HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Latest economic indicators down 11/3
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:23:29 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Stupendous Man writes:
>Lee W Campbell writes:
>...
>>    I remember when the Reagan Revolution started. Reagan told us
>> how easy it would be: He would cut taxes, the ecomomy would grow
>> itself, the deficit would close, and all the while, "Happy Days"
>> blared in the background. As we all know, the economy did grow,
>> but the deficit grew faster and it has caught up with us. The
>
>	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.
>
???
Using figures you provided some time ago, the deficit as a % of GNP
never fell below 3.1% of GNP during the Reagan years. The highest
% was 6.2% of GNP. The highest % of GNP under that old, irresponsible
Jimmy Carter was 2.8% of GNP. So, in that the percentage of
the deficit to GNP peaked at 6.2  (4.1,6.2,5.0, 5.4, 5.3,3.4,
3.2,3.1) I guess, yes, you could say that the rate declined during
the 80s. Sort of like the pain is less when you stop sticking
2 bamboo shoots under your fingernails and switch to only 1.



-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15692 alt.politics.elections:22510
From: scottm@intime.intime.COM (Scott Michel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.election,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Cruel Joke?!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 02:00:26 GMT
Organization: Home for J-24 Sailing Programmers, Santa Monica division

All I've been hearing on our local community college radio station is the
post election analysis (boring... How many times does it take someone to
say that Bush ran a non-campaign?). But NPR's afternoon show has been going
after Clinton's dark side, notably that he never gives a straight answer,
as evidenced in the interview with Sam Donaldson and the question about
Arkansas' right to work law.

Has this all been a cruel media joke, pumping up Clinton, now only to tell
everyone what he's really like?!? What a hangover this'll turn out to be
in four years (not to mention mine today!)

Happy to say, I was part of the 57% of the popular vote against Clinton.
And, don't forget, that one gets what one votes for.

-scottm
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17017 soc.culture.asian.american:10053
From: jimmy@clipper.ingr.com (Jimmy Blair)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton....1st Women President ?
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:38:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <Bx93p1.6It@wilber.rich.nt.com>, zing@wilber.rich.nt.com (Leon Z. Lee) writes:
> 
> Therefore....the question that I would like to submit to my colleagues on this
> newsgroup is that will Hillary Clinton be such a power broker within the
> confines of the White House (she does possess a Law degree...and she 
> certainly is not the kind of lady contend only baking cookies at home).

	We've already had one -- Nancy Reagan.  She practically had
	the power to hire and fire the closest aides to Ronald Reagan.
	This was possible because Mr. Reagan was a very passive man
	while his wife was both dominant and protective.  Clinton, on
	the other hand, is very active.  He talks so much, in fact,
	that I don't know how Hillary can get a word in edgewise.
	Clinton doesn't strike me as needing a food-taster in the White House.
	Hillary will have some input in education and "women's issues",
	but her ultimate power will be much more limited than Nancy Reagan's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16220 talk.politics.misc:58635 talk.politics.drugs:7350
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:13:32 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>I think everyone should be left alone as long as they
>>>aren't hurting anyone else.
>
>>Everyone should be left alone as long as they aren't
>>non-consensually hurting anyone else.  It's OK to
>>"hurt" someone who has *freely* agreed to it.
>
>I wouldn't call that "hurting" someone.  If they have freely agreed to 
>it, then they're obviously benefitting from it in some way, so they're 
>being helped, not hurt.

I made the distinction because I think it's a very important one.

Under your original statement, opponents can argue that you *are*
actually hurting someone by selling them drugs (and they have all
these Scientific (tm) studies to prove it), and so it's OK for
society to hassle you for doing that, just like if you were hurting
your victims with a knife.

Another way to approach this problem is to say that "hurt" is in
the mind of the beholder and each person should judge for himself
what "hurts" him.  This is reasonable in one direction but not
the other:  in civil suits you have to have disinterested parties
(juries) decide whether someone has been "hurt" or not.

Because of all this, I take the approach that "hurt" is irrelevant:
it's consensuality that really matters.

Dave
-- 
	Truth is an evaluation of a statement within a context.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Excited about Clinton?  (was Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:28:49 GMT

In article <BALDWIN.92Nov5092606@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:

>	17%	"excited" about a Clinton presidency
>
>	25(?)%	[???] about a Clinton presidency (I don't remember the
>		    exact word used here, but it fell between "excited"
>	 	    and "concerned")
>
>	25%	"concerned" about a Clinton presidency
>
>	28%	"scared" about a Clinton presidency
>
>I'm not real sure about that second number, but the point is that 53%
>of all voters (counting those who had "no opinion" who weren't
>explicitly mentioned) are either "concerned" or "scared" about
>Clinton.  I should say, as a matter of revealing my own bias, that
>given the wording of the question, I wouldn't fall into either of
>those two categories.  (I should also say that if the Cold War were
>still on, I would be applying to the Seychelles for a visa right now.)

the second word there is "optimisitic."

of course people are concerned about the next presidents term. what
a poorly worder question. i voted for clinton, and im concerned
about his presidency. WHY THE FUCK WOULD I HAVE VOTED IF I WASNT
CONCERNED?

i guess my point is: Who cares what the f*ck a USA today exit poll
says? 

CLINTON WON
BUSH LOST

and thats the statistic that counts.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter F. Couvares)
Subject: Drug Legalization & Taxation, Drug Use [was Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT]
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Amherst College
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:27:57 GMT

doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
>> The solution is to legalize and tax drugs [...] to fund more education,
>> advertisement, and rehabilitation programs.

>Read my lips: less taxes, period.

	I don't agree. Although the government has absolutely no legitimate
authority to prohibit drug use, that doesn't necessarily mean that it
shouldn't try to offset some of its negative consequences.

	I expect you diagree on Libertarian principles which I understand
but do not wholly subscribe to. I don't think taxation for the purposes of
education, quality & quantity regulation, and rehabilitation poses any
threat to people's freedom, and I think such programs do an enourmous
amount of good.

I have one other small objection:

>Careful!  The vast majority of drug users find drugs a boon, not a bane.

	I wouldn't say the _vast_ majority. It really depends on where and at
whom you look. In middle class areas, you'll find much healthier, happier
drug use than you will in lower class areas. I have lots of compelling
reasons to use drugs responsibly, but many others do not. In a situation of
economic and social stability, people don't tend to abuse drugs as much as
they do in situations of economic and social despair.

	Reading further into your post, I get the feeling that you actually
agree with me on this second point, but comments like the one above often
turn people who have witnessed the very opposite away from the idea of drug
legalizaton.

-Peter

pfcouvar@unix.amherst.edu (Peter Couvares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  9 Nov 92 16:20:58 GMT

vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:

>Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
>OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.

>For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
>down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
>I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
>assholes.

>If you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WE DON'T NEED YOU NOW, OK????

>Jeez...

>-Garrett

Darn, Bush should have deported *you* when he had the chance!

Martin



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15753 alt.politics.elections:22584 alt.politics.perot:5142
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: PKD's Time out of Joint **Spoilers!!** Re: Science Fiction?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:14:07 GMT

>
>Oh, given that space weapons are involved, I'd say it was a GOP
>administration plotting against the protagonist. :-)
>
You post an article about plans for technilogical development then
criticize space technology!  :-)

Remember, all our rocket technology can be traced back to the
mid and late 1940s, to the German V-2 rocket, a *weap
Somerthing interesting about science: weapons research and non-military
research go hand-in-hand.

Swords-to-plowshares sounds great on paper, but does it have a place in
the real world??

Who do you think had major influence on the shuttle's design??
NASA??   BZZZZ Wrong! The Air Force.

Now where would our technology go without the military??  :-)

(the preceding has been good-natured political humor, not intended to
flame or offend)

Simon
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:54:05
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Nov6.201258.15504@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:12:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.201258.15504@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:


   In article <MDL.92Nov5144420@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
   >In article <rabjab.201.720915937@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:

   >   Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?

   >Dan Quayle will get the fuck out of it and maybe they'll let
   >Richard Truly (a great American) run it like he's paid to do.

Goldin, Truly is gone.

   >   Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
   >   of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
   >   probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
   >   and other major projects.

Pah!

   >Clinton is on record as supporting the super-collider

   I was always under the assumption that a Democratic administration would
   be hostile towards any technological development.  Like the space program
   in general.  Were the delays in the shuttle program in the late '70s
   caused by Carter or was this just a coincidenc??

Actually I believe the shuttle first flew in 1981? That would suggest
that the bulk of development and construction was under Carter. For all their
rhetoric the Republican administrations don't exactly have a stellar
record on space issues, a lot of the NASA malaise looks from here to have
developed under Nixon and Reagan more than anyone else...



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16783 alt.politics.democrats.d:438 alt.politics.elections:23424 co.politics:1782 ne.politics:2874 nj.politics:653 ny.politics:176 talk.politics.misc:59490
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:00:42 GMT

In article <FOX.92Nov6220309@graphics.nyu.edu>, fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
} In article <1992Nov6.210459.2104@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
} 
}    To answer your question, I simply say that we who
}    are NOT wealthy defend the rich because we see an injustice being
}    done...
} 
}    Because they can afford to is no justification in my book. Just
}    because someone can "afford" to give up something he has worked
}    for and earned does not give the envious or resentful the right
}    to take it away from him. Learn that.
} 
} We rich folk appreciate your concern, but many of us feel that
} we will get good value for the additional taxes we will pay.

On the off chance that you weren't being sarcastic, if you really
believe you get such a good deal from this, why wait for government
to pass some law that taxes that money away from you?  Why not just
send whatever amount of money you want the government to have now?
All you need to do is write out a check for this amount, make it
payable to the Internal Revenue Service, and mail it in.  Trust me,
the IRS will take it.

I'm serious.  What's stopping you?  Seems to me that someone who sees
what they believe is a good deal, but insists on passing it up until
their money is taken by force, is someone who is a few sandwitches
shy of a picnic.

So, if you are really as wealthy as you claim, you must have inherited
it, or won the Lotto or something; you certainly couldn't have become
rich on your intellect.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Mandates & 3-Way Elections
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:03:11 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Nov8.025249.24261@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
> Here is some data about other 3-way elections this century
> where the winner had less than 50% (from NY Times 5/11)
> 
> 
> Year	Candidates		       Percent
> 
> 1912	woodrow wilson			41.84
> 	teddy roosevelt			27.39
> 	william taft			23.18
> 	(also 2 smaller candidates)
> 
> 1992	bill clinton			42.97
> 	george bush			37.49
> 	h ross perot			18.78
> 
> 1968	richard nixon			43.42
> 	hubert humphrey			42.72
> 	george wallace			13.53
> 
> 1916	woodrow wilson			49.24
> 	charles hughes			46.11
> 	(also 2 smaller candidates)
> 
> 1948	harry truman			49.51
> 	thomas e dewey (thruway :)	45.12
> 	(also 2 smaller candidates)
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say that Clinton has about as big a mandate
> as Nixon had in `68?
> 			- Lee Campbell


No coat tails for Clinton!!

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bmiller@lunatix.uucp (Barry Miller)
Subject: Re: STUPID VOTER AND STUPID PERSON 
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 253-1481 
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 03:14:01 GMT

What Jimmy Carter did to create inflation was inherit the economy
from a Republican whose idea of fiscal policy was to distribute
buttons reading WIN ("Whip Inflation Now!").  Unless you were a
button maker, this didn't help your personal economic picture
much.

--Barry
>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:10:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.194101.15129@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>If you are already living comfortably, at some tax rate
>>you will decide that your time is worth more than you will get
>>by working the additional hour, or taking the additional time
>>to research investments, etc.  You will simply say screw it, 
>>I would rather go play golf, go skiing, etc.  An hour spent
>>generating income is an hour not spent doing something you
>>may enjoy more.  The higher the cost of generating income, the
>>more likely you are to forgo that activity and do something
>>else.

>  Your point is well taken, and in fact may be EXTREMELY good
>  justification for RAISING the taxes.  It is sad in this society
>  that people are constantly spending time, often doing something
>  that they are merely satisfied with (or occasionally dissatisfied
>  with), when they could be enjoying life more.

You are assuming that no one else benefits from their making
money. This is sometimes true (junk bonds, for example). However,
often many other people do benefit from it: Take, for example,
a close friend of mine's father. He is somewhat obsessive about
working hard and making money, although he doesn't really
enjoy either (probably a result of having grown up and lived
relatively poor until about a decade ago...). Today, the 
company he started employed several hundred people (and contributes
quite a bit to the general economy). This wouldn't be the
case if he were more relaxed and enjoyed himself more, instead of
making money.

>  ...improve the distribution of
>  wealth (if you assume that distributing it more evenly, based
>  on work input, of course, not just simply by arbitrarily 
>  distributing it, is a good thing - I do).   

But that isn't the result you are suggesting at all: The current
structure _doesn't_ promote wealth based on work input. It
discourages extremely hard work, by making the wealth earned 
less than the work involved. Wealth should be, in my opinion,
distributed in proportion to the value of the work done to earn it, 
but this is not the effect of the current tax codes.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16709 alt.politics.democrats.d:420 alt.politics.elections:23354 ba.politics:6954 co.politics:1752 ne.politics:2854 nj.politics:636 or.politics:547 ny.politics:159 talk.politics.misc:59366
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:17:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Nov10.005653.25416@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, by fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary):
....
> Perhaps you haven't been reading all the posts on this topic (and perhaps
> you should, before you make remarks about misinformation.) ....

I just read all the posts that mention consumption tax.

> ...    The proposal
> posted was to tax all income which was not invested by the end of the
> year. That sounds to me like the current income tax system with
> all investments counting as deductions. Certainly there is room in
> such a system for cost of living deductions.

You want to modify the current system so as to make all savings
deductible.  But then what happens when you take money out of your
savings?  That isn't counted as income now.  But if you didn't count
it as income, you could avoid tax on all your income just by saving it
for a year.  So money taken out of savings has to be taxed unless you
put it back.  But what about savings you put in before the
"consumption tax"?  That shouldn't be taxed twice.  So all savings
(nut just IRAs and other special plans) has to be separated into
pre-tax and post-tax savings.

But - what is the purpose of all this complication?  Do you really
believe that this economy is stagnating because people aren't saving
enough?  Look at the stock market and the interest rates!  Interest
rates are at a historic low, and price-earnings ratios are near a
historic high.  Would that be true if entrepreneurs were scrambling
for investment money?  It means that entrepreneurs who want your money
are not willing to pay a lot for it.  There is more investment money
available than they want to use.  And why don't they want to use it?
Because there is not enough money in comsumers' pockets to buy the
stuff they would produce!  Why do you think so many people are being
laid off?  That isn't what happens when there isn't enough
investment.  It's what happens when people aren't buying.

If you encourage consumption, you put more money in at the retail
level.  That encourages retailers to hire help and buy more from
wholesalers.  The money flows up the chain, and the goods flow down,
and workers get hired and paid and buy more.  If you encourage
savings, the economy continues to wait for something to happen.

The consumption tax is just another trickle-down fallacy.  It's a way
of taxing people who can't afford to save, and reducing the tax on
people who can.  It's not a way to get the economy moving.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
From: civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:23:43 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand


In article <rabjab.224.721014274@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes
 
> I fear that the seemingly liberal idea of legalizing all manner of
> addictive substances would result eventually in a government that would
> use drugs to exploit and control its population. 

You have a very strong point here. We have a powerful example in TV.
This "substance" is probably the most addictive and abused, competing even
with nicotine in this regard, and is used skillfully to control the people,
leading them to accept all manner of outrages, including, but not limited to, 
the war-on-drugs,invasion and destruction of other countries, and genocide.

> -------------------------------
> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
-- 

Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch
                  New Zealand

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15854 alt.politics.democrats.d:305 alt.politics.elections:22669 ba.politics:6757 co.politics:1592 ne.politics:2708 nj.politics:530 or.politics:427 ny.politics:57 talk.politics.misc:58240
From: labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:18:42 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation

jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:

>To say that an inheritance tax, which only taxes the unearned gains
>of the heirs, is a disincentive to anything - or that it is unfair -
>is, IMO, pure selfish nonsense of the kind which put the economy in its
               ^^^^^^^
>present condition.

>					--Jeff Turner

	What is selfish about wanting to keep the money you make, or are 
	given by an heir??? What entitles the government to every penny that
	moves??? What got the economy into it's present condition is not 
	that the government can't sqeeze every penny out of us - but it
	is too big and spends too much.

	Wake up! Government is taking a larger bite every year and wasting
	more. Most programs the federal government is controlling should
	be handled at the local level.

		George (give us a break) La Belle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton