HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton Statue Committee
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:01:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.163527.8070@dp7up.com> xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) writes:
>
>A friend of mine found this, and don't know who the author is to give the
>credit to.
>	We have the distinguished honor of being on the committee for raising 
>five million dollars for placing a statue of Bill Clinton in the Hall of Fame 
>in Washington D.C. .
>
>	This committee was in a quandary as to where to place the statue.  It
>was not wise to place it beside the statue of George Washington, who never told
>a lie, nor beside Jesse Jackson, who never told the truth, since Bill Clinton
>could never tell the difference.

	Reference on J. Jackson?

>	We finally decided to place it beside the statue of Christopher
>Columbus, the greatest Democrat of all.  He left not knowing where he was 
>going, did not know where he was, returned not knowing where he had been and
>did it all on borrowed money.

	If you like this analogy, best follow it through. Yeah- borrowed
money. What was the return on investment? I could pray the Dem's would do
as well, setting upon their journey.


>P.S.  Is is said that Bill Clinton is considering changing the Democratic Party
>emblem from a donkey to a condom, because it stands for inflation, protects a
>bunch of pricks, halts production and gives a false sense of security while
>being screwed.

	Again, if we use the analogy, the condom does protect the user
from unwanted circumstances most of the time. Screwed or not, no
consequence. Save that desired.
	Only because I feel this article was posted with malice do I
reply. It says nothing of Clinton (who I did not vote for), it offers
nothing of value, save humor (and since I don't think it was posted as
humor, that value is lost). Don't mind me, I'm bitchy tonight.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:12:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.200620.19857@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>I've heard the figure that Joe Blow, retiring today, will receive his
>benefits back, accounting for inflation in between 2-4 years.

Considering what the life expectancies used to be, I'd say that this is
understandable.  Social Security was not invented in 1992, when life
expectancies are 72 for men and 78 for women.

What should be done is for a lump-sump to be made available to people
at retirement, and then they can manage it however they want, either
as an annuity, or they can blow it all on trips to Vegas.

This is not likely to happen since men are increasingly being deprived
of their retirement benefits in favor of "equal rights" for women.
That is, men must be paid less so that women can be paid longer.  If
the government were forced out of the retirement business, men could
start enjoying retirement a tad better, since we get 6 years less of
it than women ...

>Note "current" funding arrangement.

Yes, and I am combatting the argument that Social Security will not be
around and that it cannot survive.  I think I've proven that the
CURRENT funding of Social Security is quite sound.

>As you've pointed out, the guy now making 55K a year for the next 47
>years is going to get screwed by SS.  The sanest thing we could do is
>phase out SS and let him make his own decisions about how to fund his
>retirement.  Sound reasonable?

I certainly think that is more than reasonable, whether SS is a good
deal or not.  The government has no business telling me what I can and
cannot do with my money.  If I want to save money in my house by paying
off my mortgage, I should be allowed to do that, instead of being forced
to pay into some "other" retirement program.

That the liberals support this forced "choice" of retirement programs
is particularly sick, when you consider that liberals endorse "choice"
for so many other things.  But then, liberalism is appearance over
substance, form over function, hypocriscy over consistency ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:41:42 GMT

In article <3227@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> rspence@mpd.tandem.com (Russell Spence) writes:
>	Yes.  If they owned their $250K house outright, owned a vacation
>	cottage by the lake, with boat, and owned both of their cars.  They
>	also have $300,000 in the bank, and so, their interest income, at the
>	current rates might be less than $10k.  And they have no other income.
>	So, by what you I say, I guess they would recieve social security
>	benefits, but, yes, I would call them rich.

Certainly, in this particular example, someone who is wealthy is going to
receive Social Security benefits.  Big deal.  They put in the money, and
now they are getting 43 cents back for every dollar they put in.  You
would rather they received zero.

>	There is a difference between wealth and income.  Figure it out.
>	The rich have.  If you take a little time and effort you will see
>	how easy it is to go to zero income and still retain most of your
>	wealth.

So what.  Again, the rich fund Social Security and they receive 43 cents
back for each dollar put in.  THIS is the reality of Social Security.

Watch -

In:	$55,000/yr * 13% * 47 years = $336,050
Out:	$16,800/yr * 8 years = $134,400

Yes, those evil "rich" Social Security recipients are ripping off the
system.

Several points -

Social Security is not welfare -
	Welfare is something you can get, regardless of your participation
	in the system.  Social Security requires you to put in your "40
	quarters."

Social Security is need based already -
	If you made less, you are presumed to have saved less.  The
	system adjusts and pays you a greater return on your "investment",
	about 60% more than if you were "rich" and presumably have more
	at retirement.

Social Security is actuarially sound -
	Recent changes insure that Social Security will continue to be
	funded.  If you are only paying out 68 to 43 cents per dollar
	taken in for retirement benefits, it isn't hard to see that Social
	Security is going to be with us FOREVER.

None of this prevents me from drawing the conclusion that Social Security
is a liberal program aimed at producing class envy (look at the lies about
Social Security benefitting the rich) and redistributing the wealth (the
ratios of returns between rich and poor contributors proves that).
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 1 Jan 93 22:46:15 GMT
 <BywD06.Azy@NeoSoft.com> <21974@rpp386.lonestar.org> <1992Dec10.140419.21677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Dec10.140419.21677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>> In <21974@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>> compromise.  
> 
> But George Bush has never seemed to understand that.  His approach
> seems to be submit things you know they won't approve then cry when
> they do what you expect them to.

Is this the same Fred that complained mightily about how Bush wouldn't submit
a balanced budget?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:53:29 GMT

In article <BzHCDG.KEK@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <BzHAFI.It1@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>> to me that a protectionist policy on steel, for example, would hurt
>> in some areas (cars), while helping in others (American steel). If the
>> American car Co.'s costs go up by 15%, and the cost is passed on to
>> the consumer, and sales drop 25%, what effect would this have on the
>> profits/sales at the steel companies, who employ comsumers? 
> 
>Actually, it only helps the steel industry in the short run.  In the long
>run the company just gets less and less competitive.  It happens to anyone
>who depends on the government, whether it's a welfare family or a company
>in a protected industry.
> 
>Look at the car companies.  They had protected markets for years.  What
>did they do?  Give lots of raises and dump money into unrelated
>businesses (EDS, aerospace, defense, etc).  

	Doug, I feel it's fair to assess your argument as not being
focused on whether or not free trade is a good thing, and protectionism
bad, but rather that we have lazy, stupid corporations that can't take
proper advantage of a good situation. If so, that "good situation"
is protectionism, which I believe you're wanting to claim as "always
bad". Is it always bad, or must we continue to imply that the US Cos.
are poorly operated? Or, is it your argument that protectionism is
always bad because it breeds poor management? If so, we're not
arguing "pure" economic principle, are we? It would seem that "pure"
principles would hold that protectionism is bad for purely economic,
monetary, trade-position-and-leverage type reasons, not because of
the nature of American corporate thinking.
	As I've told Curt, I must be missing something. What is it?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:46:27 GMT

In <np3es*5v1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Dec10.140419.21677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>>> In <21974@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>> compromise.  
>> 
>> But George Bush has never seemed to understand that.  His approach
>> seems to be submit things you know they won't approve then cry when
>> they do what you expect them to.

>Is this the same Fred that complained mightily about how Bush wouldn't submit
>a balanced budget?

"Complained mightily"?  No.  However, it is the same Fred who pointed
out that George Bush never EVER attempted to get a budget that was
significantly better balanced than the one he got.  If you don't see
the difference between that and what I said about him submitting
things he knows they won't approve and then crying about the result
(instead of going in and negotiating a compromise), then I really
can't help you.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:19:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.050803.22371@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>The SS rate hasn't been 13% for the last 47 years.  What did it start
>at, some fraction of 1%?  And it's been going up since...  (it's now
>15.65%).

And neither has the life expectancy of men and women together been 75
years.  My 1958 standard mortality tables show life expectancy at 72,
averaged for both genders.  The 1941 tables show it as about 67 1/2
or so.  So having people get all of their money in 3 or 4 years, even
back then, wasn't a great deal.  They'd die in 2 1/2 years ...

(Besides, the "retirement" portion of Social Security is not 15.3% [ as
opposed to 15.65%, which it isn't even with medicare thrown in ].  About
2% or so of that 15.3% is "medicare", making the part which goes to
"retirement" and other coverages, closer to 13% than 15.65%.)
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:15:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.

In article <1992Dec19.211637.15401@novell.com>, bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
|> In article <Bz9Mxt.22Du@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:
|> > [Dewey points out that the young will feel screwed for making
|> > sacrifices to bail out the U.S. but sacrifices must be made...]
|> 
|> Sure, but you're screwing the young to continue to benefit the geezers'
|> who are collecting the entitlement (SS) who got us in this mess in the
|> first place, _that's_ what I object to.  Actually, I'm not adamantly
|> opposed to some sacrifice to fix the debt problem, but your SS plan
|> seemed to be putting the greatest burden on the young (if I recall
|> correctly those already collecting get to continue to collect, those
|> within 20 years of collecting get paid off what they've paid in and the
|> young get to continue to pay in with no pay off).
|> 
	Ignoring the point that the young who are being screwed(myself 
	included) will be paying for SS for their parents or grandparents,
	wouldn't it be better to only pay for SS for another 10 or 20
	years(in decreasing amounts) than for the rest of your working life?

	I thing we can all agree that if you took the money the Govt. is
	taking in the name of SS and put it in a private-plan, you'd
	do better in the long run.
	-dewey
---
Dewey Coffman		ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM			dewey@ctci.com
11400 Burnet Rd				All opinions are mine.
Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA		(512) 823-6463
===============================================================================
	"I do hope that you rot in Hell"   -The Christian JFH II
"Please consult your physician before exercising with Lee Haney"
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 1 Jan 93 21:16:32 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Dec27.190501.9404@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>$7150 per year, or $336,050 if they work 47 years (age 20 to age 67).
>The same person making $20K will pay in only $122,200.  The monthly
>benefits for the first person will be approximately $1,491 and the
>second $878.  (From SSA Pub No. 05-10024).  Using an average life
[...]
>Again, no true.  Do the math.  If you are "truly" rich, you will lose
>all of your benefits.  After $10,200, you lose 33 cents for every dollar
>of income you earn.  I wouldn't call a single retiree with only $10K
>per year of income "rich".  Would you?

Well, yes, I would.  As Russell Spence pointed out in another article,
it is useful to consider if they've paid off their house and cars.

At first I did think 10K in income was pretty paltry but consider
this:  take the 10K minus 20% for taxes which leaves 8K.  Take 1,491
per month (John's figure from above) * 12 months/year gives you
$17,892.  Add 8K and you get $25,892, almost 26K/year.  At this point
folks in the computer biz are probably still saying, "jeez, that's only
(.25, .5, .75, whatever) of my salary.  I'd hate to get by on only
26K/year." Don't forget to 1) look at your take home, NOT gross salary
(there's a big difference between my gross and take home because a) I'm
paying a shitload in income and SS taxes (aren't we all? :-)) and b)
I'm taking out 10% for stock purchase); 2) if you are currently paying
rent or a mortage or making payments on a car, then as Russell pointed
out, if you've got those paid for, deduct what you're paying from your
take home - you will have them paid off so you won't need that money;
3) presumably you won't still be putting the kids through braces and
college by they time you're 65 or 67 so you can take out the money your
spending on raising your kids (although I wonder if that will still be
true in the next decade or so as more and more people wait until their
30s to have kids...)

I'm not currently married or raising kids, so what I looked at was how
much I'd need today if I didn't have to make an apartment or car
payment.  Surprise, surprise, I could continue to live in the manner to
which I've become accustomed for UNDER 18K and my girlfriend and I eat
out quite a bit.  The remaining 8K/year would be gravy.

In fairness to John, though, I will say that I agree with his point
that the wealthy will be getting screwed 47 years from now when
they are pulling out less than the poor (as a percentage of what
they put in).  And as I've said before, we ought to acknowledge SS
for what is basically is (today), welfare for the old, and what it
will be 47 years from now, welfare for the old poor.


Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 30 Dec 92 12:35:39 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <BzyC75.72K@NeoSoft.com> paul@NeoSoft.com (Paul Hutmacher) writes:

>In article <Bzvw5J.1KEo@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>>It's a little perverse isn't it?  The richest segment of our
>>population, the aged, receive continuous handouts from young wage
>>earners far in excess of their own contributions when those same young
>>people have not a prayer of ever collecting this freebie themselves.

>Oh pooh.  That same argument of not having any social security left for 
>the contributors is the same one used two generations ago.  They're the
>ones now collecting.

Right, and look at how they had to raise the SSN taxes to make that
work.  Right now, the system is supposed to be relatively sound,
actuarially speaking, until around 2024.  Of course, the MEDICAL part
of the program will be in the toilet a lot quicker than that.

Anyway, there is a limit to just how heavy a tax burden you can put on
the people who are working to support SSN for those who are not.  The
program is obviously headed for a crash, and it'll happen before you
or I see a penny (since they've also raised the age at which you can
draw, from what I understand).  Hey, I MAY be dead in 2024, but I
don't like to bet on it.  ;-)


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: City Council & CO Ammendment 2
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:01:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.211519.7515@ross.COM> sang@ross.com (nobody) writes:
>by (almost) the same token, why should anyone make any judgement on how colorado
>citizens voted  regarding laws *they* have to abide by?
>more over, why is it that the people who are calling for the boycott are the 
>same people who argue that religious right-wingers have no business 
>pushing *their* moral values on other people?
>
>why??!?!?!

	The Colorado voters have a right. So do the boycotters. The
Coloradoans(?) may or may not have considered the possibility of boycotts;
that's their mistake, is it not? The religious right-wingers have a 
right to push their agenda. So do those who oppose them. Pretty neat,
eh?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CDF'S MISSION: LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:19:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch) writes:

>                 =====  CHILDREN IN CRISIS  =====
> 
> *6   CDF'S MISSION:  "LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND"
>      Conscious value and political choices, rather than "some
> unavoidable attribute of modern, urbanized societies or acts of
> God," are to blame for America's high child poverty rate,
> according to Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children
> Defense Fund.

I agree.  And the next paragraph names the conscious decision that got
us into the education mess:

>      CDF characterizes the conditions for children in 1992 as a
> national disgrace and calls on the nation -- from the White House
> and Congress to parents and local communities -- to invest in
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> children's future.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah, yes: spend and spend and spend!  Just like we do now!  Sure fire way
to get results!  (chuckle)

>      CDF's 1993 campaign "will be to guarantee Head Start for
> every eligible child, with full-day, full-year services for
> families that need them, with enriched parent, infant, and
> toddler components and to get all children immunized," according
> to the report.

I'd like to apply for these programs for my kids.  After all, I am a
very scarce minority: a white male over-taxed taxpayer, who pays for the
upkeep of his own family (single-income family no less!) and who is
forced to act as a money tree for state and federal agencies to suck up
his money for programs for everyone else's kids but his own.   Since I'm
such a rare item (and becoming rarer), I think my kids are "entitled" to
the programs that _I_ pay for.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: "Scott Bates Guthery" <p00197@psilink.com>
Subject: RE: 103rd Congress
Reply-To: guthery@slcs.slb.com
Organization: Schlumberger
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:39:15 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

Yep, here come the Boomers.  Who haven't paid their own way since
they broke down the gates at Woodstock.  Who destroyed the American
black community with their self-righteous pontifications.  Who brought
us AIDS, gangs and abortion in their relentless pursuit of spade kicks.  
Who won't defend your freedom but will be happy to send you to defend
theirs.  Yep, here come the Boomers.  Woodstock at the national
treasury.

I can't wait.


Newsgroups: tx.politics