HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: S&L mess
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:45:43 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1441@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd02waii.com (Michael Reed) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.153529.6712@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes|> 
>|> And don't forget that it was a few democrats in Congress in a midnight
>|> session in a backroom, without a public vote, who changed the insurance
>|> limit from 40k to 100k one day.  That raised the taxpayer's bill 250%
>|> in all this mess.
>|> 
>|> Congress made the saftey net over twice as soft.
>|> 

>Actually, only recently did the Resolution Trust Company (the government
>agency responsible for S&L bailouts) even start talking about the
>$100,000 limit.  Up until now, they have been insuring EVERY DOLLAR
>deposited in every failed S&L.  Not the $100,000 limit per individual,
>but every single depositor dollar.  Write a letter to your congressman
>about that one.

This was also done with that huge bank failure up in the Northeast a
year or so ago.  And most of those were BIG accounts.  Frankly, I
consider it almost criminal that FDIC is doing this, while the little
guy continues to get screwed into having to pay for it.


-- 
"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.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:34:18 GMT
 <21413@rpp386.lonestar.org> <1992Aug29.234548.3180@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug29.234548.3180@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:

> In article <21413@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> > permitted and who has what authority, etc.  According to the U.S.
> > Constitution, Congress has the sole authority for writing budgets.
> > Congress can pass any budget it feels like over the veto of the
> > President.  The President cannot submit a budget and force it into
> > law.
>  
> The fact is that while the President cannot pass a budget without
> Congress, he does submit a budget each year, and he has yet to submit
> a budget proposal that was even close to reducing the budget.  
>  
> Second, while the Democrats control Congress, they certainly don't have a
> 2/3rds majority to override Bush's veto.  Which means that if the
> Republicans cooperate with the President he has quite a lot of control
> over the budget process.

Only if he is willing to hold the entire budget hostage.  Remember, it is all or
nothing with the veto.  Do you really want the President and Congress to play
"chicken" with the entire government?  (well, maybe...)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4693 alt.politics.clinton:3663
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:55:36 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug30.230512.24833@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Unfortunately, the facts don't support your assertion.  Here is some
>data from the US Treasure Dept, via the World Almanac.
 
Actually, the facts =do= support my assertions.  You are neglecting to
adjust for inflation.  For example, in the late seventies, we had
inflation running above 10%.  That makes the 16% increase (the largest
of the 70's revenue increases) much closer to 6%, or less.  And with
the very low inflation rates of the 80's (typically 4 or 5%), the increases
of 10 or 11 percent that were common (three years had 10+%) were at or
above that same range.

>1976 (and consequently 1977) are screwed up because there was a 
>transitional period to change the fiscal year.  However, I think
>it's clear that Reagan's revenue record was slightly below average,
>and certainly doesn't merit the term "dramatic".  The average
>would be lower if I took out 1981, since it's not clear how much credit a
>President should get for the tax returns (which a large percentage are 
>collected in April) when they didn't take office until the end of January.

No, Reagan's revenue record was dramatically ABOVE average for the
very simple reason that in real dollars, Reagan's tax cuts produced
more inflation adjusted revenues than did the previous administrations.
Once you've adjusted for double digit inflation, Carter's tax revenue
increases are pretty pathetic.  I believe that in some of those years,
inflation was running pretty close to 12 or 13%.  Recasts the '78 and
'80 revenue increases of 12.4 and 11.7 percent respectively in a whole
new light, no?

This actually brings up another point, which is the increases in GNP
that were claimed for Democrats v. Republicans in the paper recently.
If a 4 year Democratic administration runs 10+% inflation for 4 years,
that administration had better do more than raise GNP by a measely 20%
or whatever the papers are claiming - hell, almost 47% (or -27% real
growth) of that is inflation!
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Spend, Spend
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:39:50 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

popec@rivdell.UUCP (PopeC) writes:

> Has there ever been a big spender like Bush in all of history?  No.
> And you will pay the tax for this sonner or later.  Better write you 
> Senators and Congresman befor October 1st when the budget for 1993 is 
> due.  Tell them to say no to Bush's amazing deficits!

And this is exactly why I dislike Bush, Mr. "read my lips" hypocrite.  I
trust Mr. Clinton even less, though; if you think Bush raised the deficit
(and taxes), I predict Clinton would do so even more!

> Especially you republicans out there!  Wake up stupid!

Got some other choice better than Bush (regarding deficits and taxes)?

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:54:22 GMT

In <1992Sep3.141027.14117@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.162922.29228@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:

>[...]

>|>> No more government freebies for anyone who makes over 20k.

>No more freebies, period.

Who pays to bury all the poor people who starve, die from exposure,
etc?

Who pays for the police to protect you when those poor people realize
that YOU have food and clothing?


-- 
"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.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice C
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:12:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <q805PB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:

>paco@cs.rice.edu (Paul Havlak) writes:

>> >In article <ggkXPB5w165w@keys.lonestar.org>
>> >cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>> >...
>> >>Go review the guiding philosophy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned
>> >>Parenthood.  One of the fundamental reasons she founded the organization was
>> >>because she hated the poor (and the minorities) who kept having children.
>> >>She wanted those vermin to stop having kids.
>> 
>>     What's your reference on this?

>From written notes compiled by a Dallas radio talk show host (with footnoted
>references aplenty, only one occuring in this passage):

The notes from the program certainly justify claims that she was a
eugenicist (which I already knew), but there's a big difference
between that and saying she 'hated the poor (and the minorities)' and
the implication that she considered them 'vermin'.


-- 
"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.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:00:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <7197@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
>Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
>Date: 26 Aug 92 19:31:46 GMT

>In article <exuptr.409.714853328@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>>Just because she's a woman?  I don't think so.  Otherwise, how can we tell 
>>her that it's necessary for her to continue feeding her infant?

>We can't, because it's _not_ necessary that that particular woman feed that
>infant; any person will serve (at least any lactating woman, even if you
>insist on fresh human milk).

Wrongo.  If the baby doesn't get fed, mama goes to jail.  It is her ultimate
responsibility, not the neighbors, etc...

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:58:18 GMT

In <1992Sep4.000241.22000@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.214809.15810@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In other words, THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE for all the
>>deficit spending we're doing.  Either he can control it (via veto and
>>threatened veto) or he can't.  If he can, then he is responsible for
>>the deficit.  If he can't, then there's no reason to reelect him.

>Sure there is.  Will Clinton do any better?  If Clinton is actually
>worse, it doesn't much matter how bad Bush is.

CAN Clinton do any worse?  I'm not sure how.

>We've seen Clinton's plan.  It is a vehement version of the 1990 tax
>increase and spending since then.  

We must not have seen the same plan.

>Bush MIGHT go for that if it was
>proposed, but Clinton WILL.  If you think that more of the same is a
>good idea, vote for Clinton.  If you think that more of the same is a
>bad idea, then the only chance you've got is a vote for Bush.

So you're of the opinion that the way to get change is to stay with
the guy we have now?  In other words, the way to get change is to not
change?  I don't THINK so . . .

Yeah, let's go for the guy who is going around handing out presents
(we got one here in our area) and who says he'll cut our taxes but
doesn't want to tell us how it will be paid for.  

Sounds like a GREAT idea to me.  NOT!


-- 
"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.
From: darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-Choice
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:09:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.

In article <1992Aug28.142403.1206@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>>There are many reasons why pro-lifers are opposed to abortion, of which
>>alpha's(*) pain is only one reason.  Even if abortion were totally
>>painless, I'd still be against it for the same reason that I'd be
>>against giving an infant an overdose of sleeping pills.
>
>The simple reason many Anti-choicers are opposed to these is the same reason
                                                     ^^^^^
>they are opposed to all birthcontrol.  Once again the hierarchy of the 
>Catholic Church is speaking.  

I assume by "these" you are referring to RU-486 and the morning after pill.
These are birth control only in the sense that they prevent birth.
IMHO, "birth control" is a term used for contraceptives, not
abortifacients.  (Yes, I know that my definition also excludes the
IUD, which I oppose on the basis of how it works -- but it seems to be
falling away anyhow for health reasons.)

Oh, yeah, get a clue, guy.  I'm not Catholic.  I don't buy the Catholic
birth control line.  I don't accept the authority of the pope.  I don't
accept the cult of saints.  I don't accept a lot of things about the
Catholic church.  In fact, my church (Lutheran) has been at odds with
Rome for a very long time (since the 1500s, when attempts at reforming
some really gross Catholic practices failed).

>Just as these people were able to get the Reagan
>administration to halt funding to the UN for birth control in the third world 
>they are now working in Mexico to end funding to that contries birth control
>clinics.  In fact much, not all of course, of this debate should be redirected
>to birth control in general. 

Are you talking about real "birth control" clinics or "abortion" clinics?
If you're talking about the former, would you care to cite a source
for your information?  

Daryl
--
Daryl Biberdorf                 |  Compaq Computer Corporation | standard
darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com |  20555 SH 249  M/S 060701    | disclaimer
dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu         |  Houston, TX 77070           | applies
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4441 alt.politics.clinton:2950
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Election '92
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:59:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Does anyone know where this came from:

		If I fool you once, shame on me!
		If I fool you twice, shame on you!

	Remember this when you start to pull that lever for Bush!

			Bye, Judy.
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Printed refs vs. 'I heard it on...'
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:30:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <1992Aug28.203039.10299@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Aug26.201331.22386@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>>Probably true, but, then again, political discussion without 
>>substantiated facts and data is just so much noise.
>
>From what I've seen, even WITH substantiated data it is just so much
>noise (taking into account some of the things I've seen cited here and
>the behaviour of some people when they elect to disagree with
>something someone says).  

Well, Fred, when you get ready to critically examine arguments and their
bases, let me know.  In the meantime, into the ol' kill file you go....

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992 
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4789 alt.politics.clinton:3998
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:54:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>The solution is deregulation.  Less interference.  And the breaking up of
>>the AMA monopoly labor union.

>Pray tell, how has the labor union done this? Every study I've seen,
>even the ones who don't want government interference, haven't mentioned
>the EVIL LABOR UNIONS. And please be specific. Thanks you.

AMA is American Medical Association.

Rich Doctors.  (That should make your liberal mouth water,) They
control the number of entries allowed into medical colleges.  Fix
prices and the supply and demand of medical labor.

They fix medical labor costs, which are the largest portion of medical
care costs.  American Doctors make much more than doctors in other
countries.  They are a powerful political lobby group.

The way to circumvent all this is to allow any qualified Doctor from
another country to immigrate to the U.S. if he can pass a certain
government controlled medical exam, (which should be difficult,) and if
he has been to some decent medical univerity, not necessarily an
American one.  Accreditation of foreign universities is a solvable
problem.

This would push down health costs.  It would screw the rich doctors,
which all you Clinton lovers should just LOVE (seems to be the
Democrats primary motivation in life - to screw the rich) without
tanking the economy (which Clinton's plan will most definitely do.)
-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 FICA doesn't help the poor.  It mostly goes to old people with incomes >$40k.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:50:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.234436.26310@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
>Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
>Date: 20 Aug 92 23:44:36 GMT

>In article <1992Aug20.160829.28245@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>I was.  Unlike John, apparently, I don't categorize people as
>>'enemies' just because I've disagreed with them or they with me.  
>>Unfortunately, this is just one in a string of notes from John Haugh
>>II that seems to indicate that he *IS* a total asshole.  I still
>>consider that HIS problem, though, and not mine.

>        Glad to see you're not enemies. (-: 

Yes, I would hate to think what would go on if they were :-)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                          - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se             "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: taxes
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:33:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

>It was Jimmy Carter.

As usual John has a point here.  
 
>Back when they started investigating the S&L fiasco, the Democrats wanted 
>to jump in with both feet.  But certain people in Congress were very quick 
>to point out that there were Republicans =and= Democrats to blame for the
>problems.  And with Congress being dominated by Democrats, the axe would
>likely fall more heavily on the side of Democrats.  So it has been a very
>slow war of attrition.

In the case of raising the coverage I would say you are probably correct.
But let's face it there is enough blame to go around.

>But the trouble started with Carter.  He is the one who expanded FDIC
>coverage all the way to $100,000.  It was the high interest rates of the

/* note !! reasonable stuff deleted but this is long enough anyway.

>class would have been protected just fine.  Speculators in bank CD's
>would have been the only ones injured by bank failures.  And since they
>are the ones that reaped the benefits, they are the ones that deserve
>to take the losses.

Boy, I'm sure not going to argue with the thought that a speculator 
deserves to take a lose when they are wrong.  However, the the fact that
this coverage was higher did not cause the market to go sour.  It would
appear that the following did in fact have a great deal to do with it:

"With the stated goals fo increasing savings and investment, the 1981 tax
breaks for commercial construction (specifically, depreciation allowances)
were so generous that a half-empty building could still make money.  this, 
of course, set the stage for the realestate bust of 1989-92.  And, as if
determined to make a bad bill worse, in 1982 Congress voted to let commercial
banks and S&L's invest in this crapshoot." 
The Great American Tax Fraud 
Consumers Digest Sep/Oct 1992.

A very interesting article indeed.  It is simply too long and I would not doubt
be violating copy right laws for me to post the whole thing.  Reagan fans
would not be happy it nor would anyone whole thinks the Congress is doing a good 
job.  It covers the tax laws of 1977, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1990.  
Rightly points out that this started under Carter, continued with gusto under
Reagan, correctly places equal blame on the Democrates in the congress, and
leaves you feeling like the only "lever to pull" in November should be for the 
new person.                                            

>-- 
>John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:


James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com                 
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:28:36 GMT

In <1992Aug26.031304.7400@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.173352.3184@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>>Someone said:  "Passing out condoms encourages their use."
>>
>>	What's wrong with that?  Condoms may not be perfect, but 
>>they do help with some of the negative effects of sexual activity
>>(disease and pregnancy).  Until somebody figures out how to reduce
>>sexual activity (other than getting married), we just do what 
>>we can.
>>

>What about the instances when condoms do fail?  They were supposed to
>stop things like AIDS and 'unwanted pregancy' but now we are stuck with
>the consequence of some our actions.  

>And in order to 'solve' the 'unwanted consequences' of our actions, we have
>to resort to some very ugly things like abortion, for example.

It makes more sense to NOT pass them out, and thus have more of those
'unwanted consequences'?  You would increase the number of those
'unwanted consequences' from only the cases where the condoms fail to
ALL cases (potentially).  This is an improvement?


-- 
"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.