HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Cold War (was Re: Why Vote for Bush?)
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:53:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.145556.28773@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.002048.3807@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:

>>  I'm not particularly enamoroured of Bush's handling of the end of the
>>Cold War, but I'm much happier with it than say FDR's handling of the
>>beginning of the Cold War.  

>Please explain.  FDR was kinda dead by then.  It can be argued
>that Truman started the Cold War.

I expect Mr. Sugent is referring to FDR's role in the Yalta agreement
and afterward.  The US-British alliance essentially was allowed to
liberate Europe up to a specific line, and then stop, while Stalin
was handed half of the continent as some sort of "recompense" for
his losses.  While certainly the USSR suffered dreadfully in the
war, it is unclear how the Soviet people were made any better off by
arranging for a few million more to join them under tyranny.

The Yalta agreement and Roosevelt's insistence on carrying it out led
to Eisenhower's choosing not to move on Prague, not to attempt to go
past the British-American zone in Germany, etc., and to the British
leaving everything in the Balkans but Greece and Turkey to the Soviets
(since there was no chance of holding any more without US support).
In the end, we left Poland (the invasion of which was the original
cause of the declaration of war), and Hungary and Czechoslovakia
(two countries which had remained democracies until they were invaded,
a rarity in Central and Eastern Europe) to the nonexistent mercy of
Stalin.  By leaving Poland to one of the countries which had divided
it in 1939, we certainly put a bit of hollowness into the victory.

In addition, as a result of Roosevelt's agreement, we forcibly
repatriated citizens of iron curtain countries in the days after the
war-- one account includes Cossacks who had been in Austria since the
Russian Revolution being given to the Soviets at bayonet point.
Roosevelt's inability to distinguish between an alliance of
convenience and actual common interest left the Soviets in possession
of a lot more lives and territory than necessary.

Roosevelt's recognition of the Nazi threat and his steps to prepare
the US to combat it was a great contribution to the cause of world
freedom, and he should be duly honored for it.  But his blind spot
with respect to Stalin, a man responsible for more civilian deaths
than Hitler, is nonetheless blameworthy.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:779 talk.politics.misc:17885
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:23:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rtat5INNf3f
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr7.210247.9758@wpi.WPI.EDU> regnery@wpi.WPI.EDU (George Matthew Regnery) writes:
> ...
>of implementing the flat tax.  I like the flat tax, but I think Jerry Brown's
>other views are too weird for me, or for the American people.

Please enlighten us on these other weird views.  Against Capital
Punishment, Pro-choice, Canadian-style single payer health care?
You may not agree with these positions but they hardly qualify
as weird.  Now George Bush's syntax; that's weird.  At least
Brown and Clinton can string together two sentences.

Methinks you've been listening to too many mainstream analysts
and not to the candidates.
----------------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:489 sci.econ:3587
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:59:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702590356
Distribution: na
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.050838.8631@tandem.com> kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose) writes:
>>The irony, of course, is that a tax on gas is an artificial way of
>>making gasoline more dear since it raises the price above what the
>>free-market price would have been.  

>Or, one could just as plausibly argue that a tax on gas corrects the
>huge public subsidy for private driving that exists in the United
>States.

Then why not go after that problem?  The "an infinite number of wrongs
= a right" approach doesn't seem to work too well.
-- 
If he had another brain, it would be lonesome.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Democratic Candidates: New Yorkers' Opinions
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:55:53 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

> Of course, EVERYBODY has character defects.
> Do you really think people are expecting to find people who don't??

I'm beginning to think that that's exactly what people expect.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.055137.6789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche) writes:
>
>I guess it all depends upon what you consider to be "honestly and sensibly."
>Perot favors a war on drugs with even more draconian laws. In his single-
>minded fervor to impose his attitude upon the rest of us, he has no qualms
>about abrogating the 4th and 5th amendments. The "powerful shovel" his offers
>is his own iron hand, unimpeded by such trivialites as law, individual rights,
>etc.
>
>Hitler asked for the same powers in 1933 in order to clean up a "big mess."
>The Reichstag gave him the powers, and the rest is history. Perot is offering
>the same solution: a strong leader able to enfore unilateral decisions with
>the brutality of the state. Perot may be rich and powerful, but upstairs he's
>still a redneck whose solution to anything he doesn't like is "beat it till it
>bleeds." I hardly call this sensible.

Well, the dopey American public is well on its way to making the U.S. a
first rate third world country.  And there aren't too many third world
countries with stable governments.  We NEED a strong leader since we
obviously can't do it ourselves.  Now, Hitler was a bit overzealous
(serious understatement), but comparing any potential U.S. President
to Hitler is just rationalizing your own disapproval of the candidate.
The political climate of the U.S. is hardly similar to post-war Germany
and you know it.  Furthermore, Perot doesn't want dictatorial powers, he
wants to educate the public so they can make informed, rational decisions
about the issues that face our government - note the electronic town
hall concept.

Bob

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: === NEWS FLASH: Clinton Denies All Charges ===
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:08:51 GMT


While your extrapolation "from numerous recent news reports" must be judged
by a different standard, its _verisimilitude_ would have been improved if you
had spelt Hillary Clinton's name correctly.


Dhanesh

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:740 talk.politics.misc:17799
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:41:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Apr9.175446.2544@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.130655.28253@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>>
>>
>>>2)  Statistics quite easy to find reveal that countries with high trade 
>>>barriers have very poor economies(barriers made the economies obviously
>>>worse off in many of these cases that I have knowledge of.)
>
>
>	How many of these countries were communist when the surveys were
>taken? That may be the reason the statistics work. I'd be interested in
>statistics that leave out the Former Warsaw Pact, China, and other communist
>countries.
>

  Good point.  One such report I know of is from the May 4th 1991 issue of
the economist.  I count 2 of the top 12 tariff countries as communist
and one more is China. (I'm not typing this sucker in, but it should
be easy enough for you to find by yourself.)

   Interstingly enough, Mexico is 6th on this list as of 1985.


Pat 


  

-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: How to modify my kill files (yes, really!)
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:49:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.234040.12724@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>Just as a note, how do I keep certain authors out of my reader?  Call
>me an ostrich, but if I see one more post about "Just look to the Libs
>for new ideas" and "such-and-such are closet Libertarians" I'm gonna
>puke.  And who wants that?
>
>Of course, I'm not suggesting that everyone should strike the
>Libertarians from their reading.  After all, they got 11 votes in NH
>:-).
	I just finished figuring out how to do this very thing?  For
the UNIX reader "rn", I edited the local KILL file for this group to
add a line like:
/From: userid@someplace*/h:j

	Don't forget the slashes, the asterisk is a wild card so I
don't need the whole address.  The "h" makes the reader search all
header lines for a match to the expression in slashes.  The "j" junks
them.

Brad

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Capricious Us
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:50:52 GMT
	<1992Apr9.122941.24952@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: pat@chinet.chi.il.us's message of 9 Apr 92 12:29:41 GMT

pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
|isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
|>And while I'm at it, isn't Rubbergate the stupidest scandal we've
|>every had?

|  Considering the huge amount of other scandals that go absolutely 
|unconvered only because both parties are involved, I would have to say
|that rubbergate is the stupidest scandal we've had.

|  Well, except for one thing.  The common man can understand check-bouncing.
|The common man has a much harder time figuring out that much of our congress
|is bought and paid for on many issues.

Well, the common man also seems to have a hard time figuring out that
they didn't bounce checks because it wasn't a bank, it was a
non-interest bearing coop and *anyone* can do this, if they just trust
everyone else in the coop not to, as a group, draw out more hthan the
collective has at any one time.



|-- 
|Patrick Sugent                       

|pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
--
Peace.
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
 and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                           ------
Don't just adopt opinions |  \/  | I am Charles Isbell, Homeboy from hell,
      develop them.       |  /\  | living axiom and anonymous absolute ruler
                           ------  of the cosmos.
From: swjnev01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: The American Way
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:38:04 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

From the outside the American election looks like a complete farce. I seems
that the male who has the most money, who throws more dirt about the sex lives
of his opponents and who catches the most baseballs in his shirt and tie for
the media is the winner of the contest. Its a pity that Americans can't be more
serious about the power that they have. God help the world if Bill Clinton
makes his gung-ho way into the white house.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.news-media
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Tsongas pulled a boner on health care
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:03:25 GMT

In article <10801@cs.tulane.edu> feldman@cs.tulane.edu (Damon Feldman) writes:
>In <MEGGIN.92Apr2122154@epas.utoronto.ca> meggin@epas.utoronto.ca (David Megginson) writes:
>
>>How long will the U.S. be the only major industrialised country in the
>>world which does not provide decent, universal health care to its
>>citizens in some form? In Canada, universal health care costs 8% of
>>GDP, almost all paid by the governments; in the U.K., it costs 6% of
>>GDP, again, paid by the goverment; in the U.S., on the other hand,
>>health care costs 12% of the GDP
>
>You get what you pay for.  In the US, you can have any treatment
>you want, any time you want if you are willing and able to pay for 
>it.
>
>I find it hard to beleive that turning the system into a bureaucracy
>will reduce paperwork.
>
>Doctor's salaries are set by supply and demand.  If we reduce their
>salaries, they will be in short supply soon after.
>
>Look at rent controls in New York to see what price fixing does in
>a free market economy.
>
>Damon Feldman                  feldman@rex.cs.tulane.edu

	Well, cartels are a way to break supply/demand in favor of the
seller.  Whaddya think the AMA is?  And not EVERY bureaucracy HAS to
choke itself in paper.  Apparently the Canadians have figured out how
to do it (not that the Canadian model is for us, mind you).
	Finally, remember that EVERYONE posting here either has a job,
or is a student, most of whom are young, are reasonably well taken
care of, and have bright futures.  WE are not the ones hurting the
worst (though it is coming!).  It is the millions of people NOT
posting here!  It is the average working people, the unemployed, the
small business owner as well as street people who are being crushed by
our health crisis RIGHT NOW.  It will only take a little longer for us.
	I have my own opinions on what would work, but have no time to
do that now.  Just remember the huge number of people who are already
out of luck and out of time.  Just because they drive a truck, swing a
hammer, can't do differential equations, or talk a little strangely
does NOT mean we can disregard them.  SOMETHING has to be done, and
I'm inclined to think it has to be drastic, and be painful for the
vested interests which have reigned over this decline into chaos.

Brad

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Candidates Other than President
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:16:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

Sometimes I get frustrated that both the media and the net pay so much
attention to the Presidential candidates and so little to those running
for either state or Congressional office. We vote for more of those
offices. They have a big share in deciding what our future will be. With
that in mind:

Recently I received some material from a candidate for the California
Assembly from my district. The material sounds good. The following two
quotes from her flyer seem to make sense to me.

"We have to remember that it's business that provides each of us with a job 
that allows us to provide for our families. It's time for Democrats to take 
the lead in finding new ways to work with, encourage and support the kinds
of businesses that are good for our communities." -- Debra Bowen

"Our economic problems won't be solved by sacrificing our environment.
California can and should be a leader in developing the kinds of new
technology that will provide both decent jobs and a sound environment.
A commitment to the environment will mean development of technology that
will keep California competitive in a world market." --Debra Bowen

I realize that I am posting this to a much wider audience than my assembly
district. My reason for doing this is that I seek suggestions from any who
will respond.

How can I be sure that Debra is as good as her flyer says she is? What
should I do so that I can decide, both intelligently and informned, in
the June primary and in the November general election, wether she is
actually better that all of the other candidates?

Any thoughts would be appreaciated.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:43:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.113225.4146@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:

>  Many leading Democrats didn't like the Democratic budget either.  They
>merely passed it because they knew Bush would Veto it.  Even then, it
>barely made it through.  

>Patrick Sugent                       

True enough. But remember many of the Congressional Republicans did
not like Bush's package either. I like the vote in the House was almost
unanimous against Bush's plan. 

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
From: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Somebody please post current Democratic delegate counts
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:13:41 GMT
Reply-To: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC


> True, but he isn't going to get that many delegates, or even close.
> If doesn't capture enough of the uncommited and super delegates
> (something that will likely happen) then it will be brokered.

Can some one post the delgate counts so far? including those for
the retired candidates?  This type of information would help
determine if and when Clinton has the nomination locked up.

[ I believe Bush already has the Republican nomination locked up ]
-- 
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dba3k@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Daniel Burton Avery)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:19:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.173637.25544@cs.ucla.edu> tiff@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Tiffany Frazier) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr3.143821.28216@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> rhf@decoy.uucp (25421-flood) writes:
>>>
>>Brown's tax plan includes a 13% VAT on business's revenues.  Unlike an
>>corporate income tax on *profits*, a VAT is a tax that gets completely
>>passed on to consumers.  So if one takes the 13% flat rate, subtract 2%
>
>2%??????  Are you nuts?  _Maybe_ the wealthy pay 2% of their income
>on housing but the poor sure as hell don't!  For my family - it's *32.6%*
>of our income that goes to rent (most years it's more).

The thing that confuses a lot of people about this tax for a
while (myself included) is that the rent deduction is a
deduction from your tax -base- and not your actual tax.  See,
if you make $10,000/year, and pay 30% of your income on rent
normally, than that means you subtract rent from your gross
income and -that- is what you multiply by 13% to get your tax.
In the above case, if you spend 30%, $3,000, on rent, then you
pay:

$10,000   (gross income)
-$3,000   (rent deduction)
=$7,000  (taxable income)

then to get your tax...
$7,000
X  .13
= $910    (your tax)

which is an effective 9.1% tax rate...
Add this 9.1% to a 13% VAT which will hit lower income people
more than wealthy ones, and it doesn't look too good.

The rent deduction would save a family spending 30% of their
income on rent about 4% of their income.  The rent deduction
doesn't do a whole lot to correct the regressive quality of
this tax.

Dan Avery
University of Virginia
Internet: dba3k@virginia.edu
Bitnet: dba3k@virginia
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Flat Tax lowers taxes on poor
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:46:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

> The flat tax would replace the current 35% income tax for corporations--which
> gets passed on now.  VAT's arn't necessarily the evil of the universe if
> they replace an even higher tax rate!

Don posted numbers a while back that showed that taxes account for
approximately 3% of the cost of goods now.

Remember, the 35% rate is a MARGINAL rate on PROFITS.  The VAT is a
FLAT rate on GROSS REVENUES - COST OF MATERIALS (hint, it taxes the
amount an employer spends on employees, which would act as a deterrent
to employers--great plan).  You can't compare the two numbers because
they measure different things.

--Scott
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Please post NY ballot
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:18:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Here are my predictions:

Larry Agran........:  0
Bob Kerrey.........:  2
Jerry Brown........: 39
Tom Harkin.........:  1
Eugene McCarthy....:  0
Bill Clinton.......: 42
Paul Tsongas.......: 16

Jason W. Solinsky
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:32:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: noose.1992Apr6.103201.8593
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <bma0hy.ff3@wang.com>, fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
|> > f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
|> 
|> >    First -- from what I see of the Lib platform, it is *not* the best.
|> >    It seems to be warmed over Goldwater/Buchanan Republicanism whose
|> >    flaws are masked by the fluff words "Jeffersonian democracy."
|> 
|> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
|> 
|> > We are pro choice. We are against the war on drugs. We are in favor of
|> > an end to prosecution of victimless crimes, including the completely
|> > innocent things adults may choose or choose not to do in the privacy
|> > of their own homes, with or without money involved.
|> 
|> You are against environmental protection laws.

There are non-govermental solutions to polution which would be vastly more
effective than what we have now.  For example:
The privatly-owned trout streams in England are the most pollution-free
rivers in that country.  The reason is that if a company pollutes them
they can get sued for harming the owner's business of trout fishing.

|> You are against regulation of businesses, consumer protection and many 
|> business-practices laws.

Indeed--but that is because we believe that the government isn't doing a good
enough job of protecting the populace.  A good example of a private organization
is UL.  Its optional for a device to be UL listed.  However market pressures
insure that only companies who deliver safe electrical devices survive.

|> These are show-stoppers to me and to many other people.

We definatly have our work cut out for us in the PR end of things.

|> When will we get a party that's libertarian on civil-liberties issues, but
|> regards businesses as potential threats to individual rights, just as the
|> government is?  This party would do _very_ well.

Well.....its kind of a package deal.  Ideologically, forcing someone to run
her business in government-approved ways is very similar to forcing her to run 
her personal life in government-approved ways--after all, her business is 
mearly one part of her personal life.