HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: PeroT & United We Stand
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:15:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1724@blue.cis.pitt.edu> cjp+@pitt.edu (Casimir J Palowitch) writes:
>
>And to top all, George Stephanopolous on the news this morning: "The
>deficit numbers are a lot worse than we thought they were...and they're
>getting worse"


Well, well, well, George is that right, worse than you guys thought?

By now most informed people have read or heard about "THE" article
that appeared in last Friday's New York Times concerning the cabinet
appointments and Clinton's first broken promise.  This however is
better by far, the following is a few few paragraphs from the latest
issue of Time (art. Moving Toward Gridlock II 1-18-93) that addresses
the Clinton teams claim to not know the extent of the deficit.  It
is a generally informative article and I'd suggest reading it, though
Clinton supporters probably won't like their lord and masters lies
being exposed in print...

Time January 18 1993

Moving Toward Gridlock II - Micheal Kramer

"... Backing off on his promise to cut the White House staff 25% (which
he appears to be doing), or asserting his highest regard for Washington's
public schools while enrolling his daughter in a private academy, is 
small-bore stuff-par for the course and unremarkable.  But Clinton is
breaking new ground when it comes to the deficit.  The President-elect's
insistance that the latest debt numbers are news to him-that he is a
victim whose best intentions may fall before a new reality-is chutzpah
writ large."

"    Until now, Clinton has reveled in a gift few ever enjoy-the ability
to be at the very center of the action while at the same time being above
it, critiquing the problem without bearing any responsibility for it.  
That he has so far been able to straight-facedly blame George Bush for
hiding the truth is a wonder to behold.  For as TIME has previously 
reported, Clinton knew the numbers were getting worse long before the
election-and knew as well that his campaign plan was fraught with faulty
assumptions and overoptimistic revenue and spending projections.  That
was fine for then-no one caught on, and Clinton won-..."

Didn't know, HA!  And the best part - Time and the New York Times 
supported this guy, they're supposed to be his friends *snicker*

PSG 





-- 
Industrial Policy: Phrase suggesting a Soviet style of		| Time magazine 
		   selective tax breaks and trade protection    |  Jan 18 1993
		   Seldom used by the Clinton team.              ---------------
Sector-Specific Strategies: Term used by the Clinton team.  Indsutrial Policy.
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:18:05 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 81934@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In article <1idpqvINN845@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
> 
> |It was announced today that Chelsea Clinton will be attending a private 
> |school.  Apparently the public school system is good enough for us plebes,
> |but not for Mr. Clinton's daughter....or has he changed his mind about
> |education vouchers?

Why would his stance on vouchers effect this decision?  If anyone has the
money to send their kids to private schools, they should be allowed to do
so...... or do you disagree?

There is also the issue of the security of the President's family.  Clinton's
daughter would be safer in a private school.  Or do you have a problem with
the President getting Secret Service protection?  And if you do, is it only
Democratic Presidents?

> 
> Considering how Clinton has been hedging on the rest of his campaign
> stands, I'm not surprised.

I'm not surpised that the Republicans are attempting to make an issue
of this.  Didn't they learn in the last election that people are tired
of divisive tactics?  I have nothing against *anyone* sending their children
to private schools if they can afford it.  I just don't want to pay for it
from funds from the US Treasury.

> 
> Yesterday's paper noted how Clinton has said that the cap on income subject
> to the social security cap needs to be raised and that the age of eligibility
> will also have to be raised in order to secure the future of social security.
> 
> During the campaign he said that the fund was in great shape and would need
> no intervention.
> 
> BTW, I agree with both of these changes (if we are going to keep it),
> I just wonder why Clinton has put off making these hard choices until
> after the voting is done.

You need look no further than the current President waiting until after
he had lost the election to pardon Weinburger and others.  What do you
suppose would have happened to Bush had he done this *before* the election?
This is simply politics as usual.  It is equally applicable to both Reps
and Dems.

> 
> Clinton was also recently quoted as saying that raising the gas tax might
> be a good idea.  During the campaign he ripped Tsongas for bringing up a
> gas tax.

See above.  During the 88 primary campaign Dole was branded by Bush as being
a Tax and Spend liberal!



Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:29:22 GMT
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA

In article <1993Jan8.230455.19116@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu
(Dave Borden) writes:

|>Ecconomically, China is becoming free market, and the government has
|>privately
|>endorsed that policy, so it's likely that with or without Deng, private
|>enterprise will continue to grow.  On the human rights front, however, China
|>is still quite totalitarian.  Will the free enterprise system eventually
|>force political liberalization as well? 

Given that the majority of capitalist countries are totalitarian and that the
capitalist system long predates democracy it would seem to be an unrealistic
hope.

The main impetus towards a liberal society is that a totalitarian society cannot
permit innovation as a free society can. Just as apartheid was destroyed in
south africa when the industrial compaines discovered that they were unable to
find a sufficiently educated workforce, the totalitarian system in China will be
gradualy dismantled as the state needs to draw on a wider pool of people.

One paradox that must be faced however is the belief that totalitarian
governments act against the wishes of their people more often than democratic
ones. If you were to take a poll of the man in the street as to how convicted
criminals should be treated the overwhelming response would be "they are too
soft" and the concensus would support the sort of measures used in China. It is
in the democratic countries that the political class are subject to pressures
from people who have actual knowlege of what they are campaigning on.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:43:26 GMT

In article <C0KFJJ.Evp@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan8.165341.7799@inel.gov> whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:
|> >In article <C0J1vx.ELu@newsserver.technet.sg> writes:
|> >
|> >|> ... What will life be like in the post-socialist 21st century?
|> >
|> >Everyone is forgetting that the most populous country on the planet is
|> >both Communist and Socialist,  and gives every indication of remaining
|> >so.  At the last party congress,  the delegates closed by singing the
|> >"Internationale" (a great tune).  I really do think they're serious.
|> 
|> That depends on whether you define communism/socialism in terms of songs
|> sung and rhetoric spun or in terms of actions done.
|> 
|> In fact, China is in the second decade of economic liberalization that would
|> make Democrats cringe. They are setting their markets loose and, as a result,
|> experiencing double-digit economic growth.
|> 
|> Oh, sure, they insist on calling it "market socialism" but the fact is that
|> China has acheived, module a few limp, bloody bodies in Tien an Men, what
|> has eluded Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union: a successful transition from
|> socialism to captialism.
|> 
I guess that is why roughly 60% of GDP is still accounted for by Gov't. 
China could well evolve to a relatively liberal market-oriented democracy.
On the other hand,  it could use its economic dynamism to become an expansion-
ist power.  My point is simply that they still think of themselves as Commun-
ist,  and Communism is at base,  an autarkic philosophy.  Things could turn
very ugly,  very fast.  We should not forget it.

========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: homosexuals in the military
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:12:15 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C0JzsA.B6o@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>
>	[Undermining fighting prowess] does not appear to
>	have happened in Israel, where gay men and lesbians can
>	serve openly and whose army is widely considered among
>	the best in the world.
>
>Prediction:  Moore will ignore this.  Galvanek will retort with
>an insult about the effectiveness of the Canadian military. 
>Others will say, "But the Bible says ..."

Well you're right about the Canadian thing, but then that's probably because 
you already know the truth, that and the fact with only a month in the
pan the Canadians haven't yet had the chance to be burned by their
little concoction.

As for Israel, well this is pretty typical of how liberals twist reality
(see: failure of Supply Side, Reaganomics for better examples) to portray
a false situation.  Yes the Israelis did open their military to gays and
in very short order they found it critical to institute a psychological 
competancy tests for all gays entering the military (gee I wonder why) then
the gays - who were now "out" became the targets of systematic and well 
organized attacks, that came in many forms.  The most frequent was for 
soldiers to repeatedly accuse the homosexuals of assaults and harrasment 
until that soldier was driven from the service with what amounts to our
dishonorable discharge.

The truth of the matter is that the Israeli experience with opening the
service to gays was a utter failure and the net result is that gays 
won't admit to being gay on the enlistment forms because they know it's
the fastest way to end a military career or end up in the stockade for
sometimes unintentional actions. Try finding someone that spent time in the
IDF and ask them how it came to be that the act of opening the millitary
to gays drove them further into the closet and institutionalized to an
even greater degree the anti-gay sentiment in the military.  You're sure
to find those conversations amongst the most interesting you've ever had,
I know I did.

Trust me Jeff, I profoundly disagree with Bill Clinton's choice to 
let gays into the military, but I can't wait for it to happen!  It 
will be just one more blunder hanging around the neck of Billy boy
come November 1996.

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Doug Ginsburg (was: Clint's appointments)
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:18:50 GMT

In <C0nt1B.885@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com sez:
>Paul S Galvanek (psg+@pitt.edu) wrote:

>: remember Bork and Tower?  
>: 
>
>And a certain nominee who was shamed and forced to withdraw because he smoked
>a joint 20 years ago.  He must have inhaled, right?

If Myke's comment is intended to ridicule the Reagan Administration's
drug policy -- remember "Zero Tolerance"? -- then I couldn't agree
more with the sentiment.  I suspect, however, that Myke thinks it was
the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, and not policy embarrassment, that sank
Ginsburg's prospects.

Those familiar with the historical record will also recall that
Ginsburg's nomination was somewhat embarrassing in that his wife, a
physician, had performed a number of abortions in her career.  A lot
of people wouldn't have a problem with that; an administration that
selected judicial nominees for their anti-Roe tendencies did,
apparently. 



Sorry, boys: you'll need a better straw man than the Ginsburg
nomination. 

-- 
		   Shut up and wave yer flag, boy.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:13:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.221638.12860@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = john@anasazi.com writes:
>>] = (Terrance Heath) writes:
>>or race is more important than any other criteria is rightly subject
>>to such criticism. Note that Clinton ONLY interviewed women for some
>>jobs - for gender preference reasons.
>
>As has been asked before...why not outrage over the last 200+ years of
>nominating WHITE MALES?  Are you saying that wasn't the ultimate in race
>selection?


	What the hell is wrong with "WHITE MALES" anyway?  Is there
	some reason someone without melanin can't make a good justice?

	Are we going to start some quota system for the supreme court now?
	We'll need a lot more justices, then.  Hell, why not make the supre
	court as big as congress!


>>Hey, anyone who lives in a big city or watches national news is quite
>>used to seeing black, hispanic and female faces in position of considerable
>>responsibility.
>
>In presidential administrations?  Another non-answer.


	Is there some reason you are so obsessed by race that you 
	find it a valid selection criterion?



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19888 alt.rush-limbaugh:13359 alt.president.clinton:1424
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:52:57 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan8.054938.27469@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <C0G55F.35u@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>]
>]	Why is it that when the same-old-white men are picked for
>]cabinet jobs, there is a lot less harping about "capabilities"? And I
>Why is it that when a black CONSERVATIVE was nominated to the supreme
>court, the same people who push quotas and affirmative action
>and selection by race were the ones who screamed about capabilities.
>Do I smell a whif of hypocrisy here?

No, the fact is that Clarence Thomas is NOT qualified to sit on the Supreme
Court, sexual harassment or not.  Whereas all of Clinton's appointments are
highly qualified for their jobs.  Some of them were selected over others
because of race or gender, which is too bad, but they are all regarded as
highly qualified individuals nevertheless.  The nine supreme court justices
are supposed to be the very best, most experienced, greatest jurists in the
nation.  Clarence Thomas is not any of those things by any stretch of the
imagination.  But now he's a dictator for life, and it's a real shame.  But
I don't blame Clarence Thomas for that - I blame George Bush; it's one of
the worst things he did as president, and that's saying a great deal indeed.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Date: 9 Jan 1993 03:27:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>I tend to agree with Clinton's position, mainly because the idea of
>using public money to pay for a private education opens up a real
>can of worms with regard to questions such as separation of church
>and state, etc.

It doesn't really open a can of worms at all.  It all depends on which 
perspective you use to view the situation.  Conservatives take the view
that you earn X dollars a year, it's your money, and you give a portion 
of what you earn to the government to run certain services for the public
good.  Liberals take the view that you earn X dollars a year, it's the
government's money, and they generously allow you to keep a portion of
it to live off of.  Don't look at the 'voucher' proposal as the government
giving you their money to spend on schools, but as you giving less to the
government at tax time, which leaves more in your pocket to spend on
the school of your choice.  This can easily be accomplished through
credits and deductions in the tax code.  Currently deductions for church
donations (some of which pay for things like Sunday schools, Bible 
classes, etc.) are totally constitutional.  For those people that pay less
in taxes each year than the cost of school tuition at the school of their
choice, tax credits would solve that problem, too.  Even if you want to 
take the Liberal view and have the government give you money in the form
of a voucher, I don't see a problem.  Once the money is in your hands, the
link to the governmental source disappears.  After all, if I was on welfare
or Social Security, I could take my entire monthly check and throw it into
my local church's collection basket.  That doesn't mean the government
is endorsing or supporting religion.  Once I cash or sign over that check,

                           IT'S MY MONEY.


-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1397 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1iitb9INN64f@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>
	<1993Jan8.080551.3519@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1993Jan8.151711.28097@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1ikdg3INNidf@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> <1ildp4INN6sl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:54:52 GMT

In article <1ildp4INN6sl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:

   In a previous article, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) says:

   >As I recall, Clinton's position on the school-choice question is that
   >he favors it within the public-school system, but does not favor the
   >use of vouchers to (help) pay for a private school.
   >
   >So Clinton is not quite the anti-choice demon that his net attackers
   >would are suggesting. Of course, regardless of his position on the
   >issue, there is not now a choice policy in the DC public schools, so
   >his only choice, as a parent, is public or private, and he made it.

    Wrong! As President Mr. Clinton has the choice of sending his children
   to *any* public school in DC. Check it out if you don't believe me.

wake up, he supports public school choice for the rest of the nation (at
least by word).  I don't know how you managed to twist Mr. Pajorek's
post the way you did unless you have always gone to private schools
and didn't know that this is not the case for everyone everywhere
(not even close).

--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 18:55:48 GMT

In article <1iijjkINN1jt@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
|> Jim Howe) writes:
|> Doesn't sound
|> like a solution we can live with, since we spend ~$3500 per student today --
|> and that is total funding; federal, state, and local.

The 1993 World Almanac says expenditures per pupil in 1989-1990 were $4960.
More than you say, but rather less than cited in other postings.

In New Jersey, it's considerably higher -- more like $7000 per pupil per year.