Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Fuzzy headed liberals Message-ID: <608@loral.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 16:24:48 EST Article-I.D.: loral.608 Posted: Fri Nov 2 16:24:48 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 5-Nov-84 19:46:03 EST References: <569@loral.UUCP> <790@flairvax.UUCP> <591@loral.UUCP> <804@flairvax.UUCP> Reply-To: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA Lines: 69 Summary: In article <804@flairvax.UUCP> baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: >What are you talking about? Do you even know what the National Endowment >for the Humanities *is*? Yes. >Oh, well, you probably don't like books, art, music, or dance anyway. A bad call, Baba. I am very much an appreciator of the arts. (Take a moment to count the number of people you know who have purchased season tickets to the opera. I have.) I just happen to think that I should pay for such benefits at the box office, not in my tax bill. >Markets are not savage tribal gods that must be fed, they are systems of >interaction between people. The majority people of northern California are >willing to pay more for fuel if that's what it takes to keep the coast >intact. But again, you probably don't understand how anyone could value >such a thing. It just can't be so easily reduced, Baba. I place great value on clean air and water, unsullied landscapes, and natural beauty, and I spend much of my liesure time in such environments. You don't know me; please stop writ- ing as if you did, without data. The point is, if we as a society demand a product, we sometimes have to sacrifice something for it. For some, it means the spidery outlines of oil rigs on the horizon. For others, it means woodlands harvested as timber forests, or cleared to build communities. Naturally, there must be a bal- ance, preserving some land for parks and wilderness areas, concern for endangered wildlife and resources, etc. That doesn't bother me; I support it. What does is people who raise hell whenever anything is put to commer- cial use, and who raise the "profit-grubber" pejorative whenever it happens. The Reagan administration has done a much better job of this than is generally perceived. Those who seem to want a return to the romanticized images they carry of a pristine world free from the hand of man are unhappy unless some company or other is in the pillory every week. Forget it - that's emotion, not environmentalism. >There is no possibility that economic expansion can produce enough revenue >to cover the deficits. If the deficit is X, and total spending is reduced by X, the deficit goes away, right? I'm not necessarily suggesting that, but when the commerce-hampering effects of current spending levels are reduced, the defi- cit drops on two fronts: reduced expenditures themselves, and the improved tax base from lower burdens on commerce. Beyond that, when the private economy is vigorous, more people are working, government relief demand is lower, and that helps reduce deficits too. >Mr. Reagan has publicly stated that a VAT is the sort of tax that he might >find acceptable. If and ONLY if some tax becomes required. Check his speech - many things would have to happen, all of them extraordinary, before he'd consider such a thing. >A VAT is a sales tax rather than an income tax. Roughly. I'd like to see an end-user sales tax nationally - but only if the income tax system is entirely scrapped, and the sales tax replaces it. (A VAT is not quite a sales tax). -- [ 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