HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America) [long]
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:51:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.223026.29369@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>now if that was Gary saying that, i'd not be surprised, because he has done
>this once too often. i'll assume you weren't trying to mislead the readers
>(as Gary is). if the old tax was $1-2 billion, and the new tax is $18
>billion, the old tax did not take in "somewhat less" -- the new tax is
>between 800% and 1700% higher than the old tax, depending on if you
>use the $2B or $1B figure. and this was my essential point in response
>to Gary's lame attempt to justify the GST as a replacement for the MST, 
>a line he quoted directly from the government bureaucracy, and dropped
>like a hot potato after i forced him to try to defend the math.
>

The old hidden MST raised about $15 billion, the new visible (now that
is a government with guts...they could have hidden it, like the Liberals
plan to) was planned to raise about $20 billion dollars (with the
recession, it was a few billion less), with the difference paid out
it sales tax credits to low income earners to ameliorate the
regressivity of a consumption tax. 

>
>close. it was necessary to support the federal government's outrageous
>social spending agenda. i have already posted numbers to this effect.
>

The Tories trimmed the social safety net...and had to bring higher
taxes, because the Liberals put in place social programs paid for
on credit, without the taxes to support them.  The Tories had the
unenviable job of trimming the social spending a where they felt
they could, and raising the taxes the Liberals were to cowardly
to raise to pay for their programs.

>>It is also a more "honest" tax in that, unlike the old MST, it is
>>not (usually) hidden in the price of the good or service.
>
>i agree with this, except for one thing. the "honesty" part only
>applies to the money collected by the new tax which replaces the old.
>so the first $2B of the $18B can be attributed to replacing the old
>tax. the remaining $16B was a *dishonest* piggyback job.
>

The government is still in a net loss position with respect to the
switch because of the recession...but the GST will become a cash cow 
when growth returns.

>
>>However, the GST is probably one of the fiscally sane, although immensely
>>unpopular, things that the PCs did. If you want the goodies, you have to
>>pay for them, and the GST is a better method of paying for them than the
>>MST was.
>
>that's more like it!
>"paying for goodies" is right. *not* "reflects the changing nature od
>the post-industrial economy".
>

Every body except the US has a consumption tax...Canada had no choice...
if you raise income taxes to an uncompetitive level with US rates, all
the talented Canadians would leave.

The US will have a value-added tax before the end of the century... 
rich people don't like high income taxes...so they'll force a
consumption tax...              

Gerald

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: Hillary picks secretary of HHS
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:17:30 GMT

In article 1@icbr.ufl.edu, ostrer@icbr.ufl.edu () writes:
>...
>This reflect a strong role of Hillary Clinton in the White House.
>Hillary appearently is also going to pick the Attorney General.

Nobody has predicted that Hillary Clinton would play a weak role in the 
White House.  Not even Nancy Reagan's astrologer.  ;-)

>After Sen Mitchell picked Bentson, and DICK Gephart pick Penatta, we
>are left wondering if Slick Willie will show any leadership.

Apparently, you believe that a President shows lack of leadership when he
listens to his advisors and chooses people that they recommend.  This means
that you probably don't believe that any past president has shown leadership.
But if Clinton followed your advice and picked people with no independent advice,
wouldn't he then be guilty of following your advice?  I think I have a solution
to the leadership problem.  We should lock our presidents in soundproof rooms
with one-way communication to the outside world.  Then they could make decisions
without caving in to anyone.  ;^) 

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 04:56:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.031450.5220@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>Novak's virtue is that he is wrong nearly all the time. One can 
>therefore profit by listening to him.

Being wrong is not a virtuous quality of any person.
You used the wrong word there.

I really wish CNN would put on a more competent panel of journalists on
Capitol Gang. I much prefer an ever changing group of academics and
leaders of various groups, each week specializing in one particular
issue, or sector of the economy, rather than this bunch of self
aggrandizing know-it-alls who really barely knows enough to not to say
something stupid every other sentence.

Should I start a Freedom From CNN campaign?
I hope it won't be necessary.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:40:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.212400.20045@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes:
}>}	As for private courts, I don't believe this has ever been tried
}>}(I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong), but I would very much hate
}>}to go to one if I was poor. I can't see how you can have a private court
}>}without it becoming currupt.
}> 
}>Ever heard of arbitration?
}
}What about in criminal cases, especially things like stealing and murder?
}I can't see how this could be settled in arbitration.

Assuming that there would be no State intervention, criminal cases would be
treated as intentional torts, with restitution to be made to the victims,
plus court costs, plus a deterrent factor.  See Benson's Enterprise of Law
and Friedman's Machinery of Freedom on this.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64279 alt.rush-limbaugh:11652 alt.politics.bush:14569
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:14:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.164343.23474@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>Just a clarification: I do NOT consider myself a socialist, Charles
>does (and he's welcome to) and by the American measures that I see in
>USENET.  I'm currently a Conservative supporter.  I have been Liberal
>... as in the UK party of Disraeli, Churchill and now Paddy Ashdown
>(but I won't go back 'til they take more fiscally responsible policy,
>a hopeful sign being the rise of Paul Martin, Jr. to their policy and
>planning committee -- Paul is a self-made millionaire who rejected his
>silver-spoon heritage from his father (the writer of the Canada Health
>Act), moved to Montreal, became bilingual and founded companies like
>Canada Steamship Lines (CSL)).
>

Paul Martin, Jr. self-made...what a joke...he kissed Paul Demarais's
ass all the way to his wealth...his father was more self-made than
he was...                                 

Gerald
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64605 soc.motss:52741 alt.sex:39762
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:29:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec15.053414.28605@mail.cornell.edu>, wcj1@cornell.edu (Bill Jenkins) writes:
# a rose is a rose is a rose
# a number is a number is a number 
# a statistic is a statistic is a statistic
# 
# Does it really matter how many?
# 
# BillJ
# ~~~~~
# Bill Jenkins   wcj1@cornell.edu

If it doesn't matter, why do homosexuals keep insisting on the 10%
figure?  Why are homosexual clubs at universities frequently named
"The 10% Society"?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Date: 15 Dec 1992 00:46:21 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Phil Ronzone) writes:
`
|>     >Mike Polen) writes:
|>     >>The problem is that the health insurance companies make their
|>     >>money on a percentage of the medical dollar spent. It is
|>     >>against their best interest to hold down costs.
|> 
|> Mr. Polen is utterly and absolutely DEAD wrong. Couldn't be more wrong.
|> 
|> Insurance companies, in America, since 1968, do NOT make money on
|> the policies they sell -- whether they be life, medical, or other.
|> 
The money they are investing is the excess money they have collected from
you and me.  It is their reserves.  They collected it under one definition
of benefits (deductibles, coverages, limits, etc.) and when it is under
attack, they pretend it is their money and change the rules on how you
and I get our money back.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:45:33 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <BzFHJF.BqG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>Seriously, I'm sure that even IF the Pentagon did let the press know 
>the whereabouts of the landing, that's no excuse for recklessness on 
>the part of the media.  I'd be willing to bet that they were advised
>against doing just the sort of thing they did.

The press was informed of the landing, and they were told to "Stay off the
beach!!"  They hit Pete Williams pretty hard the day after with questions
like "But did you tell us not to use lights?".  They were told to use the
control tower, the view would be great, and any lights wouldn't be a problem.
They were not told not to use lights, but they were told to stay off the
beach.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:56:08 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Dec16.173155.18587@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>I have heard homosexuals using the 10% figure as a means of legitimization. 
>If they don't need a percentage to be legitimate, why do so many groups use
>this as a legitimizing factor?

I don't know.  When in a defensive position, people will seize on as many
tactics as possible, especially in the presence of a few respected surveys
which back their stand.  As I said, I don't care if there are 10% of us,
1%, or 12 people.

>And if homosexuality is truly a genetic trait, do we see homosexuality in the
>same ratios in the animal kingdom?  If it is a genetic trait, the percentages
>of population with each sexual preference should be similar in both humans and
>animals.  Anybody have any figures?

Again, who cares?  Christianity is a purely volitional behavior.  There is
no presence of it in the animal kingdom, and is clearly not hereditary.  So
I take it you are saying that its status as a volitional behavior should
allow it to be used as a basis of discrimination?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bush WANTED to Lose
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:30:07 GMT

There's been a lot of punditry attempting to figure out why
Bush ran such a poor campaign. One possible explanation, of
course, is that he was as incompetent at running his campaign
as he was at running the country, and that his loss shouldn't
therefore be that surprising. But the other possibility, of
course, is that there is more to it than that.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Bush was, in fact,
the moderate Republican his longtime friends all claimed.
Suppose that this moderate Republican, out of blind ambition,
made a Faustian bargain with Reagan and the neo-fascist far-
right loon wing of the Republican party in order to become
Vice President and then President. Suppose, having made this
deal with the devil, Bush suddenly woke up sometime in the middle
of this year's Republican Convention to find that a large
group of small-minded compassionless bigoted fascists were
throwing a Nuremburg rally in his honor--EXCEPT HE WASN'T, IN
THE END, WILLING TO PLAY FUEHRER? What could he do to save
himself and the country? 

Lose the election.

And not just lose it, but lose it so hard and ugly that the
far-right was discredited within the Republican party and
sent back under the rocks from which it had slithered.

Did you notice how, in his acceptance speech, Bush actually
seemed RELIEVED? Hardly the way a person who'd wanted to win
would have acted. Perhaps, in the end, Bush returned to his
roots and, in an act of sacrifice, fell on his sword for the
good of his country. Perhaps he is, truly, a tragic figure:
trapped in a bad deal gone increasingly sour, unable for
years to find his way back, but triumphing in the end.

Or perhaps he just f*cked up.

P.S. The ultimate irony is that, had Bush been half as gracious
during his campaign as he was during his acceptance speech, he
might well still be President.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64241 talk.politics.drugs:7957
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: US Should Disarm the Somalis
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:06 GMT

Typically, Bush has committed US troops in a way that shuns commitment.  He had
US representatives take language out of the US resolution that would have author-
ized our troops to disarm the Somalis.  Then he used the lack of such language as
an excuse for not committing us to do that.  Result:  the UN will be stuck there
much longer for fear that withdrawal will bring back violence and chaos.  Our 
policy now pretends that we are there just to deliver food, not to solve the 
political crisis.  But it is the political crisis that will prevent our withdrawal.
So our policy leads directly into the quagmire which it is supposed to avoid.

Before Siad Barre, Somalia had a strong police force and a relatively weak army.
The Soviets pumped tons of weapons into the country, which Barre used to seize
power and weaken the stabilizing police force.  Barre then launched a war against
Soviet-backed Ethiopia, forcing his sponsors to choose.  They chose Ethiopia, and
Barre lost.  Then he turned to other countries for weapons.  The Reagan administra-
tion, while not the principal culprit, was a willing party to the lunacy of flooding
that poor country with weapons.  Now, as with Iraq, our soldiers have to go in and,
in some cases, face US-manufactured weapons along with the Kalashnikovs.

Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali is right to call on the US to disarm the
Somalis.  It is a hard, dangerous policy, but someone has to do it.  We need to
create conditions where a multi-national force can occupy the country, bring back
a stable police force, and introduce civilian government--i.e. some kind of
democracy.  Only after we have guaranteed Somalis the means to defend themselves
from armed bandits can we feel that our mission there was justified.  Otherwise,
it is just substituting bandaids for needed surgery.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: cabinet self destruction predictions
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Distribution: Clinton Economy >internet:clinton-economy-distr@campaign92.org

In article <1483600058@igc.apc.org> jlohrmann@igc.apc.org writes:
> 
> DEPARTMENT TITLE:                         The Department of Labor
> 
> DIRECTOR DESIGNEE:                        Robert B. Reich

Every new administration has one or two people who screw the pooch and  
make a mess of things.  Andrew Young, Sununu, David Stockman.  Any  
predicitons for who's going to go down in flames this time?

Reich: Large ego.  I hold onto my wallet whenever I hear him speak.  
Regards himself as being pretty clever, which is always a dangerous thing.   
Slippery.
Minuses: he's been around the policy blocks a few times, albiet as an  
outsider.  Nobody really gives a damn about the department of Labor, so  
it's hard to get worked up about a stupid decision made there.

Other possibilities: The new HHS secretary, Shalala.  The new EPA chief,  
Browner.  Both are in posts that generate a lot of publicity.  

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Social Security (was Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:58:16 GMT

In <Byxynu.1qAJ@austin.ibm.com> root@moller3.austin.ibm.com () writes:

>In article <1992Dec7.142842.2981@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>In article <BytFr1.HJv@austin.ibm.com> root@moller3.austin.ibm.com () writes:

>[...]

>>>
>>>Ronnie, Jimmy, and Donnie have probably paid a bunch _into_ SS; do you 
>>>plan to just snatch it and run?  It's certainly true that SS is paying
>>>out a lot more to people, on the average, than they've "contributed",
>>>but I don't think that justifies stealing the "contributions" of wealthier
>>>people.
>>
>>Well, I don't ever expect to see anything back from my SS taxes when I
>>retire around 2040.  Why don't why finally admint that what SS really
>>is is welfare for the old instead of continuing this fiction that it's
>>a well funded pension plan?

>I agree.  And I think we should try to find some way to put an end to it
>now, in at least some sort of controlled fashion, rather than later when
>it will put an end to itself, probably in some sort of catasprophic fashion.

Relax, the problem is solving itself. According to Mutual News last night
the elderly have a suicide rate that is 65% higher than that of the
general population, so all you poor children will get your SS taxes
back. :-/


>>
>>Brendan


>-- 
>Chris Moller (moller@austin.ibm.com)

REB usual disclaimer.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64198 soc.motss:52262 ca.politics:10321
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics
Subject: Irrelevant Study Cited - (was: HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:49:16 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <13580@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>    The molester tends to deny his homosexuality.  As Geiser
>    (1979) put it, "It is not unusual for a child molester to
     ^^^^^
     Ancient and biased history- what do you think the general feeling
     about homosexuals and molestors was in 1979.  One point is that
     the area of molestation was not well known, and the ones who got
     caught were probably out looking for victims, therefore were very
     easy to catch up with.

     I would start looking for something that is a little more contemporary,
     not 12-13 years old.  Think about all of the issues during that time
     that we now view differently.  Make the historical context connection.

     You also have not include the context and content of this particular
     study.

>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:00:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.144556.26162@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.223806.28846@rchland.ibm.com> Jared Dahl,
>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>we couldn't go back to the moon right now if we wanted too.
>>Most of the plans were destroyed in a fire at Nasa.
>
>I'm sorry, but this is a myth. Although it would be impossible to do so
>right now due to lack of infrastructure, the plans were not destroyed in
>a fire. The Saturn V facilities were altered for shuttle. The
>lack of any hea
Well, the Russians have the Energia-perhaps a joint project?
(sounds cliche, I know, but what else is practical)
Take this to sci.space please :-)

Simon

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:24:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.162102.4872@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.161645.3316@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>}The reference was to the Somalis who got killed or wounded at the
>}weapon-confiscation checkpoint. Their truck (or bus) failed to stop
>}and the French soldiers fired on them. The original story (disinformation)
>}was that there was a weapon mounted on the truck. Later it was admitted
>}that their was no mounted gun, but the men were armed and were trying
>}to run the roadblock to keep their weapons. Finally, the disinformation
>}gave way to truth: the passengers were not armed and their junker truck 
>}had bad brakes. Why did the truth come out? Because the press was there.
>
>Out of curiosity, do you think there was a gun mounted on top of the
>bomb with wheels that took out the barracks in Beruit?

Er, the thread so far seems to be one in which we're discussion
Pentagon weaseling about the truth ("disinformation" and "later
admitted" are clues to this), NOT whether the troops should have
fired.





--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia