HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: billc@airgun.wg.waii.com (Bill Curtis)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Summary: What, congress's fault???
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:17:33 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical, Div. of Western Atlas Int'l, Houston, TX

In article <bBMes*Wv1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> In article <1993Jan2.154627.4729@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
> 
> Fred, you need help.  You just can't comprehend the fact that your beloved
> Democrat controlled Congress wanted to spend MUCH MORE than Bush proposed on
> nearly everything.  Now you say that he didn't compromise enough.  Of course
> you won't be able to understand the inherent contradiction in your positions.
> 
> Why don't you just watch Slick Willie and Company.  The deficit WILL grow much
> more than taxes will increase (and they will increase significantly.)  However,
> I'm sure that you will find a way to blame it all on George Bush.
> 
> 
>                                                 Jim Pritchett
> 
You've stumbled on it.  Not only will the Democrats discover that
they have no responsibility for the woes of the last 12 years, they
will continue to maintain that, as you speculate, it all should
rest at the feet of President Bush and, hold your breath, Ronald
Reagan.  Yes, him too.  Those evil men 

	1. Caused AIDS
	2. are responsible for the deficit
	3. caused unemployment
	4. caused sexual harassment
	5. caused homelessness
	6. ruined our educational system
	7. destroyed the black family
	8. ruined all education everywhere
	9. spawned the riots in LA.
       10. encouraged Saddam Hussein
       11. caused all hopelessness
       12. destroyed all families

and the list goes on an on.

And poor congress.  They've struggled so hard to get the deficit under
control, giving up all their perks, reducing their pay and staffs,
"asking not what their country can do for them, but rather what they can do
for their country", bravely telling the special interest groups 
they are beholden to, "NO", we don't have the money.  Clearly,
if congress had had its way, spending would have stopped years ago,
and we would not be behaving like drunk sailors.  Yes, it's all
Reagan's and Bush's fault.  Remember that.


> 
> UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
>  or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp


-- 
W. C. Curtis, Jr. 
Western Geophysical Co.		Domain address    billc@wg.waii.com
BOX 2469 Houston, Tx 77252  	UUNET address     uunet!airgun!billc
(713)963-2628
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:09:49 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1753@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:
>2) Although individuals stop paying the retirement portion of the
>FICA tax after earning $55K, their employer keeps paying on every
>dollar of payroll.  So, for employees the marginal rate above
>$55 is not 0, but around 7.5%.

Nope. I just spoke to my mother, who, among other things, manages the payroll
for her company. The employer's contribution stops when the employee's does.

There is an FICA tax above $55K: the Medicare portion (1.65%, or so; I don;t
remember the number) continues until $125K.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Colorado get Caller ID.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:55:13 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.


	This is another repost from comp.dcom.telecom. This article
	talks about the popularity of Caller ID 

	-dewey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 21:23:42 MST
From: Richard Lucas <rlucas@bvsd.Co.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Colorado Gets Caller ID
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 8, Message 3 of 11

     Caller ID is officially available in Colorado today.  My wife
finally got through to the business office this evening to order it
for us, after busy signals on attempts during the day.  While we are
normally served by the Loveland business office, our call ended up
being answered by the Colorado Springs business office (different area
code and LATA).  The rep said that calls had been non-stop all day,
with virtually every other call involving an order for the Caller ID
service.

     The best gauge of consumer opinion is how they vote with their
dollars, not with their words.  If Colorado's first-day results can be
generalized to other areas, then John Higdon is quite correct that the
PUC decision in California gives the voices of a few more weight than
the desires of the majority.


Rick Lucas (rlucas@bvsd.co.edu)
Debate Coach, Fairview HS, Boulder, CO


[Moderator's Note: When Caller-ID officially started here in Chicago a
couple years ago, telco had a huge number of orders the first few
days. It is still one of the more popular services offered by IBT.  PAT]
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: U.S., Russia Unite On Collider
Date: 10 Jan 1993 01:13:08 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamsun.tamu.edu

In article <C0HvBI.pCA@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.031619.1185@sooner.ctci.com>, dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
>|> U.S., Russia Unite On Collider WASHINGTON (AP)
...
>|>    "While the project may lead to new discoveries in high energy
>|> physics, we simply cannot afford it at this time with a federal
>|> deficit nearing $300 billion," said Rep. Peter Hoagland.

>He's right.  This is pork, and of dubious value considering how much
>in debt we are.  What is the payback here?  

This is a good question. For a long time I've wondered how government
involvement in basic scientific research 'pays back', and whether it's
possible to have successful large scale research *without* government
involvement.

Here's the problem as I see it:

 - A great deal of scientific research requires big, expensive pieces
of equipment. In many (if not most) cases, that equipment is so
expensive that no individual scientist, group of scientists or even
universities can afford to pay for it.

 - Corporations can (and do) play an important role in basic research,
but on many fronts (such as particle physics and other large scale
endeavors) even large corporations cannot absorb the cost of research.

So we're left with a serious problem. Individuals and institutions
cannot afford modern research, and corporations are not really in a
position to fund it either. What's the solution? I'm as loathe to
involve the government as the next guy, but who else can do it?  I
suppose you can take the copout route and say, "Oh well, I guess we
won't do this kind of research.", but other countries are doing it and
using the results to stay competitive. There's a reason countries like
Japan and Germany spend so large a % of their GNP on research...
they've got to keep up with us.

This is one of my few remaining objections to Libertarianism.
Libertarians seem to think that research could be handled entirely by
private industry and private endowment, but it can't... at least not
yet. What kind of system needs to be put in place to make it possible?
What kind of new laws will be necessary to assure the free flow of
information without crippling the profit potential of privately-funded
research?

Frankly, I don't think there's an answer to the questions, and until
such time as there is, projects like the SSC are going to be handled
by the Feds.
-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#     "I am Elfy of Atlantis." "I am Jo-Jo of Munchkinland."           #
#     "We are Elfy and Jo-Jo!"                                         #
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:25:49 GMT
 <BywD06.Azy@NeoSoft.com> <21974@rpp386.lonestar.org> <1992Dec10.140419.21677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
 <np3es*5v1@caleb.UUCP> <1993Jan2.154627.4729@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <bBMes*Wv1@caleb.UUCP>
 <1993Jan6.062011.20416@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan6.062011.20416@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> At the very least I'll wait till they actually do something bad before
> I pillory them for it -- and that applies to both the current
> administration and the incoming one.  You want to attack people for
> what you claim the WILL do, with no evidence at all to support you,

Really?  No evidence.  Please explain to us how Slick Willie (the man who thinks
almost all government programs except defense need to be expanded dramatically
while at the same time wanting to create massive new ones for health care, etc.)
can reduce the deficit?

On second thought, don't bother.  We've read your fantasies before.

Well Fred, as I wrote before, just wait and watch.  The real question is can
the ongoing recovery survive the massive tax and regulation increases that
Slick Willie and company are about to implement?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Preview of 73rd Texas Legislature
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:52:02 GMT

In article <1769@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>Fine by me. I know I wouldn't be fit to be behind the wheel of a car with
>3 beers in me, and I weigh considerably more than 180 lbs. Let's make it
>0.05% .

You'd better watch it - I've taken breathalyzer tests after drinking a
cup of coffee or smoking a cigarette (yes, that's an ex-disgusting
habit of mine) and registered over .05%.

>Let's see if you can make him flinch by suggesting that property taxes
>(and maybe some others) be %100 deductible, then. Not that I think a state
>income tax is a good idea, but this might flush him out.

You want property taxes to be tax credits.  Making them tax deductible
means you are getting pennies back on the dollar.  If you make local
property taxes into 100% tax credits against the state income tax, then
you have nothing to worry about if they jack up your local property
tax - your income tax goes down in direct proportion.

This is the fallacy of the current federal income tax system.  For example,
how many of you have more than a few months salary in liquid assests?  Now,
how many of you have a mortgage you could pay down, but aren't because
you want the mortgage interest deduction ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Preview of 73rd Texas Legislature
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:59:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In tx.general article <1993Jan10.201222.2568@sooner.ctci.com>, dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:

|> 	Bills to be submitted:

|> 	1) Set macximum $5 (not a misprint) fine for going faster than 
|> 	   55 MPH, but less than 70 MPH, on many long, lonely rural
|> 	   (probably West Texas) stretches of highway. The ticket would
|> 	   not go on a driver's insurance record.

This is silly.  They should just raise the speed limit to 70 on all roads
except U.S. Highways and Interstate Highways (which are currently under the
federal highways money blackmail scheme).  Then again, maybe that's how the
bill is written.  I suspect towns like Nolanville will lobby hard against this
to protect their major sources of revenue.

|> 	2) Lower the legal definition of drunk to 0.08 %. "That would
|> 	   mean that a 180lb man could only drink three beers instead
|> 	   in an hour instead of four before taking the wheel"

This is really stupid.  Breath alcohol level is a poor indicator of
intoxication -- it's just a lot easier to prove in court.

|> 	Talk of the Income Tax by Rep Elliot Naishtat. I'm sorry, but
|> 	no matter how screwed up the current tax system is, I will
|> 	not agree to this.

Ditto.

|> 	The arguments his office spout are that by revising the Tax
|> 	system, property taxes would go down if a state Income tax
|> 	is instituted.(Yeah right, for how long).

Then I assume Mr. Naishtat's proposal will lower and *cap* the property tax.
This will be extremely difficult as property tax rates are set at the county
and school district levels.

|> 	Paying for Prisons, there are 27,000 beds under constuction.

If they only imprisoned *violent* criminals, they would have more than enough
beds.

|> 	New Gambling propsals, video lottery, riverboat gambling &
|> 		even casinos.

I hope so.  Over 20 states now have some form of legalized gambling.  We are
going to lose a lot of tourist money to New Orleans when their casino opens up.

|> 	School Finance.
|> 	If the solution involves a constitutional amendment, lawmakers
|> 	must act fast: The Legislature must approve a proposed amendment
|> 	by mid-February in order to presnet it to voters before a court
|> 	deadline. (This is first I've ever heard of this deadline)

Yeah.  I think the dealine is June 1st...this has been well publicized.  I
also think such a deadline is an abuse of power of the judicial branch.  If
the leg. had any guts, they would tell the S.C. to go to hell, particularly
since we have two new justices.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Why should I be tagged with the epithet 'loony', merely because I have a pet
 halibut?"
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:59:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1993Jan2.154627.4729@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <np3es*5v1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec10.140419.21677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
>
>>>> In <21974@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>> compromise.  
>>> 
>>> But George Bush has never seemed to understand that.  His approach
>>> seems to be submit things you know they won't approve then cry when
>>> they do what you expect them to.
>
>>Is this the same Fred that complained mightily about how Bush wouldn't submit
>>a balanced budget?
>
>"Complained mightily"?  No.  However, it is the same Fred who pointed
>out that George Bush never EVER attempted to get a budget that was
>significantly better balanced than the one he got.  If you don't see
>the difference between that and what I said about him submitting
>things he knows they won't approve and then crying about the result
>(instead of going in and negotiating a compromise), then I really
>can't help you.
>
>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

I never thought I would agree with Fred on anything, but he is at least
partly right about George Bush, in that (a) he never seriously tried to
balance the budget (certainly not by the only method that would really
work, capital gains and other tax cuts combined with spending cuts) and 
that (b) he would blubber when Congress failed to pass what he did send 
them.  That's the part where I agree with Fred (no, Fred, I don't mean the
stuff in parentheses).  But where Bush failed was not that he refused to 
compromise, but that he refused to fight for anything he wanted. The 
Great Compromise resulted in breaking his no new taxes pledge and a budget
defecit increase, to say nothing of his defeat last November.

It pains me to say good riddance, given who we have in his place, but
I now think that little good would have come by reelecting him.
On the other hand, a couple of years of the Woodstock Generation 
President may make us yearn for the days of Bush, Darman and Brady,
and the sheer momentum of the Bush economic recovery may carry Clinton
over to easy reelection in 96, no matter how much of our children's
money the Democrats spend on institutionalized compassion.

By the way, not to accuse Bush of being party to a New World Order
conspiracy or anything like that, but can anybody point to anything Bush 
did |during the campaign that he would have done differently if he were 
trying to throw the election to Clinton (short of something gross
like admitting to a genifer type affair or something)?

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:36:39 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical Research & Development

I see lots of figures and analyses being thrown around in this
debate about Social Security.  Two things to keep in mind:

1) Life expectency is measured from birth.  Men who live to retirement
age will on the average live to be a few years older than 72 (the life
expectency of males).  Women who live to retirement age will also, on
the average, live past 79.  I don't have the figures for how long the
average retiree collects SS, but it will be longer than the 7 years
for men retiring at 65.

(This may be one way in which smokers save us money.  They kick in
all their contributions, and then die before they can collect too
much of them.)

2) Although individuals stop paying the retirement portion of the
FICA tax after earning $55K, their employer keeps paying on every
dollar of payroll.  So, for employees the marginal rate above
$55 is not 0, but around 7.5%.

If we make SS need based, can we change the name to:
Failing Incompetents Compensation Allotment ?

-- 
The above are my own opinions and mine alone.

*****************************************************************************
Dr. Michael Reed,
Western Geophysical, Research and Development Group
reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
(713) 964-6322                     FAX: (713) 964-6372
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Organization: Dr Pepper Company/The Seven-Up Company, Dallas
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 07:37:12 GMT

In article <C0Huxw.1I2r@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>And besides that, it might reduce the sales of carbonated soft drinks,
>eh Bill?

It wouldn't affect it much at the current rate of growth.  It's amazing to
me how much Carbonated soft drinks we are consuming, I mean, soft drinks passed
up water some three or four years ago and at the current rate it will be
2:1 over water in a few years.  That's a lot of acid.  I just wished we 
would buy some little company that makes ice tea or something.

>Texas has some of the stupidest and convoluted alcohol laws I've ever
>come across, and the MADD gang and Judith Zaffrini and trying to give
>us a few more.

I won't disagree with you there.  The alcohol laws that are in place are
a joke at discouraging DUI.  Then add to the fact that they are not very
well enforced and have no bite when applied.  There was a bill a while back
that I thought might have made sense, but was canned by the Liqour lobby
was the one where tavern or establisment may be held responsible if the
patrons they sold alcoholic goods to caused an accident or worse.  The
whole idea of the laws is to encourage responsiblity, isn't it?

Bill
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Harris - MIS				xmpcwsh@dp7up.com
Dr Pepper/The Seven-Up Company			The opinions expressed are my
Dallas, Texas  					own. (emphasis on the period)
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:20:11 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <bBMes*Wv1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>Fred, you need help.  

Well, Jim, I would say that you need help, but I think your problem is
beyond that.  You seem to be living in your own little world, as
evidenced by your continually ignoring simple facts so that you can
try to tar anyone who disagrees with you with some sort of 'liberal
brush'.  The only possible advice would seem to be the old cliche, get
a CLUE.

>You just can't comprehend the fact that your beloved
>Democrat controlled Congress wanted to spend MUCH MORE than Bush proposed on
>nearly everything.  

Strikes one and two, insofar as reality goes.  I personally think the
Congress ranks just slightly lower than slime mold (so much for
"beloved Democrat controlled Congress" - strike one).  We've also seen
repeated postings that show that Congress passed budgets that were
always within about 5% of what Bush asked for.  Now, you can
characterize a less than 5% variance as "MUCH MORE", I suppose, given
the size of the budget we're dealing with, but it quite frankly
doesn't sound like Congress was interested in spending all that much
more than George Bush was.  Strike two.

>Now you say that he didn't compromise enough.  Of course
>you won't be able to understand the inherent contradiction in your positions.

And you, of course, won't be able to explain what you mean in any
coherent way or in any fashion not involving personal attacks.  Jim,
it's folks like you who discredit conservatism in this country.
Anyone who declines to don their jackboots and goosestep blinding into
oblivion with you comes in for all sorts of nasty, stupid, and untrue
remarks.  Well, I thought this time I'd get in the first shot.  Fire
away. 

>Why don't you just watch Slick Willie and Company.  The deficit WILL grow much
>more than taxes will increase (and they will increase significantly.)  However,
>I'm sure that you will find a way to blame it all on George Bush.

At the very least I'll wait till they actually do something bad before
I pillory them for it -- and that applies to both the current
administration and the incoming one.  You want to attack people for
what you claim the WILL do, with no evidence at all to support you,
while at the same time making excuses for people for things they DID
do, based all on whether they're in ideological agreement with you.
If I thought you were the best (or even the average) of what
conservatism can produce in this country, I would predict its
impending doom.  Fortunately, I think most conservatives are just a
bit brighter than you are.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.