HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:49:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: new tax scheme

>From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>Say the federal government charges a 20% flat tax today (10% for
>defense and 10% for social programs).  No other kind of taxes
>whatsoever.  That is what you want, right?

I'd cut the social programs, but otherwise, okay.

> So you make $100,
>pay $20 in taxes and are left with $80.  Now say because of a newly
>adopted constitutional amendment, the federal government is banned
>for collect taxes for social programs and states are left with that
>privilege.

Ideally, states wouldn't tax for social programs either.  Well, IDEALLY there
wouldn't be any taxes, but....

>  So now, under the new system, you make $100, feds
>keep 10% and you are left with $90.  BUt now the state is collecting
>another 10% tax (on your original income) for social programs and
>you are left with $80.  So now according to you we are double taxed,
>right?

You are double taxed in the sense that your income is being taxed two times.
Since the taxation comes from two different entities, its more tolerable,
though.

> Well, I guess a definition is a definition, but yours is
>not cohesive and self consistent.

How so?  I've defined double taxation as taxing an income stream once, and then
turning around and taxing it again.  Where have I violated this definition?

Or are you referring to my def. of "fair?"  Again, I've defined "fair" as
treating people equally.  A single flat tax sure seems to fit this definition.
Why do you think its inconsistent.

>I always thought double taxation was being taxed for the same PURPOSE
>twice and simply being taxed twice.

Well, I guess you thought wrong.  Anyway, I'm against double taxation only to
the extent that it makes things a lot more complicated than they need to be,
and often treats people unfairly.  If *everyone* was double-taxed in the same
way, then I would have no big philosophical objection to it; it would just be
a stupid thing to do.

>>> p.s.  Will you please leave about 1-12 characters right margin so that
>>> I can add quote signs to the beginning of your text?  Thank you.

>> Sorry, but I'm not sure how to do this :(

>That is right, I forgot.  THAT is taught in the graduate school
>these days.  :-)

Ha ha ha.  I'm sure you're laughing as well, knowing that you can't even
intellectually conquer an undergrad, of all people  ;)

>--KAT

Jason
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:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:08:07 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forward from Bush list on Oregon initiative.

On Mainstream Republicans:  Given their positions, they shouldn't be supporting
Bush.....

Be Seeing You,
Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:30:40 CDT
From:         Rex Hargis <RHARGIS@UKANVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Education and money

No, no, no, it's "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach, and those who
can't teach, become college professors."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:46:26 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Just as carl has quieted down

I say:
>>  I wonder, Jason, whether you think
>>there is anyone but you who believes
>>that.  This may come as a surprise to
>>you, but it isn't the noisiest who wins.

To which Jason responds with first:
>I agree wholeheartedly.

And then a whole lot of noise, which
includes a statement or two upon which
I can't help but remark.

>Unfortunately, I think you missed the occasion which so irked Jaime.  For
>several days we argued over the merits/demerits of abolishing
>anti-discrimination laws.  We made no progress, because she completely refused
>to address any of my claims, specifically that discrimination is costly to
>firms.

For the record, I was on Jamie's mailing list.  That, BTW, is the
correct spelling.  And I read Jamie's remarks to your criticisms, and
the one post of yours which Peter forwarded along.  It was quite clear
to me (though I am just a physicist) as well as to the economists (if I
may be so bold as to speak for them) and, it seems, to the rest of us
who were lurking that Jamie did indeed address your points.  In fact,
his remarks were quite compelling.  Now what you may have sent Jamie
that you didn't send to the rest of us, I can't remark upon, but in the
post that got distributed, you showed no evidence, studies, or reports
(of the billions you claim exist) to support your stand.  In fact, you
didn't even seem to understand Jamie's points.  As to your assertion that
he didn't respond to any of your points, in his closing remarks he
duplicated, in detail, those points you felt he didn't address and he
reiterated his (as far as I could tell) unanswered criticisms of those
points.

>Being a student of economics, I know beyond any doubt that I am right on this
>point.

You aren't the only student of economics on this list - and you aren't
the only graduate student in economics on the list (you are a grad student,
aren't you?  I mean, to be so sure of your authority I would have guessed
you must have been a professor.  What year are you?  PhD or just a Masters?)
but you are almost certainly the only person on the list convinced beyond
a doubt that you are right.

>And gee, Tim, someday I hope I can reach your level of thoughtful analysis

Frankly, Jason, I do, too.  But I'm not holding out for it.

                              -Tim

p.s.:  you can have the last word, Jason, but do satisfy my
       curiosity as to the extent of your authority - let us
       know how long you have been a student of economics.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:41:11 EDT
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

I'm sorry, Chris, I find it impossible to admire or respect someone
for their mental acuity when they use it in the service of evil (or
do you have some more fitting term for the appalling dictators JK
deigns to excuse?). I don't doubt she's pleasant, a good listener,
and a real hoot for an afternoon's tea; they doesn't change what she
is.
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:02:41 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Smoking

Reprinted without permission from the 9/29/92 issue of the Collegiate
Times, Va Tech's bi-weekly, student-run newspaper.

CANCERLESS CIGARETTES INVENTED, NOT RELEASED

Durham, NC - Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. researchers said they developed
a cigarette in the late 1970s that eliminated cancerous tumors in test
animals
  However, Liggett has not marketed the product.
  Liggett was once the nation's third-largest cigarette maker.
  James Mold, a chemist and Liggett's former assistant director of
research, said, "They'd be admitting all the cigarettes they had been
producing were not save."
  The project, XA, is named from its ID number in the company filing
system, XA-5001.

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "LSD has been known to cause
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   psychotic reactions in those
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    who don't use it." - TL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:55:00 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Virtual elections

Speaking of virtual elections, I hope that there will
be a ballot posted sometime before it takes place, as in all
the shuffle of it all, I have lost track of everyone who is
running.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:23:54 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Murphy Brown

>>> He says I am not interested in Quayle's speech.  So now Andy
>>> claims he can read my mind.  What next?
>
>> It wasn't mind-reading, it was merely remembering what KAT has
>> written.  See above.
>
>"has written?", "merely remembering?", when???

In previous messages, although it was nice of him to repeat it.

>He accused me of not being interested in Quayle's speech BEFORE
>I said that.

I pointed that out BEFORE KAT wrote it this time, but there was
previous evidence on the point.  On the other hand, if I concede that
I predicted his position without adequate information, I'll be
admitting that I've successfully read his mind on this point and that
not admitting that ability is tantamout to lying about it.  Would that
make him happy?

BTW - What was it he wrote about some previous message being his last
on this?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:04:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Education and money

>>ARGH! "administer." "administrate" is a horrible word.


>My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says "Aministrate:  administer"

administer does sound nicer.
administrate sounds like a bodily function.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:34:12 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Perot takes the plunge

A few notes on Perot's announcement:
  He apologized for dropping out of the race in July.  He said,"It was
my decision and I take full responsibility for it."  I think that sentence
itself will help to re-endear him to many potential supporters as well as
distance himself from the other candidates; Bush doesn't admit to mistakes,
he blames others, and Clinton's fecal matter emits no olfactory essence.
  What killed me was his insistence that he will focus on the political
issues and will not discuss character issues.  This is an artful dodge, but
he may not be able to keep it up.  "Mr. Perot, did you have your daughter's
boyfriend under surveillance?" "Next question." "Mr. Perot, did you once
for an employee for having symptoms of HIV infection?" "Next question."
"Mr. Perot, are you afraid to answer those other questions?" "Next
question."  It could be real interesting or real boring.
  The Clinton shill on McNeil/Lehrer wasn't concerned about Perot in the
race.  His theory was that once people get to the booth, they will want
their vote to count.  Perot will not be perceived as being able to win,
so those dissatisfied with the current administration (pretty much anyone
who isn't involved in the current administration) will flip the lever for
Clinton.  As much as it disturbs me, I can't disagree with his analysis.
    toddddddddddddd

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "I'm in a nuclear submarine
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   under the polar ice cap and
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    I need a Kleenex." - ZIPPY
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:31:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: White House bitnet

        I really couldn't see why a place like the White House would have
one bitnet address.  Or any bitnet address.  What it probably has is an
internet address, or at least an address which is reachable on internet,
and probably all the people who work there have their own addresses.  I would
guess further that higher officials have two addresses (at least).  One for
the common people which their secretaries go through, and one for people
who send them things they don't even want the secretary to see.  I would
also guess that the computer that runs their email is entirely unconnected to
the one which has the regular in-house White House data bases and communications
        The outside computer would be reachable by Internet and the secure compu
ter would only be reached via secure links.

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 10:19:01 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?

Rick:

Oh, yeah.  Loved those tough questions from Larry.  Real tough (smirk).

Wasn't it cool when Mike Wallace called up and accused Perot of avoiding
the real press and Larry of "tossing softballs"?  That was neat.  They
both acted like they'd been caught at something.  (I also think it's odd
how people like Cher and Mike Wallace call in to the Larry King show,
when the talk show format is supposed to be for the people--you know,
"the Owners of the Country.")

BTW, I think I missed something.  Does Perot have a VP?  I know he must,
but I don't know who it is.  I heard rumors it was going to be Jackson,
but I'm sure I would have *heard* about that if he'd actually been picked.

Perot just wants everybody in the country to get down on their knees and
*beg* him to be president.  Definitely a passive/negative.

And, I'm sure it's a coincidence, but last night on Love and War somebody
was referred to as having "the attention span of Ross Perot."  It should
be interesting *when* he does decide to get back in (or to work it some
more from behind the scenes), since the media (Larry King excepted)
doesn't like him very much.  He's an easier target than Dan Quayle, even.

--Missy P 2 BzP3xdm~q%ck6$Pw
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:28:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Prisoners Delimma

Hi Kerry.

>I'm reasonably familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma, and with the "tit-for-tat"
>strategy that maximizes outcomes from playing that game.  I don't see how
>PD is at all analogous to the situation Jamie was using -- could you please
>clarify?

As I recall, the whole point of the Prisonser's Delimma is that even though it
is in both prisoner's interests to deny that either commited the crime, they
wind up implicating one another because it is in their INDIVIDUAL interests to
do so.  If they could communicate with one another and be sure that they both
denied that either had anything to do with the crime, they would be a lot
better off.  However, their inability to communicate or enforce an agreement
results in each prisoner choosing a non-optimal solution.

This seems to be the same situation that Jamie's hypo gives us.  If firms could
easily communicate and observe each others actions, and if they could enforce
their agreements, they would all be better off if they discriminated in hiring.
However, since each firm has an incentive to undercut the agreement (just as
each prisoner in the PD has an incentive to rat out his comrade), they will
not be able to actually achieve this result.

Does that clarify things any?  Let me know either way.

>Thanks
>Kerry

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:15:39 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Education and money

J.B.:

I think you are right in the calculus of professorial salary.  I believe
the figure cited by the author (I can't recall his name right now) was
based on assumed hours of classroom teaching.  (Of course, around here,
the hours would be inflated, since many professors only teach one hour
a week and leave the other two to teaching assistants.)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:52:32 BST
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: New Tax Scheme
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>>The new structure would tax consumption rather than earnings, but in an
>>allegedly progressive way, unlike VAT. In effect, you'd only be taxed on
>>what you spend, not on what you save. You would deduct all savings from
>>taxable income.
>
>I haven't read what George Will had to say about it, but it seems bizarre to
>talk about a "progressive" consumption tax.  You could hypothetically tax
>consumption at a higher rate as your income rises, but the rates would have to
>be really varied to account for the fact that lower income people spend a
>higher proportion of their income than the middle class or rich do.

Erm, if the more you consume the more tax you pay, I would call that
progressive.

>
>What we really need is a flat tax on all income from every source.  What we do
>NOT need is another scheme to control human behavior via the tax code, which
>this consumption tax seems to be.

NO, NO, NO. Using taxation to influence human behaviour is exactly
what *is* needed.

Firstly one can load tax onto luxuries - which will only be bought by
those who can afford them

Secondly, we can influence consumption patterns by the use of
taxation. Automobiles in Europe are far more fuel efficient than those
made in the USA. This is because a gallon of fuel in most European
countries costs about $3 - 4. If you want to reduce the consumption of
something, you increase its price.

>
>Let the semantic arguments begin, Jaime.
>
>>Jamie
>
>Jason

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:59:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: HR 1674

        Re having a scanner in a moving vehicle.  I think that it is illegal
in most states, but as I recall at least in New York it is worded in a way
as to ban scanners that receive police frequencies.  It used to be that if
they pulled you over and they really wanted to hassle you they would make
you show them your crystals and take away all the ones that were for police
frequencies.  On the other hand, the only guy I knew who had this happen
to him was someone who used to be a supervisor for the security company
I worked for, and he was a nut.  He had his car all fixed up like an unmarked
police car, and he used to try to pull people over for speeding.  He was later
arrested for flashing the boys at the local high school.

        I used to have a scanner in my car, which had on it all the state
police frequencies (including the surveillance frequencies), all the local
town and village police frequencies, the fire, rescue and ambulance frequencies,
plus a couple of FBI and Secret Service frequencies just for fun.  When I was
working the local cops used to drive by and ask me what I had heard because
I had more frequencies in my scanner than they did.

        As far as the government is concerned.  The NSA has always been
active in trying to restrict the types of encryption devices and programs
available for voice and for data.  And I think that it is the FBI that
is trying to ensure that cellular phones will always contain information
that will help them track people from cell to cell.  Of course if this
material is installed, it will be impossible for anyone else to track calls
from cell to cell, right?

                                        Chris Morrison
                                        CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:13:40 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: media & ross perot (#
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>
              6 Oct 1992 09:55:28 EST from <lois.laulicht@CHANNE L1.COM>

On Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:55:28 EST lois laulicht said:
>(Continued from the previous message)
>
>
>The ultimate flim-flamming of the American public by the largely
>conservative controlled media casts a shadow on  the judgement,
 ------------------------------

Now we know how far to the left Lois swings...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
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:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:10:11 -0400
From:         "People Are Like Zits,
              You Squeeze Too Hard andthe Head Comes Out!!"
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Decline of America: Intervention, Militarization,
              and Wars (II)

the facts are not valid because the amount of change that went
on in those 2 years.. particularly in the Soviet Union..
and it is also obviously a call to create a new state of isolationism...
which can only exist if the world population goes down tremendously.
The reason for these interventions is that of any Major Poer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:31:33 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: HR 1674

>>Yes.  I don't believe that scanners should be banned (having 2 of them,
>>myself).  There are scramblers that can be used by those people that do
>>not want their transmissions picked up.
>
>Even if one doesn't have scanners, a law banning them would seem
>to be dangerous in that it removes the idea that the communications
>act of 1934 (or whatever it was) set forward that the airwaves are
>public property.
>
>Do you know how far the bill is?  Who is sponsoring it?  Is there
>support for it?

I've forgotten the number of the FCC reauthorization/budget bill, but
it contained a "receivers for certain frequencies can't be type 15
certified after a certain date" provision.  Is that the bill in
question?  The FCC reauthorization bill got through the House on a
unanimous voice vote some time ago and I haven't paid attention since.

As I remember, type 15 (or whatever that section is called) concerns
electromagnetic interference.  I don't know if political
considerations have been used before.

The cellular phone boys were behind this one*, but the police want in
as well.  Some of the major amateur radio groups signed on when they
were given some status tokens.  Then again, said groups have
previously expressed hostility towards "scanner scum", so they
probably think it's a win-win deal and would have agreed even without
the tokens.

-andy

* - Those of you with old TVs have cellular receivers.  They're
grandfathered for now.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU