HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 10:58:24 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov5.061433.226@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
|> In article <Bx3H4H.L83@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> 
|> 25% of your taxes are wasted paying interest on the national debt.

Who says that the 25% comes from taxes?  Maybe it comes from additional
debt purchases.  In which case, the interest is being paid by people
who are *voluntarily* giving money to the government, rather than having
it forcefully extracted from them.  Just a different perspective.

|> 
|> Time for a summary.  If the government didn't spend 25% of our tax dollars 
|> on debt interest, each of us could benefit in one of the following ways:
|> 
|> (1) have a 25% tax cut without losing government services
|> (2) have 25% more government services
|> (3) take an additional 5-6 weeks vacation time per year without loss of 
|>     income.
|> (4) some combination of the above.
|> 
|> What is actually happening of course is:
|> 
|> (5) Your money/work time/government services go into the bit bucket instead.
|> 

The problem with this analysis is that the amount we pay on interest is
going to cover things that we have already spent money on.  If we weren't
spending the money on interest, there are many things we wouldn't currently
have.  Think of it this way.  Lets say that in 1980 you bought a house.
Let's say your mortgage payment is $800/month.  Today you could say, gee
if only I wasn't spending $800/month on principle and interest I could
afford to buy more, work less, etc.  Of course, you wouldn't have the
house either.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: machman@stein.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: electoral college vote for Perot?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:54:34 GMT

hugh@cs.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne) writes:

>Just a quick question.  All the results that I saw given here (the
>Netherlands) gave Perot zero votes in the electoral college.  How sure
>is this?  I noticed that his best result was in Maine (about 30% ?).  It
>seems that Maine is one of the few states that does not (necessarily)
>give all its votes in the electoral college to the first past the post.
>Since Maine must have at least 3 votes, does this mean that Perot gets
>one of them?

No.  While Maine and Nebraska are unique in that they do not assign the
sum of their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, they do, however,
assign each of them according to who wins each congressional district within
the state, with the two left over votes going to the winner of the overall 
state vote.

[ Note:  (# EV for a state) = (# Representatives) + (# Senators)

			    = (# Congressional districts) + 2  ]

Thus in order for Perot to have won an EV from Maine, he needed to come in
first in the popular vote of a particular congressional district in that state.
Since he did not do this in Maine, nor in Nebraska, all the EV from those 
states went to Clinton and Bush, respectively.


						-- dave

-- 
 /'''   The Machman        machman@u.washington.edu        david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:59:27 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <BxGnos.IHF@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <exuptr.210.720981678@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>> I think there is a market for these cars.  The ones who are buying Jap 
>> today.  I'm not pro-regulatory normally, but we should protect our auto 
>> industry when the "other guy" is using unfair or questionable tactics.  BTW, 
>> much improved comfort).
> 
>And the loser in that senario is the American public which ends up paying
>more money for lower quality cars.  Japan does have more import
>restrictions on cars than the US, but European automakers have made
>some real inroads.  The biggest problem is that Japanese consumers
>still consider US cars junk.  That's not surprising since American 
>consumers also think Japanese cars are of higher quality.  How can
>the US car companies expect to sell cars in Japan when they've been
>losing market share in the US!
> 
Well, that's because they *are* junk, except for the *HIGH*-priced ones. 

In the last 12 years, I've had my name on two used cars, and drove another.
I had a 2-year old Chevette in '80 (pronounced shove-it). We currently have
a Toyota Tercel wagon, which we bought 2 years old in 88. The shoveit, in
5 years, and which had about 70-80K miles on it in 85, had, in the way of
major repairs, 
	a) *TWO* trans rebuilds (one paid for by GM due to a class action suit)
	b) the timing belt break
	c) a coil spring break (ok, that's minor)
	d) the generator replaced,
	e) I think the starter
	and more I don't remember.
The Tercel, which is in a comparable market niche (bottom of the line), now
has 133K miles on it. It has had
	a) carb rebuild
	b) timing belt break (at 105k miles!!!)
	c) the starter replaced.
That's it.

Clearly, the Tercel is better built. On top of that, the market value is
a hell of a lot higher. 

When the US carmakers build something that meets the specs of the Tercel, or
say, the VW bug (no, I never owned one), I'll buy one.

	mark

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fritzz@megatek.com (Friedrich Knauss)
Subject: Re: Oh, well.
Reply-To: fritzz@megatek.com
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:11:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.162310.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>For those of us who intend to stay, start practising your German. All of the 
>speeches that Clinton will give will sound better in their original German.
>
>"Deutchland Uber alles! Heil! Heil!"

Stupid shits-

When translated into German, Clinton's speeches sound more like the
post WWII speeches leading into the industrial rebuilding of a
devastated nation.

However, Pats' speeches about keeping Our Great Country safe from
the Forces Of Evil, and doing Your Patriotic Duty by Keeping Our
Children Pure do kinda have that Nazionalistic feel to them...



PS- Trying to break the stereotyping - Is it really likely that
Clinton will have his way with congress or vica versa? His
agenda is different enough from that of the old congress that
gridlock will probably remain a reality.
-- 
-- Bones heal - Chicks dig scars - Pain is temporary - Glory is forever
-- fritzz@megatek.com :wq ZZ QQUIT exitqqq^C^Y^C^C^C^C^C^C^C
--
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22604 talk.politics.misc:58155
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:42:39 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <27227@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>Dave Griffith writes:
>>Actually, this points up a basic problem that Clinton will have with Supreme
>>Court choices.  It's payback time for the Republicans in the Senate.  After
>>the Bork and Thomas hearings, anyone Clinton nominates had better be squeaky
>>clean, and willing to be publicly humiliated for it anyway.  I'm afraid we're
>
>The Democrats control the Senate, & thus the judiciary committee.  As
>long as this continues, & as long as Clinton remains on good terms
>with the Senate Democrats (an open question, based on the history of
>the Demo party), the nominee need only be awake & toilet-trained to pass
>muster.  However I expect Clinton to nominate well-qualified if
>left-leaning people to the courts.

I don't doubt that any nominee will pass, I simply believe they will have to 
pass a rather nasty gauntlet to do so.  Nasty enough to turn away many
qualified candidates.  There are always people willing to take on suicide
missions, but they are rarely the best for the job.

Actually, on further thought over the last couple of days, I believe I have
figured out a way for Clinton to avoid this.  Nominate a woman, preferrably
a minority woman.  _Nobody_ in the Republican party wants to be seen grilling
Anita Hill again, and that is just what the cameras would make an intense
Judiciary committee inquiry.  

Note that none of the above should be construed as describing who I believe
_should_ be nominated.  Last I checked, Clinton is unlikely to consult me on
the choice.  Rather, I am humbly (?) prognosticating who _will_ be picked.
I find realpolitik much more entertaining than the ideological bleating from
all corners normally seen on this net.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
Strong currency, strong whiskey, and strong typing
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Helllooooooo, Secret Service!
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:41:22 GMT


In article <1dbkceINN2vd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) said:

> > I survived Reagan; I cheered when he was shot.  I'm not proud of
> > it, but it's so [Allen Halsell]
>
> I can't believe anyone would stoop to making a statement such as
> this.  The only thing having an attitude like this will get you is a
> visit from the Secret Service (you've probably been added to their
> nut list because of your post).

Hey, if the Secret Service wants to visit everyone who expresses joy
at the possibility of the President getting scragged, and goes no
further, fine.  It's their time and resources to waste, after all.

(Well, actually, it's also _our_ tax dollars they'd be wasting, too,
so it isn't really "fine," but you get the idea.  The point is, if
they're going to be spooked by people expressing their _opinions_ of
the value of the life of some office-holder, that's their problem.
Just as long as they don't try to do anything to suppress those
opinions or punish people for holding them, anyway.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wanted : Clinton's address
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:18:00 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Columbia University

In article <DUBOIS.92Nov5130517@skarv.iesd.auc.dk> dubois@iesd.auc.dk (Mikael Skov) writes:
>
>Can anybody E-mail me Bill Clinton's address in Arkansas?

I'm pretty sure you can just write:

President-elect Bill Clinton
Little Rock, AR
U.S.A.

I don't think there'd be much ambiguity.


And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton
From: msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Rational
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:07:29 GMT

In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) writes:
|> In article <Bx7rGq.43x@world.std.com> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes:
|> > Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
|> > George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
|> > Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent
|> > Andrew Marrou, Oth 278,528 - 0 percent
|> > Lenora Fulani, Oth 211,742 - 0 percent
|> > Bo Gritz, Oth 97,601 - 0 percent
|> > John Hagelin, Oth 44,521 - 0 percent
|> > Howard Phillips, Oth 39,391 - 0 percent
|> > James Mac Warren, Oth 27,464 - 0 percent
|> > Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 25,688 - 0 percent
|> > Ron Daniels, Oth 25,404 - 0 percent
|> > Other, Other, 22,822 - 0 percent
|> 
|> It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!
|> 
|> Right.
|> 
|> What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
|> believe that Bill Clinton should be President.

... and 63% don't believe Bush should be, and 81% don't believe 
Perot should be ... and on, and on, and on, and on.

What we really need - at least in the primaries - is a "None Of The
Above" checkbox. Tell the parties to come back when they have some
dwark we want instead of one we'll settle for.

And we need to ditch the Electoral College because it leads to this
"mandate" and "landslide" crapola. And the whole voting/registration
process should be made easier - send every household registration
forms, make it easier to vote by mail, or (horrors) electronically.

Maybe it should be that we can't elect a president who doesn't
carry a majority of the popular vote. Maybe we should prohibit
publishing polls in the last 2 weeks of the campaign.

Who the hell knows? I'm just glad this whole sickening mess is over
with finally.

I just hope the 81% who didn't vote Perot remember to not complain
when taxes go up and Congress gives itself another pay raise.

Geee ... does it show much that I was a Perot supporter?

	-MSM

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:24:31 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Seems to me that if Bush was locked up four years ago a lot people might
>>be alive today who aren't.
>
>Name one, asshole!

You?  Oops, sorry.  I missed the comma. :-)

Seriously, how about several American soldiers who were killed by a SCUD?
Of course, if Bush had been locked up four years ago, there might also be
a lot of people now alive who would have been dead, so the original
statement was pointless.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23192 talk.politics.misc:59074 tx.politics:7120
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: School Committee Chairman absolutely unabashedly opposed
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:49:40 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

yet more evidence of school administrations unwilling to change.... -curt


                    =====  FRONTLINES  =====

*2   PIONEER SCHOOLS:  BOSTON TEACHERS UNION PONDERS PROPOSAL
     A proposal that would waive teacher tenure rights and give
school administrators fiscal autonomy over pilot "pioneer
schools" is being considered by the Boston Teachers Union
(Robinson, BOSTON GLOBE).  The plan would award 10 teams of
educators with $50,000 in planning money to open publicly funded
pioneer schools by 1993 or 1994, according to the GLOBE.
     The teams would not be bound to current union and
administrative regulations, and administrators would no longer
have to choose their teachers from a seniority list.  A joint
committee of union and School Department officials would review
the pilot programs, which would be subject to federal and state
laws, the GLOBE writes.
     School Committee Chairman Paul Parks said he is "absolutely,
unabashedly opposed" to allowing public schools to be run by
outsiders who could apply to run pioneer programs, according to
the GLOBE.
     Parents and community members also criticized the new pilot
schools and want the School Department to use its money to make
school-based management work, reports the GLOBE.  Hattie
McKinnis, exec. director of Citywide Parents Council said
"parents will, once again, feel betrayed" if the union were to
support the plan."  She added that parents are "tired of models.
We've been researched to death." (11/4)

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:45:41 GMT

rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>> The special prosecutor's office has run amok.  It is long past the time
>> for the government to pull the plug on this fiasco, which has burned
>> up over $30 million dollars in exchange for a few misdeamenor plea-bargins
>> and some highly creative interpretations of "crimes."  If neccessary the
>> president should pardon everyone ever indicted.

You know, every crack dealer and gang member in Los Angeles will tell you that
there are too damn many policemen, and they spend too much money,
and we should just get rid of them so that they'll quit terrorizing
the community and wasting taxpayers' money.

Policemen are just running amok.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Rockville)
Subject: Re: President-elect Clinton lying already
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:14:17 GMT

dowzycki@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ken Dowzycki) writes:

>Mr. Hillbilly claims to have created jobs in Arkansas, yeah, ok, but
>what kind of jobs are they?  Pulling feathers out of a chickens ass?

I'm quite sure that, being an expert on economics and politics, you could use
the (doubtless tremendous) powers of language at your command to find
a more artful way to express your opinion of Mr. Clinton and his state.

>Am I better off than I was 4 years ago?  Yes!
>Am I better off than I was 8 years ago?  Absolutely!

Will your children be better off ten or twenty years from now, when they're
paying YOUR bills?  Maybe...Perhaps the Republicans can refinance the Reagan
debt and all successive Republicans' debt further and further into the future.
Will it be your kids or your grandkids that have to deal with the America
that's left when there's nobody to borrow from, no money to be had, and every-
body's buying and selling things with Yen or Deutschmarks?  Will THEY be better
off?

>It took Nixon to bail out Johnson's global mess...
>It took Reagan to bail out Carter's global mess...

>Who will it take to bail out Clinton????

Are you quite certain that Bill isn't going to bail out Bush's ass?

>I predict  Baker and Kemp in '96.

I predict Quayle and some other nobody in '96.  You wouldn't want somebody
IMPORTANT to LOSE the election, would you?
-- 
Michael T. Chaffee        |****COLORADO BOYCOTTER******|  ______    
mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu | Professional Slapthologist |  \    /     HATE
Member, Universal Life Church, Sect of Loons           |   \  /  can never be
Annoyance Theatre Platinum Member |     Evil Genius    |    \/  a FAMILY VALUE
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: michaell@snake13.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: it's over
Organization: /usr/lib/news/rn/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:34:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.192101.27403@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>In article <Bx6B7J.HM@nic.umass.edu>, mmorgan@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Michael
>Morgan) writes:
>> 
>> I will miss Dan Quayle.  Who else will take his illustrious place?
>
>Lets see here, draft dodger running the military. Guy who has a drug
>pusher for a brother helping us stop the drug problem in this country.
>You don't already see the absurd humor in this new administraton?


Ahem. If you weren't aware of it, Clinton made certain (and I believe was
involved in) that his brother was caught and rehabilitated.  Clinton,
by both his brother and his step-father, understands the costs of chemical
dependency.

I suppose helping someone recover from a problem is better then Niel "I
didn't take any tax-money" Bush. (not that it is worth pointing that out
anymore).

And this draft dodger bit.....at least he stood up for what he believed in,
unlike Dan Quayle.  The point is moot.

Of course, I'm sure there will be lots of good humor in the next four years.

But we won't have Dan to kick around anymore. (I weep)

Michael
From: sl930@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ozone Man theme song
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:46:02 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Nov.6.15.06.45.1992.10055@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:
> sl930@cc.usu.edu writes:
> 
>>Sung to the tune of "Nowhere man" with extreme apologies to the Beatles:
> 
> [very childish and silly song parody deleted]
> 
>>(couldn't resist)
> 
> Too bad.
> 
>>Colin Murcray and Joel Poppleton
> 
> It took two people to come up with that?  I guess extra small brains
> have to team up and work together.
> 
> By the way, how old are you two?  Does you're mother know that you're
> playing with her net account?  Actually, most children understand the
> importance of preserving our environment.  They are taught about it
> in school.  I'm at a loss.  I can't imagine what kind of mind(s) would
> make up something like this.
> 

I'll tell you what kind of minds came up with this.  Minds that are concerned
that you can take a good thing and go too far.  Minds that think that if it is
okay to blast V.P. Quayle for 4 years, Gore should be able to handle a little
needling as well.

More than anything, it was humor.  Lighten up a bit, you'll live longer.

Oh, and as for my mother watching what I'm doing, I don't know.  But I can tell
you my father isn't around to watch very often... He has been in Antarctica
quite a lot in the last 8 years.  He's a Geophysist, doing atmosophiric
research on the ozone layer.  You should hear him talk.  But then, you have
already learned all about the environment in elementary school, right?

Colin,
sl930@cc.usu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23720 alt.politics.marrou:2253 talk.politics.misc:60017 alt.politics.clinton:17093