HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: prime theories
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:52:33 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>If someone shows a causal relationship that when top rates are
>reduced that we increase incomeXrate I am willing to consider
>it.

The relevant mechanism has been presented.  The "rates" under
discussion are MARGINAL rates - they are not "average" rates, which
are affected by both the structure of the tax system and the
definition of "income".  We can manipulate these factors separately.

Interestingly enough, with the above KAT says that he'd be willing to
accept a "the income of 100 people will quadruple if we drop their
average tax rate by 50%" deal because 4ir/2 > ir.

>But for now . . . I don't care what the published rates are.
>If I make $50,000 (gross) and pay $10,000 in taxes and the next
>typical, average rich guy makes $500,000 (gross) and pays $50,000
>in taxes, I call that unfair (I am willing -- but not happily --
>to exclude Social Security TAXES -- yes TAXES -- out of the above
>calculation).  You can tell me that he is paying MORE taxes than I am
>till you are blue in the face, I will not buy it and will still claim
>that it is unfair.

KAT is confusing "less" with "unfair".  Said average rich guy is
paying MORE, that's a fact.  It may be "not enough", that is,
"unfair", but it is MORE.

Of course, at this point, we may have a contradiction with KAT's
statement above.  Suppose that said average rich guy would make only
$125k before we change the system.  Taxed at 20%, that would be $25k.
(This example is somewhat rigged by KAT's use of a 20% rate for the
middle income folks and a 10% rate for the upper income folks.  The
flat tax people have been arguing for FLAT marginal rates, not
decreasing ones.  The head-tax people are claiming that their rate is
appropriate for some things.)  However, then we make the change, the
income quadruples, to $500k, the tax collected doubles, to $50k, and
KAT squawks.

>I said the above under the assumption that a fair tax system is
>a progressive one.

Progressive marginal or progressive average?  One can have one without
the other.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:30:32 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities

>>We've seen the numbers about home and property ownership and O'Andy
>>didn't like them, but it's nice to see him try to deflect things with
>>the "stock ownership" red-herring.
>
>No we haven't seen numbers on home and property ownership of those
>receiving government income maintenance assistance. What we have
>seen is a chart that shows income and outlays by quintile.

Not so fast.  We've seen home and property ownership stats for people
who are officially below the poverty level.  The % (and number) of
poor people is used to argue for certain measures, but are those
people really "poor"?

Note that even if the "landed poor" are ineligible for certain types
of aid, they're still included in the totals used to argue for funding
that aid.  I think that's a dishonest argument; O'Andy may disagree.

-andy
--
From: U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU (rufus t. firefly)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: the dull tv thing
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:28:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Rush ... "arrogant?"
>
>     Sure, if you are humor-impaired !
>
>             Relax, WWF wrestling isn't real either !

  IT'S NOT?!?!!!?!?!?

rtf, undergoing massive rearrangement of world-view
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:16:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject: Re: Some replies...

Andy:

        The "games" we play (supposedly) matter if the employee has to pay
taxes on the income they have to kickback to the management!

        Nassau County, New York (the county that gave the world Alfonse D'Amato
- and me, BTW) had (probably still HAS) a setup similar to this.  All county
employees had to kick back 2% of their income to the Republican Party, or, the
ONLY party in the county, effectively.  If you didn't, and you were low on the
rungs, then you were out of a job.  If you were higher, your promotion never
came, or maybe your position gets eliminated...if this was a private company,
are -andy and Dr Pizz saying this would be fine with them - as long as it's
"up front"?


People with marginal views should avoid arguments that bring those already
stretched views to the extreme; it has a kind of spotlight effect.  Dr Pizz
may want to discriminate against homosexuals and get away with it, but the
underlying theory doesn't wash.


-T.
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:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:55:39 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: On Rightism,

>Please tell me a single fact, other that quotation from "scientifical
>sources", that can show us that the Nazis where right-wing.
>
>And plase do not tell us about concensus. There is NO concensus.

How about "common usage?"

In the US it is commonly held that Nazism is a right-wing sort
of belief; then again so is extreme conservatism, some brands
of libertarianism, etc. There is wide acceptance of the idea
that there is a significant difference between the ideologies
of these different right wing philosophies.

To maintain otherwise in common usage is like insisting that
Catsup is really a kind of vegetable...er, cheese. B)

>Caius

-other Andy
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 20:31:29 EST
From:         dcse10630@TOPCAT.BSC.MASS.EDU
Subject:      Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Do you think that any company would sell it in the states?
The drugs (protagladins) used in association with RU486 have not been
approved and it would take 3 years for FDA approval. Long term effects
of the drug are not know.  The pill will be abuse and used after the
recommended 7-9 wks of gestation. the effects of this are unknown. Also
some cases of excess bleeding has led for the need for instrumental
intervention and transfussion.  I am personally opposed the pill on
medical and ethical grounds but regardless from a medical and chemical s
tandpoint caution is warranted.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:51:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Economic Summit

What Joe said.  I don't think a lot of people understand what really may
be going on here.  The medium may really >be< the message, and I say that
in a positive way.  The broken relationships between people and their
government, between government and the media, between the people and the
media, between different social and ethnic groups in our society -- all
these relationships have got to be repaired.

Clinton at least seems to understand that all of these relationships
are connected.  There was criticism that everybody at the conference
only talked about what they wanted to talk about, but did you notice how
Clinton would frequently connect something someone said five minutes
before with something different that was said five hours before?  He
understands that these things are all interconnected somehow.  This is
very encouraging that we're going to have a president who sees things
in terms of a larger picture.

Oh, and as for the contention that no supply-siders were invited...I
think if the American people wanted them at the conference, they would
have engraved the invitations and sent them out on November 3.  So sorry.


Ellen
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 11:12:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >Wrong.  It is the number of people below the poverty line *who are not
> >adequately covered by existing programs* that is the relevant number
> >here, and that is the number used to assess the need for new programs,
> >or for increases in existing programs.  Watch your newspapers, you'll
> >see from time to time that we have very good figures on the number of
> >eligible poor people who are not being reached by current programs.
>
> While Peter has accurately identified the relevant number, he has
> inaccurately identified the number used to justify "more".  The
> dominant number used for that purpose ignores govt benefits and things
> like home ownership, even though those things are (supposed to be)
> ignored by aid determination.

The "dominant number" is intended to show the size of the problem.
The problem is that poverty exists in our economy.  Among the solutions
are government income, housing and food programs.  But the desirable
state is an economy that has no _need_ for those programs.  The programs
do not solve the problem, they just help to keep it from killing its
victims.  The poverty figures, which measure the size of the economic
problem, are used as an indicator of the size of the response needed.
Need assessment is done on an individual basis.

Any complaints about the use of poverty figures to justify social
welfare spending are valid only of you assume that all of the current
needs are being met and any further spending is superfluous.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: progressive tax?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:45:40 GMT

Caius:
>> progressive tax is harmful to the economy. That's all. That means that
>> everybody loses, noone wins.(maybe beaurocrats)

KAT:
>Too bad most poor people are idiots.  Otherwise they would advocate
>zero tax for the rich so that the rich could help the poor even more.
>
>What about negative tax?  Let's PAY the rich (instead of taxing
>them) in order to help the poor even more than that.

Kat, Kat...

It is perfectly possible, and even likely, that the poor would be harmed
by a too-high tax on the rich.  One who points this out is NOT saying
that we therefore ought to PAY the rich, or even reduce their tax
burden to zero.

Sometimes functions aren't monotonic, as I'm sure you're well aware.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:48:51 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
              16 Dec 1992 13:02:19 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

>> 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?

> Sure, you got to choose whether or not you made the deal.

I don't follow that.  Can I say we never had a deal so I am not
gonna pay?  After all, there is no signed or verbal contract.

> Feel free to point out where I made a deal with govt.

You agreed to the "deal," when you started using the streets or
leaving your garbage at the curb, or when attended public schools.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:28:02 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Some replies...

>Does Dr Pizz mean that private companies can make ANY rules of
>conduct, as long as they're stated up-front?  So, the boss gets to
>have sex with employees during lunch, as long as those employees know
>this before signing on?

Hmm.  Is Clark arguing that sex for money is wrong?  (Yes, we know
that it's illegal in many circumstances.)

>Employees have to kickback 20% of their
>salaries, under the table, to the management - as long as it's
>understood from the start?

I know why govt has a "legit" beef, but what's the employee's beef?
After all, telling someone how much they're making up front is the way
we do things.  Do the games used to arrive at the final figure really
matter?

-andy
--
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: On limiting posts ...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:34:05 GMT

>"Limits are obviously a bad idea, since they are a kind of censorship,
>which I don't like in nearly any fashion."  Better?  I proclaim myself
>the king of bad editing, ok.

Actually, I was giving you a much more charitable interpretation.  Under
my interpretation, your sentence actually made a good bit more sense than
this one.

As written, your sentence says... oh, nevermind.  I understand your
point, I think, even if you can't quite express it in English.

At least, I *hope* you aren't claiming that whatever you "don't like
in nearly any fashion" is "obviously a bad idea".  I rather suspect
that a good many things you "don't like in nearly any fashion" are
actually quite good ideas.  

>censorship is the suppression of speech for various reasons.  limiting
>the number of posts per day does this, and as Val noted, the method
>is liable to be flawed.  

I don't find this a very satisfactory notion of censorship.  
What is 'suppression of speech'?  What count as 'various reasons'?
Suppose you decided to come over to my house at 3 AM and read the
woes of Abraham from Genesis 22 at the top of your lungs.  Would
my fervent actions to remove you bodily from my apartment amount
to 'suppression of speech for various reasons'?

But onward ho!

>Tell me how you plan to select who to kick
>off or limit without it being via censorshiply (not a word) means.
>And who are "we"?  Is this list lead by some group that can dispose of
>the right of people to post (unless their posts go over the line and
>do so after warnings -- some might fit this criteria, which is still
>vague)?

*ahhhh* Well, I didn't mean the proposal in any serious way.  But
I do think that it might be possible to construct a list which has
some controls over membership.  I suspect that Valentine would agree
with the following:

THIS list should remain unmoderated and 'loose'.  But this doesn't
mean that EVERY list should remain so.  It would be nice to have a
place where certain idiots can be weeded out, so as to allow for more
serious discussions.

I can give you the precise details of how I would make those
decisions, if you really want to hear about it.

--Jimbo


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 13:17:33 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>

Mr. Clark,

     First of all, YES, private business should have the right to
stipulate anything they want to in contracts, as long as they do not
sign a contract specifying that illegal activities are to be performed.
 Clearly, the sex at lunch hour or kickbacks of salaries are both
illegal activities.  The first is prostitution, and the second speaks
for itself.  Lets be real.  If there are no illegal activities to be
performed, the boss can stipulate such things in a contract, or at
least should be given that freedom in a free capitalistic society.

     Secondly, wrt "Is maintaining a consistent Public Relations image
the same thing as sexual-preference discrimination?", Yes.  If you live
in small town America, and are known to hire homosexuals, that could
give you a public relations problem.  Clearly, if a company wants to
express the public image of being anti-gay, that is their prerogative.
If people do not like it, they do not have to patronize the business.
Simple enough?  I find in convenient that you only cited the Jimmy the
Greek and Marge Schott analogies, and omitted the celibacy requirement
for priests, the "you must believe in Jesus" requirement for Jerry
Falwell's university, etc.  Clearly they are allowed to do this.  Why?
The only time the federal government should have the right to estblish
control over private business practices is to limit federal funding to
organizations with policies they do not approve of.  Clearly, these
groups do not depend on gevernment funding.  It is fine for government
to establish criteria for which a business must fulfill to get federal
money (though I think NO ONE should get federal money), but not to
regulate what fully government-independent businesses do.

--Pizz--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:41:20 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: your mail
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              15, 92 7:58 am

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>>
>> > All others being equal (abilities to do the job) I would choose the NORMAL
>> > person.
>>
>> > If I had an apartment to let, I would demand a higher price from an
 UNNORMAL
>> > person.
>>
>> Are blacks "UNNORMAL?"  How about atheists, jews, nazis, communists,
>> murderers, drug users, etc.?

Did I wrote UNnormal?.  Looks funny. ABnormal looks better.

Blacks -  you cannot judge the nationality or skin, you can judge
      what people think, do, choose etc.

Atheists - strange but not dangerous

Jews (nationality) - look Blacks
Jews (religion) - i know nothing about the subject

Nazis - dangerous, hardly normal, violation of law: look murderers

Communists - very dangerous, very clever
Communist Economy - Stupid, does not work

Murderers - Decisivly abnormal - police have much work

Drug Users - your health your decision,
Too much drugs - stupid
Drugs for everybody - abnormal, look communist



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 08:34:46 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

-T., confused, wonders:
>Tim fevers:
>>  actually, what I really object to is the
>>hypocrisy of those people who say....

>So let me get this straight:
>Whenever someone points out an injustice in American society....

  Hey, while you are busy with
the dictionary look up this word,
too: "parody"

             -Neville
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:26:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: racism

>(Aside: does anyone else find it humorous that there is an
>ongoing thread with the header "NORNAL"?)

yes, guess we're just a bunch of bizarre people trying to figure
out who the hell the normal ones are....

this whole thing reminds me of a scene in Young Frankenstein (pronounced
steen) where Igor (pronounced eye-gor) brings back the brain for the monster.
when dr. frankenstein asks him who's brain he took, igor says, "some guy named
ABBIE NORMAL.

love & kisses to all my fellow whackos,

-linda
>Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:45:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Fetal Logic
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt420084@drew.edu>, Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:

> The point is that we're apparently making progress.  The damaged
> fetus is undeniably the same person before and after birth.  The *only*
> difference is the location of residence.

no. The question still is the definition of "person" which you feel
means something different from many others religious/moral beliefs
lead them to believe.  It is also a question on the rights of the
type of person, if one believes a fetus is a person though the
law doesn't agree with this proposition (federal law applies to those
born as does common law)

> In a recent National Review there was an article on abortion.  If I
> recall correctly, a young girl was observing abortions for research on
> a college paper.  Anyway, it doesn't really matter why she was there.  The
> point is that she had seen quite a few.  On one occasion, the birth
> process started during the abortion procedure.  While the fetus/baby was
> in the vaginal canal, only *INCHES* away from being a real live human
> entitled to rights and protections, the doctor (murderer) shoved a pair
> of scissors into the baby's head and opened them.

how many months was the fetus? if it was a late term abortion this was
a rare occurrence, and a complicated one to boot for it has to do with
a viable fetus.  Of course 90%+ of the abortions don't have to
deal with this problem since they occur before the 12th week. But,
I don't think your example was meant to be looked at that way since it
was more for effect than the logic of what is at issue.
>
> Now, you tell me, did the doctor perform an abortion or commit a
> homicide?  I can't imagine that anyone would consider this practice
> acceptable.  What is the difference between this abortion and one that
> might have been performed 30 minutes sooner?  Just where are you going
> to draw the line?

ditto for you.  Do you draw the line at conception?  implantation?
brain waves?  if abortions can all be done in the first 2-3 weeks,
would they be murder?  first 2-3 days?

> If a damaged fetus results in a damaged baby, they are the same.  If
> killing a baby is murder, then so is killing the fetus.
> ---Robert

since an aborted fetus in dead while a damaged baby will suffer for
the rest of his/her life, I dare say they are not the same.  Your
second sentence is not as obviously correct as you think it is, though
it depends on one's definition of murder.  If you think killing a deer
for sport is murder, then yes killing an embryo or fetus is murder
too, but the next question is the morality of this fact.  This debate
is too complicated to speak of here, and it would be redunant for me
to do so anyhow.

     -Joe
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 08:51:43 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      I screwed up, this is the REAL "On Rightism, ..."
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> mselves with liberal/socialist West German parties, but the strongly conservat
> ve parties.  In China, are those who are staunch Maoists on the left or right.
> I guess my bottom line is - why are you guys wasting so much time on this?
> Uncle Ernie

  i think the reason why some folks are complaining about being called
"rightist" is that to quite a few people, "rightist" = "nazi". which
isn't true, but some rightists *are* nazis, and the people complaining
don't like the associations . . .

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