HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:49:14 GMT

In article <arb-8C#@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.045125.14178@cs.tulane.edu>, lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>|> 
>|> Secondly, there's what's known as the "marginal utility" argument. It goes
>|> something like this: the first x-thousand you earn goes to providing basic
>|> necessities like food and shelter, this money has the highest utility to
>|> you and so it is taxed the least.  The next x-thousand goes for semi-basic
>|> things like a telephone, a tv, a car, etc...things you could live without
>|> if you had to, but nonetheless are of high utility, so this money is taxed
>|> at a slightly higher rate than the first x-thousand.
>
>The problem with using the "marginal utility" argument to support higher
>(non-linear) taxes on the 'rich' is that it presumes some universal
>constant when it comes to 'utility'.  It is true that for a given
>individual, each additional dollar has lower utility.  It is *not* true,
>however, that person A's marginal utility scale will be the same
>as person B's.  Peoples tastes are different.  Person A may be able 
>to live quite comfortably on a particular salary, Person B may not.  Who
>are you to decide which lifestyle is 'correct'?

But it is undeniably true that basic living costs are not vanishingly
small.  Allowances for welfare run around $9K, I believe, and people
on welfare just get by in terms of housing, food, etc.  If someone
living on the edge of poverty had her taxes push her income below
$9K, isn't this a tremendous burden to inflict on her?



--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:39:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.223812.24576@uunet!tellab5!odgate> mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>You know, what Reagan did was essentially a Keynsian policy: lower
>>taxes, spend lots of money (in defense, not social/infrastructure
>>expenditures).
>
>Exactly.  What's the big deal? We always knew that if you borrowed a 
>couple trillion dollars and pumped it into the economy, you'd have
>growth.  What's surprising, actually, is how little the growth was
>given the amount spent.  What's not surprising is how disproportionate
>the growth was, given the Republican's supporters.

Benjamin Friedman, a Harvard economist, notes that the deficit
spending was fine Keynsian policy until around 1984 or so, when the
economy returned to full employment.  At that point, we should have
stopped with the deficits.  Unfortunately, we didn't.  The gov't
deficit then cut into investment.  According to him, the problem now
is that the capital behind each American worker has decreased by a
substantial amount (don't have the figures with me.  I can post his
numbers later, if someone wants them).  This, according to him, is why
the deficits right now aren't helping to jump start the economy:
there's nothing to jumpstart; too much capital has deteriorated.  Of
course, he's arguing for a massive infrastructure and human capital
investment.  There's an article by him in the "New York Review of
Books"; he was critiquing _Seven Fat Years_ by one of Reagan's
economic advisors, and some other book.


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1)
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:51:31 GMT

First, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) says he's going to tell
us:

>We're Number One in percentage of population without health insurance.


>                 Percentage of population covered by
>                  public health insurance, 1990(25)
                   ^^^^^^
...
>                    United States   21  

By conveniently omitting the folks in the US who have private health
coverage, Harel attempts to skew his statistics to promote his private
political agenda.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!anomaly!mpd         /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:15:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.211203.25763@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>Yes, that was going to be my next question.  I browsed through some of
>Buchanan's positions and in my view, some of it seemed rather 
>not conservative in terms of foreign aid, open immigration, and 
>the "Buy American" idea.  Do true conservatives really support him on this?

  I'm not terribly sure what a "true conservative" is.  Buchanan certainly
appears to be pretty far out there on the right.  I don't think that
necessarily makes him a true conservative.  His ideas are certainly not
as progressive as the ideas of the top "conservatives" in the GOP (Kemp,
Rudman, and Weber for example.)

  Basically, I think that Buchanan is probably not a "true conservative".
Probably, most of his vote came from the 30%-40% protest vote that is out
there rather than any legitimate movement.  I wouldn't expect anything 
significant to come from him or his following in the future.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: School Choice
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:57:07 GMT

In article <16AUG92.21025208@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>I'd appreciate it if someone would elaborate on this concept for me,
>specifically, how a school is defined (and by whom) as being open or
>closed to choice by those seeking education. I presume that in the
>interests of the election, school choice refers mainly to pre-secondary
>education. Are there many demographic considerations in this matter,
>or is it much simpler than that?
>
>Bart

Also, does anyone over in the UK have any information on Thatcher's
privitization of schools?


--
But this is.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10939 alt.politics.clinton:2237 alt.politics.bush:2127 talk.politics.misc:40590
From: sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:21:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: ACME Widget Company, Widget Falls, Southern North Dakota

In article <1992Aug7.215414.877@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug7.161341.20816@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>]Where is the problem with what you said?  If the dollar amount that
>]those 'rich folks' paid went up by 17.9%, JUST HOW MUCH DID THEIR
>]INCOMES GO UP BY?  So much for  your claim that "basically the load
>]they carried shifted against them as well".
>
>***Periodic Flame Relighted***
>
>Why the hell SHOULD the rich pay so much more in taxes than the poor?
>Where is the justice in that? Why should I, who works hard, pay a lot
>more in taxes than someone who doesn't work hard or isn't as skilled?
Equating being poor with not working hard shows just how out of touch
with reality you are.  Quite a few people work hard but do not earn very
much for it.  Ever work in a warehouse packing boxes?  I did during summers 
when I was an undergraduate (no violins please), and it became pretty obvious
to me that there are plenty of people out there busting their butts and getting
very little in return for it.  So lets stop assuming that everyone who is 
poor is just a so-called welfare bum (even if this wasn't your intention it
is easy enough to interperet it this way).  

Anyway, in order to answer your question, it sounds like you are in favor
of a flat rate (like Jerry Brown argued for).  Well you know as well as I
do that a flat rate is regressive and places a much higher burden on low
income people (read welfare bums and other trash) who have precious little
disposable income.

Steve B











Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:42:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug12.163408.17618@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25337-buoni) writes:
>
>I hope Bush quits (I love Kemp), but this is unrealistic.  I'll pull the 
>Republican lever, run to the nearest restroom and lose my lunch.
>
>Anyone running against the greatest TAX AND SPEND president of all times,
>and claiming that we spend too little will NEVER get my vote.


  You should read the article Kemp had in the Wall Street Journal
  yesterday.    Many sensible sounding ideas about reducing business
  taxes and welfare reform, but as far as I could tell it included
  very large tax cuts and no obvious reductions in spending (i.e.,
  his welfare reform ideas seemed to be genuine reform, not typical
  Republican "just cut their benefits" ideas.)  In light of this,
  as I was reading it, I kept saying, "what about the DEFICIT?!"

  I'm not one of those people who thinks that we must totally 
  eliminate the deficit by yesterday, but we DO have to reduce
  it.   The only thing I could think of was that he was assuming that
  the stimulating effect of his ideas on business would magically
  increase revenues by boosting the economy in general.  But this
  is pure religion; it may or may not be true but I want hard 
  evidence and hard numbers before I would introduce any tax cuts
  without clear corresponding spending cuts with this deficit.

---peter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:10:24 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Aug12.035214.5123@news.columbia.edu>
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>Well, it could be that our boy Clinton doesn't want to drive the
>Federal deficit to astronomical heights, like your boy Bush has done.
>
The Bush campaign states that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in Arkansas.
Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayer's advocacy group says the Rep.'s
reached this total by counting some taxes twice and including some things like
raising hunting fees.   But they also noted that Clinton raised the
sales tax several times,.  They also said that Arkansas' tax system is
regressive, meaning the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
income taxpayers.  Note that this is meant as information and not
as an "our boy" vs. "your boy" type of argument.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:37:09 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <168418104.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.035214.5123@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>The Bush campaign states that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in Arkansas.
>Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayer's advocacy group says the Rep.'s
>reached this total by counting some taxes twice and including some things like
>raising hunting fees.   But they also noted that Clinton raised the

I have seen this argument several times and it still stinks.  If the
government raises fees, it will still get more money next year than it did
last.

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck ...

BTW, I am in favor of using user fees instead of taxes to pay for
government services wherever possible.  I am oppossed to raising those
fees to an amount that exceeds the cost of the service provided.

I believe hunting license fees should be high enough to cover the costs
incured by the state.  It is also quite obvious that while welfare is also
a service that is provided by the state, it is not one that can be paid for
on a fee basis.

-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: Clark University
Date: 15 AUG 92 06:13:57 GMT


In a previous article, ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Cary Zeitlin) wrote:
> 
>The results from the Republican platform committee this week affirm
>Saurav's statements. With great alacrity,  Clinton has stolen the
>center. This leaves the Republicans in the position of having
>only one real constituency -- the extreme right, which they now
>have to shore up because the real right-wingers never did care
>much for Bush and have been further alienated the past four years.
>It remains to be seen whether Bush can wage anything other than
>a campaign of hate- and fear-mongering, especially with all the
>lunatic-fringe baggage he now has to carry.

And this right-wing faction seems so much more comfortable fighting
social trends (controlling the womb, alienating homosexuals, stagnating
public schooling) rather than stressing whatever ideals (if they can
be called that) they support. Bush's remaining hopes lie in manipulating
public perception instead of specifying proposals of a domestic agenda.
But what else is new??


-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11110 alt.politics.clinton:2392 alt.politics.bush:2318 talk.politics.misc:40921
From: stauffer@cc.swarthmore.edu (Glenn Stauffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:47:49 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College Computing Center
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6B9A7423B044333@mac1.beardsley.swarthmore.edu>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 20 Aug 92 00:47:14 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d8

In article <1992Aug13.174246.26420@news.columbia.edu> Elizabeth G. Levy,
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu writes:
>And no one is advocating taxing the rich of 99% of their income.  Is
>this your paranoia about liberalism showing through?  If tax rates for
>the wealthy are raised one or two percentage points, we may be able to
>lower the rate for the poor.  This would reduce the burden the poor.
>

If you have any intention of ever reducing the Federal Debt, it will be
centuries before
the poor see any reduction in their taxes.  The poor would be much better
off if the rich
were induced to invest money in domestic industry.

The question I have (for which, admittedly, I have not spent much time
looking for the
answer) is:  How many rich people are there and how much will we have to
tax them in
order to cover the rising cost of government programs, reduce the debt,
and ease the tax
burden on the rest of us.  I'd guess that, in order to accomplish these
goals, the income
measures by which the "rich" are defined will continue to broaden until
people at my
income level are considered "rich" and have the pleasure of having our
pockets further emptied.
Oh Joy!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25337-buoni)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:14:27 GMT

From porthos!walter!att!att!drutx!druwa!dlo Thu Aug 13 12:12:05 EDT 1992

In article <1992Aug12.001844.18886@reed.edu>, bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo)) writes:
} The richer you are, the more dependent you are upon, for example, the government
} to keep looters out of your house, etc. etc.  Or do you see this as a needless

Yeah, by claiming everything you own, so that the looters have no reason to 
enter.  The biggest looter IS the government (of course they call it taxation)

Bill
My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: frankli@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin)
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:08:06 GMT

sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:



>     The U.S. gains from co-production arrangements in which
>   labor-intensive operations are performed in Mexico and high
>   value-added operations are performed in the U.S.  A NAFTA will make
>   it easier for U.S. companies to compete in previously closed sectors
>   of the Mexican economy and to export from the U.S. to Mexico. Closer
>   U.S. economic ties with Mexico will make U.S. companies more
>   competitive not only in Mexico but in other markets as well.


NAFTA will mean millions of new jobs.......

			for Enrico Hernaandez
				Chilito Pasquelcez
				Peluentes Enchincas
				Fesives Descheves
				Haliento Parchevez
				Chilitas Grandido
				Chicanas Hernandez
				....

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Subject: Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES"
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:02:56 GMT

Some thoughts that make seemingly simple facts appear contrived...

In article <9208182214.AA05129@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>"The U.S. ratio of school age children per teacher (23 to 1) is worse
>than 18 other counties including Libya, East Germany, Lebanon, and
>Cuba

Though I cannot defend the US's educational system as a whole, thinking about 
the countries above makes one realize that results must mean more than ratios.

>"Although the U.S. ranks 2nd in the world in per capita gross national
>product, the country ranks 19th in the world in infant mortality rate,
>and 29th in low birth-weight babies. Our child poverty rate is higher
>than Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, West Germany, Canada, the United
>Kingdom, and Australia.

Because we are so "enlightened" and "free," we have the right to behave
in ways that affect these statistics.  Like AIDS and CRACK for infant mortality
and cigarette smoking for low birthweights.  Not that our country is unique
in these practices and their natural consequences, but one would think that
our astute society would seek to change it's behavior.

I guess it is logical the socialized economies provide more for those on
the lower end of the monetary scale.  

>"The U.S. in not among the 61 nations that provide health insurance or
>basic medical coverage to all parents and their dependents, nor is it
>among the 63 nations that provide a family allowance to working
>parents."

Having a child run through a drill of expensive tests and not having
adequate insurance, I understand the pain of thousands of dollars in
unexpected bills to deal with.  The problems with our health system are 
legion, but I am not convinced socialized medicine fits our economic model 
in the States.

And why do both parents work?  For some, to pay for housing and food
for the family.  For many, to drive late model cars and live far better
than our parents at the same age.

Reckless thoughts to consider :^)

John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:10:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.133543.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>
dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
 
>
>Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
>the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
>abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
>that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
>situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
>for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
>1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
>   insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.
 
The first dereg bills, referred to as DIDMCA, were signed in 1980. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Carter president then? You might read "Mandate
for Change", a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (1980).
It's a summary of the state of the economy, the philosophy behind the
the regulations, etc.
 
>2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
>American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
>back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
 
Not true. If you look at the overall tax burden (income taxes, SSA,
etc.) it's different. And if only the rich got a tax cut, how could
that have worsened the deficit, given that the wealthy are such a small
minority?
 
>3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
>rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a
>monumental deficit in the 90's.
 
Absolute nonsense. Military spending spending as a % of GNP barely changed.
It was, in fact, downward from 1984 on. The Regan buildup was quite small.
It was certainly a fraction of that during the Johnson era. If you look
at the actual figures, instead of just repeating the common ignorance,
you'll see that the vast bulk of the increase in debt was entitlements
spending- it's still increasing.
>
>Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
>that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?
 
Yes. We had the longest peacetime economic boom in recorded US history. We
had tremendous upward mobility across race, sex and ethnicity. Everyone
benifited until spending again exploded in the 90s.
 
>dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections