HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Why does Clinton want to tax people living in poverty?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:33:22 GMT



Why is the Clinton administration so insistant upon taxing working
Americans living below the poverty line? Is it to punish them for not
being on welfare?

Why hasn't Clinton proposed tax relief for the poor? Serious tax
relief, not this $300 per child gimmicky crap.

Why are the Libertarians the only ones advocating removing the poor
from the tax rolls?

When the income tax was first proposed at the beginning of the
century, it was never intended to apply to working class Americans
much less Americans living in poverty. Why are the Democrats so
obsessed with taxing working Americans regardless of their income?

Why do taxes "on the rich" always end up picking everybody's pocket?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50347 ca.politics:8548 ba.politics:5959
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 9 Oct 1992 18:53:25 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <9531@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <=+4-zv_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
>
>>I agree completely.  Raising taxes will not fix the deficit, it won't
>>even reduce it.  Government consistenly spends $1.50 for every additional
>>$1 it receives in revenue.
>
>The members of our house of lords was quite upset when this study came out.
>(I believe the actual numbers for that study were $1.58.)  They ordered the
>CBO to do a study of their own, specifically to debunk the findings.
>The CBO study found that the resulting numbers were quite sensitive to the
>time frames selected.  (The article I saw did not go any further in discussing
>just how the time frames were selected.)  After much labor the CBO was able
>to demonstrate that by carefully selecting the time frame and other factors
>that new spending only goes up by $1.05 for each dollar of new spending.
...
>
>-- 
>Mark
>My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>

If increasing taxes by $1.00 raises the deficit by $1.05 to $1.58 the answer
is obvious.

Deacrease taxes to $0.00. The deficit will go down by a tremendous amount.
If it isn't enough to bring the deficit to $.00 then decrease taxes to some
large negatiave number. The negative number can be made arbitraily large.
Thus the deficit can be reduced enough so that it goes through zero and
becomes a surplus.

Would someone give me Bush's address so I can tell him about this?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer ( for both
my employer and myself)





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:45:03 GMT

dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman) writes:

>Actually the truth is and it won't come out until after the election is
>that Clinton was an actual CIA plant and he went to Moscow to turn some
>future Soviet leaders.  This peace demonstrating and the like was just
>a cover and he met with the young Gorbachev and Yeltsin and turned them
>to work for the American CIA.  So the true story is that Bill Clinton
>single handedly brought down the Soviet Union and communism.


Haha.  I like this one.  Just think that at this time perhaps George
Bush and Bill Clinton were working on this CIA assignment together.


>:-) 
>Denny 
>-------------------------------------
>I have already voted absentee in Arizona and George didn't get it.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore)
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Reply-To: kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore)
Organization: North Carolina Supercomputing Center
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:57:53 GMT

In article <10988@gunn.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A
Derzhanski) writes:
 >In article <Oct.6.22.02.37.1992.19470@romulus.rutgers.edu>
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
 ><In article <1992Oct6.191104.9332@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) writes:
 ><> but does this not also mean that giving
 ><> up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
 ><> construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...
 ><
 ><No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
 ><condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
 ><daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)
 >
 >These episodes are part of a larger story in which we are told that
 >Lot was a Good Fellow.  Surely they are condoned enough by that fact?
 >
 >-- 
Hmmm...I wonder why Peter warned to avoid being anything like Lot? Matter
of fact he points out that Lot dulled his sense of conscious by living
amoung them the way he did. The references are in either I or II Peter.
Just the fact that it was Abraham pleading for Lot's life rather than Lot
should be an indicator that something was wrong. In general, there is
very little condoning.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
||  Kevin Moore                      North Carolina Supercomputing Center   ||
||  Scientific Support Analyst       3021 Cornwallis Rd.                    ||
||  (919) 248-1179                   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709       ||
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:20:10 GMT

In article <34Bt02dF25Er01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> >Finally, I'd like to remind you about how stable and long-lived
>> >the nation was under the Articles.
>>             ^^^
>> 1) this is the correct tense even if it was unintentional

>Of course it's the right tense; The US is no longer under the Articles of 
>Confederation, so any reference to the US experience under them is 
>necessarily past tense.
>Did I miss your point?

I think so: The use of "was" implies that the United States really
were stable under the Articles. Actually, this isn't too inaccurate:
There were alot of problems, but not nearly as bad as the Federalists
suggested, or modern public high schools often teach.
I think that "would have been" would be more accurate, if the writer
ment to imply the United States under the Articles would not have lasted
long.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Dictionaries
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:23:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.000349.2118@midway.uchicago.edu>
     thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.071602.19664@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>      elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg>) writes:
>>
>>From: The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Ed.,
>>      Copyright 1991 Oxford Univ. Press
>>
>>/credulous/ <<"kredjUl@s>> adj. 
>>1. too ready to believe; gullible.
>>2. (of behaviour) showing such gullibility.
>>
>>/credulity/ <<krI"dju:lItI>> n. /credulously/ adv. /credulousness/ n. 
>>L credulus f. credere believe

>I heard that "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary.

   [ Same source... telnet info.rutgers.edu Library/reference/dictionary ]
   [ Yes, _telnet_ you morons... ]

/gullible/ <<"gVlIb(@)l>> adj. easily persuaded or deceived, credulous.

/gullibility/ <<-"bIlItI>> n. /gullibly/ adv.{-ibly new Jul 87} 

/gull/2 + /-ible/ 

         Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51554 alt.politics.clinton:10263
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:08:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.081708.24118@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:
} Do you honestly believe Clinton thought it was important to "disclose"
} a vacation he took 23 years ago?

For me, it is just the opposite.  I believe he thought it was important
to be covered up.

} If so, shouldn't Bush "admit" to where
} he vacationed in the winter of 1969, and if not, why?

Someone else (Stupendous Man?) mentioned something earlier along this
line -- if George Bush vacationed in Capetown, South Africa at the
height of apartheid, would that be an important item to "disclose"?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:52:22 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: health care
Distribution: usa
 <1992Oct6.015922.5611@jetsun.weitek.COM>
 <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu>

In article <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) says:
>
>In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>#This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health
>#care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line
>#to pay for th[text deleted]
>
>Can anyone document the statement that "87% of Americans have
>comprehensive health care plans"?

No, in fact, that's untrue.  If you look at the surveys in the mid to late
13-15 percent of Americans had no insurance at any one point in time.  Most
experts believe that number has grown in the 1990s.  In addition, 6% of
the population under age 65 is on Medicaid, which in many poorer states could
not be considered "comprehensive".  Finally, given the cutbacks in the
employer market, many experts consider some individuals who have insurance
to be exposed to significant risks.  I've seen estimates that this
population includes 30 to 50 million more people.

Finally, you cannot forget that 15-20% of the elderly population has no
insurance other than Medicare.  In addition, the one-third of the elderly
who have insurance through a former employer will face cutbacks in the
future.  Both of these groups are exposed to significant financial risks,
so I would hesitate to call their insurance "comprehensive."

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52290 misc.headlines:6618 talk.politics.mideast:21176
From: U19807@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:57:30 GMT
 <BvzoD3.Gou@ddsw1.mcs.com> <1992Oct14.162025.6006@udel.edu>
 <1992Oct14.202322.1498@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <1992Oct14.202322.1498@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
says:
>        Duke may or may not have made such a statement but I personally
>would not want to rely on reporting from the Dallas Morning News as a
>source.  Living in Texas, I think we have better newspapers.

I wouldn't know about the _Dallas_News' overall quality and whatnot,but don't
you think that even a paper you (apparently) dislike a great deal would look
pretty foolish in making up nonexistent quotes,thereby courting a libel suit
or two?

>This report
>on Duke sounds most uncharacteristic of his statements in recent years

Oh? If he said it recently,then it _is_ a "statement of recent years",
uncharacteristic or not.

>and like all of us, I suspect he could have grown up some.  I understand
>Senator Byrd was once a Klan member. If anybody over thirty will look
>back a few years with any honesty they should find some interesting and
>perhaps fascinating changes; if not, God pity them.  The human being
>is not a static robot but is capable of remarkable change.

Laudable sentiments and all,but this was hardly the point of that _Dallas_
_News_ article. People are capable of change-very few ever stay _exactly_
the same over the years,to overstate the obvious-but if Duke actually said
something which was quoted in the _DN_ that indicates he hasn't changed all
that much,any amount of rhetoric on your part will not alter the fact that
Duke said what he said.

(Incidentally,Byrd may've been a former Klan member,but there's not a whole
 lot of evidence that he still holds his former,er,_associates_ in high
 regard as community role models as Duke apparently does.)

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Oct12.034653.8121@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:27:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.034653.8121@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

   Russ Nelson said:

   > "Four more beers", they were chanting at the Republican National
   > Convention.  That's about all Bush is going to get.

   Just to bring home the point that it ain't over till it's over (thank
   you Yogi Berra, wherever you are), here's a front-page article from
   the Saturday, October 10, 1992 Boston Globe.  I realize that this
   guy's viewpoint may be coming from somewhere out in the Oort Cloud (he
   _is_ described as "a disciple of John Sununu, former White House chief
   of Staff," after all), and/or he may just be trying to pull off the
   old self-fulfilling prophesy stunt... in any event, though, I think it
   makes interesting reading:

[ deleted, but yes, it did. ]

Not only is George Bush going to lose, and lose badly, but he isn't going
to understand why he lost.  That's the really sad part...

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:12:19 GMT

In article <14OCT199209444249@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.214739.1488@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@stein.u.washingtonedu (Eric Sieferman) writes...
>>In article <9S5-sJB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>>
>>>No, in the original Constitutional sense.  There is no power granted
>>>to the Federal government giving it the ability to interfere with
>>>such contracts.
>>
>			...
>
>Where is there a "right of contract" in the Constitution?  Where is
>the government forbidden to regulate contracts?

     Bzzzt!  Sorry, you failed your "Comprehension of the Constitution"
quiz.
     The Constitution of the United States is an *empowering* document, not
a *restrictive* document.  In it the Federal Government is granted certain,
specifc powers.  Notice Article I, Section 8 says, "Congress shall have the
power to..", not "Congress hall be forbidden to..."
     One original objection to the Bill of Rights, which has come to pass,
is that by its inclusion has arisen the idea that for something to be
protected the government must be specifically forbidden to do something.
The federalists did not believe the first ten amendments changed the
Constitution, but only said explicitly what was in the document implicitly.
The first amendment was not required to protect the freedom of speech,
because the government was given no power in that area.
     The government is given specific powers.  Amendment 10 further says
that only those powers listed in the Constitution belong to the federal
government, with all others being reserved to the states or the people.
     The federal government does not have to be forbidden to control
contracts, but the other way around.  It must be granted that power, and
it hasn't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:02:16 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Michael Polen writes:
>Tim Smith writes:
>|> Michael Polen writes:
>|> >This is the same Robert Dornan who started as a right wing
>|> >TV talk show commentator (sounds like a trend) and whose wife
>|> >once asked (when co-hosting) if homosexuality was hereditary.
>|> 
>|> What was wrong with that question?  How about recessive genes or
>|> kin selection?
>|> 
>Could someone with biology background figure out how long it
>would take a trait to disappear if it precluded reproduction?
>
A friend of mine who is a biology professor told me that there
are many traits which, if beneficial to the group, get passed
around that way. I asked if that didn't violate classical Darwinism
and he gave me a technical answer I didn't understand. It is
my understanding that many homosexuals do not want to stress the
biological origins of the trait since support for gay rights
which are based on science could be overturned by science. So,
hypothalamic size and its genetic source and its relationship to
certain aspects of human sexuality seem temporarily filed under
the Interesting If True categroy.

-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 1-5 Lifetime: 1-7
From: skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:11:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> >Perot, while striving to avoid attacks on individual's character, 
> >has emphasized the notion that people who hold office in this 
> >country should consider themselves SERVANTS of the people -- 
> 
>   But what does it MEAN?   In the current issue of Business Week
>   they published a nationwide poll showing rejection for 3 of 4 
>   major Perot deficit-cutting proposals.   If the poll is accurate
>   should a good servant like Perot then just accept the bidding of
>   his masters and forget about these ideas?  

I think Perot's claim is that our current politicians are not working
for the people, they're working for special interests.  Clinton and
the trial lawyers, for instance.  Perot is saying that his positions
won't be bought.

--
Rich Skrenta
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:29:20 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article ld3h8iINN3ad@spim.mti.sgi.com, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Stephen Tice  writes...
>|>I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
>|>I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
>|>being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
>|>you have to have people go and fight.

So, what you're implying, Stephen, is that you supported Clinton before
this.  Funny, but I don't remember you saying a lot of nice things
about him in previous posts.  ;-)  BTW, Clinton does not seem to have
been active at all in the war protest movement.  Seeking to avoid Vietnam,
as many a Republican "chicken-hawk" will tell you, did not automatically
make you a war protester.  Most people, including Dan Quayle (by recent
admission on the Larry King show), had serious doubts about the war at 
that time.  Quayle said that he would not have gone to Vietnam if he had
it to do over again.  But he was no war protester.

>We are certainly getting a lot of milage out of an admittedly
>speculative comment made by Robert Dornan, a congressman
>that is to the right of Falwell.  What he said was that Clinton
>spent several days in Moscow (not true, it was one day of a
>40 day european vacation) and that if Americans, particularly
>anti-war Americans, were in Moscow, they "would have been
>contacted by the KGB."

Clinton had a good laugh over Dornan's charges on the Larry King Show.  As 
one who traveled to the SU around the time that Clinton did, I have to say
that he most certainly did talk to KGB people.  Lots of people who dealt 
with foreign visitors were in KGB employ.  But that was also true of most
Soviets who were travelling in the US.  They all had to fill out reports for
the KGB on people that they met with.  So virtually any Republican who has
talked to a Soviet visitor has been "interviewed" by the KGB, including no
doubt Congressman Dornan himself.  Frankly, I think that wild attempts like
Dornan's to link Clinton with Communists and socialists actually help more
than they hurt.  They distract from the more serious issues where Clinton
might be more vulnerable.  Such claims get a lot of press because they are so 
sensational, and that is probably why politicians make such silly charges.
But the Republican strategy of scaring people away from Democrats is simply
not working this time.  People fear four more years of Bush more than they
do the possibility that Clinton was some kind of KGB lackey.  ;-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA