HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:43:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.220745.25505@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>gs> Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>gs> spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
>
>da> And these two aren't related?  Maybe revenue increases were caused by
>da> spending - you know, priming the pump.  My guess is that revenues would
>da> decrease with tax decreases, just not as fast as the tax decreases.
>
>  Nope. Since a tax cut results in more income being retained by the taxpayer,
>  and since this additional wealth can still be taxed, it's entirely possible
>  (and has happened) that a tax cut can result in increased revenue, due to
>  increased economic activity. The Laffer curve is really just plain common
>  sense, and that's exactly what we're talking about.
>
>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

I understand, and accept, the idea that lower taxes can be an incentive
for economic activity.  I am challenging the claim that there will be
_enough_ activity to increase revenues.  The activity may increase by
a marginal amount and that increase may also be transient, as has been
shown for studies for the case of capital gains reductions.  Such a
reduction will lead to a short-term increase as people cash in on
paper profits, but after the sell-out, the lower tax rate becomes the
dominant factor.

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40385 ca.politics:6916
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:48:19 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11809@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> Until I discovered the widespread support for child molestation
|> in the gay community, and the recent efforts at oppressing straight
|> people with measures like AB 101, I didn't care, particularly.  I 
|> didn't like what they did, but it was really irrelevant to my life.
|> The discovery that NAMBLA has a lot of support in the gay community,
|> and the efforts of parts of the gay community to use the government
|> as a tool of oppression, means that I no longer have to choice
|> to just ignore their behavior.
|> 
|> 

Oh pulease!!  You are ridiculous, and it shows in these statements.

You "discovered" NAMBLA?  NAMBLA has had their name screamed out since
, at least, the early 80s.  There was an articl on them in Newsweek
when I was in High School.  AB101 oppressing strayt people?  Get
a grip, and get some help.  You have about as much understanding
of the law as you do of homosexuality.

-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The buck stops where?
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:07:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

For someone who is trying to do a Harry Truman imitation, he sure is
claiming that the buck stops a lot of places.  Everywhere, in fact,
but on his desk.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:37:16 GMT

In a prior article, John Schmidt (ednschmi@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au) writes:
> The trouble with a voucher system is that it creates even more opportunities
> for marketing than it does for education.

Accepting this for the moment...

> Consider the proposition:
> Marketing is basically lying.
> Education is fundamentally about NOT lying.

Why do you say that marketing is basically lying? I say "My product does X,
Y, and Z, and costs ten bucks," and in fact my product does do all of those
things. You say "My product does X, Y, and Z too, and only costs five
bucks," when in fact your product does _not_ do Z. Consumers may buy your
product at first, but as word gets out, people will either sue you for false
advertising, or at the very least stop buying your product, and quite
possibly refuse to buy other products you make, once your reputation
spreads.

The point is that honesty wins customers, and deception pisses off
consumers. I don't know what kinds of lies you imagine being told in
schools, but if I enrolled my mathematically precocious child in a school
which advertised an accellerated math program, and said child came home with
complaints about how boring math class was, I'd switch schools, write nasty
letters to various administrators, and tell my friends to stay away from
this place.

Marketing is not about lying, it is about attracting customers, and in the
long run, honesty and openness attract more customers than deception.
-- 
original text by Josh Smith    ::   Comments, questions, etc. welcomed
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu   ::   #include <std.disclaimer>
"If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll
look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:30:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug18.213218.5943@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.193051.10298@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
>>If we are interested in investment, it seems that long-term investment
>>is the most likely to be useful and something like the above would
>>encourage lengthy investment over short-term investment.
>
>It's unclear that there's a useful distinction, especially wrt one
>of the most common investments, namely stock.  Suppose Allan and
>I both buy 100 shares of Disney but I sell mine to my sister
>at some point in time.  Why does it make sense to tax me and
>my sister differently than Allan?  Our investment really isn't
>any different.
>
>This whole "long-term vs short-term" discussion seems to be about
>abstract investments.  If kicking money into a real project for a few
>days results in a significant increase in value, why should that
>investment be taxed differently than one into a project that has
>slower return?  What real investments underly this discussion?


 The main investment type that underlies this discussion is stock.
 Most stock transactions are not private transactions between
 individuals like you and your sister, but anonymous transactions
 in which stock is simply put out onto the market and brokers and
 exchanges do the rest.  When large numbers of investors do this,
 say in response to some short-term drop in the company's fortunes
 it lowers the stock price.  The *theory* (whether you believe it
 or not depends on which economics deity you worship) is that
 management comes under undue pressure by US stockholders for
 short-term results and so tends to eschew long-term R&D investments.  
 
 I've certainly noticed this at many companies I've worked at: budgets
 get reworked constantly; management is constantly reacting to yester-
 day's earnings figures.  People I know at Japanese and European com-
 panies do not report this same preoccupation.    The *claim* is that
 since European and Japanese tax laws treat long-term capital more 
 favorably than immediate income this provides an incentive for patience.
 I'm skeptical about this because I think Americans are naturally im-
 patient, but as I say, economics is religion, only without the pretty
 music.


---peter

 
 
 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39453 ca.politics:6748 ba.politics:4477
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 13 Aug 1992 21:19:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <11715@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In any case, both Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear
>prohibitions on homosexuality.

They have pretty clear prohibitions on LOTS of things.  I had a ham
and pineapple and cheese calzone for lunch today, and I've got a
cotton-and-linen sweater that I wear around work when it is too cold.
By a literal reading of Leviticus, I'm in a seriously sinful state,
and I haven't even taken my clothes off.  Also, last time I checked,
"homosexuality" is overly general.  I saw explicit mention of male
homosexuality in the tax code for sin, but none for female.

If, of course, you insist on a literal reading of the bible.

David Chase
Sun
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:30:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T

trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com  writes:
>>    But do I, would I support my child? I'd put my arm around her and say, 
>>    if she were trying to make that decision, encourage her not to do that, 
>>    but of course I'd stand by my child. ...
>
>There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy floating in the air.  Let me pose
>     the abortion question to you in another way: if your child, let's
>     say, were about to commit murder (premeditated, no less), would
>     you stand by him/her?

Aieeeeeee! Please edit the attribution line correctly! Our president said
that, not me...

Seriously, it is obvious that Bush was describing how he would handle the
situation before the deed was done. Now I realize all kinds of spin can
be placed on the few simple words he spoke, as evidenced by numerous postings,
but my opinion is that he wasn't strong enough given what I think is the
pro-life position. As you point out, would he have given such a low-key
response if indeed abortion equals murder? I think not. At the least it
indicates that deep-down, the extreme pro-lifers (who are a minority to
begin with) really think it's a different kind of "murder."

On a related tangent, Barbara Bush recently gave about as strong a pro-choice
opinion as politically possible. What the h...? The cognitive dissonance you 
hear is from reverberations within the Republican Party's empty noggin. They 
are possibly only one Supreme Court appointment away from overturning 
Roe v. Wade, yet pro-choice women and men are supposed to skip blithely along
their yellow brick road into their "big tent." Be sure to check for
suspicious-looking shower heads in there.

---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:47:31 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <4718@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>=You're so right, Jennifer! And don't forget who gave us the wonderful
>=savings and loan mess!  George Bush, who said we just can't afford any
>=more to help less fortunate or less able Americans, sure didn't waste
>=any time finding the money to bail out those crook friends of his either!
>	Oh, never mind those who put their accounts into those S&Ls.
>They don't deserve any protection at all, right? That's why we have the
>bailout: not to save incompetent bank executives, but to save families
>who entrusted their money to them.

And, don't forget, let's run down the list of those up to their necks in
the S&L mess:  Cuello, Wright, Cranston, the Keating five, etc.  With one
exception, all Democrats.

*****************************************************************************
*  Bill Green, Minot, North Dakota   *    Forget the "Brad", it's really    *
*  Internet green@plains.NoDak.Edu   *                Bill                  *
*     Cleveland Freenet ak385        *   We put the wheat in your wheaties  *
*****************************************************************************
* Researching: BROWN (1579-1905 Eng/Ma/Ks)   HOWLAND (1600?-1687 Eng/Ma)    *
*  WILSON (1917-1978 Il)     COOK ( 1875-1950 Ks)   STANLEY (1870-1950 Ks)  *
*  LAMB (1870-1950 Ks)       SMITH (1855 Ia)        WILMARTH ( 1730 Ma)     *
*     KOTCHIAN, KOHOUTEK, MARSCHALL, ANHORN (All Eastern Europe-ND)         *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:18:21 GMT


<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>

In article <3=7mj2=.crisp@netcom.com>, 
crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) said:

> The thing that is most disturbing to me is that they are slowly
> eroding our ability to overthrow the bastards when we all wake up
> someday and decide the system is corrupt, broken and unsalvageable.
> It is then, my friends, that we will wish we had personal liberties
> again: liberties to have weapons that are capable of being used in
> an insurrection, communications equipment for coordination of the
> activities of the rebels etc.

I'm no expert on weaponry or insurrection, but... if push came to
shove, would the presence or absence of weapons -- even "assault
rifles" -- in the hands of civilians really make much difference to
the outcome?  Seems to me that, given the vast manpower and arsenals
of the federal military, the National Guard and (to a lesser extent)
the conventional police, the deciding factor in any modern-day
American revolution/insurrection/whatever would be whether those
groups chose to support or oppose the government; the random
civilians, even those organized fairly well, would, sooner or later,
get squashed by the professionals if they opposed them.

Unrelated question: what are you referring to when you speak of
"communications equipment for coordination of the activities of the
rebels"?  (This is an honest question, not a sarcastic one.  Yes, I'm
aware of government regulation of communications, especially
television, radio and telephones, but none of that really looks to me
like something that would be a factor in a rebellion.  If you're
referring to the current government moves to regulate/ban the use or
distribution of encryption hardware and software that's "too good,"
please bear in mind that the people behind that particular crusade
are, for the most part, the hard-line "law and order" types that tend
to congregate more at the right/Republican end of the political
spectrum than at the left/Democratic end.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Do I believe this?
Keywords: GOP Convention
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:34:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.180201.26786@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
>This morning on the way to work, I heard a 15 second sound bite from the
>GOP convention last night.  It struck me as very difficult to swallow.
>I didn't watch ANY of the convention, so please pardon the mis-quotes
>and please correct them.
>
>The speaker said that Bill Clinton is proposing a $100 [bm]illion
>increase in federal (domestic?) spending.  This is the largest
>spending increase ever.  Do we want that?  And the crowd chanted
>"NO".
>
>It seems unlikely (at best) to me that $100 [mb]illion is the
>largest spending increase ever.  Or was this another example of
>one of the biggest types of lies - statistics?

I don't know how many other lies in that sound bite there are, but the very
first sentence was one.  Anyone who'd bothered to read any of Clinton's
speeches OR the Democratic platform knows that he's not proposing anything
of the kind.  The speaker is, of course, preaching to people who'd rather
kill themselves than find out what Clinton actually intends to do.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
| "I'm new to C and need to know how to get random numbers returned."  "Just |
| send them back to the manufacturer with the original packaging and the     |
+ receipt.  What?  You didn't keep the receipt?"   	- Anon. -------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:46:09 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug19.142804.19593@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>			Dollars		Constant Dollars
>Purchase Price:		 80000		 80000
>Sales price after
>  10 years of 4%
>  inflation:		116810		 80000
>Gain			 36810		     0
>Tax on gain		  7362		  7362
>After tax gain:          29448		  -7362

>John Moore

IMO not indexing capital gains forces people to think short term.  Anyone
who is foolish enough to hold stock (or anything else for that matter)
for a number of years will be eaten alive by this inflation tax.

Investors, knowing in advance that they will have to unload their stock
in a short time apply pressure to the businesses to increase their short
term gains.

The wisom of capital gains is debateable.  Not indexing capital gains is
not.

I believe that capital gains is the only tax not presently indexed.
At least I can't think of any others that aren't.

The real discouraging thing is that many experts have declared that Bush
has the power to index capital gains right now.  (Something to do with
the language of the enabling legislation.)  

I guess Bush would rather talk a good fight, then risk the real thing.

A lot of people also think Bush already has a line item veto.  (A little
reading between the lines of the constitution.)  Bush himself has said
that he thinks he has the power.  He's just spent the last for years
looking for the perfect test case.  (Yeah, right.)

-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:30:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.011557.15591@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.c writes...
>In article <BtAqq6.8KH@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  As a trade partner, the US is basically acts like
>a schoolyard bully.
> 
>Gerald

I wouldn't limit that statement to just trade.

-garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:37:22 GMT

In article <11802@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <oijdl0s@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>> In article <11743@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >It's a start.  But I understand that a lot of signs were carried
>> >as well decrying "yellow journalism" against NAMBLA.  It sounds
>> >like the community is still quite divided about child molestation.
>> 
>> The reason people are railing against "yellow journalism" is because it
>> reinforces the stereotype of homosexuals as child molesters.  It is not
>> because they support NAMBLAs goals.
>> 
>> FWA
>
>The KRON special reports gave lots of airtime to Supervisor Roberta
>Achtenberg, claiming that the gay community didn't support NAMBLA.
>They also showed that gay bookstores all over the Castro carried
>NAMBLA's bulletin, which features pictures (legal, at least) of
>prepubescent boys.  Yes, all those gay bookstores are carrying the
>NAMBLA bulletin because they strongly disapprove of NAMBLA.  Right.
>

The overwhelming majority of magazine shops that I've been in sell
Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler. DOes this mean that the owners
approve of pornography?

The overwhelming majority of video-rental stores that I've seen rent
porno-films. Does that mean that the owners approve of every act
included in those films?

I'm one of the systems administrators of the EE and CIS department
network at the U of Delaware. Our netnews service carries all
newsgroups. The system carries every post to the network, including
graphical posts to the alt.sex heirarchy describing straight sex with
children. Does that mean that I approve of every act described in a
message that our systems distribute?

In every case, there is no approval involved. None of the bookstores
that I go to morally censor the books on their shelves - they stock
_everything_, without regard for their personal approval or
dissapproval of the contents. I certainly dissaprove _very_ strongly
of much of the content of certain newsgroups - but I also recognize
the value of a completely unrestricted free flow of information, no
matter how offensive the source. (I even support the propogation of
messages from the likes of you!)

And finally, have you ever given any consideration to the possibility
that the owners of the bookstores DO dissaprove of NAMBLA, and that
they think that the best way of getting people to realize how rotten
they are is to allow them to see a description of NAMBLA, in its own
words?

	<MC>


-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "I'm not dumb, 
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||  I just have a command of thoroughly 
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||  useless information."
|| carroll@udel.edu             || 	-Calvin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39673 talk.abortion:31691 alt.politics.bush:1560
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:17:58 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug14.050110.39709@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
|> In  <1992Aug13.233007.5823@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> > In article <l8lqguINNrs2@spim.mips.com>
|> > mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> >
|> > > But those who are "pro-life" believe that their position is a mandate from
|> > > God to go out and save the heathens, not to mention the children.
|> >
|> > Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
|> > call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
|> > arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
|> > God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
|> > abortion.
|> 
|> His statement is a generalization, not a gross mischaracterization.
|> He is being unfair to those who oppose abortion for non-religious
|> reasons, but there are many, many fanatical fundies on the anti-abortion
|> side.
|> 
Thanks Larry, but I am not convinced this is a generalization.  I would like
to hear from some of the non-religious people who oppose choice.  I would
also like to hear from religious people who feel their position on choice
is not based upon their religious beliefs.  I hope the first group will define
what non-religious means for them and the latter will explain their position.

If this is a generalization, I will post an apology to all offended.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ