From: muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:53:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University

In article <1992Aug29.195729.2987@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.173057.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>>	The platform
>>	------------
>>
>>1> Free trade with the world
>>	a> Negotiate elimination of traiffs, subsidies, and
>>	   special taxes on imports with other nations.
>>	b> The goal is to open up free trade. However, those
>>	   nations that present barriers to our goods will
>>	   face similar barriers to their goods at our borders.
>>	c> Another goal is to have this settled with major 
>>	   trading partners in 5 years.
>>
>
>Have you heard of the GATT...

yes i have heardd of gatt 
>
>The US is actually rather more protectionist in a lot of ways
>than is perceived domestically.  Japan is really not all that more
>protectionist than the US.
>
this does not prevent the negotiation of freeing up trade
both ways.

>>2> Balance the federal budget amendment with no loopholes
>>	a> Budget balanced in 5 years
>>	b> Debt to be turned to surplus in 10 years
>
>This (b) would cause a depression...

i believe this to be an unsupported conclusion. there are quite
a few states for example that in the past ran surpluses which did
not cause deperessions of their state economies.  another idea behind
this platform is to reduce the size of the economy that is swolloed up
by the federal government so i dont imagine these surpluses if any
will harm the economy.

really all that has to be done
>is to stop adding to the debt...balance the yearly budget, and
>overtime, economic growth will make the total debt rather irrelevant.

this i believe is the basic theme of the platform

>
>>        c> Special funds may be raised by 2/3 vote by both houses 
>>	   of congress through taxation measures.
>>	d> Only US citizens and US corportions may invest in any
>>	   dept incurred by the federal government. 
>>
>
>(d) is rather stupid...you would just soak up American capital needed
>in other places...if other countries want to invest in America's debt
>that is a good thing...it helps keep interest rates lower.


concluding that this is "stupid" is also unsupported.  in the future
federal government the only time when it will need to borrow money
is during special circumstances like war or disasters.  so it should 
not overly burden the supply of capital.   also the other idea is to
reduce the infuence of non us-citizens and corportations on US fiscal
policy.

>
>>
>>6> Promote famly values by:
>>	a: must show proof of counciling before marraige license
>>	   can be obtained.
>>		-this is not to prevent marraige only
>>	         to do what many ministers do alreay. that is
>>	         to give personality profile tests and talk to
>>	         couples about their similarites and differences.
>>	         these tests have a 94% rate of determining which
>>	         couples will be divorced in 5 years.
>>                 this is mainly to give out that information.
>>                 people can choose their own counselors.
>
>Have you ever heard of common-law relationships...?

yes however the above still applies to the vast majority.
the idea here is to promote the general interest.


>
>>        c: must show proof of counciling to obtain dependant tax
>>	   deduction when filing tax forms.
>>		-no one looses any rights. this is just to discuss
>>		 information. that is proper diet, health care, 
>>	         responsibility and costs.
>>
>
>Sounds like a pretty big "big brother" bureaucracy to me.

maybe you misunderstood . this is exactly like have to show
blood test results in most states before one can get a marraige 
license.  there will be no extra beauracracy. the government will
not supply counselors.  that is up to individuals to find.

>
>>	d: strongly discourage unplanned pregnancies and unprotected sex
>>		-stronger education on these issues
>>	        -parents will be responsible legally and financially
>>		 for their pregnant or sexually transmitted diseased 
>>		 minor children. this also includes male children 
>>	         who got female minor's pregnant.
>
>This probably violates ones constitutional rights...

education and parental rights and responsibily are not unconstitutional.
rather there is a long tradition in western culture for this.
>
>>
>>7. foreign policy that promotes democracy and free trade with other countries
>>	a> use foreign aid as leverage. they dont change they dont
>>	   get aid except for humanitarian aid.
>>	  (as an example like bush's use of loan guarantees for israel)
>>	b> continue to form coalitions in the context of the UN
>>
>
>Most US foreign aid is military aid.
this is irrelevent becuase aid is still aid and hence a bargaining 
chip


>>8. legalize marijuana and cocaine 
>>	(to stop destabiling south american governments)
>>	(to stop drug curruption)
>>	(will expect more drug abuse. but savings on war
>>	on drugs will more then pay for special drug abuse
>>	clinics)
>>        - remove all diminished capacity defenses for those who commit
>>          crimes while under the influence of drugs.
>>	-due proces to be observed for drug related crimes as well as all
>>	 for all other cases before courts in the US.
>>
>
>Does this include stopping US government pressure on Third World
>countries to accept American tobacco in return for favorable trade
>status?
i beleive this is covered under point 1. however i am unfamilir with
any pressure that the us governtment is using to get tobacco accross
boarders.  but it sounds like a new way to open up free trade to me, however.
>
>>
>>14. health care is out of control because of govenment policy.  research ways
>>    to change policy and programs such as medicare and medicaid to keep health 
>>    care costs down.  the working assumption is that socialized medicine 
>>    does *not* work. 
>>	
>>    -promote preventitive care for all ages
>>    -develope incentives for businesses of all sizes to promote prevention in
>>          their work force.
>>    -this means that the government will *not* set up any kind of insurance
>>     rather it will dismantle most of medicare as it stands today.
>>    -hospitals can have what ever equipment they want 
>>    -the idea here is that if the government stops doling out money
>>     to the health care industry their prices will be able to reach
>>     fare market value.
>>    -government incentives to avoid needless redunacy. not evey hospital
>>     need have nmr imaging. coordinate a public/private effort to centralize
>>     test facilities in major populations centers and to provide for test
>>     centers in remote areas.  the idea here is to keep costs down. so that
>>     these devices can be used for preventitive care.
>>
>
>Are you going to eliminate the generous and costly tax exemptions on
>private health insurance for the well off which represents a massive
>government health subsidy for a part of the population?

i am unaware of any special tax exemptions for the rich on their
health insurance policies.  
>
>I encourage you to look at the health systems of European countries,
>Japan, or Canada, and not through the propaganda put out in the
>American media by vested health care industry interests that want
>to keep raiding the American treasury of more dollars than the S&L
>scandal.  The American people are being robbed of $100 billion dollars
>a year by the health care industry.


i agree that US health care is over priced. however my mother is from 
canada and i know enough canadians who come to the US for heath care
even at the higher cost. as well as europens coming here. i believe
the problem is with the US government subsidizing and paying off the 
health care industry through medicare.

>
>>
>>17. allow private companies to develope and launch vehicles into space.
>>	-set up space police and space traffic control laws to 
>>         insure maximal safe exploitation of space.
>>
>
>Since when has the US gained authority to make laws in space?

this refers only to US airspace and traffice control.. certainly some
coordination with other space countries will have to be made.
>
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush