HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Raising Revenues vs Spending Them
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:01:54 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul21215510@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.015026.26228@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> So?  Price is a balance between "money" and goods/services.  Inflation
>> refers to a particular change in that balance.  One can add both
>> additional goods/services and "money" to an economy without affecting
>> the balance.  Since spending, even by govt, can create goods/services,
>> just printing money need not cause inflation.
>
>You continue to repeat your fundamental error.  Spending, per se,
>cannot produce anything, much less material goods.  These things
>are produced by the application of labor and capital.

Said application often doesn't happen without a buyer.

>If you are suggesting that the government should go into business
>and compete with the private sector, then you are talking about
>fomenting a revolution.  If you are not, then your proposal is
>inflationary to a large degree.

Govt competes with the private sector NOW.  I see no revolution.

Govt can also produce value without competing.  Consider the effect of
building a road with no tolls or maintaining one.  That can produce
value.

>> There is no free lunch, and I'm not offering one.
>
>No, it's not a free lunch, but the benefits of government
>largesse are still just as concentrated as they are in our 
>present tax system.

So?  It's a revenue system; it works on the other end.

>The problem is that the costs are quite
>a lot more diffuse than they are now, as bad as things already
>are.

Yes, the costs are spread uniformly.  The costs are also unavoidable
and there's only one way to affect those costs.  In the current
system, you can rig the tax system instead of fixing the spending.

With the no-tax system, every time you see a govt worker doing
nothing, you know he's eating away your money and there's only one way
to solve that problem, a way that doesn't shift the burden to someone
else.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:54:15 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92251@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <63mm3_g.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>In article <92094@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
    >>writes:
    >>
    >>>So tell us Phil, why oh why do think homosexuality is
    >>>disgusting? Is it an act of faith to you, too? Do you want to
    >>>live in a segregated society all of your life?
    >>>
    >>I never said homosexuality is disgusting.
    >>
    >Sure you did. It was last year, and regrettably I didn't
    >archive it, but your exact words in referring to
    >homosexuality were "personally I find it VERY disgusting"
    >[emphasis mine]
    >
    >And in the rest of the post to which I'm responding now, you
    >didn't answer the question "why do you think homosexuality is
    >disgusting?"
    >
    >Instead you make dastardly rhetorical comparisons to
    >sheep-fucking.

Hey, what do you have against sheep fucking, huh?


No actually, you are most likely right about my having stated that I
found [some aspect of] homosexuality disgusting.

To be clear:

1. I do not find homosexual sexual practices disgusting. I am very open
   minded and, well, have fun boys.

2. I find the current cultural and political environment that permeates
   (much, some, all?) of homosexuality to have many disgusting aspects.
   Such as:

     - Lack of strident and immediate opposition to NAMBLA, like a total
       shunning for example

     - Use of coercive legal measures to attempt to infringe upon FOA

     - Mixture of sexual expression and politics (really disgusting)

     - A seemingly widespread drive to force acceptance of a lifestyle
       upon people that do not wish to be exposed to it

     - The quicken to equate dislike with a phobia

So, homosexual sexual acts I do NOT find disgusting.

Homosexual current cultural and political activities? Well, some of those
I find really disgusting. Although, I do miss Sister Boom-Boom. She,
like Frank Rizzo, was SO entertaining.



     
-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: ba.politics
In-reply-to: athos@apple.com's message of 17 Jul 92 18:36:56 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 07:19:05 GMT

In article <athos-170792113154@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

> This is what bothers me: pro-choicers do not seem to realize that we view
> that "thing" you are aborting as a full human life: as much of one as a
> baby.  I would stop you from killing a baby too!  Why?  Because it angers
> me in the same manner.  It's not "forcing a morality."  Don't you
> understand that when we hear about an abortion, it's like telling us "I
> just shot my baby."  That's how we feel.  I think the debate makes more
> sense when you understand that thinking.

What you are saying is that the blob of cells that exists after,
say, a month deserves the same protection under the law as a
living breathing baby.  I think that your sense of perspective
needs work.  Do you get this upset when the doctor cuts a wart
off someone's toe or removes a cancerous lung?

The issue, though, is not what makes you angry or upset.  Many of
the things other people do make me angry and/or upset, but that
does not give me legal standing to step in and prevent them from
taking such actions any more than your sense of horror does in
the case of abortion.  There are conflicting rights here, as with
most controversial issues.  You cannot assert and protect the
"rights of the unborn" without enslaving the potential mother.
That you cannot do under our system of government, no matter how
upset you are.  Your sense of morality is not a claim on others.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: athos@Apple.COM (Richard Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 25 Jul 92 03:17:11 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

1) I am not a zealot, and in fact NEVER even bring up religion.
2) I am not abusive.  I didn't attack anyone like you did me.

In any case, I find it incredible that you would tell me to just look the other
way when I think a murder is happening.  How could you say this?

I have noticed that the Pro-Choice crowd has become more and more abusive over
the past couple of years.  I can't enter a rational debate with anyone without
being called a nasty name, told I am a Nazi or anything like that.  I'm tired
of it.  You can be civil and still be passionate about your topic and views.

As for the father: you said that you did not think the father has ANY rights
to the baby.  This is probably the attitude that is killing this country.  
Fathers definitely need to be responsible for their children.  Women are not
prepared to be the only parents en masse.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life:
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:37:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.080109.17499@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>So on the record, when do the pro-abortion people think human life begins?

Setting aside for a moment the "pro-abortion" swipe (shall I call you a
pro-death-from-botched-abortion person ?).  IMHO, human life begins
somewhere around the 28th week of pregnancy.  However, that is merely
my opionion and therefore I don't feel that it should carry the weight
of law.  I don't claim to have an absolute answer to this question,
and I don't believe that anyone does.

Guido
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: Raising Revenues vs Spending Them
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 18:48:40 GMT

In the referenced article, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>It's not that simple.  You have to show that the poor spend a
>smaller percentage, not a smaller absolute amount, of their
>income on taxable consumer goods than the rich.  If it's more,

I guess the point is: what is the point of being rich if it's not to
be able to have more discretionary income to spend. I doubt there are
any good statistics, but I'm willing to bet that rich and/or middle
class people (since either would make the tax non-strictly-regressive)
either spend a higher percentage of their income on taxable items, or
they don't spend it at all, but increase the available capital by
investing. I *seriously* doubt that they spend as high or higher a
percentage of their purchases on non-taxable items as poor people do.
And if the poor people are spending a large percentage of their income
on taxable items, I seriously question the definition of them as
"poor", considering what is and is not taxable by sales tax.

>> The thing that is politically wierd is that you'd think the middle
>> class, being the most numerous, would be able to succeed at getting
>> their taxes to be the lowest (on the "progressive/regressive" scale),
>Like it or not, taxing the middle income people is where the
>money is at.  Taking all the money of the rich won't change
>things significantly because there aren't enough of them.
>And taking the money from the poor doesn't help because they

No, no, that's not what I meant. What I meant is that it's politically
wierd that the middle class has the highest *percentage* of their
income taken by taxes, since they are a large majority. I understand
perfectly well that they are where the money is. What I don't
understand is why the *share* of their money that gets taken is so much
larger than either the rich or the poor. Actually, though, as I
explained, I even understand that...the rich have influence and the
poor have pathos on their side.
-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: help for california libraries! Dire need!
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:38:46 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Jul22.183236.10744@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
    >And we should probably privatize the fire departments. As I
    >recall that was where this government issue began 100 years
    >ago. If you thought Oakland was bad, I wonder what it could
    >have been like.

Tilt.

Until a few years ago, when I think the local State entity "nationalized" it,
Scotssdale AZ has a totally private fire department. It also had not only
the lowest fire insurance rates in the region, but a noted track record
for innovation and well above average (quick) response times. I think they
innovated the screaming yellow color for fire engines for example.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: I'm rescheduled on Mornings on 2
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:43:57 GMT

After getting bumped from Mornings on 2 a couple of weeks ago
by the hospital strike settlement, it looks like we have finally
gotten things rescheduled.  Barring a surprise visit from Bill
Clinton :-) I should now be on next monday 7/27 in roughly the
7:20 to 7:50 time range.  Interviewer will be Bernie Ward.

/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mfriedma@uucp's message of Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:08:08 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul27.213657.6532@island.COM>
	<1992Jul29.010808.14225@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 07:55:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.010808.14225@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

> Then I'm sure you would not object to a law that requires doctors
> doing late second and third trimester abortion to make every possible
> effort to save the life of the fetus?

At whose expense?  And who bears legal responsibility for the
child that may result from this effort?  If you are, and I can
have legal grounds to enforce it, then I've got no problem with 
your proposal.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Followup-To: ba.politics
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:53:24 GMT

In article <athos-280792193300@kip2-49.apple.com>, Rick Eames writes:
>Yes, that is why we have this debate.  You believe it's a life and have no
>problem with the killing.  I do.  I am one who thinks that real choice
>happens as a man and woman sleep together.  THAT is where reproductive
>freedom happens.  1.7 million abortions last year.  And don't even THINK to
>tell me about failure of birth control because most of those abortions were
>by people who didn't think about BC because they didn't have to.

I don't have to make excuses about failed birth control, because that's secondary
to not forcing anyone to have a baby against their will. 

Ok, so now that we agree on all the salient points, can we drop this tired war-weary
thread? It will all be settled at the ballot box anyway, and neither you nor I 
stand a chance of changing any minds in this forum....

JZ
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:40:22 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <j3pmxtd.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) accuses
me of espousing the following:

>Live and let live UNLESS somebody else has something YOU want.

Seems to me that this is EXACTLY what you want too. Live and let live
as long as you have heterosexual employees and tenants.

We've reached this impasse before. Sound familiar? Last time your
way out of it was "when in doubt ask whose property it is."

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Say no more, I know what you mean ...
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:25:21 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <92099@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <axmmd7=.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>So sorry that I'm not one you "right thinking" boys. After
    >>all, if I REALLY thought CORRECTLY about the matter, and
    >>REALLY understood it, then of COURSE I would agree with your
    >>every opinion.
    >>
    >None of us has ever claimed that to be heterosexual is wrong,
    >disgusting, etc.

Neither Clayton or I have claimed this about homosexuality.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 28 Jul 92 08:28:36 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Jul27.213657.6532@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:

>Can you show that an embryo is self-aware ?  Most people in iron-lungs
>would fall into that catagory.  
>
>Guido

Is a new born infant self-aware?  I don't think so.  The last thing an
infant would be thinking about is the meaning of life, what does it
mean to exist, and what am I?  The Infant is unaware of its existence.

All the infant knows is that there are lots of things out there, and
I can feel, smell, sense lots of things.  Since it is not self aware, and
since you equate human life with self-awareness, then by your logic,
infants are not humans and do not possess human life.

And as an extension, since the unborn is not human life, people are free
to kill that life.

Brilliant, I must say.  What's sad is that many people believe the idea.

What also makes me sad is that the value of human life is decreasing
rapidly enough that humans are starting to become mere economic units which
can be disposed of if necessary.

Animals seem to have even more rights than humans!  Imagine our great
debates about whehter the unborn is human or not.  We are debating this
because we want to know whether it is okay to abort the unborn or not.
Then here we are, having laws which punish people for destroying or 
tampering with Condor eggs.  When does the life of the Condor begin?  But
people will not even want to discuss when the life of a Condor begins.  
Instead, Condor Eggs, whether it is proven whether it is life or not,
is protected from human destruction, while our OWN SONS and DAUGHTERS, 
grandsons, and granddaughters, are being voluntarily destroyed and killed
because we think it is not human.

Personally, in this society, it seems to me that the unborn would rather
be a condor than a human.  At least that way, they'd have a chance
to say "Stop!" to all this madness.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: This time I think I really will be on Mornings on 2
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:36:21 GMT

Well here it is friday afternoon and so far KTVU has *not* called
to say they're bumping me off the program monday.  However, Bernie
Ward is on vacation next week (resting up before the Republican
convention?) so someone else will be conducting the interview.

As before I'm scheduled to be on in the 7:20 to 7:50 time slot.

/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re:  California libraries/dire need
Followup-To: cramer@optlink.UUCP
Keywords: Franklin etc.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 21:22:49 GMT

When I wrote, "Ben Franklin was full of it when he started this 
public library thing." , I was being a little sarcastic.  Clayton
is right about Franklin's subscription library.  It was called
the Library Company of Philadelphia.  It still exists to this day.
These privately funded circulation libraries flourished from
pre-revolutionary times until the early 19th century.  "The
depressions of 1819, 1837, and 1857 all resulted in withdrawal of
support for voluntary libraries.  A library which cannot keep up
with its collections quickly ceases to be of much value.  Of the 
thousands of community libraries which had sprung up by 1875, only
188 were fully tax supported." (FOR THE PEOPLE ISBN 0-385-14359-1)
Anyway, it was one of the 1% who really got the public library 
movement off the ground.  His name was Andrew Carnegie.  By the time
he died in 1919, he had provided the seed money for 2,500 public
libraries.
My point in bringing up the fact that 1% of the U.S. population has
more wealth (stocks, bonds, property, cash etc.) than 90% of the 
population was to show precisely who has the wherewithal to fund socially
necessary operations, like public libraries.  I do not want to tax
Cramer or the people in the 90% catagory; they're the people producing
the wealth of the United States.  The fact that they collectively own
less than the top one percent shows that they are not getting the
wealth they're creating back.
As for volutarily funding police, prisons, fire etc within a modern
capitalist system--good luck.  As much as I dislike the state, I
don't think you can run a system based on private property without
one.
   


Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:41:43 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul30131527@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) wrote:
> 
> In article <athos-290792155519@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> 
> > Sure.  It doesn't explicitely say people cannot infringe on others rights,
> > but then it certainly doesn't say goverment can't either (it says CONGRESS
> > cannot).  The Supreme Court has widened the interpretation (rightly or
> > wrongly).
> 
> This is wrong.  The tenth amendment states quite clearly:
> 
>   "The powers not delegated to the United States [not Congress]
>    by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>    reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> 
> That says the (Federal) government cannot infringe on my rights.

CONGRESS Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

CONGRESS.  Not "The US Government".  The 10th Amendment simply says that
anything not put in the constitution (like abortion rights) are left to the
states to handle.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Help for California Libraries! Dire Need!
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: ba.politics
In-reply-to: jordan@IMSI.COM's message of 23 Jul 92 14:37:35 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 07:28:03 GMT

In article <4497@bacon.IMSI.COM>, jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:

> Don't you think that truck *already* pay their fair share (in fact,
> they probably pay more than their share for the usage they get)?  Your
> average tractor-trailer pays about $5k annually in road use taxes and
> fees.

No.  Not in proportion to the damages done to the highways
by the big rigs.  Roads that exclude trucks last a very
long time and stay very smooth so they do less damage to
other vehicles.  Until trucking fees pay for virtually all
highway maintainance, then they are not paying their "fair
share".
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA