HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:43:21 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among the poor es
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        That we don't count all sources of money that people receive when
>>determining the number of people below the poverty line.
>
>I agree with you that the poverty stats are not accurate (though for
>different reasons) but suppose that we were significantly overfunding
>anti-poverty programs that provide income support for those below the
>poverty line; wouldn't there be a significant *surplus* in the budget
>object that goes to income maintenance since it is means-tested?

        What we're far more likely to see is the kind of fraud and misuse
detailed in today's USA Today cover story about medicaid.

        When you give a bureaucracy N billion, it will spend N billion whether
it can find N billion worth of recipients or not.

        And as far as means-tested programs go, that only covers some of the
entitlements.  *None* of the entitlement programs, means-tested or not, can be
used under the current definition of "povert level".

        I don't think that arguing that some of the programs are mean-tested,
and thus *all* entitlement spending is ok will hold up.  It's pretty clear that
nonmeans-tested programs are putting far more money into the hands of those
considered under the poverty level.
        As of March, 1991, nonmeans-tested programs reduced the number of
people belowe the poverty level (statistically speaking) from 51,758,000 to
36,526,000 or about 15 million.  Yet when determining the economic situation in
terms of income for those 15 million (or anyone else...) we should not count
that money?
        Seems silly.
        After all there is a difference between someone with no money, and
someone with no money outside of SS, railroad pensions, veterans benefits,
unemployment and worker's compensation.
        In the first case, the need is actually X, while in the second the
actual need is probably X-Y (Y being some % of the nonmeans-tested benefits),
yet both are lumped into the same category when estimating how much funding any
one program needs.

        Which leads certain hospitals to spend medicaid dollars on Super Bowl
tickets....

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:08:17 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Are those advocating N% increases in pay for N% increases in profits
willing to take N% cuts in pay when the business losses N%?

Brett'
(On a side note, I'd be willing to work with that kind of a setup as a bonus
situation.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:16:48 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Yesterday's appointments, and tomorrow's

In article <POLITICS%92121113271619@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, Jamie
<PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> says:
>
>Here's the scoop on Clinton's appointments and the ones he is
>supposed to make today or soon.
>
>Already announced and official:
>
>Bentsen will be Treasury Sec'y.
>
>Leon Panetta will be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
>Panetta is now (I think) the chair of the House Budget Committee. He is
>a Democrat (formerly a Republican, changed colors in '71) from
>California.
>
>Alice Rivlin will be Panetta's deputy. She is a former director of the
>Congressional Budget Office, and currently a Brookings Inst. economist.
>
>Roger Altman will be Bentsen's deputy. Altman is a Blackstone Group
>investment banker. The Blackstone Group offers services to Japanese
>capitalists looking to takeover U.S. businesses.
>
>Robert Rubin will be Clinton's senior economic advisor. Rubin is co-chair
>(or co-something) of Goldman-Sachs.
>
>Here are seven appointments Clinton will make soon. All that's missing
>is the official stamp.
>
>Carol Browner will be head of the EPA. She was a top aide to Gore.
>
>Dana Shalala (I think one of our Ellens was asking about her) will
>be Sec'y of Health and Human Services. She is presently the chancellor
>of the Univ. of Wisconsin.
>
>Laura D'Andrea Tyson, a U. Cal. economist, will be head of the Council
>of Economic Advisors.
>
>Robert Reich, a Harvard political scientist, will be Sec'y of Labor.
>
>Henry Cisneros, the mayor of San Antonio, will head HUD.
>
>Timothy Worth, who just retired from a Senate seat (Colorado),
>will be Sec'y of Energy.
>
>Bruce Babbitt, whom you know, of course, will be Sec'y of the Interior.
>
>
>As for Secretary of State, it's allegedly a three-way horse race.
>Bill Bradley is one contender, Colin Powell is another. But my
>money is on Warren Christopher, who is heading up the Clinton
>transition team. It looks like Clinton has been handing out
>rewards and paying off promises, rather than fixing on an
>ideology. And Christopher is an insider.
>
>Jamie

What happened to Vernon Jordan?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:05:04 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
              17 Dec 1992 13:30:00 PST from <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>

From:         "Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be" <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>

>> I don't follow that.  Can I say we never had a deal so I am not
>> gonna pay?  After all, there is no signed or verbal contract.

> Sorry.  A contract is formed based on the generally accepted methods of offer
> and acceptance.  In a restaurant, the menu is the offer, and an order is an
> acceptance.  Consideration is the restaurant's service, and your promise to
> pay.  This also means that if you go to the barber and sit in the chair, you
> have a contract. (Many thanks to Profs. Dominic Vetri and R. James Mooney for
> this explanation.)

> Dan, ad nauseum

Can you honestly tell that it is less obvious to a reasonable average
person that s/he has to pay taxes upon being a member of the society
than it is to a person entering a restaurant and ordering food?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:42:29 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: your mail

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

>> Are blacks "UNNORMAL?"  How about atheists, jews, nazis, communists,
>> murderers, drug users, etc.?

> Did I wrote UNnormal?.  Looks funny. ABnormal looks better.

> Blacks -  you cannot judge the nationality or skin, you can judge
>       what people think, do, choose etc.

Really?  I would call a person with green skin abnormal.  Wouldn't
you?

> Atheists - strange but not dangerous

Who said anything about dangerous?  Are they abnormal?

> Jews (religion) - i know nothing about the subject

Well, doesn't THAT make them abnormal, at least according to you?

> Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )

--KAT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Tim's "duties"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:33:48 GMT


-T. makes use of an analogy to characterize his ongoing debates
with Tim...

>PS Ramon: have you ever played Ping Pong against an opponent who can barely
>return your serves?  Kind of bums you out, right?

I'm quite sure that Tim CAN barely return your serves.  But only because
you keep hitting the ball into the net.

--Jimbo




Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:02:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

>AHHHH! New word! Define "unnatural" please.

>(I was figuring this one would come up right after "nornal" proved
>to be less than adequate; I believe that "it's not moral" is the
>next step for those of you keeping score at home. ;) )

hey o'andy, maybe the words are anormal and unmoral?
somebody should make a list.
who's in charge of listmaking?
-linda
>-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: "KirkpatrickH" <kirkpatrickh@mumcbm.rferl.org>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:31:53 U
From:         KirkpatrickH <kirkpatrickh@MUMCBM.RFERL.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Andy F. quI
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

As someone who has recently returned from Russia, I would like to comment on
this with a Russain Fable.

IN 1917 a Russain Countess heard a loud commotion outside her bedroom. SHe
asked her maid what the commotion was. Her maid, as a poor proletarian, of
course, knew what was happening. She said, "The people are rioting."
The Countess, in her ignorance replies, "Why, whatever for?"
The maid says, "The people say NO ONE SHOULD BE RICH!".
To which the Countess replies, "Then that is really sad. My father was a
Decembrist, he died (as a rich man) because he believed that NO ONE SHOULD BE
POOR."

Let's get our directions straight
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:22:22 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Other People's Money

From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>

>> Well, David, are you saying that being a member of this
>> society is not "voluntary?" ... I am assuming
>> that you "voluntarily" decided to be a member of this society
>> which obligates you to pitch in for its expenses.

> Agreed. However, I think there is a clear distinction between
> buying a gallon of milk at the corner store; a voluntary,
> private transaction, and "buying" government services; which may
> be entirely voluntary (on the part of the taxpayer :-)) but the
> penalties for not "buying" are severe.

> Given the above, I believe our leaders (and I voted for some of them) have
> a moral obligation to both limit spending public money and to spend it
> wisely, neither of which is being done very well, IMO.

> -David (just call me "Hoss")

I have no problem with the above.  In fact I agree with the sentiment
that our leaders and elected officials are not spending our money
wisely or ethically.  However, your tone above is markedly different
from claiming that tax money is private money "taken" away from
individuals.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:34:53 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Does Spike have any white employees?  If Rush is so offensive towards black
 people how could they work for him and stand to listen to him?
-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:44:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      left and right
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Ernie:
>As a practical m
>atter, the political spectrum has long been defined in right-left context with
>the right traditionally being associated with conservative/status quo philosoph
>ies and the left with liberal/reform philosophies. (It's origin of use may even
> harken to something as escoteric as phyisical positions taken during debates.)

According to John Judis, in an essay that appeared in In These Times in mid-
1991, entitled "Looking Left and Right: the Evolution of Political Direction":

"In political history, the terms 'left' and 'right' originate in the French
Revolution, when the partisans of the revolution were seated on the left side
of the national assembly and proponents of the 'ancien regime' on the right.
As such, they have retained a generic meaning over the centuries, although
their specific meaning has changed with each new political era."

>Uncle Ernie

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: why gold
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:15:16 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

Caius writes (to Jamie):
>I have sent many (i think too many) postings with explanations. If you don't
>read POLITICS regularly, ask the LISTSERV for archives.

*chuckle*

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: "KirkpatrickH" <kirkpatrickh@mumcbm.rferl.org>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:13:37 U
From:         KirkpatrickH <kirkpatrickh@MUMCBM.RFERL.ORG>
Subject:      RE: Diversity of Views at Clinton's Summit?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Scully was there. Not exactly the staunchest democrat.

Kirk


"  the opinions were as diverse as clinton wanted them to be, namely
not at all. did anyone happen to see milton friedman there? jack kemp?
paul volcker? lee iacocca? anyone who might have disagreed?

  one writer called it "the defining moment of the clinton presidency".
my guess is that this is correct . . . just a big ol' love fest. or
maybe a circle jerk. take your pick . . .

rtf"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:34:36 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: the operation rainbow thing; or,

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

>> Whe  Robert told us not to interfere in Oregon's internal affairs
>> just recently, some of us knew that it wasn't due to the meddling
>> that Robert was against, but rather the specific legislation (anti
>> gay?) that he was for.
>> KAT

> Just as in Oregon, my position is/was that it was a matter for those
> involved.  Non-residents of Oregon should have kept their noses out.
> Likewise, the locally-elected school board should only answer to the
> local community.  Is this just too hard for you to grasp?

Well, I applaud you for that. . .  So if an outsider would have complained
about the action of the Superintendent of Public Education (which
I think someone DID) you would have told them not to interfere, right?
Then why didn't you?

> ---Robert

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:19:53 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re:
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET" at Dec 15, 92 9:13 am

MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET pisze:
>>
>> Dear Caius,
>>   I think you should know that while rightists have the same rights
>> and freedoms as the rest of us,
Agreed. We all have the same rights and freedoms (at least we should have)


 they are definitely NOT normal.

Why not? I can't understand your point. What "rightist" do you speak of?

>> (Care to define your terms, chum?)
>> Provisionally Cordially,
>> Michael
>>

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:35:31 EST
From:         Joseph D Terwilliger <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Brett

     I AM a Conservative

      I voted against Bush.    (PAT BUCHANAN RULES!)

--Pizz--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:25:48 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              16, 92 4:24 pm

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> >> Would you please define "normal."

Doctor Pizz has sent in a definition i agree with.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:18:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      Uncl ad infinitum

In support of Ellen's critique of Robert's uninformed comments I would like
to add that those of us in "Ivory Towers" were not born into this place.
Many of us had careers outside of academia prior to entering our
"cloisters."  I've been an architect, combat arms officer in Vietnam,
sales manager, and political campaign manager.  Its important that
one has "life experiences" before coming to academia.  After all one
requires breadth of experience before one can make a truly informed
opinion on many topics.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:49:19 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      ooops!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

before the spelling police get after me...

the word I meant to type was "straighten"

-o' a
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:32:21 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re:

Dear Mister Terwilliger,
  Out of sheer fabulous amusement at your suggestion that Bush is
a liberal, I will waste precious netspace replying to your posting.
You either did not read the Caius posting to which I replied--and
I sincerely hope this was the case, since it would explain everything
rationally--or somehow contrived to miss the irony of what I said. Poor
brother Caius has taken up the homophobic mantle from several others on
the list, and believes that his undefined and indefensible notion of
"normal" gives him the right to sledgehammer other lives (doubtless in
the fervent service of the Prince of Peace, who said distinctly "Thou
shalt love thy white heterosexual neighbour as thyself"; bitchin' the
way we devils quote Scripture, ain't it?). In a riposte which was, I
dare say, depressingly obvious by my literary standards, I tried to make
feeble light of this appalling anti-human position by comparing "rightists"
to gays.
  Too subtle? Okay, I'll spell it out: a DECENT society has not the least
thing to do with the terrified and terrifyingly mindless mythologies of
nomadic tribes, especially not as a rational foundation. The framers of
the Constitution, whatever their other blind spots, saw this very clearly,
and took great pains to keep religious dingbats from inflicting their dour
idiocy on their fellow citizens. Indeed, the whole aim of the constitution
is to create a viable division of spheres of influence, both in terms of
levels of government and, to our present point, public and private spheres.
If someone is a rightist or a flat-earther or a Jehovah's Witness or a
Lysenkoite, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to cause them to be discriminated
against in the pursuit of their lives and welfare. Those sexual preferences
which do not affect the well-being of society ARE NO CONCERN of yours,
however moronically you define "normal". That plain enough? No? Don't
legislate private morality, no matter what Falwell says; mind your own
goddam business, and stop persecuting your fellow citizens by trying to
use the law to enforce your barbarous prejudices. Thank you.
MWM
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Other People's Money
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:05:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Well, David, are you saying that being a member of this society
>is not "voluntary?"  If you are not willing to be a member, just
>go live in a cabin and eat . . . what ever the other poster so
>eloquently proposed.  So by being right here in the middle of
>civilization and using all its fruits and exercising your right
>to vote, etc., I am assuming that you "voluntarily" decided to be
>a member of this society which obligates you to pitch in for its
>expenses.
>
>--KAT

        I'm sure two wolves would say the same thing to a sheep about what to
have for dinner :).

        Majority rule must also be equitable to the minorities involved.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:42:29 EST
From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

>
>
>Jenna:  Read the list more carefully.  I believe my last post on the matter
>included an indication that it would be, oddly enough, my last post on the
>matter.

Oh. hmm. so, this isn't your last post on the subject then? the
other post was the last? then what post is this? oh, i'm just so
confused. this must be the "wicked last" post on the subject huh?

>If this does not satisfy you (or any of your classmates), I believe my
>grandfather had an old Navy expression that would sum it up:
>
>                        T.S.

Tasty Sailors?

neat.

jenna
>
>
>-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:41:25 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      the world's policeman

This post is presented in memory of the dear departed Jay Steven Sultan
who was the major proponant, as all good historians know, of the U.S.
role as world policeman.

Bobby Fischer, former world chess champion is going to have his earnings
confiscated by the U.S. because of violation of economic sanctions
against Yugoslavia. He could possibly be deported or sent to jail. Boy,
I'm glad we have our best minds working on solutions to world problems.

fred