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: Fuzzy headed liberals
Message-ID: <369@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 11:28:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.369
Posted: Thu Oct 25 11:28:58 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 08:54:45 EDT
References: <569@loral.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 88

>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.

I got news for you.  Reagan's going to raise taxes, too.  The question
is: do you raise income taxes or create a value added tax (a sales tax
with extra paper work)?  If you believe that the deficit is going to
be reduced without raising taxes, then, my friend, you must be the one
with the head in the sand.

>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.

It's either higher taxes or reduced spending.  Since Reagan will not
seek cuts in areas acceptable to most Americans, he, too, will choose
the taxing route.  Cutting taxes raised deficits, so it would be
incredibly  perverse for raising them to have the same effect...

>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.

Sure you can argue that Carter was too easy on the Iranians, but not
if you're supporting Reagan.  Iranian sponsored and supplied terrorist
organizations have bombed US installations in Lebanon three times,
with three hundred Americans killed in the process.  Reagan has done
nothing, and I don't think anything he's said has cowed the Ayatollah
into submission.  At least Carter tried (though failed) to correct the
situation (desert disaster in Iran on rescue mission); Reagan is so
paralyzed that he has not even tried, and could not even erect a gate or
dig a ditch in the year between the second and third bombings.  Yes,
Carter refused to risk the lives of the hostages of Iran, but that is
not craven; refusing to fight back after the murder of the Marines
is.   Maybe the failure of the rescue mission reflects poorly on the
Carter administration, but if Carter's inability to stage a complex,
risky rescue mission indicates lack of competence, what does Reagan's
failure to erect a gate or dig a ditch in the year between the second
and third bombings in Beirut indicate?

As for the timing of the hostage release, as Iran is obviously not
intimidated by Reagan, it would be more logical to assume it was to
spite Carter.  Or perhaps they realized that Reagan was far less
likely to retaliate (as action is not the thing Reagan is concerned
with), so it may have been safer to hold onto the hostages until
Carter no longer was in office.

>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.

Somoza and the Shah got what was coming to them.  Whether or not we
prefer their successors, we had no choice in either case, as we cannot
keep in power a leader universally detested by all whom he rules.
What would Reagan have done?  I'll tell you: he would have reacted in
the same way he did to the disasters in Lebanon: with bluster (just as
he does now).  As for El Salvador, it seems to me that Reagan is only
continuing Carter policy, favoring the centrists in the government and
providing aid to the government while encouraging negotiations.  Here,
at least, the Reagan administration has shown some sense.

>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.

And where do you think that money's coming from?  It is being borrowed
by the government in order to pay its expenses. You're not getting an
extra 50$ a week: you're borrowing that money (at market interest
rates) until such time as the deficit becomes so unmanagable that
your taxes are raised sufficiently to pay it back.  Sure,
you're better off today, but you're going to pay for it tomorrow.  The
fiscal hangover from this binge is going to be terrible to behold.

>You 'fuzzy' headed liberals will be the first to CRY when your pay check is
>reduced because of Mondale's tax increase(s).

If you think that it's NOT going to be reduced in a second Reagan
term, I've got some land in Florida you may be interested in ...

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