HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: New Tax Scheme
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:05:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"

>The new structure would tax consumption rather than earnings, but in an
>allegedly progressive way, unlike VAT. In effect, you'd only be taxed on
>what you spend, not on what you save. You would deduct all savings from
>taxable income.

I haven't read what George Will had to say about it, but it seems bizarre to
talk about a "progressive" consumption tax.  You could hypothetically tax
consumption at a higher rate as your income rises, but the rates would have to
be really varied to account for the fact that lower income people spend a
higher proportion of their income than the middle class or rich do.

What we really need is a flat tax on all income from every source.  What we do
NOT need is another scheme to control human behavior via the tax code, which
this consumption tax seems to be.

Let the semantic arguments begin, Jaime.

>Jamie

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:54:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush

On Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:11:27 EST Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> said:
> MacPhil:
>
> You made the point I was going to make later.  To my knowledge, Arkansas
> has not moved up (much, anyway) in its comparisons to other states.
>
> Can you see the hysteria as things improve in Arkansas?  "Hey, everybody,
> we did it!  We're NUMBER FORTY-NINE!!!!!!!"  [sounds of wild cheering,
> revelry, and champagne being unscrewed.]
>
> --Missy P 2 B

Things like this are not unfathomable in S.C.
As we say, thank God for Mississippi.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 09:00:08 PDT
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@CS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Yet another nice rant
Comments: To: harelb@math.cornell.edu, POLITICS@ucf1vm.BITNET

Barzilai is a wonder.  The Nation writer he quotes refers to the
pre-1980 tax system, yet Barzilai rejects any questions about the
honesty of that reference.

Instead Barzilai regurgitates his wealth transfer arguments and even
manages to bring in the S&L failures, suggesting that I disagree with
them.  Sorry; if I wanted to get into those discussions, I'd do so,
and I'd pick my position; Barzilai doesn't get to do so for me.

I will point out that wealth-transfer arguments don't address are
inconsistent with his tax arguments.  The tax burden has moved UP the
income scale not down.  I'm perfectly willing to agree that other
factors drove the wealth-transfer overrode the effects of shifting the
tax burden up.  Does he want to argue that shifting the tax burden up
the scale caused rich people to get richer than they would have
otherwise?

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:14:54 -0400
From:         "People Are Like Zits,
              You Squeeze Too Hard andthe Head Comes Out!!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What is a "right"?

the only problem I see with this argument is that it fails
to go in to the theories deeply enough... the natural rights are fine,
and you didn't mention that when government is created, people are
giving up a certain amount of "natural rights". This means
that the government has some say so in the lives of people. It must.
The question really is where to draw the line. I honestly think
that marijuana and perhaps all drugs should be legalized...
but for a radically different reason than you i suspect... for mine
has a much more practical end. It will decrease the population.
We could legalize all forms of drugs with absolutely no government
funded rehabilitation programs.. including those of alcohol and
this would help decrease the population. We need Zero population
growth in this nation .. we need it now! This might be one method of
beginning to have that situation. There are too many people in this
country and self destruction is also the ultimate in an individual right
as one might say.. so let the people go about there business and smoke
what they want or inject what they want.. it doesn't matter...
This earth is big enough to support the population.. but man himself
is not big enough... meaning we haven't developed the ability
to effectively
govern large masses of people well. We need to decrease the population
so we can be a better world.... perhaps widespread drug abuse
would be a start!!!!!


                               John Stith
                                  Stustith@eku
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 08:30:24 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Ross Perot, Larry King, and Teddy the Wonder Lizard
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              30 Sep 1992 23:49:14 GMT from <jbm%PANIX.COM@OHSTV
              MA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:49:14 GMT John Mignault said:

>And Larry King seems to have gone to the Merv Griffin School of Talk Show
>Hosting. Mike Wallace was right on when he called the questions "softballs."

Speaking of which...here's an item from yesterday's ChiTrib "Newsmakers":


Staged for your viewing pleasure
It may have looked spontaneous, but CBS veteran Mike Wallace and CNN had
carefully set up his "surprise" phone-in questions to presidential
tease Ross Perot Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."  Wallace,
in the midst of a "60 Minutes" profile of Larry King, wanted to include
a snippet on why Perot appears so frequently on the weeknight "Larry King
Live" and not on the Sunday shows focusing on politics.  Camera crews set
up in the kitchen of Wallace's Manhattan apartment and in the Dallas studio
where King was talking to Perot.  Wallace called in on an arranged special
number.  Perot's response?  He shuns the Sunday shows because they lack
a live call-in feature.




remember:  gore Clinton in '92.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: new energy bill
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:18:29 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
What a bunch of interesting mail this morning :)  No mention of the cable
bill veto override (who was it that predicted this would happen???), but I
suspect there'll be some comment.  Anyone catch Bill and Al on Larry King?
Of course, the football game was better.  Oh, well . . .

On to the real topic.  TNR this week had an editorial (not Kinsley's) about
the new energy bill that may or may not be acted upon this session.
Apparently it's sort of a compromise:  it doesn't include increased mileage
standards (concession from the left), nor does it call for oil exploration
in the Arctic wilderness (concession from the right).  One of the things it
*does* call for is deregulation of electrical power companies.  I don't
have the article with me, but there was a line that read something like
this:  "deregulating the electrical power companies could have an impact
greater than deregulation of the phone companies and airlines *combined*"
(emphasis mine).

Does that scare anyone besides me? :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:35:22 -0400
From:         "Jim S. Bernhardt" <JIMSB@DELPHI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Nukes
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> ICBMs are available to anyone with the relevant technology and the desire
> for an ICBM.  No self-limitation on the part of various govts can
> affect that.

So why not destroy our nukes and build a anti-missile defense system?

-Jim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:43:37 -0400
From:         "People Are Like Zits,
              You Squeeze Too Hard andthe Head Comes Out!!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Federal gun control

yes... probably so.. there argument would be based on the necessary and
proper clause or that's my best guess. It doesn't really take into
account that in thge strictest interpretation that the 2nd ammendment
is being directly violated here!
                                        Stustith@eku
                                        John Stith
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:42:22 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

>On the subject of Perot's Vice Presidential canidates, I would like to know
>whatever happened to Gene Kirpatrick. Was Perot thinking of recruitinh her?
>Is she still on his list of canidates?
>What else do you people know about Perot's canidates for a would-be VP?


No, James Stockdale is his running mate, according to Ross, if he
"re-enters" the race.  I don't know what happened to Jean Kirkpatrick
or any of the other folks that there was speculation about.

Somebody who is more familiar with the electoral college can correct
me if I am wrong, but I believe that Ross could run with Stockdale on
his ticket and, in the unlikely event that he won a majority of
electoral votes, ask his electors to vote for someone other than
Stockdale as the Vice President.  That certainly would be unusual,
but then so would be a Perot victory.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:50:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: U.S Military Intervention

On Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:34:00 EST YONI@BROWNCOG.BITNET said:
> Greetings,]
> I need some asssistance on the debate the following resoulution:
> That U.S Military Intervention in the Internal Affairs of toerh Countries is
> Justified.                                                other?
Well, I, for one am an isolationist, so I don't think we should be in-
volved with other countries' internal affairs, especially not with
troops, unless our own national security is clearly at risk.  We can
offer to mediate, but in the end it is none of our business.  I feel
the same way about the federal government unconstitutionally interfering
with the internal affairs of the states.  But how can you expect a
country that interferes in foreign affairs to refrain from meddling in
affairs of its own constituent states?


> Thanks in advance.
> Lance
No problem.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:48:15 -0400
From:         "People Are Like Zits,
              You Squeeze Too Hard andthe Head Comes Out!!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Health Care (III)

What happens though when you ask the parents of a child with
with juvenile diabetes to put out money for a child with AIDS??
In all circumstance there are exceptions.... however as a general rule
the system will be abused tremendously! As Americans seem to do with many
other things.


 Question for discussion: Is American Government to big... or does it need
to get bigger?

 My opinion is one of shrinking... the ideas of people such as montesquieu
and various other thinkers are applied to small systems. In the Federalist
papers Hamilton and Madison made arguments that applied the above system
to a Large Federal government. The old thinkers also said however, that
government was a necessary evil to make sure that men didn't kill each
other... to allow them to get along.. the government today goes far
beyond that. For example.. gun control... it is an issue of heated
debate anywhere in the nation! he question is whether to have heavy
control or not? When a city in the midwest passed a city ordinance
that said people could not own firearms.... Kennesaw, Georgia passed
a law that said if you were 21 and not a convicted felon, than you had
to own a gun. Crime in Kennesawwas neglible and it's been several years
since having an armed robbery or murder. The point is that all anti-gun
people were predicting "old-west shootouts", it never happened !
Government is generally too big.. Thomas Jefferson said we needed revolution
every 20 years or so! We haven't had a real upheaval in the U.S. since
the civil war! Maybe it's time we one!


                             John Stith
                              Stustith@eku
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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, 29 Sep 1992 13:50:16 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Rush

Hi, y'all:
Sue wrote:
>>In case you are interested, in the New York Times OP-ED Wednesday, Sept.
>>23, 1992 edition, page A19, there is a very interesting article entitled,
>>'Yes, 128 Clinton Fees and Taxes. Count Them.'  In the NYT, no less.

And Jamie replied:
>Derrick pointed out the dishonesty in the content of that article
>(which was not strictly speaking an "editorial," it was an op ed
>piece). The author was indeed a Bush campaign staffer, namely,
>Fred Malek. Malek is quite a frightening character. He was thrown
>off Bush's staff in '88 after questions about his history of
>virulent anti-semitism in his role in the Nixon administration
>were raised. Apparently, once the dust cleared, Bush was happy
>to have him back.

So now I'll add that I posted a summary of Michael Kinsley's analysis of
the Clinton tax hikes.  If we apply the same "counting" techniques to Bush,
we find that he raised more taxes in 4 years than Clinton raised in 11.
Clinton has also cut taxes 45 times; and let's not forget that at least
some of his taxes (like sales tax on food, I think) were raised
specifically to help education -- where his state has made some real
progress.

Kerry
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: New Tax Structure
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:04:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

jamie,

is this like a giant federal sales tax?

so i would deduct my paltry savings (600 per yr) from my paltry pay, and then
pay a tax on the difference?
no deductions for kids?
what if i had a big savings account (so, i can dream can't i??) that was
bigger than my income. would the irs pay me?

- linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Acknowledge-To: <NY911179%PACEVM.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:36:34 EDT
From:         Mark Susskind <NY911179%PACEVM.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject:      Privatization replies
Comments: To: POLITICS%UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

:Date         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:18:15 BST
:From         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>

>The  example you  constructed does  not  match up  with competition  in
>public services as  practiced in the UK. for several  years now various
>services which are  provided by the council have  been becoming subject
>to "Compulsory Competitive  Tendering". I have been  deeply involved in
>this as a Borough Councillor.
              stuff deleted:
>If you want me to elaborate on this at all, let me know.
Yes!  Please  elaborate.  In  my   original  note,  I  decided  that  my
hypothetical government  would lower the  tax burden on its  citizens so
the citizens  could choose for  themselves. However, if  my hypothetical
government  would  have  maintained  the tax  rate,  the  situation  you
described might have been a possible  outcome. But, by all means, please
continue.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
:Date         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:29:57 -0700
:From         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>>What's to  stop them from going  under cover of darkness  and throwing
>>everything in the  Atlantic Ocean or on the doorstep  of their leading
>>competitor?
>The same thing that stops the public provider from doing that.
Which is ... ?  That is a regulation (rather, a group of regulations).

>Note that other private providers have an incentive to squeal.
Right!  A group  of regulations  would suggest  how one  would go  about
legal action.

>If the prices are too high  because the costs of providing the services
>you want are too high, how will appealing to govt help?
>If the  prices are too  high because of  excess profit, you've  found a
>niche where you can get rich.
That is  not exactly  what I  meant. I  was wondering  if a  citizen can
appeal to the  local government if there is some  reason to suspect that
the  company's rate  is  too  high because  of  excess  profit. I  would
imagine that  there would need to  be a group of  regulations to suggest
how a citizen would go about legal action (as in consumer protection).

Thank you, Dunstan and Andy, for your responses.

Take Care!  Hope to e-hear from you soon.
Mark R. Susskind - Mr. MRS
<NY911179 @ PACEVM.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:34:58 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Clinton and education (was re: Rush)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, Missy:
>You say that Arkansas has made "real progress" in education.  Could you
>elaborate on this?  All I have heard is that he has spent more money
>on schools.  I have heard nothing about test scores, teacher
>competency, retention rates, or anything else.

I was thinking specifically of dropout rates -- Arkansas' rates are
declining (they're number 18, I think) while national rates are increasing.
On one of those call-in shows, Clinton talked about what they've done to
achieve that success, and it sounded pretty good.

I *thought* I'd heard that Arkansas does have teacher competency testing,
but I don't know for sure.  I can check around a little bit to find out
other stuff.

Remember, Arkansas isn't last in everything -- WV beats Arkansas in several
categories :(

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:20:38 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new tax scheme

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>One could hypothetically argue that, yes.  I haven't, nor does the consumption
>tax we've been discussing do anything resembling this.  In fact, the whole
>point of an income tax (or one of them at least) is to avoid double taxation;
taxing wealth (savings) means you tax an income stream once as it comes in, and
>then keep taxing the same stream every year in the form of taxes on savings.
>Taxing the INCOME received from savings (like dividends) is a different matter
>entirely, though.  I can go into this further, but I'm not sure exactly what
>your're asking, so I'll hold off.  Please clarify your question.

Well you are kinda right.  What I brought up did not have much
to do with  the   recently proposed tax system, but neither did your
opinion that the  best tax system was that of a flat rate.

I simply mentioned that a "fair" tax must include tax on wealth  too.

Take the  defense budget.  You may argue that the  military is
protecting our jobs and therefore our incomes.  Fine.  But I
can equally claim that the  military is protecting our property/
wealthe EVERY year.  Therefore to be fair I think people should
pay federal wealth /property tax.  And that would not be double taxation.
One is income tax and the  other is property/wealth  tax.  You don't
have any fundamental problem with  sales tax, do you?  That is also
double taxation according to you.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:35:28 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject: Re: New York Senate Race

Today is the day that Bob Abrams will officially be declared the winner
of the primary race for the Democratic nomination to challenge Al
D'Amato.  Ferraro has still not conceded defeat, although a spokesperson
has said that she "may" have a statement a little later today.  The
vote count will be certified in Albany later this afternoon.  As tough
a loss as it was for Ferraro, I don't think that she did anyone any
good by holding out.  For a while she wouldn't take Abrams's telephone
calls, and then finally spoke to him but didn't say much.

By the way, it is said that Abrams will finally unveil his first
television commercial today.  Word is that he is really hurting in the
pocketbook--he spent all his money on the primary.  Meanwhile, you'd
think that the NYC television stations were Al-TV...D'Amato (who has
got a huge campaign warchest) has been running ads since the day after
the primary.  The one I see the most features a video clip
of Abrams (that looks like they've played with the color balance a bit
to give him that greenish-I-just-got-off-an-amusement-park-ride look)
repeating over and over "My office is run with the highest professional
standards" while an announcer lists charges of Abrams strong-arming
people doing business with his office into giving big campaign
contributions.

And last week, in what the Democrats say was not a snub, Mario Cuomo
failed to show up at an Abrams/Clinton/Gore rally in Albany.  Cuomo
and Abrams don't like each other, and, although Cuomo claims otherwise,
I would think that the audio tape of Clinton agreeing with Gennifer
Flowers that Mario has ties to the mob would kind of make ol'Mario
a little wary of Bill.  Cuomo was scheduled to be at the rally, but
had to do something at a television station instead.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:26:41 -0400
From:         "People Are Like Zits,
              You Squeeze Too Hard andthe Head Comes Out!!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

 I was at a speech in March by Kirkpatrick, she was a Dr. at Georgetown
I think ... but it's very possible i was wrong. She mentioned nothing
then of the possibility... but she probably wouldn't either.

                                           John Stith
                                           Stustith@eku
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU