HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Wildly regressive taxes
Date: 15 Aug 1992 18:55:32 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug12.234414.12306@sequent.com>, bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the social security tax (FICA) the
> most wildly regressive tax imaginable?  An individual pays ~7-7.5% of
> his/her salary up to some limit after which s/he pays ***0%***.  Wouldn't
> it make more sense to pay 0% up to some limit, and THEN start paying this
> tax?
OK then, by this logic you can't get any benefits from SSA until you have had
enough quarters to pay into the trust. So all of the low income individuals 
should not get anything. FICA is a tax which goes into the trust fund [which
then loans money to the FEDs but it is a loan]. Your benefits from SSA depend
on what you pay into the fund. Those people who 'pay' $0 after they reach
the limit do not get any credit for their salary above that limit. As far as
SSA is concerned, that limit is the maximum salary they got for that year. The
benefits calculation is based on that limit. If you want to insist that people
pay above that limit, then you also must insist that they get credit for their
salaries above that limit and thus get a larger benefit. 

> 
> It seems to me that this accounts for a significant chunk of your average
> low income wage earner's salary.  While virtually none of the Rich (tm)
> person's earnings.
> 
> Why is it that we have hoards of people complaining about federal income
> taxes, and no one says $#!+ about FICA?

As others have said, quite a few people have complained about FICA. I would
like to see it made optional and allow people to pay into personal pensions
rather than the coerced nature of FICA. Bear in mind that SSA was never 
designed to be a total source of income for retirement and that is why it
does cap out, there is an assumption that those poeple who do make a large
amount will fund their own retirement. This will never happen because what 
we pay into it now funds the benefits for the current retirees. [The fund is
also building up a large surplus to enable benefits to be paid to us when we
retire. It will be very interesting over the next few years when the surplus
reaches it maximum to see if Congress can keep its mits off of the trust since
all of that money is not being used to pay for CURRENT expenditures.]
-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:35:17 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

It is interesting that the Republican nominees made their wives into major 
convention speakers, whereas the Democrats did not.  Clinton's basic 
response has been to treat the attack on his wife casually.  I believe
that this is a mistake.  The only strategy that the Republicans have is
to tear down his character.  This is just what happened to Dukakis--e.g. 
when he failed to take hypothetical revenge on a hypothetical attacker for 
a hypothetical rape of his wife.  A winning response might have been to 
blast back at the questioner for having the nerve to ask such a question,
a technique that Bush has mastered.  The public has shown its willingness
to rally to candidates who are unfairly attacked, and Clinton's response 
was just to play down or defuse the issue.  That response not only fails to
gain public sympathy, but it leaves the Republicans free to keep it up.  I
hope that this doesn't become a pattern for Clinton, or Bush really will
be able to control the election agenda.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: asuncion@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: ITALY: Mafia 10   State -0
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:06:25 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Italy... 
Mafia 10  Government -0

 First it was Falcone now Borsellino. Why is Italy so helpless
against the Mafia ? Is there any way to clean out the stable ?
The key to these problems lies in the inevitable trade-off
between the power of the state and that of the individual.
 Why is Italy losing the war against organised crime ? In short,
one side is organised and the other is not. In other words, in
Italy, impotent government is the law of the land.. the supreme
law in fact. Years of a constitution designed to thwart heavy-
handed fascist rule coupled with a lot of bad luck has allowed
the Mafia to root itself into the highest levels of the state
while the government, a weak coalition , is forced to fight the
Mafia with extremely ineffective laws and numerous restrictions
on what law-enforcement officials may do.
  What should the government do ? First, it must revise its
constitution . It must eliminate those clauses that needlessly
hamper the gathering of useful intelligence and the prosecution
of top mafia bosses. Moreover, any links between Mafiosa clans
must be weakened. Anything else ? Yes, the Mafia's financing must
be dried up. All of these measures, are of course next to
impossible but then again who said it was going to be easy ?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41101 talk.abortion:32870 alt.politics.bush:2405
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:43:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

Once again, part of this note was misattributed to me:


In article <1992Aug21.004156.4507@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug19093856@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>> >I can say, in principle, that the fetus should be protected in the middle
>> >and later stages of pregnancy (or after the development of the CNS).  But, if
>> >my wife found, in the second trimester of pregnancy, that the fetus was
>> >seriously abnormal,  we would be faced with a very painful and difficult
>> >decision.  And, quite frankly, I don't know how we would act.  It is one
>> >thing to talk about such things and another to actually live through such
>> >circumstances.
>>
>>What if, for example, the child seemed normal in the womb, but when born,
>>got tangled in the umbilical cord and suffered some brain damage?  Would
>>you then be faced with a difficult decision of whether to put it out of
>>your misery?
>
>Yes, you are faced with the difficult decision of whether to cease life
>support or feeding (in the case of severe damage) or whether to relinquish
>custody to the state (i.e. put it out of your misery).
>
>What was your point?
>
>>
>> >It seems ironic that the republicans are the party which
>> >opposes abortion but is also the party which is least inclined to help the
>> >mother (parents) or the child.  To them, the only issue seems to be cutting
>> >taxes, particularly for the wealthy.
>>
>>Abortion is chosen less frequently by those who are on welfare anyway,
>>according to what I've read.  If someone has actual figures to back
>>this up or to refute it, It would be helpful: if we could find out the
>>demographics of abortion recipients, we could find out whose right to
>>choose we're primarily discussing.
>
>Well, I don't have any figures, but did it ever occur to you that perhaps
>since medi-cal does not cover abortion but does cover childbirth that 
>abortion is not an available option for poor women to choose much of the 
>time?
>>
>>Being a Republican myself, I think that the issue is trying to spend
>>money responsibly.  The welfare system needs some work.  Taxes need to
>>be reduced, but there are certainly other areas that could give back
>>greater returns, and I think they are being sought out.
>
>Well, I agree here.  I think it is much more responsible to fund 
>abortions for women who want them then to fund welfare and orphanages for
>born children whose parents can't or won't raise them.
>
>
>Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The buck stops where?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:20:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.132542.14572@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!news
>From: enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman)
>Subject: The buck stops where?
>Message-ID: <1992Aug19.132542.14572@tamsun.tamu.edu>
>Sender: news@tamsun.tamu.edu (Read News)
>Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
>Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:25:42 GMT
>Lines: 10
>Thus far in the campaign, George Bush has blamed Congress,
>the press, and now his cabinet for his problems.  I find
>it rather strange that someone who touts his ability to
>deal with Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kohl etc., can't handle
>Tom Foley, Nicholas Brady and Richard Darman.  What a
>weenie.

     The President of the United States has just about the sole diplomatic
power in this country.  The Senate gets to confirm ambassadors and treaties,
but I think that's just about it.  When people want to deal with the United
States, they deal with its President.

     On the other hand, the President only has limited power over the 
Congress, and if the Congress manages a 2/3 majority, he doesn't even
have that.

     It is not the President of the United States job to force the Congress
to do anything.  If it's anyone's job, its yours and mine.  His job is
to run the government and execute the orders of Congress (We have an
Executive Branch, not a Leadership Branch.)  The President's job
description doesn't include making jobs, fixing the economy, educating
children, or any of the thousand other things everybody wants to head
at his feet.

     Most of it isn't even Congress' job.  Even if it should be we should
be talking amending the Constitution to make it so and not simply
fudging our way around it.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39723 alt.politics.elections:10584 talk.politics.theory:3675
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Let's get real about AIDS shall we?
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:06:25 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <4643@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>	Repeat the statement that you won't support any strategy that
>anyone forms ... to parents whose kids have been shot at in drive-by
>killings,

...by people who made the money to buy their guns with the wildly overinflated
drug prices caused by government intervention in the market...

>gang wars,

...to protect turf and settle disputes, because the courts are not open for them
to pursue the normal means of settling such disputes....

>or overdoses.

Because there are no standards for drug concentrations and purity, nor product
labeling. Nobody overdoses on purpose.

>Tell that to the medics and the
>policemen in Washington DC and Los Angeles and Miami who see
>drug-related crimes day after day, night after night.

99.9% caused by drug _marketing_ related activities, NOT drug usage.
Not to mention the violence instigated by the police in the course of your
war.

>The government
>deems those appropriate drugs illegal because they can affect behavior
>and they are very lethal.

Like LSD, which has NO known LD-50? Hardly, Mr. Chuck. Illegal drugs are
no more dangerous in general than are the legal drugs.

>It's okay to support peasant farmers in
>foreign countries "trying to make a living" than trying to stop the
>killing in our streets and the hopelessness that pervades.

Stop the killing - eliminate the underlying reason that the killing is
going on. Eliminate the government intervention in the market and virtually
all of the problems you describe go with it, just as they did for alcohol
following the end of prohibition.

>	The War on Drugs begins with each one of us. My cited paragraph
>says it all for me.

The War on Freedom is for morons.  I will do nothing to support it, and
everything reasonable to oppose it.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:09:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Aug.13.08.57.46.1992.3740@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.210005.13671@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
>
>> It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos like Mary
>> Matalin protest the New York Post article on George's alleged affair
>> with a staff aide.  I wonder why the same indignation was not present
>> when the Clinton allegations surfaced.
>
>Because the allegations concerning Bush come third-hand -- supposedly
>from the mouth of a dead man -- with no other supporting evidence,

    I believe the man died in 1988.  How did he die?



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:45:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.205750.8790@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>his granddaughter if she were to have an abortion?  Wouldn't you want him to
>be ragging on her parents to throw her out of the house?
>
>Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of their
>female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that they would
>remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or granddaughter; all 
>equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents' support of their right
>to choose.
>

I  believe there is a slight confusion.  I took Bush's statement on
Dateline to be support AFTER THE FACT.  The media and others twist it 
around and use the logic to something BEFORE THE FACT.  There is a BIG
difference, and I hope people see the difference.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40634 alt.activism:15091 misc.headlines:5743 sci.econ:6934
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:52:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Aug19.125232.3612
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.093945.9023@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
...
> |>        Reagan when he came into office had four basic points: one, reduce
> |>marginal taxes; two, reduce regulation; three, restrain government spending;
> |>four, have a stable and noninfaltionary monetary policy.  And while he did
> |>not
> |>achieve them to the extent to which I would have liked, he did achieve a
> |>great
> |>many of them.
> 
> Running up the worlds largest budget deficit in the process. Derregulation
> caused the S&L disaster. 

	Carter started the deregulation.  The S&L scam wouldn't be a problem if
George wasn't violating the FSLIC by making 100% restitution, regarldess of
account balance.
	We're paying big bucks so 98 out of 100 of George's Top 100 (people who
donated at least $100K each) don't lose their shirts from bad real estate
investments.
	Of course the kicker is that they are now buying back their old
properties for pennies on the dollar.

> It's not unusual for men of 80 to be entirely disconnected from reality and
> unable to accept a flaw in their pet theories. Even Einstein spent an entirely
> fruitless old age trying to demolish quantum mechanics.
> 
> Milton Friedman's solution to everything is "the free market". He even tries to
> claim that whaling should be entirely unreguated since "the free market" will
> provide the necessary checks and balances, perhaps Friedman has not heard of the
> dodo? Senility makes people forget such facts.

	He's right.  If people value the whale, they'll act to keep it around. 
If they are uniformed about the nature of the food web, then they'll eventually
get a rude awakening.  Government shouldn't be some all-powerful parent figure. 
When you treat people as responsible adults they act like responsible adults. 
When you treat them like children they act like children.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:28:02 GMT

In article <11678@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.015137.16592@amhux2.amherst.edu>, twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
># Um, the argument advanced in support of antidiscrimination laws is
># that it's just plain bozonic to fire someone based on their sexual
># orientation, except for the very few circumstances where it might be
># relevant (such as lesbian/bisexual/gay youth counseling).
>
>Or being a Scoutmaster -- a position quite analogous to a counsellor.
>Or is this just that you want the right to hire homosexuals exclusively,
>but want no one else to have that right?

If you presented me with an example of a job for which heterosexuals
were uniquely suited on the basis of their heterosexuality, I'd say,
"Go for it."  I haven't heard of any such jobs yet.  Do you want to
try me, or are you just shadow boxing?

>Look.  We all know that homsoexuals are severely damaged people.
>You know it too.  That's why you engage in the continual efforts
>to persuade yourself that you are really OK, and why you insist
>on forcing other people to shut up about the subject.

I recommend that you find someone who thinks that the things I post on
this subject are "continual efforts to persuade myself that I am
really OK."  I haven't felt better in years, Clayton -- now, at least,
I know who I am.  I doubt that you can say the same; you're such a
severe closet case you can't even admit the possibility that other
people might be gay.

As for "forcing other people to shut up," this is actually laughable.
I suppose I've been going around to Sun, Optilink, and Oracle and
stealing people's keyboards?  Snipping computer wire?  Tying people up
and locking them in the broom closet?

There is the possibility this year that a law will be passed in Oregon
preventing state-funded schools from discussing homosexuality "in a
positive or neutral light."  Who's forcing whom to shut up, idiot?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Bisexual just means you pay for it."
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Rock Hudson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Train vs. plane subsidies? (was Re: Private Discrimination)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug20.065031.18600@s1.gov> <ATAYLOR.92Aug20155241@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug21.011205.3326@s1.gov>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:49:33 GMT

<In article <1992Aug21.011205.3326@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug20155241@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
 <  ><In article <1992Aug20.065031.18600@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

<   :<	   There is a third option: going by train. Although a train will
<   :<   be in motion longer than an airplane will over the same route, trains
<   :<   are generally cheaper, and often more conveniently accessible. And if
<   :<   they are fast enough, trains can successfully compete with airplanes
<   :<   on relatively short routes. Airline travel has actually declined on
<   :<   some routes served by high-speed trains like the French TGV.

<   :	Strawman alert!

<   :	Given that air travel in Europe is much more restricted
<   :	by government regulations and is MUCH more expensive
<   :	than train travel, it is specious to declare that
<   :	TGV "competes" with air travel. TGV is a government
<   :	owned monopoly, for one thing.

<	   The TGV is an actual moneymaker; 

	How can you tell? It is part of a nationwide government
	monopoly.

<European airlines are  probably not as subsidized as ours.

	"Probably"? Could you be more specific? European
	air travel is much, much more regulated than US;
	routes and airport landing rights are owned by 
	governments in most cases and locked in to
	given airlines...often state-owned airlines.

<	   Joseph Vranich in _Supertrains_ describes the "Gravy Plane" of
<   American airline subsidies in gory detail. Any serious fiscal

<   conservative ought to have a heart attack after reading that.

	What's the publishing date of this, please? There 
	have been rather a lot of changes in US airspace
	over the last 12 years.

<   :	And I defy any train to "compete" with a 737 from
<   :	Dallas to El Paso, Texas....without a government
<   :	stepping in, that is.

<	   Government _already_ steps in -- on the side of the plane. It
<   is railroad travel that is seriously disfavored here in the US.

<	   If the _true_ costs were included, the train would undersell
<   the plane, even though it wouldn't be as fast.

	How do you know this, please? AMTRAK has or had
	service from El Paso to Dallas, as does Greyhound.
	Yet Southwest Airlines does quite well....oh, must
	be all those government subsidies paid to Southwest,
	right?

	Numbers, please?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:56:51 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>>I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
>>are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
>>born.
>I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
>who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
>need one.

Or they have plenty of money to allow them to travel to a state 
which hasn't outlawed abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned and the
power is given to the states.
------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "If your so damned smart, why are
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |   you doing what your doing, and I'm
                                        |   president of the U.S.?" - G.Bush
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41066 talk.politics.theory:3775 soc.culture.usa:6748 alt.conspiracy:10193