HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dwells@fits.cv.nrao.edu (Don Wells)
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES!
Organization: nrao
	<1992Nov23.152734.21029@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.152734.21029@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:

 MTE> ... Do you support a balanced budget amendment?  IMHO, this is
 MTE> the only way to get things under control. 

A B-B-A is probably pointless, because there would be escape hatches
and opportunities for budgetary tricks. The Federal government
controls the money supply, so it can always escape from the need to
balance the budget if there is a basic lack of will power and courage
in the politicians. The Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings Amendment was
essentially a B-B-A, and it wasn't enough to solve the problem.

 MTE> Past tax increases have been far outstripped by even bigger
 MTE> spending increases. 

*NO*, they haven't. In fact, the biggest source of increase in the
Federal debt during our lifetimes has been due to a tax *DECREASE*,
not due to tax increases. Republicans need to face the fact that their
hero, Ronald Reagan, blew it on a grand scale --- he used his
political skill to persuade everyone that we should go into debt by
about one trillion dollars in each of his terms. Republicans also need
to face the fact that George Bush continued Reagan's policies, and
thereby added one more trillion to the debt. After twelve years of
these policies the national debt is about four times larger than what
it was when Carter left office. For at least another generation
Republicans will be reminded that "it happened on their watch".  The
Democrats must face the fact that they allowed Reagan/Bush to do this,
and that they *helped* them to do it!  The voters must face the fact
that it is their greed to get more of those entitlements, military
contracts, subsidies and tax breaks while wanting their taxes to be
reduced that causes the Republicans and Democrats to indulge in these
immoral fiscal policies. During the 1992 campaign Paul Tsongas and
Ross Perot did the country a service by pointing out this immorality.

 MTE> I for one would be willing to pay more taxes, but only if I knew
 MTE> that spending would be cut or at least kept the same. 

I, too, would be willing. Rather than a B-B-A, probably we need
Clinton to discuss the subject in several "fireside chats", and then
follow up with a massive propaganda campaign plus the line-item veto
once he gets it. In the end, what is really needed is a *CHANGE OF
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE*, not just another variety of
budgetary slight-of-hand in Washington.
--

Donald C. Wells             Associate Scientist        dwells@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory                   +1-804-296-0277
520 Edgemont Road                                 Fax= +1-804-296-0278
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA            78:31.1W, 38:02.2N 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17673 alt.politics.democrats.d:663 alt.politics.elections:24267 talk.politics.misc:61398
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:18:52 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <By1KDD.G6n@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:

|>This is patently wrong.  The most glaring counter to this fantasy is the
|>sitation in Somalia, which began with the global drought the world has been
|>experiencing over the last three or four years.  The ability of the land to
|>support food requirements of its population failed, which fits the definition
|>of overpopulation.  Historically, the migration of the poor to cities is a
|>classic symptom of rural overpopulation; the poor go to the population
|>centers to look for work because the land can no longer support them.

I suppose the fact that Somalia is also over run with bandits who have been
shooting farmers and burning crops is totally irrelevant.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17270 alt.politics.democrats.d:578 alt.politics.elections:23939 talk.politics.misc:60425
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: 16 Nov 92 16:55:43 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <1dur0nINNdq@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:

>Also, poor people deserve to be compensated for their contribution to
>helping someone else accumulate money.

If they are working, that's what wages are for.  If they are not working
how have they helped anyone else accumulate money?

-- 
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
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:26:43 -0500 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: What is a Conservative?
	<1992Nov15.162122.19319@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.fan.rush-limbaugh: 15-Nov-92 Re: What is a
Conservative? Howard Black@ux1.cts.eiu (1496)

> In article <1992Nov13.212811.5278@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike
> Best) writes:
> >
> >I do find the RICO seizures troubling.  I do not find a conflict between 
> >being a conservative and taking stands on how societies values should be
> >influenced by government. 

>     Taking stands is one thing.  Legislating such stands is another, and
> definitely not in line with True Conservatism (tm).

The fact is that laws in some areas innately will affect society, and
will have to be a reflection of societies values.  And since this is
true, it only makes sense to try and get the laws to reflect that values
> you believe are best for society.

> >Drugs?  I've been there and I don't agree with you.

>     Fine.  You don't agree.  However, this is irrelevant, since an
> individual's use of drugs is their business, and to encroach on that
> freedom is anti-conservative.  I have never understood the fervor with
> which conservatives pursue the fictitious War on Drugs (tm), when I thought
> that they stood for less government intrusion into people's lives.

You're confusing conservative with libertarian.  An individual has
certain responsibilities to society under conservatism.  The use of
drugs impairs their ability keep those obligations and therefore places
a burden on society.  Therefore, the war on drugs is perfectly in line
> with conservatism.

> >Abortion is not anti-conservative if you believe in fundamental individual
> >rights AND simultaneously believe that the fetus is an individual human.

>     But, of course, legislating the latter belief isn't right when there is
> so much scientific and societal controversy surrounding it.

If you're belief is that the fetus is a human life, and therefore
deserving of the same protections as other humans, then it is perfectly
correct in a conservative context to ensure that the rights afforded to
> all are afforded to the fetus.

> >I think that you are taking an anarchist approach to conservatism which
> >is not, IMO, the modern definition.  Perhaps modern is the keyword.

>     I think that you do not know what "anarchist" means.

I think both of you should look up Libertarian instead.  What both of
> you are arguing is whether conservatism is libertarian in nature or not.

> -- 
>    ******************************************************************
>      Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>      Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 


					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17443 talk.politics.misc:60856
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: What would you like on your waffles?
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:32:47 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Clinton has now waffled on the following positions:

	Gays in the military
	Reducing the deficit (wouldn't be prudent at this juncture :)
	Health Care
	Estimated growth for next year
	Reducing the executive branch budget
	Line item veto
	...

	Looks like the stock market missed the election bus only to get hit by
the waffle truck coming the other way.
:)

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17338 alt.politics.democrats.d:602 alt.politics.elections:24019 ba.politics:7183 co.politics:2132 ne.politics:3022 nj.politics:750 or.politics:662 ny.politics:270 talk.politics.misc:60555
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
X-Xxdate: Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:36:18 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:39:39 GMT

In article <sulkanen.722012032@xanth> Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65,
sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov writes:
>My evidence comes from several sources: (i) articles from the
>National Review and American Spectator over the past several years, (ii)
>the books "Poisoned Ivy" by Benjamin Hart, "The Closing of the American
>Mind" by Allan Bloom, "Illiberal Education" by Dinesh D'Souza, a recent
>essay by Arthur Schlesinger on the fragmentation of American culture, and
>discussions by William Bennett on this subject that appeared in two
books 
>he has recently published, (iii) firsthand, albeit anecdotal,
experience. 
>I attended an Ivy League school during the eighties. I saw firsthand the
>*organized* effort by academicians in history, literature, and government
>to change the rules and manners of intellectual inquiry. It was a very
>different style than simple brutish heckling. It used the academic and 
>bureaucratic power of the universities to *force* its members to accept
>certain "axioms" of ideas before debate could even begin. For many of the
>left wing on campus, education is not free inquiry, it is indoctrination 
>to catalyze political action. I saw PC before the term became part of the
>wordstock. 

I agree that the PC revolution is abysmal. However, I have seen similar
pressure tactics used in southern universities to put pressure on
liberal voices. The sources you have indicated make valid points but they
do not prove that there are not similar pressures put on by the radical
right.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ric@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (Ric Miller  ACNS)
Subject: Re: Cong. Pay Raises Was Re: Ignorance
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:23:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Nov13.183159.7522@wri.com> walsh@dragonfly.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
>
>So the average working guy gets a 3% raise every year, and
>congresspeople get a 33% raise every ten years.  What's
>the big deal?
>
>In the long run, are the salaries of members of Congress growing
>faster than the average worker's wages, or are they actually losing
>ground?
>
>j. walsh
  
  The working people in this country seem to be more concerned about
  making sure our legislators make less than the lowest paid major
  league baseball player than actually balancing the budget.  

  ric miller



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: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Inheritance taxes
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:01:28 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1dvbqnINN10a@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
]In article <1992Nov6.012419.13792@tvnews.tv.tek.com> stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:
]
]>Politicians champion inheritance taxes as a way to sock it to the rich.
]>In reality, it is the not-so-rich -- the middle class -- which pays the
]>bulk of estate and inheritance taxes.  (The United States has estate
]>taxes, which tax the estate of the deceased.  The United States does not
]>have inheritance taxes, which tax the heirs, instead.)
]
]What definition are you using? The US Estate Tax does not kick in until
]AT LEAST $600K. With any type of decent estate planning this threshold
]can be raised significantly. Are millionaires middle class to you?

Well, let's look at it this way. If you have an estate worth a million
dollars, you are likely to get maybe 40,000-50,000 per year from it to live
on (assuming you are preserving capital). This is middle class.

Looked at another way, what the hell difference does it make, you are
still taking people's money from them - it means that their estate
is taxed in excess of 70% (when you consider the money that grew it was
also taxed). This creates negative incentives to save - better to just
spend the money than invest it in the economy!

Finally, expect that limit to come down to $200,000. There was a little
mentioned (by our liberal press) rider on the "Family Leave Act" that
lowered the inheritance tax limit to $200,000. So, if you live in California,
and own your own home, and your spouse dies, you will probably have to sell
the (>$200,000) home to pay the taxes. Middle class people who aren't worth
$200,000 by the time they die haven't even tried to save (or our lousy
medical payments system took it away from them, but that's another story).

Look for the limit to be lowered quickly upon Clinton's ascension to the
throne.

]PS Inheritance taxes go back to at least feudal times--in fact, the
]right to inherit was not automatic.

Neither was the right to free speech. When one recognizes the right to
own property (or anything else), one must realize that that includes the
right to dispose of that property on one's death.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:30:14 GMT

In article <BxyrB2.CDs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell) writes:
>tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:
>
>>I heard on Rush's show a  GOOD argument for not letting gays in the military.
>
>>Ok, when you serve in the armed forces, you get free/VERY cheap healthcare for the
>>rest of your life.  (and your spouse)
>
>>Q. #1  What is one of the most expensive illnesses?   AIDS!
>>Q. #2  What lifestyle is one (if not the highest) highest risk category for AIDS?  Gays
>
>>By admitting gays, you will be raising healthcare costs by making the gov't pay  for
>>AIDS treatment for the vet and his spouse (same sex  spouse?).  After all, they are the
>>most likely to get the virus in the first  place.  
>
>>I don't want to hear  about non-gay people getting AIDS, either. I know that everyone
>>could get AIDS in some way, but it is mainly determined by your lifestyle and your 
>>spouses.   What are the odds of a heterosexual w/ 1 mate who doesn't sleep around
>>(same w/ spouse) or use drugs as compared to a gay?  NOT EVEN CLOSE.
>
>If this is your idea of a good argument, it is little wonder you are a 
>Limbaugh fan.  Since so many married soldiers will be having children, with
>the government picking up the tab, and only a few homosexuals will get AIDS,
>it seems to me like the army could save a fortune by recruiting homosexuals
>only.  In particular, a lesbian-only army would REALLY be a big money saver.
>
   Not only is it only a small percentage of gays who are infected,
   but the government is going to ultimately pick up the tab for
   catastrophic illness whether the person is gay or straight or in
   the military or not.

   Limbaugh and limbots just don't like gays; that's their agenda.

   Wayne


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William J. Taney)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:16:15 GMT

This is the most unbelevably stupid thread I have ever seen. I hope the
secret service comes kicking down your door.   Why not get a grip on
reality and realize that bush is done.. All you winers are an embarasment
to the republican party (and thats hard to do...!)


-- 
*William Taney                *   Lobotomy's for Republicans
*muwjt@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu        *          it's the Law
*Western Illinois University  * Clinton/Gore and Carol Moseley Braun
*                             *             in '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:03:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu <Mark Allan Hunt> writes:
>
>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>
>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>
>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>
>Appealing to your subconcious.
To all users, Republicans and Democrats alike, lets stamp out this crap.
Simon (Hoping the FBI and Secret Service reads the net!)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17284 alt.politics.democrats.d:587 alt.politics.elections:23957 ba.politics:7170 co.politics:2092 ne.politics:3010 nj.politics:742 or.politics:653 ny.politics:262 talk.politics.misc:60452
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
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: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:21:36 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <BxoDHA.Cp@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <Bxo9z3.Kzx@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.184033.5936@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>>	Also,  I notice you state that a public servant,  for which I read
>>public employee,  should be willing to accept less of a pay increase than
>>the norm.  Why?
>
>    Because they are overpaid for what they do.  Otherwise, they would be able 
>    to find a better paying job elsewhere.  I'd keep the freeze in tact
>    until there is a shortage of them.
>

Good observation!


-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17345 alt.politics.democrats.d:607 alt.politics.elections:24027 ba.politics:7189 co.politics:2138 ne.politics:3028 nj.politics:754 or.politics:667 ny.politics:274 talk.politics.misc:60566
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: PKD's Time out of Joint **Spoilers!!** Re: Science Fiction?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:50:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.235321.7650@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.214440.6686@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>For a good look at life under a Clinton administartion, check out the
>>1980 film "The Last Chase".  :-)
>
>Heh, heh.  "The Day After", for that scary period in I think '83 or
>'84 when the Soviets realized that Reagan's "evil empire" rhetoric
>wasn't just campaign posturing.  I recall they sent agents all over
>Western Europe looking for NATO armies poised to invade the East. :-)
>
>>
>>"Morning In America"?  I don't think I know that one.
>
>"Morning In America" is a Reagan commercial from '80 (or '84) that
>essentially presented a nostalgic vision of the United States in terms
>of small towns.  Of course, this Norman Rockwellish picture of
>rural/small-town America is more fiction than reality, a glimpse of
>our Golden Age myth.  Perhaps it existed around 1900, certainly not
>afterwards, as America industrialized and urbanized.
>
The term 'evil empire' wasn't an accurate description of the then-USSR?
:-)    Let's see, there was the occupation of Eastern Europe, and Afgahnistan.
And their control of Nicaragua via Cuba.

ou ought to see the review of 'The Day After' I wrote in high school in the
fall of 1987.  Teacher thought it was 'interesting'......

(have you seen 'The Last Chase'?)
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Arkansas Trip
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:08:37 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <Bxy6Dx.H2z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell) writes:
 >My wife and I are planning a weekend trip down to Arkansas to see things
 >firsthand.  What's nice this time of year?  Has Little Rock been overrun
 >with liberals?

My wife and I spent a week in Ark. in Sept.. The north and north west
part of the state in really nice. Drive down the center of the state
through the Quchita Mountains to Hot Springs, It's a real nice scenic
drive. The best part was stopping in the small towns and talking with the
people in the town square, real nice folks. 

Visit Arkansas, I did and I will go back, nice place.

Cheers'

Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE volunteer
Transition '92