HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:03:11 EDT
From:         Phillip J VanFossen <pvanfoss@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Brown, Reagan, Laffer, Napkins???
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              covey" at Apr 10, 92 8:50 pm

>
> I have read in a number of places that Reagan was convinced of the
> "efficacy" of supply-side economics by Arthur Laffer who used graphs
> made on cocktail napkins to illustrate his points.  I have also read
> a similar napkin story relating to Laffer's persuading of Jerry Brown of
> the "efficacy" of his flat and Value-added tax proposal.  It's bad
> enough that Laffer has so much sway, but are both napkin stories true?
> This is the stuff urban legends are made of.  What is it with Laffer,
> regressive economic policies and ex-governors of California, and
> (possibly) napkins?
>

Laffer's curve (aside from its apt name and the fact that its originator is now
shamelessly plugging Cadillacs) rests on several problematic assumptions.
These consist of 1) the inelasticity of the tax base w.r.t the tax rate.
Laffer assumes that this inelasiticity gives way to elasticity at some point
Tc, thus resulting in lower revenue as those whose actual rate is above Tc
choose to forgo income in lieu of the tax, or seek avoidence or evasion.  The
point at which this transition from inelasticity to elasticity is crucial for
Laffer's arguement and yet he has failed to adequately examine this aspect,
2) Fullerton has conducted analysis of the Tc and notes that is is near 70%.
That is, the point at which taxpayers would seek to for go work and seek
avoidance is at a rate of 70% (most tax payers pay marginal rates much less
today than when Fullerton did this work in 1983).  Thus, it seems unlikely that
marginal tax rates, under any candidate would approach the rates necessary to
invoke any of Laffer's thesis.

PVF
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:32:05 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits
              13 Apr 1992 17:23:47 GMT from <acm@GRENDAL.CORP.SUN.COM>

From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@GRENDAL.CORP.SUN.COM>

>>> Well, my point is that it is incumbancy itself that provides
>>> the advantage.  That the only way to remove the advantage is
>>> to invoke term limitation.

>> But not every advantage is unfair.  You don't want to remove
>> fair advantages, do you?

> Yes.

Why?

> Andrew MacRae

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:32:05 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: guns don't kill people, tv kills people

>   Yep.  The other day, I got real mad at my next door neighbor, so I
> took the tv out of the living room cabinet, walked right ovver, and
> smashed it over his head.

Don't make light of this.  This is just the beginning.
Pretty soon someone is gonna invent TV-guns with the
main purpose of propelling TV's through a barrel and
then TV violence will increase dramatically.

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:28:24 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?

Kerry:

1) we do agree on the unions.  I was just being a little obnoxious.
2) It is impossibile for the campaign to pay the full cost of an incumbant
president.  Would you have them pay rent to the white house?  Pay for the
secret service?  With a person being both candidate and sitting president,
there is simply no way to divide these things.  They should pay a rate that
makes them compeditive with the other candidate.

As far as the salmon go, all I remember was an episode from Chinatown where
we learned how important water is in CA.  The issue was simple - save one
narrow species of salmon or keep the agricultural power of CA, which has many
benefits, including the feeding of the starving in other countries.  It is a
clear case of man v fish.  Which do you choose?

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:06:31 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jay's Taxes

*******************
Considering the nature of the postings on this bulletin board, may I humbly
submit that it is now high time that "Jay" open his own personal bulletin
board and spare the rest of us the trials and tribulations of his Hyde Park
existence and opinions.  DJG
********************

   you're right, djg. jay shouldn't force us to hear things that we
don't want to hear. after all, we can hear evil scum talking about
un-PC things elsewhere, and he shouldn't profane the atmosphere here.
tell you what. why don't you make up a list of acceptable subjects
we can discuss, and what opinions we can have on said subjects. while
you're at it, make up a new name for the list. i would suggest either
BLUESKY-L or possibly LIBERAL-L. plus which, many people have done
pretty good things with a personal list. one of those folks is on this
very list, even though he is an illegal green alien.

rtf,
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:53:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: limits on federal campaigns

> Someone mentioned that it might be a good idea to lessen an incumbents
>chance of re-election if all political campaigns were federally financed.
>  This is a good idea, but if you do this then you have to consider...
>1.  Where is the money going to come from in the first place to pay for these
>campaigns?

    Well, I assumed taxes.  The reasoning behind this is that people are paying
  for political campaigns anyway (in the form of donations) so if donations
  were illegal or limited and the majority of a campaign's money came from
  tax hikes (probably a small percentage leap) then they wouldn't REALLY be
  paying more politically.  Remember that you contribute to a political
  campaign anytime you buy something beccause of the large amount of
  ccorporate sponsoring of campaigns (esp. agribusiness).  Of course,
  each campaign will get only a small amount of money, but they'll just
  have to deal with it and spend less -- they're a little spoiled right now.

>2.  What kind of spending cap do you put on each race?

    That depends on the kind of ccampaign tax that people are willing to
  pay.  Just distribute the money equally among candidates for a particular
  position.

>3.  Who decides the rules for controlling such elections?

    The rules could be pretty much the same.  The only difference is that
  the candidates would just have to make do with the amount of money they
  get.

          --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:19:13 CDT
From:         "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bill Clinton - Best Demo Pol since JFK

Balony, I am convinced that Bill Clinton is a closet progressive - to the
extent that Arkansas politics allows.  Remember that that has been his
political environment.  This guy has ben a Democratic governor of
Arkansas for most of the 1980's - no mean feat by itself.  but at a
time when most of the south was firmly Republican.

The most important thing this year is to get a Democratic president. !
With a demo president, the legislative dynamics in Washington will
change dramatically.  I think it literally doesn't matter *who* the
democrat is.  We need to have a Congress and a President of the same
party.

I'd like to follow up one more thing about Hilary Clinton:  I mean
that the poltical positives of Hilary will accrue to Bill, but the
negatives of won't necessarily flow to Bush.  This is because of
 the nature of the demographic group that Perot appeals to.
Advantage Clinton ...
...Bob H.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:44:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:34:28 -0400 KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU said:
> Travis writes:                                              V
> >1) The freedom of choice act would be federalo-imperialistic, hence
> >   unconstitutional.
> >2) A president should pick justices based on their devotion to the con-
> >   stitution and their legal experience, not on their personal opinions/
> >   interpretations/wishes about what the constitution means.
>
> On (1): how is a freedom of choice act any less constitutional than other
> federal regulation guaranteeing rights to privacy?  I ask because I don't
> know, and don't (yet) understand the legal/constitutional issues involved.
Is there federal regulation guaranteeing rights to privacy?
Like Jay said, this is a matter for the states, not the federal
government.  Tenth amendment.

> On (2): I agree, but when has that ever been the case?
Never, I must give you.  But for Clinton to actually say he is going
to pick justices who agree with his views is very up-ending.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:42:33 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: EuroDisney

Constantijn:

For the record, I want it clearly noted that I nevetr, *never* rap.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:40:16 -0400
From:         Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <scott@KRONOS.COM>
Subject:      Happy Birthday, Harold.
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Today is the 85th birthday of that American legend and quadrennial
candidate for the Republican nomination for President, Harold Stassen.

(Shouldn't there be a parade of something? ;-8 )

					<S>

Scott P. Riegelhaupt-Herzig		scott@kronos.com
Kronos, Inc.
62 Fourth Avenue
Waltham, MA   02154			+1 617 890-3232 x743
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 03:37:31 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Abortion in Washington DC
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.BITNET, emly@UCHIMVS1.BITNET,
              gaw3@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, bfb1@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, dgh@edsi.plexus.com

Congress: Poster Childern for Retroactive Abortion Policy

Yawn!

Sorry to be so remiss in not putting everything in a few posts, but I was up
late painting tiny crosses to plant around the national monument.

Top n lies told by P. Ireland at rally

1) A majority of Americans are pro-choice.

In fact, a majority of americans favor regulated abortion, which is what the
Penn. law does.  If the Penn law is upheld, it is not necessarily a reversal
of Roe (which should die IMHO).  Anyway, only 15% of americans favor abortion
on demand.

2) Pro-Choice and we vote.

Actually, only about 30% of the electorite are women.

In the last presidential election, both candidates sought to make it a
moritorium on abortion, witha pledge to stack the court one way or another.
Need I remind you who won?

Further, only about 10% of those who voted for the loser said that abortion
was the main basis upon which they voted.

This rally cry is more wish than fact.

3) If Congress is unwilling or unable to pass a national abortion rights
law...

I know the constitution is little concern to liberals, but abortion is a
matter for the state legislatures, not congress.  The constitution is very
clear, if the left would only read beyond the first ammendment...

4) ... half of congress will be women.

If this was NOW's plan, then they should have thought about that before
starting their own FemNazi party.  But, that point doesn't matter, because...

5) NOW is a large movement.

There are one hundred times the number of boy scouts than NOW members.  With
only 350,000 members (and even that may be very inflated, since NOW's
policies went South a few years ago), they are among the smallest PACs in
washington.  Furthermore, they are lousy at controling the vote of their
members.

Oh, the number of members in the feminist pro-life movement is 1.5 million,
mainly church going women.  And the DO vote as told.

6) Don't let George Bush send you to that back ally butcher.

Well, even if abortion is outlawed (which I doubt), it seems that the woman
has a  ** C H O I C E ** as to whether to seek a backj ally abortion.  She
also has a choice to not become pregnant.  Finally, George Bush really doen't
care.  He used to be pro-choice, remember?

Anyway, I am hoping that all of you who went to DC had a safe trip back.  I
am proud of everyone who participates in their political beliefs.  Even if
you are wrong.....

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Sherman slept in this home.  Major renovation since."
    - Add about house for sale in Atlanta
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:03:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Conviction of a thug

One suspects that the conviction was justified, but the manner in which he was
gotten was a violation of Panamanian sovereignty, despite the alleged (never
substantiated) attack on two US citizens that ended up costing about 135
American lives, spending millions of dollars, killing who knows how many
Panamanians, to get one guy out of circulation (not to mention the court and
jail costs afterward!). It was reported yesterday that more drug money flows
through Panama now then when Noriega was in charge! I believe the invasion was
a violation of the UN Charter at the least, probably a slew of other agreements
and international law too. We are the bullies of the hemisphere however, who
would DARE to question us, or impugn our high-minded motives? (and before you
accuse me of "leftism," Jay, be reminded that all I look for is fairness and
REAL democracy, not democracy at the point of a gun.) VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:33:00 EDT
From:         doodyhead extraordinaire <GU091AED@ITHACA.BITNET>
Subject:      bye bye jim

well, I guess I'm one of the morally un-sound on this list, so i should be
offended, but as far as this list being any indidcation of where the country and
   society is headed, I'd be pleased to be able to agree.  There is much less
dialogue on important issues on a national level than there is right here, and
that, in the words of sandra bernhard, truly saddens me.
Sorry, jim, that the American way makes you sick.
----liberal BS-er extraordinaire
AMYCAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:25:26 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!

I'm not sure what Elbridge Gerry had in mind, besides creatively reappor-
tioning Congressional districts.  The problem with the Constitution is
that it's like Scripture. It's subject to interpretation and we can expect
those interpretations to change with the times. After all is said and done,
your interpretation of the provisions touching upon guns and the militia is
not irrational or "wrong"--you make a lot of sense--but I simply disagree.
If there were at least 5 justices who interpreted the relevant amendments as
I do, we'd have a judicial precedent for profound gun control. But there
aren't. As you quoted Aristotle, let me scale it down a bit by quoting Mr.
Dooley, who said that Congress follows the Supreme Court and "the Suprame
Court follas the iliction retarns." It's frequent self-reversals indicate
its susceptibility to public mood.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:22:50 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>> And that suggestion is wrong.  I've talked to before first time
>> hunters.  They've considered the possibility that they won't kill
>> anything.  They still expect to enjoy themselves and they're hunting
>> whether or not they do [enjoy themselves or kill].
>
>The suggestion was NOT that hunters do not consider it rather that
>MOST hunters do not consider not to kill.

Of course they don't consider not trying to kill.  If one isn't trying
to kill, one isn't hunting.  However, that fact doesn't mean that
killing is the purpose of hunting; there's more to it, just as there's
more to playing basketball than dribbling.  And, hunting isn't the
only way people kill for recreation.  (We can argue about whether or
not one CAN engage in other forms of recreation without killing, but
....)

>I agree with the other one or two posters that this debate is becoming
>tiring quickly.  As if the goal is to tire the other side before he gets
>a change to convince you.

Feel free to stop asserting equivalences that aren't.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:23:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Conviction of a thug

the real losers are the 1000-2000 panamanian civilians who died when their
homes were bombed so that the united states government could display a
token of the effectiveness of its war on drugs to its constituency.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:14:45 CDT
From:         "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      Ashdown-UK Vote a cheat!

Paddy Ashdown, leader of the 3rd party liberal-democrats, said that the
UK voting system cheated the people of England, Scotland and Wales.



Folow-up to my previous post:  the UK needs a popular front, meaning
for all the opposition to join in a single party to avoid splitting
the opposition votes - just for the purpose of correcting the election
system.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:38:19 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Hunting

>this need for hunter argument kind of seems dumb to me.

That argument is quite common in folks who have seen what happens
in populations with no predators.  It isn't pretty.

>Man threatens the
>environment of animals so he is kind if he kills them; stop this
>pseudo-humanistic facade and admit hunters kill for the sport.

It isn't obvious that many, let alone most, hunters kill for sport.
I've known poachers to near trophy hunters and they all ate what they
killed (well, some of them only got to eat what they could get away
from me, but that's another issue).  Given that practice, I don't see
how they're all that much different than those of us who stalk the
wilds of the meat section of the local supermarket.  In fact, since
they get their hands bloody, I think that they're somewhat better in
this respect.

Hunting is a strange passion.  If you think that the kill is the
point, you don't understand it.  (Oh, and just as Reisner has figured
out, since Cadillac Desert, that the only way we're going to have
migratory birds is through rice farming, the only way we're going to
have wildlife in this country is through hunting.  No one else is
willing to put out the money, as measured in the only reasonable way,
actual expenditures.)

>P.S. Thanks to the debate last year on the 2nd amendment, my thoughts
>on the right to bear arms has somewhat changed.  An absolutist view
>however still seems excessive to me.

For more constitutional law stuff, see Kates' "The Second Amendment
and the Ideology of Self-Protection", Constitutional Quarterly, vol 9,
No 1 (winter 92), and Cottrell's artilce in 80 Georgetown Law Journal.
(That's on an African-americanist view of the 2nd amendment, to
paraphrase the title.)  I'm still trying to track down a copyof
Kates' article in 18 American Journal of Criminal Law.

I'm actually a big fan of gun control that works (we know how to amend
the Constitution); that's why I oppose gun access restrictions....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:07:32 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      more on that guns thing

     Starting at the point of contention ...

If anything, modern guns are less lethal, even if you discount the
changes in medical technology.

>       if this is true, then explain the attrition rate in WWI.

     Well, modern guns, in this sense, start with the M-16. The
     M-16 is designed to cause damage, even deabilitating damage,
     but not so much that it kills, since if you kill a person,
     you need one person to carry him home and six to put him in
     a hole but if you wound a person they need doctors, medics,
     supplies, etc. ...

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is
big enough to take it all away.
              --Barry Goldwater

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:38:00 EDT
From:         ANDREW ALLEN <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More guns 'n bull...

>Whats it sung to?

It's kind of a Beach Boys sound without the harmonies, reminds one
of "Surf City, Here We Come"

>-Nick
-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:56:43 CDT
From:         "Robert G. Heidlage" <GEOLBOB@UMCVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      Tories ->only 42% of UK vote

Just to note this (re: my previous posts):

The "ruling" conservative party got only 42 % of the vote in
last weeks general election - BUT they got a 21 seat majority
in the Commons, and don't have to face the voters agoan for 5 years.

Some democracy -- that UK!

Also, as I suggested previously, there are virtually no Tory MP's from
Scotland and Wales, and very few from northern England.

Since the first Thatcherite election in 1979, at least 57% of all
 the UK voters have voted against the Conservatives - in *EVERY*
election. !!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU