HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Summary: Mr. Teflon  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:44:52 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan21091708@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)                                    writes...
><In article <1993Jan21.011014.16976@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
><   In article <1jkblvINNg2q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
><   >Another lie - it's day one and THERE IS NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN UP
> 
><   Gee, I think you could wait until he has actually been in office a day
><   before you complain.
> 
>	He's cutting Mr. Bill more slack than the Megaphone Left
>	gave to Reagan.
> 
	You mean Ronald "Mr. Teflon" Reagan? 

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69767 alt.politics.elections:25163 alt.politics.clinton:21237
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:59:07 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1k1merINNk47@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Richard A. Mulac,
>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>> You people (Oops! Perot got in trouble for using that phrase) just don't
>> get it!  Who cares if he takes responsibility.  Defend how he can say
>that
>> 'I knew that Zoe Baird employed illegal aliens, but I didn't know that
>she
>> didn't pay their Social Security taxes'.  How can he come up with the
>idiotic
>> assumption that illegal aliens will take on illegal employment, yet they
>> will follow the law by getting a Social Security number and pay their
>SS taxes.
>> He's trying to cover his butt because HE KNEW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE
>ILLEGAL
>> ALIEN SITUATION before the hearings, but now he's trying to claim
>ignorance
>> with this stupid excuse that he only knew about half the situation. 
>He's
>> either a liar or an idiot - take off your rose colored glasses and
>admit it,
>> people!
>This is crap speculation on your part based on no documented
>facts. Please provide proof for these outrageous accusations.

Indeed he should.  Heck, Iran-Contra had tons of proof, and was a heck of a 
lot more contrived.  "Yes, I was president at the time, but I don't have any
idea what my administration did."  Seems like the definition of either a 
flagrant lie or utter foolishness.

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
NextMail to: 				mci41087@sumter
Bitnet mail to:				IVALIOTE@uiucvmd
From: russ@bbxrbk (Russ Kepler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:29:30 GMT
Organization: russ at home in Albuquerque New Mexico

In article <2689@blue.cis.pitt.edu> pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Makala P Mweene) writes:
>>In article <C1H6AK.2In@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>>>Yeah, that's right. The government should steal money from those who 
>>>have it and give it to those who don't...
>
>Is it not the case that the rich got so by taking money from those who 
>are now poor and giving it to themseleves...

Not in my case.  I started a business with a couple of other guys, and
didn't take a paycheck for 8 months.  We hired a secretary about 4
months after we started - so others were being paid when we weren't. 
At this point we employ 40 or so folks, and sell our product to people
who want to buy it.  I don't extort money from my customers, and I pay
more than the area's prevailing wage because I feel that a stable
workforce is better than a cheap one.  I've felt that way for the past
8 years while being a partner in this business.

Why should *I* be penalized for something *you* think that someone
else did?  Should *you* be penalized for something *I* think you or
your brethern did or are doing?

-- 
Russ Kepler, posting from home   russ@bbx.basis.com, bbxrbk!russ@bbx.basis.com
"It's better to be quotable than to be honest" - Tom Stoppard
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:51:20 GMT

In article <C19pGE.8us@unix.amherst.edu> acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin) writes:

>One thing I have to add that the "necessary and proper" clause itself is 
>unnecessary and redundant.  If one is to establish a body (Congress) and give
>it areas of jurisdiction (the enumerated powers), then it follows naturally
>that it _must_ have the means to achieve the enumerated ends.  Even without
>the clause, it must logically follow that it exists for the government to have
>any power whatsoever.

       When you consider that the Constitution was written so as to only
give limited power to the Federal government, I don't think that logically
follows at all.

>But my question, and I'll put it to Ted and anyone else who wants to play with
>it, is this: Is the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" at the 
>beginning of I,8 a _separate_ enumerated power of Congress, or does it merely
>serve as a preamble to the enumerated powers listed below?

       It serves as an intended purpose for the power to tax.  It is one of 
those things the power to tax is to accomplish.  Any other reading makes
both Article I, Section 8 and the tenth amendment useless and a fairly silly 
waste of paper, because under that broad phrase anything could considered 
applicable if the Congress just claims it is in the "general welfare."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"Of course the government and the newspapers lie.  But in a democracy,
they're different lies."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Middle-class entitlements (was Re: Taxing & Spending
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:10:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.230303.2362@uunet!tellab5!odgate> mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>I am SO damn tired of hearing this cliche.  I am part of the
>>middle class.  I do not receive medicare, medicaid,
>>I pay INTO social security, and I receive NO benefit from ANY
>>budget busting programs except, perhaps, some benefit from
>>military protective services.  So WHAT, exactly, am I getting
>>for my money??
>
>Have you no parents?  Do they also receive no Social Security
>payments and no Medicare coverage?

Actually, I don't think they are.  Even if they were, I should be
responsible for what my parents do?  Is this an up-to-date sins of our
fathers kind of thing?  Also, me thinks a lot of younger middle-class
taxpayers don't think they'll ever collect on SS and would like it
abolished.

>Will you never, ever be unemployed?  Wouldn't you like to be able
>to get some kind of medical care if that happened?

Since he at some point may be unemployed, he has to pay thousands,
perhaps into the teens of taxes?  Couldn't he just keep some of that
and save it himself (and investing it)?  Is it your contention that the
government is better at insuring Alan's future than Alan is?

>And, the real point is, do you care about anyone but *you*?

Irrelevant, the claim was that the middle-class is receiving back in
entitlements what they put in and Alan pointed out that he didn't think
so and asked for proof.  You seem to acknowledge this and am now
changing your argument to caring about others.  Which is it?

There is one well known middle-class entitlement - tax deductions for
home interest.  However, I don't think it's so much a middle-class perk
as it is another example of the government using the power of taxation
to influence social policy, i.e., back when it was enacted, it was
desired that more people own their own home, so this was designed to
make it easier.  Now, with everyone panicing whenever new home starts
do down, it's used to stimulate home building.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: REQUEST: Contact Info Requested for 103rd Congress
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:29:06 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA02988; Mon, 25 Jan 93 13:29:16 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18069; Mon, 25 Jan 93 13:29:14 -0800
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (vccsouth23.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB41);
	id AA04434; Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:29:12 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB16);
	id AA26239; Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:29:10 EST for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-To: activ-l@umcvmb.bitnet
X-Cc: talk.politics.misc.usenet


I noticed that in the action on Zoe Baird sent out last weekend individual
phone numbers for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were posted.

Does anyone out there have a directory for all 535 members of the 103rd 
congress? I know such a file existed for the 102nd congress. I have it, and
have made it publically available in /pub/QRD/qrd/info/GOVT/congress on
128.2.35.7.

If you have phone/fax/postal info for Members of Congress, please send it to
me. 

Thanks!

   
---
 .vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
``No exam-cheating, pot-smoking, draft-dodging, privileged youth Vice-President
in a "Bush The Blamer" administration can speak with moral authority about
abandoned moral values and assuming personal responsibility.''--Jesse Jackson
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:39:05 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1993Jan25.193310.3901@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
<In article <147145@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
<}In article <20JAN199313533938@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
<}
<}[about the ban on gays in the military]
<}
<}>Didn't he promise to end it immediately?  Didn't he know there was opposition
<}>to it then?
<}
<}No, he did NOT promise to end the band immediately.  During the campaign,
<}he said that he opposed the ban.  He still does, and as an earlier poster
<}said, the ban will probably be removed within the next few years.
<
<
<oh, really?
<
<
<Clinton's written policy statement, May 27, 1992:
<	"The Bush policy 'is another sad example of the administration's callous
<response to a terrible human tragedy...If I were president, I would - in the absence
<of clear and compelling evidence that they weren't political refugees - give them
<temporary asylum until we restored the elected government of Haiti"

READ MY POST AGAIN!  I was responding to the previous poster's comment
about gays in the military, NOT Haiti.  I specifically put in a note to
that effect, hoping people wouldn't get confused.  I guess it wasn't enough.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69041 alt.conspiracy:14447 alt.activism:21148
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:21:45 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1j26roINNra8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:

>
>What do you think?  This was mainstream TV, not some John Birch
>types.  Are we going to break up just like the Soviet Union?  Will we
>witness the destruction of the U.S?

I don't see it coming now, but perhaps it would be for the best.
Large, extremely powerful countries may be a thing of the past.
Breakup could be good if it means more autonomy for the local people,
bad if it means the rise of petty nationalism.  The sections of the
US with the possible exception of Texas, have little basis for
aggressive nationalism.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:58:46 GMT

In <C1DFKK.Knv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Timothy.J.Young@dartmouth.edu (Timothy J. Young) writes:

>In article <1jovm3INN1ip@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>> 
>>      NOTE THAT YOUR POSTING DOESN'T REFUTE WHAT I'VE SAID.  THAT, GIVEN
>>      CURRNET TRENDS, EMMIGRATING OUT OF THE U.S. IS A viable option.
>> 
>>      
>> 

>>      My best pal announced to me he's visiting Brazil in June.
>>      HE'S seen his future.  Anyone industrious by nature will continue
>>      getting dicked here.
>> 
Better buy him a wheelbarrow (to bring his pay home in - fast) given
the Brazilian inflation rate :-).

>-No, I'm not a socialist. (Just in case you were wondering...)

>Tim Young, Dartmouth College, Class of '96
>"Not everyone can carry the weight of the world..." -R.E.M.
>The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth
>College or any of its students...

REB

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:20:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.170536.17243@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
[snip]

>Well, lets see.  There was the plant in South? Carolina where all those
>workers died in a fire because the owners locked the doors.  You know
>why those people worked there, despite the reportedly *horrible*
>conditions AND low pay?  Because it was the only job available.

No.  They did have two other choices:  start their own business, or leave 
the area and look for work elsewhere.

>>Because the Universe, i.e. nature, _does_ require its inhabitants to
>>work to live.  That's not an artificial human-created law, that's
>>just the nature of existence.  Are you arguing that if a lion simply
>>chose not to hunt, that he should have the freedom to do so and other
>>lions should provide for him?
>
>No, I'm arguing that if the other lions have set it up so that this lion
>can't get food when he *does* hunt, they owe it to him the opportunity
>to get food some other way.

First you have to prove that they can set such things up.

>
>The artificial human-created laws are the ones which prevent people from
>going off somewhere, 

Such as what?

>
>>Food, shelter, medicine, all the basic necessities of life are the
>>products of work.  There is no evidenc that private charities can't
>>take care of those unable to work--indeed there is ample evidence that
>>they do so much better than governments do.  If that's the case, then
>>why create an artificial social system that denies nature when the
>>natural exercise of man's abilities in a free society work better? 
>
>Is there "ample evidence" for this?  Then why did these government
>systems spring up, if not to fill a void left by private charity?

Because people who don't want to take care of themselves discovered that 
they could use the power of the state to force others to take care of them.

Please note that I have removed the newgroup that I regularly read from the 
header, as we have strayed far beyond the charter.  I will most likely not see 
your well-reasoned and courteous response.  Constuctive e-mail is welcomed.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:15:23 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
 <93023.120137DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <16B5FC738.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>
 <93023.181826DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <93023.181826DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> says:

>Depends upon what you mean by "run the program".  Medicare contracts
>out the insurance administration to private companies (they were into
>privatization long before Jack Kemp).  Other elements of Medicare are
>run out of HCFA, a branch of DHHS.  HCFA also works with the Medicaid
>program and several other programs.  The tables which show administrative
>costs of Medicare are unclear as to how they handle general fund payments,
>which is why I am always careful to state that "95% of Medicare taxes" are
>paid out as benefits.  I also have documents from several charities that show

Found it.  According to an article by Ken Thorpe, the HCFA budget
associated with Medicare is approx. 250 million, making Medicare's
total admin costs far below the United Way.  For those of you interested
in some facts, you might also want to check out a recent article in
the Health Care Financing Review discussing admin, costs in various
countries.  The researcher (who recently released a comprehensive
international data set on health care statistics) provides per capita
estimates for public and private admin costs in several countries

Also, for some facts regarding the "efficiency" of private charities
you might want to find Jan Bryant Quinn's column from this weekend.  She
provides a watch-dog number for the National Charities Information Bureau
(212) 929-6330 who provide a free list of organizations that meet or fail
its standards.




>40-50% of funds collected not being paid out as benefits.  When I'm in the
>office tomorrow, I'll see if I can find the total HCFA budget and
>the other programs it runs.  All Medicare tax and premium payments go into
>a separate fund from general fund revenues.  These are used to pay the private
>carriers and pay the benefits.  The unanswered questions are 1)How much of
>HCFAs budget represents "running Medicare"? 2)Are these amounts already
>allocated in published tables? and 3) If not, are they big enough to make
>Medicare less efficient that the United Way?  My guesstimate is that would
>require additional costs of about 40-50 billion dollars (that would make
>total benefits collected equal to 75% of Medicare and general fund taxes.

 These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
 **      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
   **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
     **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
 D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:18:26 EST
Organization: Penn State University

In article <16B5FC738.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David
Veal) says:
>
>[alt.sex removed from the newsgroups line.]
>
>In article <93023.120137DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
><DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan22.224839.26146@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
>>Crocker) says:
>>>
>>>>Is there "ample evidence" for this?  Then why did these government
>>>>systems spring up, if not to fill a void left by private charity?
>>>
>>>Yes.  Take, for example, the United way.  Over 75% of the money
>>
>>More than 95% of the money collected in Medicare taxes is paid
>>out as benefits.
>
>      A question for someone out there who might know:
>
>      Where do Medicare's operating funds cost?  Are they allotted
>seperately from medicare taxes?  That is, do medicare taxes go to
>run the program, or does that money come from the general fund?

Depends upon what you mean by "run the program".  Medicare contracts
out the insurance administration to private companies (they were into
privatization long before Jack Kemp).  Other elements of Medicare are
run out of HCFA, a branch of DHHS.  HCFA also works with the Medicaid
program and several other programs.  The tables which show administrative
costs of Medicare are unclear as to how they handle general fund payments,
which is why I am always careful to state that "95% of Medicare taxes" are
paid out as benefits.  I also have documents from several charities that show
40-50% of funds collected not being paid out as benefits.  When I'm in the
office tomorrow, I'll see if I can find the total HCFA budget and
the other programs it runs.  All Medicare tax and premium payments go into
a separate fund from general fund revenues.  These are used to pay the private
carriers and pay the benefits.  The unanswered questions are 1)How much of
HCFAs budget represents "running Medicare"? 2)Are these amounts already
allocated in published tables? and 3) If not, are they big enough to make
Medicare less efficient that the United Way?  My guesstimate is that would
require additional costs of about 40-50 billion dollars (that would make
total benefits collected equal to 75% of Medicare and general fund taxes.

I also have a few numbers on AFDC and unemployment insurance, both of which
tend to run under 20% (80% of taxes paid out in benefits), though again
the tables are a bit unclear.
These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp. (Standard Disclaimer of course)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:54:21 GMT

In article <C1F34B.B77@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack 
Campin) writes:

> What you appear to mean by "union" is precisely what the rest of
> the human race means by "origami club".

And what YOU appear to mean by "union" is precisely what the rest
of the human race means by "organized crime".

--- Rick Buchanan (rbuchanan@vitalink.com)

        *** Don't blame me.  I voted Libertarian  ***
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: middle-class tax cut
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:52:00 GMT



"A New Covenant for Economic Change"
Georgetown University
November 20, 1991

"...I'd push through a middle-class tax cut..."

Wanna bet?


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc