HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.news-media
Subject: Health care
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:28:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: igor.1992Apr6.192853.18531
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco

In article <1992Apr5.003757.5810@dg-rtp.dg.com> hicks@dg-rtp.dg.com writes:
>Also, people in the U.S. seem traditionally to believe in a fundamental
>right to imortality. We seem to have the attitude that there's no health
>problem that can't be fixed given enough money. But an awful lot of
>people seem to be tired of footing the bill for others, so maybe it's
>time to re-evaluate what we consider to be acceptable healthcare.

Speak for yourself.

Presently, I am subsidizing a number of activities I consider immoral or
unnecessary:  the CIA/NSA, military adventures (such as Grenada and Panama),
sending "military advisors" down to El Salvador, mining the harbors in
Nicaragua.

I would much rather spend twice that amount, guaranteeing that everybody
here had access to a certain level of health care, and cut out all the
unnecessary military crap.

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The difference between difficult dogs and vicious human beings is that
difficult dogs do not rise to positions of prominence in the community."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust)
Subject: Re: Runoff, Constitution
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:56:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.011145.14263@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J. Byrd) writes:
>
>Anybody read the constitution and what it says about runoffs in
>the presidential voting?  The HOUSE chooses from the top five!
>Ooooh, scary!

Uh, no, the Constitution states that if no one candidate has a majority of the
electoral vote, the election goes to the House of Representatives, which
selects from the top *three* electoral vote getters.  This proviso has been
used only once in American history, in the 1824 Presidental election.  Read
the 12th Amendment for the full story (trust me, it's easier than it looks... :)

-- 
Jeff Foust                        Junior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   	        	    jeff@seismo.gps.caltech.edu
"..any DEA agent or drug dealer can tell you that 1 pound equals 2.2 kilograms."
                       L.A. Times, page E1, 8 April 1992
From: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Summary: You need to study 'ole Ross more closely
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:51:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Apr3.061306.13224@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.063627.22960@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche) writes:
>>The Marrou / Lord campaign doesn't have the virtually unlimited funds Perot
>>does, but don't count them out just yet. Moreover, Perot will flash in the
>>pan and be gone when it's over - the Libertarian Party is growing larger
>>and stronger each year.
>
>Perot is the ONLY possible candidate that I've heard speak honestly and
>sensibly about what is wrong with our country, how deep the shit is, and
>the fact that we need a powerful shovel to get us out of this mess.
>
Pete,

I guess it all depends upon what you consider to be "honestly and sensibly."
Perot favors a war on drugs with even more draconian laws. In his single-
minded fervor to impose his attitude upon the rest of us, he has no qualms
about abrogating the 4th and 5th amendments. The "powerful shovel" his offers
is his own iron hand, unimpeded by such trivialites as law, individual rights,
etc.

Hitler asked for the same powers in 1933 in order to clean up a "big mess."
The Reichstag gave him the powers, and the rest is history. Perot is offering
the same solution: a strong leader able to enfore unilateral decisions with
the brutality of the state. Perot may be rich and powerful, but upstairs he's
still a redneck whose solution to anything he doesn't like is "beat it till it
bleeds." I hardly call this sensible.


-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ "That government is best which governs LEAST"    VOTE LIBERTARIAN   +
+ Andre Marrou / Nancy Lord '92   1-800-682-1776 / 1-900-4-LIBERTY    +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: A suggestion for presidential election reform
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:34:17 GMT

In article <zw0t=5j@rpi.edu>, goldm@sage4a.its.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:

|> Do you mean to say that if the results turn up: 30% Libertarian, 27% Democrat,
|> 27% Republican, 15% Perot, and 1% all others, the Libertarian candidate would
|> not win? If so, why wouldn't he?

That will not happen. If you are willing to make a wager on it, however, tell me.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: dpassage@eden.Berkeley.EDU (David Paschich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Question:  Brokered Democratic Convention
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:35:10
Organization: United Spam Growers' Defense Fund
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: eden.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: winstead@faraday.ece.cmu.edu's message of 8 Apr 92 15:38:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.153845.17788@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> winstead@faraday.ece.cmu.edu (Charles Holden Winstead) writes:

   What does a brokered democratic convention mean?  What are the 
   circumstances that would lead to it, and how is it handled?  I hear
   the press talking about it because people seem dissatisfied with
   all the candidates.  I thought that if Clinton gets x amount of
   delagates, that he automatically gets the nomination.

This is true; if Clinton gets more than 50% of the delegates he wins
the nomination automatically.  On the first ballot, the delegates are
obligated to vote for the candidate they're pledged to.

If Clinton doesn't get 50% of the delegates, which is possible if
Tsongas or Brown come on strong in the late going and the
"superdelegates" (Democratic party senators, governors, congressmen,
and party flacks who vote just like normal delegates at the
convention) abandon him, then he won't get nominated on the first
ballot, the delegates are freed to vote for whoever they want to, and
the wheeling and dealing begins.  

IMHO, if this happens, Brown won't have a chance because party
insiders don't like him, and Tsongas is too conservative to appease a
lot of the far left people who are powerful within the party.  Clinton
might be out by virtue of not winning on the first ballot.  

The way I see it, the Democrat's best chance at winning in November is
to nominate Cuomo at a brokered convention.

David Paschich

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dba3k@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Daniel Burton Avery)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:01:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.224246.22803@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.191907.14799@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dba3k@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Daniel Burton Avery) writes:
>>The thing that confuses a lot of people about this tax for a
>>while (myself included) is that the rent deduction is a
>>deduction from your tax -base- and not your actual tax.  See,
>>if you make $10,000/year, and pay 30% of your income on rent
>>normally, than that means you subtract rent from your gross
>>income and -that- is what you multiply by 13% to get your tax.
>>In the above case, if you spend 30%, $3,000, on rent, then you
>>pay:
>>
>>$10,000   (gross income)
>>-$3,000   (rent deduction)
>>=$7,000  (taxable income)
>>
>>then to get your tax...
>>$7,000
>>X  .13
>>= $910    (your tax)
>>
>>which is an effective 9.1% tax rate...
>>Add this 9.1% to a 13% VAT which will hit lower income people
>>more than wealthy ones, and it doesn't look too good.
>>
>>The rent deduction would save a family spending 30% of their
>>income on rent about 4% of their income.  The rent deduction
>>doesn't do a whole lot to correct the regressive quality of
>>this tax.
>>
>This family of four spends half of our income on rent
>We gross $15,000 and pay $2,295 in social security taxes.
>We get standard deduction and exemptions of $5,700 and $8,600 respectively.
>This makes our net income $700.  The 15% tax on this is $105
>We get earned income credit of $769.
>
>Total tax is $1631.  
>
>On Brown's system we deduct our $7800 rent paid and 13% comes to $936.
>
>The payroll tax in the current system is what kills us poor people.

I agree.  I was just clarifying the rent deduction for those on
the net who seem to be arguing with heated breath about it
without quite knowing what it is.  
The two big questions on the flawed flat tax vs. the flawed
present system seem to me to be in this case:
1) Will the rate have to be MUCH higher than 13% for any hope of this
being a true revenue-neutral tax reform?  As high as Clinton
claims (24%)?  Probably somewhere in the middle.
2) When, exactly, will Brown make up his mind about what his
VAT is?  The latest incarnation I saw taxes gross profits minus
previously taxed goods purchased from other companies.  Does
this mean that services won't be taxed, since labor isn't going
to be?  Does that mean that poor families who spend most of
their income on goods (FOOD!) are going to pay more taxes
(passed on by industry) than
wealthy people who spend a larger part of their income on
services?  

I wonder...

Dan Avery
University of Virginia
Internet: dba3k@virginia.edu
Bitnet: dba3k@virginia
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:989 soc.culture.usa:2996
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Libertarians and the Rule of Lawyers (was Vote Libertarian?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:26:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> folse@crs.cl.msu.edu (Mark Folse) writes:

>    Do they still favor the elimination of Social Security and Medicare?
>    Of the EPA and the FDA? Do they still favor legalizing  drugs?

> I want to make it clear that we DON'T favor eliminating old age
> pensions or medical care for the poor; what we favor is taking these
> services out of government hands.

Nice rhetoric.  What's your plan?  Is Marrou going to eliminate the
Social Security system after elected, leaving the elderly poor to fend
for themselves?  Is he going to set a date after which no new people
will be sent checks?  Let's see some specifics.

> We also don't want to eliminate people's protection from polution; we
> want a good job to be done of protecting the environment, and from our
> perspective, that means taking the bulk of the job away from the
> government, which we don't see as doing a competant job.

The last time I asked a libertarian how the environment would be
protected, I was informed that people would be given the right to sue
polluters for any pollution that happened outside of "their" land.
Leaving out the absurd notion that one person can "own" a piece of
land (ignoring the rights of future generations) this still strikes me
as an absurd answer.

In fact, it sounds to me like the Libertarians are proposing a
government of, by and for the lawyers, where lawyers would be given
even greater power than they are now.  The transaction costs for
this sort of regulation would be staggering.

If my impression is wrong, perhaps one of our libertarian friends can
point out where I have been led astray.

--Scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Request for Information about Libertarian Beliefs
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:59:39 GMT

In article <sasswb.703440362@k2>,
sasswb@unx.sas.com (Scott Bass) writes:
>I would like to know more about the tenents, beliefs, and planks (if that's the
>right term, I'm going back to high school history) of the Libertarian Party.
>I could infer their beliefs by wading thru the postings of this newsgroup but
>I am way, way too busy to read all the extra stuff to deduce their beliefs.
>Sorry if that's not the best attitude (I think one should be an involved, or
>at least informed, voter) but I'm just too busy.

Scott,

The position of the Libertarian Party can be summarized in a single
bullet:

You have the right to live your life according to your own values so
long as you respect the equal right of everyone else to do the same
by refraining from the use of fraud or aggression in your dealings
with them.

Every position that the Libertarian Party take on an issue is based
on whether the proposed action would further or hinder an
individual's ability to to so control his or her own life.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall)
Subject: Perot info by FTP
Keywords: Perot, FTP
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world, local
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 07:37:42 GMT

I thought I should repost this info because there has been some confusion.

Ross Perot info is available by anonymous ftp from host

cco.caltech.edu

in directory /pub/bjmccall/Perot

Submissions are ENCOURAGED, and should be placed in /pub/bjmccall/Submissions.

If you need help with FTP, finger ftp@ooo.caltech.edu.

DOES ANYONE OUT THERE have more info on Perot?  If so, mail me at
bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu.

Also, would anyone be interested in a Perot mailing list?  Mail me.

Ben McCall

-- 
|Join the Omnipotent Overlords of the Omniverse today. Add to intelligent     |
|political, environmental, and social discussions. Buck the growing trend of  |
|apathy in the world today, and most importantly have some well earned fun.   |
|Read all about us on alt.overlords or e-mail : bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu      |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdl@linus.mitre.org (Steven D. Litvintchouk)
Subject: Re: Best Little Whore House in Texas
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:34:05 GMT


In article <1992Mar31.204737.14874@ll.mit.edu> kevinmac@ll.mit.edu (Kevin McElearney) writes:
>
> Does Bill Clinton remind anyone else of the Texas Governor in the Dolly
> Parton film Best Little Whore House in Texas?

No, actually he reminds me of Jimmy Carter.  Several similarities
between those two.  



--
Steven Litvintchouk
MITRE Corporation
Burlington Road
Bedford, MA  01730

Fone:  (617)271-7753
ARPA:  sdl@mitre.org
UUCP:  linus!sdl
	"Where does he get those wonderful toys?"
From: v136pds9@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: LETS VOTE
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:26:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acsu.1992Apr17.032659.4780
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Is anyone interested in putting together our
vote for the president, now?

	It would be interesting and would take a little
effort.  We could wait until OCT but it would also be
interesting to do it twice. (now and later).


JOHN
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:53:32 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Apr8.172046.26326@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Matthew.B.Berry@dartmouth.edu (Matthew B. Berry) writes:
>In article <ru2euINNhve@agate.berkeley.edu>
>jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
>
>
>As a Republican who voted for Pat Buchanan as a protest in the New
>Hampshire primary, I intend on voting for President Bush in the fall. 
>Why, some may ask?
>
>5.  Bush's economic program is the best of a field of bad proposals. 
>Bush is at least interested in creating wealth, while Clinton's main
>proposal for economic growth is a redistributionist tax plan which will
>do nothing to stimulate the economy.

What is Bush's economic program? From where I sit, it looks like this:
	1) Keep interest rates low.
	2) Reduce Capital Gains.
	3) War endlessly with congress  so #2 never happens.

Is there more to his plan than this?
	-Emmett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:17:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.061048.16965@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>In article <31546@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>>The tarrif was invoked for unfair trade
>>practices by the Japanese.  Specifically "dumping" (selling products
>>for less than the cost of manufacture to gain market share.  At the
>>time of the tarrif imposition in 1983, Yamaha Motor Corp of America
>>had a THREE YEAR supply of motorcycles in its warehouses if no
>>additional bikes were imported.  1982 models which started the year at
>>$3099 were selling for $1999.  Now, I was intimately involved with the
>>motorcycle business at that time, and I don't believe that the
...
>
>  The case may have been cut and dried, but why was America hurt by
>the willingness of Japanese companies to sell motorcycles for $2k
>when we would otherwise have to pay $10k.  What do the bikes sell for
>now (with and without tariffs).
>
>  I ask because many people I know would suggest that there doesn't
>exist an empirical case in which "dumping" hurt America.  So what if
>American consumers get a product at a cheaper price?  If I'm a consumer
>of bikes I'd be a whole lot happier.
>
>  The usual argument goes that once a company has market share, they will
>then raise the price to above the $10k that would otherwise be faced.  My
>understanding is that this empirically never happens. (Maybe it would have
>in this case, you seem to know a lot about it.)
>
>  If your argument is that it is important to save Harley Davidson 
>in the long term at any cost to the consumer, I'll accept that.  I may
>not agree, but I'll accept it.
>Patrick Sugent                       

	Well, actually, Harley is now the biggest volume seller of
large (over 750 cc?) motorcycles in the US, recovering from below the
Japanese big 3.  Also, Harleys are some of the most expensive big
bikes on the market, and still maintain their dominance.  The
differential between them and the Japanese IS somewhat smaller than it
used to be, if my last trip to the showrooms was any indicator.  The
tariffs gave them enough breathing space to upgrade, redesign, retool,
and compete head to head.  Thumbs up to Harley!

Brad

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole)
Subject: Re: How to fix the country
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 13:23:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

Perry E. Metzger replies to Nick Jovanovic who replied to Perry:
|> 
|>    >Agreed. The question is, who really understands how to invest
|>    >properly: businessmen who stand to lose fortunes if they make
|>    >mistakes, or bureaucrats who actually stand to lose their jobs if they
|>    >ever cure the problems they've been hired to manage?
|> 
|>    You mean those businessmen who pay their executive suites immoral sums
|>    of money and perqs befitting of kings instead of reinvesting in their
|>    businesses now?  Yeah, I trust them :-)
|> 
|> The free market sets those salaries, which are rarely as high as the
|> media portrays them. John Akers at IBM makes a tiny sum compared to
|> the few guys like Steve Ross at Time-Warner. I'll point out, by the
|> way, that Time Warner is doing pretty damn well these days, and that
|> most of the 70 Mil he earned two years ago came from warrants for
|> brand new stock and cost his company not a penny. Never mind all that,
|> though. The real question seems to be a pervading jealousy of the
|> rich. 

You may not think it's a problem, but Business Week does.  Read the 
MArch 30, 1992, cover story.  Even businesses have gotten a little
embarassed about 8 figures for presidents, etc., while laying off
the 'wage slave' who is lucky to be in the low 5 digits.

|> Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
|> --
|> "That government is best which governs least."
|> 		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
"That government governs best which governs least."  Get the quote right.
(I used it as a signature for some years.)
TJ did not describe himself as a former president.  Read his obelisk at Monticello.

/Bill
To do right, love kindness & walk humbly
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: whynot@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Shepherd)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, Free Trade
Keywords:  free trade 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:26:30 GMT

>parkem@susan.cs.rose-hulman.edu (Eugene M. Park) writes:
>
>There are two issues which are prominent with Perot.  He's against
>the North American Free Trade Association, NAFTA, and his electronic
>public opinion polls.  The US MUST work towards a more open market,
>not only in Japan and EC through GATT, but also in North America.
>If we put up protectionist barriers, the cost of our consumer
>goods will significantly increase.  When industries struggle in
>the face of competition, this is an incentive for them to rethink
>their global strategy.  I believe that its too late to be
>thinking nationalistic.  American industries control a large part
>of the global arena, and trade blocks will hurt us.  

I see this viewpoint as one of the largest fundamental flaws in thinking in
American politics today.  It represents at best a incredible
misinterpretation of an elementary economic principle, and at worst just
plain foolishness.

What does economics say about free trade between two regions?  It says that
if free trade between two regions is allowed, _overall_ efficiency will
be increased (i.e. the _sum_ of the two region's production will increase).
What economics does _not_ say is that each region will be individually
better off!  Indeed, it is highly probable that one of the regions will be
made _worse_ off by the agreement.

Will the NAFTA make the United States worse off?  Hard to say. ( A very , very
complicated general equilibrium analysis would be required...)  If I were to
hazard a guess, I would say that free trade with Canada is probably to 
our advantage, but free trade with Mexico is probably not.  (Not even 
considering environmental issues.)  But the important fact to take from this
discussion is the fact that free trade has a number of potential problems
associated with it, and anyone against free trade may well have some damn good
arguments on their side.

-Bill Shepherd
"Amazing how many folks talk about things they know nothing about"-Anonymous
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:530 talk.politics.misc:17273