HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:09:31 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug18.154930.6730@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.114027.3020@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.151553.29003@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>>dumps.  Paul Portney, and American economist, guesses that the costs of
>>the 1990 Clean Air Act may be $29 billion to $36 billion a year, in exchange
>>for benefits worthy anything from $6 billion to $25 billion."

>A study by the American Lung Assoc determined that air pollution has a
>health cost of between $11.8 and $82 billion/year.  Many cost/benefit
>studies of environmental degradation are skewed against cleanup because
>they don't include externalities.

I'm not sure if you intend the Lung Association study to impeach The
Economists' figures, but yu should be aware that the numbers being
cited describe differnet thing and therefore do not contradict each
other.  The difference is that the Economist gives useful numbers
whereas the Lung Assosciation is pitching propaganda.

If the Lung Assosciation wanted to give us useful numbers they would
also have to give us a chart showing how much it would cost to save
each dollar of harm that air pollution costs.

Something like

Benefit		Cost    (in billions)
1		.5
2		1.5
3		3     <---- Break even point
4		5

.
.
.

82		1000000   <---- Getting the last little bit of beneift
				will probably be ridiculously
				expensive in terms of money and lives.
				How many people would die if we
				stopped using internal combustion engines? 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Keywords: Recession
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:30:07 GMT

In article <7976@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>Just for clarification here. The "Carter Recession" started in 79', shortly
>>after oil prices were mostly deregulated, and lasted into 1980. The 
>>country was at least technically out of the recession by the election, but
>>not soon enough to save Carter (hmmm, sounds familiar). The Reagan 
>>recession started in spring of 1981. We were on the last few months of
>>Carter's budget so Reagan accused Carter of the "Reagan Recession until
>>well into 1982 (remember that?). The country technically came out of that
>>recession in the spring of 1983, but unemployment never took any
>>significant drop until the winter of 83'/84'.
>
>My my, Reagan takes office in late January of 1981, a very short recovery
>that didn't even start until the fall of the previous year comes apart
>during the spring of 1981 (Note: Reagan has only been in office a couple
>of months at the most), yet somehow it is the Reagan recession.  Anything
>that happens to the economy during the first year of a new administration
>can be fairly accreddited to the previous administration.

I, on the other hand, always thought that the recession of '81
was caused by the Fed tightening up the money supply to fight
inflation.



--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.folklore.urban
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Read! modem tax! *read*
Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:55:24 GMT

Mark Sablow writes:

>     I recently was made aware of the fact that the political powers
> that be are considering a *MODEM TAX*.  What I have read was
> that a 6 dollars per hour was being discussed.  Not only is
> this an absurb amount of money but why should we be charged
> to use the phone lines that we are already paying for &
> ALREADY BEING TAXED FOR!!!

I thought we just went through this on alt.folklore.urban.
Follow-ups to there.

--
But this is.
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:11:56 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1992Aug18.232714.12419@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>  Well, I (of course) haven't seen the study, but it would surprise me
>>if Mr. Portney did not include expected health costs in his analysis.
>>After all, it would be an obvious omission if he did and I don't see
>>how he could arrive at $6 billion - $25 billion in benefits if he didn't.
>>
>>  However, what does often happen in green-based cost/benefit analyses is
>>that they assign a very high value to the cost of "life and health" while
>>ignoring the externalities that lead to damage of "life and health" due
>>to decreased livelihood brought about by the cost of regulation.
>>
>>  To be sure, cost/benefit analysis has a long a way to go, but so far
>>the greens have been making up the rules.  At any rate, I would rather have
>>the arguments be over numbers and assumptions than over completely 
>>unresponsible accusations and beliefs.
>
>Greens are trying to change the rules.  Most cost/benefit studies I have
>seen previously were championed by the right.

  Yep.  Special interest groups always try to change the rules in
their favor.  Most of the cost/benefit studies I have seen were compiled
for and by the special interest "greens".  It is only recently that I have
started to see some counter-arguments.

  Inclusive in such analysis was one study (by the EPA) that calculated
$5.7 trillion was the value of an early life in a decision on wood
preservatives.  Somehow, I think that destroying the entire GNP of
the U.S. is a little extreme to save even one life.  It may cost a few
more lives than that in the process.

  Certainly, some calculations are difficult.  However, it is quite simply
fact that environmentalists argue that when in doubt, clamp down.  They
loftily ignore risks to jobs and wealth.

  What we really need to do is harness market forces to decide.  Green
taxes seem a worthwhile solution.  Green lobbiest oppose them because
it makes the cost of becoming greener more obvious to the American 
people and they fear that knowing the true cost of becoming cleaner may
mean that, at some point, people will choose not to do so.

  But, I don't want to seem an unashamed reactionary.  After all,
as _The Economist_ said, "So effectively have environmentalists greened
public opinion that it takes an unashamed reactionary to question the
wisdom of becoming ever greener and cleaner."


Pat


  
-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10869 talk.politics.misc:40492 alt.politics.bush:2058
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
From: <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 21:30:54 CET
Organization: SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam

"I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
"I brought peace over the world, now let me bring peace in the USA"
"We have changed the world, now let's change the USA".
 
Apart from that one should work on his/her faults first,
the above makes some of us (over here in Europe) puke.  Most of us,
however, just laugh about this outraging stupidity.
 
Someone (Quale?) even said that Bush brought down the Berlin wall.
Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
than it is Gorbatsjov)
 
Frans
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 09:45:50 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug12.103221.1442@news.Hawaii.Edu>, blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
|> 
|> Bzzt- the issue is that the rich tend to pay a lower *percentage*
|> of their income in taxes than the middle class. 

Please clarify your terms.  When it comes to the federal income tax,
it is not true that the rich pay a lower *percentage* of their
income in taxes than the middle class.  If you add FICA, the picture
changes.  However the problem is with FICA, not the income tax so
it should be treated separately.

|> It's criminal
|> that someone making 20-30 thousand a year pays almost twice the percentage
|> of their income that someone making 1 million. 

With a reasonable zero bracket amount, and/or a high personal exemption,
coupled with a reasonable tax rate (< 15%), I don't see much of a problem.
For example, the system could be set up so that the first $10,000 in
income was completely tax free.  Adding additional dependents (not
necessarily children) would raise that amount.  In the simple case,
a person making $20,000 would pay $1500 in taxes, a person making 
$100,000 would pay $13,500, and a person making $1,000,000 would pay
$148,500.  In percentage terms this works out to 7.5%, 13.5% and 14.8%.
If you added exemption for qualified dependents a 'family' with
income of $30,000 may pay no tax at all.

|> If things were truly equal everyone would pay the same percentage, 
|> the rich are paying less so they DID get a tax break. End of story.

I don't believe you have posted enought information to show that
the rich are paying a lower percentage.  I do agree with you, however,
that if things were truly equal, everyone would pay the same
percentage.  I think adjustments have to be made, however, which is
why I favor a system with a fairly high zero bracket amount, plus
a healthy personal exemption.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Abortion politics
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:03:08 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In article <1992Aug19.223753.1236@wuecl.wustl.edu>, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
>
>By the time the convention is over, there will be several pro-choice speakers.
>Whether they talk about abortion, we'll have to wait and see.

Don't count on it.  Lynn Martin didn't mention it in her speech.  The fact that
there are pro-choice speakers at the convention means nothing if they don't
talk about their support of freedom of (abortion) choice.

>Republicans are frequently sent to represent the party on pundit panel talk
>shows (Lynn Martin, Alan Simpson, Susan Molinari, etc.)  I can't think of any
>corresponding pro-life Democrats in high-profile roles at their convention.

The only pro-life Democrat I know of is Governor Casey of Pennsylvania.

>But the pro-choice Republicans weren't excluded from the debate.

Nor were the pro-life Democrats excluded--there just aren't many of them.  The
Republicans are much less aligned on this issue than the Democrats, which makes
it even more hypocritical of them to complain about the Democratic convention
considering what they've done at their convention.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: scrooge@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz (Glenn Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Read! modem tax! *read*
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 00:54:51   M
Organization: Not organised at all.

>  that be are considering a *MODEM TAX*.  What I have read was
>  that a 6 dollars per hour was being discussed.  Not only is
>  this an absurb amount of money but why should we be charged
>  to use the phone lines that we are already paying for &
>  ALREADY BEING TAXED FOR!!!
> 
>      Write, and/or call, make YOUR OPINION KNOWN!
> 
 I'd say this is a classic case of "You really do fall into this things 
don't you Baldrick"!!!!! 

Glenn.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:21:46 GMT

In article <zzb-tl+@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>|>
>|> >The problem with using the "marginal utility" argument to support higher
>|> >(non-linear) taxes on the 'rich' is that it presumes some universal
>|> >constant when it comes to 'utility'.  It is true that for a given
>|> >individual, each additional dollar has lower utility.  It is *not* true,
>|> >however, that person A's marginal utility scale will be the same
>|> >as person B's.  Peoples tastes are different.  Person A may be able
>|> >to live quite comfortably on a particular salary, Person B may not.  Who
>|> >are you to decide which lifestyle is 'correct'?

Progressive marginal rates don't say anything about how you should spend
the money.  It's simply designed under the assumption that the first $X
thousand you earn will be spent on what's most important to _you_, the
next $X thousand on what's almost as important, etc.  What those things
are is your choice.  As you say, for a given individual, each additional
dollar has lower marginal utility.  I'll grant that the divisions of the
brackets are not a perfect fit for each and every person in the country;
they might not even be a good fit for very many people.  But you have to
draw the lines somewhere, and my guess is that they're based more or less
on average national costs for things.

If Person B's "tastes" prevent him from living comfortably on
the same salary that Person A is content with, then it sounds
to me like a case of someone with a champagne taste and a bottled-
beer pocket.  Nonetheless, B is still spending his money on what's
important to him.  If there are more things important to B than
he can afford, then he has to make some choices; but I don't see
how that pertains to the argument for progressive marginal rates.


>                            I believe there should be a fairly generous
>'zero' bracket (plus personal exemptions).  Above that point, however,
>I believe the tax rate should be completely flat.  I don't care if
>a person making $50,000 feels a little more 'pain' in paying his
>tax than someone making $500,000.

Well, we simply disagree here.  I think it's fundamentally unjust that
Jack earning $500,000 pay the same percentage in taxes as Bob making
$50,000.  Jack can afford to pay a lot more, and he should.  Either that
or Bob should be allowed to pay much less.  Same thing, just so long
as [% Jack pays] >> [% Bob pays].


>As long as people think that they can continually shift costs to
>somebody else, they won't have incentive to vote for responsible
>reps., even if they ultimately are made worse off because of a
>less robust economy.

You know, I've been saying the same thing for over 10 years; but
somehow I think we're talking about a different group of people.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: GOP Chairman Lashes Hillary
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:56:08 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Well, it looks like the republican campaign is on it's last leg.  With
nothing positive to offer for Americas future they are forced to avoid
any real issues; unemployment is high, the economy is stagnant, jobs in
the manufacturing sector are dropping at their highest rate since the
20s, etc....  I guess calling Clinton names didn't pan out either.
Now it's Bond complaining that Hillary will be giving Bill advice??
Hmmm, I wonder if he's complaining because Hillary would be advising
Bill at all, or if he's complaining because she won't be holding his
hand and TELLING him what to do as per Nancy handling Ronnie.

Marty L. Dart,
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:59:47 GMT

ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Cary Zeitlin) writes:

>After his initial reluctance, CLINTON MADE HIMSELF
>ELIGIBLE FOR THE DRAFT. He got a high lottery number,
>then the draft was ended. He decided to participate
>in the draft rather than avoiding it through the
>perfectly legitimate means that were at his disposal.
>Clinton did not have a rich daddy to get him a nice
>safe cushy job in the National Guard like Quayle did!!!

And we all know that the reason he made himself eligible,
even though he didn't have to, was by his own admission 
"to maintain [his] political viability within the system."
Disgusting.
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:32:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.223812.24576@uunet!tellab5!odgate>
mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
 
>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>You know, what Reagan did was essentially a Keynsian policy: lower
>>taxes, spend lots of money (in defense, not social/infrastructure
>>expenditures).
>
>Exactly.  What's the big deal? We always knew that if you borrowed a
>couple trillion dollars and pumped it into the economy, you'd have
>growth.  What's surprising, actually, is how little the growth was
>given the amount spent.  What's not surprising is how disproportionate
>the growth was, given the Republican's supporters.
>--
>--
>Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
>...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
>odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
 
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't explain hom Jimmy Carter's
Keynsian program took a growing economy and achieved negative growth.
 
The OECD debt figures, which include federal and local debt, show no unusual
trend in debt growth during the 80s, just a contuinuation of the previous years
growth. One stat that *does* show a huge change is the ratio of capital
inflow to outflow. In 1980, the last of the Carter years, capital inflow was
$58 Billion and outflow was $86 Billion. By 1987, inflow had increased to
$203B and outflow was $64B. We went from a net outflow of $28 Billion to
a net inflow of $139 Billion. (US Dep't of commerce figures).
 
This, of course, relates to what I said earlier about how the tax code
affects the movement of capital. Higher taxes force capital underground,
offshore, or into unproductive investments like government bonds and real
estate. The changes in tax law in the Regan era brought us a net inflow of
capital, and that, far more than any Keynsian pump-priming, contributed
to the boom of the 80s.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10600 alt.politics.clinton:1959 alt.politics.bush:1618 talk.politics.misc:39772
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:12:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug13.222840.3674@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <5924@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>
>>BTW, I believe an unbiased examination of government policies would show
>>that the government is quite hostile to capital accumulation.  In fact
>>rich people end up getting rich despite the active opposition of government.
>>You are arguing that rich people should pay to support this active opposition.

>Let's see it.  And let's see if you yourself can make it from
>poor to rich if you can't pay for education, health, and various other
>sundries.

Please demonstrate how any of these are necessary for capital accumulation.
I do not believe Sam Walton had more than a high school education, but
because he had a good idea and the courage to go out on a limb, he made
himself rich.  In the process he benefitted a lot of other people as
well, his employees and his customers.

I can see how serious ill health can hinder capital accumulation, but
very few people fall into that category.

I am not really certain what you mean by sundries.  (Are they made with
ice cream? ;^))

I still assert that the majority of government programs actively
hinder capital accumulation.  Whether this is by design is a matter
for another thread.

Regulations require so much paperwork that it is better to stay small
and hope they don't notice you.

Many regulations don't kick in until a firm reaches a certain size.
This gives plenty of incentive for a firm to stay under that mandated
size.

Capital gains taxes, that when coupled with inflation can make even
healthy investments into money loosers.

-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: the "l" word and Republicans
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:20:50 GMT

Conrad Poelman <conradp+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>                                    The Republicans, however, already
>have a libertarian movement within their ranks, and believe in the power
>of the individual, rather than the state, to effect positive change in
>the country.
>
>What do you think?

IMO, the Libertarian cause as a political party is hopeless. Their support
in recent Presidential elections is better measured in parts per million
than percent:
                           %
1988   Paul/Marrou        .47
1984   Bergland/Lewis     .25
1980   Clark/Koch         1.1
1976   MacBride/Bergland  0.2

Most people reject (or ignore) their ideas of how our society should function.
Some delegate pointed out on TV last night that even Mr. Conservative Dan Quayle
sees the role of government in many circumstances, as evidenced by his support
as a Senator of a jobs bill with Ted Kennedy as co-sponsor.

Their inability to distinguish between most American political points of
view (as evidenced by fixation on the never-ending joke 'demopublican') is
only evidence of their extreme vantage point, shared by few.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections