HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:37:06 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Financing the govt

Hi, Jason:
>My opinion is based on the radical idea that the government should treat all
>people as equally as possible; it should not implement a discriminatory tax
>code.
>
>A head tax isn't fair since it taxes a larger percentage of a poor family's
>income than a rich family's.  Percentage terms seem to be the fairest measure,
>since that results in an equally significant portion of each person's income
>being confiscated.

Could you explain this further for me, please?  If a person earns $100K,
and another earns $10K, and each pays 10% in taxes, then the former pays
out $10K, leaving $90K to spend; the latter pays out $1K and has $9K left
over.  I'm having hard time calling the taxes paid "equally significant
portions of each person's income."  I know their equivalent in some
mathematical sense, but the person with $90K left over is nowhere near as
burdened as the person with only $9K left over.

That is, the lower the income, the *more* significant is the portion of the
income confiscated (I mean significant in terms of economic power).

Seems to me you could make a "mathematical fairness" argument for taxation
along these lines:  Figure out what the total income earnings in the
country are.  Line people up by income; starting with the person with the
top earnings, add people to his/her group until the cumulative earnings for
that group equals 50% of the total.  The second group contains everyone
else; their combined earnings are also 50%.  Now, figure out how much $ you
want to collect in taxes.  Each group will pay 50% of that amount; each
individual will pay 50% divided by the number of people in the group.

Like this:  Suppose the total income were $540 (for the sake of argument :)
).  Suppose further that the income were earned by the following folks:

        #1     earns    $100,000
         2                90,000
         3                80,000___________subtotal of 1-3 = $270
         4                70,000
         5                60,000
         6                50,000
         7                40,000
         8                30,000
         9                20,000___________subtotal of 4-9 = $270

Individuals 1-3 each pay 1/6 of the total taxes (1/3 of 50%); individuals
in 4-9 each pay 1/12 of the total taxes (1/6 of 50%).  It's fair because
each group earns 50% of the money and pays 50% of the taxes.

I bring this up, partly because I'm bored :), and partly to illustrate why
the term "fairness" (especially for tax purposes!) needs to be defined and
justified in more than mathematical terms -- at least to those of us who
don't understand much about economics.  *I'm* certainly not claiming to
know what's fair, but I'm interested in hearing what other folks think.

Thanks!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:27:07 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Logic: politicos beware

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>Well, I would like someone then to prove the above statement true.
>(Besides the geometrical axiom that says so.  Why does it say so?)

(The statement was:
 If 2+2=26, then 3+3=90)

There is no geometrical axiom that says this statement is
true. Axioms of geometry are about parallel lines, and so
forth.

The statement is true because of the meaning of the
logical particle "if...then." Evelyn, among others,
has already explained why.

(Evelyn)

> Now for something completely different:  If A, then B.  For the whole
> statement to be true we have to consider these:
>        a)  Is B true?  If yes, it doesn't matter what A is, the whole
>            statement is true.
>        a)  Is B false?  If yes, then A has to be false for the
>            statement to be true.
>
> The only way the whole statement can be false is if A is true and B is
> false.

(But then, Travis)

>Exactly.  If A is false, the statement cannot be proven false or true,
>therefore it is true.

If A is false, then the conditional CAN be proved true. Here is
a proof:

(1)   Not A.                             (By hypothesis)
(2)   If not A, then (if A then B)       (Logically valid schema)
(3)   If A, then B.                      (By modus ponens, from lines
                                                      (1) and (2) )

That was an easy proof. Most proofs are harder.

>If A is true and B is true, the statement is pro-
>ven true.  If A is true and B is false, then the statement is proven
>false, and is therefore, obviously, false.  Therefore, a statement must
>be able to be proven false before it is considered false.

That simply does not follow. Sorry!

Here is a famous example:

           "This statement can be proven false."

There you go. A statement which cannot be proven false, yet
it's false.
(It's better when represented in a formal system, believe me.)

>Therefore,
>a statement that cannot be proven false is true.

Nope.

>And BTW, I held to this belief before I even learned of geometric logic.

Well, then, don't let logic change your mind. Probably Robert
can help you out here.

      Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:18:16 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Is Quayle pro-choice?

Kerry, Kerry, Linda, Travis, and others on the list,
the following is the exact quote of what was exchanged
between Larry King and Dan Quayle.

    LK> "What if your daughter grew up, had a problem,
        came to you with that problem all fathers fear?
        How would you deal with it?"

    DQ> I hope I never have to deal with it.  But
        obviously I would counsel her and talk to her
        and support whatever decision she made."

Now you people (oops!) could excuse Dan Quayle any way
you want but the fact is that that is exactly what he said.
You might say "but that is not what he MEANT" (is there any? :-)
but don't accuse ME of misinterpreting his remarks.

I am sure his handlers and advisors all are going to rush and
correct Quayle and tell us what he really meant (his wife
already has) but I *believe* what he said on Larry King is what
he really has in his heart and the handlers are just saying
what politically is expedient.

FACT: He did not say he would support her, rather, he would
      support her decision.

FACT: The context of the question was NOT what would you do if
      your daughter had an abortion, rather, what would you do
      if your daughter is CONTEMPLATING abortion.

FACT: I would have done more or less the same thing if it was
      my daughter, and I am pro-choice.

MY OPINION: For a pro-life person to say what Dan Quayle said
            is being hypocritical.

*************

There was another piece of exchange that took place between
Larry King and Dan Quayle that did not get any publicity.
Larry King said if abortion is murder and if the fetus is a
baby, then how do you explain the rape exception?  Dan Quayle's
answer amounted to a simple "you can't, it is a difficult
situation."

Now, I will not disagree with Dan Quayle on his assertion
that this is a difficult issue.  However, let's admit it:
believing abortion is murder and allowing for the rape
exception is not a consistent position.  On the other hand,
the positions of those who say "abortion is murder and should
only be performed if the life (not health) of the mother is in
danger" or those who say "no one is allowed the use of another
person's body without her consent" are.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:44:12 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      this just in!

check it out.

Nasty                            Yack
Narrow                           Yam
Nazi                             Yawn
Nihilism                         Yallow Journalism
Nincompoop                       Yoga
NixoN                            YoYo
NoceNt                           Yuck
Noddy                            Yogurt.
Numbskull                        sillY
NyloN                            goofY
Nuts
tuNa

******what we stand for***********
              EducatE
              bEEr
              lovE
              EffEctivE
              Egg-rolls
              EidEr
              Elastic
              ErEct
              Elvis
              ElEctric guitars
              ESP
              ExcEl
              Eggs


You think about it.

jEnnifEr ElisE colE stEEle  the E ticket. You can be any height to
                            ride us.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:54:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

> Have you heard what Marilyn Quayle has said?  If I got it
> correct, she said that her daughter would not have an
> abortion.
>
> If I understand the tone, it implied that it was not an issue
> and never would be a issue.

The exchange, as it was reported in my paper this morning, went
something like this:

M. Quayle: "Our daughter would never have an abortion."

Interviewer: "You would make that decision for her?"

Quayle: "We would make it together."

> Who knows. . . . ?

Indeed!

Best,
Peter

> -j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:13:57 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: N-tickets ...

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:01:00 CST VALENTINE M. SMITH said:
>could we have a rundown on the 7 tickets again. My friend A. Hoffman
>has not been in touch, but did say unequivocally that he'd prefer to
>run with EvelyN DuncaN that whoever he had been paired with, and she
>should be the Presidential nominee. That's why I heard, folks, VMS

Oh, my!  I'm honored by such a request.  Thank you!

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:21:24 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: v-election polls
              25 Jul 1992 01:47:00 EST from <199561011@VUVAXCOM>

My running mate and I officially declare our candidacy!

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:48:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wichita (AP)

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:30:09 -0400 "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TU
LSAJC.BITNET> said:
>  A state judge freed an abortion clinic protester, agreeing with her
>  that life begins with conception.  "She was trying to prevent a
>  greater harm".
>  ----------
>  Mark this down as a proud day for justice.  Congratulations to Sedgwick
>  County District Judge Paul W. Clark!

In the immortal words of Andrew Jackson: "It is their (the Supreme
Court's) decision, let them enforce it."


>  ---Robert
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:52:06 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Protecting the Rich
              22 Jul 1992 12:07:45 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> do you think we should tax income or wealth?  I mean if I have a $100,000
>> diamond ring and if the US Military is protecting my life and property,
>> then shouldn't I reimburse the government for the protection that they
>> are providing for my diamond ring?

>  The US Military may be defending your life, but it doesn't care much
>  about your property.  Unless you're going to argue that rich people's
>  lives are worth more, let's consider govt forces that are relevant to
>  the question asked.

I think there is plenty of examples that show the military is as
interested, if not more, to protect our property than our lives.
My point is that the US spends a lot of money to protect our properties
and wealth, be it in the shape of military hardware, or industrial/
monetary policies, etc.

> It turns out that policing rich neighborhoods is cheaper than policing
> poor ones because thugs value convenience and "blend-in".  (Rich
> people commit different crimes.)  Thus, protecting that diamond ring
> is cheaper than defending my car stereo as far as govt is concerned.
> If we go by the "consuming public resources" model, rich people should
> pay less per person when it comes to govt spending on police.

Police budget is usually local and is not drawn from federal
treasury or perhaps even state treasury.  Therefore a less
expensive policing of rich neighborhoods supposedly would show
in the neighborhoods property tax, so that is a wash.  However
I still maintain that some of the federal spending goes into
protecting our properties.

> BTW - rich people pay quite a bit for private security.  Their
> spending is higher on a per-person basis, but may be a lower fraction
> of their "estate" value.

They also pay a lot for private yachts and golf courses -- you notice
they are private, meaning that federal money is not involved other
than the fact that federal money might be used to protect those
properties/facilities.  What is your point?  Whose side of this
argument are you -- yours or mine?

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:39:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: BULLETIN! Candidate resigns, plug pulled, suggests alternate!

Hmm ... Just got note from Abbie about the lurking sysops-pulls-the-plug
problem, was sorry to hear it. One always hopes someone else gets to be
foolish on the nets rather than self, but I think the EvelyN/ValentiN
ticket is one I can accept. I agree to all the positions I've seen
expressed by our prior ticket, save for two caveats. One is, that like
EvelyN, I like planes, but as a twenty-year advocate of light rail and
rapid transit bullet trains, you'll forgive my preoccupation with a
revamped rail system. The other thing I would mention is Abbie "accused"
me of being "too serious." He's right. I'm not much of a humorist, but
I will warm to the task, but what I see in the field is a lot of laughs.
The Kilburn Shoe Irrelevancy, while witty and humor, was warm mush
platitudes (humor-filled, I actually DID like it), and off the point. The
Tall Boys, the alleged J-ticket, the Kerrys all seem dull, into off the
track things here. I DID seen the maligning of the Minister of Fun. Well,
if you get a rotten apple, throw it out! Get another one! Gee whiz, you'd
think you guys could solve simple personnel problems instead of whining
about them! In conclusion, I vigorously accept EvelyN's request that I
run, and hope that the DuncaN/ValentiN ticket kicks butt! VMS PS I type
too fast. The quote above should be I "saw" the mailgning ... V.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:00:58 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: p.s.: linda, this one's for us :)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              23 Jul 1992 09:08:24 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:08:24 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:

>are heroes (sic) because we have a tougher time raising our kids than we

curiosity ?:  why would you (sic) heroes when it's the correct spelling?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:57:45 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Entrepreneurship Chinese Style

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:54:00 EST linda said:
>yuck....i'm getting a little queesy with this stuff.
>
>how far would we have to go before we'd be executing people accding to their
>blood type? life for B+ ....death penalty for 0-.

I'm getting a little queasy myself.  It's like the movie Coma.
>
>-linda

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:27:16 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: can the disabilities act be extended to cover foreign policy?

Should I have said atrocious, deplorable and unenlightened?

Our politicians want to "play" with UN ideals and the like,
but never want to play by it.  I merely suggest that
playing by it would cause us all to profit more.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:24:14 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war correction

Sorry about the name screw-up, it should be British Field Marshall
Bernard Law Montgomry, not Reginald...don't ask me what the heck I was
thinking when I typed that...eeeek.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:16:52 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Financing the govt
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              21 Jul 1992 16:37:06 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:37:06 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:

>Could you explain this further for me, please?  If a person earns $100K,
>and another earns $10K, and each pays 10% in taxes, then the former pays
>out $10K, leaving $90K to spend; the latter pays out $1K and has $9K left
>over.  I'm having hard time calling the taxes paid "equally significant
>portions of each person's income."  I know their equivalent in some
>mathematical sense, but the person with $90K left over is nowhere near as
>burdened as the person with only $9K left over.

All presented so far sounds not unlike that of the arguments re: fair
representation for the states in Congress.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:23:28 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Trotter Poll of 7/27/92

From a poll taken over the weekend of
randomly selected politics list members.

When asked who they would vote for were the election held today:

Of those responding,

  44% were for JohnsoN and OlsoN
  33% were for Kerry and Kerry
  11% were for Schledorn and Kusmin

  11% did not understand the question.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 08:53:27 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Another Gulf War?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:57:05 -0900 ACAD2A::ASCER said:

           ....I am surprised Bush will let the Un stand with their
>new proposal since if Bush used force it would have saved his ailing
>campaign....A little war is good for the soul....

No one minds attacking Iraq unless it's their children that stand the
chance of being killed (much like most people don't mind higher
taxes for better gov't programs, as long as their taxes aren't higher;
n.b. i'm *not* equating $=children)

This may have actually helped Bush as Mr. Meanie backed down and we didn't
have to risk any American lives to add'l friendly fire.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: A response to "Another Gulf War"
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:39:38 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>

>> If Iraq doesn't back down to U.N. demands, will Bush take the country
>> to war again? If he does, how will that affect his re-election
>> efforts?

> I think it could help him more than hurt, especially if the action
> was primarily quick, and "specifically punative," ie the Agriculture
> building in question was destroyed. If it is to happen, Bush should
> push the Un for it to happen soon. Else he's trying to be re-elected
> AND wage war. Lastly, I do not think such a "war" (more a police
> action, as was the Six Weeks "War" that stimulated this question)
> will be popular here at home, regardless of the rhetoric of Bush. VMS

I agree and would like to add that if this time by some "miracle"
Saddam Hussein is killed or is he/his regime is left vulnerable
enough that the opposition would take over.  *If* he accomplishes
that, he would score a big point with me and something like that
would weigh heavily on me when I am voting.  Such an action would
also shut up some of the opposition's claim that Bush did not achieve
one of the most important wishes held by the American people --
that of eliminating the next "Adolf Hitler."  (See, make an analogy
once and you have to pay for it for ever. :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:39:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?

>BTW: my son tells me there is this picture that Dan Quayle have signed
>for a fan.  The only thing is that he has failed to write Quayle correctly
>three times and he has scratched it three times and finally he signed
>"Dan Q."  Anybody knows anything about this?  Is this a joke made by
>the infamous UL (er, the Underwriters Laboratories)?

kat, there's a "political" line of greeting cards that has that joke on it.
picture of dan
3 sigs scratched out due to misspelling of quayle
final sig - "danny".

i saw it at the book store and almost bought it months ago...before the infamous
potatoe scandal.

don't know which greeting card company has this line, but i could find out if
like.  they are really finny...fanny....funney... oh hell they're cool.

-linda
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Is Quayle pro-choice?
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:50:46 GMT

KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:

>Paul:

>You are incorrect.  Quayle is right.  If a D & C is done *immediately*
>after a rape (key word: immediately), there is almost no chance that
>conception has taken place, if the D & C is done within 72 hours of
>intercourse.  Sperm and egg do *not* meet instantaneously.  It takes
>a *little* time.

But Kerry, what if conception *has* taken place? Surely you can't risk
the killing of an innocent life in this way.

P.

-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU