HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:47:14 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov12.043812.5220@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>  
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.015128.20902@pony.Ingres.COM>  
garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)  
writes:
> >I must dissent on your personal isolationism (not that I'm saying  
you
> >must reject your "I am an island" stand. It's your choice). What I  
am saying
> >is that we have certain responsibilities to our fellow man,  
whether we 
> >like it or not. 
> 
> I'm not saying we _shouldn't_ care about others, just that we  
aren't
> morally required to give others money. 

While you state this as an absolute, a good case can also be
made that we ARE morally required to do so. Certainly the
majority of people in this country feel this way.  A society has
some rights to impose obligations and duites on the members of
that society, who after all benefit in many ways from the
society.  I wouldn't disagree that at times our governement tilts
a bit too far in how much it requires; on the other hand, I 
do disagree with statements that the governement (or society) 
has no right to demand that we all help those in our society
who need help. (Again, I think some times our government
defines "those who need help" a bit too broadly, but that's
a different issue.)

> 
> >People should take care of themselves if they are capable,
> >even required to, but sometimes you can't (whether it's from hard  
times,
> >or from prolonged sickness, or whatever).
> 
> However, the government has no place deciding for me, who I think
> deserves help or what form that help should take.

Why?  You state this as an absolute, much like a religious
belief.  Why doesn't the government have the right to do so?
If society as a whole (working through the governement) decides
that, for example, we should help those who lose their jobs,
why doesn't it have the right to use the resources of society as
a whole to do so?

> 
> >	What are we, as a society, to do when some people can't make
> >on their own no matter what they try to do? Let them starve? What  
kind of
> >society is it, that would let someone starve when there is wealth  
all 
> >around them?
> 
> Does giving them food, as much as they want, with no strings  
attached,
> help them? How do you determin who "can't make it on their own"?

I agree with you here, but, as I noted above, this is a different
issue.  We do often give the aid we give in the wrong way. We
need to work out better ways to help those in need, and sometimes
have to attach strings (like WorkFare). However, earlier you
state that the government shouldn't help them, even if we 
DO attach strings, etc.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Another garbage/landfill comment
Keywords: Question3
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:56:11 EST
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.

In article <Bx5rwp.B0y@world.std.com> steveng@world.std.com (Stephen Ng) writes:
>I agree.  I want to address the landfill crisis, and I want to create
>an aftermarket for recycled products, but I think a landfill/garbage
>tax coupled with a tax break for business which make/buy recycled
>products would be far more effective than this system of quotas (not
>to sound like our future ex-president) and regulations.  

It seems that there is a better way than a landfill tax: let
municipalities and/or neighborhoods take landfills voluntarily,
and set disposal fees as they like.  The state could ban a
landfill for environmental/historic/whatever reasons, but not
impose one by governmental fiat, as it would do now.

This does not run against today's taxophobia, is more reliant on
market mechanics, does not require a tax-collecting bureaucracy,
and the victims (neighbors) get reimbursed for the drop in property
values and the inconvenience of living near a garbage dump.  That
will naturally cause the disposal costs to go up, thus reducing
the amount of garbage generated.
Some fondue-and-compassion-through-government-activism ne.politics
posters might object on the grounds that the landfills will probably
end up in poorer areas, but that's the way it happens now, anyway
(the poor can't lobby as well).  At least the neighbors will receive
what they think is adequate compensation.
	Mike Cherepov
		whose employer has nothing to do with this junk
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Subject: Re: What happened to non-Big Three votes?
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:07:14 GMT

mad@spirit.clearpoint.com (Michael Davis) writes:


>On 5 Nov 92 15:35:40 GMT, betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) said:

>es>   Why Perot and not the Libertarians? After all, they've been around
>es> longer and have a lot of good ideas. I know why they don't get more
>es> votes ....the Libertarians should ponder long and hard the differences
>es> between Marrou and Weld.

>What the Libertarians need to ponder is how they can be on the ballot
>in fifty states and still not get any serious media attention.  I
>mean, what are the criteria of the League of Status Quo, er Women
>Voters in deciding who gets to play?

>	"Only serious candidates get media attention.  It's proof that
>{Marrou, Fulani} aren't serious because they get no media attention."

>If you can spot the fallacy there, you get the satisfaction of being
>right, if not of having real representation.


>-Mike					mad@spirit.clearpoint.com


>Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force!  Like
>fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

>				---  George Washington


The Libertarians got @250K votes. That is likely less than the number of
people who signed their ballot petitions. _I_ would suggest that the
Libertarians look at their platform. As long as they remain a utopian
social club, they will garner neither votes nor serious media attention.

Charlie 
-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@koneko.shr.dec.com		    *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
From: raf@nyqrn.UUCP (Hugh Sider)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Does this seem odd to you too?
Date: 4 Nov 92 22:36:36 GMT


     First of all, I didn't mean to start the debate over
 gun control again.  I don't think anyone's going to change
 their mind at this point, so I've given up discussing it
 (mostly).

     What I am interested in is the choice of issues that get
 public attention.   The priorities of the American electorate
 astound me.  After all, does it surprise you that a congess that
 participated in the creation of the current national debt bounced
 personal checks?  At least they're consistant.  There are other
 issues more important to me, but the mortality rate for incumbents
 with >100 bad checks was pretty high.

    Getting back to the original point, what are you more interested
 in, being able to vote, or being able to purchase firearms?  I'm
 likely to register to vote more often than I buy a firearm, and I'm
 a gun owner.

 I can't help throwing my $.02 in, after all...

In article <lfeb05INN1ro@news.bbn.com>, gonzalez@bbn.com (Jim Gonzalez) writes:
>
> As I remember the stories of voting rights abuses, the waiting period
> was on the order of _years_.  You had to pass a test, and the test (or
> the posting of its results) was always scheduled after the election.
> As with many gun laws, the idea was to frustrate those who would
> exercise their right.

   Actually, the idea was to restrict the right to a certain social
 class, but your point is taken.

>
>
> What concerns me about the arguments over the Brady bill is that the
> general population is encouraged to chuckle over "that silly NRA"
> complaining about waiting a "mere 7 days" and to not bother reading the
> bill.  The bill, as introduced _each_year_, includes wording that
> empowers a chief to stop a sale be merely sitting on the dealer
> inquiry, extending the wait to forever, with no legal recourse.  Each
> year, the sponsor of the Brady bill fights removal of this provision
> tooth-and-nail.
   Interesting bit of data.

   How would you feel about the following modification?  Waiting
 periods except for those who can present valid lisence to carry
 concealed (of local equivelant) at point of sale.

>
> If you doubt the potential abuse of police discretion, ask any woman
> or minority who's applied for a license in Woburn, Cambridge or Boston.
>
>                                 -Jim.

   I don't.  This problem exists in the solution proposed above, too.

Hugh Sider
jjmhome!nyqrn!raf@transfer.stratus.com
"Earthquakes don't kill people.  Falling buildings kill people."
From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: What happened to non-Big Three votes?
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:46:25 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

I wrote:
>I wasn't trying to imply that.  All I'm saying is that the popularity
>of our ideas hasn't been fully tested, thus we can't draw conclusions yet.

I retract this statement as written.  Instead of "popularity" I should
have written "potential appeal."  I fear that this correction will not
be read before people start jumping all over me for the above statement,
but, alas, that's part of life on Usenet. ;-)

     Bob Alexander                                     boba@pictel.com
       The more the government does, the better libertarianism looks
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Organizations don't have opinions; people do.  The above opinions
     do not reflect those of the directors, stockholders, managers, or
     other employees of PictureTel.
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: What happened to non-Big Three votes?
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:59:22 GMT
	<BZS.92Nov7233853@ussr.std.com> <1992Nov9.143158.2237@miki.pictel.com>
Organization: The World


>Our presidential ticket did poorly (perhaps in part due to Perot's
>presence) but our candidates for lower offices show steadily increasing
>vote totals.  I believe we are making progress.
>
>By the way, what is your motive for gloating over our poor results?  Do
>you wish we would disappear entirely?  Are you trying to convince
>people that libertarianism is wrong and offering our low vote totals
>as evidence?  This is not meant to challenge you; I am really curious.
>
>     Bob Alexander                                     boba@pictel.com

What is your motive for rationalizing the poor results? I'm hardly
gloating, just drawing some conclusions. Are you trying to convince
people that libertarianism is right and offering higher local vote
totals as evidence?

Either a comment stands on its own or it doesn't, I don't think this
insinuation of motive adds anything to the discussion.

For the record: Yes, I think libertarianism is rather silly, and it
would seem so do a lot of other people.

Do libertarians demur on harping on other parties' failures and
foibles? I don't think so. So why do you ask for special
consideration, in a political milieu (this *is* ne.politics) that's
what happens, ideas are examined, popularity and success is examined,
etc. Opinions are formed.

In this day and age the last thing we need is another dogmatic "ism".


--
        -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: mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Upcoming Inauguration---exactly when is it?
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:23:55 GMT
Reply-To: mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman)
Distribution: ne
Organization: Bull HN Info Sys, Billerica MA

In article <1992Nov04.212832.60523@uvmark.uucp>, scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl) writes:
|> 
|> OK, so I forgot if there were "rules" for the inauguration date.
|> 
|> When is it in 1993?  Always January 20?
|> So then, the actual date Clinton will be formally inaugurated will be
|> on Wednesday, January 20?
|> 
|> What time?  How can I get more details about it?

The 20th Amendment to the Constution says:
     Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end
   at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and
   Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in
   which such terms would have ended if this article had not been
   ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

--Mike Gelman
-- 
Michael Gelman -- M.Gelman@ma30.bull.com 
Bull HN Info Systems -- Advanced Engineering Program 
(Any similarity between my opinions and those of Bull, living or dead, are
entirely coincidental.) 
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: What happened to non-Big Three votes?
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:11:49 GMT

>>But doesn't everyone need some criteria by which they judge gov't actions?
>
>Yes, some, like on its merits etc.

The merits themselves must be judged by certain criteria.  We haven't
moved any closer to an answer here.

>No, not at all. Libertarians are dogmatic because they are dogmatic,
>presented with a situation that would seem to make their slogans
>unworkable they claw and scrape to not abandon their slogans.
>
>A good example of this is civil rights, minority rights,
>anti-discrimination laws which Libertarians reject as a proper role of
>govt, although (many) express the extreme cognitive dissonance that
>they think a victim has truly been wronged in some palpable way.

It is difficult to prove dogmatism in political affairs, because it is
difficult to provide conclusive evidence to support *anything.*
Intelligent, rational, critical people can find evidence that suggests
socialism is superior.  Other intelligent, rational, critical people
can find evidence that free markets are best.  Likewise, there is
credible evidence to support both sides in the debate over anti-
discrimination laws.  So opposition to those laws does not automatically
make one dogmatic.

Different libertarians have different opinions on anti-discrimination
laws.  Some think there would be less discrimination in a free market,
so the laws would not be necessary (and their belief is based on
theories and evidence that have not been disproven.)  Others think
that it's not the gov't's role or within its power to solve every
problem in society (a sentiment that many non-libertarians can agree
with, even if they don't apply it to anti-discrimination laws.)  Still
others think that the laws are necessary and proper and advocate
keeping them around even as the rest of gov't is reduced (and they
freely admit to rejecting or broadly interpreting the guiding
principle of libertarianism.)

I don't see any dogmatism here.  I see a variety of interpretations of
the evidence available, and I see a variety of opinions on the
applicability of the libertarian principle.

>>What are *your* criteria for evaluating the government?  Do they ever
>>waver?  If so, what caused it?
>
>Of course govt's waiver, through their legislative and judicial
>process.

Actually, I meant "do *your* criteria waver?" not "do gov'ts waver?"

     Bob Alexander                                     boba@pictel.com
       The more the government does, the better libertarianism looks
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Organizations don't have opinions; people do.  The above opinions
     do not reflect those of the directors, stockholders, managers, or
     other employees of PictureTel.
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: all these postings from outside New England
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:36:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <lg2pvqINNhg9@news.bbn.com>, rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
> Why are so many people from outside the Northeast
> suddenly posting to "ne.politics"?

Shotgun approach to cross-posting. Someone posted to all the politics groups
in creation, starting a major flame war. All politics groups in creation
have seen most of the resulting flames.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Presidential Evalution Test, 1996
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:46:12 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering


		    Presidential Economics Test 1996


Question #1 (50pts) Did taxes get raised?

	a: Not at all = 50 pts
	b: A very little = 40 pts
	c: A little = 30 pts
	d: More than a little = 0 pts

Question #2 (50pts) Did the government spend more money than it took in?

	a: No = 50 pts
	b: Yes, but significate less than previous years = 30pts
	b: Yes = 0 pts

Extra Credit Question A (5pts) Did taxes get lowered?

	a: Yes = 5 pts
	b: No = 0 pts

Extra Credit Question A (5pts) Did the government spend less money than
				it took in and reduce the national dept?

	a: Yes = 5 pts
	b: No = 0 pts

Scoring:

	0-70	Vote President out of office.
	71-85	Toss up, look at other issues.
	86-100	Vote for second term for President.
	101-110 Enthusiastically support President for second term.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     (Sig down for repairs.  Please stayed tuned for new, improved sig.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 7 Nov 92 10:13:19 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <7976@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <Y5==g6-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)  

>But that can be OK also. If the places to shelter income are
>the types of investment that will make the economy grow, this
>is a good thing.

In principle you are right.  In practice it doesn't really work that
way.  What really happens is that money is moved into non-productive
but capital preserving "investments".

>> Also, marginal rates *do* discourage additional work....

>I very much doubt anyone making $200,000 a year (or even $100,000
>a year) is paid by the hour. Thus, the don't get paid more
>for working extra hours, and thus this isn't a consideration.

Again correct, but irrelevant.  There is a small number of people
who make large amounts of money on their personal productivity,
e.g. entertainers and athletes.  Most big money is the product of
business investment.  If I have a million dollars I have two basic
choices -- active and passive.  In active investment I put money into
a company [growing the economy] and receive a return in the form of
an income stream [dividends] and/or capital gains.  Both involve double
taxation.  In the case of dividends the double taxation is direct;
the company pays taxes on what it earns first [cut one on the return
on investment] and then I pay taxes on what I receive [cut two on the
return on investment].  The case of capital gains is indirect; insofar
as the value of the company is a function of the income it generates,
it is reduced by the double hit on the return.  In practice things
don't quite work that way; the tax system structure creates an incentive
for dysfunction debt structures.  My alternative is to dump the money
into passive investments, e.g. munincipal bonds.  As the marginal rates
increase the investment incentive is to shift investment from active
to passive investment.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2879 talk.politics.misc:59535
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:50:11 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: ne.politics
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov10.060546.7374@EE.Stanford.EDU>, budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>Actually, there IS a state without a sales tax. New Hampshire. (unless
>of course it has passed one since I was an undergrad at Dartmouth.)
>The fact that NH hasn't a sales tax, coupled with the high taxes "enjoyed"
>just across the Connecticut River in Vermont was playing havoc with
>businesses in places like White River Junction, VT, and other
>border towns.

The great state of New Hampshire not only has no sales tax, it has no income
tax, and it soundly defeated the Democratics gubernatiorial candidate this
last election who promised us both - defeated her despite the staggering
amounts of money and time devoted to her race by Democrats from every state
in the union except New Hampshire.  I remember passing one car on Rt 101 every
day covered with Arnie Arneson stickers and sporting _New_Jersey_ plates!
The Republican, Steve Merrill, "took the pledge", and he got our votes, he
won by 16 percentage points in a record turnout.

The lack of sales taxes _does_ play havoc with all the surrounding states,
which seem to run up taxes every year and then get offended when more of
their people cross the border to buy in NH.  We've surely held down taxes
in surrounding states, I notice the states that border NH top at sales taxes
at around 5%, but NY, especially NYC, run up to 10% and beyond.  Personally,
I think we're performing a service for all our New England neighbors.

Of course, the state is ringed with malls - we get a new one in Nashua every
year.  But those malls provide jobs - more than 25,000 of them, most of which
would have gone pffft if Arnie had put in the 6% tax she was threatening.  And
she had the nerve to criticize Gregg for losing jobs from the state!

West Lebanon, which is a mile from White River Junct, has a dozen large malls
and maybe another two dozen shopping centers.  Nashua has two really large
malls, a dozen smaller ones and maybe three dozen shopping centers.  It makes
for rotten in-town traffic, I can tell you, and all those Mass drivers banging
into people run the insurance up, too, but I'd rather all that than the bloody
ghost town Arnie would have left us in.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: ne.politics