HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:25:54 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the
              "rivet-heads"

>>Putting more money in the hands of the middle class stimulates
>>important sectors of the economy like housing, autos and retail
>>(among others). Concentrating money in the hands of the top 1%
>>does not stimulate the "mass consumption" end of the economy
>>except through the extra availability of consumer credit.

>That analysis assumes that demand is the problem.

Could you provide conclusive evidence that a lack of demand is not
a significant problem. At what point does declining demand become
a problem?

> If supply is the
>problem, that approach merely leads to inflation.  Even Democrats have
>figured out that investment is important, although they haven't yet
>figured out that govt spending isn't necessarily investment.

Some democrats, unlike andy, have figured out that *both* supply and
demand are important, that growth can occur best when *both* are
stimulated.

>O'Andy thinks that workers should be paid more than supply/demand
>suggests and wants "someone else" to pay for it.  I don't think that
>we should interfere with the supply/demand decision, but if we do,
>yes, it should come from everyone, but only because I can't figure out
>how to make sure that people, like O'Andy, who favor such lunacy pay
>the entire bill.

andy f. refuses to consider that at the higher levels of management
the rules of supply and demand do not apply the same way that they
do at the lower levels.

>Being allowed to participate in a market?  That's rich.  "Society"
>doesn't own the market; the actual participants do.

OK, well then I sure hope I never hear you complain about government
regulation of trade/commmerce/markets; I'll just remember that
the market is "owned" by business.


>>>Then why haven't Chrysler's owners done that?  After all, they like
>>>money and savings from management are just as green as savings from
>>>labor.
>>
>>Gee, do you suppose that it might be a (gasp) "class-thing?"

>Nope, I don't.  After all, pension funds, owned and run by "workers",
>own corporate america.

Oh? Care to provide some evidence to support this claim? Care to show
how this translates into worker control of corporate america?

>-andy

-other Andy
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:34:44 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              14 Dec 1992 13:56:02 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>>> Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
>>> the person who earned it.

>> And (what you think is) your money is (always) someone els's that was
>> taken away from them.

> Really?  I get money by trading things people want for their money.
> They're free to buy elsewhere, but they want to make the trade.  While
> I got it from them, I didn't "take it" from them.

So I am in a restaurant eating.  After I am done (receiving the
service) the owner asks for payment.  Do I have a choice there?

I borrow money from you and then refuse to pay back.  You
force me to pay back.  Does the fact that you forced me to
pay takes anything away form the legitimacy of your
ownership of the money?

I admit that buying milk in the local supermarket is somewhat
different (in the degree of voluntariness) than "buying" services
from the government.  But the difference in not enough to term
tax money as being confiscated money.  After all WE have elected
those officials who enacted the tax laws.

> Is all sexual intercourse involving males rape?  How about the "lord's
> right"?  Does the answer depend on whether he's taking money or sex?

I have no idea.  Does thermal conductivity increase with temperature?
How about heat capacity, mean free path?

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:42:19 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      crash and burn
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Well, our VAX crashed and burned today.  Some of my messages may not
have gone out.

        So I'm not ignoring anyone :).

        If you don't see an answer to one of your post (aimed at me, that is),
resend it and I'll post the reply to the list.

Brett'
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:21:49 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      A "right to discriminate?"

Date: 18 Dec 1992 02:02:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Doctor Pizz <jdt10%CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: RE: Some replies...

>T.
>
>My whole point is that as abhorrent as discrimination is, it is only
>our business when it is done in the public sector.  Private citizens
>have the right to discriminate.  Why is it that when a group of
>citizens get together to start a business, they LOSE some of their
>civil rights?
>
>Pizz

What a repugnant idea, that someone in this year 1992 could actually
espouse a "right to discriminate." The reason that "public" law about
discrimination came into being was BECAUSE of PRIVATE DISCRIMINATION,
and also public behaviors. Both have been found to be morally
objectionable, in that "discrimination" (from the Second College
Edition, American Heritage Dictionary, "2. To act on the basis of
prejudice"), regardless of what sector it occurs in, has been
regarded in law and practice for better than thirty years as socially
objectionable. The ongoing practice of discrimination continues to
further social divisions, creates a climate of elitism, plus creates
unnecessary class lines - those with the power to discriminate, and
victims of same.

I suggest that law about discrimination reaches all the way into
"public" AND "private" life as a result of the extreme views
expressed above. The "civil rights" of non-discrimination apply to
all, there is no right in current law or the Constitution that
enshrines discrimination. In fact law, mandates that such a behavior
IS repugnant, and unlawful, in a pluralistic society. To espouse
discrimination as a "right" implies some rather ugly overtones of
racism (also sexism, ethnicism, ageism, etc.), exclusion, elitism
based on unlawful criteria, and out and out prejudice.

"Doctor Pizz," this view was discredited in adjudication and banned
by law, because it was found to be a wrongful behavior in an
enlightened society. Though it would appear that you agree with the
idea of Plessy v. Ferguson and the insidious and infamous "Jim Crow"
laws of the 1890-1920 period, let me clue you into something. It's
1992, and there is no need to return to the vile climate that
discrimination was a big part of prior to the civil rights movement
of the Fifties and Sixties. Get a life! This ain't the days of
"massas" and "slaves," discrimination is a discredited philosophy.
It it quite obnoxious to see someone actually express a" right to
discriminate," and howl indignantly that that there is a "civil
right" to engage in such odious behavior. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:56:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Tolerance and discrimination are not mutually exclusive
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >While I realize that the private rights of employers
> >must be respected, since they are part of the same system of principle,
> >it is plainly an abuse of those principles if private citizens may take away
> >at their whim what the Constitution attempts to safeguard.
>
> Morse is confused.  Said employers aren't taking away anyone's right
> to to engage in those activities.  Said employers are merely saying
> "go elsewhere".  Your right to have sex with someone who consents to
> have sex with you does not obligate ANYONE to consent to have sex with
> you.

No, andy is confused.  These people ARE going elsewhere.  And they
aren't asking the boss to have sex with them.  In fact, the boss
doesn't even have to know when, how and with whom they have sex.
Yet that doesn't seem to matter to some bosses.  I guess that's what
they mean by "prurient interest."

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:17:11 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Look back and wrangle...the poverty thing again

>Note that the perpetrators and recipients of the fraudulently acquired funds,
>goods and services are doctors and health care providers, not the poor.

It's a transaction cost.  If we have to hose 3 poor people out of a
buck to get a buck to one other poor person, with the other 2 lost in
the system, maybe we'd be better off not trying to help that poor
person.

Until we figure out how to "help the poor" without diverting much/most
of the money to rich people, we have to include that as a cost.  Maybe
it's an acceptable cost, and maybe it isn't, but it should be
considered.  (O'Andy is free to take the "it doesn't matter how much
money we divert to the rich as long as some money trickles onto the
poor" position.)

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:41:20 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>Any chance the FDA will do it?  It does happen to be a conservative
>agency.
>
>Evelyn Duncan

        I think so.  The Bush admin pushed against the consideration, which is
what slowed it down.
        Maybe Clinton will get a fast track for drugs already approved by
comparable agencies in other countries.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:36:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Home ownership among poor
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

>         If we are going to use the poverty level to determine need, we should
> count all entitlements as income for that purpose.

And we do.  Or, rather, the caseworkers who determine eligibility do.
And the amount of money appropriated still does not cover all of those
who are eligible to get it.

You're lucky that PETA has no interest in dead horses :-).

Now, what are you trying to say with this?  That there is too much money
devoted to anti-poverty programs?  That caseworkers don't filter out the
non-poor when they authorize payments?  That someone with $25,000 per
year coming in from a variety of public pension plans is counted as
officially poor?  Or what?

Best,
Peter

> Brett'
> (The problem is not in your set)
I thought snow was considered normal this time of year?  :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:04:56 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      clinton and major

There was some discussion in the papers over here recently that relations
between president-elect Clinton and British prime minister Major may not
be as comfortable as the Bush/Major relationship was.

During the recent campaign, Conservative Central Office sent some of their
top advisers to the Bush campaign to try to save the day.  The result was
the Bush assault on Clintons tax plans.  It wasn't enough to save the day
(similar to the recent Irish campaign: the ruling party ran a series of
scare-ads against our Labour Party's tax plans, but this did not prevent
Labour's best ever result), but it was enough to leave Clinton extremely
annoyed with the Conservatives, and John Major.

Major's latest trip to DC does not include a trip to see the transition team,
they are "too busy, come see us after the Inauguration, preferably the '96
inauguration", was the reaction to approaches by Major for a meeting.  The
Clinton camp is not, however, too busy to meet a couple of comparatively
minor figures from the British Labour Party, due over in the States shortly.


Portents of a cooling in the "special relationship", perchance?


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:14:03 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: laffer

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

> But your peak was drawn at 99% which is not true. I think the peak is
> somewhere between 40 an 60%.

That is not true.  Mine peaked at 75%.  BUT I also added that
the horizontal axis for both your curve and mine was skewed
towards the 100% tax rate (don't you read?).

Even if the peak is around 40 to 60 that is still more than the
top rate.  In fact as I recall your were talking about some
kinda average (flat?) rate.  Therefore the rich are paying MUCH
less than your alleged peak.

Whose side are on, anyway?

> And remember that maximizing state budget incomes is not the only goal of
> the economy.

At least you admit that it is one of the goals.

> Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:19:47 EST
From:         Joseph D Terwilliger <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re:
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Michael.

     I do not understand how you can consider "rightists" to be
abnormal.  If that is the case, and normality has something to do with
the average American, then why is it that Reagan (the only REAL
rightist president of the last several decades) won with such
overwhelming majorities in 1980 and 1984???  Sounds like the norm in
America is to be a conservative...  Do not say that Bush's loss is
proof that rightists are out-of-favor, since Bush is about as far to
the left as one can get without becoming a Democrat...

--Dr. Pizz--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet", IN%"swf7q@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:59:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: help
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet, swf7q@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu

Scott:
>Can anyone tell me how to tell the system not to send me any messages while
>I'm away on break?

Sure.  Send the following command via interactive command to the listserv
that you get your messages through (either listserv@ohstvma or listserv@
ucf1vm):

set politics nomail

You'll still be on the subscription list, but won't be sent mail until
you send this command:

set politics mail

to listserv.

Also, if the links are down, or if you don't have interactive messaging
capability or access or such, you can send the command in an e-mail message
to the listserv, leaving the subject line blank and having the command as
the only line of text in the message.  This method is especially useful if
you decide to leave matters until the last second.

(I'm sending this to the list, as there's bound to be lots of others who
want to know).

>  Scott W. Fischer

FAQ update: it's coming together, about 400 lines thus far (most of that the
politics rules from the ucf1vm archives).  I should have it done by this
weekend.  I know, I said that last weekend, but look at it this way: I'm not
above budget...:) )

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:54:18 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL

On Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:24:50 MET Grzegorz Albinowski said:
>
>K=A*T pisze:
>>>
>>> > Homosexuals have the same right to have a life and property, and to defend
>>> > those rights in the court.But they are NOT normal, and I think that should
> be
>>> > clearly stated.
>>>
>>> > Caius.
>>>
>>> Would you please define "normal."
>>>
>
>Homosexuals are not normal. They can do whatever they want in private,
>but I don't think we all have to consider they normal.
>

I estimate, by now, that you have been asked about six times to define what
you mean by normal.  I would be grateful if you would stop ignoring the
question and define "normal" in positive terms.  What is "normal"?  It must
be more than something which homosexuals are not.

From a moral point of view, Poland and Ireland are very similar.  Both are
predominantly Catholic, with a particular reverence towards the v/Virgin
Mary (I'm not getting into another argument about semantics here B-)).
Homosexuality is still illegal in this country, despite European Court of
Justice rulings to repeal that legislation.  Anti-homosexual legislation is
largely ignored anyway, the Irish president recently met a gay and lesbian
delegation.

I'm not really sure what point I'm trying to make here.  I think it is the
following.  After the fall of the Communist regime, the Catholic Church began
to assert itself very strongly in Poland, being behind moves to introduce
legislation to ban abortion, and restrict homosexual rights (correct me if I
am wrong).  Thus, parallels between Poland and Ireland are strikingly similar.

The Catholic Church in Ireland was sustained for centuries by being a sign of
rebellion against the protestant ruling power (Britain).  It may help explain
why the Reformation never succeeded in Ireland.  Similarly, the Polish Catholic
church was a sign of rebellion against athiest rulers (Communists).  Both
churches have been able to capitalise on their place in society since
independence from those rulers, and influence social mores to a greater extent
than they may have if a more pluralist regime had been in place.  Eventually,
however, the influence of the church in Ireland has begun to wane, and a
kinder, gentler attitude towards homosexuals has developed.

In short, I think we should see Caius' attitude as being mindlessly Catholic,
otherwise he may be have been able to define "normal".  This attitude will
soften, though it may take some time.

>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


james
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Some replies...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:54:53 GMT

I've been terribly active the past couple of days.  I apologize.
I'll be on vacation soon, and none of you will hear from me for
a week, most likely.

>I have been going back and forth with Dr Pizz on this thread for some time -
>longer, I believe, than Tim.  That is of no consequence, but it is true.

I own a blue Honda.  That is of no consequence, but it is true.

Do us a favor.  Only say things that are of consequence, even if
they are false.

--Jimbo
 


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:03:09 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: new topic -- Que

>Are we to believe that it is typical of Joe Average that when he
>can't think of a rational reply, he calls his interlocutor a
>Nazi? Are there really more of those people than there are of
>us? I wonder.

Nazi, or Neville, or Stalin, or McCarthy, or ....

Yeah, Jamie, I think there are more of them.

                  -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:42:39 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

T.

Again, government has a responsibility to keep its house in order vis a
vis discrimination rules.  They also have the responsibility to award
government contracts in a way that does not benefit those who
discriminate, and they have the right to refuse to give financial and
other aid benefits to them.  Whenever federal money is involved, they
can insist on whatever they want, and they should!  However, if the
business is completely privately owned, operated, funded, etc., the
government has no business getting involved.

Pizz
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: rightist
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:36:53 GMT


Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:

>The Nazis tried to call themself rightist just to gain people supprt, bu
>that DOES NOT mean that they really are. It is not a proof.
>The terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media, who want to
>confuse the real terminology.

Grzegorz,

You're new to the list, so you don't know me.  I've been watching
your posts with some interest, since I think that you and I may
have some similar ideas on some subjects.  For example, I noticed
that you cited a book published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
an organization of which I am a member.  I went to Auburn University
as an undergraduate, and I know some of the economists there.

I want to warn you to be careful with your quantifiers.  The statement
that 'this terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media'
is simply false.  I am not a member of the media, and I am not a 
leftist.  Yet, I accept the terminology.  "only" is a powerful word,
use it wisely.


--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:11:03 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        CNN is broadcasting a statement by Clinton that the FDA should consider
approving RU-486.

Brett'
the un-Kibo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU