HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:07:21 GMT

In article <1753@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:
>I see lots of figures and analyses being thrown around in this
>debate about Social Security.  Two things to keep in mind:
>
>1) Life expectency is measured from birth.  Men who live to retirement
>age will on the average live to be a few years older than 72 (the life
>expectency of males).  Women who live to retirement age will also, on
>the average, live past 79.  I don't have the figures for how long the
>average retiree collects SS, but it will be longer than the 7 years
>for men retiring at 65.

This is, fortunately, both correct and irrelevant.  For the population
as a whole, the average number of years that someone collects Social
Security remains at life_expectancy - retirement_age.  Those people who
collect SS for a negative number of years help make up for those who
collect more than 7 or whatever.

(And for the factually-challenged, the life expectancy for someone
who lives to age 65 is about 77 1/2.  If you live to 77 1/2, your life
expectancy increases to about 83 ...)

>(This may be one way in which smokers save us money.  They kick in
>all their contributions, and then die before they can collect too
>much of them.)

The =really= good news is that evolution has wired our bodies up so
that we begin dying in greater numbers after we pass breeding age.
So we put in money until we are no longer reproducing, and since we
tend to have kiddies early in our reproductive careers, we wind up
dying after our kids are out of high school.

If you plot mortality rate against age, there is a very interesting
event which occurs about age 45 or so ...

>2) Although individuals stop paying the retirement portion of the
>FICA tax after earning $55K, their employer keeps paying on every
>dollar of payroll.  So, for employees the marginal rate above
>$55 is not 0, but around 7.5%.

Not true.  The employer stops at $55,500 as well.  But a bug in the
way the system works prevents employers from knowing how much your
last employer paid in.  So if you cross the limit at your second
job of the year (some of us change jobs regularly ...), your employer
keeps paying even though they are not legally required to.  And they
have NO WAY TO GET THE MONEY BACK!

>If we make SS need based, can we change the name to:
>Failing Incompetents Compensation Allotment ?

Yes.  And you've just won a free spot in my .sig file ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:48:07 GMT

In article <3232@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> rspence@mpd.tandem.com (Russell Spence) writes:
>	No, I was just pointing out that determining benefits based on
>	*income* is not the same as determining benefits based on *need*,
>	and that just because you don't have a high income doesn't mean
>	that you aren't wealthy.

Social Security's stated purpose is replacing income, not replacing
wealth.  Wealth has nothing to do with what Social Security is for.

Welfare has something to do with wealth since welfare is a handout.

>	No, I am saying that you might have fewer expenses (and/or be more
>	"wealthy") than someone with the same income and therefore have
>	less *need* for social security if you feel that the benefits
>	should be needs based.  I'm not saying that SS is needs-based
>	or should be needs-based, I'm just saying that income is not good
>	measure of need.

There are no good measures of need.  Frankly, I suspect that I need
far more income than anyone else in this group.  Not only would I much
rather spend my weekends in the Carribean, I'd much rather spend the
rest of the time snow skiing somewheres.  I need all of this recreation
because when I do work, I work a lot.  At least =I= think I work a lot.

>	In which case, I don't understand your position.  Why are defending
>	SS when SS doesn't work this way?  People who are retired right now
>	are recieving money from *me* that they did not earn.  Understand?

I'm not defending Social Security.  I am very opposed to Social Security,
up to the point that I have told my parent's Social Security should be
abolished immediately and everyone who hasn't received all of their money
back, given a proportional distribution from the Social Security trust 
fund.  This did not sit well as many relatives (like the 1 in 6 Americans
overall) currently collect Social Security.

As for what appears to be defending Social Security, many of the statements
that have been made about Social Security are grossly misinformed.  I have
actually sat down and done a fair amount of the math, and frankly I think
that Social Security is basically misguided socialism.  I don't think it
is doomed to certain failure, and I don't think it is some evil plot to
steal all of the money from the young and give it to the old.  It is little
more than a classic Democratic Party wealth redistribution scam.  Take
from the rich, give to the poor.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:37:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C0Huxw.1I2r@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Texas has some of the stupidest and convoluted alcohol laws I've ever
>come across, and the MADD gang and Judith Zaffrini and trying to give
>us a few more.

While I agree that Texas' alcohol laws are some of the dumbest around, let's
not be too harsh on MADD: their aim is laudable.
One of Murphy's Laws of EMS is: "If you respond to an accident after midnight,
and you don't find a drunk, keep looking - you've missed someone." Anything
that would help cut down on the number of DWIs is a Good Thing.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Preview of 73rd Texas Legislature
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:16:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <C0pJny.1Gyw@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In tx.general article <1993Jan10.201222.2568@sooner.ctci.com>, dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
>
>|> 	Bills to be submitted:
>
>|> 	1) Set macximum $5 (not a misprint) fine for going faster than 
>|> 	   55 MPH, but less than 70 MPH, on many long, lonely rural
>|> 	   (probably West Texas) stretches of highway. The ticket would
>|> 	   not go on a driver's insurance record.
>
>This is silly.  They should just raise the speed limit to 70 on all roads
>except U.S. Highways and Interstate Highways (which are currently under the
>federal highways money blackmail scheme).  Then again, maybe that's how the
>bill is written.  I suspect towns like Nolanville will lobby hard against this
>to protect their major sources of revenue.

I seem to recall an article in the Austin A-S a while back about this -
the fine is too satisfy some Fed. govt. requirment about enforcing 55,
while the small amount and no informing your insurance company makes it
fairly painless.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: U.S., Russia Unite On Collider
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:39:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C0HvBI.pCA@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
[about the Superconducting Super Collider]
>He's right.  This is pork, and of dubious value considering how much
>in debt we are.  What is the payback here?  

Basic research _always_ has paybacks, and often in areas where you least
expect them.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:49:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.134409.6988@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <C0q0Do.Bn3@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> 
> >In article <1993Jan7.051822.8048@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> >> George Bush, for all that you can say bad about him, said that if
> >> we just left it alone, the economy would turn around.  And sure
> >> enough, he managed to actually veto several choice bills, fend off
> >> requests to have the Fed lower interest rates, and so on.  And lo
> >> and behold - the economy is growing quite fine, thank you.
> > 
> >Wait a minute.  To claim that Bush's response to the recession was "hands
> >off" is silly.  The reason the Fed didn't lower interest rates any more is
> >that they couldn't go much lower.  But the Fed certainly did fool with
> >interest rates all through 1992.
> 
> Bush has nothing to do with the Fed (other than initially naming the
> Chairman, subject to Congressional confirmation).  What the Fed does
> is under the control of the Chairman.  He cannot be fired by either
> the President or Congress, and is not under the control of either.
> They can talk all they want to, but he doesn't have to listen.  BUSH
> didn't even realize there WAS a recession for a long time, and when he
> finally did, he was totally hands off.
 
Fred, it's silly to pretend that the Bush administration didn't push the
Fed to lower interest rates, they were quite public about it.  You're
correct that the Fed doesn't have to listen to Bush, but they usually take
the Administration's opinion into account.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Preview of 73rd Texas Legislature
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:15:03 GMT

In article <C0pMEz.4yu@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:
>In article <C0pJny.1Gyw@austin.ibm.com>, johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>|> This is really stupid.  Breath alcohol level is a poor indicator of
>|> intoxication -- it's just a lot easier to prove in court.
>	
>	You may be right, the intention is good, but that doesn't make it
>	right. I'm all for keeping "drunks" off the road. What else would
>	do this, instead of this law? 

I don't know if John was intentionally making a distinction between
"blood" and "breath", but blood alcohol level is much more accurate
than breath alcohol level.  I called in to the Eric Blumburg show
(KLBJ, AM 590) when they had a guy from breathalyzer company on and
pointed out that coffee will give a false-positive.  The guy spent
several minutes squirming his way past that one.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Sum taxes? (was Re: Social Security)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:02:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.170201.16302@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>Yes.  I calculate every year the amount of money I've paid in total
>taxes.  I've been doing it for several years.

	I'd be curious to find out ...
1. Did you include sales tax, gas tax, etc.
2. What % of your gross income did this represent?
 




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
From: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:26:43 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical Research & Development

In article <C0IBK0.1Iqs@austin.ibm.com>, johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
|> In article <8380@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> |> While I agree that Texas' alcohol laws are some of the dumbest around, let's
|> |> not be too harsh on MADD: their aim is laudable.
|> 
|> It's their methods that I don't like.  They go after the alcohol. 
|> They should just admit that they are the resurrection of the
|> Temperance movement of the early 1900s.  They (like most
|> prohibitionists) think that their "end" justifies any means.  What are
|> the "means" I object to?
|> 
|> - Their push for "open container" laws
|> 
|> - Their push to suspend drivers licenses without due process.
|> 
|> - Their push to ban "happy hours" at bars.
|> 
|> - Their support of making party hosts responsible for damage caused by
|>   their guests.
|> 
|> - Their support of roadblocks to screen for drunk drivers without
|>   probable cause.
|> 

You forgot to mention their successful drive to raise the drinking age
to 21 in all states.  Just get Congress to pass and Reagan to sign
a bill withholding highway funds from the states that didn't comply.
(Now that 18-20 year olds can't drink legally, let's go after the
21-25 year olds who have the highest alcohol related traffic fatality
rates.)

Drinking has decreased dramatically in this country in the last 20
years?  Because of stricter controls?  No.  Because of increased
perception by the public of the health risks associated with heavy
alcohol use and a shift in attitudes towards drinking.

What if Texas decided its citizens should withhold 10% of their income
tax payments to the Feds until Washington did something we wanted?  For
some reason I don't think we could get away with it.

-- 
The above are my own opinions and mine alone.

*****************************************************************************
Dr. Michael Reed,
Western Geophysical, Research and Development Group
reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
(713) 964-6322                     FAX: (713) 964-6372
*****************************************************************************
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Preview of 73rd Texas Legislature
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:53:43 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <C0pMEz.4yu@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:

>In article <C0pJny.1Gyw@austin.ibm.com>, johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>|> |> 	2) Lower the legal definition of drunk to 0.08 %. "That would
>|> |> 	   mean that a 180lb man could only drink three beers instead
>|> |> 	   in an hour instead of four before taking the wheel"
>|> 
>|> This is really stupid.  Breath alcohol level is a poor indicator of
>|> intoxication -- it's just a lot easier to prove in court.
>	
>	You may be right, the intention is good, but that doesn't make it
>	right. I'm all for keeping "drunks" off the road. What else would
>	do this, instead of this law? 

I guess the point is that the problem isn't keeping 'drunks' off the
road; it is keeping people who are impaired to the point where they
cannot drive off the roads.  I suspect the best way to do this would
be to lock up people who screw up while driving drunk.  Treat it like
a premeditated act.  So, if you hit another car, treat it as if you
deliberately did it.  Then do commensurate sentencing of the folks who
mess up, which keeps them off the road.

I believe that a large percentage of the people who get involved in
drunk driving accidents are repeat offenders, often driving without a
license.  If you eliminate those, you've done a lot toward dealing
with the problem.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:00:44 GMT

In article <1ih0eaINNp66@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>Are you *absolutely sure* about this? I'm no expert on demographics or
>population statistics, but my impression from a lot of history classes
>(where professors like to dote on life expectancy) is that life
>expectancy is measured *without* infant mortality... only kiddies that
>survive to 5 years old are taken into account in the life expectancy
>numbers.

It depends.  Some tables take infant mortality into account, others don't.
Usually they show "Number living" as a column.  If it is a nice round
number at age 0, infant mortality isn't being included.  If it is a nice
round number at age 1, infant mortality is in there.

NB:

As for infant deaths during the middle ages, infanticide was a common
practice, even in this country, until the 19th century.  It was legal
in parts of Europe until almost the turn of the 20th century.  In some
parts of Asia and Africa, infanticide is still a very common practice.
In China (and India, I think ...) infanticide is a very serious problem
because of population growth concerns and the desire to have a particular
gender child.  In a typical case the mother just kills the child because
it isn't a boy or isn't a girl.  Usually the girls are killed because it
considered to be better to have sons than daughters.

Of course infanticide is still legal in this country, we just call it
"abortion".  We even have sex-selection abortions in this country ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: U.S., Russia Unite On Collider
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:30:54 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <1993Jan7.031619.1185@sooner.ctci.com>, dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
|> 
|> U.S., Russia Unite On Collider WASHINGTON (AP)
|>    The United States and Russia will collaborate on construction of
|> the super collider in a deal that could save taxpayers up to $100
|> million while giving the Russians much-needed hard currency.

That's just like our government to come up with a plan to save 100
million dollars by spending $8.2 billion.

|>    "While the project may lead to new discoveries in high energy
|> physics, we simply cannot afford it at this time with a federal
|> deficit nearing $300 billion," said Rep. Peter Hoagland.

He's right.  This is pork, and of dubious value considering how much
in debt we are.  What is the payback here?  

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tagged with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:42:22 GMT

In article <C0q0Do.Bn3@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Wait a minute.  To claim that Bush's response to the recession was "hands
>off" is silly.  The reason the Fed didn't lower interest rates any more is
>that they couldn't go much lower.  But the Fed certainly did fool with
>interest rates all through 1992.

No, the Fed could have pushed the longer term interest rates further
down.  And "all through 1992", not hardly.  The biggest impact was
from the rate cuts at the end of 1991.  The prime has been stuck at
6% for most of the past 12 months, and Fed Funds has been right
around 3%.

With 30 year mortgages at about 8 1/4%, there is still a long way
back down to the historical levels of 4 to 5 percent.  When I was a
kid, an 8% mortgage was unheard of.  The mortgage books didn't go
that high!
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics