HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: new tax scheme
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:11:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"

Hi again Kerry.  I hope you enjoyed your trip! :)

>Also, how on earth do we
>keep track of spending?  Do I keep all my receipts for everything
>throughout the year?  Or do all my local stores send me little forms (like
>my W2) at the end of the year?  Sounds like a nightmare.

I oppose this plan, but it wouldn't be that hard to figure out consumption.
You could just have people list their income and subtract from it the ammount
they saved (additions to bank accounts, securities purchases, etc).  Everything
else is consumption spending.  This seems reasonable, since I can't think of
anything offhand that doesn't fall into the categories of either consumption or
saving.

Of course, if you try to break consumption down into different types of
consumption (as Dustan proposed), things get more complicated.  THEN I think
you would have to resort to receipts or something similar.  But I don't think
that's what is being proposed.  If you wanted to tax some kinds of consumption
more than others, the VAT would be a lot easier (which I also oppose,
incidentally).

>Finally, I
>thought the general idea with taxes was something like: whatever you want
>people to do, don't tax it; what you *don't* want folks to do, tax it.  If
>we are to tax consumption but not savings, then we'd be encouraging saving
>over spending.  Now, that may not be a bad idea, but won't that have a
>pretty nasty effect on the economy?  If folks cut consumption down to food,
>clothing, and shelter, then even more people will be out of work, no?

Yes, taxing consumption will definately hurt the economy in the short run.  In
the long run, though, it probably wouldn't do much damage.  In fact, a tax code
which encourages savings *could* increase economic growth in the long run,
assuming that savings translate into increases in the capital stock and
therefore increase worker productivity.

>Kerry

Jason
From: KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Intervention, Militarization,
              and Wars
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:06:25 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              28 Sep 1992 03:59:31 GMT from <harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU>

Oh, now *here's* a surprising bit of news.  The Mennonite Central Committee
Peace Section is against weapons and war.

What a shock.

And what a ridiculous choice of sources for a political discussion.
Don't forget--Anabaptists are generally opposed to violence, war,
and citizenship in civil society.

Next you'll be telling me that The International Brotherhood of Marxist
Wannabes are opposed to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Gee.  The things you learn on this list.


--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:13:08 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Presidential Poll from NY

If you're interested, the Marist Institute released a poll on
Friday that shows where the candidates stand in New York State.
Among likely voters:

     Clinton   50.2%
     Bush      31.0%
     Perot      9.6%
     Undecided  9.2%

The poll sampled likely voters from across the state and found that
Clinton's support is solid on a state-wide basis.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:29:46 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      perot, perot, perot your boat; or,
              i'm voting for chauncey gardner

for those of you who care in the least, the perot toll-free number thing is
a complete scam.  here's the rest..............ofthestory.
you can call h.ross at 1-800-925-1300, but do not expect that you will get to
leave a message or anything.  do not even expect that you will get to
express your choice:  if you call, it is assumed that you are supporting
mr. perot's campaign.  i figured at least that i'd get one of those tinny
little voices telling me "your call is very important to us.  please hold,
and a service representative will be with you in a moment."  barring that,
i figured on "if you are calling from a touch-tone phone, please press 1
if you think that ross is the savior of the western world.  press 2 if you
think he's a presumptious little b*&%#!@@ and you think he should fade into
the political trivia books.  press 3 if you really couldn't care less.  press
4 if you'd like to buy a ross-for-boss t-shirt."  but that is not the case.
they just say "hi!" (actually, it's more like "hah", since it is a pleasant
southern voice.) "thank you for calling united we stand america.  mr. perot
thanks you for your expression of your support. 31, d."  so keep in mind
that those figures of 500,000 calls of support for ross perot in the first
half hour of its inception yesterday should really be more like 499,999
calls of support, and anneliese feeling a bit gypped.
just want to make everything, you know, accurate.

chance the gardener is looking better and better all the time.  i think
chance was probably a mason.  it's possible.

                       anneliese "masonic youth rules!  what, you mean that's
                       not their name?" l.
From: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: media & ross perot (#
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:55:28 EST
Reply-To: "lois laulicht" <lois.laulicht@channel1.com>
Distribution: bit
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

(Continued from the previous message)


Their mouth pieces, the media, will talk about a Perot who is going to 
lose.  They will play that line like a broken record.  It is their 
conviction that much of America is only serious about beer, football, 
and maybe a two week vacation in Las Vegas...and of course, a winner. 
They will insist that Perot has no program, that he is thin skinned, 
spies on workers, is engaged in frivolous campaigning to get even with 
George Bush, is autocratic like Hitler, is buying the election, is a 
QUITTER, is a stupid billionaire with no politicAL savvy, is an 
egotist, and is  generally a no-goodnik.


If you or a family member have lost your job recently, had to take a pay cut
to stay employed, cannot afford to send your kids to college, or have lost
your farm or home as a result of the now almost-acknowledged triple dip
recession...you'll think about Perot long and hard.  If you've seen your
job move south of the border and have become medically indigent...you'll
think about Perot long and hard.  If you and your spouse are working longer
and harder and seeing each other and your kids less and less...you'll think
about Perot long and hard. If you are concerned with whether your adult
children will be able to hold on to their jobs and advance, you will 
think about Perot long and hard.

Many of us have come to the place where we recognize that we must
reorder our priorties unless it is our intention to allow vast
numbers of Americans to either mark time in place or slip further down
the economic ladder. If you know that we as a nation can do very much
better, that the loss of American dignity and respect was not due to the
ruthless Communists but to the victorious international corporations who
support BOTH political parties, and have no loyality to you and yours...
you'll keep an open mind and think about Ross Perot.

October 5, 1992

-lois
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #10184  Watch the polls change now that Perot is back!
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:40:38 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Dropping Out ( was: Education )
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              30 Sep 1992 16:34:58 -0400 from <KILBURN%WVSVAX.WV
              NET.EDU@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:34:58 -0400 <KILBURN%WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-ST

>I was thinking specifically of dropout rates -- Arkansas' rates are
>declining (they're number 18, I think) while national rates are increasing.
>On one of those call-in shows, Clinton talked about what they've done to
>achieve that success, and it sounded pretty good.

On a similar, but related issue, the Chicago Public School System is
dropping a large percentage of the sports programs because of funding.
One of the suggested side effects will be lack of opportunity for
students to go on to college or juke because they won't be able to
get a scout's eye for scholarships.  This situation is expected to
increase the dropout rate for those who won't go on.  The professional
teams are being solicited for funds but most of the replies have been
negative so far -- the standard answer being the funding already committed
to academic programs so as to not appear to be playing favourites.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:37:56 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cable bill revisited

>>> It is as simple as that.  If you ask for monopoly, we are
>>> gonna impose price control.  Since the cable companies are
>>> not willing to give up the monopoly we will give them the
>>> price control.
>
>> Hint: the cable companies don't have to be willing to give up the
>> monopoly.  It is an artificial monopoly that will fail without our
>> continued actions to maintain it.
>
>Hint: I already agreed that, if possible, I prefer competition.

Yet, KAT supports legislation that moves away from what he
claims (in that sentence) to prefer.

>The thing is that it is not the people who grant monopolies;
>it is the politicians.  So after this "club" (good analogy
>for monopoly used by Andy) is given to these companies,
>they start swinging at you, and swinging hard.  So then
>after a while people are fed up and start thinking about
>taking back the "club."  What is wrong with that?  Don't
>people have the right to take the "club" back?

If it's the politicians who grant the monopolies, then how are the
people getting something done on said people's behalf, whether it is
padding the club or taking it back?  Oh, I get it.  People do
good things but have bad things done to them.

In any event, the supporters of the cable bill aren't trying to take
the club back, they're trying to pad it.

>>> OK.  But are you also against monopolies?
>
>> I'm against artificial monopolies.  However, if we insist on creating
>> them, I think they should be given free reign to teach us why we
>> shouldn't do that.
>
>Sorta like "we deserve what is coming to us," right?

Not at all.  Padding the club is even worse for "us".  (It turns out
that I personally benefit quite a bit from "padding the club" as my SO
is in the legal racket.)  At best, we get hit with a pretty club.

>> Creating a monopoly is like giving someone a club and letting them
>> take swings at you.  KAT thinks that the appropriate response is to
>> ask them to swing gently and maybe put a pad on the club; I think that
>> we shouldn't create the situation in the first place.
>
>Say we made a mistake and gave away the "club."  Why shouldn't
>we be allowed to take it back?

You should, and that's what's wrong with the cable bill.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:25:48 BST
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: soylent green is made of people! soylent green is made of
              people!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

liese:
[stuff deleted]
>one quick political question...not to get us started on this particular
>topic again...but why does denmark's "no" vote on the maastricht treaty, like,
>not count?  will britain's "no" vote not count, either?

Denmark's "no" does count. Unless Denmark ratifies the treaty, it will
fall. Major is flying around Europe trying to bodge out a compromise
which will gt maastricht ratified. I don't hold out much hope myself.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:15:09 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Education and money
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              25 Sep 1992 22:20:19 EDT from <MMORSE%YORKVM1.BITN
              ET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:20:19 EDT <MMORSE%YORKVM1.BITNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.E
>Dear Jimbo,
>  If, as you say, every education major is a complete bonehead, then
>that confirms my point. Our value system inculcates us all with such
>contempt for the educational system that only subrobertian mediocrities
>would ever dare to enter it. Again, what kind of teaching core do you
>*expect* to find in a society which says "those who can, do, those who
>can't teach"? I'm treating that statement not as a rueful diagnosis of

I thought it was "those who can, do, those who can't, teach, and those
who can't teach, administrate"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Perot--in, out, what?
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:38:21 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> Wasn't it cool when Mike Wallace called up and accused Perot of avoiding
> the real press and Larry of "tossing softballs"?  That was neat.  They
> both acted like they'd been caught at something.  (I also think it's odd
> how people like Cher and Mike Wallace call in to the Larry King show,
> when the talk show format is supposed to be for the people--you know,
> "the Owners of the Country.")

I agree with you that the questions from Larry King were not
hard ones (some of the call-in question were not that bad).
However Perot/King could have answered Mike in a much better
fashion.  They could have said: 1) Mike Wallace can call Larry
King Live but Larry King cannot call 60 Minutes and 2) When
was the last time Bush appeared on 60 Minutes, or any other
show.  Oops, I forgot, he did appear on Rush Limbaugh's shows.
Now those questions by Rush were really hard questions (wink,
wink).

> Perot just wants everybody in the country to get down on their knees and
> *beg* him to be president.  Definitely a passive/negative.

I kinda agree.  I think it was demeaning that Bush People and
Clinton people went to pay homage in Dallas.  And I further
agree with what you said earlier: Bush or Clinton would have
scored well with me (and I hope with some segments of the population)
had they said to Perot, "Look, our positions are clear and
declared.  If you want to run, run.  If you want to support us,
fine.  But we are not gonna come to you to Dallas to explain
our position, ask for forgiveness, and then maybe have your
support."

> --Missy P 2 BzP3xdm~q%ck6$Pw

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:18:58 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot takes the plunge
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              2 Oct 1992 09:34:12 EDT from <CCCS%VTVM1.BITNET@OH
              STVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:34:12 EDT todddddddddd pukanecz said:
>  The Clinton shill on McNeil/Lehrer wasn't concerned about Perot in the
>race.  His theory was that once people get to the booth, they will want
>their vote to count.  Perot will not be perceived as being able to win,

The Clinton flunkie said he wasn't concerned.  That doesn't make it so.
Since Perot ducked out once, the burden is upon him to regain
legitimacy.  Why should those who are considered legitimate help him
do so?  Whether they are really concerned or not, they cannot give
him too much credence lest the voters begin to think he is for real.

The only flaw in this reasoning (or in their actions) was the
sending of emissaries to meet /c H. Ross' people.  Had they ignored
that, it might have hurt him more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:18:57 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re:Rush

Hello this fine Monday morning,

> They might stay home election night and moan and groan about how bad
things are.

Us?  Never.  Funny you mentioned 'moan and groan' though, because that is
what I heard during the Democratic National Convention.  Didn't Mr. Clinton
say that we must sacrifice and suffer?  What does he think we have been doing
the past 2 years under that auspices of a 1990 Democratic dominated budget?

Moaning and groaning.  And so will individuals and small businesses if Clinton
is elected.  I certainly hope you can afford 156 billion in new taxes.

Now that's something to moan and groan about, my friend.

Sue Clark

Revised Clinton EZ, 1040, 1040A, and any other Tax Form:

1) How much did you make last year:

2) Send it in:
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:18:15 BST
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Simple(?) questions
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Mark:
[stuff deleted]
>  I understand  that privatization  is designed to  relieve some  of the
>burden the  government bears  in services for  the public,  but wouldn't
>increased  competition  still  require   some  regulation?  I  know  the
>question I  posed is a  bit unclear, so I  will attempt to  construct an
>example.
[more stuff deleted]

The example you constructed does not match up with competition in
public services as practiced in the UK. for several years now various
services which are provided by the council have been becoming subject
to "Compulsory Competitive Tendering". I have been deeply involved in
this as a Borough Councillor.

The way it works here is that central government tells local governmnt
that certain sevices must be open to competitive tender by a certain
date. The service is still provided by the Council, and we still tax
people to pay for it, but rather than providing the service ourselves
we invite tenders and make a contract with a private sector company to
provide the service to the local people.

The Council's own works unit is allowed to bid for the job, but
legislation lays down rates of return etc on which such a bid can be
based. So far a bit over half the work we have put out to tender has
been placed with the Works unit, with less than half going to private
companies.

If you want me to elaborate on this at all, let me know.

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:49:30 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Education and money
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              26 Sep 1992 20:40:50 EDT from <PL436000%BROWNVM.BI
              TNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:40:50 EDT Jamie said:
>>From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
>
>>I thought it was "those who can, do, those who can't, teach, and those
>>who can't teach, administrate"
>
>ARGH! "administer." "administrate" is a horrible word.


My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says "Aministrate:  administer"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:18:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Jefferson's Party

>From: todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>

[from someone else, not me or Todddddddddddd]
>k.  The only solutions Clinton offers is more government....If Jefferson were a
>live today he would be a Republican.

>Guess again.  He would have been a Libertarian.

Agreed!

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:32:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Just as carl has quieted down

>From: Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>  I wonder, Jason, whether you think
>there is anyone but you who believes
>that.  This may come as a surprise to
>you, but it isn't the noisiest who wins.

I agree wholeheartedly.

>  If you are simply and consciously
>puffing yourself up here so your ego
>won't suffer from your having been
>bested, then I apologize for spoiling
>that for you.  But if you actually
>*believe* what you are saying, then
>someone needed to provide the reality
>check.

Unfortunately, I think you missed the occasion which so irked Jaime.  For
several days we argued over the merits/demerits of abolishing
anti-discrimination laws.  We made no progress, because she completely refused
to address any of my claims, specifically that discrimination is costly to
firms.  Rather than actually show WHY discrimination was not costly or show any
evidence to support her point (I had done so), she resorted to a hypothetical
example, which merely repeated arguments I had answered days ago.  When I
argued, one last time why such a cartel could not stand, she merely repeated
her original assertions with no additional comment whatsoever.  Then she
apparently got huffy when I pointed out that she had not raised a single new
argument to counter me in days.

Being a student of economics, I know beyond any doubt that I am right on this
point.  Not only am I backed by neoclassical economic theory, but I am also
backed virtually every empirical study that has been done to date, which is why
I was particularly disturbed by her continuous repition of already-discredited
ideas.  On this count she was simply wrong, and most likely realized it.

This is why I was glad to see that she finally abandoned her claims.

And gee, Tim, someday I hope I can reach your level of thoughtful analysis
(yes, you should read some sarcasm into that.  I don't recall reading anything
from you in a while, but maybe I just missed your posts.  In any case, I know
you haven't challenged anything I've said in a long time, if ever.  If you'ld
like to take a shot, feel free.  THEN you can be as condescending as you'd
like.  Until then...)  :)

>-Tim

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU