HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:34:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.023719.29093@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:

>That's right, but the government is deifferent in one key way WE CAN"T CHANGE
>GOVERNMENTS IF WE DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY ARE DOING. We can't say, OK I'm fed up
>with this government. It can take away the benefits of welfare, madicare, social
>security, roads, ect. and I'll stop baying taxes. We don't have that option.

Actually, we do.  Last I checked, there's no wall surrounding the US as
once surrounded Berlin.  No snipers to prevent your escape.  The method
of changing governments is known as emigration, and it's how more
than 99% of the current citizens of the United States of America
came to be here (and 100% if you count emigration from Asia across
the Bering land bridge).  People have ceased to pay taxes to every
state in the world by simply up and leaving it.  And you're welcome
to try to find a better deal than you now have.

Sure, it's inconvenient and expensive.  But so's moving out of a
one-company town.  There may be no better place for you to go-- but
that's often the case for someone living in a gang-ridden tenement.

Now, I'm not saying you have to, or even should, leave the US rather
than try to reform it.  But the idea that the government is special
because you can't leave its influence is simply not true.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:435 talk.politics.misc:16972
From: donaldm@eng.auburn.edu (Donald H MacGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton's Letter
Keywords: Clinton
Date: 6 Apr 92 01:12:41 GMT
Reply-To: donaldm@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering


Could anyone Email me the text of Bill Clinton's draft dodge letter. I can't find any magazine
that printed the whole letter.

Thanks,
DM
From: jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Stop beating the Horse (was RE: regulations)
Date: 13 Apr 1992 03:18:34 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cyclone.berkeley.edu

It's dead.  
Let's go on to other things in life. 

I must say it is interesting to participate in an ivy debate over whether
or not Americans benefit from legislation.  (we have MIT, Harvard, Columbia
and of course, ALWAYS (EVER?) OBJECTIVE Berkeley)  I would say that we 
are in no way representative, and (beware: eletist viewpoint) that we can
not possibly have the viewpoint of typical Americans.  This especially 
applies to you Jason.

This thread has deteriorated into people presenting new arguments to JWS, 
and him repeated the same things (OVER and OVER !!!!!!)  I do not think
anyone's mind will be altered.  I do not believe Jason to be lacking in 
his ideas in economics, that is, people should not suggest he take econ 101.

Economics, like social sciences, can use math, statistics, graphs.  But the 
premise that life can be governed by simple math like f(c) is laughable.
Workers have a problem determining f.  Like hell, they just can't find 
work.  And if they have a job, they will probably keep it as long as possible.
To change jobs will involve not eating until they get it, plus at least
a week.  Some people do not have savings, Jason.

Let everyone be glad to be in school.  Finding a full time job to live on
is a bitch right now.  Now, everyone make their last statement, and let
it go.  This is me signing out.

jason o'rourke
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:33:36 GMT
 <1992Apr11.111637.23868@athena.mit.edu> <1992Apr12.051518.7182@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

I second Elizabeth G Levy's reply to Jason W. Solinsky.  

I really must learn to be able to put people's original postings
into my replies so I can do a point by point rebutall to all of
JWS claims but it is probably better I cant or else I might end
up here all day.  There must be a regulation against that. :-) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: The American Way
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:10:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.123804.201424@uctvax.uct.ac.za> swjnev01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

   From the outside the American election looks like a complete farce.
   I seems that the male who has the most money, who throws more dirt
   about the sex lives of his opponents and who catches the most
   baseballs in his shirt and tie for the media is the winner of the
   contest. Its a pity that Americans can't be more serious about the
   power that they have. 

I assure you that from the inside, our election also looks like a
farce, but the audiance is too scared to laugh.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government governs best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:57:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.001425.10901@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:

>I think Don Baldwin has some valid points about regulations as in
>the gov't can interefere.  I totally agree with their nosy parker
>attempts to interfere with a right to an aboirtion.

>What got me steamed up was this simplistic notion that less
>regualiton equal more freedom.  A simple and untrue notion. One
>must look at the regulaiton and what it is doing.  It can be furthuring
>freedom.  LIke worker safety standards, or health codes for 
>restaurants.

Those aren't particularly good examples.  Neither really increases
freedom.  Both increase _safety_ at the expense of certain
people's freedom.  That may be a worthy goal, but it is not the
same goal.

It can also have unintended effects.  For example, there are many
restaurants which throw a great deal of unused food away.  Many of
these restaurants would prefer to donate the food to the homeless, but
they can't-- because due to some aspect of its handling, plus the
health codes, it cannot be passed on for the consumption of other
humans.

Maybe the regulations are right.  Maybe they're saving homeless
people from a botulism epidemic.  But there are people going
hungry who could have food, and a lot of that food is clearly
distinguishable as clean, and could be eaten with no more risk
to the homeless than to the restaurant patrons.  That's obviously
not what was considered when the health codes were enacted, but
codes have no judgement-- and no one is going to risk letting
the code be interpreted by a court in order to perform an act
of charity.  Especially when they may be in clear violation of the
letter of the code, regardless of their motive.  A pity, but
unintended results come from every law and reg ever passed.  That
doesn't mean there should be no laws and no regulations, but it does
mean one should be very suspicious of either, and demand that it
prove its worth before being allowed to control some peoples' actions.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bergen@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot on social issues
Organization: University of North Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 23:44:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.214521.29956@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.041620.16360@seq.uncwil.edu> harrist@seq.uncwil.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
> "Does anyone know where H. Ross Perot stands on major social issues?  I
> "am especially interested in his stands on affirmative action;
> "discrimination by private organizations (e.g., men's clubs, all-white golf
> "clubs, the Boy Scouts); gay rights; the NEA; and women's
> "issues.
> "He has, as far as I know, put out no position papers.
> "I am sure that Perot Systems is on USENET.  Would any Perot Systems
> "employees care to comment on the above?
> "Trey Harris

I'm not a Perot employee, but on the local Dallas public radio station I
heard something very interesting.  The moderator made the statement that
Perot has proposed house-to-house gun searches for illegal weapons.  To
implement this, he would use military and state reserve personnel.  I
couldn't tell if Perot wanted to ban ALL weapons and search for ALL
weapons, or if he would search for only ILLEGAL weapons.  I'm not a gun-
toter -- in fact, I support gun control legislation -- but this seemed
pretty bizarre to me.  Surely it isn't true, is it?

Perot's connections with Oliver North and Gen. Singlaub worry me a 
great deal.

Comments?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:03:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Apr11.031522.26884@leland.Stanford.EDU> ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour) writes:

>Sheesh, people!  I get cut up every time I mention the fact that serious
>problems demand serious leadership.  I just don't understand this huge
>negative response unless the case is that you don't understand my
>position.  So...

  I wouldn't worry too much about getting cut up by somebody that 
says Bush=Hitler.
>
>   1) Don't you agree that a strong leader of some sort is the only
>      effective way to bring the country together with a clear vision
>      of the future - especially given the fact that if we continue
>      the way we have, we'll just continue to bicker among ourselves
>      while the special interests dismantle the country?

    The answer is maybe.   It is true that a strong leader is perhaps
more important in the US than in other coutnries.  That is because we,
as a people, look to our president to tell us "what to do" more than
other countries.  

   It is also true that no strong leader can lead a country alone.  The
"direction" of the country is made up by millions of little decisions that
effect our investment, business, education and just about everything else.
It is true that a strong leader with a vision could provide us a direction
to head in, but I think it is an unsafe assumption that it is "the only
effective way" to bring our country together.   Believe or not, the country
could just come together on its own and in some sense, I think the current
political unrest is just that.  We as a country know that "times have changed"
and know we need our government to change with them.

  I'll go into more detail for anyone that cares to hear it...



Pat

>


-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa
From: shomer@Cadence.COM (Steve Homer)
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan to adopt a civil service plan to pay for college
Summary: Sounds like a military draft to me
Keywords: draft national service 
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:57:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.195848.23158@news.iastate.edu> spam@iastate.edu (Michael L Begley) writes:
>The one Clinton plank I like is his plan to offer a civil-service option
>to pay for college.  So far as I know, this would be fairly similar to
>the GI bill, but instead of military service (which IMHO is money thrown
>away) prospective students would preform some sort of civil-service, such
>as working for the Red Cross or build low-income housing for two years.
>Could someone clarify this plan?  I only heard a sound-bite or two about
>it and he mentioned it on one of the debates I saw on C-Span.
>

I haven't read Clinton's campaign promises, but he's a member of the Democratic
Leadership Council and I've read the DLC's National Service plan. Their
plan WOULD include a military "option," with roughly twice as much college aid for
"citizen soldiers" as for those who opt for civilian service. It's basically a way to
dress up the draft and make it politically acceptable, and if you look at the history
of these plans they were all drawn up by legislators who support the draft on
ideological grounds and need a way to get around the "Vietnam Syndrome." They have
been trying to pass a version of this legislation for about 13 years now.

Right now the military gets most of its smartest (enlisted) soldiers by offering 
college aid.  (The military also cheats a lot of gullible recruits out of the aid 
they were "promised," but that's another issue.) Congress is not likely to set up a 
National Service program that channels all the smart poor kids away from 
the military and into civilian service jobs; so whatever Clinton's plan is, 
I doubt it's quite as purely civilian as he may be making it sound.

If you believe that young people shouldn't be coerced into the military, either by
the draft or as a de-facto condition of getting a college education, and you take a
close look at Clinton or anyone else's national service plan, I think you'll find it
unpalatable.

An anti-draft organization I belong to, the National Resistance Committee, wrote a leaflet
during the Gulf War that talks about national service and its relationship to
military manpower issues. I will email or USmail copies on request.

>many european nations have a similar sort of system, how does it work for
>them?

Michael Sherraden and Donald Eberly have written a couple of books on this. One was
"National Service: Social, Economic and Military Aspects" if memory serves. They also
have a more recent book out, about two years ago.

>-mike begley spam@iastate.edu
-- 
________________
Steve Homer 	I'm a consultant here ... just passing through.
		If you want to send me email, please use my "home"
		address: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 07:51:33 GMT

> f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:

>    First -- from what I see of the Lib platform, it is *not* the best.
>    It seems to be warmed over Goldwater/Buchanan Republicanism whose
>    flaws are masked by the fluff words "Jeffersonian democracy."

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

> We are pro choice. We are against the war on drugs. We are in favor of
> an end to prosecution of victimless crimes, including the completely
> innocent things adults may choose or choose not to do in the privacy
> of their own homes, with or without money involved.

You are against environmental protection laws.  You are against regulation
of businesses, consumer protection and many business-practices laws.  These
are show-stoppers to me and to many other people.

When will we get a party that's libertarian on civil-liberties issues, but
regards businesses as potential threats to individual rights, just as the
government is?  This party would do _very_ well.

---
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs        fitz@wang.com
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA   ...!uunet!wang!fitz
From: folse@crs.cl.msu.edu (Mark Folse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Tax
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:09:44 GMT
Reply-To: folse@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Mark Folse)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Michigan State University

tiff writes:

One key thing I forgot to point out...  All our income comes from the
university, and hence, we don't pay FICA 7.1%.  If we did (as most
people do), we would be paying *significantly* less taxes under Brown's
proposal than under the current system.


I wasn't aware that Brown had proposed eliminating Social Security and
Medicare.  If he hasn't, then FICA will remain.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: what does Clinton have to SAY?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:24:54 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <JWZ.92Apr9154806@thalidomide.lucid.com> Jamie Zawinski <jwz@lucid.com> writes:
>
>Note that I'm not trying to knock Clinton here; I couldn't, because I don't
>know what he has to say.  All I've seen is the slick, contentless nonsense
>that TV offers forth as "news."

  Well, not that I trust Clinton to stick to what he says, but this is what
he says.


Health Care:  Favors "play or pay".  Personally, I dislike this as it
keeps too much emphasis on the employer for my taste.

Economy and taxes:
a) middle class tax cut and increased taxes on 
incomes greater than $200,000.
b)  $800 per child tax credit
c)  acceleration of highway spending
d)  earned income tax credit to insure no Amercian working full-time
would fall below the "poverty level".

Crime:
a) favors death penalty
b) supports brady bill
c) provide federal funds for "beat" policing
d) tougher laws on white collar crimes
e) funded drug treatment for anyone who wants it

Education:
a) head start funded for every child
b)  national examination system and annual report card
c)  create low interest national trust fund for higher education (poor)
d)  BI bill trade community work for education

Environment and Energy
a) no net loss of wetlands (except for my basement which keeps flooding I hope)
b) increasing fuel efficiency requirements
c) federal tax incentives for renewable energy resources.

Defense:
a)  cut defense by 1/3 over 5 years
b)  R&D on missle defense
c)  stop b-2  (bush agrees)
d)  new research agency to catch fallout of defense researchers losing jobs

Abortion:
a) pro-choice - federal funding low income women
b) opposes spousal conset law
c) as Governor signed law requiring parental notification, but changed his
mind for the election.



_______

Personally, I think it sounds like a rather good package on paper.  Even
the points I disagree with I respect.

  However, Bush sounds pretty good on paper too and (as I say too many times)
I don't trust either of them to stick to a position.  I worry that the
Clinton who stands for the above and Governed Arkansas may dissapear
to reveal "the same old Democratic policies".  He appears to me to
have dissapeared to me in the current campaign.  If only Tsongas had won....


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jab+@cs.cmu.edu (Justin Boyan)
Subject: Re: LETS VOTE
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 13:18:02 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr17.032659.4780@acsu.buffalo.edu> v136pds9@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes:
>
>	Is anyone interested in putting together our
>vote for the president, now?
>
>	It would be interesting and would take a little
>effort.  We could wait until OCT but it would also be
>interesting to do it twice. (now and later).
>
>
>JOHN


Yes, I agree it would be interesting to gauge the political leanings
of this group as the year goes on.  The survey could include:

	- party affiliation
	- age
	- 1988 vote
	- primary election vote
	- general election vote (i.e. eliminate Brown & Buchanan)
	- predicted electoral outcome

Say, this is even more fun than following pro baseball stats!

Who'd like to volunteer to collect & tabulate the votes?

(sorry, not me)   -Justin

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:741 talk.politics.misc:17800
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:55:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Apr9.164531.11207@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>whynot@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Shepherd) writes:
>>pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>>
>>>2)  Statistics quite easy to find reveal that countries with high trade 
>>>barriers have very poor economies(barriers made the economies obviously
>>>worse off in many of these cases that I have knowledge of.)
>>
>>Sorry, but I doubt your statistics.  Japan is _not_ noted for its free 
>>trade. Any statistics would probably be considerably biased due to the 
>>effect of political systems as well.

  Egads, I've been doubted.  One of the most straightforward tables I've
seen on this issue you can find in the May 4th issue of the Economist.

  Since you cleverly ignored any further arguments about Mexico, we can
move to Japan.  

  To say that Japan is not noted for its free trade is to listen to the
US and Eurpoean Media more than you read the Economist.  Sure Japan
has barriers (try to sell rice there for example), but so does the US.

  Japan imports nearly the same as the US (per capita $1950 compared to
$2050 or some such), and is no where near the top 12 countries on this
table from the Economist (which if coerced I'll type in when I have more
free time.)

  Now if you are just going to ignore all statistics and facts as "biased",
I guess you could argue anything you want.  But at that point, we have
to agree to disagree since I can't argue that way.  I'm not actually "in"
politics, I just argue them.

  I'm not for unilateral dropping of trade barriers, but I do adcovate
dropping all barriers when other countries drop all barriers.  

  Perhaps, in theory, there could arise an instance where
this would not be the case.  But in the real world, with the US and
any other country I can think of, I can't see why anyone but our special
interest would be opposed to free trade.

Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections