HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 12 Aug 92 01:04:37 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Aug10.223031.4022@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
> In article 36671@sdcc12.ucsd.edu, rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug8.233216.28058@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> >>rdale@cstp.umkc.edu writes:
> >>>>   2.  Clinton and Gore have stated emphatically that they plan to raise
> >>>>       the marginal rates on those making more than $200,000.
> >>>	The President and Vice-President cannot raise tax rates.
> >>Then, WHY is Rush saying that "Clinton will raise YOUR taxes"?
> >Clinton has also said he would impose a 7% across-the-board tax to
> >fund his health care plan.
>
> I believe that this is a a non-truth.  7% across who's board?
> Wasn't this a contribution to a national health insurance fund
> by only those few firms that did not provide health insurance now?
>
> Please correct me if I'm incorrect.
>

The 7% across the board does not include companies who pay for alternative
coverage.  However, that 7% IS a tax and it is gonna come out of your
personal potential earnings and not the companies'.  Or if you are lucky,
you will split the difference with the company and only LOSE 3.5% of your
potential earnings.  Or the companies will simply pay 7% less salaries
by FIRING people and making more unemployment.  Wonderful plan.

> ---
>
>
> Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
> internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
> uucp:		lsil!msako
> RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
> Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:10:27 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: world
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <4279.577.uupcb@meaddata.com> todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) writes:

->DC.You make my point.  Read what you posted - it roughly translates to:
->  ."We know what's best for you.  You can't be trusted to make an informed
->  .decision yourself.  Therefore, by LAW, you must jump through these n
->  .hoops before your decision is deemed acceptable to us."  Isn't this
->  .the precise thing that Rush Limbaugh harps upon the democrats for?
->  .This sort of thing does not promote people thinking for themselves and
->  .taking responsibility for their actions.  It is social engineering, pure
->  .and simple, a thinly disguised attempt by the anti-choice faction to
->  .encroach on people's personal decisions.  And it stinks.

Some Conservatives feel that by allowing unrestricted abortion, you are giving
Big Government massive control. Since most conservatives think that the unborn
child is a living child, the government is allowing and funding the murder of
living humans within our own society. Thats the main issue with conservatives.
Its not the simplistic choice debate.
If you want to find a solution for the problem, you need to understand every-
ones total perspective.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton and Taxes
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:17:37 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1992Aug14.115554.28230@ra.msstate.edu> maj1@Ra.MsState.Edu writes:

> 
> When Clinton says he only plans to tax the rich, doe he mean individuals
> or is he including Corporations in this statement as well.. Coming from
> the party he's in I'd say both, but I'm willing to give him the benefit
> of the doubt, at least at present..
> 
> If he does plan on raising taxes on corporations though, why does
> he think that will help?? If Corporations are the giant evil that
> democrats claim them to be, andd hey I'll be honest to some extant
> they are right, they'll just cut their losses, which will result
> in extremely high unemployment..

Gov. Clinton has no specific, outright taxes for corporations as far as I
know.  Perhaps he has talked about raising the corporate tax rate, but I
never heard this.

Nonetheless, he does want to tax them indirectly, and this is not even dis-
putable.  He has proposed the play-or-pay healthcare plan, indexing the min-
imum wage rate, and mandating that businesses spend a certain proportion
(3% I think) on worker training.  With the play-or-pay system, the govern-
ment would directly tax if the business decided not to set up a plan, so
this may be a real, direct tax, I suppose, or maybe it's a fine.  Same dif-
ference, in reality.  The bottom line is that this will cost business money,
and it's rather slick to mandate that someone else spend money rather than
to raise taxes.  Ask yourself which goes over better at election time?  It's
all politics.  Right now the American people are pretty mad at corporations
for laying off and not hiring.  Plus, there is the idea that corporations
raped America in the 1980s by not investing in training and R&D.  So, it
seems that the public wants to force corporations to do the things they
felt they haven't done.  Gov. Clinton knows this and is probably a lot bet-
ter in touch with the feelings of the public than the president is.  Don't
worry, this campaign will start unravelling pretty soon here.


--
/*        Kurt Krueger | kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu | kkrueger@unoma1        */
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Cheated? was Re: A fine opportunity for DITTOHEAD flameage
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:35:20 GMT
	<LARRY.92Aug12152827@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> <mykes.0cag@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <mykes.0cag@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

   Mr. Evil, you do not understand what marriage is all about.  It is about
   commitment and trust.  And of family values.  If a man violates these values
   with the ONE person closest to him, he is likely to have those same kinds
   of lack of values as president.  ALL politicians say "Trust Me"...  Trust.
   Trust.

Oh, I don't, eh?

Again, how would you know what I understand about marriage? You make a lot
of assumptions, Mikey. You haven't a clue as to whether I'm even married,
but you're telling me all about what I don't understand. What do you
really know about me, Sport?

Also, what you are stating as facts ("And of family values. If a man 
violates these values with the ONE person closest to him,.. etc.) are simply
YOUR opinion. I doubt if you show any correlation between your assumptions
and reality, like most of the other self-righteous drek you continue to post.

Many of the greatest men in history have had marital problems, been
womanizers, homosexuals, drug addicts, alcoholics, had some other
significant flaw. Morality and greatness don't necessarily map 1:1.

As for the phrase "Trust me", we all know the California translation of the
phrase. 

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Yo! Bottoms up! US motto. Boy!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: EIB Special Report
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:12:01 GMT

mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>[Bill Coleman wrote:]
>>Now, really, doesn't this beat endless rants about abortion, Bill Clinton,
>>taxes, media bias, and all the other posts which divert us from the big
>>picture questions such as:  Who is Melvin Snerdley?  When does Kiki come
>>back from maternity leave?  What forces Rush to use the other side of his
>>brain???

>Actually, it's a nice change.  I kind of enjoy this type of satire.  It
>certainly is much better than the cruel brand that we all hear on the
>radio.

    Well, as a sponsor and participant in much of the tomfoolery that 
goes on in this group, I'm glad to hear that it isn't completely wasted.
I think that issue-oriented debates are fantastic, and I'm sure there's a 
lot of serious thought invested in the threads that show up here. On 
occassion, even I have been known to take off my groucho glasses and clown 
suit to try to make a serious point.

    I would say, however, that it may be the case that some of the 
discussions currently in progress have very little to do with Rush or his 
show. I've been amazed (and a little dismayed) at the longevity of the 
"Schmidling is simply wrong thread". I'm also dismayed (but not altogether
surprised) at the way that the abortion topic keeps raising its ugly head 
under article subjects which have nothing to do with abortion. That's not 
to say that abortion and Israel aren't "Rush topics", but I do think that 
sometimes the discussions get pretty far afield.

    This being an alt group I don't see much point in meta-discussions 
about whether any particular topic should be allowed. I have a feeling 
that silliness of the form with which I'm usually associated would be 
among the first things to go, even though (IMHO) a spirit of levity has 
more to do with Rush than *any* issue.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Hillary Clinton (was: Re: Buchanan's speech)
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 00:43:37 GMT

Thank you, William Porter, for digging up the actual text being quoted by
so many people to take digs at Hillary  Clinton.  I'm not going to defend what
she wrote in 1974.  I don't understand what she was trying to say, either.

But let me reiterate after Mr. Porter.   Ms. Clinton was pretty young in 1974,
and a student.

Six years later, in 1980, George Bush was still pro-choice.  Bush made his now-
famous quip about Reagan's "voodoo economics" also in 1980.  He was not youthful
nor a student; he was an experienced and accomplished bureaucrat and politician.
We all know how malleable those positions were.  And we haven't yet heard what
Bar was thinking in 1974, 1980, or whatever.  (Well, abortion excepted.)

So do you think we could put this flap to rest?  It's pretty dumb.


As for the "I could stayed home and baked cookies and had teas" remark.  Come on
now.  How many attorneys do you know?  Marilyn Quayle is an attorney, and does
not stay home to bake cookies while her children at school.  Phyllis Schafly's
children, I understand, live with relatives in another state, so she can pursue
her career as a conservative advocate of "family values."  Whatever.

Many, many women in this country hold jobs outside the home. (Reality.) Some by
preference, more (I assume) by necessity.  Jumping all over Ms.Clinton's remark
makes a person seem pretty oblivious to American life in 1992.

Patrick Buchanan isn't running for President.  Neither is Pat Robertson, Jesse
Jackson, or Ted Kennedy.  Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore and
Marilyn Quayle are married to the various candidates.  What they say and think
matters, but they are not, repeat NOT, running for President.  When there are
so many many issues of REAL import, and declared positions and governing records
of the candidates themselves to discuss, why are so many so obsessed with so
little?


David Christensen
chrisda@atlantis.cs.orst.edu

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:43:52 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Aug12.194433.29027@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
> In article 18082@athena.cs.uga.edu, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
> >In article <nate.462@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> >>    How about a capital gains cut for long term investment (leaving the
> >>current rate for short term investments)?
> >>Nathan Engle
> >If my memory serves me, Japan and Germany have NO capital gains tax.
>
> One other point I left out before regarding Japan, the income tax rates
> in both Japan and Germany are considerably above 50% (closer to 70%)
> which certainly make's the US tax rate of 31% look very cheap.
>

Mitch - your use of numerical data is worthless.  Japan has a LOWER
tax burden than the US and MUCH lower than Germany's:

German Population: 78,475,370 (1990)
Budget: (1988) Income: $539Bil  Expenses: $563Bil
Income per capita: $6,910 Expenses per capita: $7,218
GDP: $945.7Bil  Income % of GDP: 56.8%
Unemployment: (1987) 8.7%

US Population: 248,709,873 (1990)
Budget: (1989) Income: $976.0Bil Expenses: $1,137.0Bil
Income per capita: $3,935 Expenses per capita: $4,584
GNP: $5,233.3Bil Income % of GNP: 22.3%
Unemployment: (1988) 5.5%

Japan Population: 123,642,641 (1990)
Budget: (1989) Income: $392Bil  Expenses: $464Bil
Income per capita: $3,186 Expenses per capita: $3,772
GNP: $1,914.1Bil Income % of GNP: 20.4%
Unemployment: almost ZERO

Note: US figures are for BEFORE the 1990 tax/budget agreement.
The 1992 US data:
Income: $1,165.0Bil Expenses: $1,445.9Bil
Income per capita: $4,697 Expenses per capita: $5,380
GNP data unavailable, but we all know about the recession
 (recession == consecutive quarters of negative GNP growth)
Unemployment: 7.7%

Are we moving in the right direction?  Note the radical
changes in the US data from 1988 to 1992 and how MORE
taxes and MORE govt. revenues and spending causes MORE
misery.  Note how in 1988 when our economy was at it's
booming best, the German way of doing things caused them
to have even worse misery (index) than we have now.

> ---
>
> ====================================================================
> Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
> internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
> uucp:		lsil!msako
> RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
> Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
> 		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
> 		management, or my mother

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Is Rush just a teenie bit inconsistent ???
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:42:09 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Aug19.202136.21083@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:

>When was the last time you heard a Clinton/Flowers joke in the news?  Or did  
>you EVER hear one?

Oh yeah, I heard a lot of Clinton Flowers jokes, many of them bad puns on
Flowers, Defloriate, etc...    But they didn't last more than a month or so,
except on Rush's program.  Rush is still making jokes about Chappaquidick,
and the Smith rape trial for heavens sake.

The point is that the public grows tired of a single joke after one or
two repetitions.  So the single story of allegations of Clinton
and Flowers only lasted a short time.  Quayle keeps giving everybody fresh
topics.   Look at the lists of the Quayle boobisms...  they are hundreds
of stupidities long.  And even if 10% of them are made up,  no, heck,
even if 50% are made up,  that's still way too many!  

Finally,  I have never heard a Quayle joke from the so called liberal
media.  Dan Rather, Ted Brokaw, and Barbara Walters never tell me
jokes. I hear them from co-workers, freinds, and other common folx.
Sure, maybe they originate when Rather, Brokaw, etc..  first honestly 
report it, but you know that if it wasn't true somebody would sue their
tuckus' off.   Then, the American people, aghast at the latest boobism
from Mr Potatoe Heade, makes a joke out of the words of our national 
joke,  and then Rush gets mad.

I can admire G. Bush's intelligence.  I can disagree with his policies,  
but I respect the man's smarts.  But lets be honest - Quayle is a boobe.
You might like some of the same things he likes, but he's a poor spokesboob.
You guys should top defending this boob, and start promoting James Baker,
Kemp, or somebody who isn't a boob...   WAIT,  what am I saying???   Please,
continue to support Quayle.  Please,  run him for presidente in 96e.


Danno in '96! (assuming he remembers to keep breathing until then)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:12:31 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 5662@dbsun.uucp, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>>alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>	There are many democrats, including Clinton, who support a capitol
>>>gains cut for long term capital gains only. There have been several plans,
>>>from a single step at 3 years, to a sliding scale for capitol gains earned
>>>between 1 and 5 years. The idea is to tax the hell out of short term gains,
>>>while rewarding long term investment with little or no taxation. 
>>	But the property is yours, not the government's.  I do not see why
>>short-term gains should be taxed more heavily than long-term gains.
>Short-term gains tend to be made with actions that do not help the economy
>in general (stock options, futures, short selling).  Long-term gains tend
>to be more beneficial to the economy (investing in a small startup company
>and helping it grow to be a Wal-Mart).

This has always been my contention.  The short-term capital gains that Bush
wishes to cut the already low tax rate of 28% on can in many ways be
destructive to the economy.  Just ask Macy's, Federated Stores, Bonwit-Teller,
and TWA.  I believe that Limbaugh also shares Bush's feelings regarding
short-term capital gains taxes.
---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:19:34 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,na
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26



(Speech delivered by Patrick Buchanan at the Republican convention
in Houston on Monday, August 17, 1992.)

> When Bill Clinton's turn came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory in
> Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft.  

This is tough talk coming from Pat "My knees were so bad I could not
serve in the military, but now I'm an avid jogger" Buchanan.

I wonder what Pat "I was on my way to Korea, but the orders were
changed at the last second so I stayed in Japan, which had nothing
to do with my dad the Senator" Robertson or Dan "National Guarde"
Quayle thought of it.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:43:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>->You see, your solution is arbitrary.  Arbitrary laws cause nothing but
>->dissent.  Would you be happy if the line were arbitrarily drawn at six
>->months?  8 months?  I venture to guess not.  So why should someone who
>->does not believe _human_ life begins at conception be happy with your
>->definition?  The only real solution is a solid definition of when life
>->begins, that can be challenged based on science, not dogma.
>
> The main issue is giving arbitrary control to government. If We The People
>through a vote decide that life begins at conception, then government will
>have no arbitrary point of reference to make. We could also just assume
>it is so just to insure that government dosent get in to the buissness of
>choosing when life starts.

What you are proposing is the tyranny of the majority at its finest.
True, the government has not made an arbitrary choice, but an arbitrary
choice has still been made.  It's not arbitrary in your eyes because
it's the choice you want made.

Do we have people vote on when death occurs, too?  How about whether an
unmarried adult can buy contraceptives?  How about every other issue where
constitutionality rears its ugly head?

The current Supreme Court holds that the state cannot place an "undue
burden" on a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester
of pregnancy.  The issue religious in nature, because some religions
believe the 3-month old fetus is alive and others do not.  If a majority
of American subscribe to the former religions, should they be able to
prevent members of the latter religions access to abortions.  Currently, 
no.  But how much longer?

Remember, Planned Parenthood started by challenging laws that forbade
the sale and possession of contraceptives.  Religious beliefs can be
incorporated in laws so easily.

> Never sell your soul to Big Government !

And especially to Big Goverment that has the audacity to support
individual rights, even if the majority should disagree.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4736 alt.politics.clinton:2517