HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:59:38 EST
 <1992Aug19.093945.9023@dscomsf.desy.de> <1992Aug21.121223.19764@eua.ericsson.se> <BtC5FF.GE8@apollo.hp.com>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Economic forecasting

In article <BtC5FF.GE8@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.121223.19764@eua.ericsson.se> euaaen@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Engwall) writes:
>>Regardless of which kind of looney tunes they are honouring, one might
>>point out that economics bears a striking resemblance to religion, in
>>the sense that the theory one chooses to adhere to is a matter of
>>faith to a large degree.
>>In fact, having an economics prize is a bit like having a theology prize.
> 
>   Dammit, Anders, why'd you have to spill the beans?   Don't you know
>   there are people on Usenet who actually believe that economics is
>   more than just rain dances and witch doctors?   Next I suppose 
>   you're going to tell them that there's no Santa Claus! (oops!)

	More like meteorologists.  They can tell you what happened (to a large
extent) and what might happen in the future.  But the further in time you go
the less accurate become the forcasts.

	But they're batting way above the evangalists :)

Brett                                                 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39615 talk.abortion:31658 alt.politics.bush:1529
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:29:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
+|> Tim Buckley) writes:
+|> >>OK, Tim:
+|> >>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
+|> >>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?
+|> >
+|> >Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
+|> >is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
+|> >precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
+So the death penalty, declaring war on Iraq, all go away.  The right
+to life takes precedence over public safety, economic interests,
+etc.
+Is this the same right to live the president and the republican 
+party support?
	Are you reading the same post I am? Read the previous sentence.
Tim was delineating what the clear issue is if the assumption is that
the fetus is a human being with this issue of abortion.
	Besides I think we've already gone through this road about
"inconsistencies" with the death penalty before.


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 20 Aug 92 09:42:11 CDT


In article <1992Aug19.144842.20401@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.164035.1471@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> ]In article <1992Aug18.014254.3558@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> ]> 
> ]> > 2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
> ]> > American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
> ]> > back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
> ]> 
> ]> 	Reagan cut taxes for everyone.  Congress re-instated them for that
> ]> portion of society that had income to invest. 
> ]
> ]Why is it that when there was a tax cut "Reagan cut taxes" yet when there
> ]was a tax increase "Congress re-instated them"?  What is the basis for
> ]giving the credit to Reagan for the cut but not for re-instating them?
> ]
> ]In both cases, congress passed and Reagan signed the legislation.
> 
> Simple. In the early '80s the Republicans controlled the Senate,
> and had a working majority in the house. That is when taxes were cut.
> When the demos took back the Senate and the republicans lost that
> working majority in the house, the taxes went back up.

Republicans controlled the Senate (and had a working majority in the house)
from 1981-86.  Taxes were raised in 1983 (Social Security tax increase) and
1986 (Tax reform).  I think they were also raised in 1982 & 1983 (I'm checking 
on that). (Of course, taxes were also raised in 1990.)

The fact still remains that congress passed and Reagan/Bush signed the legislation.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: wall@pa.dec.com (David Wall)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:03:35 GMT

Patrick J. McGuinness writes:
    Criticizing Jess Helms for doing what the NEA has *always* done -
    decide to fund some art, while declining to fund other art -
    is hypocritical....Personally, I think we would be better off
    *without* the NEA.

Don Pajerek writes:
    Wrong. The difference is that Helms wants to 'de-fund' certain works
    and artists on *political* grounds, not artistic merit. Helms simply
    doesn't like the subject matter of certain works, and wants them
    excluded for that reason. He is neither interested in, nor qualified
    to, discuss the actual artistic merit of these works.

and then goes on to accuse Patrick of "philistinism".

Oh come on.  Are you saying that you'd have no objections to Helms's
efforts, if you were convinced that he really truly believes that the
works he objects to are inferior art?

What do you suppose he would say, if you asked him if these works are
inferior?  Suppose he said yes (as I believe he would).  Would he be
lying?  Do you suppose that deep down he understands that these works
are great, important, enduring contributions to art, but that he wants
to de-fund them anyway?

Art speaks to all of us in different ways.  The folks who work for
NEA base their decisions on certain criteria, and Helms bases his
on a different set.  Helms's may be wrong-headed, they may strike
you (and me) as priggish.  But where do you get off saying that
yours are "artistic" and his merely "political", with the unspoken
assumption that the former are legitimate and the latter are not?

(You didn't really expect to call someone a philistine without being
called a snob in return, did you?)

*That's* why it's a bad idea to fund art with public money.  Because
we all have different tastes and priorities, and it's just plain
wrong to force a person to fund, as art, activities that they consider
non-art.

(Next I'll try to convince you that it's wrong to force a person
to fund, as defense, activities that they consider non-defense.
But let's take this one step at a time.)

David W. Wall - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - wall@decwrl.dec.com
            "If this be magic, let be an art
                    Lawful as eating"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:26:42 GMT

In article <92234.073026DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.141935.6159@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
>(Patrick J. McGuinness) says:
>
>>As for health care, he has proposed malpractice tort reform, and has
>>proposed a system of tax credits to fund the medical insurance of
>>those without such insurance.  This last proposal came out just this
>>year.
>
>Even the AMA admits that malpractice tort reform could, at most, reduce
>NHE by 20 to 30 billion, an admirable goal.  Yet it hardly makes a dent in
>our cost problems.
I agree on both. It is worthwhile, and it is not a panacea.

> The insurance reforms Bush proposed have not even been
>detailed yet.  He has not even submitted a bill to Congress.

Not true. His bill was submitted in February, and is currently somewhere
in the bowels of Congress.  Ask Louis Sullivan.

---
Pat


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Prostitution (was: Re: Another good reason [not] to vote for
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 14:46:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.000240.26535@afterlife.ncsc.mil> glreno@afterlife.n
sc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>And there are laws against prostitution. 
>
>And could someone explain why? Please do not resort to the
>(unconstitutional) religious/moral reason, or the medical reason
>that did not exist when such laws were enacted.


I hate to break this to you, but the "(unconstitutional) religious/moral
reason" is exactly why such laws exist.  It's like, deeply rooted in the
american ethos (from the puritans).  You (and everybody else too) might
want to check out _Women and Prostitution_ (I forgot the author).

Big Al.  Hey, babe, wanna date?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40805 alt.politics.elections:11043 alt.politics.clinton:2311 alt.politics.bush:2242
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War"
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:44:00 GMT

jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) sez...
{ in talk.politics.misc on 21 Aug                 }
{ Re: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War" }

>I see the Perotista's are starting to return their worship to god. 

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but in the past month I've
certainly drawn closer to God. Good thing too, since it kept me
from all kinds of evil destructive vindictive activities. And
it helped me to realize that even though Ross Perot had backed
away from the vortex... what he brought to the political process 
was worth more than the grief he caused.

Ross Perot may not want to be president, nor be able to win the 
office now, and that's fine with me -- I'm happy to have someone
I can vote for as a protest against the way that Republicans and
Democrats are screwing up the nation. As long as Ross is willing 
to be a monkey-wrench to help fix this sewer were in, I'm glad
he's with us. 

>Maybe they should run Jesus for President?
 
What and start a Party of God, and fall into the same old devisive
competitive traps that the parties are now in?

I'm much happier to have Jesus as a big brother than as president.

>Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
>	University of California, San Diego
>jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627

   |
-- J --                    
   |     Stephen Tice       "My kingdom is not of this world..."    
   |     Arlington Texas                    -- Jesus (John 18:36)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:42:39 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug11.204427.27499@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
]In article <1992Aug7.184145.28078@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]}Keywords: 
]}In article <1992Aug6.214636.3080@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
]
]}]  Oh, just the fact that most cable companies were given monopolies by local
]}]  governments. Those cities that refused to grant exclusivity, and allowed
]}]  competition between cable companies, have enjoyed very good service at
]}]  low prices.
]
]}NOT TRUE in Phoenix. As I posted before, the city allowed several
]}companies to compete. Very shortly there was only one company, and the
]}rates started going up as the service went down.
]
]you also mentioned that there are laws prohibiting certain types of
]competitition. when, how, and WHY were these laws passed if things are
]really the way you describe them?

I didn't mention such laws in Phoenix!  The reason that the several
companies became one was that the gigantic cable companies bought
the little ones, and then swapped little ones around until each
cable company had a monopoly in those cities where they were
competing, including Phoenix. The reason that they did this is
that competition between cable companies simply doesn't work.
Cable companies operate on small margins, and have very high
fixed costs (the costs of wiring the city). Competition doesn't
reduce these fixed costs, but it reduces the market penetration
of each cable company, forcing them to either raise prices
or lose money. The alternative is to buy each other out and
that is what has happened.

Competition with alternative technologies is another matter. However,
there really aren't any alternative technologies, other than satellite
TV, that provide the services achieved by running high bandwidth
cable (or fiber) to each home.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- - "May you have the wealth of a Republican, and the sexual prowess - -
- -  of a Democrat." - Johnny Carson's joke writers
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41205 alt.activism:15255 misc.headlines:5835 sci.econ:7039
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:13:01 GMT

In article <80504@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> I don't think that any American company could be said to be subsidized in the same
> sense that Airbus is.  The development of that company would have been totally
> impossible without government funding.  It is true that Boeing might have disappeared
> at one time without government contracts, but that is no longer the case.

But this destroys you whole argument, which was that companies like
Boeing or Airbus were _impossible_ without government subsidies.


> The
> commercial side is far more profitable, and the defense side has taken some heat for
> acting as a drain on profits.  Unlike Airbus, however, Boeing and other aerospace
> companies cannot sustain long-term operating losses.  They must sell their product
> at a profit or die.

I.e., produce good products that people want at prices they can afford.

>  Airbus can just get government funding and sail through.

I.e., produce useless products nobody wants at random prices. This is better?

>  The
> price of their aircraft in the marketplace does not have to reflect development 
> costs. 

But _somebody_ paid those costs. The money doesn't float down from the
sky like manna.

> Which kind of company would you, as an
> investor, want to put your money into?  One that gets other funds to take on
> risky, high-yield ventures, or one that uses your money?  Which kind of company is
> more likely to survive tough competition?  Think about it.

You mean would I want to risk my own money or steal from somebody
else? Again, where do these "other funds" come from?

Let me answer this as a taxpayer - I would rather have companies that
make profits and lighten my tax burden than those that consume my tax
dollars and increase my tax burden.

Markets work because they create a strong feedback mechanism. This is
missing in government subsidised organizations.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:53:54 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>In article <1992Aug18.164035.1471@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>]
>]In article <1992Aug18.014254.3558@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>]> 
>]> > 2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
>]> > American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
>]> > back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
>]> 
>]> 	Reagan cut taxes for everyone.  Congress re-instated them for that
>]> portion of society that had income to invest. 
>]
>]Why is it that when there was a tax cut "Reagan cut taxes" yet when there
>]was a tax increase "Congress re-instated them"?  What is the basis for
>]giving the credit to Reagan for the cut but not for re-instating them?
>]
>]In both cases, congress passed and Reagan signed the legislation.

>Simple. In the early '80s the Republicans controlled the Senate,
>and had a working majority in the house. That is when taxes were cut.
>When the demos took back the Senate and the republicans lost that
>working majority in the house, the taxes went back up.

actually, the tax increase (about 1/3 of the cut) came about, because
ronbo couldn't cut spending with the republican senate and working
house majority.
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Misleading UPI story 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:09:16 GMT

In article <oiprc0c@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

> Holtsinger clearly is unfamiliar with the Clarinet news.  Often
> three or four versions of a story go out on the wire, each with
> slightly different wordings, before the reporter settles on a
> final version.  

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't change the fact that the original
UPI story posted by Mr. Echeverri was false and misleading.  President 
Bush does not support a ban on all abortions, as the original story 
had suggested.  Bush supports exceptions for rape, incest, and the 
life of the mother. 

> What do you have to say, Holtsinger,
> about this sentence from the UPI news story:
>
>    Although the subcommittee included a few members supportive
>    of the Republicans for Choice, the majority endorsed
>    President Bush's stance against abortions.

It's also misleading, because it suggests that President
Bush does not support abortion exceptions for rape, incest,
and the life of the mother, which is again false. Clearly, the
reporter who wrote this story did not attempt to write from 
an unbiased viewpoint. 

>> I think Mr. Echeverri should apologize for deceiving the net about
>> President Bush's stance on abortion.  

> He did no such thing.  

He posted a false and misleading news article which is clearly
not supported by the facts.  I apologize for accusing Mr. Echeverri 
of concocting the story, but I am fairly surprised that UPI would 
blatantly misrepresent President Bush's stance on abortion.
It seemed more likely to me that Mr. Echeverri would concoct 
such a misleading story. 

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39067 alt.politics.clinton:1728 alt.politics.bush:1224
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:41:39 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>In article <1992Aug9.062917.24910@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>However, the major factor in health care costs remains *fear* of
>>malpractice suits. Unnecessary tests, second opinions, malpractice
>>insurance, etc are major factors in driving up US health care costs.
>>When a hospital charges you $8 for a Tylenol capsule that it got as
>>a free sample, and won't let you bring your own, that charge is to
>>cover their ass in case they get sued. We need to reform the legal
>>system much more than we need to reform the medical system. General
>>aviation saw the average price of it's aircraft rise from under $20,000 
>>to over $100,000 over the last 20 years due to product liability 
>>insurance costs brought on by sue happy "public interest" lawyers,
>>many working under government grants. This in an industry with an
>>enviable safety record. Other sectors of our economy are similarly
>>distorted.
>>
>  Has anyone else noticed that Bill "let's reform health care" Clinton
>  never mentions the overhead of tort mentioned above?  That's because
>  he's the American Association of Trial Lawyers  and the American 
>  Bar Association's buddy.  Bill (and Hillary) are against tort-reform
>  of any kind and as a result have been given very strong endorsements 
>  by both organizations.  How's that for "wanting to reform the system?" 

A recent issue of Consumer Reports debunked the myth that malpractice
costs are driving up health care costs.  Sure, there are malpractice
cases that go way beyond what is reasonable (or what seems reasonable,
at least).  But they're a rather minor portion of total costs.

I'm willing to look up the article if anyone's interested.  It's at
home, else I would do it right now....  :-)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40207 ca.politics:6872 ba.politics:4580
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:44:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <3z9mqsh.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Hmm - well, at SGI, once a year the lavender 8.5x11 sheets come out,
>placed on every seat in the cafeteria, annouching some sort of
>"homosexual event/recognition day".

You have confused "once a year" and "once", phil-darling.

The day was "National Coming Out Day".


>Now, how many, say, straight groups do you know that "need" to
>use a company's facilities to announce their sexual preference and
>(I assume) seek approval?

Gee, you haven't a clue, do you.  How is a homosexual organization going
to let other, more closetted homosexuals, know about their presence?


>And I know of one person at SGI, by their own mouth, admitted that SGI
>(the company) told this person to tone down the "dress", as some considered
>it offensive.

But it would not happen to a man.  I know the case, you are twisting it to
make it fit your needs.


>Now, consider YOUR reaction if anti-abortion people at SGI did the same
>and placed the typical anti-abortion posters on every seat on
>the lunchroom -- what would your reaction be?


We are not talking about a political thing here.  We are talking about 
existance.



FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush