HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:40:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.155707.25138@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>	Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>>>do not automatically translate into more money.
>>>
>>>Brett                                                      
>>
>>Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
>>economic growth led to the highest deficits
>
>This is myth.  And (sadly) what the Democrats seem to repeat again and again.
>
>" Putting theory to one side for a moment, were the Reagan tax cuts a good
>idea? More specifically, could the country afford them? By 1985, at a revenue
>cost of $33 billion, economic output was between 2 and 3 percent higher
>than it would have been without the tax cut. That extra growth stands
>for millions of new jobs and a higher standard of living. ...
>By the standards of government programs this one would have to be judged
>a bargain."
>
>" The great deficit increase of the 1980s was overwhlemingly the result
>of higher spending, not lower taxes. .... spending was responsible
>for at least three quarters of the increase in the deficit."

And the tax cuts for the other quarter?  There are a variety of causes
that can lead to increased economic activity.  One of them is increased
demand.  I am curious as to how Lindsay separated these effects.
Assuming that the $33 billion was attributed to the tax cut, how was
this connected to increased economic activity?
>
>- Lawrence Lindsay, "The Growth Experiment"
>
>The tax cuts did affect revenues, by causing inflation to drop
>faster than it otherwise would have.
>
>---
>Pat
>P.S.
>
>>For those who want to unilaterally blame congress (I blame both), please
>>tell me which appropriations bills were passed over Reagan's veto.
>
>- Highway traportation bill, 1987, for start (cost: about $80 billion I think).
>- Numerous others

I have often read that Reagan was only overriden on political bills, such
as sanctions on South Africa.  (Digression: funny how the repubs seem to
take credit for changes there on wed night).  On the assumption that
this is misinformation, and secondly on the assumption that you
believe that Congress is responsible for the 80's deficits, please
tell me what the $$ difference was between Reagans proposed budgets
and the ones that actually were signed.  Lets add up the differences
and see how it compares to the deficits.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War"
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:43:43 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <01GNTJR4BO80002VD9@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
>
> (religious claptrap)
>

I see the Perotista's are starting to return their worship to god. Maybe they
should run Jesus for President?

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:05:35 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug21095144@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Aug20.192934.29839@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
><   In article <1992Aug20.021305.3644@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
><   >
><   >	Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
><   >do not automatically translate into more money.
><   >
><   >Brett                                                      
>
>
><   Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
><   economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
><   something to do with it.
>
>	Do those 7 years also include the 1982 tax increase (TEFRA)
>	which was billed as a "down payment on the deficit"; you
>	DO recall that part of the "deal" was a reduction in
>	spending that never appeared?
>
>	And how about the 1986 tax increase?

If taxes actually went up, then what is it that led to this wonderful
prosperity for 7 years, higher taxes?

Well Reagan fans, what is it that happened in the 80's.  Did taxes go
up or down?  I became a taxpayer midway through Ronnie'e Rule so I
can't actually say what the history of the rates is.
>
><For those who want to unilaterally blame congress (I blame both), please
><tell me which appropriations bills were passed over Reagan's veto.
>
>	Tell me how to stop Congress from spending $1.5 for every
>	$1.0 in revenue.
>

I wish I knew how to do that.  It doesn't change the fact that there is
enough blame to go around for democrats and republicans.  Blame-mongering
by _both_ sides is pure politics, IMHO, and will not help to solve any
of these problems.

Fact is, I wouldn't be too surprised if we end up with a Democratic
president and a Republican congress next year!
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41001 alt.activism:15200 misc.headlines:5799 sci.econ:6987
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:16:16 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: It's another tax hike!  Do you know where your congressperson is?

In article <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
> da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
> b > Brett (Stupendous Man)
> 
> b > Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
> b > do not automatically translate into more money.
> 
> da> Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
> da> economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
> da> something to do with it.
> 
>   Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>   spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
> 

	Another thing people conveniently forget is what that 1986 tax raise
was supposed to do.  It was supposed to be used to take a bite out of the debt. 
Hmmm.  I wonder where those dollars went?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 04:45:41 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <Bt0JDy.3yD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug15.061844.2304@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.du (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>>
>>	Wrong.  They are guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights
>>and are specifically NOT subject to majority rule.  The majority may not,
>>for example, decide to establish a State religion and ban all other forms
>>of religious expression.  It may NOT vote to censor all news media on the
>>basis of political content.  And so on.
>
>Sorry, Chuck, you are wrong.  These rights were initially granted by a
>simple (at least by state) majority (I don't want to go into
>constitutional history but will if pressed).

     The Constitution, and other documents of the period, make no claims
to *granting* rights.  All rights are *protected*.  The Supreme Court has,
in fact, on a variety of occasions mentioned this.  That the Constitution
only recognizes rights, not grants them.  This was why many opposed the Bill
of Rights.  (Madison, its primary author, for one)  They thought it was
redundent.  Further, they were afraid of exactly what had happened.  That
because *some* rights are listed, that those are the *only* rights.

>Any of these rights may
>still be modified if changes are made to the constitution.  If enough
>Americans want the Lutheran religion to be the law of the land then they
>can pass an amendment to that effect.  That is the point of democracy.

     Reread your Constitution.  Not once during the process is "the
majority" given the opportunity to make a binding decision on the subject.
They may scream at their legislators, and even vote them out in favor of
ones they like better, but it is still them, and not the people, who make
the decision.  The United States is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy.

>Tim

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead)
Subject: The Republicans: Down in Flames
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 20:05:17 EDT

Well I've been keeping track of the convention and it's not a pretty 
sight.  They're just about ready to proclaing Hillary 
Clint the Antichrist down there.  They lead off with the dumbass who got 
us into this mess (Lord of the Laffer 
curve Uncle Ronnie) then segue into Pat 'jail the homless' Buchanan.  
Then they unviel their 
program, which i a compendium of the same drivel that has then 20 points 
behind in the polls as it is.
The Republicansjust don't get it do they? This platform of theirs, 
tailored for the tongues-speaking,snake-handling, bible-banging fundies is 
not going to play in Poughkeepsie.  You would think they would try 
something new, but of course they can't.  They are not going to keep 
people's minds off plant closings and unemployment and the generally 
downsizing of the American dream for ten weeks by chanting the family 
values mantra and bashing gays.  and Bush can't open his mouth on 
employment, or the deficit, or the national debt, or taxes or any of the 
things that have people REALLY losing sleep these days without getting 
beaten over the head by Clinton with the legacy of Reagnomics.
I think it'll be the women that finish them off though.  Once they realize 
that this platform is informed by the religious right's barefoot and 
pregnant agenda for them, they'll bolt to the democrats like spooked 
horses.
Time is on Clinton's side. All he has up the pressure, not wim
wimp out in the home stretch like Dukakis, match Bush salvo for salvo in 
the media and he's good as elected.  The rating are going to go down real 
fast on familyvalues,familyvalues,hare rama,hare rama and 'hate him hate 
him hate him he's a liberal real fast.  "The republican have nothing to 
offer and Bush isn't going to slime his way out this time.

 This is from
     bmb@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40689 sci.environment:10750
From: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:03:54 GMT
Reply-To: rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent)
Distribution: na
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA

In the referenced article, rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis) writes:
>people regardless of whether they use a private automobile.  I have
>never seen a reduction on property taxes for not owning a car.  

No, no, there is a property tax *on* the actual car. It is part of the
license fee in most states.

>Property 
>taxes should not cover any of the costs of roads, rather the full costs
>of each form of transportation should be covered in its use.  The
>easiest way do do this would be through a gas tax, larger vehicles would
>thereby pay more, roughly equivilent to their greater use of space and
>road wear.

I often wonder where people get ideas like this. Personally, I feel
that taxes should be used solely to support the infrastructure that
enables the activity being taxed.

Thus, real property taxes should go towards the infrastructure
necessary to support real property. This includes, fire departments,
police departments, local roads necessary to enable fire and police to
do their jobs, sewer systems, and any subsidization of electrical,
gas, phone, mail, defense, local environmental, and other property
services that are deemed a public good. Commuter transportation
services (e.g.  freeways and mass transit) should certainly not be
included. In the case of property taxes on actual vehicles, these
should go solely towards vehicle infrastructure.

Income taxes should support the infrastructure necessary to the
generation of income. These include (minimal) necessary regulatory
expenses, some subsidization of commuter transit services, education
expenses (an educated populace being necessary to commerce, industry,
and income generation), defense, etc., etc.

Sales taxes and business taxes should support services necessary to
commerce (which are largely similar to those necessary for income, but
not exactly the same...R&D for example).

User fees such as gas taxes and transit fares should go entirely to
subsidizing the users' activity, including policing, maintenance and
cleanup services, if necessary.

IMNSHO, in no case should government or general taxes be used to
support anything that does not fit the economic definition of a public
good. I.e. the resource is accepted as a public benefit, an additional
user generally adds very small or no additional burden to the system
(above and beyond any immediate user fee), and use of the resource
either is mandatory or is difficult, impractical or impossible to
regulate.



-- 
"When you're down, it's a long way up
 When you're up, it's a long way down
 It's all the same thing
 And it's no new tale to tell"                      ../ray\..
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39559 ca.politics:6763
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:56:34 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <193194@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> In article <11702@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> [Paul Bartholomew lies deleted]
# # If the homosexual power agenda is fulfilled, will people like Roy Radow
# # of NAMBLA (who posts to soc.motss regularly) be in positions of power?
# 
# I do like that phrase, "homosexual power agenda".  It certainly sounds better
# for Clayton's crusade than "equal rights" or "equal opportunity" or "freedom
# from discrimination," three other interpretations of homosexual political
# activity.
# 
# This, incidentally, is one of the driving forces behind Clayton's crusade.
# All of this started more than a year ago with a discussion about AB101.
# Clayton opposed it, as did many others, on the grounds that it interfered
# with the right to Freedom of Association.  This was a valid argument,
# whether you agreed with it or not.  When it passed anyway, Clayton began
# this child molestation crusade and has kept it up ever since.  If he can

No, during the effort to stop AB 101, I saw tape of NAMBLA marching
in the S.F. parade.  I was utterly shocked, because I *knew* that
homosexuals weren't supportive of that sort of thing.  I made one
innocent posting in soc.motss asking why, since homosexuals didn't
support child molestation, they didn't exclude NAMBLA from the
parade -- and the sea of support for NAMBLA made me see that homosexuality
is a form of mental illness.

# convince others that homosexuals are child molesters and psychologically
# disturbed, then he'll have an easier task defeating AB101 if it comes up
# again.
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of

AB 101 bugged me a lot.  But I'm even more bugged by the amount of
support that NAMBLA gets from the gay community.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40379 alt.politics.elections:10794 alt.politics.clinton:2152 alt.politics.bush:1967
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:15:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates 
>opportunity for ALL to advance!  

I've always had trouble with this. What else are investors going to do with
their money?

I suspect this is nothing but Reaganomic brainwashing.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:07:10 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I suspect that both Bush and Clinton did have affairs.  SO WHAT!  It
would be nice if we could move beyond the gutter to discuss something
more important than who wet his willy where.

--Scott
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 20:42:50 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug13.124053.3428@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug12.210005.13671@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
|> > It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos
|> > like Mary Matalin protest the New York Post article
|> > on George's alleged affair with a staff aide.  I wonder
|> > why the same indignation was not present when the Clinton
|> > allegations surfaced.  It's rather fun to watch the
|> > Bush operatives wallow in their own sleaze.
|> 
|> 	Clinton and Flowers both said "we did it", neither Bush nor Jennifer
|> (what's her last name?) have said any such thing.
|> 
|> 	Just a wee bit o' difference, eh?
|> 
|> Brett                                                      

Clinton said "we didn't have an affair."  Are you trying to change
history?  So far, only Flowers has said anything, and that was under
the inducement to make a lot of money.  She had already, for free,
said that she had not had an affair with Clinton.

Has the Clinton campaign referred to a possible affair by the 
president?  I haven't heard them.

Whether Clinton or Bush have had affairs is frankly irrevelant.
Whether Mary Matalin should be able sleep at night is revelant.  She's
an example of the end justifying the means.
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: BUSH: Acceptance speech text
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:02:32 CDT


>           Text of President Bush's Acceptance Speech
[...]
>     Where does my opponent stand with Congress?  Well, up to New York
> at their convention, they kept the congressional leaders away from the
> podium--hid them away.

This is funny considering all the Republicans that stayed away from the
Republican Convention because they do not want to be associated with Bush.

Rep. Jim Ramstad is home campaigning.  I don't think the Repubs would let
Sen. Dave Durenburger go to Houston...

>     They didn't want America to hear from the people who really make
> the decisions.
> 
>     They hid them for a very good reason--because the American people
> would recognize a dangerous combination:  a rubber check Congress, and
> a rubber stamp president.

Like Vin Weber.  He decided not to seek re-election to Congress just after
the his name showed up on the list of check bouncers.  So Bush names 
Weber co-chair of his re-election campaign.

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Note to those who will respond to my posts
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:24:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.183102.13510@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>   It's been fun discussing things.  Perhaps when I come back, totally
>new topics will be introduced? :)
 ^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, right.  This is the same net that's still carrying on about
Terminator 2 and Alien 3.  And Perot.



--
But this is.
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The buck stops where?
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:12:19 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

David Veal) writes:
|> 
|>      It is not the President of the United States job to force the Congress
|> to do anything.  If it's anyone's job, its yours and mine.  His job is
|> to run the government and execute the orders of Congress (We have an
|> Executive Branch, not a Leadership Branch.)  The President's job
|> description doesn't include making jobs, fixing the economy, educating
|> children, or any of the thousand other things everybody wants to head
|> at his feet.
|> 
|>      Most of it isn't even Congress' job.  Even if it should be we should
|> be talking amending the Constitution to make it so and not simply
|> fudging our way around it.
|> 
Whoops?  It is the president's job, as the Chief Executive Office of this
company, to hire and fire, to run all of the departments that report to
him, to demand efficiency in execution, to run the training (education)
department, etc.  It is Congress' job to work with him to decide how much
money he will get to do this.

There are 2 classes of expenditures:

1 Congress can also set benefit levels (FICA) but the President gets to decide
how much money it will take to provide the benefit level (through how
efficient he makes the Social Security Administration).

2 Congress can set the funding level (nuclear waste cleanup fund), but the
president decides how effective the execution is by deciding (for example)
whether to spend 90% of the budget on studies and 10% of the budget on
clean-up or vice versa.

Congress actually spends very little money, although they don't seem to
be any more efficient at it, but that isn't their primary job.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush