HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:20:40 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: murph@buscard.fidonet.org's message of 28 Aug 92 20:38:12 GMT

In article <DuH9PB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:

>There is nothing "fair" about the tax burden of the wealthy
>as they take from government far less than the poor.  The wealthy have less
>use for police services than the poor; they generally arrange their lives in
>such a way as to provide for their own security.  Poor people break more laws.
>The wealthy generally avoid public education but still pay for it.  The list
>goes on - I think you get the pix.

	This is total nonsense.  Who is going to benefit, who HAS
benefited, the most from the savings and loan bail-outs?  To the 
tune of $100 billion.  Those with $100,000 in each bank account
are not the poor.  Who gets most of the farm subsidies?  Not the
fast disappearing family farmers but the corporate mega-farms, owned
by the poor NOT.  The huge military budget, the NASA budget, etc.,
have gone in great extent to the corporate owners, managers and, yes,
ENGINEERS who are not poor.  The wealthy also benefit much more from
foreign adventurism (eg. the war on Iraq) and lots of other government
policies (right to work laws, restrictions on secondary strikes, etc.,).
	So on a dollar or per capita basis the wealthy do much better
than the poor.  And why expect otherwise, they pay for Congress.

					--Jeff Turner

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Aug18194424@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21203351@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21235020@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug22123754@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> <BZS.
	<JTURNER.92Aug23084327@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:20:39 GMT


From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
>	This is patent hogwash.  It was in the US's perceived best
>interests, at least as understood by Bush and his cohort, to get
>into a war.  So Bush arranged one and talked, strong-armed or
>paid-off enough others to make it a United Nations effort.  I don't
>see the need for anyone else to be "in" on it.

You really reveal an authoritarian mindset with all your "proofs by
assertion"s.

Why was it in the US's perceived best interests...etc...?

How did Bush manage to pull such a big hoax or whatever it is you
think occurred on virtually every western nation and several third
world nations and get them to act against their own best interests?

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Flat taxes
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:56:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug29.151020.25820@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> 	There more to it than that:  with a flat tax and no 
> deductions/exemptions you come very close to eliminating the need
> for an IRS, especially if all taxes are taken out at the time
> you're paid.  Since the tax is flat the amount withheld is easily
> calculable in all cases.

You're making the mistake of assuming all income is payroll. Even if you
are thinking of eliminating business taxes, this is inaccurate - Certainly
in the upper income brackets, very little income is in a form so readily
accountable. The whole point about capital gains is that the income is
the difference between what you paid for something and what someone else
paid you for it. So the value of a sale is not the taxable amount.

If you simply take a flat percentage off all transactions, you entirely
eliminate low-profit transactions. Which includes details like food -
most levels of business dealing with food make less than a 10% profit
between each stage (from farmer via distributors to markets to consumers).

> 	OF course this will never happen since it would mean that
> all the tax shelters people put money into would go away.  (awwwwww.)

The reason for the existance of tax shelters is because our legislative
powers want them. The most benign reason for these shelters is social
engineering. It's much easier to influence people to behave in politically 
correct ways (e.g., building low-income housing) by offering them money.
And it's much easier to pass a law decreasing taxes in some specialized
form than it is to pass a law to make direct payments (What? *GIVE* money
to already-rich people? Oh, we're just decreasing their taxes. That's fine.)

> The only reason it isn't being done is greed.

You're oversimplifying.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:44:18 GMT

In article <BZS.92Sep3175041@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
	(deleted)
>> look at Switzerland.
>>	What does this mean?  That heterogeneous + guns != violent crime.
>
	(deleted)
>
>Obviously there's more to heterogeneity than mere heterogeneity.
>I suspect you need a heterogeneous population where some large group
>feels treated like an underclass.
>
So the search for examples begins.  Some societies which meet some of the 
criteria but for which I have no statistics on violent crime are:
	Brazil
	Philipines
	Nigeria
	India
	Lebanon (!)

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345 
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Aug18194424@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21203351@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21235020@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug22123754@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> <BZS.
	<JTURNER.92Aug29122456@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:42:40 GMT


From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) [responding to me]
>> Britain? France? JAPAN?
>>I think you need to play devil's advocate with yourself a little to
>>straighten out all these rather confused ideas you present.
>
>	Japan?  I do not recall Japan being a willing or active
>participant in the war with Iraq.

You were the one who claimed that Japan was pulling the strings on
Bush in this matter.

Japan contributed several billion dollars towards the war and there
was long, agonizing debate in the Diet (their parliament) about
whether they can send some sort of forces. Their constitution
(written, as I remember, by Gen. Douglas McArthur) forbids their
deploying any military forces onto foreign soil.

>Of course Britain agreed,
>they're a colonialist force in the area from way back

Put better, they WERE a colonialist force WAY BACK.

You make it sound like they still are (I know, you were just
polemicizing...)

>and needed
>something to distract the people from the terrible economic
>situation they have there.

Oh please. how facile. I was there just several months ago, I assure
you, it's not the best of times but it's hardly in need of a war to
"distract people". London seems to me to be in much better economic
shape than Boston, tho standards are different of course and it's hard
to tell. But it's hardly desparate in any apparent way, they're still
among the richest countries in the world.

>In effect their motives were similar
>to Bush's.

To distract people? I thought that's what TV is for.

>France probably had their own self-interests in joining
>in, I don't know enough about their situation.

I agree with your last phrase.

Do you really believe this canned crap you spew? I'm just curious.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 16:38:12 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:

> 2) One more time (you folks tired of this rap yet?), if you want to reduce 
> the tax burden on the majority (middle-class) *START MAKING THE WEALTHY 
> PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE*!!!  If everyone paid a flat rate, the rate needed to 
> achieve parity with the current gross taxes collected would be 10-15%!  
> The problem is we give all these breaks (mostly to those who least *NEED* 
> them) and so the average citizen has to pick up the burden.

Mr. News is misleading when he calls for the wealthy paying "their fair
share" of taxes.  There is nothing "fair" about the tax burden of the wealthy
as they take from government far less than the poor.  The wealthy have less
use for police services than the poor; they generally arrange their lives in
such a way as to provide for their own security.  Poor people break more laws.
The wealthy generally avoid public education but still pay for it.  The list
goes on - I think you get the pix.

I favor a flat tax rate - EVEN at 10-15% and higher - providing there are
absolutely NO exceptions and deductions.  A flat tax is fairer and will
encourage greater compliance.

As the tax code is now, tax breaks for the wealthy are necessary if you expect
these same wealthy people to provide the jobs that everyone else needs.  Of
course, some of the breaks are absurd but by and large the breaks offer
incentive to do good with the money as in deducting contributions to
charitable endeavors.

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Smaller government means MORE money for the poor
Organization: The World
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:05:26 GMT


From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
>What about our own personal obligations?  Obligations to spouses, families,
>parents, community?  Do they fit in anywhere?  Does EVERYTHING have to come
>from taxes where we have precious little say over where the money is spent -
>AND pay for the bureaucracy to administer it?  Why is it such a bad idea to
>stop giving the tax money to the government to fund their social programs and
>experiments and let us spend it where we think it'll do the most good?

The problem is you cannot so easily, as you seem to represent,
separate your personal needs from those around you.

You don't drive the bus you ride to work, you most likely didn't build
your house, or the roads you ride on, nor grow the food you eat, etc.

Your problem is that you assume that even in the face of excessive,
almost medieval, selfishness all this would remain constant or perhaps
even improve.

Many of us think not.

Let's start with something easy and 14th century, since you don't seem
to have quite caught on to what's happened since:

Do you see any value in public health measures (i.e. tax dollars
spent) to eradicate rats, tuberculosis and other health hazards from
poor neighborhoods?

If yes, then perhaps for all your absolutist polemics at best all you
are saying really is you basically agree with what you claim to
disagree with, you just want to draw the line elsewhere.

Given that, what are your qualifications to understand and hold forth
on these issues so authoritatively? I personally find your
understanding of the world excessively naive and likely to lead to
myopic problems.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Militia rights (was: Bearing arms)
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:56:50 GMT
	<2797783590@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com> <5970@transfer.stratus.com>
	<2797841055@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central

DW> == Dave Wetzel <Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com>

 DW> Now if you want, I'm willing to allow free access of firearms
 DW> appropriate to the time the 2nd ammendment was ratified (1796).  So
 DW> buy all the flintlocks you can.

Now if you want, I'm willing to allow free access of speech and presses
appropriate to the time the 1st Amendment was ratified (1796).  So buy
all the unpowered megaphones and hand-cranked printing presses you can.

But turn in your computer, your telephone, your powered bullhorns or
similar amplification systems...

--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
            ``Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ti Kwan Leep.
            Approach me that you might see.'' -- The Master
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:45:24 GMT
Followup-To: l.com>

Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <DRG.92Aug25102906@bubba.ma30.bull.com>, drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
> Note that a car is a lot harder to operate than a gun.

I disagree with that from personal experience. OK. I guess it depends
a lot on the gun. I was never able to be very -consistent- with a revolver
at a range of 50 feet. But I can negotiate the West Concord Rotary at Rush-Hour 
with ease and without cutting people off.

One problem is probably lack of practice. You use a car every day.
And the purpose of a car is obvious, to get from one place to another.
But it is even the rarest of police forces that make their people
practice even once a month with their guns.

Of course the most difficult thing about operating a gun
is deciding when to use it in an emergency. It seems that guns
are used a lot as methods of threat.

-gjc
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:20:49 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <54PoPB1w165w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>
>The price for the former is fantastic and is why we went to war.  I say there
>is no better reason than economics or national security to go to war.  Ideals
>run a poor third.

Once again, I say that I think economics is a horrible, unconscionable
reason to go to war.  If we don't live by ideals, then we deserve to die.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Adoption (was Re: Abortion- Kill/Save)
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:47:24 GMT


> > Man, truer words were never spoken - I heavily fault my own Roman Catholic
> > Church for their miserable failure in many social matters.  Adoption is just
> > one of them.
>
>Adoption's a miserable failure?  I would strongly disagree with that.

In all due fairness to Murph I believe his point was that the Roman
Catholic church had failed to promote adoption (I assume as an
alternative to abortion?) sufficiently for his taste.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: GUILTY AS CHARGED (Was: In politics, why as why?)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:54:43 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

> In article <i1igPB2w164w@buscard.fidonet.org> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Bria
> 
> >And it shouldn't!  We don't have a dog in the Yugoslavia fight.  It is 
> >absurd to think that the U.S. should be running around the world 
> >involving itself in every conflagration that happens on the world stage. 
> >In the Gulf War, we were fighting for lower oil prices and whether you 
> >like it or not, there is no better thing to fight for than money or 
> >security.
> 
> GUILTY, Mr. Murphy, GUILTY, you are GUILTY of a frightening lack of morality.

Har!  Heeeehe!  Yay!  Gotta love that spirit!  :-)  Got a charge out of that!

> Fighting a war for lower oil prices is one of the most loathsome, evil things
> I can think of.  Do you really believe in what you say?

Yep!  I do.  Actually, I said fighting for money but...  You got a better
reason for fighting a war?  Do you take the Superman approach and fight
against oppression anywhere you find it?  <sigh>

I don't agree that lower prices for oil was a good reason for the war.  I'd
rather see the prices go through the roof as they are in other countries.  In
this way, alternative sources of energy would look pretty attractive (nuclear)
where we could be self-sufficient and have no need for that war.  Still, the
decision was made and off we marched.  The war had all the necessary support
from military, political, and public.  We couldn't lose.  Textbook.  The only
"bad" wars are ones we lose.

> Nevertheless, I do believe that that was one of George Bush's reasons for
> going into the Gulf.  Which only reinforces my opinion that George Bush is
> one of the vilest, most disgusting people that this planet has had the
> misfortune to produce.

Given that congress is the body that declares war, do you extend your bile to
that Democratic body as well?

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: I'm in a gay mood!
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:05:54 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

> murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
> 
> >So, in your view, anything goes for everyone anytime, right?  Is there no li
> >to be drawn anywhere?  Is there nothing that sickens your mind so much that
> >you would justify discrimination in those cases?
> 
> 	No, what I meant was I would love to have you experience the
> same "rights" that I do: the right to get discriminated against,
> the right to be gay-bashed and have the police pretty much ignore your
> complaint, the right to have complete strangers yell things at you
> from other cars (a woman in Oregon recently posted that someone tried
> to run her off of the road several times for having a gay-positive 
> bumper sticker on her car).  Those sorts of things.  It would be
> interesting to see you experience "equality" from the other side of the coin.

What you're trying to do is change people's views and it isn't going to work.
You can no more force someone to like chocolate when their favorite is vanilla
than you can force someone to like homos.

More than flavor or preference, though, homosexuality is unnatural.  It is
more than a matter of the color of someone's skin, it is going against
nature's grain.  It is not something to be encouraged or accepted any more
than someone having cancer is.

This is not to say that some are justified in beating or deriding homos but it
is to say that the homosexual lifestyle is an anomaly in life and should not
enjoy equal standing in society.

Like a chronic nose-picker or someone else with an annoying habit, they can
say they were born that way, can't help it, should have all the rights that
everyone else has, etc., but, when it comes right down to it, annoying is
annoying and is going to be shunned.

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Foreign policy musings
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:50:11 GMT
	<Bt6Dw1.9CF@world.std.com> <2796988236@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<BZS.92Aug18195036@ussr.std.com>
	<JTURNER.92Aug21202104@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug21234633@ussr.std.c
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: dlw@odi.com's message of 25 Aug 92 05:38:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.053805.22707@odi.com> dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:

[Long discussion of the "morality" of the US attack on Iraq,
	the realpolitik thinkings of the Bush administration,
	a musing on the moral stand of Bush hisself (unsupported),
	a (nother) comparison of Saddam Hussein to Hitler (also unsupported),
	criticism of the Iraqi attempts at a negotiated settlement,
	and a minor criticism of the US' handling of pre-invasion
	diplomacy and bombing of civilians deleted.]
[Speaking of Saddam Hussein...]
>  None of this justifies what he
>  did, though.

	I never intended to justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
I castigated the US invasion of Iraq.  You may feel that Iraq's
opening negotiating position was inadequate, that is the whole
point of negotiation.  The US steadfastly refused to enter into
any sort of negotiation which lead, not unpredictably, to not
only the "justifiable" killing of combat troops but also the
killing of Iraqi civilians.  Now any true moral position would
hold the lives of Iraqi civilians just as dear as those of the
Kuwaitis, that is the whole crux of the issue.  If you are
going to justify going to war on behalf of the citizens of Kuwait
then every effort should be made NOT to merely displace the
grief and suffering onto the citizens of Iraq.  This was never
done nor, imho, contemplated.  I've argued from the start that
the war was simply realpolitik, though I don't think Hussein
was dangerous to the Saudis or the rest of the world in the
way you posit.  IMO, the reasons began and ended with the
political position of Bush and his backers and any other
justification perpetuates their self-serving hogwash and
emboldens them to do it again.

						--Jeff Turner
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc