HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A suggestion for presidential election reform
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:12:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.si67sINNrr3
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <DPASSAGE.92Apr15134137@eden.Berkeley.EDU> dpassage@eden.Berkeley.EDU (David Paschich) writes:
> Because in the case of no candidate receiving a majority, the House
> decides from among the top 3 candidates.  This will almost certainly
> go to the Democrats, unless you expect the Libertarians to take more
> than 50% of the state delegations...

Even that wouldn't help, because the vote would probably be taken
before the new people take office.  There would be a fair number of
lame-duck Congresspeople involved in such a vote, and given a choice
between supporting their party or obeying the will of the people of
their state, which would they pick?

I would like to think that if California voted more than 50% for
Perot, our delegation would support him, but I have a feeling that
they wouldn't.  This is probably why Clinton will win, if Perot does
well but not great -- nobody will get more than 50%, and the House
will go with Clinton no matter who has the pluraliy.

	Wayne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<1992Apr8.063113.27772@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr9.155317.16622@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:54:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.155317.16622@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:

   > ... Did you know that in Texas, there is enough
   >room for all 5 Billion people in this world to live, in a healthy manner raising
   >enough food to support themselves?

   Is this the kind of thing that makes libertarians? 

Not so far as I know. I would hardly deem it a libertarian opinion.
Don't assume that just because some random libertarian says something
means that ALL libertarians believe it.

However, I will note that R. Buckminster Fuller once asserted that
with proper engineering he could comfortably fit the whole of the
world's population in the U.K. I've never seen how he proposed to do
it, so I have no idea if the idea is feasable or not.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government governs best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
From: jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick Jovanovic)
Subject: Re: How to fix the country
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:21:52 GMT

In article <rdippold.703293378@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole) writes:
>>|> And that's the way to fix it, not with another worthless law.  Make it
>I don't want them embarassed into joblessness and destitution.
>Someone just steps in to replace them.  I just want the company to
>realize that especially when the company is performing badly, the
>disparity between CEO and employee wages can be a source of bad public
>relations and employee resentment.
>-- 

I read that Ben & Jerry's in Vermont has codified limitations on the
salary structure of the company.  I think the ratio of highest to
lowest paid employee at the company can never be more than 7.  Does
anyone know the details of their rules?  If so, please post.  This
would seem to me to be very good for morale compared to companies
at which this ratio is in the hundreds.  The morale factor translates
into an economic factor due to increased product quality and company
loyalty. 

-Nick Jovanovic


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: olsen@kailasa.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Tax
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:37:57 GMT

williamf@umbc2.umbc.edu writes:

>In order to keep federal revenues at or near prevailing levels
>the VAT will HAVE to be broadbased, ie most, if not all, basic
>items that lower incomed folks purchase will be taxed.  Since
>businesses traditionally pass on a portion of their taxes in the
>form of higher prices, low & middle incomed folks will pay close
>to that 30 % figure.

Most VAT proposal's (and I believe Brown's is among them) propose
to have the VAT replace the current corporate income tax (which is
shot full of loopholes).  I quite agree that some of the VAT will
be passed on, and will impact low-income people.

What I don't understand is why you think that the current corporate
income tax DOESN'T get passed on to comsumers, and impact low-income
people.  The VAT proposal is replacing one corporate tax with another.
WHY would the VAT be passed on to consumers more than the current
corporate tax is?
--
Jim Olsen     olsen@mit.edu
"A signature virus must be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:00:56 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <Apr.16.11.57.23.1992.20358@math.rutgers.edu> aboufade@math.rutgers.edu (Edward F. Aboufadel) writes:
>
>
>In <804@niktow.canisius.edu>, tami@niktow.canisius.edu (Tami Crawford) writes:
>
>
>>Why is it considered bad to want to be president?
>
>	I don't think it is considered bad to want to be president.
>
>	I think it is bad to be obsessed with becoming president, to
>the point that most or all of your personal decisions (choice of
>friends, etc.) are influenced by this desire.


If he really was obsessed with being president he would have
stopped having affairs at least after Gary Hart in 1988. :-)






>
>>Maybe Clinton won't be able to make a difference, but it
>>seems that he *wants* to and that he *believes* he can.
>>I would argue that wanting and believing are 
>>necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for being
>>a good president.
>
>>I think Bush wants to be president, but does not believe
>>he can make a difference.  That's why he is making
>>so many obviously politically motiviated moves - he
>>wants to win but has no particular agenda to pursue
>>so does whatever he thinks will aid him politically.
>
>>I think Perot wants to be president because he 
>>thinks he can make a difference.
>
>	If someone is obsessed with becoming president, then I wonder
>if he or she really wants to make a difference or instead simply has a
>lust for power.  This is your (and my) perception of Bush.  Bush
>strikes me as wanting to be president so that no one else is.
>
>	If you want to make a difference, then there are plenty of
>ways to do so other than being president.  Consider Martin Luther
>King, Jr.
>
>
But obviously being president is one way of making a difference.




>Ed Aboufadel
>Rutgers U.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Sold Down the River...
Keywords: deficit
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:10:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.015535.29754@athena.mit.edu> hhuang@m4-035-19.MIT.EDU (Han-Young Huang) writes:
>
|
|Under the Libertarian chart, this pattern is called Authoritarian.  Yes, these
|old folks are the "down-most" of us all, and it is none too humorous when
|Democrats have to pander to them.  When 46% (lowest figure I've heard,
|Republicans have mentioned 52%) of taxes goes towards Entitlements, and our
|taxes aren't even enough to pay off the annual deficit, let alone the public
|debt, then something is very wrong.

I suggest you call your Congressperson or Senator and ask them to send
you a summary statement of the budget. You might be surprised.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer





Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dmr@roadkill.Stanford.EDU (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: Flat Tax lowers taxes on poor
Organization: The Very Large Software Company of America
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:00:22 GMT

weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:

>Why has the call for a flat tax rate been taken up by liberals?

>The reason we find some liberals against flat tax and some conservatives for
>flat tax, is that they don't realize that the current system is regressive.  The

Whether or not the current system is regressive, I think it's guaranteed the
Brown flat tax proposal will be even *more* regressive. See below...

>Businesses pass on the cost of value added tax to the consumer by raising
>prices.  If the $20,000 family spends all of the after-rent money and this is
>taxed at 13% the additional tax burden is $1,664.  Even if we don't include the
>current taxes passed on to consumers by businesses, the total taxes paid by the
>low income family is less under flat tax than under the current system.
>If the $60,000 family spends $40,000 after-mortgage money each year on items
>that are burdened by value added tax, the additional taxes are only $5,200.
>This is still less than the current system.

Brown's flat tax proposal includes a value-added tax. That means that
lower-income consumers -- who spend most of their disposable income
instead of investing it by necessity on things like food and clothes --
will be taxed on all of it. Meanwhile, the rich get to avoid the value-added
tax on the money they don't save.

If you check Brown's arithmetic a bit more, you'll realize that he probably
can't get away with the ridiculously low flat rate he's proposed without
making up for the money somewhere. (He mentions "streamlining and
government efficiency" and other vagueness.) Chances are the flat tax
will be more in the 20% range.

The lower income folks would get *reamed* under this scheme, I think.

--
# (NeXT)Mail: dmr@roadkill.Stanford.EDU     dmr%roadkill@stanford.BITNET
#                                    {apple, ucbvax}!labrea!roadkill!dmr
# [ I can't ] relax.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: How to fix the country
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:00:22 GMT

cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole) writes:
>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.

And that's the way to fix it, not with another worthless law.  Make it
embarassing, not illegal.
-- 
The fact that boys are allowed to exist at all is evidence of a remarkable
Christian forbearance among men.  -- Ambrose Bierce
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 17:58:20 EDT
From: <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Downtown Jerry Brown

Well, I got to see Gov. Moonbeam close up today when he spoke on our
campus.  It's nice to hear someone who is clearly aware of environmental
issues, but I didn't hear any real solutions.  A woman walked on stage
and handed him a copy of "America: what went wrong?" so if he starts
spouting figures from that book, you'll know where he got it from.
(Unless of course, he's already read it)

Mr. It's OK, I didn't exhale claimed that this rally was the biggest of his
entire campaign so far.

During the question and answer session (3 questions), he targeted only
the loaded questions that were guaranteed applause.  Why do these guys
even bother to take questions if it's only going to be for such a short
time?

His stances as presented in his speech:
-Immediately create millions of jobs to rebuild America's failing
 infrastructure.
-The flat tax rate with no loopholes
-Export efficient technology so other countries can use it to
 avoid destroying the environment
-Cut defense drastically and only keep what we need
-Rebuild American industry via tax reform and trade, very opposed
 to the export of jobs to Mexico and elsewhere
-Stressed the out of touch state of congress

It was fun to actually see one of the candidates up close (within 30 feet)
but these rallies REALLY are as bad as they look on TV...

Scott
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:790 alt.news-media:210
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: The Capricious Us
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:57:55 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Apr7211833@pop-tarts.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>
>I've been following the campaign closely and I hear a lot of stuff off
>Headline News and read a lot of stuff in the New York Times, New
>Republic and various pseudo newszines like Time and Newsweek and I'm
>curious:  why is the media going after Clinton, Brown etc like mad
>dogs but ignoring Bush?
>
> ...
>Is this the presidential equivalent of the incumbent effect or what?
>Or will this happen after June?

It might.  I'm pretty interested to see what happens when Roe v. Wade
gets overturned.  Look for it in late June.  The ecological summit in
Rio de Janeiro is likely to be a wash for the US, and BUsh will look
even worse.
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot running mate...
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:17:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s2fpoINN4ni
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <ly4t-b_@rpi.edu> goldm@sage4a.its.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
> 2.  Phase out spending on aid to foreign governments and international
> organizations such as  the World Bank  and the International  Monetary
> Fund.

This is silly.  Are you really saying that investment in the
well-being of other countries is never beneficial to us?

> 5.   End  all  federally  mandated  programs  forced  on  individuals,
> organizations, and businesses.

You guys are always so dogmatic and narrow-minded.  Either you are
claiming that (1) no such programs are good, or (2) by definition they
cannot be good since they involve coercion.  If (1), you have a heck
of a lot of detailed evidence to present, and if (2) you have to
convince people of the axiom, "coercion is bad".  This is neither a
popular nor a reasonable axiom, in my opinion.

	Wayne
From: viejones@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael A. Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Please post NY ballot
Date: 5 Apr 92 19:08:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <rlb4rINNmo0@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes...
> 
>If someone from New York would be kind enough to post the 
>candidates on the Empire State primary ballots (esp.  Democrat),
>we could take our best shots at predicting the Tuesday results.
>Thanks.

According to the _Buffalo News_ (That means you have to take everything
that follows with a grain of salt), we'll be voting both for the presidental 
candidate of our choice and for delegates pledged to particular candidates on
Tuesday.

Candidates on the Ballot in the Democratic Primary

Larry Agran

Bob Kerrey

Jerry Brown

Tom Harkin

Eugene McCarthy

Bill Clinton

Paul Tsongas


McCarthy and Agran are considered protest candidates.  All the other candidates
except Brown and Clinton have suspended their campaigns.


As for delegates, Kerrey, Harkin and Clinton have a full slate of pledged 
delegates in all of the Congressional districts in Western New York (30-34).
Agran, Brown and McCarthy have no delegates pledged to them.  Tsongas has 
delegates only in the 33rd district.  Don't know what the delegate situation
is like in the rest of the state.


For the Republicans, I think Bush is the only candidate on the ballot.


					Mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth)
Subject: Looking for Libertarian party info
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:05:36 GMT

I'm  interested in the Libertarian party info, but don't know where to
find any....
Keywords: 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: flat tax
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:10:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.113512.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
 
>A note about Brown's flat tax:
>
>                                                                 Right now, you
>pay 7.65% for social security (up to 50,000 in income) and then 28% in federal
>income tax.  That adds up to about 35%.
 
This analysis is flawed.  It assumes you pay the 28% rate on all
income, which is incorrect.  You take out deductions and personal
exemptions, then pay 15% on all income up to the bottom of the 28%
bracket.  Only the dollars above that point are taxed at 28%.  This
makes the effective rate *much* less than 35%.  To find out your own
effective rate, add your total income tax and FICA, then divide it by
your *GROSS* income.  The result will be much less than 35%.
 
>                                         This also ignores the fact that any
>corporate tax is tacked onto the price of any item you buy, so that you are
>really paying 35%+.  If all of Brown's tax is passed on, you will pay 26%.
>That's a 9% decrease.  Now, of course, that assumes you have no deductions,
>which I admit is silly to assume,
 
You are absolutely correct here.  It is silly to ignore deductions.
My deductions average about 1/3 of my gross income, and I never hit the
28% bracket.  My effective federal tax rate is about 18%.
 
>                                  but unless you can deduct 9%+corporate tax,
>(which is at least 1/3 of the federal tax) you'll pay less under Brown.
 
I don't understand what you are saying here....deduct 9% of *what* plus
*what* corporate tax?
 
>   The difference will be in the deductions.  If the loopholes are closed, the
>tax will be flat at worst or progressive, if not it will be as regressive as
>the tax we have now.
 
Agreed.  The tax system is a mess, and needs to be fixed.  If we want
to be really fair, we need to have a personal exemption large enough to
exempt poor people from tax, then eliminate all other deductions.  No
politician will propose that, though, because the middle class relies
on the mortgage interest deduction, along with the real-estate industry.
 
After that, we can argue about rates.  I would prefer a graduated rate,
others would argue for a flat rate.  The key, though, is to eliminate
the deductions.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<1992Apr6.100838.4157@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU>
	<visser.702600386@convex.convex.com>
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:10:28 GMT


   +>Which brings up a question I've had, which I hope the net.libs can
   +>answer.  What's the Libertarian position on incorporation?  

	   The current platform refers to incorporation as a "right".  

You know, I think you ought to be a bit more accurate about what you
say. Incorporation per se, as in limited liability, is NOT supported
by the LP. In particular (this is old language, taken from the '90
platform, but bear with me):

"We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives,
and other types of companies based on voluntary association.  Laws of
incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege.  In
particular, we oppose special limits on the liability of corporations
for damages caused in noncontractual transactions."

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government is best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: PAC's  Lets have a real democracy
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:44:55 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <TOM.92Apr15070856@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
>Actually, I have though about PACs a lot. One thought I had was to use PACs
>to get the same effect as public financing.
>
>   * Start a national oversight organization.
>
>   * Form local PACs around the country informally affiliated with the
>     national organization (due to limits on PACs, we can't have just 1 PAC,
>     we have to have lots and lots of them, just like the S&Ls or the real
>     estate industry).
>
>   * The PACs contribute money equally to all candidates who get on the
>     ballot (ballot access reform is a separate issue...) and who will sign
>     a pledge to not take money from any PACs not affiliated with the
>     oversight organization. The candidates must also sign a pledge to
>     remove any campaign advertisements the oversight organization finds to
>     be misleading or downright false.
>
>There is, of course, one major obstacle: Getting the PACs successful enough
>at raising money to outbid the other special interest groups so the
>candidates are willing to sign the pledge...

  No,no,no,no- NO PACS!   Why should special interests get more attention
from a politician than the constituients (you and me)?   The whole idea is 
un-democratic and subject to corruption.

    I'm not against supporting a candidate, but as far as monetary support
goes, it should be a level playing field for all candidates.  Because
of franking priveledges however, the incumbent still has the edge :-(

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:53:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

Jason W Solinsky writes:
|> Alot of people have asked for evidence that regulations can destroy a place, but
|> Anthony Koumis has absolutely no excuse. I know you people don't get out often,
|> but next time it is as sunny as it was yesterday, take a walk through cambridge.
|> Look at all of the housing projects, and all the rent controlled buildings that
|> have been abandoned, because payments on rent control were not enough to pay for
|> maintenance. One third of the kids in Cambridge are born in poverty. They are
|> going to stay in the city because their parents are paid to do so by the
|> government. They are even given housing by the government. Compare what that city
|> produces as a whole to what it consumes. Our end of town (where all the housing
|> projects and things seem to have wound up) would collapse, if it weren't for all
|> of the start-up's needs to stay close to MIT. LOOK AROUND YOU at Cambridge, one
|> of the most regulated cities in the entire USA. Is what you see good?

Goota agree with you there, Jason.  Rent control is discredited with all but the
politicians who feel it helps keep them in office.

Now, let's dicuss the idea that people are paid to stay in Cambridge -- or anywhere
else -- through entitlement programs.  If you watch closely enough, you'll note
that some coterie of folks move to the gighest-paying welfare state in order to get
more benefits.  Some put down roots and others are really gypsies.  Some states make
it easy to qualify for welfare and others make it more difficult.  We may be splitting
hairs, but I contend that these people are coerced into staying, not paid to stay.

/Bill
To do right, love kindness & walk humbly