HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: SUGGESTION:  E-Clinton!
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:17:35 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov5.215814.265@rivers> ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:
>              
>
>
>Congratulations all round to anyone in the Clinton campaign who might
>be reading this, and condolences to anyone who was with the other campaigns
>or who voted for another candidate.
>
>
>And Now For Something Completely Different.....
>
>E-clinton!
>
>If anyone who was on the Clinton campaign is reading this, please take
>notice of my following suggestion:
>It has been one of the Governor's strnegths that he has tried to remain in
>touch with the nation and ordinary people.
>Another strength of the campaign was its recognition of UseNet and the
>campaign's periodic postings of press releases to us....
>
>Therefore, I suggest that the Clinton Administration maintain an email
>address and a monitor of the traffic on this newsgroup....and dare I say it...
>perhaps have the President himself or at least the Vice-President or some
>cabinet members respond directly to a random selection of postings on
>the group?   Not too many, maybe only 10 a day or 10 every two days, but
>SOMETHING.  
>
>Al Gore should support this, I would think.  It could save on gas from all
>the bus trips!  :)
>
>
>What do you lot think?
>
>
>Steven.K.Manfred@uwrf.edu
>
>
>
YES!!!! VERY DEFINITELY!!!!
John
jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16234 alt.politics.democrats.d:350 alt.politics.elections:22989 ba.politics:6856 co.politics:1637 ne.politics:2772 nj.politics:572 or.politics:474 ny.politics:99 talk.politics.misc:58654
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:45:12 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov5.155600.26424@mercury.cair.du.edu> kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn) writes:
>Please remember that Clinton was in a three-way race (whatever you personally
>think of Perot, he was a candidate in the end), and will end up with
>~40-43% of the popular vote.  With Perot running at about ~18%, in 
>reality Clinton did well.  Certainly not an overwhelming mandate, but
>not bad either...

It isn't a mandate at all. 60% of the voters hated or distrusted Clinton
more than they did Bush or Perot. Clinton will be President because he
is the least hated of a very unpopular trio, and not becuase a majority
of the people agree with his views.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16544 alt.politics.democrats.d:396 alt.politics.elections:23219 ba.politics:6916 co.politics:1712 ne.politics:2829 nj.politics:616 or.politics:524 ny.politics:140 talk.politics.misc:59114
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:52:54 GMT
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.203939.25141@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
>|> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>|> 
>|> $ Guess we know how you feel about successful individuals, i.e. they don't
>|> $ deserve the fruits of their success...tax'em to the hilt.
>|> $ [...]
>|> 
>|> I've heard this argument many times but never seen any evidence of it.
>|> When people's tax rates go up as a result of increased income, people
>|> don't decide that it's not worth the trouble and then seek lower-paying
>|> jobs.  When I see people not bothering because the tax rates are too
>|> high, then I'll believe this argument.

>Do you bother to read anything?  In the last week I have seen countless
>articles on what you should do now in anticipation of the coming
>tax hike.  Things like accelerating income, deferring deductions,
>investing in tax free munis, etc.  Tax changes *do* affect how much
>people earn and invest.  The issue is not that someone would turn
>down a higher paying job, its whether they would put *additional*
>effort into earning the higher salary.  Perhaps the new job requires
>more travel.  It may not be worth the extra effor to earn the higher
>pay, if much of the gain simply goes to the government.  Take a
>good look around, tax policy *does* influence earning behavior.


>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         


A friend of mine in Sweden was at the point of a 99% marginal rate! His
response was to move his entire operation to the UK. That kind of thing
happens here. Businesses and individuals often move to other states to
avoid incremental differences in tax rates. Just look at Southern N.H. or
read some of the articles about the wealth drain from Massachusetts.

Charlie  

-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@koneko.shr.dec.com		    *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17000 alt.politics.bush:13837
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Taxes on Foreign Companies: IRS=$3b, Clinton=$45b
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:08:41 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:

>Apparently, the US collects less than $1 billion in these
>taxes right now even after some increased efforts in this area over the
>past 2 years.  The IRS apparently says that Clinton's plan to 
>use $45 billion in these taxes to help pay for the $220 billion he
>proposes in funding for domestic programs will never be collected 
>because it just isn't out there.  The IRS head (I don't have the name
>right now.) estimates that there's $3 billion we could collect at 
>the very most.  I assume that anything more than that would have to be
>the result of changing the tax code.


Oh, it's out there alright.  The real question is whether we
can get it back.  The Japanese have hired many of America's
best lawyers to help them avoid corporate taxes, at a time when
the U.S. has scaled back on its I.R.S. lawyers.  Not that I
blame them, but they're now experts on this pertinent
subject.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:48:53 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>Jeeze!  And I thought you were only kidding!  
>Since when has Rush Limbaugh been linked to the Presidency of George Bush??
>He started his national radio program before Bush, and he is continuing it 
>after Bush.  And he'll long outlast William Jefferson Blye Clinton!

Well, all us Limbots will just have to hang out in alt.politics.clinton
and alt.president.clinton. (Isn't his third name Blyth?  That's his
real dad's last name.)  We'll be like the homeless on your doorstop,
sort of!

--------------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:12:58 GMT

In article <MDL.92Nov5144420@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>In article <rabjab.201.720915937@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>   Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?
>
>Dan Quayle will get the fuck out of it and maybe they'll let
>Richard Truly (a great American) run it like he's paid to do.
>
>   Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
>   of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
>   probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
>   and other major projects.
>
>Clinton is on record as supporting the super-collider
>--
>
>
I was always under the assumption that a Democratic administration would
be hostile towards any technological development.  Like the space program
in general.  Were the delays in the shuttle program in the late '70s
caused by Carter or was this just a coincidenc??

not a flame--a topic for serious discussion!

Simon

>


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16549 alt.politics.democrats.d:397 alt.politics.elections:23226 ba.politics:6920 co.politics:1714 ne.politics:2831 nj.politics:617 or.politics:525 ny.politics:141 talk.politics.misc:59128
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:19:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov9.050718.27299@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.004344.27794@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.212746.5694@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but could someone please explain how a consumption-based
>>>> tax works? How is the "level of consumption" determined?
>>
>  Get another clue, Frank!  Jeez, this guy is filled with MORE misinformation
>  than Pravda ever was :-)  First you spew nonsense about capital gains
>  taxes being levied on TOP of regular income taxes on the same gains (which
>  is total utter rubbish) and now you are spouting something about having  
>  consumption taxes that have deductions!!!! Consumption taxes are almost
>  always levied as sales, use or value-added taxes.  As such, they are
>  levied at the point of sale, with no paperwork filed by the person who
>  incurs the tax.  Thus, no deductions are possible, at least as I understand
>  it.  How in the world can you tax consumption if you don't do it when things
>  are consumed???  
>
>  Jeez, maybe its the air in Boulder :-)
>
>  Jon Rosen

Calm down Jon!  In fact you are right that consumption tax based on sales is in
general regressive.  But a consumption tax based on the level of consumption
would work just like an income tax, with progressive marginal rates etc.
The only real difficulty is how do you measure consumption, but this is not
hard at all.  It's something like cash-flow accounting.  On Jan.1 take all
income earned from all sources (capital and labor) ad in the begininning of
the years savings (taken from the previous years return) and subtract current savings:
consumption=earned income + other income + savings at the start of the previous year - savings at the beginning of this year.
The left-hand side is what is taxed with exemptions for income levels and pro-gressive tax rates.
For example: On Jan 1, 1992 my savings is at $5000.  In 1992 earn $10,000 in wages, and a return of $500 on my savings.  My total cash flow for 1992 (representing how much money I had to spend) was $15,500.  On Jan 1, 1993 my saving is at 
$7500.  My taxable consumption is $8000. See, wasn't that easy, and no need for
it to be regressive.

-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WHY WE SHOULD VOTE FOR CLINTON
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:38:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.181342.26297@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1d4e9aINN2je@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>
>>In other words, the counterintuitive Laffer curve is false, at least at
>>the starting points of the 1980s.
>
>I couldn't let this pass.
>
>To put it bluntly, anyone who doesn't find the Laffer curve intuitive
>is either ignorant of what it is or totally brain dead.
>
>The Laffer curve says that as tax rates are increased from 0% to 100%
>tax revenue will go from 0 to a peak and then back down to 0.  
>
>If that isn't obvious I would like to know what is.

That there should be a peak is obvious: that's just Rolle's Theorem
(assuming the curve is continuous).  However, it isn't necessarily so
that there is exactly one extrema.  The curve also doesn't account for
time or hysteresis of tax rates (the Laffer Surface?).


And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The World
	<1992Nov3.164044.24029@spectrum.xerox.com>
	<1992Nov04.040747.16409@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Nov5.160329.10551@spectrum.xerox.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:26:14 GMT


Since corporate taxes are primarily paid on profits, how much has been
lost in the current recession due to lost taxes on profits?

What would the value of getting out of the recession be towards easing
the deficit without any change in tax laws?

I suspect it's non-trivial.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Wine Tariff
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:55:29 GMT

In article <14593.2afb2785@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>I heard on the radio that Bush's daughter just got married to some
>rich person in the California wine business. Is this true?
>
>Is this related to the recent WINE TARIFF imposed by BUSH on the Europeans?

  What, a Bush family member benefiting because of his position as President ?

  That would be unprecedented

  NOT
>
>I smell a rat...

  Just the rotting corpse of the Bush Presidency.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 14:29:34 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <7916@transfer.stratus.com>, kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.032619.14874@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> > 
|> >	Tax = 0.2 * ( Income - 10,000 ) 
|> >
|> 
|> Not bad but how about:
|> 
|> 	Tax = N * ( Income 	- 8,000 for 1st adult
|> 				- 6,000 for 2nd adult
|> 				- 4,000 for 1st child
|> 				- 3,000 for 2nd child
|> 				- 2,000 for each addition child)
|> 
|> Thus, a poor family of two adults and one child where the two parents
|> have a combined income of 25K would pay some percentage of 7K.  If N
|> were 25%, they'd pay $1,750 in federal tax.  The tax they are paying
|> is just 7% of income.
|> 
|> For a middle class family, two adults and two children making $65K,
|> tax would be some percentage of $44K.  For N=25%, they'd pay $11,000.
|> The tax here is 11% of income.
|> 
|> For a rich family, two adults and two children making $150K, tax would
|> be a percentage of $129K.  For N=25%, they'd pay $32,250 in federal
|> tax or 21.5% of income.
|> 
|> Now, just remove absolutely all decuctions what-so-ever; just allow
|> the personal exemptions specified above.  There are no loop-holes for
|> the rich.  Nor are there moral decisions over what is a valid
|> decuctable expense.  Capital gains, interest, salary are all
|> considered equal forms of income.  Now special interests can't be
|> yanking the laws all over the place.
|>  
|> This is my idea of a fair tax plan.  It's flat rate but also
|> progressive (yes, that is a contradiction of terms but look at the
|> numbers) and caters to no special interests.
|> 

I could support this, the only thing that I would add would be a
requirement that exemption amounts be indexed for inflation.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Latest economic indicators down 11/3
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:04:38 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Nov4.134136.27471@news.media.mit.edu> elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
>
>... The most heartening thing about the start of the Clinton Revolution
>is that he called for hard work and sacrifice rather than the
>start of easy times. We're finally going to get some economic
>realism in the White House. Long live the message of Paul Tsongas!

This morning's Sacramento Bee showed Paul Tsongas on the short list for
Budget Director.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Science, as actually practiced, is a complex dialogue between data and   |
| preconceptions."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say Noe" Kramer)
Subject: Re: US Election: The Real Historical Parallel
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 19:32:19 GMT

In article <18953@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:

An interesting observation. This could be extended furthur as Britain
almost completely "de-colonised" itself after the war and created a
commonwealth of independent nations rather than an Empire. With cutbacks
in US forces in Europe there are some parallels there. One of the more
interesting aspects of that time was the socialation (?) of Britain, i.e.
birth of a national health system and other components. I think some of
Britains problems today are as a result of the changeoever from a world power
to a small country in world terms. It was hard for the country to look out to
the world not as a world power but as smaller trading nation. Some of those
attitudes still exist in some parts of Government, altough I think with
some of the recent problems like devaluation and integration with Europe,
even the right wing Tory Government is coming to terms with this. Well, I
hope so anyway.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 10:26:30 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov6.203111.24700@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
|> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> 
|> $ In article <1992Nov04.040747.16409@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
|> $ >Why don't you complete the truth?  Clinton has promised to raise taxes
|> $ >on the RICH!($200,000 or more)
|> $ 
|> $ Is raising their taxes any more acceptable, just because they are
|> $ a minority of the voters? By this logic, it is also acceptable to
|> $ tax _any_ minority, if the majority feels like robbing them.
|> 
|> Not, it is not acceptable to raise their taxes just because they are a
|> minority.  It is acceptable because they can afford it.
|> 
|> Why do so many common people defend the rich?  I think many Americans
|> expect that one day they will become filthy rich, through no means that
|> they have planned.  "It just could happen somehow."

Who's defending the rich?  I'm not.  I'm only defending the right of
someone to keep the fruits of their labor.  I see no reason why someone
should face a higher marginal rate on their income, simply because
they have passed some mythical income threshold.  I can accept having
people pay more as the earn more, however this is best accomplished
with a flat tax rate, not a progressively increasing rate.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Organization: t.b, t.p.d, & a.d
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:38:21 GMT

Jeff Bytof (rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: >>Ask yourself why you abstain from using drugs.  Is it because they are
: >A *great* example from Richard Lawrence Miller's book "The Case for Legalizing
: >Drugs": how cheap would cigarrettes have to be before you would begin
: >smoking them?  What if they were a dime a pack?  Would you take up smoking
: >then?
: If we go to socialized medicine, there will be a massive effort to 
: discourage drug use (cigarettes, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and everything
: else).  If you told your perspective health insurance provider you
: were a dope addict, would they give you nice low rates? ---- no way!!!
: 
: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu 

  Not to introduce any undesired _reality_ here, but a few months
back, a writer on t.p.d. told of his insurance company asking for
a drug test before they granted his insurance policy (I believe it was
a long-term disability policy, for which his health was a reasonable
concern.)  When he explained to the agent that he smoked marijuana,
the insurance agent looked relieved and said, in effect, "Oh, that will
be no problem at all if it shows up on the test.  We get that a lot in
the Bay Area."  Apparently the insurance companies are more rational
about this than the federal government -- they do have the profit motive
to keep them so.  With cocaine and heroin legal, I suspect the health
risks associated with those would go way down, and that insurance 
companies would eventually reflect that in their rates.

  Periodically someone suggests, as a facet of the issue of drug legalization,
that the government legalize everything, but cut all medical and insurance
type benefits for users.  Assuming the users were exempted from paying
taxes for benefits they weren't allowed to receive, I'd say that that's
a great idea.  In fact I'd sign up in a shot, even if I used no drugs --
I think the private-sector insurance companies, properly regulated, could
do a far better job than the government of balancing risk factors, 
charges and benefits.
  -- Clifton

--
Home: cliftonr@netcom.com     +1 808 521 9073
Work: clifton_r@verifone.com  +1 808 625 3234
Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
"Have a revelation, the first one's free/Soon to be addicted to eternity" - HMR
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16219 alt.politics.democrats.d:347 alt.politics.elections:22977 ba.politics:6852 co.politics:1634 ne.politics:2769 nj.politics:569 or.politics:471 ny.politics:96 talk.politics.misc:58633