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: Flip-flopping Fritz
Message-ID: <609@loral.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Nov-84 14:26:26 EST
Article-I.D.: loral.609
Posted: Sat Nov  3 14:26:26 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Nov-84 20:57:25 EST
References: <583@loral.UUCP> <435@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Reply-To: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard)
Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA
Lines: 65
Summary: 

In article <435@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) writes:
>Mondale has always been in favor of a strong military, but not a strong-arm
>military policy. He wants to increase or military strength in conventional,
>proven resources and means, not some esoteric, off the wall, multi-billion
>dollar space-weapons program.

	1.	Mondale has blamed excess military spending for materially
		increasing the deficit.  This means that he thinks reducing
		that budget to a level that suits him will have a significant
		impact on a $170+ billion figure.

	2.	About 7% of the total military budget goes for nuclear
		devices.

	3.	Therefore, if you unilaterally eliminate ALL
		nuclear devices, you can save about $16-17 billion, tops.

	4.	Mondale has not (yet) promised total unilateral nuclear
		disarmament.

	5.	From the above: to satisfy his claims in (1.) above, he
		would have to virtually gut conventional forces.
>The reason why (Mondale) may not have liked ... tax cut is that he sees
>who benefits from it (the rich) and who pays for it (the middle-income to
>poor). 

	Whoa!!  The popular conception expressed above is proof of the
advertiser's maxim: if you repeat anything frequently enough, it will
be believed.

	If you're rich, you got a 25% cut.  If you're poor, you got
a 25% cut.  If you're ANYBODY who paid taxes at all, you got a 25% cut.

	How does that "favor the rich"?  

	RIGHT NOW, even AFTER the tax cuts, the highest brackets are
paying marginal rates of 50%.  That is confiscatory, and absolutely
unsupportable.  If paying from the proceeds of your labor and talents,
an amount to the government equal to the total you are allowed to keep
for yourself is being "coddled", what is worse?

	No tax structure "favors" the rich until it becomes regressive,
i.e., marginal rates actually DECLINE as income levels rise.  Reagan
is not even close to suggesting that, and it has never been so.
>
>    "How should I know where they are going to be place." RR
>
>    "Well Mr. President (just like in the movies), if they are called
>     space-weapons I suppose they will be in space." WM
>
>    "I'm not a scientist" RR
>
	No doubt he should have the celestial position of every proposed
weapon in the proposal at his fingertips.  Sheesh!

Pre-signature:

"I can disagree with you and still call you friend.  I hope you choose
to do the same with me!"
-- 
[     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