a fiasco since he took office,
lebannon being the worst. The Reagan administration was against
Duarte talking to the rebels in El Salvador. The Reagan
administration is on record wanting a military solution in that
country. Nicuaraga is similarly like our involvement in Vietnam, In
1980 we had no military advisors, today we have about 2000. Will
there be a war in the next four years? The right likes to flame
carter, but let me remind you that this is the man that gave us the
camp david accords, opened up china to trade, signed the panama
canal treaty. RR is on record opposing all of these, remember that
RR called Kennedy a marxist sympathizer.
So on Tuesday you will all have a choice and PLEASE GO AND VOTE.
Destroyer of Myths,
S. Freeman
The 1200 baud hacker
> 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
David Canzi
> spending! Period. Only. Solely. Nothing else.
DRIVEL! The deficit is a result of *both* taxes and spending.
Decrease spending to equal taxes -- no more deficit.
Increase taxes to equal spending -- again, no more deficit.
Claiming that high spending is the *sole* cause of the deficit is like
claiming that the "2" in "5-3=2" is *entirely* the result of the "5",
as if the "3" has nothing to do with it.
David Canzi
Ray Simard
>...I saw on PBS...an election special where...
>most states had to raise state, local and property taxes to
>offset the federal cuts in programs to aid states. This effectively
>eliminated the Reagan tax cuts to the middle class which bear the
>brunt of the taxes anyway.
The local tax increases have not cancelled the cuts at the
federal level, only reduced them somewhat. Secondly,
the shift of responsibility from the federal to state and local levels is not
at all undesirable. One of Reagan's principles, one on which
I agree with him, is that many functions heretofore handled at the federal
level belong at the more-responsive state and local levels.
>
>Now if you're middle class and have kids, this means that you may
>will have to pay for your childrens college education.
1) Education has traditionally been a state (and to a lesser
extent, local) responsibility. Anyway, when was the above ever otherwise?
Whether directly or through taxes, we pay for ALL of education.
>With all the
>conservatives screaming for more cuts, these people will probably be
>the first to complain about bad roads, expensive college costs,
>waste dumps, and city services. Wake up people something has to pay
>for all this!
You're absolutely right - someone has to pay for all this.
What we "conservatives" don't want to pay for is a lot of other things -
social-engineering and income-transfer programs that have demonstrated no
measurable benefit over their lifetimes, bureaucratic excesses and waste
(yes, this includes the military!), pork-barrel projects to buy votes
for politicians, and so forth.
>What all the left-wing and right-wing advocates have to understand
>is that there is a middle road. What goverment has to understand is
>how much is enough. Do we need all the military and social services
>spending. I think that we could probably cut about 10% of each and
>still have a strong defense and still preserve the safety net.
Actually, I agree with you here. I think the 10% figure, however,
is much too low.
>
>As for the deficit I think we all agree that this is probably the
>most important economic issue.
True, mostly because all the other major elements of the economy,
inflation, interest rates etc. are in very good shape. Unemployment,
though still painfully high, seems to be slowly taking care of itself.
>Whoever is in office is going to
>raise taxes, maybe not personal taxes, probably a VAT, taxes on
>corporations, elimination of exemptions. Regardless of where it
>comes from the middle class will get the shaft they always do.
Mondale promises so. Reagan will exhaust his other options
first. I firmly believe that there is room to cut spending to the
point where the drop in the deficit resulting therefrom, coupled with
the stimulation of the economy that also results, can clear the deficit
entirely.
>The right likes to flame
>carter, but let me remind you that this is the man that gave us the
>camp david accords, opened up china to trade,
Wrong. That was Nixon.
>...signed the panama
>canal treaty.
Which was a mistake.
>RR is on record opposing all of these, remember that
>RR called Kennedy a marxist sympathizer.
Not so. RR said that Kennedy's proposed policies were in alignment
with some of Marx's principles; he didn't claim that Kennedy was sympathetic
to Marxism per se. Secondly, he said this during the campaign. In fact,
President Kennedy was far more sensible economically than Candidate Kennedy
promised to be. (By the way, if you look at the Kennedy economic policies
and accomplishments, you'll find they are essentially identical to what
has been called "Reaganomics": tax cuts (Reagan 25%, Kennedy 22%), business
and invesment incentives, etc.
See you at the polls!
Ray Simard
>> The deficit is not caused by low taxes - it's caused by high
>> spending! Period. Only. Solely. Nothing else.
>
>DRIVEL! The deficit is a result of *both* taxes and spending.
>claiming that the "2" in "5-3=2" is *entirely* the result of the "5",
>as if the "3" has nothing to do with it.
In a strict mathematical sense, of course you're correct. That
was not my point.
The basis for my original statement is:
1. The government does not specify tax REVENUE, but rather,
tax RATES. Therefore, the actual revenues (the "5" in your analogy)
are based both on rates and the tax base on which they apply.
2. Above a certain point, increased tax rates begin to reduce
the economic vigor that produces the tax base, thereby reducing the base
itself. Rates increase, and revenues hold even, or drop.
If you reach a 40% or 50% bracket on your marginal dollar, what happens
to your eagerness to put forth the effort and risk to earn that dollar,
compared to your eagerness to earn the dollar that was taxed at 20%?
Kinda drops, doesn't it?
3. It is unfair to tax away more than a certain percentage of anyone's
income. When you contribute of your time, effort, talent and risk to
produce something of value, you have earned some amount of compensation.
While, by general agreement, we all part with some of that in order to
have a government, there is an upper limit above which nobody should
be taxed. I put that point at about 20% to 25%, tops. Not only is
taxing above that just plain unfair, it reduces incentives to produce and
earn (see 2 above).
The gist of all this is, in our current state of affairs, the
element of the equation that is out of line is the spending side.
The revenue side is, if anything, too high, not too low. When you
consider the full equation, not just revenues-spending, including all
the secondary and tertiary effects, it is good economic and social sense
to address the spending side, and, as soon as possible, cut taxes further.
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
...Though we may sometimes disagree,
You are still a friend to me!
Alan Algustyniak
>> spending! Period. Only. Solely. Nothing else.
>
>DRIVEL! The deficit is a result of *both* taxes and spending.
But he didn't say that the deficit is not caused by taxes; he said it
is not caused by *low* taxes. I think that that is exactly what he meant.
A great problem with Mondale and his Congressional ilk is that they
firmly believe that taxes are *too low*. That they only proper way to
reduce the deficit is to tax, tax and tax again; the same solution to
problems that was unsuccessfully tried 1964-1980. We are already greatly
overtaxed. Think about Mondale's solo. to the deficit problem for a
minute and you can see that it can be summed up in one sentence:
The reason for the deficit is that you are undertaxed!
One reason for Reagan's Tuesday Rompin' is that there are plenty of
people who understand that that is what Mondale is saying. Reagan has
got it right:
The reason for the deficit is not that you are undertaxed,
but that the government is overfed!
sdcrdcf!alan
George Sicherman
> The local tax increases have not cancelled the cuts at the
> federal level, only reduced them somewhat. Secondly, the shift of
> responsibility from the federal to state and local levels is not at all
> undesirable. One of Reagan's principles, one on which I agree with
> him, is that many functions heretofore handled at the federal level
> belong at the more-responsive state and local levels.
One of the historic advantages of national governments is that they can
defend people against local oppressions. This is what was once called
"the King's justice." Not that the King's agents were necessarily in-
corruptible, but they were harder to corrupt than local authorities.
I should like to see central governments replaced by computer networks
such as this one. Obsolescence doesn't play favorites!
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
Ray Simard
>> The local tax increases have not cancelled the cuts at the
>> federal level, only reduced them somewhat. Secondly, the shift of
>> responsibility from the federal to state and local levels is not at all
>> undesirable. One of Reagan's principles, one on which I agree with
>> him, is that many functions heretofore handled at the federal level
>> belong at the more-responsive state and local levels.
>
>One of the historic advantages of national governments is that they can
>defend people against local oppressions. This is what was once called
>"the King's justice." Not that the King's agents were necessarily in-
>corruptible, but they were harder to corrupt than local authorities.
I was not attempting to place an unconditional, black-and-white
preference for state and local handling of everything, just to show
that, while SOME of the reduction in tax burden at the federal level
has been made up in state and local increases, that is often a positive
change. Education, public assistance, some medical programs, etc. are
better handled locally. It also makes little sense to me to enact
"revenue sharing" programs which cause tax money sent to Washington to
be sent back where it came from (after much attrition). Seems a bit
more sensible to cut out the middleman and just leave it there.
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
...Though we may sometimes disagree,
David Fetrow
"loral!simard" suggested that education is best handles locally. As someone
with some experience with the educational superstructure I must point out
that some federal control is desireable: if only to see that some standards
and exposure to ideas are nationwide. (Ideally this would include instruction
in american standard english)
I may be oversimplifying his position but very few, I think, believe that
school integration is a bad thing...and that wouldn't have happened without
federal interference. (I have a feeling a new flame just got opened...oh well)
Dave Fetrow
prime wizard
m...@ea.uucp
<>
"loral!simard" suggested that education is best handles locally. As someone
with some experience with the educational superstructure I must point out
that some federal control is desireable: if only to see that some standards
and exposure to ideas are nationwide. (Ideally this would include instruction
in american standard english)
Dave Fetrow
prime wizard
/* ---------- */
Yes - we have to make sure that everybody gets the same brainwashing.
"For their own good."
<mike