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:
-------