HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mancur@vccsouth19.its.rpi.edu (Rick Mancuso)
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
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:12:18 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

In article <1992Nov05.031811.59998@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Y
ozzo) writes:
>
>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.


I completely agree.  Hearing Bush continually state that America is not a
declining nation is absolutely ridiculous.  Our high school graduates
constantly place at or near the bottom in world-wide math and science tests,
we're continually becoming a nation that doesn't manufacture anything, our
national debt is ballooning out of control, etc. etc.  America's great claim
now is that we have a monopoly on the worlds lawyers.  How terrific.  I don't
think, however, that Bush has a monopoly on half-truths.  Clinton redefined 
the meaning during the recent campaign.  I truly hope you are right, and 
Clinton keeps his 'promise', however I severely doubt it.  As we know,
politicians will generally say anything to get elected.  Clinton ran an
excellent campaign, and knew that pandering to the middle class was politically
correct this year.  Do you trust Clinton to his word?

In any event, I'd like to make a couple of predictions:

        1.  Clinton will probably keep his word and not raise taxes on the
            middle class in 1993.

        2.  1994, and 1995, will be more telling.  I think an attempt will be
            made, probably not by Clinton but by the Dems in Congress, to
            institute a national sales tax among other things.  This was
            attempted in 1990, but thankfully Bush didn't buy it.

        3.  Finally, a bit off the tax subject, the president, now being part
            of the majority party, will finally get a line-item veto.
-- 
mancur@rpi.edu	     "Uh...had a slight weapons malfunction. 
Rick Mancuso	      But, uh, everything's perfectly all right now.  
		      We're fine.  We're all fine here...now...thank you.  
		      How are you?"  *wince*
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16146 alt.politics.democrats.d:340 alt.politics.elections:22924 ba.politics:6834 co.politics:1627 ne.politics:2757 nj.politics:562 or.politics:462 ny.politics:89 talk.politics.misc:58547
From: tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold)
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
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:39:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ

whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

$ Guess we know how you feel about successful individuals, i.e. they don't
$ deserve the fruits of their success...tax'em to the hilt.
$ [...]

I've heard this argument many times but never seen any evidence of it.
When people's tax rates go up as a result of increased income, people
don't decide that it's not worth the trouble and then seek lower-paying
jobs.  When I see people not bothering because the tax rates are too
high, then I'll believe this argument.
-- 
Tom Reingold
AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
tommy@boole.att.com or att!boole!tommy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16121 alt.politics.bush:13370
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:58:47 GMT

In article <2098@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
> The Landslide Media Myth is also exposed when you examine what happened
>at the state level senate and house races. 

At the state level democrats gained two governorships for control
of 30 state houses, whereas the Republicans control 18.

>The republicans did exceptionally
>well. A total of 10 states had a shift in the ruling party of either the
>house or senate. All shifts went to the republicans. 

But, how many changes resulted from redistricting after the 1990 census?
How many seats changed hands in order for that change to occur?
In California Republicans expected big gains because the Republican
controlled judiciary had redrawn districts.  (Also widespread
dissatisfaction with the Legislature made the Republicans optimistic.)
Instead, the Democrats gained 8 seats in a legislature they already
control.  That gain greatly increases their power but doesn't show 
up on your tally.

> With gains in the U.S. House of Representatives and a possible wash in the
>US Senate, no landslide can be claimed due to the fact that no "coat tails"
>were attached. 

The Democrats did much better in House races than anyone expected.
They would have liked to do better in the Senate.  In fact, one
reason they didn't do better is that Packwood, D'Amato and Spector won 
reelection by running away from the Republican Party.  The bottom line
is  that for the next two years the Democratic Party has firm control
of the federal government.

John D.

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: msnyder@uchost.UUCP (Michael Snyder,000,0000,0000000)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Inheritances (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:54:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Originator: msnyder@saturn.ems.cdc.com

From article <JTURNER.92Nov5105241@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, by jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner):
> To say that an inheritance tax, which only taxes the unearned gains
> of the heirs, is a disincentive to anything - or that it is unfair -
> is, IMO, pure selfish nonsense of the kind which put the economy in its
> present condition.
> 
> 					--Jeff Turner

Where do you think inheritances come from?  Someone down the line had to
work hard, budget, invest, and PAY TAXES on income.  Then that income
that is left over is further invested, budgeted, and the income made off
that is TAXED... and so on.  Every cent of an inheritance has been
rightfully taxed once already.

SOMEBODY EARNED THAT MONEY!

And don't start talking about tax-free investments - they're tax-free as
an incentive to invest and are usually undesirable without the incentive.
Who's made money off of TF municipal bonds for NY, LA, or any other large
city?  Would you have made money on the return if the return was taxed?

But, according to the text above, inheritances are more the government's
than the person who accumulated the inheritance?  Okay, let's tax all
inheritances at 100%.  I mean, shit, you're dead; why would your heirs be
more entitled to the result of your life than the government?

And no runarounds.  Take your peak net worth during life, subtract what
it cost to live from that point until your death, and write the government
a check with your dying breath.  Hold on...

... good God, would there be a Kennedy in two generations with the
resources to be as influential as they are now?

Maybe we should consider this more...

Michael Snyder

<< I'm paid for my work, not my opinions.  Those are mine, all mine. >>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:33:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.162010.7537@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>To who?  You?  Picture this: Take a single earner family with three pre-school
>children (doesn't pay for wife to work), making around 30K/yr.  Keeping a 
>home, and food on the table is a balancing act in this scenario.  Even when
>you get rid of such un-necessary bills such as a second car, cable TV, etc.  
>*ANY* increase in taxes (above the normal cost of living wage increase) topples
>the whole apple cart.  What we have to do is get control of GOV'T SPENDING !!!
>Getting control of Joe Public's wallet has never, and will never, solve the
>tax problems which we are facing.

  Let's see:

    Gross income          $30,000
    Dependent deductions   11,000
    Standard deduction      2,400
    Taxable Income         16,600
    Federal Income Tax        200

  In addition, this family pays 7% in social security tax which is regressive
  but adds $2,100 to the tax burden.  Plus 1% state disability ($300) and
  an average of 1% state income tax (depends on the state, varies from 0%
  to 12% but at this income level its very low) of $300.  This is a total
  of $3,000 or 10% of the total gross income.  Not small, but this still
  leaves $27,000 a year for real expenses.  I empathize greatly with this
  family and I certainly don't want to increase their tax burden.

  In the other hand, a family making $300,000 a year will pay, at worst
  a full 28% federal income tax and an average of 7% state income tax.
  That's 35% or $105,000 a year.  They will pay 7% FICA but only up to
  $60,000 for a total of $4,200 (just twice the other family) and disability
  of 1% up to $30,000 for a total of  $300, same as the other family.  
  This adds up to $110,000 for a net of $190,000 a year ($16,000 a month
  AFTER TAXES!)  I am supposed to shed serious tears for this family if
  their tax burden is increased another $25,000?  No way, sorry, I simply
  don't get it.   

  Jon Rosen     

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Is God a Socialist?
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:33:34 GMT
Reply-To: nobody
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Not very organized


>>>I have read several recent posts which said that God is a Socialist.
>>>
Wow.  A few months ago, we were convinced that God was Republican.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16331 alt.politics.bush:13470
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:14:21 EST

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????

Jeez...

-Garrett



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16471 alt.politics.bush:13561 alt.activism:18514 alt.politics.perot:5318 alt.postmodern:2659 alt.rush-limbaugh:9261
From: kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:25:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Nov5.032619.14874@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 
>	Tax = 0.2 * ( Income - 10,000 ) 
>

Not bad but how about:

	Tax = N * ( Income 	- 8,000 for 1st adult
				- 6,000 for 2nd adult
				- 4,000 for 1st child
				- 3,000 for 2nd child
				- 2,000 for each addition child)

Thus, a poor family of two adults and one child where the two parents
have a combined income of 25K would pay some percentage of 7K.  If N
were 25%, they'd pay $1,750 in federal tax.  The tax they are paying
is just 7% of income.

For a middle class family, two adults and two children making $65K,
tax would be some percentage of $44K.  For N=25%, they'd pay $11,000.
The tax here is 11% of income.

For a rich family, two adults and two children making $150K, tax would
be a percentage of $129K.  For N=25%, they'd pay $32,250 in federal
tax or 21.5% of income.

Now, just remove absolutely all decuctions what-so-ever; just allow
the personal exemptions specified above.  There are no loop-holes for
the rich.  Nor are there moral decisions over what is a valid
decuctable expense.  Capital gains, interest, salary are all
considered equal forms of income.  Now special interests can't be
yanking the laws all over the place.
 
This is my idea of a fair tax plan.  It's flat rate but also
progressive (yes, that is a contradiction of terms but look at the
numbers) and caters to no special interests.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four candidates are on the ballot for president in all fifty states.  Only
three were invited to the debates.  What's the Dough-Boy afraid of?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15782 talk.politics.misc:58163
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:58:53 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:

>Yeah, did you see George Mitchell on C-SPAN last night...he made it clear that
>(i) the Congressional Dems would present their own agenda, thank you very much
>and that (ii) they will resuscitate their vetoed bills to start the term off
>on the right (er..left) foot.

While I am not scared of Clinton, this is what frightens me...Bush was bad
news, but he did prevent some fairly egregious stuff from coming out of the
Congress.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15864 alt.politics.democrats.d:308 alt.politics.elections:22679 ba.politics:6766 co.politics:1595 ne.politics:2712 nj.politics:533 or.politics:430 ny.politics:60 talk.politics.misc:58256
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
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
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:53:53 GMT
	<KC==aL-@engin.umich.edu> <1992Nov4.192104.8209@ncar.ucar.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University

In article <1992Nov4.192104.8209@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:

> I
>  agree with other posters that we should overhaul the tax system entirely
>  and tax consumption, not income.

	Great, a truly regressive tax scheme.  Why don't we just take
Jonathan Swift's advice and eat the poor.  Thank goodness Clinton won
on the strength of people who oppose just such me-ism.

						--Jeff Turner
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Internet address
Date: 10 Nov 1992 01:23:24 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

Will Clinton/Gore retain or have an e-mail address when they 
are actually in office?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: statz@gagme.chi.il.us (Louis B. Del Boccio)
Subject: *+* NEWSFLASH *+* MUST READ !
Originator: statz@gagme
Keywords: Say your prayers America
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:50:52 GMT

>     Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen

      Tonight I have sad and disturbing news on Nov,3rd the United States
      America "the new Russia" had an election and again the blind majority
      was taken in by a slick talking used car salesman sissy boy pansy
      looking con artist.It's hard to beleave that even when the facts about
      how bad he ran Arkansas in the 12 years he had.Well it seems that the          majority wants a pres, 1.Leaves the country to start protest ralleys
      against the U.S. for our part in Viet Nam not for moral reasons but
     to escape the responsibility of going to fight for his country like
      a coward.2 Cheating on his wife.3 doing drugs and then saying that he
      didn't inhale.Did he mean the first time he smoked ?.This man is a
      weasel.For those who voted for Cliton wake up and smell the coffie
      thanks to you things are going to get even thougher.

                                    Good luck America your going need it!


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16308 alt.politics.bush:13458 alt.politics.perot:5291
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: PRESIDENTIAL DOOKIEHEADS
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:14:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.235912.3147@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.150724.460@lrc.edu> dorham_r@lrc.edu writes:
>>
>>Democrat = idiot = stupid = pigface = pondscum = cvcc graduate
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I KNOW THAT YOU'LL VOTE REPUBLICAN NEXT TIME !!!!!!!
>
>I hope this guy was joking (even without a misc.test in the follow-up
>line), but...
>
>Sore losers and sore winners abound on both sides, though I'd venture
>that the losers have more vitriol at the moment.
>
I voted for Bush and I even I don't agree with this. This guy iis either a
loose cannon Republican or a misguided Democrat, either way this is
inappropriate.
A third possibility is that the same person posts messages targeted at
members of both parties.

Simon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16417 alt.politics.democrats.d:376 alt.politics.elections:23113 ba.politics:6893 co.politics:1677 ne.politics:2806 nj.politics:596 or.politics:501 ny.politics:121 talk.politics.misc:58894
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:26:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov10.221520.22051@convex.com> rgordon@convex.COM (Rob Gordon) writes:

|>In article <BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
|>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
|>	income have 3 kids????

|>Some people value children over material items. 

If this is true, why are they demanding that the rest of us subsidize their
baby making abilities.

|>
|>	People have to be held responsible for their actions - until they
|>	are held accountable for generating mouths to feed, I can't
|>	see subsidizing it!

|>What do you suggest as the ratio of income to children? What should
|>be the limit on the number of children I can have?

There should be no limit imposed by the government.  That is why there
should be no subsidy from the government.  As long as the government is
paying you to have children, they have the right to say how many children
you may have.

|>
|>	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.
|>

|>Why not? Let's totally take away people's freedom.  Let's see: we need
|>smaller gov't so we have to pay less taxes, but we are going to have
|>a gov't that "controls" how many children a family can have. I suppose
|>this is ok as long as it is only the blacks and hispanics whose
|>family sizes are governmentally contolled.

How about we just take away the subsidy?

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:58:51 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <MDL.92Nov5144420@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>In article <rabjab.201.720915937@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>   Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?
>
>Dan Quayle will get the fuck out of it and maybe they'll let
>Richard Truly (a great American) run it like he's paid to do.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Umm...Goldien (sp?) is currently the head of NASA, Truly was asked to
resign...doubt if he'll be back considering Goldien and Gore are
reportedly friends...

>
>   Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
>   of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
>   probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
>   and other major projects.
>
>Clinton is on record as supporting the super-collider
>--
>
>
>Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
>Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
>1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
>Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: hackers
Keywords: Clinton Bush election Herschensohn
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:50:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.043118.29564@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>	I think most hackers(crackers for the anal) should know
>that Bush has been against the Democrat party congress's attempts
>to legislate fascist crackdown on the network jockeys.  Read any
>phrack or cuds regarding such legislation.  The Democrats will
>push a big brother with a prison term down your throat.
>
>

huh, from what i hear it is the repub-control-freaks that support seizing
of computer equipment and guilty-till-proven-innocent, and even then they
won't return your property.  remember operation sundevil?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15882 alt.politics.perot:5179 talk.politics.misc:58281
From: aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bashing Pols (Yecch!) Re: Perot's latest "infomercial"
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:39:46 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology

In article <1992Nov05.191220.19975@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>
>The reality is that politicians are expected to lie through their teeth,
>particularly when it comes to financial reality. If they didn't, who would
>vote for them?

Yecch! Gag! Enough of this one dimensional politician bashing.

Okay: Perot and Bush are right -- if we compare Arkansas
  to California in a time snapshot Arkansas looks bad, generally
  speaking.
But: If we look at the *trends* in AR and CA, AR is doing a lot
  better than it historically has done for the last 300 years,
  and CA is doing a lot worse than it historically has for the last
  150 years.  So the Clinton campaign is right too.

NO ONE IS LYING HERE!

ALSO: Your favorite fellow -- whatever his name is -- has a habit of
  pulling numbers out of thin air (Taiwan is spending more on
  infrastructure than we are, huh?  Could I interest you in buying
  a bridge in the big apple?).  I'll give him a break for some bad
  key punches in his spreadsheet.  He also came up with some
  mysterious numbers about Arkansas.

  JUST STOP BEING SO GOSH DARN
  SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND SIMPLEMINDED.

STOP SLANDERING AND BELITTLING PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU.

THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS TO LOOK AT REALITY, REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN
DISAGREE. 		-a
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton