From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:31:27 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug31.010359.16604@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.000208.21614@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug29.173057.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:

>>>	The platform
>>>	------------

>>>	d> Only US citizens and US corportions may invest in any
>>>	   dept incurred by the federal government. 

>>Why?  Also, please define a US corporation.  How much foreign
>>ownership is allowed?  How do you plan to prevent a foreigner from
>>buying one last share?

>now in a prvious posting i claraified this but what i mean is new debt
>aquired 10 years after the adoptions of this program which would be quite 
>small if all things work out.

Yes, but why limit investments in US debt to US citizens and
corporations?


>>>3> Major investment plan in infrastructure
>>>	a> Build road and rail systems as needed to promote
>>>           interstate commerce. Will emphasize less poluting
>>>	   rail systems.  Goal is fast and inexpensive transport
>>>	   of goods and people around the country.

>>Where do you plan on getting the money?  I thought you were going to
>>balance the budget.  Also, why?  If it's needed why won't private
>>companies do it?

>humm i think a sentence has been deleted from my platform. however
>the keyword was "as needed by interstate commerse". 

Well, interstate commerce seem to be doing fine right now.  People
ship all over the US and freight rates are rarely cited as a reason
not to pursue business.

>i would not 
>simply go out and build roads. the need would have to be determind first.
>and of courrse only build what is most necessary and in a time frame
>taht fits in the budget.

Well, to my mind that means nothing so we might as well delete the
plank.  Mind explaining if you see things differently and if so why?

>>>	b> All necessarly land will be purchaced at fair market
>>>	   value.

>>Once more, I thought you were going to balance the budget.

>again this can still be done on the approprite scale taht is affordable.

Which is pretty damned near 0.

>>>	c> Adopt national auto emmisions standards. Goal is to have
>>>	   no emissions in 20 years, each year lowing the standard.
>>>	   Cars made before adoption of this law are exempt.

>>No emissions?  Nothing does that.  Not even electricity from nukes -
>>there is still waste.  Maybe from hydro, but do we really want to dam
>>up every single river in the US?

>you are wrong about this. there are currently electric cars on the market
>that have no emissions. and in fact los angeles has adopted special
>auto emmision goals that are similar to the one above.

Except, of course, that the power plants produce emissions.  Why don't
you count them?  For LA this makes sense - because of their special
pollution problems it makes sense to export pollution to other parts
of the US.  Mind explaining why it is a good idea for the rest of the
US?  Also, shouldn't we meausure total emissions, not just tail-pipe
emissions? 

>>>6> Promote famly values by:
>>>	a: must show proof of counciling before marraige license
>>>	   can be obtained.

>>Seems to me it isn't any of your fucking business whether I get
>>counseling or not before I get married.  And if you think my response
>>is intemperate I guarantee you will not appreciate some other peoples'
>>responses. 

>for sure i only appreciate only rational responses. for the emotional
>ones say nothing except you feelings are hurt. however my goal here
>is to engage in rational discussion on these issues.

Doesn't matter.  I don't need rational arguments.  All I need to do is
rant and rave and no politician will touch your platform with a ten
foot pole because this kind of law will make most people rant and rave.

>>>9. develop a garbage policy that encourages recycling and strongly 
>>>   discourages the creation of new garbage.
>>>	-special tax credits for use of and processing of recycled goods

>>Why?  Why not just encourage a free market in waste?  If it costs too
>>much to landfill it people will recycle it.  Why do we need to
>>subsidize corporations?

>to save our natural resources{which are still in the ground.

What's the point of saving them?  Why are normal pricing pressures
inadequate? 

>companies still do not have enough incetive to use recycled material
>even when the cost less. 

Mind explaining why companies would not use equivalent recycled
material when the cost is less?

>i expect this to also have a positive 
>effect on the environment. 

Well, that's nice, but why would it be more positive than just
requiring people to pay the cost of dumping their waste?

>>>16. eliminate the death penalty in the united states

>>Why?

>the death penalty serves no useful purpose. it does not 
>prevent other murders it does not save us court costs.

That's what you think.  Most American's disagree.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45444 ca.politics:7782 ba.politics:5318 soc.motss:39074 ba.motss:1629