HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:05:30 GMT

fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>If things were truly equal everyone would pay for what they get.  Everyone
>would assume responsibility for their own actions.  Income tax is used by
>the government to rob from the responsible working class and give to those
>who are irresponsible.  End of story.

Well, I suppose that holds true if everyone responsible for working
with government funding is irresponsible.

I think it might be better to argue that income taxes take from the
fortunate and give to the unfortunate (or less fortunate).  I have a
little difficulty buying the argument that someone who is born into
miserable circumstances is somehow responsible for her position.

And taxes (income and otherwise) also provide a way to amass enough
money for large-scale operations that would otherwise be difficult
(when not impossible) to fund: highways, defense, cleaning up after
the irresponsible so that the responsible no longer have to suffer
(ala the Superfund), police to help protect the responsible from the
irresponsible, basic scientific research (i.e., with no obvious
economic gain or too large an initial investment), and so on.

You do pay for what you get with income taxes; it's just that
sometimes the things you get are less obvious or immediate.  Think of
welfare and medicaid/care as a safety net for you in the event
something horrible happens to you or your family, and rather than
being a drain on your resources, they're suddenly an insurance plan.

Of course, that doesn't justify some of the government programs that
exist, the mess that others of those programs are in, or the absurdly
high cost of still others.  But it at least mitigates some of the pain
of shoveling money into the governmental incinerator....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Reply-To: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:45:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.155755.10597@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp
(Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <9208192139.AA01280@poly.math.cornell.edu>
>harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>
>>We're Number One in percentage of population without health
>insurance.

>Note that Harel posts no evidence for this.  He just lets us mislead
>ourselves by providing an irrelevant table.

Harel's article did say one adult in seven had no insurance at all.  So
at most 86% have insurance, which is still less than the other developed
countries in the table.  And there was a reference cited for the
statement.  So what do you mean there was no evidence for it?


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10390 alt.politics.clinton:1779 alt.politics.bush:1310 talk.politics.misc:39223
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:05:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.183249.21977@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
} One reason a progressive tax system is more "fair" is that, in a real
} sense, 10% from someone earning 10K hurts more than 10% from someone
} earning 100K.

So, your idea of a proper tax is to inflict pain.  Thanks, but no thanks.

} If you are trying to distrube hardships equitably, a
} higher rate for that person would hurt less than a comparable rate for
} the less well-off.

But I don't want to distribute hardships equitably.  The fact that some
people die fron AIDS does not justify giving everyone else AIDS to make
that hardship equitable.  The fact that some people cannot walk does not
justify placing shackles around Michael Jordan's feet to make that
hardship equitable.  The fact that some people are dirt poor does not
justify making other people poorer to make that hardship equitable.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:48:41 GMT

In article <jc4m6tc.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>By golly, if I have to pay more, I want my vote to count more! It is only fair!
>
Then move to Wyoming! 

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Gov. Weld of Mass.
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.184042.8732@udel.edu> jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones) writes:

>I too was plesently surprised to hear the "l" word used twice within
>a half-hour period on, I belive CNN's "capitol gang" (it could have 
>been the PBS pundants, I flipped back & forth) .

It was Capital Gang. They were talking to Gov. Weld of Mass. and
they remarked that while economically the platform was good, socially
it was not libertarian, and they asked Weld how he felt about that.
Does anyone what Weld is like socially? Apart from being pro-choice
on abortion, I don't know anything else about him.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:18:18 GMT

In article <l8j5fmINN1kv@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>What most posters also forget is that the WSJ and other income statistics
>are not salary statistics, but family salary statistics.  If the lower
>income families achieved their 1.2% growth by having a second person
>go to work, all of these comparisons are specious.

Andrew Hacker, in his book _Race_, notes that the typical white family
making more than $50K consists of the husband bringing in all of the
income (he says around $70K), while the wife stays at home.  The
typical black family making $50K consists of both husband and wife
working for around $30K apiece.

--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:53:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.015246.16832@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.142932.28234@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>More important is the world-wide intellectual trend away from belief
>>in brute Government power to solve social problems.
>
>	Does this also include reducing the size of law-enforcement
>and military efforts, or else privatizing them?

Certainly, in Nicaragua, former East Germany and other ex-Communist nations,
they are eliminating their bloated and oppressive military and
"internal security" and "Stasi" forces.
In the U.S. and other Western countries, meanwhile, military spending
will decline along with the decline of external threats.

So we should be in a virtuous cycle, as the belief in smaller Government,
Democracy, and greater freedom reduces the military threats from
aquisitive, power-hungry tyrants. 
Of course, we still have our Saddams and our Communist Governments
(such as Cuba and North Korea), but these are localized problems,
not global threats.

>	Does this mean the end of laws and regulations intended to
>suppress abortion? Mandate official piety?

Official piety in Eastern Europe and the former USSR - towards
Communist ideology - is giving way to religious freedom. We
can expect progress in the third world too, as socialistic,
militaristic one-party states begin a progressive march towards
less Government and greater freedom.

Pat
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gore: anti-scientific demagogue
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:15:12 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Aug19.184507.3971@vexcel.com>
dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>And just what do these meteorologists think the actual situation is?
>Do they know more than the climatologists?  What about the
>statement signed by 80-some nobel laureates and 700 or so members
>of the National Academy of Sciences to the contrary.

I have no way to judge this statement.  I've never seen this alleged
statement signed by these people.  What does it say?  I might agree
with it if I knew what it said.  Your claim is rather empty when you
don't bother to tell us the statement.

The Director of the Office of Climatology at the University of Arizona
Robert Balling, Jr., in his recent book "The Heated Debate: Greenhouse
Predictions vs. Climate Reality" makes the point that the press is very
one-sided on this.  He refers to a 1990 study in which 95 out of 100
professors, lawyers and other professionals in Alabama stated confidently
that the greenhouse gases had created a warming trend in their state.
Temperatures in Alabama had been cooling since 1935.  The point is that
reasonable people can fall into this propaganda machine and spew out
the same stuff they've been spoon fed by a gullible press.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Which states are a MUST for Clinton ?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:13:13 GMT


In article <1992Aug21.211040.28924@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.192139.25853@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>>Patrick Sugent writes
>>>   Clinton and Gore get Arkansas and Tenn.
>>> 
>>>   They win the same states as Dukakis in 1988. -Wash, Ore, Minn, Iowa,
>>> Wis, NY, W. Vir, Mass.
>>> 
>>>   For arguments sake, they win the same states that Dukakis lost by
>>> 5% or less.  Calif, N. Mex, Mo, IL, PA, MD.
>>                                  **
>>
>>  This is a minor point, but didn't Dukakis win Illinois in 1988?
>>
>
>  Minor points always welcome, Mr. Davis. 
>
>  In 1988, Bush received   2,310,939 (51%)
>           Dukakis         2,215,940 (49%)
>
>  In 1984, Reagan received 2,707,103 (56%)
>           Mondale         2,086,499 (49%)
>
>           Third party candidates excluded just to annoy the Libertarians. :-)
>
>           Ok, really that's all the data I have.  Don't take it personally.
>
>Pat
>

  Ooops.  As has just been pointed out, I forgot to change Mondale's
percent of the vote.  Mondale only received 43% of the vote.  Darn
copy/paste function. :-)

  Actually, I think Chicago has been know to cast enough votes to
total 105%.  However, I think that is mostly in city elections. :-)

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: patl@golem.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Platforms available electronically?
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:53:55 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology


I apologize if this is a FAQ, but are the Democratic and Republican platforms  
available electronically?

-Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:27:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.184033.9941@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>There's no comparison between Clinton and Quayle.  Clinton was clearly
>trying to avoid military service.  Quayle entered a Guard outfit that
>had lots of reasons to expect that it might be shipped to a combat area.

My impression was that Quayle pulled strings to get himself assigned
to a Guard unit that had no chance of being shipped out for some
reason.  Given this, Quayle was a hawk who avoided the draft.  Clinton
had moral objections to the war, and avoided the draft.  One is a
hypocrite in this matter, the other not.

>What's more, remember this:  If Clinton had been president when Kuwait
>was invaded it would be the 19th Iraqi state today!  Let's keep Clinton
>where he's most needed -- in charge of the Arkansas National Guard!

In regards to the Administrations' policy towards Iraq, "coddle"
and "Saddam" are irrevocably linked.



--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10342 alt.politics.clinton:1752 alt.politics.bush:1264 talk.politics.misc:39141
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PAYCHECK DAMMIT!!!
Date: 12 Aug 1992 19:17:05 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Andy Freeman) writes:
|> fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> >Andy Freeman) writes:
|> >>There are several possible things that can happen.  However, let's
|> >>assume that we have a choice between "the rich get a lot richer and
|> >>the poor get a little richer" (in other words, the gap grows, but the
|> >>poor are better off in absolute terms) and "the rich get a lot poorer
|> >>and the poor get a little poorer" (the gap decreases, but the poor are
|> >>worse off in absolute terms).  The repubs favor the former; are the
|> >>demos different?
|> >
|> >You assume these are the only two choices.  How about: the rich get
|> >rich at a slower rate while everyone else gets rich at a faster rate?
|> 
|> I agree that there are several possible things, but I'm only interested
|> in the "correct" choice between two of them.  That's why I asked my
|> question, the question that's been ducked.
|> 
|> I've eliminated the easy choices because including them can't result
|> in an interesting discussion.  (Am I wrong to assume that Demos prefer
|> increasing the gap and the wealth of the poor to increasing the gap
|> and decreasing the wealth of the poor?)  I'm also eliminating them
|> because it isn't obvious that we always have a "no lose" option,
|> however nice that would be.
|> 
Apparently interesting discussion is now more important than communication.
The last time I checked the Democratic platform, they believe that the 
rich will get rich more slowly and the poor will get out of poverty faster.

Your choices are interesting but have nothing to do with reality.  They
are a Republican spin on what they think the two approaches will end
up causing.  These are the same Republicans that didn't notice we were
having a recession, because they were busy getting richer.  Finally,
during the primaries, they realized we were having a recession, and 
blamed it on the Democrats.

I find it more likely that they wanted so hard for their to be no
recession, that they ignored it and helped it get worse.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10340 alt.politics.clinton:1749 alt.politics.bush:1259 talk.politics.misc:39135
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:45:41 GMT

In article <l8j6ntINN1kv@spim.mips.com>,
mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Michael Lee) writes:
>|> Here's an interesting fact or two:
>|>
>|> It is extremely difficult for third parties and independents to get on
>|> the ballot.
>This is an assumption it is easy for the Republicans or Democrats to get
>on the ballot.  Wrong.  The rules are the same.

Wrong.  In many states the rules are very different.  In some states
the Demopublicans need only send a letter to the secretary of state
declaring who their candidates are (usually the case in caucus
states) while third party and independent candidates have to go thru
a difficult petitioning process.

/June
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: clinton's bravery
Date: 18 Aug 92  18:57:00 EST

-> How could you possibly know?  People who had TRUE moral objections to
-> the war left the country, went to jail, led the anti-war movement.
-> What they did right or wrong was to put their life on the line.
-> People who were looking out for NUMBER 1 went to school.  At least
-> Quayle went in if only halfass.  People lie to themselves.  They can
-> say I don't believe in this, I object to this and as long as they do
-> not have to prove it then you never know how true their belief is. How can you judge Clinton's motives, then?  And, I wouldn't call what Quayle did "going in halfass".  Quayle put his fingers on the line in the typing pool of the Indiana National Guard.  Fat chance of getting called up to head to Vietnam.

I respectfully think that you miss the point about Quayle.  The objection to Quayle in most people's minds, I think, is not that he dodged the draft.  Many young men did so during the Vietnam Conflict. The objection is that he dodged the draft, came back from the National Guard, and talked about how great 'Nam was.  There's real bravery for you.  And, to add insult to injury, Quayle consistently voted AGAINST any sort of veterans' benefits while in Congress.  Things like funding the storefront counseling c
enters for vets who suffered from post-traumatic depression syndrome, and other health and education benefits.

When it comes to doing things for vets of the war that he lionized as a young chickenhawk, Quayle didn't even get in halfass!!!

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Free speech is life itself."
         --Salman Rushdie

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10944 talk.politics.misc:40599 alt.politics.bush:2132
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
Date: 19 Aug 1992 18:04:28 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

In article <92231.213054A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> writes:
>"I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
>"I brought peace over the world, now let me bring peace in the USA"
>"We have changed the world, now let's change the USA".
> 
>Apart from that one should work on his/her faults first,
>the above makes some of us (over here in Europe) puke.  Most of us,
>however, just laugh about this outraging stupidity.
> 
>Someone (Quale?) even said that Bush brought down the Berlin wall.
>Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
>in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
>spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
>than it is Gorbatsjov)
> 
>Frans

Well, I kinda liked Clinton's response to that: "The Republicans trying
to take credit for the collapse of Communism reminds me of the rooster
who took credit for the dawn." NOTE: This is NOT an exact quote, but
whatever he said was very similar to this.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dave_barry
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:34:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <PHf-JbA@engin.umich.edu> darrin@arrakis.engin.umich.edu (Darrin P Cardani) writes:
>
>Hate to break it to you, but Dave Barry has said in interviews that he's an
>anarchist. He's said that he would rather just do away with government. I
>don't know how serious he is, considering he's running for president :-)

Dave's running for president is his attempt to achieve anarchy.
How long do you think the government would last with Dave in charge?
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10915 alt.fan.dave_barry:591
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dave_barry
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:55:15 GMT
Distribution: na

Darrin P Cardani writes
> Hate to break it to you, but Dave Barry has said in
> interviews that he's an anarchist. He's said that he
> would rather just do away with government. I don't know
> how serious he is, considering he's running for
> president :-) 

Are you sure you are not just making this up ? :-)

Anyway, I'm glad to hear it.

	Carl Edman
From: RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: POLL for non-U.S. residents: Is U.S. envy of world?
Date: 22 Aug 92 09:03:41 GMT
 <1992Aug20.225911.21121@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
 <1684A795D.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> <26875@life.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Lots of stuff from others ....... deleted.

I am from India and for many it is the dream to come here and many do mostly as
 students and then some remain. BUT noone balanced enough believes all the crap
 coming out of the Bushman. I have ha d the privilege of meeting wonderful peop
le in this country and it is painful to see a hypocritcal and misguided individ
ual totally involved in his selfish interests represent this country to the wor
ld. Further the moralising is sickening - particularly all the so called Judeo-
Christian guys like ..(you Know) who misrepresent the great and broadminded Lor
d Jesus at every turn. It is all one can do to pray for this country. I have no
 vote as yet.

rajagopalan....Remember it was Pope John who wrote Pacem in Terris, not kennedy
 or Khruschev or any other.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:41:16 GMT

In article <168418104.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.035214.5123@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>Well, it could be that our boy Clinton doesn't want to drive the
>>Federal deficit to astronomical heights, like your boy Bush has done.
>>
>The Bush campaign states that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in Arkansas.
>Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayer's advocacy group says the Rep.'s
>reached this total by counting some taxes twice and including some things like
>raising hunting fees.   But they also noted that Clinton raised the
>sales tax several times,.  They also said that Arkansas' tax system is
>regressive, meaning the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
>income taxpayers.  Note that this is meant as information and not
>as an "our boy" vs. "your boy" type of argument.
>

I was responding to one of Crisp's happy-go-lucky comments.  I believe
something like, "Golly gee, let's have a 10% flat tax, I'll go for
that" and then some remark about Clinton.  I was pointing out
indirectly that this tax rate would have been insufficient to meet
Federal expenditures.  If I had caught anyone besides Crisp in the
backwash, I apologize.
--
This is not a .signature
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA