Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: A Vote for Mondale
Message-ID: <366@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 09:20:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.366
Posted: Thu Oct 25 09:20:17 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 08:53:42 EDT
References: <52@mit-athena.ARPA>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 65

>...I like Reagan's willingness to speak the only
>language which the Soviets understand -- force (and no little Amy, there
>has  not  been a nuclear war).

Reagan is certainly willing to speak---but not to act.  Carter took
what were unpopular political measures in order to cause the Soviets
discomfort---the grain embargo and the Olympic boycott, for example.
Reagan does nothing but talk, and talk is cheap.  (Some talk can be
expensive, such as Reagan's suggestion that Star Wars technology be
given to the Soviets if it is developed.  Does he not realize that the
technology of the thing would likey be applicable to other weapons?)

>The economy is better than under Carter.

If you mean expansion of the economy, you're wrong: while Reagan
proudly boasts of the six million jobs in the last 21 months, he
neglects the nearly one million that were lost in 1981-1982, and that
the Carter administration created TEN million jobs over its four year
tenure.  As for inflation, it isn't Reagan fiscal policy that has done
us good there, but rather the Fed's tight monetary policy (which those
true to the supply-side faith roundly denounce).  And as for the
future, interest rates are not going to come down until the
government reduces its demand in the money markets.  So long as
interest rates remain high, industry does not modernize, and we will
suffer competitive disadvantage on world markets in the long-run.

It's been a good year and a half, but not a good three years, and
there is sound reason to believe the expansion may not last much
longer.  The trade inbalance is a warning that we need to modernize
NOW, but investment is down under Reagan.

>The nation seems more confident although I do  not  think  the  USA  has
>regained respect on the world scene.

Agreed. Reagan has sold most Americans on the idea that we are
"standing tall", though the rest of the world, Moscow included, judges
us by our actions (or lack thereof), and are immune to the President's
image making.

>But  Reagan  is  letting  the environment get really messed up.  And the
>political issues are ephemeral while the planet is permanent.  Therefor,
>I am voting for Mondale.

Reagan's neglect of the environment is part of a consistent pattern of
taxing the next generation for the pleasure of this one.  Someone's
going to have to pay for the debt, the growing actuarial inbalance in
Social Security (which neither party will touch until they must), and
the clean-up of toxic wastes.  My generation.  Those who vote now are
to be rewarded by exploiting the land for commercial advantage, while the
losses of them are felt most keenly by those who follow.  Hey,
America, how about more than lip service to the principle of "no
taxation without representation"?

>By  the  way,  isn't  it  amusing,  that in terms of deficit spending to
>stimulate the economy Reagan is the most democrat president ever.

It's more than amusing, it's incredible.  Reagan runs deficits of 180
billion dollars (now that's REAL money), a deficit which his budget
REQUESTED, and then asks for a balanced budget amendment.  Nixon said
that we're all Keynsians now, but I thought Keynes was talking about
deficit spending during recessions.  I think supply-siders read only
the "good parts" of Keynes...

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david