Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site loral.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Fuzzy headed liberal Message-ID: <630@loral.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 19:45:31 EST Article-I.D.: loral.630 Posted: Tue Nov 6 19:45:31 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 04:15:53 EST References: <483@pucc-k> <1128@shark.UUCP> <1368@drutx.UUCP> Reply-To: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA Lines: 94 Summary: In article <1368@drutx.UUCP> butch@drutx.UUCP (FreemanS) writes: >...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! -- [ 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