Kim Berry 1991 Internet Postings

In 1991 there was no world wide web. But there were USENET Newsgroups. I worked at QMA on a C application which took about 10 minutes to compile and link. Our PCs where not on the Internet. But some of us were given small black/white terminals that had internet access. (Note the old style "!" as part of the email addresses to explicitly define "hops".)

Opposition to pending NAFTA legislation

NAFTA was billed as a win-win which would strengthen Mexico's economy, and thus increase exports as the new wealthy Mexicans purchased American goods and services. Then when Ross Perot came on the scene on the anti-NAFTA "giant sucking sound" of U.S. jobs out of the country due to free trade agreements, I became a strong supporter of Perot. At one point I had used masking tape to write "PEROT" on my car. I recall managers at NEC talking about it - seeing it in the parking lot. They believed that "only the undesirable jobs would leave the country, leaving all the good jobs for Americans.

In article <6...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> cop...@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>Hi folks,
> I'm new to this world of computers and newsgroups, but I am looking
> for some discussion on the US-Mexico FTA being currently fast-tracked
> by Bush. Has therebeen/is there likely to be any such discussion
> here or elsewhere? I'll look for responses.

An excellent commentary of this issue written by a professor at UC Davis
appeared in the Forum section of the Sunday 5/5/91 Sacramento Bee. I
don't have the article with me, but some of the author's points were
that it is no longer true that "what is good for GM is good for America."
He argues what may now benefit big corporations may have an opposite
effect on average Americans and our overall economy. I recommend this
article for those interested in the subject.

My personal view is that, the President of Mexico seems too eager to
rush this through. I am too skeptical to believe that any policy which
will significantly boost Mexico's economy will also be to our benefit.

We are alreadly loosing our wealth-generating manufacturing base in
favor of many lower-paid service-type jobs which do not generate
wealth (you clean my carpet..I'll fill out your 1040...no wealth
generated.)

I cannot see how free trade with a country with no minimum wage or
benefits can be to our advantage. What do we have to gain? Aren't
we already free to purchase anything we want from Mexico? And considering
the state of there economy, what can the average Mexican worker afford
to purchase from us? (BTW, I am anti-union and Republican..no hidden
agenda here.)

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
(Mr.) Kim Berry utgard!k...@csusac.ecs.csus.edu QMA Inc
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Advocate for reducing immigration

I called the problem of growing dependence on foreign oil back in 1991, as well as the budget problems that would result from allowing poor, high birth rate immigrants to enter the U.S. I opposed it. To date the U.S. does not have any population policy. Families still get tax credits for an unlimited number of kids, forcing small families to sacrifice to subsidize large families.

From: Kim Berry

Subject: Re: ARF on IMMIGRATION

>I strongly support ARF's argument that we should close our borders
to further immigration.

ARF says:

Wow! Sanity to the rescue.

I can't find a word to disagree with or any other comment to this posting
other than AMEN!

I like it so much that I am including it to broaden its distribution.

> The primary factor in the decision should
be whether the U.S. would benefit from an increased population, or
whether we have enough people already:

1. We are a debtor nation increasing dependent on foreign fuel:
Clearly the less fuel we use as a nation, the better off we
will be. The fuel used by the several million immigrants who
arrived in the last decade takes us farther from our goal.

2. We are no longer a frontier: At one time we could go out west
and have 40 acres for the mere effort of driving a stake in
the ground. Now in California you are lucky to own a home on
1/4 acre after working 30 years.

3. We cannot provide social services for the people already here:
California sales and vehicle registration taxes just took a
big jump. Our schools are overcrowded and in shambles. If
immigration is beneficial, and since California had a record
number of immigrants in the last decade, why then do social
services require a bigger bite of our pay than ever in
history?

4. For each new immigrant we must level 1/4 acre of forestland
to build another home. Do some multiplication here. Further
consider that in California those houses are being built on
top of prime agricultural land.

5. Visit a third world country and see how bad it can get when
the value of a human life approaches zero. Yes, the law of
"supply and demand" applies to humans as well. Americans
should not be asked to suffer an increased burden from
countries/cultures that do not have a stable birth rate. It
is bad enough that American soldiers must die in wars in the
third world that are caused to some extent by overpopulation:
Too few resources for too few people.

In contrast to hard facts such as these, supporters of continued
immigration like to cite intangibles such as "increased diversity
and vitality" (or the inscription on the Statue of Liberty). I
waited through three cycles of a left-turn light on my way home
from work today--that is enough "vitality" for me. As for
diversity, look what it has done for Israel, India, and other
"diverse" countries. Look how the state of racial relations in the
U.S. has deteriorated in the last 10 years. We can be sure things
will only get worse as more people struggle for less available
resources.

To those who say, "Immigration made America great," I agree. To
those who conclude that "therefore we must continue to allow
immigration," I say: "At one time a baby bottle kept you alive, so
why don't you still use one?" Our country is no longer a frontier.
We are a mature nation, and should start acting like one.

Consider Japan. They are proof that a country can prosper with half
the population of the U.S. and zero immigration. Attaining a stable
population in the U.S. would remedy many of our social problems
such as homelessness and poor schools.

Rather than acting as a "stop-gap" for other countries' population
problems, we should be supporting all efforts to achieving zero-
population growth worldwide. Immigration, especially policies such
as ours that favor large families, sends the wrong message.

Residents of California desiring a stable population should
contact:

Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS)
926 J Street, Suite 915
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 446-1033
(Barbara Alexander, Director)

Their advisory board includes: Anne Ehrlich ("The Population
Explosion"), Richard Lamm (former Colorado Governor), John Calhoun
(famous "rats breeding in a closed space" experiment"), and Garrett
Hardin ("Tragedy of the Commons").

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
(Mr.) Kim Berry utgard!k...@csusac.ecs.csus.edu QMA Inc
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Asking about tax laws for music expenses

In article <1991Oct17.134022....@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> dr...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (robert.e.wisnack.jr) writes:

>Don't worry about "the audit". If your records are true (keep
>all receipts), you will NOT have a problem.

>If you do not show a profit 3 out of the 5 years then the IRS
>will tell you it's a hobby. There should not be any type of penalty.

Just wondering...if Chrysler or Bank or America do not show a
profit for 3 out of 5 years, are they considered "hobbies"? :-)

More seriously, is it permitted to spend several thousand in
promo/equipment expenses for two years, and then only net a
few hundred dollars profit for the other three years?

Kim Berry USENET Posts from 1991

Opposition to pending NAFTA legislation

Advocate for reducing immigration

Asking about tax laws for music expenses