From: muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 16:40:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.113238.2166@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.215303.15423@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug29.195729.2987@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>>2> Balance the federal budget amendment with no loopholes
>>>>	a> Budget balanced in 5 years
>>>>	b> Debt to be turned to surplus in 10 years
>>>
>>>This (b) would cause a depression...
>>
>>i believe this to be an unsupported conclusion. there are quite
>>a few states for example that in the past ran surpluses which did
>>not cause deperessions of their state economies.  another idea behind
>>this platform is to reduce the size of the economy that is swolloed up
>>by the federal government so i dont imagine these surpluses if any
>>will harm the economy.
>>
>>really all that has to be done
>>>is to stop adding to the debt...balance the yearly budget, and
>>>overtime, economic growth will make the total debt rather irrelevant.
>>
>>this i believe is the basic theme of the platform
>>
>
>Do you mean "debt" turned to a surplus or "deficit" turned to a surplus
>in ten years...if you mean "debt" it will certainly cause a
>depression...since it means paying off $4 trillion dollars of debt...
>over and above balancing the budget...you're talking about a trillion
>dollar tax increase to accomplish this...that would certainly cause
>a depression.  The deficit could be turned into a a small annual surplus
>in ten years...the debt cannot be eliminated in ten years.


i am sorry i mean what you have just said.. that the deficits are 
turned to surpluses.  that is if there is any. budgets should be
balanced or with a surplus.  i would not what the government to
suck trillions of dollars fromm the economy.

>
>>>>	d> Only US citizens and US corportions may invest in any
>>>>	   dept incurred by the federal government. 
>>>>
>>>
>>>(d) is rather stupid...you would just soak up American capital needed
>>>in other places...if other countries want to invest in America's debt
>>>that is a good thing...it helps keep interest rates lower.
>>
>>
>>concluding that this is "stupid" is also unsupported.  in the future
>>federal government the only time when it will need to borrow money
>>is during special circumstances like war or disasters.  so it should 
>>not overly burden the supply of capital.   also the other idea is to
>>reduce the infuence of non us-citizens and corportations on US fiscal
>>policy.
>>
>
>Excess foreign capital invested in US government debt is a lot less
>"harmful" than excess foreign capital buying up American companies...
>or in foreign companies and countries enabling them to have more
>capital to be more competitive with American industry.
>
>There is $4 trillion dollars of debt that has to be refinanced 
>over and over again...to restrict foreign investment in it would
>drive up American interest rates needlessly, and soak up American
>capital necessary for private investment...i.e. it would be stupid.

ok i see what you are saying. but what i am refering to here is 
any new debts that may be acculumated after the current debt
is eliminated.  foreign investment in the current debt is fine.
but since i plan a federal government to rarly run a debt then
the resources in america should be enough to finance it with out
being over burdended.

>
>>>>6> Promote famly values by:
>>>>	a: must show proof of counciling before marraige license
>>>>	   can be obtained.
>>>>		-this is not to prevent marraige only
>>>>	         to do what many ministers do alreay. that is
>>>>	         to give personality profile tests and talk to
>>>>	         couples about their similarites and differences.
>>>>	         these tests have a 94% rate of determining which
>>>>	         couples will be divorced in 5 years.
>>>>                 this is mainly to give out that information.
>>>>                 people can choose their own counselors.
>>>
>>>Have you ever heard of common-law relationships...?
>>
>
>>yes however the above still applies to the vast majority.
>>the idea here is to promote the general interest.
>>
>
>Why not just invest in good schools instead of in Big Brother?

maybe here i aagain i didnt describe my intentionclearly enough.
there will be no big brother.  teh government will not supply 
any counselors.  in fact already in many states one has to show
proof of a blood test before one can get a marraige license.
all i am saying is that one has to show proof of counseling.
and people will have the freedom to choose thier own counselors.
the counselors will have no control over the couples decision
to marry or have children or get divorced.

>
>>>
>>>>        c: must show proof of counciling to obtain dependant tax
>>>>	   deduction when filing tax forms.
>>>>		-no one looses any rights. this is just to discuss
>>>>		 information. that is proper diet, health care, 
>>>>	         responsibility and costs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds like a pretty big "big brother" bureaucracy to me.
>>
>>maybe you misunderstood . this is exactly like have to show
>>blood test results in most states before one can get a marraige 
>>license.  there will be no extra beauracracy. the government will
>>not supply counselors.  that is up to individuals to find.
>>
>
>Again, why not just invest in good schools instead of in Big Brother?

ohh i belive in good schools. and in fact that might be a good idea.
that is to have the ideas from the counseling taught in the public
schools. however, i think that reduces the peoples freedom of choice
in choosing the method in which they recieve the information. plus
doing it in th epublic school will force people whodo not want to 
get married or have children through a course they do not need.
but maybe there is a way to work this into school. but i want to 
remove any federal control over the public schools so i am not 
sure how to work this into the context of whhat i am proposing
here.

>
>>
>>>>8. legalize marijuana and cocaine 
>>>>	(to stop destabiling south american governments)
>>>>	(to stop drug curruption)
>>>>	(will expect more drug abuse. but savings on war
>>>>	on drugs will more then pay for special drug abuse
>>>>	clinics)
>>>>        - remove all diminished capacity defenses for those who commit
>>>>          crimes while under the influence of drugs.
>>>>	-due proces to be observed for drug related crimes as well as all
>>>>	 for all other cases before courts in the US.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Does this include stopping US government pressure on Third World
>>>countries to accept American tobacco in return for favorable trade
>>>status?
>>i beleive this is covered under point 1. however i am unfamilir with
>>any pressure that the us governtment is using to get tobacco accross
>>boarders.  but it sounds like a new way to open up free trade to me, however.
>
>There is a two way drug trade...heroin from Asia to America, and tobacco
>from America to Asia.  The US government will threaten to throw up a
>protectionist trade wall against many Asian countries unless they
>allow in American tobacco.    

well since i would legalized marijuana and cocaine perhaps this problem
will solve itself as a consequence.
>
>>>
>>>Are you going to eliminate the generous and costly tax exemptions on
>>>private health insurance for the well off which represents a massive
>>>government health subsidy for a part of the population?
>>
>>i am unaware of any special tax exemptions for the rich on their
>>health insurance policies.
>
>Health insurance when provided by an employer, no matter how lucrative
>is untaxed...this is a massive tax subsidy to the well off for their
>health insurance, worth billions of dollars a year, and thousands
>of dollars per capita.
>

ahhhh i see what you mean. i get a health insurance policy from
my employer but i am far from well off. so i believe this affects
more than just rich people. however maybe a tax policy like that
in california would solve tthis.  that is, people who own home get
thier property taxes fixed at the time they buy thier home. so in 
effect they get a tax break as the assessed value of their homes
and inflation increases. however, to be fair to renters, there is 
somthing called the renters credit. the state will refund to each
renter an exta 60$.  in this way i think somehting fair might be
developed.  however, in the system i envision i see greatly reduced
taxes for everyone in the future (since i propose to shed many
costly government programs).

>>>I encourage you to look at the health systems of European countries,
>>>Japan, or Canada, and not through the propaganda put out in the
>>>American media by vested health care industry interests that want
>>>to keep raiding the American treasury of more dollars than the S&L
>>>scandal.  The American people are being robbed of $100 billion dollars
>>>a year by the health care industry.
>>
>

ahhhh i look at it through tthe eyes of people i know who 
have gone through that system.  i have personally experienced
a little of what socialized medicine is like in an HMO i was in.
so in that sense i would even claim personal experience.
but really the main problem i see with socialized medicine
is that it is another way for the government to get bigger
and to create an artifical economy (which i think is currently
responsible for high health care costs through medicare).

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43292 alt.politics.bush:3834 alt.politics.clinton:3801