HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Bush and Perot Supporters, Please read this appeal
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:07:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <1992Nov5.091956.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>To:      All Bush supporters, Perot supporters, and other independents
>From:    Cary D. Perttunen, a fellow non-Clinton supporter
>Subject: Courage and Our Common Ground
>
>Only *after* the budget has been balanced and the debt begins to be 
>payed-off, should we discuss our differences.
>
>     C. Perttunen

I agree... However, I feel that if Clinton can prove with hard
numbers that a proposed spending increase in the short term will
mean a long-term net gain, then I think we should give the man a
chance. I think it should be well-documented, though, by proven
small-scale experimentation, as opposed to "The economists say".

If he gets in there, and starts to sling pork, then everyone
should stand up and say whoa, we can't afford this.

I think we should watch him (and the congress) closely, and 
above all else stay organized. That way, IF the time comes that
we feel the need to speak, the voice is there.

Please don't take this as a flamer towards Clinton. I think he
should be given a chance. Maybe he can make a believer out of
us.

-- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion - not my employer's
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:58:46 -0500 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
	<1992Nov9.192218.20072@ems.psu.edu>

 (John Hammer for GEOSC 507) says:

There has been WAY too much Clinton bashing here.
 
And way too much GOP bashing.
 
 
I'm about to follow those that are sick of the mindless,
extremist crap that seems to be the mainstay of this 
group by unsubscribing.  ( I'm talking about BOTH extremes 
before anyone gets smug. )
**************
************************************
 Wait a moment.  Allow me to get REAL smug for just a moment when I say:
Am I really supposed to feel bad after what Dan Quayle has been through
for the last 4 years?(and Bush for the past 6 mo.) I thought it was out
of hand and I'm not even a Republican.  Clinton supporters weren't
complaining then.
Wake up and smell it, kids! As soon as the Media gets a little bored
Clinton and his Administration will be getting it from all sides.


',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
(borrowed without permission.  Sorry Jason, wherever you are)
   


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16266 talk.politics.misc:58694
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton by default
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:46:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.182749.1265@wixer.cactus.org>, rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
} dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
} >
} >According to Clinton's
} >plan it is *every* employer, so presumably it will include them too.  But
} >he doesn't say just how it will be implemented for them.
} 
} No, it's not every employer, as Clinton's plan clearly states: it's
} every employer who employs at least a certain number of employees
} (I think the number is 20, but don't quote me).  You should maybe
} attempt to get information on the plan before making stuff up about it.

Obviously, you are not reading what Clinton's plan says -- just reading
what you would like it to say.

This comes right out of his "Putting People First" plan:
   "* Worker retraining. We will require every employer to spend 
    1.5 percent of payroll for continuing education and training,"

Note: "*every* employer".

} >Three years ago, I hired a carpenter to do some work on my house.  If I
} >had him do some more work, would Clinton and Co. require me to pay for his
} >training?
} 
} no.

That is nice to know, but show me the exemption.

} >Can you just imagine Clinton requiring Stephen King to spend a portion
} >of what he gets from his books to take courses in creative writing, or
} >requiring Placido Domingo to spend a portion of what he earns from opera
} >for singing lessons?
} 
} no.  Both of these examples are not only patently ludicrous, but not
} even considered by Clinton's plan.

Of course they are ludicrous, but again show me the exemption.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"I will not raise taxes on the middle class. ... I disagree with Mr. Perot
 on how MUCH to increase taxes on the middle class."  -- Bill Clinton, 3rd
 Presidential debate
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wonderful 'NEW' Plan
Date: 9 Nov 1992 14:01:56 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1dll76INN4vj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
>
>At last a post with a Subject line that doesn't start with   Re:
>
>  USA Today has an aricle in todays paper about how the Democrats in
>congress want to set about passing a capital gains tax cut to go
>along with Bill Clinton's 'new' economic plan. 
>  Wow this capital gains tax cut sure won the hearts and minds of the
>Democrats in a hurry.
>
One thing you've missed in all your in depth research...the capital gains
tax cut proposed by the democrats (as part of Clinton's campaign package) is
a *limited* capital gains tax cut. It would be applicable to "long term"
investments, instead of "all" investments. The Republican proposal was for
an across the board capital gains tax cut...

>  Democrats(to the people of The U.S.A.): "Well people it's like this
>George Bush was right all along... We do need a cut in the capital gains
>tax... Oh yes we know we called it a stupid idea for years and yes we did

They considered the Republican *plan* for a capital gains tax cut stupid, not
the capital gains tax cut itself...If you read back, you'll find that democrats
favor capital gains tax cuts on *selected* items, not everything...

>know all along we were lying but hey who cares if we sacrafice the nations
>economy for our own political motives? Remember character is not an issue
>here."
>-- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         |"God does not play dice
>  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |  with the universe."
> /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu | -- Albert Einstein


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 15:17:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.222007.29060@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.175312.26874@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>>
>>>The question, then, becomes which if any of a,b, and c are true.  I
>>>personally feel that a (for example, how much more does it cost to insure
>>>a $1,000,000 deposit than a $1,000 in an FSLIC bank) and b (this argument
>>>is why sales tax is considered regressive, for example) are true, if not c.
>>
>>Spoken like a true social engineer.
>>
>>If your FSLIC example is the best you can offer (it's wrong by the way
>>as insurance only goes up to $100,000 deposits) then forget a).
>
>Wrong.  FSLIC goes up to $100,000 _per_account_.  You can have $1,000,000
>divided up into ten different accounts, and it's all insured.  You can have
>$100,000,000 deposited in a thousand different accounts, and it's all insured.

Forgive me for not being specific enough for you.  I didn't
think there'd be anyone that would not understand that "goes
up to $100,000 deposits" automatically implies an individual
account.
 
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:28:24 GMT

In article <BZS.92Nov11050702@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>Since something like $500B per year is going to just pay the interest
>on the debt you may well be wrong. Unless you just suggest we default
>on the debt.

This figure is way too high.  I don't know what the actual figure is,
but if we figure a $4 trillion debt, and an average rate of 7% (that
is probably too high), then the cost to finance this years debt would
be $280 billion.  A lot, but quite a bit less than $500 billion.

I think that all this emphasis on the raw numbers misses the point.
If the cuts in defense spending have shown us nothing else, it is
that cuts in government spending can have drastic effects on the 
economy.  Making large cuts in government spending to "balance the
budget" will have a large negative impact on the economy, which will
tend to negate to effects of cutting the budget (ie: will increase
gov't outlays).

We need to look at the REAL budget, rather than the nominal numbers which
people tend to concentrate on.  With a debt of $4T and if we figure inflation
at 4%, then a deficit of $160B results in no REAL growth of the debt.  I think
that is the figure we need to shoot for, rather than balancing the nominal
budget (which would be a surplus in real terms).

And really, the most important thing is to make SOME progress toward
reducing the deficit.  This is a problem which developed over many
years, and we aren't going to solve it over night.  I think that
Clinton's proposals so far make sense.  Increases in upper-income
tax rates in conjunction with capital gains tax reduction and a
variety of investment tax credits to stimulate investment and the
economy.  It is my opinion (shared by a number of economists) that
a decrease in the capital gains tax will result in an INCREASE in
revenue for the government (at least in the short term) because
there are a lot of people with un-realized captial gains who might
be tempted to sell to take advantage of the lower rates.

Guido
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: cost per vote
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:30:22 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.172621.21039@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
> some statistics from the election.
>    (I am very unsure of the campaign spending figures; if
>     anyone has anything more accurate, please let me know)
> 
> 			  Clinton	  Bush		  Perot
> total votes		 43,728,000	 38,167,000	19,237,000
> total expenditures	110,000,000	110,000,000	72,000,000
> cost per vote		   $2.50	   $2.88	  $3.60

	Bush & Clinton totals are closer to $170 million.  (Or about $4 a
vote.)

> The only conclusions I can glean from this are totally
> facetious: Clinton is the best businessman, and Perot is
> the worst, because Clinton acheived the lowest cost/vote!

	Oops.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16804 talk.politics.misc:59520 talk.politics.drugs:7438
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:22:25 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1992Nov9.225854.1948@netcom.com> cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton) writes:
}  Just to clarify, I'm not a libertarian (as I'm sure the libertarians
}have noticed.)  My libertarian sympathies come from having read a fair
}bit of economics over the last few years, once I finally appreciated that
}economics was not claiming to be an exact science or an exact model of
}economic reality.  

Not a natural science, but a social science, with the precision appropriate
to it.

}  On the other hand, I can't help thinking that many libertarians have
}missed some key points too.  In particular, to have a "perfect market"
}requires that the item being traded be a "commodity" (perfectly interchangable)
}that there be an indefinitely large number of sellers, low barriers to
}entry or exit for producers, and perfect availability of information 
}about prices and quality (i.e. widely available information at zero cost 
}or negligible cost.)  If you don't have all of these conditions, you are
}not likely to have a highly competitive, optimum cost market evolve.

Oh, dear.  You've been reading positivist economics, haven't you?  You'll be
far more pleased with the Austrian school, as it does without most of these
incorrect assumptions.  Libertarian economists have been dealing with these
problems for quite some time now.

}  So, in the case of insurance companies, where most of these assumptions
}do not currently hold, government may have a very constructive role in
}regulating the market -- preventing fraud or misleading sales, ensuring
}that companies are able to meet the obligations they are assuming,
}encouraging companies to offer uniform, comparable policies & payment methods,
}publicizing information about rates and policies, and so on.  Some of this
}can be done by third-party institutions like Consumer Reports, some not.

Fraud prevention, of course, but through the courts.  Regulation isn't
necessary or desirable for this.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:15:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.033316.29196@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.013206.23295@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> >
> >	If you will find for me _any_ part of the Bible which commands
> >an _egalitarian_ marriage (not one with supposedly complementary
> >roles), I will concede that also. By egalitarian I mean something
> >comparable to friendships, especially between those of similar social
> >positions.
> >
> I'm paraphrasing, but I believe this comes from Genesis.
> 
> God created woman from Adam's rib so she could stand beside him.  She was not
> created from his head to stand over him, or from his heel to be below him.  
> 
> I always hear this passage at wedding ceremonies.

You're paraphrasing.  Have you also heard, "love, honor and obey?"  
It gets left out often, but I've heard it pretty recently.  Oh, and
the husband doesn't promise to obey ... obviously.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16961 alt.politics.democrats.d:485 alt.politics.elections:23594 talk.politics.misc:59795
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:16:21 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov10.113318.18425@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:

|>  In the other hand, a family making $300,000 a year will pay, at worst
|>  a full 28% federal income tax and an average of 7% state income tax.
|>  That's 35% or $105,000 a year.  They will pay 7% FICA but only up to
|>  $60,000 for a total of $4,200 (just twice the other family) and disability
|>  of 1% up to $30,000 for a total of  $300, same as the other family.  
|>  This adds up to $110,000 for a net of $190,000 a year ($16,000 a month
|>  AFTER TAXES!)  I am supposed to shed serious tears for this family if
|>  their tax burden is increased another $25,000?  No way, sorry, I simply
|>  don't get it.   

The issue is not can they afford it, but instead, what makes you think that
you or anyone else have more right to their money than they do.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:25:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.005533.28857@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.093340.7001@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>  Okay.  You are all mixed up.  When you earn your money, you are taxed
>>  on it.  As far as I can tell, you will NEVER EVER EVER again pay tax
>>  on those same dollars...
>
>>  If you invest your money in ANYTHING capital-related (stock, real
>>  property, bonds, savings accounts, R&D, etc), and ultimately take
>>  your money out with a profit, you only pay tax on the CAPITAL GAIN
>>  (i.e., the profit made above and beyond the initial investment)
>>  Hey, folks, that's why they call it the CAPITAL GAINS tax :-)
>
>>  You do not, no matter what you think, pay tax again on the money
>>  you earned....
>
>Sorry, but this isn't the case: After you pay the capitol gains tax,
>the money you made is considered income, and must be reported on your 1040
>and you must pay income tax on it. Take a look at the form: Line 13:
>"Income: Capitol gains or (loss) (attach Schedule D)" [where you
>must itemize your capitol gains] and Line 14: "Income: Capitol gain
>distributions not reported on line 13". These are added in
>to get your taxable income. At are there any related deductions.
>On capitol gains, you are required to pay _both_ capitol gains _and_
>income tax.
>
>                                        Frank Crary
>                                        CU Boulder


Sorry, Frank.  The reason Line 14 says "not reported on line 13" is to
cover any gains that weren't on schedule D.  You are not taxed twice here.
The most popular form of double taxation known today is in corporate taxes,
where corporate income is subject to corporate tax, what's left may be
distributed as dividends to stockholders, and the stockholders have to pay
tax on these dividends yet once more on their income tax forms.

Jens
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: What Conservatives fear most
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  6 Nov 92 17:09:42 GMT

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

>Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65 writes:
>>
>>Go read "The Real Reagan Record", in National Review (8/31/92)
>>
>Or check out England's roaring economy. Rock solid currency. Low
>inflation. Supple infrastructure. Full employment. Where Supply
>Side didn't have to compromise with nay sayers in Congress you
>get to see the true proof in the pudding.

It's hard to gauge the effects of conservative rule on an economy
that is already so instituionally socialized.

Martin

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: abancrof@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (audrey frances bancroft)
Subject: wealth apologists
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:57:10 GMT


It sure has been interesting reading the epistles of apologists for the
wealthy.  You're right, they have terrible lives, we should pity them.

I know that the rich are human beings with talents and problems and
in-laws and dentist appointments.  I figure about as many of them 
deserve their positions as deserve being poor -- some people make their
own fate, others have it thrust upon them.

Part of the government's responsibility, in some of our's view, is to
redistribute wealth to the extent that all people have at least the
requirements to survive and have a quality of life which allows them to
succeed based on their own dedication and ability.  An argument can be
made that by taking a little bit from a lot of people (the middle class)
we can generate more than by taking an even higher percentage from the
wealthiest.  Okay, I believe that's true.  But it's been used to justify
A LOT of nitpicking taxes on the MC that have collectively placed an
unfair burden on the class, and simultaneously used to justify hefty and
frequent tax breaks for the top 3%.  This programme is unfair even when
it works, as it has in times of great philanthropic effort.  Look what
happens when everybody gets greedy.  And why should most of us have to
depend on what happens to trickle down?  Each life is of equal worth if
not equal value.  Geez, after a while even Mr. Spock saw that capitalism
must be tempered with humanity.

Why doesn't everybody lighten up a little, switch off the anal retentive
button, and try to help each other, even if it's just a little bit.
-- 
"He wished a mad dog or a tramp..would attack Millie, so that he 
 could express in wild action what he could not put into words."  
                                                 Warwick Deeping 
                   abancrof@silver.ucs.indiana.edu                
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: President Clinton -- What a nice sound
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:12:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Understand something (this is not a flame): most younger voters (myself
>included) don't remember Carter.  I truly thought I was doing the right
>thing in supporting Bush, so does that make me a hatemonger?? I hope not.

I am only 29, but I do remember the Carter Administration and the
effects it had on the country, my family, and myself.  It was very
tough financially for many of us.  He was a very ineffective President.

To me, the best sound I can hear will be in January, 1997.  It may sound
like this:

"Former President Clinton and his family left on Air Force One for the
last time today, going home to Little Rock after being defeated in his
bid for a second term.  This defeat marks the return of the Republican
Party to control of The White House."


-- 
David De Trolio - (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
--------------------------------------------------
Reagan-Bush 1980-1988 + Bush-Quayle 1988-1992
Twelve Years of Strong American Leadership
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc