HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:38:05 GMT
Organization: i represent myself

In article <1684EE54B.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> 
> [Guilty name ommitted]
> >>
> >>> The paper (Sacramento Bee) reported that the 1990 US Census reported that the
> >>> average wage in the USA had declined since the 1980.  This average wage is
> >>> in real numbers, not adjusted for COL, inflation, taxes, military in/exclu-
> >>> sion, or any other voodoo.  That means that regardless of the numbers of
> >>> people who lost jobs, or who found them, or who used to work part-time and
> >>> now works full-time, or vice-versa, THE AVERAGE WAGE HAS DROPPED during the
> >>> Reagan-Bush era.
> >>
> Excuse me? Adjusting for inflation is "voodoo"? Tell me, if your income
> goes up 20%, and inflation is 30%, will you be out celebrating your raise?
>  
> You can't look at dollar amounts exclusive of the worth of a dollar! You have
> to consider what a dollar will buy. A realistic analysis shows that average
> wage earner did better under Reagan.
>  

No. Analysis shows, according to the republicans, that the 
average household income has increased considerably under 
their regime. What they do not include in this statement is 
that the number of significant incomes per household has 
also increased markedly. Now we require both parents working
full time just to make ends meet. Tell me what this does for
inflation and their oh-so-precious 'family values'.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton's Brother pushes Drugs?
From: ostrer@icbr.ufl.edu
Date: 30 Aug 92 11:58:18 -0500
Organization: ICBR


Does anyone know the details concerning Gov. Clinton's
brother's conviction for trafficing drugs?

In an interview with Leher, Clinton cited as an example
of a tough decision he had to make the decision not
to tell his brother that he was under surveillance
for drug trafficing.

I was surprized this was not expanded upon by the tabloid
media.  It seems on a crude level it is a family values
issue: does an individual reponsiblity to his family
transend his responsibility to government.  It seems
Clinton's political ambitions tied his hands, and he
could be viewed as selling his brother for his own ambitions.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,alt.politics.elections
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 13:12:53 GMT

I said:

>|> So, you feel that the governing actions of an individual should not be
>|> an issue discussed during a political campaign?


mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) replies:

>Of course not.  But if you move the stage to an arena, you need to
>expect to have to fight in that arena.  So if the Republicans comment
>on Clinton's fidelity/infidelity, then it is a reasonable question
>to ask Bush if he ever had an affair.  

Well, I agree with you that what is good for one side is good for another.
The issue, however, with Bush's "affair", was not whether or not he had
one, but the source used as the basis for the story. Here we have some 
vague remarks made by a dead third-party reported in a book. >That< is
irresponsible journalism, ranking up there with the "woman has alien
baby - see page 5" in the National Enquirer.


[more stuff deleted]


>What we are talking about here is setting the tone of the campaign.  
>GWHB is setting it pretty low.

Right. The topics you don't like are "negative campaigning", but they're
"okay" when your guy mentions them.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: Tell that to My Woman
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:34:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.170308.21095@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.130328.3186@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>> 
>> 3. Also would You PLEASE esplain to my problem older woman that
>> merely as she has not had 'sex' in a week is NO excuse for her
>> to Flaunt Herself at me in her Vain Efforts to Force an Orgasm on me.
>> 
>> 
>> ciao
>> drieux
>
>aah, if only we all had such problems.

Trust me, it's good but only up to a point.  When instead of finding *your*
hand sliding under and inside your pants, like Al Bundy, you find *her* hand
there -- and all the time -- then you begine to realize the ramifications of
the situation you're in.  There just comes a point when you say, the hell with
it, remove your clothes and just walk around nude the whole time you're indoors
for her benefit, so that she can claim what she feels is rightfully hers
without the clothing obstructing her persistent efforts.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42216 alt.activism:15513 misc.headlines:5996 sci.econ:7179
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment (was Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution)
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:15:57 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug26.035138.1468@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.210555.3635@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug21.165333.23470@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>>
>>>The U.S. is the lowest taxed developed nation.  Tax decreases, especially
>>>capital gains tax decreases, can spur speculation that neither creates
>>>jobs nor utility.  
>>
>>I challenge this assertion that the US is the lowest taxed developed
>>nation. Unlike centralized governments in other countries, the US tax
>>burden is distributed among local, state and federal levels. Many different
>>kinds of taxes are involved, from personal and corporate income taxes, SS 
>>taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes (real and intangible), etc, 
>>etc, etc. When all these are summed, I don't think the US will be the lowest 
>>taxed industrial nation. According to the Taxpayer's Union, over 3/4 of
>>all income winds up as taxes.
>>
>>Gary
>
>If 3/4 of your income is paid in taxes, you need a new accountant.  Income
>taxes are higher in Europe.  Value added taxes more than make up for
>sales taxes.  The big unknown to me is what comparison they have to
>property taxes?  Anyone else know?

Well, let's see if I can get close to the Taxpayer's Union number.

Federal Income Tax		33.0%
Social Security Tax		 7.5%
Ga Income Tax			 6.0%
Ga Sales Tax			 5.0%
County Sales Tax		 1.0%
Subtotal percentage taxes	52.5%

Fortunately I don't live inside city limits or I'd have another 1%
sales tax to add on. Now let's look at other taxes.

Ad Valorum Tax (real and intangible)	0.8% of assessed value

This is a bigger tax than it looks like because it's on the assessed
value of all real and intangible property. Converted to percentage of
income, it's about 10%.

User taxes. This is a miscillaneous category that includes things like
excise taxes, motor fuel tax, Price-Robertson tax, hotel-motel tax, 
liquor tax, tobacco tax, occupation tax, business license fees, etc. 
It's hard to put an exact figure to this, but it's likely around 15%.

Adding this up we get about 77.5% of income goes to taxes. That's close
to the Taxpayer's Union number of 75%.

Gary
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Brother pushes Drugs?
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:40:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

It should be noted that Clinton's brother now says that Bill did the
right thing to shock him out of his drug abuse.  As a first offender,
he got a light sentence plus a requirement to enter counseling.  Bill
also attended family counseling sessions with his brother during his
rehab.  If anything, this should go under the heading of "tough love,"
something that Bush family members who lie to S&L regulators or take
money from the Japanese mob might do well to learn about.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:29:19 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep1.112644.23945@maths.tcd.ie>, darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 
>>	C) taxes...
> 
>>	Tax cuts, for example, are not problem.  Despite the cries of 'debt' and
>>'deficit' tax cuts enable the economy to grow, providing more revenue.  Only
>>cutting spending will get rid of the debt.  You could increase the revenues
>>exponentially, but as long as spending is greater than intake, you'll have
>>deficits and a debt.  So the problem is not taxes, but spending.
> 
> Tax cuts can be a problem. In the mid-80s the UK cut it's income tax rates
> and caused a boom. However the economy overheated leading to high
> inflation and eventual deep recession. If the extra disposable income caused

	OK, but because a bust happened, does not mean it was caused by tax
cuts.
	Inflation was tamed in the US (in part) by the Fed keeping a tight hold
on the money supply.  We boomed for 7 years, then had a recession, all without
high inflation.

> by tax cuts is channeled into imports (eg japanese stereos) then the growth
> occurs abroad but the inflation occurs at home. This leads to loss of 
> competativeness and hence jobs and also puts the squeeze on government
> revenue which may require a tax rise. The balance of payments deficits 
> deteriorates and companies will pass into foreign ownership (eg  US/Japan
> trade gap in 80s and transfer of property &companies to japanese control).

	Trade deficits are not always bad.  In an expanding economy, foreign
investment will come into the country.  As will foreign goods to fill the
increased incentives for supply.
	Mexico is a good example, as is Japan, for a country swinging from one
extreme to the other as their capital position changed.

> In short a tax cut had better have minimal effect to succeed and the indigenous
> industrial base had better be able to pick up on the expansion in consumer
> power.

	Tax cuts are merely an engine for economic growth.  Where the economy
ends up is up to the person steering (largely the President in the US).

	Keynesianism failed because of its inability to combat both
unemployment and inflation.  Supply-side (or New Classicism, if you will) does
combat both.  Where Keynesians wanted to simply use a big hammer, and explain
all the little pieces as "inevitable consequences of fighting inflation",
supply-side uses lots of little levers to move inflation, unemployment, etc.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 21:27:20 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug26135433@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

>Indeed, the Palestinian Arabs often do not have enough paperwork to
>prove to the present Israeli authorities that they legally own the
>land that they farm.  

It is difficult to forge such documents and get them into local
courthouses and town halls, that's why.

>The Israelis then deduce that the Palestinians
>don't own the land, and that it belongs to Israel.

In many of the most publicized cases of Arabs being evicted from houses
that they lay claim to "for generations", Israeli courts have found
documentation of prior Jewish ownership for these properties.  These 
properties had been taken by Jordan without compensation or agreement. 

>Tell me, Jake, can
>you prove that the money in your pocket is yours?  If not, then hand
>it over.

I can offer a reasonable explanation for how it got there; I earn a
salary and I can document this.

If I were to claim that I own this Mercedes sedan but I have no papers
to prove it, nor can I come up with a reasonable explanation for how I 
got it, then I would be rather suspect.  There are lots of people in
the US with stories like this who end up in prison.

Why should Arab thieves be treated differently from American thieves?

>As for the mezuzas, yes, they seem to indicate that the houses were
>once occupied by Jews, and that the Arab claim that they "always"
>lived there is wrong.  Yet mezuzas do not constitute legal claim to
>the property.  It is hypocritical to demand full legal paperwork from
>the Arabs, and accept a hole in the wall from the Jews.

There is no such hypocritical demand.  The mezuzas on the doorposts
simply indicate that the Arab claim to have been living in the house
for generations is false.  Almost all Arabs in Israel who own their
own homes do so under the power of law.  Those who seek to circumvent
the law have a few problems.  Don't act so surprised.

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:02:31 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Paul Swanson writes:

>Wait a second.  Lets not forget that both oil crises were set off by
>political crises.  In 1973 there was an Arab oil embargo due to one of
>the many Arab-Israeli wars.  This didn't actually reduce the supply of
>oil since only a few countries were boycotted but it interrupted the
>distribution system which, in turn, reduced supplies here and therefore
>increased prices.
>
The generally agreed cause of the initial OPEC hike in oil prices
was Nixon's removal of the US from the gold standard. OPEC saw the  
"real" value of their oil undermined and asked for more $$$. 

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: Motorola Panther Project, Chandler, AZ
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:33:46 GMT

<stuff deleted>

>Other territories are negotiable, but not Jerusalem.  And E. Jerusalem
>is *not* occupied territory.  Not when you remember a little history -
>like what happened in 1948 and thereafter - Jews were barred from our
>holiest sites for twenty years.   

Not to mention Jewish religious sites that were not significant to Muslims also
being destroyed.

-- 

>
Ron Feigen
ronf@panther.mot.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42705 ca.politics:7215 ba.politics:4876
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Working for change?
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:25:22 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <p57r000@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >>Now, if tomorrow we could vote on PERMANENTLY removing
    >>political coercion, I might consider voting. But, voting as
    >>we have it today (political voting), is an inherently
    >>coercive act.
    >>
    >However, if you are not working towards making this happen,
    >then you are whining about things without working on them,
    >which is as bad as choosing between two evils.
    >
    >>But then again, very few people really think about the
    >>morality of their actions.
    >>
    >Do you do something about it?

Yep. These postings are an example. I consistently strive, when the
issue comes up, to assert that coercive democracy is immoral. The first
step is make a stand -- to show people that their cherished myths are
indeed myths.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Balanced budget -- Kentucky
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:36:43 GMT

I was reading the most recent National Review. (I will get around to 
reading the Reagan articles when I have time but there are 35+ pgs of 
them)

In it's THIS WEEK section it had:
"Vice-President Quayle's Council on Competitiveness is under full-blast 
from a coalition of 35 liberal interest groups, members of Congress and
the media. That is a spectacular endorsement of the Council, which has a 
staff of two and an annual budget of $86,000."

Well, considering that one of those two members is the second-most powerful
man in the nation....BTW- Can the VP issue an executive order? Certainly,
the Council's actions brings in much more than $86,000 in campaign contributions
from big corporations.


"The Kentucky state constitution requires its counties to submit balanced 
budgets. State officials can also decide how the budget is to be balanced, and
when Breathitt County refused, in seven straight budget proposals, to impose
a 1 percent payroll tax that the state insisted was necesary to plug a $400,000
hole, a judge put three members of the county's Fiscal Court in jail for four
days, until they agreed to change their mind...."

It's about time. If legisislatures refuse to follow the constitution, then
they should be put in jail until they do. It might be the only way to get
legisislatures and governors to work together. 

My only comment is aren't Republicans (especially conservatives) railing
against Clinton's proposed payroll tax? Don't they view this as intrusive
big government? Don't conservatives hate the idea of raising taxes more
than most people? What's the deal with the right-wing National Review
seemingly supporting a tax and the intrusion of state government into 
the county's affairs? Don't conservatives want fewer mandates? Don't they
hate "activist courts"? Nonetheless, I think the court was right on target
in their actions.	

Maybe if we locked Bush, Foley and Mitchell into a cell....nah, they'd just
blame each other for the next 20 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL				"READ MY LIPS -- NO NEW IDEAS."
CLARKSON '95	     			  ---George Bush's apparent motto	
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?
VOTE FOR ACTION ON FAMILY VALUES, NOT JUST TALK. CLINTON IN '92
		

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42564 ca.politics:7166
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:08:50 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11949@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:

>In that list he included, along with "vanilla" homosexuals, S&M practitioners,
>and transvestities, NAMBLA members. 

>Question #1. Why am I to believe that NAMBLA is different and that its
>             members are just advocates?  

You are probably correct.  However, all the people who I personally know
who are in NAMBLA are from the B side (which is to say, people who were
in sexual relations with older men and are now adults themselves).


>Question #2. Do you disagree that advocacy of an issue gives it a legitimacy
>             that could encourage individuals to act?

I don't advocate, I just refuse to condemn.


>Question #3. Does it make sense for other groups to ally themselves
>             with an extremist group like NAMBLA as is done via
>             Jeff Dauber's inclusion in the "When they came for.."
>             list?  Are they not instead drawing unwanted fire towards
>             themselves as has been displayed by this thread?


The unwanted fire will come anyway, that is the whole point.  You notice
that Clayton has started attacking the S&M and transvestite community
as well as NAMBLA... They will attack us regardless of what we do. Clayton
is proof of this.  

Also, recognize that refusal to condemn and advocacy are different things.
Clayton has linked them in his mind, but that does not link them in reality.
I did not take part in the rioting after AB101 was vetoed.  However, I refuse
to condemn the people who did this.  This does not mean that I advocate
the destruction of property....  There is an entire continuum of positions
from advocacy to condemnation.  It is not a binary situation.  Clayton, 
in trying to make the situation binary, has drawn the line at the point
of an oath of fealty.  Anyone who refuses to take this oath, clearly must
be an advocate.  This is the problem with taking a complex situation and
trying to simplify it down to a yes or no answer.


Jeff
-FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Bush's Bogus Tax Cut
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:23:08 GMT
Keywords: Vouchers

How is it that Bush can propose new Spending, cut taxes, balance the
budget without specific Spending cuts?

He is taking a page out of California's book by issueing pieces of
paper.  It may not look like he is simply printing money, but he has
proposed "Vouchers" for:
1)  School Choice
2)  Insurance
3)  Job Training

Actually, in all fairness, I may have confused Tax Credits with Vouchers
on some of these.  What is Bush's fascination with vouchers anyway?  Is
it merely a sneaky way to print money?

Remember, printing money weakens the Dollar, which makes our products
cheaper abroad, which increases the Export Jobs Bush is so proud of.
It also leads to inflation as foreign products are much more expensive.

Bend Over America!  Bush is in the White House!


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Christian Coalition
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:45:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug26.154315.17751@terminator.cc.umich.edu> clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider) writes:
>In article <BtLK25.DBw@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>>
>>This now from Bush's "coalition partners":
>>
>>Feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
>>The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement
>>that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
>>practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
>>
>>McCarthy was never this eloquent or creative!!!
>
>Pat, do you have a reference for this?

   Yes, it was in the Boston Globe today in a wire service story.
   It was a quote by Pat Robertson speaking against a state
   equal rights amendment in some midwestern state (Iowa?).
   
---peter
    
   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc