HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dba3k@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Daniel Burton Avery)
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:38:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.205926.4539@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>
>>I heard on CNN that the CTJ has ties to the Clinton campaign,
>>so can hardly be considered a neutral source. I also heard that
>>they used _extra_ deductions from Brown's proposed ones to come
>>up with the increase.
>
>I've been curious about this for a while - does the CTJ have any
>agenda other than fighting Brown's tax scheme?  I mean, what do
>they feel constitutes "tax justice"?  One does get the strong
>impression that they are the "People Against Brown" (PAB) rather
>than the CTJ - somebody please clue me in.
>-- 
>
>
Citizens for Tax Justice was the group that came out with the
study last fall that showed how the changes in federal taxes
resulted in only the lowest 20% and the highest 5% had lower
tax burdens between 1977 and 1992.

Their study showed:

Changes in Federal Taxes, 1977-1992, as a percentage of family
incomes:

Family Income Group	Average Income	Change
-------------------   	--------------	------
Lowest 20%		$8,130		-.05%  (yes, .0005)
2nd 20%			$20,090		+1.2%
Mid 20%			$31,970		+0.9%
4th 20%			$47,690		+0.2%
Next 10%		$65,700		+0.2%
Next 5%			$84,700		+0.2%
Next 4%			$132,400	-1.2%
Top 1%			$676,000	-12.3% (yes, 12.3 %!!!)

tax rates adjusted for inflation.
(excerpted from Washington Post, 9/13/91)


So they have been doing other things besides criticizing the
flat tax.

Maybe a tax increase for the wealthy and a cut for everybody
else doesn't seem quite so out of line now?

Dan Avery
University of Virginia
Internet: dba3k@virginia.edu
Bitnet: dba3k@virginia
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:561 talk.politics.misc:17378
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Ok, so who do you want? (was Perot for President)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:32:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:

> Like we have a zillion choices here.  Talk about drawing a bad hand.  Can I
> get a new set of cards (candidates) please?

Ok, I'll bite.  Who do you want?

It's been my experience that everyone whines and moans about whoever
is running, but have no idea who they really want.  Tell me who you
think would be better--and remember that he or she didn't have the
guts to submit to the Bush Opposition Research Team.

--Scott
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sold Down the River...
Keywords: deficit
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:43:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.siiivINNgc
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr13.205744.8157@stiatl.salestech.com> gst@stiatl.salestech.com (Greg Tucker) writes:
> It is the first time in US history that one generation has
> sold out another. In a few years the deficit will reach
> 10 trillion and America will be bankrupt.

Here is what seems to me like a likely scenario.  (Perot mentioned
part of this on Larry King.)  The economy continues to go badly, and
Japan's and Europe's economies do badly also.  The foreign holders of
US bonds don't renew them, so that they can invest in their own
countries, and that will make our national debt go down, but it will
put a tremendous cash drain on the government.  There will be massive
service cuts, and perhaps the treasury will resort to printing up more
money to make up the shortfall, leading to hyperinflation.

I don't know much about economics, but is this something that could
happen?

	Wayne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Primaries
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:10:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.052512.2047@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> In<6485@shodha.enet.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
|> 
|> >There are clearly some misconceptions on this list vis a vi primaries.
|> >Political parties are private organizations whose activities are
|> >protected from government intrusion (to various extents) by the freedom
|> >of association.  The government can not really regulate how a political
|> >party chooses its candidates.  The courts generally slap the wrists of
|> >any government entity that tries to regulate the behavior of a political
|> >party.
|> 
|> I agree this is how it SHOULD be, but it isn't true.  PRIMARIES ARE
|> PUBLIC EVENTS.  They use TAX MONEY, state officials to count the votes,
|> etc.  And there are LAWS which affect how you can get on the primary
|> ballot.  As long as this is the case, they are PUBLIC, NOT PRIVATE.
|> 
|> If the parties paid all the costs for running the primaries, they could
|> do this.  Otherwise, no.

The way primaries were originally conducted, a group of men in a small smoke
filled room determined their party's candidate. This costs zero. The more
non-democratic a method of nomination, the less is costs the people. Government
can't regulate the behavior of a party in favor of a more democratic process,
because that involves interfering with something that DOES NOT cost them money.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:23:33 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Apr10.191907.14799@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dba3k@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Daniel Burton Avery) writes:
>
>The thing that confuses a lot of people about this tax for a
>while (myself included) is that the rent deduction is a
>deduction from your tax -base- and not your actual tax.  See,
>if you make $10,000/year, and pay 30% of your income on rent
>normally, than that means you subtract rent from your gross
>income and -that- is what you multiply by 13% to get your tax.
>In the above case, if you spend 30%, $3,000, on rent, then you
>pay:
>
>$10,000   (gross income)
>-$3,000   (rent deduction)
>=$7,000  (taxable income)
>
>then to get your tax...
>$7,000
>X  .13
>= $910    (your tax)
>
>which is an effective 9.1% tax rate...
>Add this 9.1% to a 13% VAT which will hit lower income people
>more than wealthy ones, and it doesn't look too good.
>
	Remember that the 13% VAT would apply the the 7,000-910= $6090, 
assuming food has a VAT. This would bring the overall tax rate to 
about 17%. If food is exempted from the VAT, the rate would be lower.
Seeing as the average lower-income worker pays 15% for FICA (the employer
pays half, but the cost affects the workers income indirectly. It
may be more of a wash for lower income people than it's being described
as-either that, or it means you can make numbers say whatever you want.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:57:22 GMT


Well it's obvious that this is just partisan bickering here.  Bush does
have the right to tell the Congress to do something.  They have the 
right to tell him no.  Maybe we can just agree that we have a do-nothing
President and a do-nothing Congress.   

But no one has given me a clear argument why the Democratic tax plan
is superior to President Bush's.  Why is a $300 tax credit and a tax
increase on the wealthy better for the economy than cutting the capital
gains tax?  Paul Tsongas made the right point on this as well.  Economic
growth and job creation through investment is a lot more useful than 
a $300 bribe to the American public.

William F. Tell
From: Ben Masel <bmasel@igc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: 12 Apr 92 09:58 PDT
Subject: Re: POTHEAD'S MESSAGE TO CLINTON
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1640500005:cdp:1640500007:000:1704
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Apr 12 09:58:00 1992


Quite a few of you have requested further information on the GREEN
REPUBLICANS.  This movement is brand new, there is not yet printed
material to send, other than the posting to which you have
responded, so i will try to answer questions here.

1) The Green Republican Club of Wisconsin was registered as a
not-for- profit, non-stock corporation with the office of the
Secretary of State on March 16, 1992.  The board of directors
consists of Roger Faulkner, Ben Masel, and Keith Klippstein,
Treasurer. We expect to expand this board as interested and
interesting people, and especially candidates for office, present
themselves. Current bylaws call for all decisions to be made by
the board. We anticipate evolving to a more democratic structure
after the November elections.

2) We are not now organized anywhere but Wisconsin, but would love
to hear from likeminded folks from other states, again especially
anyone interested in running for public office in Republican
Primaries.

3) We are not a Third Party. We are a grass roots insurgency
challenging the Republican Party establishment in the September
Primaries. We hope to win over not so much the Party Structure as
the Republican Voter.  Wisconsin is an Open Primary state. Voting
Green in the September Primary does not pre-empt voting for the
2nd, 3d, 4th, or 5th Party Candidate of your choice in November.
The Libertarian and Labor Farm Parties have ballot status, and
there are a handful of Greens running as independents up north.

4) The Ripon society still exists in name, but appears to no
longer be active. It is chaired by Cong. Jim Leach of Iowa. We
spoke to an aide in his office who is interested in our effort,
tho noncommittal.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:602 talk.politics.misc:17453
From: folse@crs.cl.msu.edu (Mark Folse)
Subject: Re: Bush and the Adultery Question (was The Character Issue...)
Reply-To: folse@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Mark Folse)
Organization: Michigan State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 18:26:50 GMT

I believe the question of George Bush and adultery was covered quite well
by the LA Weekly in 1988, and not picked up by a single other media
outlet that I heard of.

Perhaps someone with easy access to back issues could post a sommary of
their article.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:492 talk.politics.misc:17128
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, what's his phone #?
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:54:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>Who says I disagree with the Libertarian philosophy?  I'm not exactly
>sure what the philosophy *IS*!  As I said earlier, the LP is
>represented by net.assholes.  Not a single one of them has been able to
>convey the true meaning of their ideology.  I am sick and disgusted of
>being labeled an anti-libertarian simply because the attitudes and
>personality of the people who supposedly expouse the virtues of
>libertarianism make my skin crawl with indignation and irreverance!  My
>only contact with Libertarians happens to be contact with a bunch of
>ignorant, self-centered jerks who hold their own moral dogma above that
>of all others.

>This is the exact kind of infantile bilge which spews from the great
>black tower of Libertarianism every hour of every day.  Do you feel
>that you truely represent the libertarian philosophy?  If so then I
>assume you are all a bunch of belittling, disaffecting boobs.

>The closest thing to a position statement that I have ever heard from a
>LP poster was a .sig file that said "For Christ's sake, vote
>Libertarian!" Well... that certainly doesn't encourage me, as an
>Atheist, to vote one of your kind into office.


I'm sorry, I tried to follow up to this, but all I could do was laugh
every time I started to type.  Seriously, really, someone who writes
something like this complaining about "belittling, disaffecting
boobs."  

If you really gave a damn about libertarian philosophy, numerous posts
have been made by others as to where the party platform and philosophy
are, and some have even posted them to the net.  On the other hand, if
you're just using this as an excuse to bitch in general, that wouldn't
help, would it?  I'm sure the libertarians want your support about as
much as a good case of herpes.
-- 
Egotism:  Doing a crossword puzzle with a pen.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:495 talk.politics.misc:17140
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Jerry's Tax: Revenue Neutral? (was flat tax)
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:40:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: math.Apr.7.13.40.26.1992.10736
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I'd like to see some numbers that support the assertion that a 13%
flat tax with a 13% VAT tax would be revenue neutral, particularly if,
as Brown suggests, all FICA and other taxes are also eliminated.  

Also, the person providing the analysis should state explicitly how
the VAT would be implemented (ie as a gross revenue tax, a retail
sales tax or as a net income tax.)  I've gotten too many different
answers about this question to understand what Brown's proposal is.

It would also be helpful if you could cite a source for the
information on the VAT tax, but I don't really expect it.

Also, if someone is feeling really ambitious, it would be interesting
to see how he's going to pay for all the new spending plans he's
proposed and backed (including the Mayors' $30 billion wish list) and
how he's planning to cut the deficit.  He seems to keep spending and
respending that $150 billion he's cutting from defense--maybe I'm just
not current on Moonbeam arithmetic.

--Scott
From: SML108@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: America: What Went Wrong?
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:15:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92103.121516SML108
Organization: Penn State University

America: What Went Wrong?
Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele
Andrews and McMeel $6.95 Trade Paperback

America: What Went Wrong? is an expanded edition of a series of articles
which appeared in _The Philadelphia Inquirer_ last October exposing how
the U.S. government has used our tax code to dismantle American businesses
and the middle class leaving the top 4% of the population making the same
net amount of money as the bottom 51%
  Each of the book's ten chapters is an expose on different tactics which
were used by corporate raiders and generally supported by specific acts of
congressional legislation or lack thereof which for example allow a fugitive
from American justic to control the flow of aluminum into the United States,
gives tax breaks to companies that move their manufacturing facilities out
of the country, raid insured pension funds for easy money and replace them
with the equivalent of junk bonds, borrow heavily to buy out a company and then
deduct the interest on the debt and declare a net operating loss deduction and
pay no taxes until the debt is paid off or the company is liquidated, and many
other tricks you and I would go to jail for if we attempted them.
  Additionally, there are pretty damning indictments by example of
deregulation by illustrating the plight of the trucking and airline industries
which have been devastated since deregulation was conmmenced.  And don't think
it's over.  Your president intends to deregulate the banking industry now.
  The tactics of corporate raiders are described in dizzying depth.  It is
clear that much of the mayhem of the 80's and onward can be traced to them.
However, they are not the only guilty parties.  They could not have achieved
anything without powerful allies in government.
  Finally, the out of touch status of our elected representatives is laid
bare.  At a time when the average pension for a retired worker is ^$2,000
with no adjustment for inflation, retired members of congress are collecting
pensions of up to $150,000.  When they reformed the tax code in 1986, they
removed most of the tax breaks for the middle class such as IRAs but left
all the extant corporate deudctions intact.  And although honoraria have now
been banned, congress has worked out a handy replacement: create a non-profit
tax exempt foundation in your name for your special interest groups to
support if they want your ear.  Once again, we are locked out of the process.

Overall, I believe this book is a must read for anyone concerned with the 1992
election.  If your candidate of choice is not addressing the issues in this
book, he won't be working for you...

Scott

"Americans make money by playing 'money games', namely mergers and
 acquistions, by simply moving money back and forth...instead of creating
 and producing goods with some actual value." - Akio Morita, Head of Sony
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust)
Subject: Re: Looking for Libertarian party info
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:08:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.230536.29867@mksol.dseg.ti.com> carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth) writes:
>I'm  interested in the Libertarian party info, but don't know where to
>find any....
>Keywords: 

	If you have ftp access, try the anonymous FTP site at think.com.  
Libertarian party information is available in the directory /pub/libernet.  I
believe that this includes party platforms and other party documents.

-- 
Jeff Foust                        Junior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   	        	    jeff@seismo.gps.caltech.edu
"..any DEA agent or drug dealer can tell you that 1 pound equals 2.2 kilograms."
                       L.A. Times, page E1, 8 April 1992                  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: folse@crs.cl.msu.edu (Mark Folse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Vote Libertarian? (was Re: Ross Perot)
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:00:54 GMT
Reply-To: folse@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Mark Folse)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Michigan State University

I would appreciate it if  the Libertarian Party advocates would consider
posting, perhaps in abreviated format, their current party platform.

Do they still favor the elimination of Social Security and Medicare?
Of the EPA and the FDA? Do they still favor legalizing  drugs?
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:00:50 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
	<1992Apr13.071317.19709@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>

>Perhaps it is Congress that should get down to business.  Bush gave his
>state of the Union address back in January.  He set the March 20 deadline..
>well, where has the Congress been?  
 
>William F. Tell

I believe the congress sent Bush an economic pakage on the 20th of March
just like he asked. It wasn't his package and he vetoed it.

The congress is under no obligation to give the president his way. Bush
better learn to live with it because while he might lose in
November(doubtfull but possible) both houses of congress will still be
under democratic controll.
    Bush's only economic plan is a capital gains cut and he refuses to
bargin to get it so he never will.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:446 soc.culture.usa:2775
From: gary@clarinet.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: A few questions for President Bush
Date: 1 Apr 92 18:50:48 GMT
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia

In article <5191@pdxgate.UUCP>, mwizard@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Craig R. Nelson) writes:
|>    Everytime a liberal democrat tells me how cutting foreign aid, defense, ...
I'm not particularly attached to most of the congress but I always love how
certain people (many of whom probably listen to Rush Limbaugh) think the terms
"liberal democrat" and "liberal press" are not only the worst imaginable
epithets, but also form unbreakable compound nouns.  What's the problem?  The
liberal press is doing blah blah blah.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Vote for Hitler, Stalin or Marrou
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:24:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.205526.8553@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>, jliddle@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Jean Liddle) writes:
|> In article <1953@ra.nrl.navy.mil> ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:
|> >Keywords:  Tough Decision
|> >
|> >> Article <6483@shodha.enet.dec.com> From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
|> >
|> >> So, does that mean that you'll wait until the day before the election and
|> >> check the polls, then vote for whoever is in the lead so it's "your
|> >> {wo}man" that's elected?  Does it mean that you'll blindly vote for
|> >> whatever candidate, no matter what their views, based on party
|> >> affiliation?  If your choices were Hitler, Stalin, or Andre Marrou would
|> >> you vote for Hitler or Stalin because they represented the two major
|> >> parties?
|> >
|> >Gee thats a tough one .....
|> >
|> >Thats like choosing which of the four plagues are your favorite.
|> >
|> >In this case the best vote would be "None of the Above";  I would
|> >feel very guilty about electing any of them.
|> >
|> Funny, most americans feel the same way.  NONE OF THE ABOVE today means 
|> don't vote, an unfortunate trend which is becomming more and more wide
|> spread.

Also the Libertarian Party is the only party working towards putting a
NONE OF THE ABOVE spot on ballots so that people don't have to feel like
they have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections