HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: State Socialism
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:42:14 GMT
	<1992Nov4.060711.12219@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Nov6.203111.24700@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <trl1=hm@rpi.edu>
	<BZS.92Nov8151938@ussr.std.com> <18319@ksr.com>
Followup-To: ne.politics
Organization: The World


From: cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov)
>The problem with Soviet socialism was not the *transfer* of wealth,
>but the lack of its *creation*, due to the impossible command economy
>system.  Note that Soviet economic growth was expressed as that of
>the Net Material Product, which means that the economy was even
>worse off than Brezhnev's sluggish statistics suggested.  The
>NMP emphasized the "goods" produced, whether consumable or not.

So I assume therefore that you would advocate the idea that the
soviets spent a reasonable amount of money on military matters, and
such transfer of funds from the GDP to adventures like Afghanistan or
their own Star Wars program were of little consequence to their
economic troubles?

>Your fixation on wealth transfer also blinds you to the lessons of
>the Reagan boom.  Incidentally, I believe that the deficit has been
>shrinking as percentage of GNP during the Reagan years (Bush is
>another matter).  As for Reagan being a socialist: his government's
>budget as percentage of the GNP is something like a half of the
>percentage disposed by the Swedish Socialists (60+%).  They would
>not call him a Socialist in Sweden.  Nor should they in Brookline.

I am not shocked that someone, somewhere, even did worse. But I am not
wholely comforted by that knowledge either.

So if the the deficit has been shrinking as a percentage of GNP I
assume you would agree that there is no great harm in raising it a bit
if that turns out to be the most direct and effective way to end the
current recession?

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: What happened to non-Big Three votes?
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:40:32 GMT
	<BZS.92Nov9235922@ussr.std.com> <1992Nov10.183900.2640@miki.pictel.com>
	<BZS.92Nov11034123@world.std.com>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

From Webster's
dogmatism n: positiveness in stating matters of opinion esp. when
unwarranted or arrogant.

In article <BZS.92Nov11034123@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

   >But doesn't everyone need some criteria by which they judge gov't actions?

   Yes, some, like on its merits etc. But based on simple slogans? No,

Everyone has simple slogans---libertarians are no different but to
claim that their criteria for evaluating government is based on those
simple slogans is absurd.  A lot of work has gone into the books,
papers and analyses which libertarians use as evidence that their
criteria are valid.  If you disagree with the validity of the
criteria, fine, but claiming that it is based on slogans makes you
look silly.

   >If the criteria is unchanging, isn't it "dogmatic?"

   Unchanging? No, not necessarily. Dogmatic means inflexible in the face
   of contrary evidence.

I would say overwhelming contrary evidence.  There are many examples
in science where there appeared to be contrary evidence until further
investigation disproved the evidence.  If we were to believe all
evidence at face value we would have to believe that there are aliens
from outerspace buzzing around the planet in cigar-shaped vehicles.

   The communists were often like that also, presented with a difficult
   situation they'd go back to their Marx or Mao and try to figure out
   some basis for a decision, even if the process was absurd and
   irrelevant.

You seem to be saying that every time Barry Shein comes up with a
stumper the <*-ists/ians/isms> should cave in and abandon their
philosophies.  What is wrong with a little
reflection/analysis/investigation before throwing out an entire
philosophy?  And if after further investigation of the evidence, it is
found that there is a answer/solution within the philosophy is that
called dogmatism?  Is modern physics dogmatic or just systematic?

   >What are *your* criteria for evaluating the government?  Do they ever
   >waver?  If so, what caused it?

   Of course govt's waiver, through their legislative and judicial
   process.

I think he was asking about *your* criteria for evaluating
governments, not the government's criteria.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: fwebb@star-trek.bbn.com (Fred Webb)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:04:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com

In article <1992Nov5.181343.1619@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>Pardon my ignorance, but could someone please explain how a consumption-based
>tax works? How is the "level of consumption" determined?

In many states you already pay a consumption-based tax - the Sales Tax.

The other example of a comsumption-based tax is the "value-added" tax.
In this, each organization that handles a product or delivers a service pays a
tax on the "value-added" that that organization adds to the raw materials that
it purchases.

							-- Fred
From: scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Upcoming Inauguration---exactly when is it?
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:28:32 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.


OK, so I forgot if there were "rules" for the inauguration date.

When is it in 1993?  Always January 20?
So then, the actual date Clinton will be formally inaugurated will be
on Wednesday, January 20?

What time?  How can I get more details about it?

Thanks.
--
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: all these postings from outside New England
Date: 11 Nov 1992 20:07:22 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

Why are so many people from outside the Northeast
suddenly posting to "ne.politics"?

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson)
Subject: Re: What happened to non-Big Three votes?
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA
Date: 7 Nov 92 13:11:20
	<BETSYS.92Nov5103540@ra.cs.umb.edu>

I posted a message which accused CNN of lying about minor party
results a couple of days ago.  Apparently CNN was relying on AP for
the information and it was AP who dropped the ball and then presumably
lied to cover its ass.  I still fault CNN for not checking into the
problem further to determine the facts.
Newsgroups: ne.politics,wstd.general,alt.internet.services,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.activism
From: drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Size of Libertarian Party
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:00:47 GMT
	<DRG.92Nov4095637@candidus.ma30.bull.com>
	<1992Nov4.150517.17745@mips2.ma30.bull.com>
Distribution: ne
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <1992Nov4.150517.17745@mips2.ma30.bull.com> mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman) writes:

   |> The LP is much larger than any other political party outside of the
   |> the Rs & Ds.  

   Are there any numbers for this statement?

The AP reported the following vote totals for the various candidates
on 11/5:

        Clinton   43,946,051
        Bush      38,070,308
        Perot     19,258,910
        Marrou       281,805  <== LP candidate
        Gritz         97,721
        Fulani        80,411
        Hagelin       42,494
        Phillips      39,840
        LaRouche      25,959
        Daniels       25,833
        Mac Warren    25,046
        Bradford       4,605
        Herer          3,539
        Halyard        3,067
        Brisben        2,789
        These          2,525
        Yiamouyiannis  2,316
        Boren            980
        Dodge            953
        Ehlers           876
        Hem              395
        Masters          395
        Smith            290
        La Riva          178
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:26:01 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa

In article <BxAwtz.EIB@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>  
dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
> In article <1992Nov06.031958.61102@watson.ibm.com>  
yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
> >                        However, there are a large percentage of
> >Americans that do not have the common sense to do this and these
> >are the ones that need the Social Security System.  
> 
> Good point -- I'll change my statement (this is not meant to
> imply that I believe in trying to legislate away stupidity).
> 
> I propose:
> 
> Immediately eliminate INVOLUNTARY contributions to Social Security.
> If you want to participate, fine.  Whomever pays in for the full
> term is eligible for eventual full benefits.  For those who have
> paid for years, and don't want to pay any more, there should be
> some form of pro-rated remuneration.
> 

But how do you handle those folks who don't bother to 
contribute?  Put them on welfare?  Let them starve?  Make
them into solyent green?

I agree that we have to do something.  Allowing people to opt
out of social security might work, but then some money from
the general taxes will need to flow into social security for
those who stay in the system.  Remember that the original purpose
of social security was to help those who couldn't put away
enough on their own.  The real thing we need to do is to
stop or cut social security payments to those folks who already
make enough money from other sources that they don't need it.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:18:37 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa

In article <Y5==g6-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)  
writes:
> Noone that I know of would argue that with an increased marginal  
rate
> on those earning over $200,000 would imply that everyone would stop
> their salaries at $199,999.  What most people will argue is that
> raising the taxes will cause people to shelter more income.   
Already
> in yesterdays WSJ, there was an article on what people should do
> now in anticipation of tax increases.  Why do you think tax  
advisors
> exist?  Why do you think that tax free investments exist?  It is
> driven by a desire to keep your taxes as low as possible.  Raising
> tax rates simply encourages people to find ways to shelter their
> income. 

But that can be OK also. If the places to shelter income are
the types of investment that will make the economy grow, this
is a good thing.

 Also, marginal rates *do* discourage additional work.
> At some point a person is going to decide that he would rather
> spend his time doing something else than working additional hours
> for reduced pay.  Think about a person who charges by the hour.
> At one income level is real pay is his hourly rate minus the tax.
> If he works additional hours, such that his income puts him in
> the next marginal bracket, he has suddenly taken an hourly pay
> cut.  

I very much doubt anyone making $200,000 a year (or even $100,000
a year) is paid by the hour. Thus, the don't get paid more
for working extra hours, and thus this isn't a consideration.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: aem@tomokato.analog.com (Andrew E. Marold)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Minor candidates (was Re: Election finger post-mortem)
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:30:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Analog Devices Inc, Norwood MA, USA

>>  Drew Bradford, Oth 4,605 - 0 percent
>>  Jack Herer, Oth 3,452 - 0 percent
>>  Helen Halyard, Oth 3,068 - 0 percent
>>  J. Quinn Brisben, Oth 2,789 - 0 percent
>>  None of These, Oth 2,525 - 0 percent
>>  John Yiamouyiannis, Oth 2,316 - 0 percent
>>  Honest Jim Boren, Oth 980 - 0 percent
>>  Earl Dodge, Oth 953 - 0 percent
>>  Delbert Ehlers, Oth 876 - 0 percent
>>  Eugene Hem, Oth 395 - 0 percent
>>  Isabell Masters, Oth 395 - 0 percent
>>  Robert Smith, Oth 290 - 0 percent
>>  Gloria La Riva, Oth 178 - 0 percent

> Anyone know anything about any of these?
> (I assume "None of These" was from the Nevada ballot,
> which always has this as an option)

Well, Jack Herer is an activist in the pro-hemp movement.  He
is the author of _The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes_, which is a 
summation/history of hemp, and the issues surrounding it.
(Great book by the way).
The rest, I have never heard of either.

--
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+
|    Andrew E. Marold         |           Analog Devices       |
|    Software Engineer        |       DSP Software Tools Group |
| andrew.marold@analog.com    |       Norwood, MA  02062  USA  |
|    PGP public key available by email request                 |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+
 Conventional wisdom says to know your limits.  To know your 
 limits you have to find them first.  Finding limits tends to
 involve getting in over your head, and hoping you live long
 enough to benefit from the experience.  That's the fun part.
From: cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: State Socialism
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:24:18 GMT
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.

In article <BZS.92Nov8224214@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>So I assume therefore that you would advocate the idea that the
>soviets spent a reasonable amount of money on military matters, and
>such transfer of funds from the GDP to adventures like Afghanistan or
>their own Star Wars program were of little consequence to their
>economic troubles?

No disputing that 13-25% of GNP (Soviet share by different estimates)
is an absurd amount to be spending on the military in peacetime.  The
US' 6% seems too high.  The Swiss are spending 3-4%.  But Soviet-style
economies failed to deliver growth (look at the difference between East
and West Germany, or North and South Korea), and that's the crux.

>So if the the deficit has been shrinking as a percentage of GNP I
>assume you would agree that there is no great harm in raising it a bit
>if that turns out to be the most direct and effective way to end the
>current recession?

I'll let professional economists slug it out.  The consensus seems
to be that there is not much, if any, room for fiscal stimulation of
this sort.  I kind of object to your question, because the deficit
has gone up dramatically under Bush/Rostenkowski, and we have got
out of the recession about a year ago, at least technically.
	Mike Cherepov
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2950 talk.politics.misc:59926
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:56:05 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <gYC=9HB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:

>This is already happening.  Efficient farming depends on economies
>of scale.  What is wrong with large farms?  I repeat, farming is
>a business and as such should meet the same criteria as any other
>business.  If it can't succeed without government aid, it shouldn't
>be operating....

Would it shock you to be told that you know almost nothing about the
economics of agriculture and that most of what you do know is wrong?



-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Venting on voter registoration (was Re: Worth noting)
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:37:07 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

I suggested:
>>Why not register people at birth or at the time they receive citizenship?
>>It'd cut down on all the voter-registration bureaucracy and silly overhead
>>in our system.

lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>The answer is simple---voter fraud.  You need verification of
>residency.  How many states have you lived in since you were
>born?  Towns?  Precincts?  Since I was born in Burlington
>Vermont, what's to stop me from voting up there today...

To flesh out my proposal:

	1)  Maintain a central, online database in Washington with a
	    unique voter ID for every citizen.
	2)  Residency is declared in this database whenever a voter
	    feels like updating it.  Updates are legally required but
	    little penalty should be assessed for failing to submit
	    an update.
	    Updates can be submitted a maximum of 3 times annually.
	3)  Each city/town gets downloaded this database at the
	    "deadline" prior to an election day, anywhere from the
	    day before to 4 weeks before.  This deadline is established
	    to prevent fraud and to allow for local list updates.
	4)  If you're not in your local list, you have to provide proof
	    of identity and file an affidavit that you have not voted
	    at any other location during the past 30 days.  These
	    affidavits get forwarded by election officials to the
	    central registry, as a safeguard against fraud.
	5)  A bulletproof privacy law should be included to prevent anyone
	    from using voter IDs for any other purpose.

There might be a few more details needed to cut down on bureaucracy and
overhead while at the same time preventing fraud.  But with today's online
capability, a 200-million record database shouldn't be that hard to
administer.  It'd actually be *harder* to commit voter fraud with such
a system in place:  at the moment, who's able or willing to check for
multiple registrations across state lines?

A system like this also has another nice aspect:  it's not incompatible
with the current locally-administered system.  It could be started on
a relatively small experimental scale and phased in over time, once the
technology proves itself.

-rich
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Venting on voter registoration (was Re: Worth noting)
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:10:52 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <1992Nov04.233707.4875@kronos.com>, richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
> 	5)  A bulletproof privacy law should be included to prevent anyone
> 	    from using voter IDs for any other purpose.

Possibly involving public-key encryption. And with that, how
about voting via mail and email?

Or just voting via phone. You dial 1-900-DEM-VOTE or 1-900-GOP-VOTE
(a 900 call instead of an 800 call, for obvious reasons)
and go through a little menu with your vote.

Cross checking and public keying and make sure multiple votes aren't
made.

I also like the idea of Voter Registration, and even -voting- on
some issues, when Federal and State Taxes are filed!

-gjc

The dead now vote via computer!
From: barnes@xylogics.com (Jim Barnes)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: (un)fair taxation
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:09:48 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Xylogics, Inc.

Reading the thread on Tuesday's Mass. ballot Question No. 1
and seeing the responses about unfair taxation, I came to the 
following question:

  Just what is a FAIR tax?

Let's see, we have:

1.  Excise taxes (or sin taxes) on things like cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
    These tax the consumers of such things.  Those who don't consume
    these items do not pay the tax.  This is usually seen as a regressive
    tax unless the tax is on such things as fur coats or power boats.

2.  Consumption taxes (like sales taxes):  When you purchase something
    you pay the tax.  This is clearly affects lower income people
    more than higher income people since a larger fraction of the lower
    incomes are spent on comsumables.

3.  Per-capita taxes like the British tried to establish a few years
    back.  Everyone pays the same tax without regard to income or wealth.

4.  Flat rate income taxes where everyone pays the same percentage of
    income regardless of income source or what the income is used for.
    This does not tax accumulated wealth.

5.  Progressive rate income taxes:  the more you earn, the higher the
    rate with the expectation that at higher levels of income, there
    should be a greater ability to pay.  Again this does not tax
    accumulated wealth.

6.  Taxes on wealth (ie property taxes):  this ignores the fact that
    there may be no income stream (eg. retired people) supporting
    the property wealth and the property may need to be liquidated
    in order to pay the tax.

7.  I'm sure there are others.

So, just what is a fair tax?  Or are we faced with the conclusion
that we need to have a range of various types of taxes so that we
arrive at a point where the sum total is (according to some 
definition) "fair"?


-- 
 --
  Jim Barnes               (barnes@Xylogics.COM)  
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2710 talk.politics.misc:58246
From: fwebb@star-trek.bbn.com (Fred Webb)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:19:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com

In article <Bx96p8.AKL@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>The biggest reason I hate income tax is that when you invest,
>you are taxed again on your money.  You _already_paid_your_taxes_
>when you made the money in the first place; I cannot find any
>reasonable justification for paying twice.  Please enlighten me.

Sorry, but that's just not true.  When you invest, you don't ever pay taxes
again on the original money you invested.  You only pay taxes on the EXTRA
money you get back because of your investment - interest, dividends, capital
gains, or whatever.

Any payment you receive during the lifetime of the investment (dividends,
interest, or whatever they call it) is taxable, unless it can be considered
"return of capital".

When you finally sell or otherwise dispose of your investment, only the capital
gain is taxed.  Capital gain is the selling price - (your original investment -
all returns of capital). So an amount equal to your original investment isn't
taxed at all, since _it's_already_been_taxed_.

The only place where some kind of double taxation does come into place is in
the case of an investment in stock of a corporation.  The corporation must pay
income tax on its earnings, then the stock owner pays income tax again on the
dividends.

But again, this double taxation is on the _profit_ you've earned on your
invested funds, not the original invested funds.  You can still deduct your
original investment when you sell the stock.

						-- Fred