HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Efficiency
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:13:06 GMT

In article <6PcHqB2w164w@cellar.org> kml@cellar.org (John Galt) writes:
>borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>
>> This country needs to pay more attention to efficiency.  Things could cost
>> a lot less if they could be made more efficient.  (I know this is obvious,
>> but I think it's worth discussing anyway.)  Here's one example:
>> 
>> Last October, before I found this job, I worked for 2 1/2 weeks at a horrible
>> temp job in a hospital billing office.  My sole task, which was also the
>> task of other temps working there at the same time, was to read radiology
>> billing information off a computer printout and type it into a computer.
>>[rest of saga deleted]
>
>Okay, so we make everyone more efficient.  then we need fewer workers.
>Then we have more unemployment, more entitlement costs.  Then we higher
>taxes, so corporations either layoff or become more efficient.  Eventually
>we will drive ourselves into the ground, if we haven't already.

So you say if we make ourselves less efficient we will be better off :-)

If we are more efficient there is more to go around and everyone benefits,
if people are less efficient then there is less to go around.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Observations on schools & money
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:01:02 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <1992Aug26.155248.15819@osf.org>, Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
> Throwing money.at schools doesn't help?????
> 
> Then how come Weston, Brookline, Wellesley & Lexington schools
> regularly are ranked among the best in MA.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But Acton is rated higher than any of them,
spends less money per student than any of those,
and in turn those schools spend less per pupil
than Boston City spends.

> could it be they are well funded as well as strongly supported.

Could it be that they are WELL MANAGED??? Naw, couldn't be that...
sounds too commercial.

> I think we
> need to reform the way that we get money for the schools.  

I think we need to reform the way that schools are managed.
When the citizens have confidence in school management they
feel better about the dollars that are being spent.

Take Concord for example. It is obvious that over the last 30 years
the "people in charge" have grossly mismanaged the REAL ESTATE aspects
of running the schools. Because of that, millions of dollars now have
to be spent on fixing up damage to building that should never have
happened in the first place.

Thats the kind of thing that can really add to your "cost per pupil."


-gjc
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Hypocrasy test: (was Re: Abortion: What does God say?)
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Distribution: ne
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 02:44:15 GMT

In article <BtJ7AE.IpI@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:

   or time. You also in your intellectually DISHONEST fashion edited out
   the statement noting the 28 volumes that I own about Japan or in Japanese.
   You also saw fit to edit out that I had traveled to Japan 4 times this
   year. 

You had already posted it.  There was no need to repeat it.  I
included as much of your posting as was needed to provide context so
that it would be clear to which statements I was replying.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:10:31 GMT

>People do kill people, but they do so more frequently and w/ greater
>efficiency when they have easy access to guns -- and I mostly mean
>hand guns.

We also have more knifings in this country than elsewhere.  Violence
is a problem in our society, but I'm not convinced that the
availability of guns is the cause.  (Especially since 99+% of legal
firearms are never used in a crime.)

     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: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Education, deficits, morals: you can't have it all
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:30:29 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <BZS.92Aug24172524@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> 
> George Herbert Walker Bush is not the first president to have to deal
> with a Congress dominated by the other party. Not by a long shot,
> Eisenhower, Nixon (for part of his term), Reagan all had to deal with
> this (probably Ford too tho I'm not sure.)

By the time Reagan came along, the congress had passed laws to
remove many of the ways that some of these previous presidents had
used to "deal with congress."

The big problem was that the way that Reagan dealt with congress
was to let everybody have their pet projects. Take the Keating Five
for example. There was a lot of money (what was in fact OFF-BUDGET
federal spending) being spent in a lot of congressional discricts 
by an awful lot of savings and loans supporting a awful lot
of commercial construction projects. 150 Billon dollars worth, perhaps.

Don't you think it helped Reagan deal with the Congress to
allow these 5 senators (and all the hundreds of other congress-criters)
influence federal regulation the way they did?

-gjc
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:52:32 GMT
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <2798109875@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com> usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:

   Okay, my last word on this subject (no one seems to be convincing anyone 
   of anything here).  These results are rediculous.  As long as gun-control 
   laws are local, there can be no effective gun control.  You have to have a 
   national resolution.  Outlawing guns in Washington DC means nothing when 
   you can drive 10 mins out of the city and buy a gun.

To see where your idea may lead, look at the drug trade as an example.
Suppose we did enact federal controls.  What would stop drug smugglers
from delivering guns and ammunition along with their loads of drugs?
Think for a minute how fantastically successful the smugglers have
been in delivering goods to the American public.  It makes the Berlin
Airlift look like small potatoes.  Suppose there were an international
resolution to control guns.  Why would it be any more effective than
the international control on drug trafficking?

Now before anyone complains that we should not prosecute rapists
because they are too hard to control, I would like to point out that
buying/owning/using a gun is a perfectly moral activity.  The
activities that we really need to be controlling are the crimes that
are committed with or without guns.

   Clearly, if we can't get national legislation then we might as well
   open the floodgates and legalize the kind of anarchistic
   vigilantism that the NRA seems to advocate.

That seems like a misrepresentation of what the NRA stands for.  I
think that in reality, the NRA is much more of a "law and order"
organization than its nemesis, Handgun Control.  HCI wants to
implement a waiting period, whereas the NRA wants to implement an
instant background check program which could immediately identify
convicted felons.  In fact, the NRA helped the state of Virginia
implement just such a system.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Flat taxes
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:10:20 GMT

murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
>I favor a flat tax rate - EVEN at 10-15% and higher - providing there are
>absolutely NO exceptions and deductions.  A flat tax is fairer and will
>encourage greater compliance.

	There more to it than that:  with a flat tax and no 
deductions/exemptions you come very close to eliminating the need
for an IRS, especially if all taxes are taken out at the time
you're paid.  Since the tax is flat the amount withheld is easily
calculable in all cases.  This makes tax evasion easier to detect
and prosecute.  Since most employers already do the withholding,
the system already exists to do the work - it's just a case of whittling
out the no-longer-needed parts.

	One place I'd embellish it (and I realize that this violates
the no exemptions rule :-) is to scale it slightly under $15K/year.
Say, 12% > $15K/year, 6% < 15K/year, 0% < 8K/year.  Now you could still 
take out 12% and reimburse the (6%,12%) at the end of the year automatically.
(Since you'll have a record of what people made and what they paid.)
That way you're still sure that people are complying (i.e. they aren't
paying themselves by nickels and dimes to avoid the tax)...  It wouldn't
be perfect since some people pay more than they should at paycheck time
but they get the $$$ back later...  and they'd be paying a lot less
(I make $14K/yr right now and pay something like 24% in taxes [fed + state].
IF someone told me I'd have to pay 12% up front and I'd get 6% back
at the end of the year, I would of course jump at it.)

	OF course this will never happen since it would mean that
all the tax shelters people put money into would go away.  (awwwwww.)
But the majority of people, however, it means more $$$ in their pocket
and a greatly simplified duty.

	People who have played with the numbers have also said that such
a system would add literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy.
The only reason it isn't being done is greed.

BBC
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Flat taxes
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:09:13 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <DRG.92Sep1153145@bubba.ma30.bull.com> drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
>
>Some people might be wondering how we would pay for all those
>priceless government services we have if the income tax is eliminated.
>I personally favor getting rid of the services but for those who can't
>stand the thought, what about a comprehensive sales tax on everything
>other than food, clothing and shelter?

I hate sales taxes.  Sales taxes are regressive, because they take a larger
percentage of lower income people than out of higher income people.  Can you
believe that Colorado actually taxes groceries?  The rate is 7.9%!  Take it
from someone who was nearly broke in Aspen most of one summer, it hurts.  I
personally favor eliminating sales taxes, possibly eliminating property taxes,
and having only income taxes, which I agree need to be reformed as well.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: composer@world.std.com (Jeff Kellem)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Homos in school, too? What next?
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:34:10 GMT
Reply-To: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
Organization: Beyond Dreams

murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
 > Would I make a distinction?  I might in the case of a "closeted" homo where
 > such an individual does not make it obvious to the children.  However, at the
 > first instance of a show of affection for a member of the same sex, I'd fire
 > that sucker!

A "show of affection"?  I hope this doesn't include a friendly,
compassionate hug, whether for someone of the same sex or not.  If so,
perhaps I should stop showing affection for my friends, whether male
or female, and especially not in a public area, eh?  I think not!

			-jeff

Jeff Kellem
Internet: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Observations on schools & money
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 04:42:29 GMT

In article <52569@dime.cs.umass.edu> stamant@titanic.cs.umass.edu (Robert Stamant) writes:

   I think in the short run, at least, spending more would be really
   helpful.

Well, I think you're both right.  (How's that for an incindiary
statement.)  *Merely* throwing money at the problem is not what I
would recommend.  There are a lot of important changes and systemic
reforms that could be done in public school systems that would make
them a lot more valuable.  I'm not talking about untried theories:
there are plenty of changes that have been tried, not in single
experiments but in many, many schools.  Unfortunately a lot of them
cost some money, particularly to effect the transition; they also
involve some political will, since there are always some parties who
need to be convinced, and often some parties who will dig in their
heels against the changes.  But it has been amply demonstrated that
improvements can succeed.

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Organization: The World
	<JTURNER.92Sep1204117@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:20:00 GMT


Re: Taxing the rich.

Although I have no particular objection it is a kind of lunkheaded
approach to the bigger problem.

Tax incentives for the rich to invest in jobs, inner-city development
etc (or secondary incentives for institutions like banks for these
projects which can then float bonds etc which would attract investment
from wealthier clients, tax free municipal bonds have always been very
attractive as an example) is probably more productive than putting
more money in the hands of politicians who have, by and large, proven
their irresponsibility and will go buy statues of themselves for these
depressed areas or whatever.

Let's not look for answers that are overly simple. Taxes are the
opiate of the politicians.

Re: Charity

I've always said (ahem ahem) that there are two kinds of people in the
world, those who propose how to bake more bread, and those who propose
how to run more orderly bread lines.

What we need are people who see the poor (who are capable of working)
as an opportunity rather than a plague.

The problem with our society today is too many people who see idled
workers as some sort of problem rather than an opportunity.

The world has always rewarded those who found the opportunities, and
usually has lost patience with those who wring their hands.

Obviously this doesn't address the truly needy, but reducing those
roles of those who really could support themselves would probably go a
long way towards solving that problem by itself.

As I commented a while back on another list on a then current news
item: GM Lays off 60,000, Conservatives see 60,000 new opportunities
to shout ``lazy good for nothing bums!''.


--
        -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: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: S&L deregulation
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:26:47 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <15223@ksr.com> cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov) writes:
>A characteristically balanced and fair-minded statement from Mr. Yodaiken:
>
>> that the S&L $100billion down
>> the toilet is directly attritbutable to the Reagan/Bush deregulation,
>
>Most lists of proximate culprits I have seen put Reagan/Bush way behind
>the high inflation of the late 70's which hit the loan portfolios, the
>careless extention of federal insurance which socialized the losses, the
>Glass-Steagal act which fractionalized the industry, and most notably,
>the Congress which de-regulated and pleased the S&L lobbyists (rf. the
>Keating Five), and a good number of other things.

Characteristic of the "always blame the other guy" mentality of the 
Reagan right. Sure, there are other culprits, and sure, congress is
quite cuplable, but the executive branch has the responsibility for law
enforcement (via the Justice department) and bank regulation and oversight
(via the FSLIC etc. ). The Reagan administration proposed and pushed
through  a classical example of Republican "deregulation", in which the
S&Ls were freed of much oversight, but the public was obligated to
pay the costs. Then, the Reagan and Bush administrations neglected their
legal duties to enforce the law, by gutting federal oversight despite
repeated warnings about the out of control spending of S&Ls. Of course,
the lucrative nature of the S&L rip-off for such persons as George
Bush's son may have had something to do with the sluggishness of
enforcement. Then the Reagan/Bush administration on its own initiative
went way beyond the legal obligations of federal insurance to bail out
depositors, extendign coverage to, surprise, cover the wealthy as well
as the small depositors who were the intended beneficiaries of the 
deposit insurance laws. And then, the Reagan/Bush administration engaged
in a series of absolute give-aways to investors who were allowed to grab
the assets of failed S&Ls after the public had taken the bad loans. 
But, of course, none of this is the fault of the President of the United
States, who is just a poor helpless pawn, crushed by the power of the
democratic controlled congress. The moral level of the Regan/Bush
right is that of habitual criminals: someone else is always to blame.




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: composer@world.std.com (Jeff Kellem)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: I'm in a gay mood!
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:02:26 GMT
Reply-To: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
Organization: Beyond Dreams

murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy) writes:
 > For me, a heterosexual man, seeing the way some of these homos carry on
 > is repulsive.  Earings in their ears, efeminate mannerisms, kissing
 > another man, walking arm in arm down the street...  you know, the
 > stereotype, wearing their homosexuality on their sleeves.

And, what about those people the walk arm in arm down the street, kissing,
etc, but with someone of the opposite sex?  What about females that walk
together, arm in arm?  And males?  I assume you think it's okay for two
women to walk together, arm in arm.  Then, what's wrong with two men doing
the same?

So, do you include long hair and such along with effeminate manners?
And, what's wrong with earrings?  Do you also have a problem with Scottish
folk wearing kilts?

Cheers...

			-jeff

Jeff Kellem
Internet: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 13:38:48 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:

> Okay, let's see if I can get flamed for being a bleeding-heart liberal 
> (which of course I am; and damn proud of it too!)...

Heh!

> 1) According to the constitiution the right to bear arms is gaurenteed to 
> members of a MILITIA.  Not necessarily to individuals.  Now if any of you 
> folks want to join the National Gaurd (the only militia we've got in the 
> USA) or form a militia in your own town or village...

That's an old argument answered as the militia being the citizenry.  Now what?

Isn't the argument for banning guns the fact that idiots shoot other people
either on purpose or by accident?  Are there not already laws dealing with
these instances?  If those laws haven't worked, one more law won't.  The only
thing it will do is prevent us from protecting us from an abusive government
or invasion by another country after the organized army has been defeated.

                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: I'm in a gay mood!
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:29:22 GMT
Organization: The World


From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
>What you're trying to do is change people's views and it isn't going to work.
>You can no more force someone to like chocolate when their favorite is vanilla
>than you can force someone to like homos.

And you can no more force someone to "like" blacks, jews, irish, etc...

That's why we have civil rights enforced by law. People don't have to
"like" it, but put your dislikes into action -- go to jail.

In fact, you are wrong, as has been amply demonstrated in the civil
rights movement of the 50's and 60's.

In 1962 (for example) it would be considered completely normal (in
some parts of the USA) for a white person to refuse to enter a
bathroom that a black person was also using.

Today it's virtually unheard of, in fact, it's virtually unheard of
even privately as a complaint.

Where are those people and their dislikes today? Gone. How did that
happen? It was all based on crap and xenophobia and unjustified fears,
so once confronted the silliness just collapsed and went away.

I think your sectioning out of portions of the population as you do is
the same thing.

>More than flavor or preference, though, homosexuality is unnatural.

Oh do tell us what's natural, if people were meant to fly they'd be
born with narrower bodies and shorter legs...

One can extrapolate that if everyone were a homosexual the race might
have some problem.

But would you also say that it is unnatural to be a priest or a nun
and take a vow of chastity, by the same reasoning, and therefore
conclude that nuns and priests are unfit to teach?

I'd bet not.

>This is not to say that some are justified in beating or deriding homos but it
>is to say that the homosexual lifestyle is an anomaly in life and should not
>enjoy equal standing in society.

Why? And what test do you propose to enforce all these silly ideas?
What about bisexuals? What about someone who has once slept with a
member of the same sex, or does so occasionally? Or might want to do
so in the future? What would your attitude be towards a homosexual who
is entirely chaste?

How many lines do you propose?

>Like a chronic nose-picker or someone else with an annoying habit, they can
>say they were born that way, can't help it, should have all the rights that
>everyone else has, etc., but, when it comes right down to it, annoying is
>annoying and is going to be shunned.

I think the intolerant should be shunned.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2258 alt.politics.clinton:4081 alt.politics.bush:4111 talk.politics.misc:43821