HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:15:53 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug11.163946.14614@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
]In article <BsnqHt.73E@wrs.com> string@wrs.com (String) writes:
]> .... What DO you stand for over there on the 'right'.
I am also on the right, but have a few disagreements with Patrick
McGuinness' otherwise excellent posting.
]
]>the environment...
]
]Enforce existing laws and regulations. Look for areas where market-based

Examine existing laws and regulations and determine a reasonable
tradeoff between environmental regulation, property rights and
economic progress.

]Encourage moving away from fossil fuels to nuclear power, conservation,
]and alternative fuels.

No! Get the externalities right and let the market decide.

]>the W.O.D. ...
]
]Continue efforts in enforcemnt and treatment, and vigorously pursue violation
]of law. Review and eliminate the abuses occuring in the RICO statutes,
]e.g., w.r.t. seizures.

Recognize that "enforcement and treatment" will not work without
draconian measures including even more threat to civil liberties.
Legalize drugs, and use the enforcement money saved (2/3 of the
total budget) for treatment and education.

Stop using legislation to enforce morality in the case of
"victimless crimes", a truly oxymoronic term to one who recognizes
natural rights.



-- 
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
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11089 alt.politics.clinton:2371 alt.politics.bush:2295
From: ses@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Darlene Wiedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:20:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

In article <1992Aug20.210324.23358@pony.Ingres.COM>, reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
> In article <170vmlINN9d5@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> >Nothing in yor post disputes the real point: Bush has no clue how to
> >balance the budget and concentrates on blaming the Democrats instead for
> >the terrible budget problems created by Reaganomics.
> >
> >It's morning AFTER in America.
> 
> I've been wondering -- Since  the  President  has to sign  legislation
> before it becomes law  and the congress has   not *once* been able  to
> override one of Bush's vetos how can Bush complain  that everything is
> Congress' fault?  I mean if they pass a bill that he does not like why
> doesn't  he just  refuse to sign  it. 
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Under the Constitution the President has 10 day (excluding Sundays) to
sign or veto a bill.  If he doesn't sign the bill within 10 days, it
automatically becomes law.  If Congress has adjourned during the 10 day
period, it fails to become a law.  This is known as a "pocket veto".

> 
> My point is this  -- Bush has no right  to blame congress for  all his
> woes, *he* is part of the process!

Agreed.  Finger pointing should have been left behind in grade school.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Darlene

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Darlene Wiedman                  "If you're not part of the solution, +
+ darlene@flash.ATC.Olivetti.COM      you're part of the problem."      +  
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.german,talk.politics.misc
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:28:38 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Aug17.212830.9788@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
|> 
|> 	One more note.  The Reagan 96 months of interrupted real
|> economic growth WAS NOT the longest in American history.  The longest
|> such period was 109 months from 1960-69.  The rate was also higher in
|> the 60s.  

Nobody ever said that it was the longest growth era EVER. What has been
said and repeatedly is that it was the longest PEACETIME expansion. We
were at war in Indo-China from 1960-1969

|> 	-JG
|> 
|> 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:20:51 GMT

In article <jhansen.713648637@convex.convex.com> jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>Raymond Lang writes:
>
>>Secondly, there's what's known as the "marginal utility" argument. It goes
>>something like this: the first x-thousand you earn goes to providing basic
>>necessities like food and shelter, this money has the highest utility to
>>you and so it is taxed the least.
>
>[Etc., etc.]
>
>This system wouldn't work either.  There would have to be different
>brackets for different sections of the country.  You can't expect
>someone living in rural Kentucky to be taxed the same way as someone
>living in urban California.

One can argue that local taxes can make up for the discrepancy.



--
This is not a .signature
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Candidate stands on term limitations
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:03:14 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

I'd like to know where Bush and Clinton stand on term limitations.  If you
know would you please post to the group.  Thanks.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Ford 1976 comeback
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:10:32 GMT

President Ford claimed during his convention speech tonight that he closed
the lead that Carter had over him and garnered 49.9% of the vote in the
election. His memory is too rosy.

The final results of the 1976 election:

	Carter   50.1%
        Ford     48.0
        other     1.9  (Gene McCarthy, et. al.)

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:01:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.163946.14614@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>The positive vision is hope, opportunity, and greater choice and freedom
>in our lives, and a reduction in the central power of Government.
>The vision is also one of tolerance and respect for the traditional values
>of our country and our society, the values that made the country great.
>

Unfortunately, the 'traditional values' of our country mostly involve
considerable *intolerance* for those who deviate from the dictated norms...

[routine conservative stuff deleted]

>--------------
>P. McGuinness "No vision? I'm a frayed knot."


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Liberal v. Conservative
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:43:56 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 713817333@cory.Berkeley.EDU, saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:
>
>In the last decade, the word 'Liberal' has become a derisive word
>used to label someone as out of the mainstream. Now suddenly we find
>that Clinton has taken a centrist ground on many issues, and that
>Bush is taking a extreme right-wing view of many issues. What
>is especially sad is that he is not advocating the views of the
>Goldwater-right that believes in small gov't, but rather the
>views of the religious right that wants to impose their narrow views
>on everyone on social issues. 
>
>							Saurav Chatterjee
>
And, IMO, a good strategy for both sides.

                *Warning*
          Generalizations follow

In general, liberals will vote for the more liberal candidate.  This
means, if Clinton can get the moderates (eg, Reagan Democrats) to vote
for him, he still will probably have the liberal vote.

Otoh, the religious right will either vote for someone who thinks like
they do (Clinton will _not_ get that vote), or they will STAY HOME (and
Bush will not get their vote).  I heard one delegate say that the platform
looks like it was written by the religious right.

--f2
------------------------------------
  I wanna be elected!
  --Alice Cooper or George Bush, I forget which
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Some truths about the economy
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:20:59 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Aug13.175646.26950@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <16842BFB1.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>>The Wall Street Journal published an article (August 11) which dispells
>>alot of the "crisis", doom and gloom rhetoric of the Denocratic Party.
>>Soem excerpts (I encourage all of you to read it):
>> a) the poorest 20% of households mean income, adjusted for inflation,
>>    rose 5% during the 80's
>
>Does this mean that the wife now has to work to keep _family_ income
>at the same level it was before Reagan?

Is it possible that more people in the work force (women) has a certain
effect on wages?  I wonder ( I do not know ) if more people equates to
lower overall wages due to that old supply/demand argument.
>
>> b) the average income , again adjusted fro inflation, is 40% higher for
>>    25-35 year olds compared to that age group 30 years ago.
>
>Note, 30 years ago (1962) was the start of the largest post-war
>economic expansion.  Where did the income rise take place?  Back
>then or during Reagan?  The WSJ stats are incomplete without this
>information.

Not at all, the claim by the Leftists is that the 80s were not all 
they were cracked up to be.  As an answer to the specific question 
the editorial is more than sufficient.  Have we not been hearing the
opponents of the Rightists claim that the last 12 years have been
a disaster?  
>
>> c) Family incomes adjused for inflation have grown 5% in the last 20 years.
>
>Again, how have the demographics changed in the last 20 years?  Certainly,
>more women are now in the work force.  If the wife brings in another
>$25K, certainly _family_ incomes would go up.  Remember our image
>of the 1950s, where only one member of the family worked?
>
See my first question, does it apply?
>>
>>And so it goes.  The only way to get a democrat into office is to scare
>>the public into thinking our world is crumbling.  It isn't.
>
>The only way a Republican can keep the office is to misrepresent
>stats.

I honestly do not understand this blind-spot, either intentional or not,
regarding the 80s.  It must be plainly obvious in comparison to the 70s
that the 80s were a great success EXCEPT that the congress continued to
spend more than it took in and thus the deficit.  The taxers and the 
takers approach to governance is not freedom oriented.  The only truly
free people are the independently wealthy, this is a fact.  When the
government takes your money they limit your freedom to live as you see
fit.  A Clinton tax increase would fly in the face of the factual success
of the 80s which leads me to wonder the reason behind their motives for
taking more of my earned income.

Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance,
and the gospel of envy.   Churchill
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,rec.humor
From: labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Announcing Quayletool V1.0!
Date: 18 Aug 1992 00:10:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berzerkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: e260-3g.berkeley.edu

Yes folks! It has finally arrived! The complete tool to go along with our
VP.  Features :

	o Dozens of quotations from Dan-o
	o You can have a different quote come up every 2 minutes (or every
	  second, or every day, whatever you want)
	o A picture of Dan Quayle
	o When you press "talk" his mouth moves and reads of the quotes!
	o Sorry, no sound :-(
	o You can edit Danny's picture (draw Moustaches, change hair-do), etc.
	
NOTE : THIS WILL ONLY WORK ON SYSTEMS RUNNING OLIT & OPENLOOK

Quayletool V1.0 is available from soda.berkeley.edu by anonymous ftp.
Look for the directory : ~ftp/pub/quayletool.
This is a public domain program

Mail complaints, bugs, suggestions, etc., to :

	eric@soda.berkeley.edu

Enjoy !

-- 
"And do you know what's inside ? A priiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiize !" - Stimpy
"You gave away ... FORTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ?" - Ren Hoek
Ren & Stimpy: On Nickolodeon,Sunday mornings @ 11 AM.  Watch it, you eediot !
Eric van Bezooijen - eric@soda.berkeley.edu, evb@logrus.eng.sun.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10892 alt.fan.dave_barry:589
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dave_barry
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:31:56 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University

In article <2A91AA13.11441@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>tom writes
>> just out of curiousity,
>> 
>> what kind of circulation does Dave Barry [libertarian/Anarchist] get?
>
>Dave Barry may be funny, but he no libertarian or Anarchist. Witness the fact  
>that he is a featured columnist in Liberal Opinion Weekly - The Magazine Which  
>Guarantees That Your Prejudices Won't Be Upset. 
>

Nope, he's a libertarian.  The Liberal Opinion Weekly just haven't
noticed yet (actually, if he restricts himself to criticizing
government and various social issues, it's just fine; liberals can be
anti-establishment: remember the Sixties?)


--
But this is.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Which states are a MUST for Clinton ?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:19:56 GMT
Keywords: States Clinton has to win

tebarth.bln@sni.de (Dominik Tebarth) writes:
>If my information is correct, Jimmy Carter WON
>(among others) Texas, Florida and NY
>but LOST California !

Kennedy also lost California, so the state goes occasionally for the losing
side. That should cheer up Bush, because CA doesn't look good for him right
now.

>Which states should Bill Clinton get just to secure a
>narrow victory ?

The pundits seem to emphasize Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania as keys to
both men's strategy.

---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:22:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug12.135211.2141@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.113301.16060@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>                                         You are correct that the flat
>>tax would have to be around 19%, but you either ignored/were unaware that
>>all such reasonable proposals include exclusion of the first $X thousand
>>dollars earned from any form of taxation. (I believe $X thousand is
>>usually $20k, but I would have to look it up.)
>>
>>  So, you see, in both of your examples above the people making less
>>than $20k would pay $0 in taxes, while everyone else paid 19% on
>>everything over the first $20k.  Also, flat tax proposals include virtually
>>no deductions outside of this $20k.  The idea is not only to make taxes
>>fair, but to eliminate many of the distortive effects that our current
>>system causes.
>
>Besides that, the basic argument still applies.  If the cut-off is at
>$20K, then Joe Taxpayer with income of $21K still has a much harder time
>coming up with $4,200 than H. Russ Billionaire with income of a million
>a year has finding an extra $200K.

  You don't understand the proposal.  Joe Taxpayer with income of $21K 
  only has to come up with $190.   (19% of the amount over $20K)

  You're right that regardless of the numbers the rich guy will
  always find it easier to come up with the money.  So what?  The
  goals of the flat tax proposals I've seen, are to reduce the 
  tax-induced distortions in the economy (compare the shape of 
  the curve in the above flat tax scheme to the current one), and
  to simplify the whole problem of taxation, tax law, compliance,
  etc.    The current complexity costs billions and billions of
  dollars, counting the cost of the IRS itself, the record-keeping
  costs, the cost of all the tax experts and tax attorneys who 
  must be hired, the costs of the all the mistakes that such
  complexity inevitably results in, and whatever wastes result 
  from people making business and investment decsions for tax reasons
  rather than for sound business and investment reasons.   The purpose
  of the $20K (or whatever) exclusion is just to protect the poor,
  who presumably need every cent they earn just to live. 

  As to the 19% figure, I would suggest that the actual percentage 
  must be chosen to be "revenue neutral" for political reasons if 
  we ever hope to get something like this passed. 


---peter





Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Regan (Was Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:32:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.222412.21139@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>In <1992Aug12.203543.14347@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>likely to practice what they preach and stick their hands in the till.
>>Witness the Regan Sleaze years...
>             ^^^^^
>Thank-o there, Phil(l?), for your "objective" views. Just what the
>doctor ordered. BTW, check your Webster's for Ronnie's last name. No,
>on second thought, you might not find it. ;-)

Hey!  Don't jump to conclusions!  He could have been talking about
Don Regan, Ronbo's chief of staff (former).


--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10581 alt.politics.clinton:1935 alt.politics.bush:1583 talk.politics.misc:39716
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
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: 14 Aug 92 17:36:49 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <1992Aug11.231343.24285@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>Let's throw this question out to the net.
>Where is the Laffer peak?

You can throw it all you want, but the answer is that no one knows.
Nobody can even really be sure that there IS 'a' peak; the curve may
(probably does) change shapes (more or less radically) over relatively
short periods of time (like the business cycle).


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:09:22 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc

In article <1992Aug13.014828.6633@cs.tulane.edu>, lang@cs.tulane.edu
(Raymond Lang) wrote:

> >  You're right that regardless of the numbers the rich guy will
> >  always find it easier to come up with the money.  So what?
> 
> So if I have to struggle to pay my taxes, so should the billionaire.

Why?  To punish achievement?  If I work my butt off so that I don't *have*
to suffer, who are you to say I still should?
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
I don't speak for Apple.  Really, I don't.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10727 alt.politics.clinton:2105 talk.politics.misc:40242 talk.politics.guns:19384
From: garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:30:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

The Crisp-in-ator writes:
>
>I think it is: Here is what happens when you legislate nationwide gun
>registration:
>
[. . .]
>
>2) you have an excellent set of records to be used to confiscate
>   weapons when Bill Clinton declares himself "President For Life"
>   and has the backing of his "National Police Force" (the Gestapo).
>
>Registration has time and again been used for confiscation. Why do 

References please. . . 

>we need to register guns? Do we want to collect taxes on them?

Great idea!

>purpose is served that is in our interest by registering all guns?
>What is wrong with registering criminals instead? How about registering
>Liberals? How about registering Socialists?

Actually, I am.  On election day, go to Palo Alto and look on the door
of the woman's auxillary.  My name is clearly posted on the list on the door
as a democrat.

Nobody has come for me yet.  :-)

>
>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

Richard,

Did the people who put down the coup in the ex-Soviet Union have a lot of 
guns?  If they had, I think that the nervous and hungry army would have
done some shooting, instead of foloowing their consciences.

Without giving away my stance on "gun control" (we do know how you
like to generalize, Richard), think about the following scenario.

Martial Bill declares himself president for life.  He orders army
into Cupertino and says shoot to kill.

What army will listen to those orders?

Only an army of elites who are fed better than the general population
and have more to lose by NOT following orders to kill their brothers.

If the country has a firm economic footing and feeling of relative
contentment and equality, there will be no need for revolution that 
requires guns.

Why were there riots in East LA and not in Westchester County, NY?

In my opinion, gun control as a tool to help or hinder a military 
takeover has little relevance.  Gun control also has little relevance 
on organized or 'semi-organized' crime.

Where it might help (but couldn't hurt) is getting guns out of the hands
of small time psychos, children, and abusive spouses.
-- 

   "To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."  -Plutarch
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10392 talk.politics.misc:39226 sci.econ:6801 alt.individualism:5222