HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:08:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov5.160816.17514
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.


I hope everyone who dislikes the fact that Bill Clinton won the election at
least gives him a fair chance to work for us Americans. The American public
needs to put the election behind them, and work hard with the new president
to try and get our country back on its feet. If President Clinton fails in
his new job, then everyone can complain. But we need to give him a chance
first.

Matthew Olson
Northwestern University
matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:236 talk.politics.misc:59242
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Depression/Recession (was: A New Reich)
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:44:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     You correctly state that two measures of a recession are
>length and depth, and you try to justify the "worst-economic-
>conditions-in-50-years" theme given by the Clinton campaign.  
>I am not trying to dispute your argument -- but, is this
>the same argument given by the Clinton campaign?  Gore kept
>saying that we are in a depression (yes, he used the word
>depression) because "everything that should be going up is 
>going down, and everything that should be going down is going 
>up."  I'm sorry, but my definition of a depression would include
>a deeper recession than 1982.  Moreover, how come they never
>said during the campaign that the depth of this recession is
>not that bad?

Business cycle downturns were once called "panics".  (e.g. the
Panic of 1837)  The term "depression" was created to make 
them seem milder and less threatening.  After the Great Depression
of the 1930's, the term "depression" scared people so much that
another term, "recession", was coined.  Now it seems that politicians
want to avoid "recession", and use terms like "stagnation", "downturn",
etc.

The formal government definition of a "recession" is two consecutive 
quarters of declining GNP.   We have therefore technically not
been in a recession since last year, since GNP is growing.  (if
you can believe the government numbers)  This is why Bush said
that "we're not in a recession."  However, the GNP growth has
been very sluggish for three years, and the unemployment rate
has been climbing.  Bush's statement was therefore perceived by 
the voters as ignoring or being insensitive to the the problems 
of the economy, even though it was factually correct.

There is no formal definition of "depression".   When we
think of the word "depression", we think of the 1930s, with
25% unemployment, strangled world trade, and massive bank failures.
We are certainly not as bad off as we were then.  However, it
was clear that the voters this year did not believe that the
current downturn was a minor cyclical problem; they believe
that there is something fundamentally wrong with the economy.

Why didn't Clinton say that the depth of the recession was
not as bad?   Because he wanted to make things look bad, just as
Reagan wanted to do in 1980.  Reagan blasted Carter for the size
of the deficit, then made it much worse when he became President.
Now Clinton is going into office and the recession is his problem.

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:123 misc.test:12823 talk.bizarre:37149
From: endora@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Kenneth McCamish)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:14:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.BxBt0t.4LJ
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Nov5.160816.17514@news.acns.nwu.edu> matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Matthew Olson) writes:
>
>I hope everyone who dislikes the fact that Bill Clinton won the election at
>least gives him a fair chance to work for us Americans. The American public
>needs to put the election behind them, and work hard with the new president
>to try and get our country back on its feet. If President Clinton fails in
>his new job, then everyone can complain. But we need to give him a chance
>first.
>
>Matthew Olson
>Northwestern University
>matthewo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu



Amen, brother!  Let's pull together now so we can get out of this mess. The
world is changing, so let's keep up and not fall behind like our predecessors
(sp?) did.  Let's start by making sure President Clinton will be what he said
he would be.  (Yes, I left out the "-elect" because it's the actual President
Clinton I'm talking about.)


      *           -The very idea that my opinions might resemble those of
     ***           Purdue University frightens me.  Please don't even
    *****          think about it.

endora@sage.cc.purdue.edu -the patron witch of mothers-in-law

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-____-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
"Blame not thyself; Cry         /    "Yes, we're all      /"I have to go to the
witch!  - Samantha Stevens     /  different! "           / bathroom, there's
                              /  "I'm not"  "Shh!"      / pees in there!" -
                             /                         / - Jeni Stein
_______---------_________--------_________----------_________--------________
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:39:56 GMT

In article <8NOV199215560982@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu> agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
>
>If I have listened carefully to C-Span, in the last recession
>growth took a harder hit than in this one (if someone has the
>numbers please post them).  However, that recession was much
>shorter than this one (we still don't know when this one will
>end).  The length of the current recession is one of longest
>the country has experienced since the Depression.  Some people
>have taken this as a sign that the economy is in deeper trouble
>than previous recessions.  That's where he gets the
>"worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme.  When the economy
>experiences a deep but short-lived drop it can recover but if the
>drop is shallower and longer a recovery may not be able restore
>what you lost.

This is quite true.  Further, Alan Ehrenhardt noted in a NYT Op-Ed
last week that it isn't just the economic conditions.  He argues that
there is a pervasive lack of faith in future improvement, in being
able to hand down to our children a better life.  This is the first
time since WWII and the Great Depression that Americans have this
general uneasiness, even though we've had higher unemployment, lower
growth, etc.

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.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Gloat
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:29:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.100146@renoir.sfc.sony.com>, laurie@renoir.sfc.sony.com (Laurie Bloomgarden) writes:
> 
> 
> This is about the most-level headed, non-hated filled statement I have read.  Whether or not you like Clinton, the bottom line is that he is our next
>  president.  If we don't at least try to work together and use our differing  

This is a question I've been wondering about for the past few days, Can you
impeach a president BEFORE he takes office???



Larry Billings
---

Well, with the election over it's time for a new .sig [not that the old one
is not appropriate, it's even more appropriate] but let's review it.

Most of us are sad,

[Well, the rest will be soon enough]

No one let's it show,

[And you will have no money to show]

I've been shadows of myself,

[But could still see my position better than most]

How was I to know?

[Can't answer that, but I did know]

*******************************************************************************
NEWSIG
Wantad: Single White Male "WITH" job seeks Single Female with job and 2 or
more kids.  Object: Marriage so we can avoid Clintons tax increases.
*******************************************************************************

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:204 alt.rush-limbaugh:9297
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!
Date: 9 Nov 1992 17:02:53 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov9.121251.7690@linus.mitre.org> can@mitre.org (Chris) writes:
>In article <BxFtF3.B3H@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>(Shawn Green) writes:
>> Rush Limbaugh is a total ass who should pick on someone his own size.  Like
>> Chicago Bears defensive tackle William "Refrigerator" Perry, for example.
>If you don't like it then why the hell are you watching it? Is your hand
>crippled?

Perhaps it falls under the idea of:

knowledge of the enemy is a good thing?
rubbernecking?
a sense of moral outrage?

A good question (that can even been asked of this post....)  why didn't you
ask your question in email?  

(I take the rush-answer.... bandwidth is a renewable resource and can be
wasted in any way one wants.  :-)



-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:232 talk.politics.misc:59225
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 10 Nov 1992 02:26:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:
>Clinton's coalition is fairly broadbased, though, admittedly, it leans
>a bit more towards the lower end of the spectrum.
>
>Assumedly, there would be Keynsian-style pump priming in the
>short-run.  Money can be freed on all sorts of construction projects


      The Keynesian thing really gives me a laugh.  Tell me, if I 
      move my wallet from my right pocket to my left pocket, do I 
      have more money?

>that are planned and on the books but haven't gone from lack of funds.
>Whatever stimulus Clinton proposes should be tied with long-run loop
>hole-free deficit reduction legislation.  If not, we're in trouble,
>though I think Clinton's too smart (given that his economic advisors
>aren't total fools, and Perot's insurgency) not to do this.



       There won't be any deficit reduction.  Any attempt to reduce the
       deficit will sink the economy worse than any recession since 1929.
       In fact, I'm pretty sure that's the only reason it's still 
       standing.

       I'm done my own numbers.  If Clinton even attempts to reduce 
       the *rate of growth* of the deficit, game over.  Look at 
       California, if you want to see the effect.  Loss of deficit 
       spending = loss of GDP.  Loss of GDP = loss of government 
       revenues.  Loss of revenues = more budget cuts. 


>Hmm.  A similar simple blanket statement about how people haven't
>spent because they don't have money can explain why the Fed's interest
>rate cuts haven't done anything: business see people aren't spending,
>so they're not responding.


         The interest rate cuts have not helped for one reason.
         The debt payments are growing faster than income.
         Read the Oct. 12 (?) issue of Barron's, "Depression, not
         Recession".> And two weeks ago, the "Trading Points" column
         in Barron's.

           I've been watching for awhile.  I wouldn't say this 
           unless I was pretty sure now.  I'm up to about a 95%
           confidence level that this is NOT a recession.  It 
           will at least equal 1929.

>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]
>

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:233 talk.politics.misc:59229
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: 10 Nov 1992 02:30:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

>spectrum of data, and not GNP/GDP.  The National Board of Economic
>Research (?) (NBER in any case) decides when a recession has begun,
>and when it has ended.  I believe they declared that the latest one
>started in the summer of '90 (I forget which month), and they haven't


       It officially ended April 1991, according to the "Joint
        Economic Committie" economic consultants on Friday.

>decided whether this one has ended or not.  Most economists believe it
>has ended (though I'd venture that most don't think we're smelling

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:312 alt.politics.clinton:16832
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ***STOP THE NONSENSE, ALREADY***(was Re: Not a president yet)
From: dave@irv.icl.com ( Dave Hill)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:35:10 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: ccicpg
Summary: yeup

In article <1992Nov9.102517.19427@gagme.chi.il.us>, wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:
> 
> Bill Clinton's message was one of unity, shared purpose and a strength
> that is borne out of a pooled effort.

Work will set you free.

We've heard it before.

I'm just wondering where all the "come on people let's just
work together" folks have been for the last 12 years.
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:346 talk.politics.misc:59753
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:20:32 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov12.083643.776@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.124136.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In <randall.721439017@seashore>, randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
> 
>>> Keynes is right and has always been right.  The economic "booms" of
>>> the 1960's and 1980's were a result of high government spending
>>> (primarily on defense), which increased aggregate demand and 
>>> money velocity.   Although monetary policy is important, it alone
>>> will not take you out of a recession.   This was Bush's strategy,
>>> and it failed.  This is the first recession since the 1930's where
>>> some kind of Keynesian strategy was not used to combat it, and
>>> consequently, the recession has dragged on.
>> 
>>     Is a $300+ billion deficit not a Keynesian-enough strategy
>>during a recession?
> 
> I wish people would *read* Keynes before they posted about him.  

     I'm sure you heard of the Benny Hill "never assume" routine....
Second, your sig suggests that you may have a blurred sense of reality
(repeat after me, D-E-N-N-I-S  E-C-K-E-R-S-L-E-Y).  Enough barbs, 
back to the "voodoo."   :-)

> Contrary
> to popular opinion, Keynes did not simply say "deficit spending is
> good."  He called for a specific *type* of spending, ie investment.  Our
> current budget spends almost nothing on this -- defense, social
> security, medicare, etc, might be useful, but are *not* examples of
> Keynesian deficit spending.

     You're correct to a point -- Keynes did say that less-wasteful
forms of government spending are desired.  However, Keynes also said 
that completely wasteful forms of government spending are better than no
government spending at all (during a recession).  I believe he wrote
of an example of the government "burying money, as if it were gold,
and have the private sector 'employ' people to dig it up."  He said
that this would have a positive effect on the economy, although
it is, by no means, the optimal allocation of government spending.
So, the definition of a "true Keynesian" is somewhat fuzzy, but
not as fuzzy as who won the 1992 Cy Young Award.

> David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
> niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
>    princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     I hear the place called Hope is changing its name to "Lowered
Expectations."   :-)

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:10 misc.test:12672 talk.bizarre:36815
From: bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:30:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Nov5.163050.1496
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <5NOV199209244194@cats.ucis.vill.edu> 126580828@cats.ucis.vill.edu (Matador of M83) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.134313.25017@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes...
>>In article <1992Nov5.060913.10011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>Like I said over there to those wankers in alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-
>>>limbaugh, 'tain't nothin' like a little gloating.   HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
>>>Bush lost!!!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!
>>>
>>And when the economy sees unheard of lows as a result of Clinton's
>>policies, Republicans will take the Congress for the first time in 40
>>years and Jack Kemp will take the White House to begin another long
>>period of Republican administration, this time without that bothersome
>>Democrat Congress.
>> 
>>>
>>>Ta-ta for now,
>>>M
>> 
>>God bless,
>> 
>>Michael
>> 
>>(Oh thats right, you Commie-libs think God is unconstitutional - forgot)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>-- 
>> Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
>> (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
>> GO BLUE JAYS!!!   BEAT THE BRAVES!!!!
>> ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
>Michael,
>
>It is men like yourself that give this country hope, and make me proud to 
>be an American......
>
>The Matador of M83
>
>


As a foreigner myself, the republican seems to compete for the fall of
their opponents, not for the sake of the country.  It sounds like they
really embrace the politics of hatred, not compassion.
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:27:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.183418.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1dk6e8INN7ud@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>  [everything deleted but one line -- cdp]
>
>> I suspect that this man [Clinton] BELIEVES he has a mandate from 
>> FATE to be president.
>
>     I have not heard anyone else make such a comment, nor have
>I thought in such terms, but this is an *excellent* hypothesis
>(considering his meeting JFK at a young age, his concern for his
>political viability during Vietnam, etc.)!  Although, obviously, 
>one cannot prove it, we should be able to see if his presidential 
>demeanor in consistent with such thoughts of pre-destination.

Really?  My impression was that Clinton ran this year to position
himself in '96.  Remember, Bush was soaring as little as a year ago,
and all the Democratic heavies were bowing out.  I don't think he
thought he had a chance to win when he declared, or even in the early
days of the campaign.  That game was to gain name recognition and
campaign experience.




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]
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:54 misc.test:12735 talk.bizarre:36932
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gloat
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:44:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Nov5.151445.24789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jhakala@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jay S. Hakala) writes:
>>>>Like I said over there to those wankers in alt.politics.bush and alt.fan.rush-
>
>Clinton is a farce, I'm really scared about what is gonna happen
>to this country, with him in office.....*shiver*
>
>Clinton promised everything to everyone,,,,He can't deliver...
>^^^^^^^--->"READ my lips 'A fucken lot of new taxes!!!!'"
>
>JAy
>
yea..boy he may do something like...oh say...sign 2nd largest tax increase
in history?....no..i guess bush did that didn't he....oh...maybe he will spend
a lot and have huge defecits every year and add more debt than any other 
president in history...oh yea...that's right...bush did that too....duh!
i voted for bush in 88 and he betrayed the country and proved himself a liar..
we can at least give clinton the chance to prove whether or not he will be
as bad as bush(if that is possible)
>
>
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre
From: vkochend@nyx.cs.du.edu (vance kochenderfer)
Subject: Re: Gloat
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 17:53:05 GMT

In article <Bx90Ks.n1o@ssesco.com> nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.122812.21770@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlhouse@nyx.cs.du.edu (fiver) writes:
>|> 
>|> One monkey out of office .. put another monkey in the office .. 
>|> 
>
>Yup.  Clinton can fuck things up just as easy as Bush.  He kept his state
>at the bottom, he can do the same for the country.  I've just lost faith
>in all politicians.  I would like to demolish both parties and start up
>ten or twelve new ones.  Ten or twelve?  Wow, a real choice!

KIBO/BIFF '96!

Vance Kochenderfer
Virginia Tech             |   "You want to get ahold of Mrs. Potter? I don't
vkochend@nyx.cs.du.edu    |    know, she's awfully ticklish.." -Groucho Marx
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,misc.test,talk.bizarre