HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:44:06 GMT

In article <rabjab.224.721014274@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
(Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>>The solution is to legalize and tax drugs.  Use the money we've been
>>spending on the war on drugs, plus the drug tax revenue, to fund more
>>education, advertisement, and rehabilitation programs.  We could also
>>spend more money addressing problems that lead to drug abuse such as
>>poverty and unemployment.
>
>I fear that the seemingly liberal idea of legalizing all manner of
>addictive substances would result eventually in a government that would
>use drugs to exploit and control its population. 

It's a concern.  However, we already know that the War on Drugs is
being used to exploit and control the population, so I'd be willing to
take the chance with legalized drugs.

Is there any evidence that alcohol is being used this way by the
government?

>Another problem is that the costs to the health system, regardless of
>education, might become so enormous as to exhaust the amount of 
>taxation that would keep drugs from being sold on the black market.

I'm not convinced that there would be a big public health crisis.
There are a number of standard reasons for believing this.

First of all, I don't think all that many people would start using
legalized drugs.  After all, how cheap would crack cocaine have to be
for you to use it?  As another example, if you don't smoke now, would
you start if cigarettes were free?  I suspect that most people who
don't use crack now wouldn't use it even if it were cheap and legal.
I know I wouldn't.

Second, it would be easier for people to get early treatment if drugs
were legalized.  There wouldn't be the stigma (and legal
complications) of admitting a crime.

Third, many of the health problems associated with drugs would go away
if they were legalized and regulated the way alcohol is.  To pick an
extreme example, many of the problems associated with heroin ---
unclean needles, adulteration, and wildly varying concentrations ---
are due to its illegal nature.

Fourth, in a legal market, safety would become a concern of the
suppliers.  Crack is one of the worst forms of cocaine.  Something
safer would probably replace it, just as moonshine whiskey has been
replaced by safer drinks.  In fact, there used to be a time when
cocaine was an ingredient in Coca-Cola.  Perhaps cocaine-laced soda
pop would make a comeback.  Who would take the risk of using crack
when they could go down to the local cocaine bar and have a choice of
seven delicious drink flavors?
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
 
"The second thing we do, let's kill all the editors."
-- William Shakespeare, deleted from Henry IV, Part I
(As uncovered by William Cutlip on Usenet)
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: National Health Insurance
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:57:28 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <rabjab.233.721105166@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff
Bytof) says:
>
>What might be the cost of National Health Insurance, an idea that
>Clinton seems to be entertaining?  Where I work, approx.  $200/month
>is set aside per month per person.  Assuming 250 million population,
>the grand total comes to $600 billion/year!  That's half of the
>national budget!

Americans will spend about 800 billion on health care this year.  Clinton
has not proposed that the government pay for all health care.  He has
proposed that the federal government push to develop a system that
covers everyone and keeps cost growth to apprx. income and population
growth.  That system will probably combine both private and public
elements, as it does now.

The cost depends on how NHI is done.  Most studies on covering the uninsured
indicate that it would increase health care spending by about 60 billion.
In a pay-or-play system the simulation models that have been done suggest
that cost will be split about equally between government and business (though,
we pay for it in the end through taxes, higher prices, lower wages, etc.).

The question is whether the reforms that Clinton proposes will lower costs,
thus leading to a smaller net increase or perhaps a decrease in costs.
Those reforms include standardization of billing and greater use of
electronic billing (estimated savings about 60 billion), malpractice reform
(perhaps 5-8 billion), reform of the small business insurance market (haven't
seen a good estimate).

Other possible reforms which could save money include the National Health
Board (who knows what tools it might be given?), fewer payers which will
further simplify billing (est. $40 billion), increased preventative care
(???), better information on quality which will allow the market to function
better (??), and a few others that I'm blanking on right now. (P. S. I
wouldn't be suprised to see a cap on deductibility of health insurance
premiums, since this is one of the most regressive features of our tax
structure.)

Clinton has said that he will push for cost control first, with universal
coverage to be phased in only as costs come down.  We'll see what happens,
but I would encourage everyone who wants to see a better health care system
to become actively involved.



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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:17:33 GMT



Any chance we can edit the newsgroups line and take this to a more appropriate
*single* place, like talk.politics.misc?  Thanks.

Jim Rosinski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:20:28 GMT

In article <10297@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.160329.10551@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>>have in baby boy Clinton is that he will somehow find a way to collect 
>>some extra tax money from me!  I don't know how yet, but I am *SURE* it will
>>happen!
>
>If you happen to buy anything over the next four years, you will be helping
>to pay for the taxes Clinton wants to impose on businesses.  Aren't you proud
>to be doing your civic duty.
>

if you have purchased any cigarettes, booze, gas, cars over30k ,jewelry over
10k(i think), boats over 100k(hmm...31k car a luxury but a 99k boat isn't??),
or planes over...i forget...you have paid additional taxes that good ol'
read-my-lips bush-the-liar signed into law!
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: MOBY dicK
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:38:58 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


        "The ship! The hearse!---the second hearse!" cried Ahab
         from the boat; "its wood could only be American!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15999 talk.politics.misc:58401
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:38:38 GMT
Originator: news@nimaster

In <1992Nov3.081021.4533@Princeton.EDU> David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> Anyway, by the standards you use, George Bush is almost as much a
> socialist as Bill Clinton, if not more.  Not by rhetoric, but by action.

Yup.

Think about that for a while.  Both the Democratic and Republican candidates
are socialists.

That's why I vote Libertarian.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 03:18:11 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <8+h1+1=@rpi.edu> mancur@vccsouth13.its.rpi.edu (Rick Mancuso) writes:
>In article <1992Nov04.040747.16409@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>>
>>This is typical of "partial truth" campaigners.
>>
>>Why don't you complete the truth?  Clinton has promised to raise taxes
>>on the RICH!($200,000 or more) (This includes a lot of George Bush's 
>>golf buddies and maybe you from the tone of your post.)
>>
>>-- 
>> Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
>> From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
>
>
>I might add, Ralph, that two years ago Clinton 'promised' the people of 
>Arkansas that if re-elected as governor he would serve the entire four years.
>As we saw from the 1988 presidential campaign, what politicians promise 
>during the campaign, and what the do in practice are often two completely 
>different things.  In this case, I'll bet my hat (to quote Perot) that Clinton
>raises taxes on people with incomes far lower than $200,000.

Only time will tell us, now.  For my sake, I certainly hope tax decreases
for the middle class materialize soon.  But this is slightly removed from
my original point.  I contend that Bush tell partial truths on purpose
to convey a false impression in the minds of people.  Some people are
gullible and fall into his trap.  

Take a simple example, you are buying a used car and the seller tells you
that the car is in fine shape now.  But what he fails to tell you is that
the car has been in a lot of accidents and has structural flaws underneath.
You are gullible and trust the salesman and buy the car.         

When the car fails, you will be very mad at the salesman.  You should 
feel the same about half-truths in all cases.

That is why when swearing a person in at court the person says
that he will tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.


-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The World
	<1992Nov4.175312.26874@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<1992Nov4.203546.7171@colorado.edu>
	<1992Nov5.031802.13498@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:25:19 GMT


From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>To defend
>your assertion, that the rich benifit more from government than the
>poor, you need to identify well over $100 billion dollars (~8% of
>the federal budget) in federal programs than benifit the rich.

Well, where do you think the other 92% of the budget goes? AT&T, GM,
Lockheed, Boeing, etc etc.

All you're really saying is that this dollar is ok, but that one
ain't, based mostly on some sort of personal power-fetish. It went to
rich white guys in suits, therefore it must be ok, how dare anyone
compare it to welfare...

If AT&T gets $10B in contracts from the govt, or the dept of silly
research at moosehead U. gets $1M, or some pork-barrel like keeping an
army base open for no military reasons or continuing to build some
weapon we know we'll never deploy so we don't economically shock some
area that's fine and dandy and none of it could possibly be
unnecessary. But if J. Poor Loser gets $500 so she and her kid doesn't
have to sleep in the gutter tonight and eat out of a garbage can then
it's outlandish and intolerable and we must scream bloody murder.

Notice how few people gripe and moan about the money that went into
the Chrysler bail-out or the $500B currently being poured into the S&L
crisis?

Why?

Cuz that's *our* welfare goddamit, it's *their* welfare (and we all
know who *they* are) that's a problem!

Yup, it's dem single welfare mothers, the elderly, the hopelessly
retarded, the pathetic, they run the country, they're in control, they
take all the tax money, lord help us all..

My proposal: Let's start getting rid of government waste from the top
down. I won't deny your favorite gripe. First let's cut programs we
can do without that are >$1B each. Then >$100M each, on down.

I reckon in three or four hundred years when we get down to some
single mother getting an extra $12/month cuz she had a kid or whatever
it is that ticks you off we'll be about done, right?

Makes sense to me.




--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Science Fiction?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:45:51 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

   "The store had during the afternoon become almost deserted. Usually
a flow of customers passed through the check-out stands, but not today.
The recession, Vic decided.  Five million unemployed as of February of
this year.  It's getting at our business.  Going to the front doors he
stood watching the sidewalk traffic.  No doubt about it. Fewer people than
usual.  All home counting their savings.
   "We're in for a bad business year," he said to Liz.
   "Oh what do you care?", Liz said. "You don't own the store; you just
work here like the rest of us.  Means not so much work."  A woman customer
had begun unloading items of food onto the counter; Liz rang them up, still
talking over her shoulder to Vic. "Anyhow I don't think there's going to be
any depression; that's just Democratic talk. I'm so tired of those old
Democrats trying to make out like the economy's going to bust or 
something.""
                 ---Philip K. Dick, "Time out of Joint", p.9, 1959      
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Predictions after a Clinton victory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:04:23 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Stupendous Man writes:
     [responding to:]
>
>> 6) Expect the 1996 Presidential election to start immediately with
>>    4 years of sniping and complaining.
>
>	I do expect the 96 campaign to start in 95.  You'll see lots of
>Republicans jockying for position.  Kemp, Weld, Voinavich, Quayle
>(unfortunately), Wilson, some others that will rise between now and then.
>
Uh, SM, you're a little off the mark. A certain well-tousled, JFK-image-
wannabe was in New Hampshire shaking hands on election day. Mums the
word on who he was, but he was quiet about Clinton's draft record,
favors empowerment of the disadvantaged, enterprise zones, and would
really, really, really like it if every trace and memory of David 
Stockman's book on the early Reagan years could be expunged.

And Wilson is one Republican who has the experience of balancing a
budget. 


-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16689 alt.politics.bush:13665
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:22:53 EST

In article <1992Nov9.183502.208@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com writes:
> In article <14592.2afb267d@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>> Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
>> OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.
>> 
>> For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
>> down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
>> I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
>> assholes.
>> 
>> If you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WE DON'T NEED YOU NOW, OK????
> 
> Ah, the eloquence!  The blinding wisdom!  Another member of the "party of 
> inclusion" heard from!  Guess you're in line for a Cabinet post, right?  
> Secretary of Tolerance, maybe?
> 

Hey Amerika, Lighten up!

> ------
> 
>  Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
>  Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
>  "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."

-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption 
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:23:55 GMT

mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:

>All taxes, for obvious political reasons, should be levied on those
			^^^^^^^^^
I think it depends on whether you are supported by the rich or the poor.
Generally it pays (or at least hurts you the least) politically 
to levy taxes on your opponents. So, Republicans tax the middle
class and poor, Democrats soak the rich.

>best able to pay them.  Many taxes, for other political reasons, are
>avoided by those best able to pay them.

The advantage of income tax vs. consumption tax is that higher
taxes are levied against those who are best able to afford them
(earn the most) vs. against those who are least able to afford
them (spend the most).

The disadvantage is that it penalizes EARNING money, 
vs. penalizing SPENDING money. Clearly, a country is better off
if people work hard and earn more money. Spending too much
can lead to inflation, but some spending is necessary otherwise
the whole economy grinds to a halt.

-Larry Watanabe
From: GRS00038@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU (*Frankie William Gouge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:30:33 GMT
Organization: APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: alf.appstate.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com 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.

I think that it is more like a 63% rejection of George Bush than any one
being elected. If Perot had stayed out of the race, Clinton would have 
received a large majority of his votes and would have won by much more.
This election was for change. Most of Clinton's vote probably came
from people wanting change, and he was the most likely to win between
Perot and himself. (Thanks to the media and their polls.)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: PROVE IT
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:28:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <BxIApx.9pH@scd.hp.com>, dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>... 
> The idea is to put as many people on non-government payroll as possible.  How,
> exactly, to do that is unknown.  We're going to try something other than
> Reagan-Bush economics for a little while.  Deal with it.

	1) Reagan created 18 million new jobs.

	2) Bush didn't even come close to following supply-side economics.

	3) We are dealing with it.  We're prepping for higher inflation.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Trade war (was: January Surprise)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:24:56 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Nov9123632@boris.webo.dg.com>, larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
>
>It is very FLAT.  The democrats are verbally backing this stand
>against unfair trading practices that the US has been trying to change
>for years. ... [Moynihan] said, the woman
>(name slips me) that suggested the tariffs was doing an excellent job
>and he felt she should be retained in her current job.  He said, "Good
>for her, she chose white wine..."  Meaning she targeted the French
>specifically.

Okay, would somebody please explain why retaliatory measures are such a great
idea?  Aren't they just *asking* for a tit-for-tat escalation?  If European
countries are unfairly subsidizing certain imports, wouldn't it make more
sense to apply a compensatory tariff on those specific imports at the level of
the government subsidy?  E.g., if canola seed is worth $1/lb (I made that up)
and the French government subsidizes it for $0.20/lb, reducing the selling
price to $0.80/lb, why don't we just put a $0.20/lb tariff on it?  It could
probably even be set up to track the government subsidy, so if the subsidy
drops the tariff would too, automatically.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.polticics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: RESULTS: Electoral Vote Pool
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:18:05 GMT

  As promised, here are the results from the Electoral Vote pool conducted
about 2 1/2 weeks ago.  About 20 people responded with their estimates 
on the popular and electoral vote totals.  The winners are listed below.

  Several Notes:
	- Congratulations to Joshua Houk for exactly guessing the EV total.
	- No one who finished in the top 3 in EV finished in the top 3 for
	   popular vote.
	- Popular vote totals were much less accurate than E.V. totals.


Electoral Vote Pool

	        Actual					370-168

1st Place	Joshua Houk <houk@athena.cs.uga.edu>	370-168 [Bullseye !]
2nd Place       Joseph Knapp <jmk@cbvox.att.com>        352-186
3rd Place	Greg Lyon (Me !!)			345-193

Popular Vote 

	   Actual				   43-38-19

1st Place: The Machman <machman@u.washington.edu>  45-36-18
2nd Place: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu		   41-36-21
3rd Place: Mike Doel (doel@bae.bell.bellcore.com)  45-33-18

Greg
-- 
Greg Lyon	gl1@cec2.wustl.edu	Proud that I voted for Clinton/Gore '92 

    "I don't think I ever lied.  I have said some things that didn't
     work out to be true." - (Former) President George Bush 10/30/92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc