HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:16:12 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <1992Aug12.141716.18053@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>
>If things were truly equal everyone would pay for what they get.  Everyone
>would assume responsibility for their own actions.  Income tax is used by
>the government to rob from the responsible working class and give to those
>who are irresponsible.  End of story.

But things AREN'T 'truly equal', since some folks have more than
others.  So, who buries all the dead poor people (and who pays for the
burials)? 


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10393 alt.politics.clinton:1783 alt.politics.bush:1314 talk.politics.misc:39229
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:48:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA

In article <BsvJy5.sz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.135211.2141@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>Besides that, the basic argument still applies.  If the cut-off is at
>>$20K, then Joe Taxpayer with income of $21K still has a much harder time
>>coming up with $4,200 than H. Russ Billionaire with income of a million
>>a year has finding an extra $200K.
>
>  You don't understand the proposal.  Joe Taxpayer with income of $21K
>  only has to come up with $190.   (19% of the amount over $20K)

Okay, I get it now.  Thanks to all who sought to enlighten me ;)
In other words, it's like a progressive tax structure, except there's
only two brackets, 0% and 19% (or whatever).


>  You're right that regardless of the numbers the rich guy will
>  always find it easier to come up with the money.  So what?

So if I have to struggle to pay my taxes, so should the billionaire.


>                                                              The
>  goals of the flat tax proposals I've seen, are [...]
>  to simplify the whole problem of taxation, tax law, compliance,
>  etc.    The current complexity costs billions and billions of
>  dollars, counting the cost of the IRS itself, the record-keeping
>  costs, the cost of all the tax experts and tax attorneys who
>  must be hired, the costs of the all the mistakes that such
>  complexity inevitably results in, and whatever wastes result
>  from people making business and investment decsions for tax reasons
>  rather than for sound business and investment reasons.

I believe there is still room for simplification of the current,
progressive tax structure that would eliminate a lot of the costs
you're talking about.

In the long run, I just believe there are good reasons for a progressive
tax structure.  Marginal utility, equal pain, and burden sharing have
all been brought up in earlier posts.  This doesn't mean that progressive
tax rates have to be as complicated as ours are now; but I think it's
a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water to propose replacing
the basic idea of progressive rates with a flat tax.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:35:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.184651.15727@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>The solution then is to lower tax rates. For Joe taxpayer.

Then you're back to a progressive tax structure: the guy with the higher
income is still paying higher marginal rates, which BTW, is the way I
think it ought to be.

>It also stands to reason, that, given the fact that the income
>tax raises revenue equal to only about 12% of GNP, that we can easily
>lower the rate (while also braodening it) and stil raise
>adequate revenues.

Well, unless we cut spending quite a bit, a "revenue neutral" change
in the tax code won't _be_ adequate.


>>To switch topics somewhat, it occurred to me that this discussion about
>>tax rates has overlooked an important point: income taxes are only a portion
>>of the an individual's total tax burden.  It is true that our federal income
>>tax structure is mildly progressive; but, as a matter of fact, when you
>>consider all the taxes one must pay (social security (very regressive in
>>itself), state income, sales, etc.) the complete tax structure in this
>>country is actually mildly regressive.
>
>Bingo.  So how come only conservatives like Jack Kemp are concerned
>about the excessive taxation on the working poor, or the
>high marginal tax rates on someone making $11,000 a year.
>(Which in some cases are above 50% and even close to 100% when
>welfare and earned income tax credits are added in!)
>
>How come the only solution the Dems can come up with is blame
>Reagan/Bush and raise taxes yet again?

Well, unfortunately, Kemp is not running for president (not yet,
anyway). So how does _Bush_ propose to alleviate the tax burden on
the poor? Does he think they'll benefit from a capital gains tax cut?
Maybe they can use his school vouchers to get their kids into a
nice, private school away from the inner city (heaven forbid we
should use public money to improve public schools).

In any case, Clinton has made some very solid proposals for welfare
reform and education reform aimed precisely at helping the working
poor.  He has not simply blamed Reagan/Bush and proposed raising taxes.
And his proposals sound better to me than anything Bush has come out
with.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10391 alt.politics.clinton:1781 alt.politics.bush:1312 talk.politics.misc:39225
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:40:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.034557.4891@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
} In article <19667@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
} >In article <1992Aug11.183249.21977@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
} >>One reason a progressive tax system is more "fair" is that, in a real
} >>sense, 10% from someone earning 10K hurts more than 10% from someone
} >>earning 100K.  
} >
} >In other words, the tax system is supposed to be based on a pain index?
} 
} Hmm.  My point is that there would be taxes anyway (Libertarians
} jumping out of the woodwork at this point :-).  Things like defense.
} How do you propose distributing the tax burden?

My view of an ideal tax is one that a person's tax should be based on
the government services that person uses.

} As noted, it is a
} greater hardship for the poor to pay the same percentage as the
} wealthy.

Suppose the tax on a poor person was 10%.  How is it a greater hardship
on them if a rich person also paid 10%?  How would that poor person's 10%
be less of a burden on them, if a rich persons tax rate was subsequently
shoved up to 99% instead?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:46:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <92231.213054A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET writes:

>Apart from that one should work on his/her faults first,
>the above makes some of us (over here in Europe) puke.  Most of us,
>however, just laugh about this outraging stupidity.

>Someone (Quale?) even said that Bush brought down the Berlin wall.
(sp Quayle)
Actually, a lot of Republicans have been spewing this junk, Pat
Buchannan, Reagan, and even a Republican I like Prof. Rice.

>Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
>in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
>spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
>than it is Gorbatsjov)
>Frans

Gorby doesn't deserve... I think that if he could keep the USSR
together he would have. 

But some pundits over here have claimed that the Republican's self
praise is like the farmer claiming credit for the sun shine.


-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10375 alt.politics.clinton:1769 alt.politics.bush:1291 talk.politics.misc:39194
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:58:08 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = Bill writes:

[re: Clinton...]
>Anyone running against the greatest TAX AND SPEND president of all times,
>and claiming that we spend too little will NEVER get my vote.

Of course, Clinton never said this in your imaginary context.  If you're
that dishonest, or unable to read position papers, you are the PERFECT
robot Republican voter.  I would be worried if you WERE voting for
someone I support.
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:51:43 GMT

In article <16k282INN4sk@agate.berkeley.edu>
labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug13.233833.992@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwn) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.214304.12559@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>>writes:
>>
>>Sorry, I don't believe that gun "permits" are a good idea.  I don't need
>>a permit to execute any of my other rights; why should I need one to own
>             ^^^^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>a gun?
>
>Not true.  Examples :
>
>Freedom of speech.  In Berkeley, you need a permit to have an amplified
>speaker for the use of speaking.  This is what the religious loonies use
>around here to get their word out to the masses.  A good law, in my opinion,
>but still a permit.
>
     This applies only Berkeley's property.  (How much money does
Berkeley get from the feds?)  You don't have to get a permit to hold a
meeting in your house. for instance.

>Freedom to protest.  If you want to start a major protest in a city, you bet
>you better get permission/a permit first.  Examples : Gays and lesbians
>joining a parade here in the Bay Area, neo-nazis walking though the city, etc.
>Cities are not going to let you start something that needs to be controlled
>in order not to cause chaos without you getting permission first.

     On public property.  I can assemble and protest on my own front lawn
until the end of time if I want to, if I go about it peacably.

>Freedom of the press.  Do you think you can print anything you like ?  Of
>course not.  Examples: Pornography, covering wars, libel.

     In all of those cases the printing press, printer, whatever is not
licensed or restricted in advance.  There are certain restrictions on
speech that harms others, but they are almost universally applied *after*
and in retaliation of the speech.

     Using these as guidlines, I could own any gun I wanted, just not
use it on the property of anybody who objected (Examples 1 and 2) and
could be prosecuted criminally for its misuse (Example 3).

     I can live with that.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:37:45 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <conradp+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: the "l" word and Republicans

No, not the "L" word, but the "l" word, "libertarian" has been mentioned
several times today.  First on the NBC morning news show, in which a
member/spokeman/leader of the Log Cabin group, an organization of
Republican gays, referred to himself as a "fiscal conservative, and
social libertarian".  Later today I read a Dow Jones news release which
referred to a battle for control of the Republican party between "the
religious right" and more libertarian elements.  Of course, it looks
like the "religious right" is winning right now...

But it's interesting, I think it lends some credibility to the
suggestion by Libertarians that they can effect the future course of the
country without ever having a candidate win a national office.  The
Republicans are intellectually bankrupt, a bizarre alliance between big
business and religious fundamentalists.  Perhaps sometimes down the road
the Republican party will lose all support and die a miserable death,
and the Libertarians will move in to fill the void.  However, there are
forces within the party trying to give it a more libertarian bent.  Thus
it seems entirely possible that, over time, the Republican party could
mutate into a more libertarian Republican party, no longer supporting
government intervention into peoples' private lives, and drastically
reducing intervention in the marketplace (which despite what liberals
claim, seems to often benefit big, vested interests rather than the
little guy).

So the question is, what is the best way to accomplish this?  Should
libertarian-leaning Republicans jump ship to the Libertarian party, in
an effort to increase it's size and influence to a point where it can no
longer be ignored by the public, by the media, and by the two major
parties, so that libertarian ideas will be discussed?  Or should they
(ok, we) try to work within the Republican party to change it?

Of course, in theory we could say the same thing about the Democrats. 
In fact, the Democrats are somewhat libertarian on social issues
already, so on the surface it might look easier to change the Democratic
party to a more libertarian stance.  But in reality, the whole
Democratic philosophy seems to revolve around "what government can do
for you", and that is so ingrained into Democratic thought that it would
be virtually impossible to change.  The Republicans, however, already
have a libertarian movement within their ranks, and believe in the power
of the individual, rather than the state, to effect positive change in
the country.

What do you think?

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:40:11 GMT

In article <714034965.7@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Carl.Edman@iphase.UUCP (Carl Edman) writes:
}Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
}
}Joseph Gownder writes
}> unwilling to FUND it?  $600m for head start sounds nice,
}> but it's a drop in the bucket.  I suspect that if we are going
}> to allow equal opportunity and educate children in the
}> inner city to the point where they can compete with, say,
}> Japanese schoolchildren,  we're going to have to pump
}> billions of dollars into the system. 
}
}Well, I hate run this same debate again and again and again, but here it goes.  
}Educational spending in this country _already_ is enormous. ...

And we hate for you to do it, too, believe me.  Not only is the repetition
boring, but the fact that we spend a large amount already is still not
relevant to whether the federal government should spend more than it does.
If you want to stand back and exhort parents and school boards to spend
more on basic education and less on all the other stuff, it may give you
a nice warm feeling that you've got the best answer to the education problem,
but it's not going to accomplish anything on the national level.  Pointing
out that there is already enough money in the system to do the job may make
voters feel good the next time they vote down a bond issue, but it doesn't
get one student any better educated.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:26:24 GMT
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) says:
>>>
>The "Democratic Leadership in the House" Tom Foley and the gang 
>mentally controlled innocent republican congressmen like
>Dick Chenny into write rubber checks with their democratic counterparts.
>
>no wonder they called him SPEAKER Foley!  :-)  (Hint:  Issac
>Asimov's foundation stuff)  

Gimme that ole time paranoia, it's good enough for me ...
-- 

              "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"

                              -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11052 misc.education:3173
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Elections and School Choice
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.education
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:13:49 GMT

Eric Lee Green writes
> I might point out that Al Shanker and the AFT *DOES* advocate school
> choice. It's part of the AFT's proposal to decentralize school systems and
> empower teachers to actually run schools, rather than having school
> systems being managed by bureaucrats.
> 
> It is Bush's specific proposal, rather than the concept of school choice as
> a whole, that gets Shanker's ire. And I agree with him. Bush's proposal is
> a tax break for yuppies. It won't help anybody who REALLY needs help.

Al Shanker is for School Choice as long as you are only allowed to choose  
schools which are under Al Shankers unions control. This is about as close to  
genuine choice and competition as the car market would be if you could buy  
_any_ car you want as long as it was made by General Motors.

No, make no mistake about it, Shanker is anti-choice. 

	Carl Edman
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11005 talk.abortion:32556
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:34:58 GMT
Distribution: usa

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:

><seYe5xy00WBOI4GvBr@andrew.cmu.edu> (Alison Coleman) writes:
>> Not only are the Republicans excluding homosexuals, they are excluding
>> pro-choice Republicans as well.  

>I don't think so.  At least one voice of support of abortion rights
>has been heard from the podium.  By the time the convention is over,
>there will be several pro-choice speakers.  Whether they talk about 
>abortion, we'll have to wait and see.  Pro-choice Republicans are
>frequently sent to represent the party on pundit panel talk shows
>(Lynn Martin, Alan Simpson, Susan Molinari, etc.)  I can't think of
>any corresponding pro-life Democrats in high-profile roles at their
>convention.

We may be overlooking a key issue here.  Does anyone know of any 
polls of Democrats on the abortion issue?  If the anti-abortion
stance is a small minority within the party, it would be reasonable
to expect that they would not get a voice at the convention.  If
polls showed that, say, 5% of Republicans were members of the KKK,
would you attack the Republicans for not including a white supremacist
speaker?

Also, remember that the Democratic position would not force an
abortion on any woman, while the Republican position would force
birth on a great many unwilling women.  You could call this an
inclusion, of sorts.

          [Tsongas would:]
>2) Always use his support of abortion rights as his only example of 
>the Democratic Party's superiority in its support of the rights and
>interests of women.  Fine, Senator, you support abortion rights,
>but is that the only/best thing you have to offer women?

Excellent point.  While reproductive rights are very important to 
me, there are a number of other women's rights issues that I am
concerned about.

>|   Don Porter 

                 -rocker
                  Richards/Ivins in '96
                  :-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:27:06 GMT

In article <19276@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.183249.21977@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>} One reason a progressive tax system is more "fair" is that, in a real
>} sense, 10% from someone earning 10K hurts more than 10% from someone
>} earning 100K.
>
>So, your idea of a proper tax is to inflict pain.  Thanks, but no thanks.

My notion of a proper tax is burden sharing.  There will undeniably
be public expenditures (unless you feel like privatizing the military,
for instance).  The tax system should be designed to distribute the
hardships equally.  Given that the minium cost for food, rent, etc.,
is not vanishingly small, a constant tax rate across the whole
population would be undue burden on the poor.  If you're saying
that the well-off should not have greater hardships than the less
well-off, why should it be the other way around?

>
>} If you are trying to distrube hardships equitably, a
>} higher rate for that person would hurt less than a comparable rate for
>} the less well-off.
>
>But I don't want to distribute hardships equitably.  The fact that some
>people die fron AIDS does not justify giving everyone else AIDS to make
>that hardship equitable.  The fact that some people cannot walk does not
>justify placing shackles around Michael Jordan's feet to make that
>hardship equitable.  The fact that some people are dirt poor does not
>justify making other people poorer to make that hardship equitable.

My argument is that there will be some hardships no matter what
you do.  Who is going to pay for defense (since that is something
I think we can all agree on)?  Shouldn't everyone pay equally,
in terms of a fair share?  Why should the rich have a lesser
burden than the poor?  Do you advocate making the poor pay that
extra $1K and starve?


--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11130 alt.politics.clinton:2410 alt.politics.bush:2337 talk.politics.misc:40946