From: muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 01:03:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.000208.21614@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.173057.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>
>>	The platform
>>	------------
>
>>2> Balance the federal budget amendment with no loopholes
>>	b> Debt to be turned to surplus in 10 years
>
>Why do we want a surplus?  What's wrong with just balancing it?

all i am saying is that that budget should at least be balanced 
tehre might be times when taxes bring in more money than expenditures
as happened in califorina a few years ago.  there is no necessity 
for there to be a surplus but it can happen.


>>	d> Only US citizens and US corportions may invest in any
>>	   dept incurred by the federal government. 
>
>Why?  Also, please define a US corporation.  How much foreign
>ownership is allowed?  How do you plan to prevent a foreigner from
>buying one last share?

now in a prvious posting i claraified this but what i mean is new debt
aquired 10 years after the adoptions of this program which would be quite 
small if all things work out.  however, you are correct one woudl have to
define what is a "US corporatioon". and as for controlling who can aquire
the debt that can be done buy the treasury department not selling it
to those that do not qualify.  as well as enact laws which prevents others
from reselling to non-US parties

>
>>3> Major investment plan in infrastructure
>>	a> Build road and rail systems as needed to promote
>>           interstate commerce. Will emphasize less poluting
>>	   rail systems.  Goal is fast and inexpensive transport
>>	   of goods and people around the country.
>
>Where do you plan on getting the money?  I thought you were going to
>balance the budget.  Also, why?  If it's needed why won't private
>companies do it?

humm i think a sentence has been deleted from my platform. however
the keyword was "as needed by interstate commerse". i would not 
simply go out and build roads. the need would have to be determind first.
and of courrse only build what is most necessary and in a time frame
taht fits in the budget.

>
>>	b> All necessarly land will be purchaced at fair market
>>	   value.
>
>Once more, I thought you were going to balance the budget.

again this can still be done on the approprite scale taht is affordable.
>
>>	c> Adopt national auto emmisions standards. Goal is to have
>>	   no emissions in 20 years, each year lowing the standard.
>>	   Cars made before adoption of this law are exempt.
>
>No emissions?  Nothing does that.  Not even electricity from nukes -
>there is still waste.  Maybe from hydro, but do we really want to dam
>up every single river in the US?

you are wrong about this. there are currently electric cars on the market
that have no emissions. and in fact los angeles has adopted special
auto emmision goals that are similar to the one above.
and i mean emisions directly from cars.
and you are making needless assumptions as to {hat will happen.
i never mentioned anything about nuclear or hydroelectric power.

>
>>6> Promote famly values by:
>>	a: must show proof of counciling before marraige license
>>	   can be obtained.
>
>Seems to me it isn't any of your fucking business whether I get
>counseling or not before I get married.  And if you think my response
>is intemperate I guarantee you will not appreciate some other peoples'
>responses. 

for sure i only appreciate only rational responses. for the emotional
ones say nothing except you feelings are hurt. however my goal here
is to engage in rational discussion on these issues.

however already most states require proof of blood test befroe
one can get a marraige license. also there is the interest of the state
which here in america is also the interst of the peopel. as i said in the
platform failed marraiges and families are costly and drain resources.

>
>>        c: must show proof of counciling to obtain dependant tax
>>	   deduction when filing tax forms.
>>		-no one looses any rights. this is just to discuss
>>		 information. that is proper diet, health care, 
>>	         responsibility and costs.
>
>Once more, keep your fucking government out of my hair.

and again i suggest you give me rational arguements or non at all.
yet again for the reasons above applly here too.

>>9. develop a garbage policy that encourages recycling and strongly 
>>   discourages the creation of new garbage.
>>	-special tax credits for use of and processing of recycled goods
>
>Why?  Why not just encourage a free market in waste?  If it costs too
>much to landfill it people will recycle it.  Why do we need to
>subsidize corporations?
>

to save our natural resources{which are still in the ground.
companies still do not have enough incetive to use recycled material
even when the cost less. i expect this to also have a positive 
effect on the environment. 
>
>>16. eliminate the death penalty in the united states
>
>Why?
the death penalty serves no useful purpose. it does not 
prevent other murders it does not save us court costs.

>
>>	-rather make it voluntary
>
>You mean only criminals who volunteer get killed?
>
only those with life sentences with no paroll can volunteer.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc