Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!danc From: danc@orca.UUCP (Daniel Cobb) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Message-ID: <12@orca.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Aug-83 17:08:15 EDT Article-I.D.: orca.12 Posted: Wed Aug 3 17:08:15 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Aug-83 08:07:06 EDT Lines: 49 Yes I agree with Whats-his-name, lets make net.politics political. Unfortunately, I dont disagree. I am not against social spending for the sake of towing what is percieved to be the Republican party line. On the contary, I and most Republicans, do support programs that are aimed at specifically addressing the CAUSE of our social ills, but I see absolutely no advantage in pouring money into long-term programs that deal only with the SYMPTOMS. Short-term emergency relief -absolutely, but not long-term handouts that provide no incentive or opportunity for the individual to resolve his financial dilemma. This is contary to the stance that the Democrats have taken historically. The approach of the Democrats is to fix the problem by throwing money at it in what looks like a rather indiscriminate way. Very little attention is given to How much money is available, or How effective the program might actually be. Rather, they institute a barrage of programs, and then come looking to you and me for the money in NEW TAXES. This approach might look very generous to the general public, especially during an election year, but it has seldom been effective in providing real, long-term results, and makes me and you the babysitters. Most of all it is irresponsible. Associated with this mentality is the strange concept the Democrats have that the military budget is somehow a bottomless source of revenue that exists for the purpose of funding more social programs. This mentality lead during the post-Vietnam years to the most dangerous decline in military preparedness that this country has ever witnessed. Im not talking about multi-megaton nuclear warheads, I'm talking about shortages of field supplies, spare parts for conventional weapons and critical lack of funds for training purposes. A prime exmaple of this is from my own experience. During the Middle-East war of 1973, I was a weapons technician aboard the 6th Fleet Flag Ship. Our prime defense system, the Talos missle system was non-operational 50% of the time due to a lack of spare parts. Problems such as those have been largely corrected due to the efforts of Mr. Reagan, but what concerns me still is how many Democrats still live in the naivete and self-righteousness of the Vietnam Era. How self-destructive they are. This weeks issue of TIME magazine brings up this point by saying that the Vietnam that Congress so wishes to avoid repeating will surely manifest iteslf in El Salvador if we don't commit ourselves to the issue rather than grudgingly giving up the token military aid that Congress currently allows. Nearly 80% of the assistance that El Salvador recieves is economic, leaving a 20% for military assistance. Yet the impression is that we are heavily involved militarily, and there are Democrats in Congress that think the portion for military expenditures is to large. The Democrats themselves will ensure another Vietnam simply by staying their present course. Cc: Subject: -------