HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:10:12 GMT

(Brian K. Yoder) writes:
> (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>
>>Not quite! All nations in the world have agreed that taxation should
>>be progressive, 
>
>And if all the world agreed that you should jump off a bridge would that
>make it a good idea?  Not so long ago, all nations of the world agreed that
>slavery was acceptable too.  Did that make it right?
>
Now, don't get off on a tangent and start talking like a vexed
middle-aged mom to her tennager. I will not get into the slavery
argument becuase such rhetoric is used by those who haven't
examined the problem closely enough.

>Here's the REAL question:  Should there be taxation?
>Another is whether taxes ought to approximate service fees, or whether they
>ought to be used as a method to redistribute wealth from those who earned
>it to those who have not.
>A secondary question is whether or not taxes should be progressive.
>

Let us take a country which has two families - one earning 200,000 and the
other earning 20,000. Let us assume that the Rich spend 100,000 on
stuff and the Poor spends 18,000. Let us assume that the federal budget 
(defense, eduation and others) for supporting the country is about 30,000. 
Let us examine the different types of taxation:

1. FIXED AMOUNT: Tax each family half of 30,000.

	RICH:   200,000+
       		 15,000-
		100,000-
		--------
		 85,000 surplus

	POOR	 20,000+
		 15,000-
		 18,000-
		--------
		 13,000 deficit

2. FLAT TAX %: Tax each family about 14% to cover the budget

	RICH:	20o,000+
		 28,000- Tax
		100,000- Spending
		-------
		 72,000 Surplus

	POOR:	 20,000
		  2,800- Tax
		 18,000- Spending
		-------
		    800 Deficit

3. PROGRESSIVE TAX %: 15% for RICH and 0% for POOR

	RICH:	200,000+
		 30,000- Tax
		100,00- Spending
		-------
		 70,000 Surplus

	POOR:	 20,000
		      0 Tax
		 18,000 Spending
		-------
		  2,000 Surplus

Now you see why progressive taxation makes sense. A progressive
tax system makes one heck of a positive difference to the poor
and barely any difference to the rich.

You may raise the issue of fairness - why should only the rich
bear the burden? To this I am reminded of a quote: "What is good
Phaedrus and what is bad, do we need anybody to tell us that?"

Most people would think that a progressive tax system makes most
sense. And it is the most people who determine what kind of tax
system we have.

Satya Prbahakar
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8431 alt.politics.clinton:16799 alt.politics.bush:13729 alt.politics.perot:5421 talk.politics.misc:59511
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:33:33 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <BxAxtv.F2M@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <Bx9L5F.39I@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <Bx7KE9.wu@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>
>>>How can we even talk about healing a nation, when we divide it by our 
>>>words?
>>
>>When your words are "Your money or your life?" we are irrevocable at odds.
>>If it's a choice between "healing" and robbery vs. division and justice,
>>I'll chooce the division.  You are trying to use emotion to paper over
>>the difference between justice and theft.  That doesn't cut it.
>
>I agree, Brian.  Clinton has incredible audacity to speak of "healing"
>the nation while he plunders one group of people ("the rich") to 
>influence the voting of another ("the poor").

  Gee, and here I thought this was just some 'turnabout is fair play'
considering how segments of the rich have plundered the poor and the
middle class in terms of outrageous profits in drug and insurance
businesses and leveraged buyouts financed by favorable interest-oriented
tax laws - heavily lobbied for - and the savings and loan debacle.

>
>This bald-faced promotion of class conflict, combined with shrill 
>rhetoric about "healing", is the epitome of hypocrisy.

  If the conflict wasn't there in the first place there wouldn't be 
anything to exploit. And occasionally, "healing" requires acknowledging
and getting rid of the underlying disease first.

>
>>>It is not just those who we elected yesterday who will help make policy
>>>and try to heal wonds, but it is us too.
>>
>>I think they are going to do exactly the opposite.  The democrats open every
>>"wound" they can...they set the rich against the poor, and men against women,
>>all the races against one another.  The all this, in order to avoid 
>>consideringthe important division between the just and the unjust, which they
>>deny at every turn.  That's one breach I refuse to "heal".








-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
From: carl.camurca@travel.com (Carl Camurca) 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Sign seen at Bush ral
Date: 30 Oct 92 14:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Travel Online / St. Louis Online - St. Louis, MO
Reply-To: carl.camurca@travel.com (Carl Camurca) 

CRB>Bush denounced the Duke run for
CRB>the Gorvernor of LA, along with the republican national committee.

...and let Pat Buchanan speak at the GOP!

CRB>'nough said?  Sheez, get a life!

CRB>Chad

Same to you, Carl.

 * OLX 2.1 TD * Hate is not a family value
                                                                                                                          
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8403 alt.politics.clinton:16636 alt.politics.bush:13635 alt.politics.perot:5379 talk.politics.misc:59275
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:52:42 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Nov9.171012.20241@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>3. PROGRESSIVE TAX %: 15% for RICH and 0% for POOR
>
>	RICH:	200,000+
>		 30,000- Tax
>		100,00- Spending
>		-------
>		 70,000 Surplus
>
>	POOR:	 20,000
>		      0 Tax
>		 18,000 Spending
>		-------
>		  2,000 Surplus
>
>Now you see why progressive taxation makes sense. A progressive
>tax system makes one heck of a positive difference to the poor
>and barely any difference to the rich.
>
>You may raise the issue of fairness - why should only the rich
>bear the burden? To this I am reminded of a quote: "What is good
>Phaedrus and what is bad, do we need anybody to tell us that?"
>
>Most people would think that a progressive tax system makes most
>sense. And it is the most people who determine what kind of tax
>system we have.

An outstanding and almost completely convincing example.  There is only one
weakness that I can see.  Since there are more poor than rich, and since the
cost of government does not impact the poor, the poor can direct the tax level
and spending priorities while the rich get only the bill.  If the tax level is
the minimum possible to cover only the most necessary services, then this is a
convincing argument.  Is that what we have in real life?


>
>Satya Prbahakar



===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and
 act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it."
			  
                                      P.J. O'Rourke - A Parliament of Whores

===============================================================================
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8410 bit.listserv.politics:17666
From: f0408@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Minority President?
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:40:04 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <92312.0440322893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
> There has been some talk that as Clinton was elected with only 43% of the
> vote, he lacks a mandate. This of course is nonsense, he won the election and
> he will hold the reigns of power just like his predecessors.

Nonsense?  Of course, Clinton won the election and will hold power as you say,
but it is still not a mandate in the political sense.

>  A possible solution to this problem is to a)scrap the electoral college b)
> institute a system where the candidate who gets 50% of the votes plus one
> nationwide wins, if no candidate does that on the first ballot, have a run-off
> two weeks later between the top two candidates.

The electoral vote had nothing to do with the fact that Clinton won only 43% of
the popular vote.  Eliminating it would not change this at all.  If Clinton had
needed 50% + 1 vote he would still be in your runoff with Bush.  This scenario
also has serious flaws.


>  Anyway, when Clinton is sworn in, the number of votes he received is
> irrelevant. A landslide is only important in intimidating a Congress of a
> different party hue to go along with the President's wishes. It worked during
> Reagan's first term but not beyond that. In any case Clinton and Congress are
> of the same party and with the voters' fatigue with gridlock, there will be
> an incentive to introduce a comprehensive programme.

Just because they're mostly Democrats in the congress doesn't mean they all tow
some mythical party line or all will agree and vote with Clinton.  Gridlock is
not caused by strictly Republican vs. Democrat politics, though that is a major
contributor.  These people (congresspeople) all have their own interests to
protect.  Often, they are disimilar even within party ranks.  The prime example
of this will be to see how easy it is for all of these Democrats to agree on a
health care plan.

The point here is this:  A landslide is a great tool for any president to use
with Congress, even if the congress is predominantly composed of members of his
own party.

Bob Mack, Wright State University





Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8337 soc.culture.french:8326
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,misc.invest,misc.entrepreneurs
Subject: Re: **INTERESTING TRANSCRIPT ABOUT HONDA MOTOR COMPANY AND JAPANESE LCD CARTEL (PBS FRONTLINE)
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:27:21 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.usa
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <BxL4pJ.3Bs@acsu.buffalo.edu> jllee@acsu.buffalo.edu (Johnny L Lee) writes:

>	As an advocate for a 'new industrial revolution' in 
>America, I strongly support regulations and limitations for 
>Japanese products and Japanese companies.

Brazil has done this with their computer industry. They are 
still using PCXT's in research establishments. Their computer
industry is essentially non-existent.

>..., having government play a bigger role in
>domestic investing and foreign regulations...

With our pandering, pork-barrel system? Suppose we had 
done this fifteen years ago. Guess which companies would 
have been chosen by the government for special investment.
Can you say, "good money after bad?" Some Asian governments
can adopt a "to hell with the worker" attitude. They can 
adopt (in some ways) effective industrial policies. I doubt
our political system is up to it.
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Do they have bigger dicks in USA?
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:13:45 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <JJAS.92Nov4224229@acs.nntp-read.bu.edu>, jjas@acs (Jason Stephenson) writes:
>	Oh yeah, I also noticed that European-size (that's what was written
>on the box) condoms don't fit me as well as the ones I buy here.  The ones
>from Spain were far too tight and when completely unrolled just barely covered
>the length of my member.  (Did you know that they have serial numbers?)

Ah - finally we got into the roots of the deep question of whether
Usonian or European culture is the Best on the Face of the Earth.  Do
people from the Nordic countries count as European here, are we also
ones with short dicks?  Holly, you are apparently qualified to talk
about Nordic and European intellectuals and seem to classify Nordic
people into "European intellectuals", any input on the penis size of
Nordic vs. other European people?

Do intellectuals have bigger or smaller dicks than the average citizens?

Hmm, I think there was a poll in alt.sex sometime ago, wonder if it
could be found somewhere.

Inquiring minds want to know,

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Subject: Re: Thanksgiving Day 
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:34:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.183459.21548@ugle.unit.no> mortenny@idt.unit.no  
(Morten Andersen Nyg}rd) writes:
> A question for you Americans out there:
> 
> Is Thanksgiving Day tomorrow, next Thursday, or the last Thursday in  
November?
> I just thought it was the second Thursday in November, but I'm not sure.
> Please answer.
> 

It's the 26th.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: If clinton/gore die NOW, who succeeds?
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:11:09 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <74347@hydra.gatech.EDU>, vaps0de@prism.gatech.EDU (Dustin Emhart) writes:
> In <92312.0030532893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Nov6.153452.5461@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
>>(Stupendous Man) says:
> 
>>>In article <Bx8M6t.5Cx@newcastle.ac.uk>, w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk writes:
> 
>>>>   If the president of the US dies there is a long list of
>>>> "heirs to the throne" starting at the Vice-president.
>>>> But what if the President and Vice-President elect both
>>>> die before they have nominated people to fill the different
>>>> offices of state - who becomes President?
> 
>>>        Speaker of the House.  (S)he would then nominate a VP which congress
>>>would have to approve.
> 
> In other words (example scenario): Clinton and Gore die after the Electoral
> College votes for them. When Congress is called into session (which will
> probably be done in a very timely manner), they elect a Speaker of the House,
> who then takes over as President.

	They've already done that.  Dole was recently re-elected to "Leader of
the Pack" :) for the Republicans.  I'm assuming that the Dems aren't going to
unseat the current Speaker/Whip/etc.

>>Oh, I'll bet anyone a doughnut that at least one Bush elector will end up
>>casting his or her ballot for Ross Perot.
> 
> Just as long as all the electors don't simultaneously get that same idea.

	I see at least one for Perot, and one for another candidate
(Marrou/Lord/Stockdale/Tsongas/etc.).

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Austrian Navy
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:16:27 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov11.121119.18955@email.tuwien.ac.at>, rz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Richard Zach) writes:
> The latest "Profil" carried a nice little story:
> 
> The mayor of San Francisco invited the Austrian consul to
> send a contingent of the Austrian navy to participate in a
> naval parade in the San Francisco bay. The consul responded
> that he regretted, but "at the date in question, the Austrian
> Naval Forces" will be holding maneuvers together with the
> navies of Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxemburg".

	Don't forget, this is the same city that banned the US military from
recruiting on campus.
	Leading to the acid reply that they were just jealous because unlike
survivors of the SF school system, everyone in the US military had a HS diploma.
:)

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: mortenny@idt.unit.no (Morten Andersen Nyg}rd)
Subject: Re: Thanksgiving Day 
Reply-To: mortenny@idt.unit.no (Morten Andersen Nyg}rd)
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 09:34:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.183459.21548@ugle.unit.no>, mortenny@idt.unit.no (Morten Andersen Nyg}rd) writes:
|> A question for you Americans out there:
|> 
|> Is Thanksgiving Day tomorrow, next Thursday, or the last Thursday in November?
|> I just thought it was the second Thursday in November, but I'm not sure.
|> Please answer.
|>

Thank you guys, I've got the answer I was looking for. I understand now that
Thanksgiving this year is November 26th. OK?

Many thanks to those who was kind enough to respond.

Morten.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: If clinton/gore die NOW, who succeeds?
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:34:52 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Bx8M6t.5Cx@newcastle.ac.uk>, w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk writes:
> 
>   If the president of the US dies there is a long list of 
> "heirs to the throne" starting at the Vice-president. 
> But what if the President and Vice-President elect both
> die before they have nominated people to fill the different
> offices of state - who becomes President?

	Speaker of the House.  (S)he would then nominate a VP which congress
would have to approve.

>    They can't (?) hold another election for 4 years. 
> Does the electoral college decide?  Or is this a 
> situation not considered in the US constitution

	That's a possibility.  If they died before Dec. 14th, the electoral
college would most likely pick the new Prez.  (Which would hopefully be
Tsongas/Kemp in whichever order.)

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8405 alt.politics.clinton:16648 alt.politics.bush:13640 alt.politics.perot:5383 talk.politics.misc:59285
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:38:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: quake.BxH8KH.4HF
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <1dkvisINNmq8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>In a previous article, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) says:
>>In just what ways do you think that the rich have plundered the poor?

>    Exactly.  The rich aren't plundering the poor.
>    They're subcontracting the government to do it. 

To the extent that such things happen, I agree it's wrong (say, the Chrysler 
bailout for example), but it happens both ways.  The government robs from
the poor to pay off rich constituents and it robs from the rich to pay for
poor constitutents and it robs from the poor to pay off other poor constituents,
and it robs the middle class to pay off other middle-class, rich, and poor
folks.  This is not an issue of class conflict (no matter how much the
folks on the left want to portray it that way).  It is a matter of 
INDIVIDUAL conflict between ANYONE rich or poor from whom the government
takes money without permission, and those who recieve it unjustly.  Now,
the rich are much more often the victims in such injustices, and the poor 
more often the "beneficiaries", but that is a side issue of secondary
importance.  Rather than arguing over who should benefit from the plundering,
we should first ask whether there should be any plundering at all.

I say:  Just say no to plunder.

Say, have you ever read "The Law" by Frederick Baistat?

--Brian
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: U.S. BORN NOVEMBER 15, 1777
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:52:37 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire




                      UNITED STATES BORN NOVEMBER 15, 1777

               Most people, including Astrologers, believe that the 
          United States was born on July 4, 1776.  But the Declaration 
          of Independence did NOT create a "union" of any kind.  It 
          created thirteen independent colonies, independent from Great 
          Britain AND INDEPENDENT FROM EACH OTHER. 

               What DID create the United States was the signing of the 
          ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.  And this occurred in YORKTOWN, 
          PENNSYLVANIA on NOVEMBER 15, 1777. 
          
               And THAT is the date that must also be used for CORRECT 
          Astrological considerations of the birth of the United 
          States. 
          
               NOVEMBER 15TH should be made another NATIONAL HOLIDAY! 


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 
          
                                          
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: The Presidency
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:52:33 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.

In article <1992Nov5.141216.25561@exu.ericsson.se> ebupaf@ebu.ericsson.se
writes:
> 
> Now for my issue. How can we elect a president from a small
> state, with no federal experience to be in charge of foreign
> policy and the defense of our country? 

Isn't that part of the beauty of it: Absolutely *anyone* (with the  
specified qualifications, as mentioned below) can grow up to be President!

> What qualifications does this guy (who 4 out of 10 people voted for) > > 
> have to run this country?  

Obviously he met the only absolute qualifications as prescribed by law  
(age, country of birth, etc.). Just how many past Presidents were  
"super-humanly" prepared to perfectly handle everything that came their  
way? And it's especially hard to know if you (or someone else) will be  
able to perfectly handle all those unknown, unforeseen things that always  
creep in.

Obviously Clinton is qualified (not only as far as the law is concerned  
but, I dare say, in other ways too) and more than enough people chose him  
to be the one to fulfill the office next. We need to spend our energy  
helping him and helping ourselves rather than criticizing the guy--esp.  
even before he's taken the office and done anything! But we *do* know what  
Bush did and didn't do, could and couldn't do, and we (most of us) opted  
for a change.

So let's just wait and see what happens. And in the meantime, if anyone  
discovers SuperPrez, let someone know so we can change the law so  
he/she(!?) can be in office indefinitely...at least until death, and then  
(oh, no!) what will our poor, helpless country do?! ;-)