HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: What tax cut?
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:37:11 GMT

A running theme of critics of the Reagan administration, here and in
the media, has been that the Reagan tax cut put us in the terrible
shape we're in. Well, what tax cut?
 
A friend called me with some figures yesterday. Averaging year-to-year,
there has been an almost rock-steady increase in the overall tax rate
from the 50s to the 90s of almost exactly 0.5% per decade. In other words,
we haven't had an actual tax cut in 40 years.
 
The spending side has been a lot more irregular, but there's been a slow
growth in the spending from around 18% of GNP to the present near 24%. The
trend has been up and down accross various administrations, and doesn't
really seem to correlate with overall economic health.
 
The one thing that *does* seem to correlate more strongly with the classic
measures of economic health- employment, growth and so forth- is monetary
policy and expectations. The real cuprit in the Carter administration was
inflation, which wiped out savings, destroyed the S&Ls (who had money
loaned out at 4-5% and couldn't compete for deposits), and created effective
marginal tax rates of over 100%, killing investment and driving capital out
of the country, underground or into unproductive investments, like real estate.
It may be that the great accomplishemnt of the Reagan administration was
a combination of low interest rates combined with the confidence of the
business community that the administration was going to keep these rates low
and maintain a steady policy.
 
Right now that confidence is missing. Take a look at the yield curve for
treasuries- there's something odd going on here. Very short-term rates are
quite low, but there's a sudden upward curve starting at about one year from
now, and accelerating from there. That says that investor confidence isn't
there. It's getting steeper week to week, too.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11664 talk.politics.misc:42160 alt.politics.clinton:3134
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:17:49 GMT
 <1992Aug21.232616.16804@sequent.com> <19664@drutx.ATT.COM>
 <cummings.714768626@milton> <ART.92Aug26133437@world.std.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Oh my God!  Ya, we're responsible for winning the cold war and
the downfall of the Soviet Union...uh, and Cuba, Haiti, Veitnam, Lybia,
Iraq and China are holding up because we're, uh, not reeealy trying as hard.
Eyah, that's the ticket, not trying as hard in those places..eyah.

Sorry to deflate your misplaced patriotic ego pal, but thats one
pat on the back that we don't deserve.  To say that we do is a
gross oversimplification of some very complex events that took
place, most of them without our help, and the efforts and courage
of many nameless individuals, who also fought without our help
to change things from within their country(s).

To say that economic pressures *WE* brought to bear on the Soviets
are what forced change is nonsense.  If the leaders of the XUSSR
would have wanted to they could have maintained their grip on the
people the same way the Chinese, Lybian, or Iraqies-(sp?) do.  To
think that they couldn't is contradictory to whats happening in
the world today.

Marty Dart.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Subject: Tax cuts and job training
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 22:31:48 GMT


 Please would some supporter of George Bush explain to me how
he is going to cut taxes and the deficit. How he is going to
institute a several billion dollar job training program and where
is the money coming from? And why has it become some important 
_now_ as opposed to, say three and a half years ago?
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12352 talk.politics.misc:43604 alt.politics.marrou:1021 alt.politics.bush:3995 alt.politics.clinton:3958 alt.politics.perot:1392
From: stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:18:17 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <Btz1D2.K61@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.130219.5028@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>>   poll                  dates      Clinton Bush    gap
>>   ====================  =========  ======= ====    ===
>>   ABC/Post              8/21-8/23     47    42      5
>>   ABC/Post              8/21-8/25     51    41     10
>>   ABC/Post              8/26-8/30     55    36     19
>>   Gallup/Newsweek       8/27-8/28     49    39     10
>>   Yankelovich/Time/CNN  8/25-8/27     46    40      6
>>   Times/CBS             8/23-8/24     51    36     15


>I note with interest that the *minimum* "neither of these" response
>above is 8%, and the maximum is a whopping 14%.  


While I haven't seen the results firsthand, I suspect that, as in most
polls, most of those who didn't choose Clinton or Bush responded "don't know"
rather than "neither of these".  Of course it would be interesting to 
know what the result would be in November if "none of the above" was
an option. :-)



-- 
--Ron Stieger                    **** JUST VOTE NO. ****
  stieger@cco.caltech.edu
"Hush my darling, be still my darling, the lion's on the phone."
                                               -They Might Be Giants
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Abortion politics
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:46:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.172305.3001@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The Democratic platform excludes developing human females from  
>membership in society.  It is an exclusionary policy. 

Lying again, eh, Doggie?

Your statement has the implicit assumption that there is some platform or
group of people that includes developing human females (or developing human
males or developing human hermaphrodites) as members of "society".  I would
be interested in seeing any evidence for this.

"Developing human females" (zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses to most
people) currently are not included in society, and I know of no time when they
have been.  ZBEFs cannot own property, cannot vote, cannot be listed as a
dependent for tax purposes, are not listed in any census, and basically have
no rights independent from that of the pregnant woman.  Some people may argue
that they have a "right to life", but this has so far not been demonstrated
or agreed on.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

This will be a memorable month -- no matter how hard you try to forget it.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Naturalized Republicans
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:37:05
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<STEINLY.92Aug20133448@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Aug21.125535.20456@prl.dec.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: weikart@prl.dec.com's message of Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:55:35 GMT


In article <1992Aug21.125535.20456@prl.dec.com> weikart@prl.dec.com (Chris Weikart) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Aug20133448@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   >    In article <1992Aug20.124946.11141@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
   >    |> While listening to the TV last night, one of the commentators mentioned how
   >    |> Bill Bennett is a naturalized Republican, that is, originally a Democrat that
   >    |> later became a Republican.  They went on to name a number of others:  Ronald
   >    |> Reagan, Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, ...

   >    |> Are there any naturalized Democrats?

   > Hillary Clinton?

   > (I heard she was a Goldwater supporter in the 60s)

   > *  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *

   I thought Hillary was 40 years old, or at any rate not more than 44. In which
   case she would have been 12, not more than 16 years old in '64. A bit young to
   be held responsable for one's political opinions, I'd think...

As I recall she was a teen (some sort of high school girls for
Goldwater?) - from what I recall of the bio I read she became
a democrat at University - not an unusual development pattern
in political beliefs - is her family wealthy? 
	As to whether she "should be held responsible" for
her political opinions at that age, I'd defer to her legal opinion
and assign her partial responsibility - in so far it exists.
Changing ones mind over politics is no crime, she'll make a
good first lady (co-President?).

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 1992 11:38:56 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <conradp+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
	<1992Sep2.175720.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 3-Sep-92 Re: LIBERTARIAN
PRESIDENTIA.. Greg Franklin@violet.cci (2271)

> In article <1992Aug31.193137.12032@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
> >                 LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
> > 
> >      The Libertarian Party candidate for President, former Alaska State
> > Representative Andre Marrou (AHN'-dray mah-ROO'), received 6 percent of the
> > vote in an unscientific poll of users of the CompuServe computer network,
> > Libertarian Party national vice chair Steve Dasbach (DOZZ'-bok) announced
> > today.
> > ...

> This is the highlight of the LP's campaign??...

> I've seen the Libertarians pull this kind of dishonest trick before (who
> remembers "We won Dixville Notch"?), and it really does damage to their
> reputation, IMHO.

You call this a "dishonest trick"?!?  This is only minor "spin control"
compared to what the major political parties do!  Dixville Notch was not
a "dishonest trick", they actually won the election there!  Sure, it
would be dishonest, or at best "wishful thinking", for them to claim
that those results were indicative of the nation as a whole, but there's
nothing "dishonest" about saying "we went, we explained our positions,
and we won".

With this Compuserve poll, they even went out of their way to insert the
word "unscientific" into their description of the poll, which is far
more, I suspect, than Democrats or Republicans would have done.  It's an
interesting data point, if nothing else.  I don't think many people
expect from this "unscientific poll" that Marrou will get 6% of the
national vote in November, nor did the article lead them to expect this.

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: The Cultural Elite?
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:55:01 GMT

Marty Dart writes
> 
>      a. The 'Cultural Elite' are people in Hollywood who can outspell
>         Vice President McCarthy...er, Quayle?
>
>	< Lots of good definitions deleted. >
>
>      g. All of the above.

  How about:

       h.  People who take expensive golf vacations at taxpayer expense.

       i.  People who use the influence of rich and powerful relatives
           to avoid going to war, all the while supporting the escalation of
           the same war as long as it is fought by the non-elite.

  Check out Joe Walsh's "Vote For Me" on his latest album statement,  
Songs_For_A_Dying_Planet.  To paraphrase some of the lyrics:

	If I were Vice President, what would I do?
	Pretty much anything I wanted to!
	I'd get to play golf with heads of state;
	if they brought beer, well that'd be great!

BTW... here's a quote from the title track, if memory serves:

	...we're killing everything alive
	And anyone who tries to deny it,
		wears a tie,
		and gets paid to lie.

Food for thought.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:15:31 GMT

In article <BtwMzK.JBJ@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
>bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) once wrote: 

@ Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America states:
@  ...
@    The senators and representatives beforementioned, and the members
@  of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
@  officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
@  be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but
@  no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
@  office or public trust under the United States

@ The Republican Convention was treasonous.

>Oh bull! What the Republicans are doing may be not very wise, but it
>certainly isn't treasonous. The federal government is prohibited from
>using a religious test, but the political parties are in no such way
>restricted. People should start recognizing that the Constitution
>governs the actions of the federal government, not private individuals
>or organizations.

	Strictly speaking, that _is_ correct. But what we are seeing
here is a _de facto_ religious test, and I'm sure that the Religious
Right would _love_ to have a religious test for public office --
theirs, of course.

	I confess I have little respect for the RR; too many of its
advocates are world-class liars and sleazebags. I recall from long ago
that Jerry Falwell claimed that he believed in the separation of
church and state but not in the separation of "God and state". If that
isn't a dishonest comment, then I don't know what is. And let us not
forget about Pat Robertson. His father let him off the hook in Korea
-- he returned pretty quickly -- and he sued Pete McCloskey for libel
when PM brought it up. But just before the trial date, PR withdrew the
suit, claiming he had to be out campaigning (it was Super Tuesday; he
lost pretty big). He had to pay all court costs, and he was forbidden
from ever raising the issue again. He has also claimed to be able to
deflect hurricanes, though he was AWOL when Andrew hit South Florida
and Louisiana. When someone said that he would become one of PR's
followers if only PR could cure his hernia, PR stared.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Repulican platform
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:39:14 CDT
Keywords: prayer in school

In article <1992Aug27.171537.23534@cbfsb.cb.att.com> rkj@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (richard.janka) writes:
>Hopefully the post-convention discussions have simmered down somewhat.
>I have not read the actual Republican Platform, but many of the speeches
>referred to the Republicans wanting to reinstitute "prayer in school."

I was under the impression that prayer in school still exists.  "Please
God, let me pass this math test."  As long as they give test, there
will be prayer in schools.  It is voluntary, just as prayer was meant
to be!


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN'S SPEECH
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:33:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.181459.29119@news.columbia.edu>
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
 
>
>In article <1684EBE20.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>
>>Here's a politician who actually wote his own speech- a very fine one, I think,
>>with some wonderful humor in it- and the critics spend their time faulting
>>him for not knowing that his reference source is in dispute by Lincoln
>>scholars? Obviously the man is capable of anything...! ;-)
>
>Admittedly, Reagan is one of the fines speech-readers of this century,
>but when was the last time he actually wrote one?  Peggy Noonan must
>have been doing something during the 1980s.
>
>
Back in his union days, Reagan wrote all his speeches. While governor of
California he still wrote most of them. He was widely regarded for his
speechwriting as well as delivery in the pre-Noonan days.
 
   --mike
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Clinton endorses Reagan
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:02:50 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

Well, uh. .uh. .there you go again, uh. . uh. .Bill.

from the Washington Post article by Dan Baiz and Ruth Marcus, entitled
"Clinton Tries to Bury Draft Issue in Speech" (to the American Legion):

"Clinton said neither Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, nor Ronald
Reagan served in the military yet were good leaders."

Gee.  I wonder if he highlighted his National Guard exploits like he
did on Good Morning America?  If he had gone to VietNam, I'll bet he
would have inhaled.
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Newt Gingrich: The New York Times made me do it!!
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:58:54 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <92244.170919U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>

>>I had a good laugh this morning.  Newt Gingrich was asked on
>>NPR's Morning Edition about recent news reports that he had
>>called Woody Allen the perfect embodiment of Democratic family
>>values.

For those who tuned in late, Gingrich was the sponsor of the infamous
HR4079 back in 1990.  The bill specified 5-year minimum terms in
slave labor camps for all drug offences (except simple possession),
withdrawal of habeus corpus, and more.  It had 55 co-sponsors.

The Libertarian Party of Maryland learned of the bill in February
of 1990 (a month after it had been introduced) and tried in vain to
spread the word.  Our beloved Media, in line with its marginalization
policy toward the LP, totally ignored it.  The bill died at the end
of the session; politics buffs claim it was a "trial balloon", never
intended to be passed intact, but only to gauge just how much shit
they could get away with.  The answer was in their favor; they have
since begun to walk its provisions through Congress piecemeal.

>Clinton should act now and promise to deny Gingrich access to the oval
>office once elected president. He could phrase his promise as:
>
>                 Read my lips, no Newt access!

Easier said than done.  Elongated little slime-secreting creatures can
get through some mighty small crevices.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11861 alt.politics.clinton:3368 alt.politics.bush:3332
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:55:43 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> In article <DisZPB4w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> That's true, but a lot of budget compromises are made between the
> >> President and Congress before any appropriations bill is approved
> >> by Congress.  Bush could take a hard line, and refuse to sign any
> >> appropriations bill which does not meet his approval, but then he
> >> runs the risk of a Congressional override, and Congress could
> >> ignore all his budget proposals.  His best bet is to compromise
> >> up front.
>
> > So, what you're saying is that the President's 'tough guy' act on Congress
> > will always be just what it looks like--an act.
>
> No, I said that Bush is often forced to compromise with Congress over
> the budget before Congress ever approves an appropriations bill.
>

Ok, so that means then that Bush is a man who is incapable of keeping his word,
since he will just be 'forced' to compromise with Congress next time, right?
Well, like I've asked before, is he a liar, wimp, or both?

> > The Democrats don't have a
> > two-thirds majority in either house of Congress.  If Rubbers would veto
> > an appropriations bill, the odds of that veto being overridden are nil.
>
> That's wrong on two counts.  Bush must compromise with Democrats and
> Republicans in Congress.  A Bush veto of an appropriations bill would
> unlikely to have the support of every Republican in the Congress.
>
> And the Congress must pass appropriations bills in order to keep
> the government running.  If Bush vetoed an appropriations bill,
> and Congress couldn't override the veto, then no appropriations
> bill gets passed.  Congress would have to pass stop-gap spending
> measures until the President signs the bill, or until Congress
> managed to override his veto.

You keep saying that 'Bush must compromise,' but Bush obviously doesn't think
so.  That means that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.  It also
means that his 'Read my lips...' statement in '88 and his calls for tax cuts in
'92 are nothing more than cynical lies.  If everything you claim is true, then
why do we have a President who is incapable of telling the truth on the stump?



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11360 alt.politics.clinton:2678 alt.politics.bush:2599