HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: CLINTON:  127 (or 8) tax increases revisited
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:34:25 GMT

In article <RICKS.93Jan26143745@luke.luke.nrl.navy.mil> ricks@luke.nrl.navy.mil (Richard Schumeyer) writes:
>byrd@rice.edu says:
>
>>P.S.  I'd really like some economist(s) to explain to everyone here
>>how comsumption taxes are regressive, that is, the poorer someone is,
>>the bigger percentage of their income they pay in consumption tax.
>>The more any government comes to rely on consumption taxes, the lower
>>the percentage the rich will have to pay.
>
>Actually, depending on how a consumtion tax is implemented, it can be
>progressive.  The income tax is progressive because of rate indexing, which
>could be done with a consumption tax.  However, the tax would have to be
>implemented similar to how the income tax is implemented now.  A "national
>sales tax" would not achive this.
>
>I don't think I would mind a consumption tax as a replacement for income tax.
>But since the proposed gasoline tax is in addition to all other taxes, it is
>not clear to me how this will stimulate the economy.  (Is improving the
>economy a promise? goal? objective? dream? )
>
>And people thought G. Bush was exaggerating when he said something like
>"Mr. and Mrs. America, you better hold on to your wallet!"
>--

although bush already screwed us once in the wallet...and he would have been   
free to again in his final term....but i am begining to worry about clinton..
the fact that he has not immediately stomped on all this talk about energy
tax is very troubling.  he told ross perot that gas tax was unfair(regressive)
and hurts middle and lower class.  and we certainly don't need some hokey
goofy scale for how much energy tax we pay...i don't want to fill up at the 
pump and then show some card that proves my income bracket and then see what
the price per gallon comes up as.  hopefully the republicans will save us 
from the unfair and stupid energy taxes.  lets hear some talk about cutting
spending...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.reform:270 alt.politics.clinton:21435 alt.president.clinton:1869
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: CLINTON:  127 (or 8) tax increases revisited
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:12:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.reform
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>the fact that he has not immediately stomped on all this talk about energy
>tax is very troubling.  he told ross perot that gas tax was unfair(regressive)
>and hurts middle and lower class.

Exact quote from my files: from E Lansing MI debate --

 For one
 thing, let me just follow up here. I disagree with Mr. Perot
 that the answer is to raise--put a 50-cent gas tax on the
 middle class and raise more taxes on the middle class and
 the working poor than on the wealthy.
...
 But look what's happened to the middle
 class. Middle class Americans are working harder for less
 money than they were making ten years ago and they're paying
 higher taxes. The tax burden on them has not gone down. It
 has gone up. I don't think the answer is to slow the economy
 down more, drive unemployment up more and undermine the
 health of the private sector. The answer is to invest and
 grow this economy. That's what works in other countries and
 that's what'll work here.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.reform:226 alt.politics.usa.misc:946 alt.activism:21355
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Wrong Dialectic Womyn/Women
Followup-To: soc.singles,alt.sex
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:32:14 GMT


Folks, this matter was settled a while back
and the correct answer was:

FePerKin for the NonMalPerson

and 

NonFePerKin for the NonNonMalePerson.

please update your entries appropriately.


ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Help!
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:37:15 GMT

This endless nonsense about "womyn" and "political correctness" is
useless!  Can we go back to screaming about rape, or something?  The
previous discussions were actually informative.

Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: shralp@camelot.bradley.edu (Jamie McDonald)
Subject: Re: Womyn versus woman
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 21 Jan 93 01:31:30 GMT

sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:

>>If men are upset that some people believe a linguistic change is necessary to
>>promote their cause, then why not fight back accordingly?  Write man as MYN.
>>Then the battle is unwinnable by your "Feminazis" because they are no longer 
>>distinguishing themselves.  Don't fight your enemy by decrying their tactics.
>>Fight your enemy by beating them at their own game.

I agree.


I, for one, am offended by the term "MENstrual."

--
shralp@camelot.bradley.edu                      Jamie McDonald  <><

A rose by any other name would as soon wither and die.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Daniel Rouse, Jr.  Sophomore, CompEng, CSPU
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:46:18 GMT

      Mr. Rouse:

      I don't mean to burst your bubble, but conservatives follow liberalism.
Liberals do not.  You confuse the ideaology: liberalism, with the dimension:
liberal vs. conservative.
      Further, you adopted the label sophomore for yourself, thus granting
permission for others to use it in reference to you.  PC-ness practically
requires that we use any labels an individual or group ascribes unto themselves,
but prohibits the application (read--forcing upon) of a label to any group or
individual.
      Finally, if you object to PC-ness, then why do you choose to grant it
legitimacy by attacking it?  We only attack that which we view as a threat.
If you fear PC, then you grant it power.  With power also comes legitimacy.
With legitimacy comes acceptance.  With acceptance come institutionalization.
With institutionalization comes further opposition.  This continues until those
who feared are governed, and those who governed are feared.

Karen

P.S.  I choose to spell my gender without a "y" because the "e" is a much more
attractive letter.  So is the "a".  Until they make a distinction between men
and women by using an attractive letter, I will use the original.

(BTW) Read the above as additional sarcasm.  There are no attractive letters,
just attractive stationery!

"Men lie.  I don't know why, they just do."  
      Madonna in *Body of Evidence*
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 21 Jan 93 06:35 PST
Subject: Re: THE MONEY SUPPLY AND CURRENCIES
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600108:cdp:1678600149:000:1414
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 21 06:35:00 1993


>I agree. Paradise would be wonderful.
>Unfortunately, no one has a road map for getting there.
>
>In the meantime, there are serious environmental issues which need
>to be addressed in the context of the current political economy.
>When the Greens dissipate their energies seeking utopia, they
>both distract from those environmental problems and lose credibility
>for possible reforms they (or others) might push for.
>
> Micheal Spencer
 
I agree this could be problem.  I, for one, prefer to work in the
legislative/political here and now.  I think most other Greens are
like this.  The trouble is that many of us also believe that this
"here and now" is part of the trouble.  After all, there is more
to social justice and environmental sustainability than simply
passing laws.
 
Also, regarding your word "utopias", this makes it sound as though
these ideas are just wishful thinking with no basis in reality.  There
are very many thriving intentional communities around the country.
There is also a "sustainable cities" movement in many cities, which my
town, Arlington, Virginia, is beginning to explore.  I believe Ithaca, NY
has a very successful example of this.  Detroit Summer, a G/GPUSA sponsored
program in Detroit, is another example.  I am not suggesting these ideas
are being largely adopted by the main stream at this point, however, they
seem to have very broad support and are growing.
 
Dale
From: pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (P.Owens,C20,3492)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:09:10 GMT
Organization: Daresbury Laboratory, UK
Distribution: world
Reply-To: pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: nnsx.dl.ac.uk

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>Since you have taken this position, how is it justified?  If a high degree
>of centralization or participation is bad, a lower degree is certainly not
>as bad, but that doesn't make it good.  Surely the least evil would be
>full decentralization, but if not, why?

By the same logic:
If eating too much food is bad for you, eating less is certainly
not as bad. Therefore The best option must be to eat no food at all.

---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@daresbury.ac.uk 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens,ba.transportation,sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:41:21 GMT

In article <2936816145.1.p00004@psilink.com> p00004@psilink.com (Michael Smith) writes:
>Much of the discussion of this issue has centered on the regressiveness 
>of a gas tax, which is certainly a problem. But there is an additional 
>issue, perhaps even more problematic, that hasn't been addressed: the 
>fact that even in urbanized areas, housing and work are so dispersed 
>that nearly everyone has to *have* a car. Once you *have* the car, then 
>the marginal cost of a car trip can never be as great as the marginal 
>cost of a transit trip, because the car is either paid for or being paid 
>for whether or not you drive it, whereas your share of the capital cost 
>of transit is paid for on a per-trip basis. 
>
>Moreover, with a high coefficient of dispersal for workplaces, it 
>becomes impossible to design efficient transit nets to serve even 
>commuting trips (much less utility trips). 
>
>  [...]
>
>So the only real solution seems to me a policy mix that re-concentrates 
>workplaces and at least a good chunk of residences in ways that can be 
>well served by transit. This may sound ambitious, but I think it's 
>actually less ambitious than to try to lever people individually out of 
>transportation arrangements that do in fact make sense for them given 
>the actual constraints under which they operate.
>
>None of this, by the way, should be taken to imply that I'm *opposed* to 
>a gas tax at, say, European levels. On the contrary. The regressiveness 
>of a tax at such levels could easily be mitigated by some tax relief at 
>the low end in the income-tax mechanisms. My point is that a gas tax 
>high enough to produce really significant changes in transportation 
>patterns would be, really, impossibly high, and that other mechanisms 
>will have to be found for this purpose.
>
>--Michael Smith

I think this points to the difference between short term and long term
policy.  I think there would be a lot of agreement about urban design
issues, but we have a lot of cities and we need to try to make then
work.  Policies to change the forces that created them, but can we
move away from the automobile society without redesigning cities?
The suggestion about the lifeline or basline gas rates is an
ineresting suggestion but it needs further development.  Would it
be need-based?  At what level?  Is it regionally based?  Just how
burdensome would the beauracracy be?
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.greens:637 ba.transportation:3241 sci.environment:14846
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Jargon, was Re: LAW SUITS, REMEDIES AND TOXICS
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 05:14:21 GMT
Summary: plain language please
Keywords: ambiguity directness

In article <1jhgklINNjik@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer) writes:
>[Dean wrote:]
>>Communitariansim is not Marxism and Greens do not endorse Marxism, that
>>I am aware of.  
>
>Never said that communitarianism and marxism were the same thing -
>actually quite different.

This exchange would make sense to me if Michael and Dean and I shared
exactly the same definitions of the [Cc]ommunitarianism and
[Mm]arxism.  But I'd bet a dollar we don't.  One of the things which
attracted me to Green politics was that the debate and exposition was
relatively free of the specialized jargon of older ideologies.  The
Pillars and Values are expressed in plain language.  It would be more
useful to me and others new to the field if we could talk about actual
values and policies instead of throwing opaque package names like
"marxism" around.  For example,

>the Green movement loses credibility because so many of its 
>most vocal members also endorse failed political systems [named above].

I know of at least two respected Sovietologists who feel that "Marxism"
has never even been tried in any actual nation, but remains an untested
theory.  I'll take their word for it because I haven't read enough
Marx to judge for myself (and probably never will).  Without knowing
what Michael's "marxism" is, exactly, his "failed system" assertion is
pretty meaningless to me.

Tell us instead, Michael, what failed value or policy or ideal these
vocal Greens endorse, and how you'd like it changed.

--
Cameron in the rainy Santa Clara Valley, with cat purring on lap.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: NOTA petitions
Organization: Save the Humans!
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 05:38:19 GMT
Summary: draft only now, sigs needed nest year!
Keywords: draft initiative, None Of The Above, Common Cause, Public Citizen

In article <1jpepiINN2p0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu
 (Robert D West) writes:
>
>Does anyone know where it is possible to get NOTA ballot initiative petitions
>for the purpose of circulating them?

There's only a draft right now.  We will need to collect 1 million
signatures in 150 days, and it makes sense for that to be the 150 days
before an election.  A Political Committee has been registered and the
strategy is to form an alliance with outfits like Common Cause and
Public Citizen.
There's a planning meeting Feb 7.

Steve Bloom's article on the front of the Jan/Feb '93 _Green Consensus_,
``Greens' [sic] launch campaign to qualify "none of the above"
initiative for 1994'', sez:

"Call Steve at 510/536-4621 for more info and a copy of
the draft initiative."

The _Consensus_ is at 510-465-7465.


Cameron, west northwest of Mount Hamilton
cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 21 Jan 93 06:34 PST
Subject: Re: THE MONEY SUPPLY AND CURRENCIES
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600108:cdp:1678600148:000:482
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 21 06:34:00 1993


>A central bank is certainly more convenient, but I'm not certain that it is
>better.  What happens when everbody looses faith in the central bank?
>
> Mark.Wilson
 
Mark,
 
Despite our strong disagreements over the relevance of the INDIGENOUS
ENVIRO PERSPECTIVE Report, I think we have much common ground on these
economic issues.  Your point above is precisely the point I was trying
to make.  What happens when the US realizes the real significance of
a $4 Trillion Debt?
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Idiots of the World, Unite!
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:30:09 GMT

   I like the name of this thread; it seems to make the articles
therein more understandable. It's always gratifying to see people
agree about things, and I really love it when they hate everyone who
has the effrontery to disagree.
   Am I missing something or do all enviromentalists hate humanity? I
get the impression that the greens would prefer this planet to be
devoid of intelligent life; they are certainly doing their part at
least. What exactly are you objecting to anyway, your diatribes seem
pretty vague.
   I would prefer to live in a world very like Middle Earth, and I
would much rather food were so abundant and the climate so temperate
that technology was unnecessary. There seems to be an almost innate
craving, a need, for something like a Golden Age, an Atlantus, a
Garden of Eden; maybe it's some preconcious dream from the womb.
   That sad truth is, it can't be that way - ever. There is nothing we
can do to create paradise, we can only adjust to the way things have
become, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. The only
solution that is even remotely feasible require radically altering
human nature, which is necessarily the most intrusive, most abusive
thing to inflict on the human species. If you willing to advocate this
resort to the ultimate tyranny, what manner of people are you? Can you
really be so arrogant as to believe that your definition of humanity
can justify what you imply?

Bill 
   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: mistress@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Erinn Van Note)
Subject: Re: Gas Tax?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:30:20 GMT

           Hello this is a duel post for signing in and some info on the gas tax

My name is Erinn Van Note and I am at Purdue U in Indiana, I am a forestry majorenough about me

One thing several people have mentioned is the possiabilty of the tax money of
goinig into public transportation funds which I dont think is accurate
as I have been informed the tax would be a 50cent tax and it would be used to
lower our nations deficit. PLease correct me if my information is inaccurate.


 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Outer space resources, was Re: save
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:02:50 GMT
Summary: question assumptions!!!
Keywords: ideology, subsidy, spinoffs, public works


If we are to create a truly new political ideology, we must learn
to recognize axioms of competing ideologies, so that we can question
the assumptions on which they are based.  It's the only way to benefit
from others' errors instead of repeating them.


In article <1678600161@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen writes:
>[Patrick Chester writes:]
>> My basic view is that the Greens should do what I think the 
>> government should do with regards to space: get out of the way, please.
> 
>This is my view, too.

Implicit in this line of thought is the assumption that private
industry is always more competent or more efficient than government
at tasks which either could accomplish.

That assumption lies at the heart of the arguments for privatization
made by wealthy elites everywhere, and it's *axiomatic* to libertarian
ideology also.  You'll never hear it questioned by the Sunday morning
TV pundits, who work for the wealthy elites.  But that doesn't make
it true.  There are powerful arguments that public works projects like
space exploration are much more economical when the prime contractor
and many of the subs are government agencies.  (Whether the axiom is
true has been discussed at length and without resolution in many other
newsgroups.  I think there are far more pertinent questions for us
here.)

Chomsky and others argue that the purpose of the arms race and the
space program is to provide a public subsidy to high-tech business.
Certainly if the end goal of those programs is to give us Teflon,
integrated microelectronics, and a poster shot of the Earth from space,
we were gypped, because those advances could have been achieved by
more straightforward means at vastly lower cost.

But those programs have other purposes too, some of which are anathema
to Green Values and others which (sometimes unwittingly) serve them.

We can never untangle a problem like "should Greens support a space
program" without first recognizing and questioning the assumptions
underlying the arguments we hear from other ideological perspectives.
Only then will we have the intellectual freedom to construct arguments
based on Green values instead of values inherited from the ideologies
which dominate our mass media, our elite consensus, and therefore
our own conscious thought.


Cameron, aka cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
"You mean I have to think for myself?  Wow!"
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Carbon Tax? (was: Gas Tax?)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 02:27:35 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> I share the concern that a gax tax is regressive, a concern
> which would tend to lead Greens to oppose it as we try to
> faithful to our value of social justice.

=o= There are some who've suggested a "carbon tax:"  Use a tax
at the carbon source to address the currently ignored damage
that the carbon source causes.  This isn't quite so regressive
as a gas tax, and is closer to the reasonable goal of making
damage of the environment more accountable for.

=o= It is still regressive in that prices would go up (ideally
to reflect the cost of the damage to the environment; more
likely to reflect the higher cost of incompetent management),
and that folks who can't afford energy-efficient innovations
would have to bear more of the burden.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: stewarte@sco.COM (nicest of the damned)
Subject: Re: Idiots of the World, Unite!
Organization: Captain Napalm's Thermonuclear League of Liberty
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:38:23 GMT


Like a bolt from the blue, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) wrote:

>   Am I missing something or do all enviromentalists hate humanity? 

You are indeed missing something.  Two of the four pillars of 
the Green movement are ecology and social justice.  An essential
point of Green such concerns are inseparable:  it does not make
sense to work for one and not the other.  If you've been reading
this newsgroup, you should have seen discussions on how to implement
a conservation-encouraging gas tax with minimal adverse social impact
(on poor and/or rural-dwelling people, i.e. elements of _humanity_).

>   That sad truth is, it can't be that way - ever. There is nothing we
>can do to create paradise, we can only adjust to the way things have
>become, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Ah, the old "lie back and enjoy it" line.  You'll never get to be
Governor of Texas using that line.

Had they followed this line of thinking, the civil rights movement
would never have even bothered to try.  Nor would the women's suffrage
movement, nor the abolitionists -- in short no peoples' movement can
ever accomplish anything, by this thinking, they might as well just 
make the best of it.  Well, they didn't buy it, and neither do I.

>solution that is even remotely feasible require radically altering
>human nature, which is necessarily the most intrusive, most abusive
>thing to inflict on the human species. 

I don't agree.  I believe that most people would rather live in less
destructive ways.  I believe that most people would be glad to have
challenging jobs that didn't require hour-long commutes from their
homes.  I believe that most people would welcome a New World Order
not based on violence and military might.  

-- Stewart
-- 
"Well, then, you that is well now then."
			-- Timothy Bowden (tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us)
/*  uunet!sco!stewarte  -or-  stewarte@sco.COM  -or-  Stewart Evans  */