HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 1992 18:57:11 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <10418@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.113318.18425@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:
>
>|>  In the other hand, a family making $300,000 a year will pay, at worst
>|>  a full 28% federal income tax and an average of 7% state income tax.
>|>  That's 35% or $105,000 a year.  They will pay 7% FICA but only up to
>|>  $60,000 for a total of $4,200 (just twice the other family) and disability
>|>  of 1% up to $30,000 for a total of  $300, same as the other family.  
>|>  This adds up to $110,000 for a net of $190,000 a year ($16,000 a month
>|>  AFTER TAXES!)  I am supposed to shed serious tears for this family if
>|>  their tax burden is increased another $25,000?  No way, sorry, I simply
>|>  don't get it.   
>
>The issue is not can they afford it, but instead, what makes you think that
>you or anyone else have more right to their money than they do.
>

Why do you think that someone's money belongs completely to them?  This is
the incorrect basis of all your arguments.  Money only has value in a
society; one can only accumulate money by interacting with other people.
Therefore, the system (government) which allows you to interact, which
helps you to enforce your contracts, which helps makes you physically safe,
which helps you interact more efficiently (infrastructure), and therefore
which fundamentally helped you accumulate the money has legitimate claim
to a significant portion of your money (taxes).  And, BTW, the more money
one accumulates, the more one has taken advantage of this system, therefore
it follows that more taxes would be levied on him (or her).

Also, poor people deserve to be compensated for their contribution to 
helping someone else accumulate money.  Having lots of poor people around
keeps wages low, since the supply of labor is abundant.  Even with very
progressive tax rate structures, rich people remain rich after taxes; it
is very much in their self-interest to maintain decent conditions for these
poor people so that revolutionary, criminal, and disease forces are kept in
check and, thus, also the status quo which made the rich able to be rich.

-Nick Jovanovic
 
 


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15925 alt.politics.democrats.d:314 alt.politics.elections:22739 ba.politics:6781 co.politics:1601 ne.politics:2723 nj.politics:539 or.politics:438 ny.politics:66 talk.politics.misc:58328
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:03:29 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <1992Nov04.040747.16409@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.164044.24029@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>I may add, that despite the media bias toward the liberal party, the last 
>>three elections have seen *conservatives* voted into office!  I encourage all
>>voters to really think about what they are doing!  Clinton's stand on moral 
>>issues is quite frighteneing!  Besides that, he has PROMISED to raise taxes!
>
>This is typical of "partial truth" campaigners.
>
>Why don't you complete the truth?  Clinton has promised to raise taxes
>on the RICH!($200,000 or more) (This includes a lot of George Bush's 
>golf buddies and maybe you from the tone of your post.)

... Keep going ... Why is it that nobody can get Clinton's numbers to work
correctly?  The *rest* of the truth is that in order to raise the kind of 
tax dollars he wants, several analysts have come up with the figure of
$36,600, NOT $200,000 as Willie wants you to believe.  That *still* doesn't
dip low enough to affect my pay (yet) but the *only* confidence that I DO
have in baby boy Clinton is that he will somehow find a way to collect 
some extra tax money from me!  I don't know how yet, but I am *SURE* it will
happen!  BTW, please feel free to keep this mail note around ... if at the 
end of Willie's 4 years of trashing our country, he has in fact failed to
increase my taxes, I will post a public apology here!  O.K.?  (I figure the
chance of me having to do that is *very* slim...)



-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16764 talk.politics.misc:59453
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:35:21 -0500
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com
Summary: Not just the deficit

In article <1992Nov10.202606.19090@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> 
> Please post an address of how to reach Bill Clinton and the team.
> I voted for Perot as did most of my family and friends - ALL because
> of the Deficit as the primary reason. 
> 
> Lets bury them in letters...

I think it should be made clear in any letter that we are not
only for deficit reduction, but more importantly debt reduction.

Deficit reduction would mean that we just dig the hole a little
less deep. I voted for Ross, because I want to see the hole fill-
ed back up.

Sorry for the semantics pickiness, but Stephanopoulous doesn't
even think that the deficit is an issue to us, so I think it's
best that we send a clear message. Both the deficit and the debt
are major problems, in my mind.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:17:21 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov9.192028.9550@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:

|>In article <10297@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>>If you happen to buy anything over the next four years, you will be helping
|>>to pay for the taxes Clinton wants to impose on businesses.  Aren't you proud
|>>to be doing your civic duty.

|>if you have purchased any cigarettes, booze, gas, cars over30k ,jewelry over
|>10k(i think), boats over 100k(hmm...31k car a luxury but a 99k boat isn't??),
|>or planes over...i forget...you have paid additional taxes that good ol'
|>read-my-lips bush-the-liar signed into law!

So, are you saying that if some taxes are bad, more taxes will be better?

The luxury tax was a bad idea from the start.  It has also proven to be a
money loser.  Bush felt compelled to accept the luxury tax because the
Democratic leaders of congress said they would not accept the changes Bush
wanted without it.  If you do not like the luxury tax, blame congress and
support the line item veto.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:34:19 GMT



>>Perhaps cocaine-laced soda
>>pop would make a comeback.  Who would take the risk of using crack
>>when they could go down to the local cocaine bar and have a choice of
>>seven delicious drink flavors?

	The people who are more interested in getting high than 
having a sweet taste in their mouths.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15926 alt.politics.bush:13234 alt.politics.elections:22740
From: lee@hsh.com (Lee Havemann)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: it's over
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:43:18 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov4.214743.9303@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = Garrett writes:
> 
>>You know, if Bush had campaigned like he gave his concession speech he
>>may have actually won...
> 
> I agree.  It's the first time he's sounded like less than a spittle-spraying
> liar in years.  I'd even call the speech classy and somewhat eloquent.
> Maybe the sheer dirt-campaigners will pay attention...
> 
> Of course, this was in contrast to Danny Boy's "concession" speech, which
> for him was solely an opportunity to pretend that the four people chanting
> "'96, '96..." were drowning out his microphone so that he could stop
> speaking about 5 times and pretend he was trying to "silence" the "crowd",
> a smirky little smile twisting his aristocratic features.
> 
> And gawd, if we DO have to listen to that weenie in the future...Dan, drop
> that dramatic voice dropping, and near whispering of "reverent" topics;
> it's so ludicrous I laugh out loud whenever I hear it.  What a maroon.
> 
> 
> -- 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> steven@advtech.USWest.Com


Jeez, I have seen a lot of sore losers.... but sore winners strike me as 
some of the most ungracious clods I have had the displeasure to meet.

The election is over, Bush/Quayle lost.  
Get with it.
Give up on your unnecessary bad mouthing of somebody and get a real life.

-- 

 Lee Havemann, Sys_op       HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: lee@hsh.com    Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of anyone else, 
  including myself."                     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Latest economic indicators down 11/3
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:04:42 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov4.134136.27471@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
...
>    I remember when the Reagan Revolution started. Reagan told us
> how easy it would be: He would cut taxes, the ecomomy would grow
> itself, the deficit would close, and all the while, "Happy Days"
> blared in the background. As we all know, the economy did grow,
> but the deficit grew faster and it has caught up with us. The

	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.

> realism in the White House. Long live the message of Paul Tsongas!

	If you think Clinton is going to follow Tsongas, you've got a nasty
surprise coming.
      
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Sorry
Originator: cs911461@c06.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:11:29 GMT


In article <1992Nov7.000436.5868@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov6.114938.5452@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> > In <1992Nov5.225448.29916@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>> > > 
>> > >I am writing this on advice of my lawyer.  After John Moore mentioned
>> > >possible legal charges I went to my lawyer and explained the entire
>> > >situation.  I told him that I was allowed on the Bush e-mail organization
>> > >seeking revenge for Reagan Campaign 1980 stealing of Carter's debate notes
>> > >(which has brewed hatred in me for 10 years now.)  I explained how
>> > 
>> > 	Bob, what you really need to see is a good therapist.
>> 
>> I agree, for a non-partisan consensus.
>> 
>> *********************************************************************
>> the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
>>                the spoken word is a jacket too tight



LET BOB SPEAK HIS MIND, DAMMIT.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16711 alt.politics.democrats.d:421 alt.politics.elections:23356 ba.politics:6955 co.politics:1753 ne.politics:2855 nj.politics:637 or.politics:548 ny.politics:160 talk.politics.misc:59367
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:21:18 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov10.113318.18425@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>  In the other hand, a family making $300,000 a year will pay, at worst
>  a full 28% federal income tax and an average of 7% state income tax.
>  That's 35% or $105,000 a year.  They will pay 7% FICA but only up to
>  $60,000 for a total of $4,200 (just twice the other family) 

"Just" twice as much, for identicle benefits.

>  ...and disability
>  of 1% up to $30,000 for a total of  $300, same as the other family.  
>  This adds up to $110,000 for a net of $190,000 a year ($16,000 a month
>  AFTER TAXES!)  I am supposed to shed serious tears for this family if
>  their tax burden is increased another $25,000?  No way, sorry, I simply
>  don't get it.   

Whether or not they can afford the expense isn't the issue: They _earned_
the money, and to take it away from them (in greater proportion than 
the someone else) is unfair. I guess the underlying concept it that
everyone has a right to enjoy what they earned. The fact that they
and afford to be robbed does not justify theft. (By the way, I suspect
the analogy between taxes and robbery is something else you "don't get."
But essentially they are the same: Taking money by threat of deadly force.
The only excuse for taxes, is collective needs _so_ vital as to justify
this sort of behavior.)

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: PKD's Time out of Joint **Spoilers!!** Re: Science Fiction?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:51:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.141407.864@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>Oh, given that space weapons are involved, I'd say it was a GOP
>>administration plotting against the protagonist. :-)
>>
>You post an article about plans for technilogical development then
>criticize space technology!  :-)

Actually, thinking about it a little more, it has to be a GOP regime.
Proof?  Who else would create a virtual small town and blame a
recession on the Democrats? :-)

>
>Now where would our technology go without the military??  :-)

What I really want is a HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile.  It's
used to blow up enemy radar sets.) set-up for my car.  Those pesky
cops with their radar guns....

:-)

>
>(the preceding has been good-natured political humor, not intended to
>flame or offend)




And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16753 alt.politics.democrats.d:431 alt.politics.elections:23398 ba.politics:6975 co.politics:1771 ne.politics:2866 nj.politics:647 or.politics:558 ny.politics:170 talk.politics.misc:59442
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:26:49 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

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.

There are also states with no State Tax.  Florida is one of them.  I know that
20 or 30 dollars out of my paycheck goes to NY State tax... which really makes
me wonder just how many times the same dollar (so to speak) gets taxed.  The
state taxes my wages, then they get more tax if I go and buy something, again
they collect tax if I decide to sell it ... and it goes on and on.  Has any-
one actually studied this curious tendency of the government to collect repeat
taxes on the same dollar?




-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16897 alt.politics.democrats.d:463 alt.politics.elections:23518 talk.politics.misc:59656
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.062015.20641@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
} The point isn't how much is spent on protecting the
} rich vs. protecting the poor -- the point is how much each side benefits.
} 
} If the police stop enforcing theft laws tomorrow, who does it hurt more 
} -- the person who doesn't own anything, or the person with a lot of 
} possessions?

I don't know of anybody who doesn't own anything -- they at least own
their own bodies.  Besides it seems to me that if someone had only $10
to their name, but someone stole it, they would feel considerable hurt.

} The rich have more to lose than the poor, and thus law enforcement helps
} them more.

Let's assume that is true.  If someone should pay law enforcement based
on the amount that can be stolen, don't you think jail time should also
be based on the amount that is stolen?  Otherwise, people would end up
paying more for an enforcement that doesn't give them this added benefit
that you claim they receive.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 11:32:05 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov9.050718.27299@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
|> In article <1992Nov8.004344.27794@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov6.212746.5694@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
|> >>> Pardon my ignorance, but could someone please explain how a consumption-based
|> >>> tax works? How is the "level of consumption" determined?
|> >
|> >>A tax based on consumption is regressive: for instance, the sales tax.
|> >
|> >This isn't the case at all: A tax based on consumption _without_ deductions
|> >for the cost of living is regressive. The proposals being discused here,
|> >as I understand them, all include deductions and tax only consumption
|> >_beyond_ living expenses.
|>  
|>   Get another clue, Frank!  Jeez, this guy is filled with MORE misinformation
|>   than Pravda ever was :-)  First you spew nonsense about capital gains
|>   taxes being levied on TOP of regular income taxes on the same gains (which
|>   is total utter rubbish) and now you are spouting something about having  
|>   consumption taxes that have deductions!!!! Consumption taxes are almost
|>   always levied as sales, use or value-added taxes.  As such, they are
|>   levied at the point of sale, with no paperwork filed by the person who
|>   incurs the tax.  Thus, no deductions are possible, at least as I understand
|>   it.  How in the world can you tax consumption if you don't do it when 
|>   things are consumed???  
|> 

Just because you can't think of a way doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
I've seen at least one sketchy proposal which explained how a consumption
tax might work with only minor changes to our current system of reporting.
Another proposal was put forth by Sam Nunn and Pete Domenici which also
did not rely on a sales tax (as far as I can remember).  The key question
here is whether you could support a consumption based tax that allowed
for some level of exemption.  Rather than simply blurting out that
it can't be done, why don't you simply comment on the underlying notion?


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15870 alt.politics.democrats.d:310 alt.politics.elections:22690 ba.politics:6771 co.politics:1597 ne.politics:2715 nj.politics:535 or.politics:432 ny.politics:62 talk.politics.misc:58266