HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lesher@bucknell.edu (timothy lesher `94)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re:  Flat tax vs. progressive tax + some ugly stuff
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:32:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa.

[Discussion of what makes our progressive tax regressive deleted]

Umm... if we already have a progressive tax that is "ruined" by modifications,
which would be easier to enact:  a brand-spanking new flat tax that will spook
people at every level of the public ("A FLAT tax?  And another SALES tax?
Forget it!") and has never been tested in the US., or an overhaul of the
regressive points of our current system, in order to make it less regressive
overall?

When the horse is sick, do you get a new horse, or doctor the old?  I guess
it depends on how sick the horse is.  We have a tax system in place now.
Complete and total conversion would take a LONG time and cost a lot of money,
because we all know how expensive that stuff is which we use to hold a
patchy law together:  red tape. ;)

IMHO:  It would be easier to "hack" our current tax system than install a
completely new one that hasn't been tested.

Tim Lesher, aka "Moskva"             |  lesher@bucknell.edu               .....
.....Perot in '92, Buchanan when hell freezes over!                       .....
....."We're kicking butt and taking initials; we're not stopping          .....
.....long enough for names!"                                              .....
From: folse@crs.cl.msu.edu (Mark Folse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Media and the "Character" Pseudo-Issue (was Brown $100 Limit?)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:18:59 GMT
Reply-To: folse@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Mark Folse)
Distribution: na
Organization: Michigan State University

Scott Cromar Writes: In the first place, employees of the company he hired to run his 800
number are devising ways around the $100 limit.  Moreover, the way
they devised is consistent with a standard practice used to get around
the $1000 legal limit.  I say "standard" because you'll be
hard-pressed to find a campaign whose volunteers will not tell you to
write checks in the names of family members to get around the limit.


What Scotts suggests as "standard", common practice is illegal as a method
of circumventing the current campaign finance laws.  It is neither standard 
nor common, unless Scott contributes to some pretty henious people.

Since Brown is untimatle responsible for waht his fundraisers do, he better
know what they're doing. Becaue the Federal Election Commission will look
at ignorance as a poor defense.

If this story is in fact true, it merely shows how much of a phoney Brown
is.                                            how
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:41:11 GMT

In article <6548@shodha.enet.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr13.202702.2425@udel.edu>, lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes...
>
>>taxes on the rich. God forbid the rich pay there fair share! 
>
>Who decides which persons are "rich"?  Who decides what is a "fair
>share"?  Oh, I see, if you have more "guns" then I have then you are poor
>and I am rich and you'll take from me whatever you want.THAT IS EXACTLY
>WHAT THE DEMOCRATS, AND YOU, ARE SAYING.  "Fair share" is just a code
>phrase for "you've been more successful than me and I want to live off of
>your success".  You are just a greedy bastard.

Look, there are so many loopholes in the tax system that the rich end
up paying virtually nothing, and the middle class ends up bearing the
brunt of the taxes. This is not fair. I would be in favor of something
similar to Jerry Brown's flat tax; everyone pays the same percentage of
income, with only 2 or 3 deductions, rent, mortgage and charity. This 
seems fair. I don't know what your idea of fair is, but don't call me
a greedy bastard when you don't know what mine is.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (James M. Simpson)
Subject: Re: Perot very clear on issues
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:38:46 GMT
X-Bytes: 

I still don't see Perot taking clear stands on any issues. So he says the budged deficit is our biggest problem. Big deal...everybody says that. In case you've forgotten, Ronnie Reagan promised to completely eliminate the deficit in his     first term. Perot says we need to cut spending. OK, so what's he going to 
cut? He hasn't said. He says if we put people to work, we can reduce welfare.
Good idea, everybody agrees. But how's he going to put the people to work?
He says health care is a problem. Again, everybody agrees. So what's he going
to do about it? Appoint a bunch of experts to look for answers. There's 
already a bunch of experts looking for answers.
The man spouts a bunch of platitudes that nobody can disagree with, but
he has not made one concrete proposal for solving any of the problems that
he denounces. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.171650.25690@udel.edu>
lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
 
>In article <6APR92.02212324@umbc2.umbc.edu> williamf@umbc2.umbc.edu writes:
>
>>>Despite what Clinton says the Value Added Tax is NOT a sales tax,
>>>it is a tax on the profits of business.
>
>>  You mean Clinton was REALLY lying to us all along?  Again?  The VAT
>>  in Europe & Britain is tacked right onto the list price.  The customer
>>  pays it at the POS and the retailer is responsible for collecting it and
>>  forwarding it to the government.  That surely appears to be a sales tax
>>  to me.  How is going to differ in the US?
>
>This is how it works in Europe, maybe, but as I said, it is a tax on
>the profits of business. A business takes its income, deducts the costs
>of materials, etc, and multiplies by 13%, and that is how it will pay
>taxes. Either Clinton doesn't understand this, or yes, he's been
>lying.
>
This is not true....the VAT is not a tax on profits.  The VAT is paid
on gross sales less purchases from companies on which VAT has already
been paid.  It is perfectly possible for a company to LOSE MONEY and
still owe VAT.
 
>
>Brian Lintz
>lintz@udel.edu
 
You should learn what a VAT really is before you argue its merits.
 
Jim McMaster
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot very clear on issues
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:57:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:

> 	Granted, the 'study' has been a stall practice in politics for
> a long time. But the pilot program... has the U.S. Government ever
> done a factory-like pilot program on anything before? 

In fact, pilot programs are quite common.  One example that's been in
the news lately was the Wisconsin welfare reform proposal.  I can come
up with other examples if you want.

Of course, it sounds good to assert that the federal government
doesn't do pilot projects now and then assert that you're the only one
proposing them.  Give Perot credit.  He's a very intelligent
demagogue. 

--Scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: gary@clarinet.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Subject: Libertation platform? (Re: Ross Perot, what's his phone #?)
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:12:05 GMT

I promised myself I wouldn't but ...

In article <ritd4INN458@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
|> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|> >strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
|> >> If the LP really does consist of people
|> >>who think and act like the self-proclaimed representatives of the
|> >>party on this net, then I will never vote Libertarian.
|> >But
|> >really, using personalities as an excuse for rejecting a philosophy
|> >which is distasteful to you is really, really pitiful.
|> 
|> Who says I disagree with the Libertarian philosophy?  I'm not exactly
|> sure what the philosophy *IS*!  As I said earlier, the LP is
|> represented by net.assholes.  Not a single one of them has been able to
|> convey the true meaning of their ideology ...
|> The closest thing to a position statement that I have ever heard from a
|> LP poster was a .sig file that said "For Christ's sake, vote
|> Libertarian!"
Now which newsgroup were you reading again?  The newsgroups line says
talk.politics.misc is on here too, so we'll give you the benefit of
the doubt and assume that you're not reading alt.politics.elections.
You should ... several people in that group have discussed, in a fairly
coherent manner, the ideas and platforms of the LP.  I have seen one
fellow in particular mention the same subjects several times.  I have
never read a statement accusing anybody who doesn't subscribe to their
views of any crime other than not subscribing to their views.  In fact,
the LP folks (of which I do not necessarily count myself) have discussed
their positions more rationally than supporters of most of the other
candidates and parties.

And as to which of you folks comes across MY SCREEN as being a
net.asshole, well I'll leave that to any other disinterested observers
who read this group.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot very clear on issues
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:33:29 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (James M. Simpson) writes:

: I still don't see Perot taking clear stands on any issues. 
: So he says the budged deficit is our biggest problem. 
: Perot says we need to cut spending. OK, so what's he going to cut? 

In his most recent news conference, he stuck mostly to old boilerplate
about waste and corruption.  For an antipolitician, he sure sounds
like a candidate.

--Scott
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:578 talk.politics.misc:17410
From: mas@csa.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Electronic town hall (was Re: Ross Perot)
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:55:08 GMT
	<1992Apr6.055137.6789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
	<1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Internet
In-reply-to: ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of 7 Apr 92 19:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU> ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour) writes:

   Furthermore, Perot doesn't want dictatorial powers, he
   wants to educate the public so they can make informed, rational decisions
   about the issues that face our government - note the electronic town
   hall concept.

   Bob

One of the things that no one seems to have brought up about this
proposed interactive-TV vote process is that if one is in control of
what is broadcast over TV, it's very easy to convince people how to
vote.  

Using an extreme example to get my point across, you could have some
voluptuous woman in a bikini seductively telling you to go for it and
push the flashing "Yes" button on your screen.

More realistically, I believe that the idea that Perot proposes is to
have an informative presentation of an issue, immediately followed by
an opportunity for the viewer to vote.  Just how informative would
this presentation be?  How informative is the network news?  This
proposed show could end up being like the new tabloid-news shows.  It's
certainly easy to present any issue with a strong slant, especially if
it's given the right soundtrack and/or produced by the right advertising
agency.  It's also very easy to mis-represent any opposing viewpoint.
The viewer wouldn't even have the chance to learn anything more about
the issue than what is presented on TV, because the vote would
immediataly follow the show!

It seems to me that this electronic town hall idea may sound good, but
has an enormous potential to be mis-used.
--
===========================================================================
        Life is a beautiful dream between one awakening and another.
--   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   --
mark a. semich                                                mas@cs.bu.edu
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 10:08:38 GMT

In article <bma0hy.ff3@wang.com>, fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:

|> When will we get a party that's libertarian on civil-liberties issues, but
|> regards businesses as potential threats to individual rights, just as the
|> government is?  This party would do _very_ well.

Business represents normal people spending money. Business has no power to force
anybody to do anything. The only thing that a business is able to do is spend
money. They get power over people, because people are willing to do things for
them in exchange for goods and services. There is absolutely no philosophical
basis for what you suggest. The only ways that businesses are limmited, are by
governmental regulations that detract from the freedom of their owners.

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:36:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <s3679INN6s0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>Stratocaster
Stratocaster(?)
[  In a prior post Steve Davis (a clear Perot backer) angrily, if not 
coherently, attacks Bush in favor of Perot]


  Look, if you care to debate the issues in a more intelligent manner, I'm more
than willing to.  I understand that in '92 it is popular to see nothing but
red when talking about politics (*I see nothing but red when talking about
poltics*.)

  However, I really don't care to debate with people when they are in
"loud angry voter" mode.  I'm an agry voter to be sure.  I want to see
a White Knight come in and clean up our politics and government as much
as anyone else.  But people on a soapbox ranting are difficult to impossible
to debate with.  I've got others disagreeing with me even on this newsgroup.
However, they debate, not rant and rave.

  Is Perot the White Knight?  I don't see how anyone can really know this.
To the best of my knowledge, Perot hasn't proven himself any more (or less)
trustworthy than Clinton or Bush.  It is certainly far too early to
judge him as a "savior", IMHO.  I'd need to know A LOT more about him.

  I think once his employer practices at EDS get out, he'll be a dead
political canidate (assuming what is said on the net is true.)  I'm
also sure that many other issues will come up that I can't possibly
anticipate.  He's already being called a self-serving egomaniac by
"those that know him".  (A media term for we're not saying who because
they would be out of a job, but....)  
  
  Once again, too early to tell.


   Are the bad things I'm hearing about Perot really true?
   How many more bad things are likely to come out?
   Can he win once he gets through the media scrambler?

  I will give Perot this.  He, at least, gives lip-service to fixing
the "bads" in our government.  Personally, if he comes across as
"trustworthy", he may be worth a vote.  However, so far not much
information on Mr. Perot is available at all (relative to Clinton
or Bush.)

  The more I find out about any canidate the less I like, but this
does not mean I jump on the bandwagon of the canidate I know the least
about.  This is, perhaps, what separates me from many voters in this
"mad as hell" election year of 1992.


Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: flat tax
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:35:12 GMT

A note about Brown's flat tax:

1) Someone asked about Social Security.  Brown wants to make social security
part of the general fund and eliminate the special tax on social security.

2)  Assuming the worst case and that all of the 13% VAT is passed on, middle
income people would still pay less tax than the current system.  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 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, but unless you can deduct 9%+corporate tax,
(which is at least 1/3 of the federal tax) you'll pay less under Brown.
   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.
From: luis@icase.edu (Luis Gomes)
Subject: Tsongas` chances
Organization: ICASE/NASA Langley
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:38:04 GMT

This weekend the press was full of hints and innuendi coming from the
Tsongas campaign about the possibility of his re-entering the race,
presumably if Clinton is embarassed badly by Brown in New York. Could
some of the more seasoned campaign observers care to speculate on his
chances should that happen, or there is no point in hoping and I can go
back to sleep for another 4 years?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luis M. Gomes		|College of William & Mary|Langley Research Ctr.
90 Topping Cir.		|Dept. of Comp. Science   |ICASE
Williamsburg, Va. 23185	|luis@cs.wm.edu           |luis@icase.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:756 talk.politics.misc:17847
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Against Government Regulations
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:34:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC-Chapel Hill Computer Science

In article <1992Apr8.150610.16728@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> Our nation was actually in danger during the Carter years from Soviet
> aggression, i.e. the invasion of Afghanistan, our hostages in Iran, etc -
> but people forget and its too bad they do.

    Please remind us why the US was "actually in danger" from the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the non-Soviet hostage crisis. Do
you define "danger" as "contrary to US Government interests" or
something like that?

    Followups to talk.politics.misc.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    "I met a wonderful new man. He's fictional, but you can't have everything."
	- Cecelia, _The Purple Rose of Cairo_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa
From: cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole)
Subject: Re: How to fix the country
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 17:23:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

Ron Dippold replies to
|> 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.

That's an interesting approach and it does work -- sometimes.  But we've
embarassed the hell out of a variety of things, people and organizations
-- all of which persist.  Many times the reaction to being embarassed is 
not to fix the problem but fix the perception (manage our information into
confusion).  How many of these overpaid managers have been embarassed 
into homelessness?  Give me the name of a corporate president or CEO who
has been embarassed into joblessness and destitution and I'll agree with
you.
 
/Bill
To do right, love kindness & walk humbly
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J. Byrd)
Subject: Runoff, Constitution
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J. Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:11:45 GMT


Anybody read the constitution and what it says about runoffs in
the presidential voting?  The HOUSE chooses from the top five!
Ooooh, scary!


-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        |
Rice University                     | All science is either physics or    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr            | stamp collecting.  -- E. Rutherford 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project  |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Perot's company standards
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:12:29 GMT

In article <1942@ra.nrl.navy.mil> ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:
>
>
>> Article <1992Apr4.062312.6212@zip.eecs.umich.edu> From: baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod)
>
>> In article <1992Apr3.023748.5564@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>
>> >                             Elect H. Ross Perot!
>
>> Preserve your right to be thrown in jail for cohabitating before marriage!
>
>Because Perot requires his employees to not cohabitat does NOT
>mean that he is going to requyire Americans to do the same if
>he is elected President!
>
>Perot Systems is a company and you have the right to not
>work for it if you choose. ...

Aha, so he IS the Libertarian candidate for President !!! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections