HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1)
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:18:14 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>By conveniently omitting the folks in the US who have private health
>coverage, Harel attempts to skew his statistics to promote his private
>political agenda.

Harel had said:
> [...] Only about one fifth of Americans
> qualify for the main types of public health insurance available in the
> United States: Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' benefits.(2l)

That accounts for the 21% and seemed to be his point.  (Though I'm not
him; perhaps not.)  It's also true that the information you claim he
omitted is implicit in the next few sentences:

> "Of those who don't qualify, many have private insurance.(22) But
> almost one in seven Americans (34 million people--most living in
> families with a working adult) have no insurance at all, and one in
> four (63 million) have been without insurance for a substantial period
> of time during the last two years. Many more have inadequate coverage,
> [...]

So 1/7 of Americans are without health insurance of any kind, meaning
that, if the numbers were for ANY type of healthy insurance, the US
would have the number 84%.  Better than 21%, but still not very
impressive.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Who toppled Communism??
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:38:39 GMT

In article <92234.111151ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Cary Zeitlin) writes:
 
>     [...]
>Sonny boy, read some history. There were over 1 million (that's million)
>Soviets killed during WWII. The pain and cost of war is something deeply
>etched in their conciousness, in a way it is not so etched in ours. No
>living American has ever had to defend the U.S. from invading armies.
>They didn't need Ronnie (What the hell did he do during WWII? He made
>*movies*, wow.) to make war look ugly to them. You're totally wrong here,
>totally presumptuous, and totally ignorant.
>
Speking of needing to read some history...we're supposed to believe that
this accounts for the USSR's miliatry posturing and expansionism? A nation      d
that murdered something like 4 million of its own people in order to advance
coillectivization? This is the country that was so moved by the death of
1 million soldiers that it became the principle imperialist nation of the
modern era? It was all justifiable defense?
 
It's a very weak justification, and few rely on it anymore. You don't need
silly arguments like this if you simply look at the expansionist actions
of the USSR throughout the century, Even Jimmy Carter finally learned this
lesson in 1979 when his policy of rapproachment was shown to be impotent.
 
As for military expenditures being a drag on the economy- I've already
stated that military expenditures have fallen almost continuously in the
post WWII era, so *that* particular contention is simply nonsense. The big
increase that pushed federal spending from 19% of GNP in the early post-war
era to the current 24% or so was social spending, which rose throughout all
administrations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1)
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:22:23 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <l95uggINNe8k@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> hougen@uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:
>harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>
>*>"The main reason we're Number One in percentage of population without
>*>health insurance is that we're last in percentage of population
>*>covered by public health insurance.
>
>This really misses the point.  The issue is not insurance, but the
>cost of medical care.  

  Agreed.

>Goverment is not the solution to the problem, it is the cause of the
>problem.  We need a free market in medicine.  The fact that no other
>country in the world has a free market medical system should not deter
>us from establishing one in this country.  Do we want to have the same
>mediocre level of care that exists in other countries?  I think not.
>Why shouldn't we strive to have the best, most advanced, most
>inexpensive system in the world?  

  I'm not saying I disagree.  After all, you make many good points.
However, I would like to know what would your proposals include for 
"free market" medicine.

  I can infer that you would abolish the AMA, limit or abolish the FDA,
and so forth.  If you don't mind going into a little detail, I'd
like to here a bit more.  

Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:37:25 GMT

JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.035214.5123@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>Well, it could be that our boy Clinton doesn't want to drive the
>>Federal deficit to astronomical heights, like your boy Bush has done.
>>
>The Bush campaign states that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in Arkansas.
>Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayer's advocacy group says the Rep.'s
>reached this total by counting some taxes twice and including some things like
>raising hunting fees.   But they also noted that Clinton raised the
>sales tax several times,.  They also said that Arkansas' tax system is
>regressive, meaning the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
>income taxpayers.  Note that this is meant as information and not
>as an "our boy" vs. "your boy" type of argument.

Sales taxes are, unfortunately, quite regressive, which may account
for the claim that Arkansas' tax system is worst for middle and low
income taxpayers.  Also unfortunately, sales taxes are about the
easiest form of tax (or tax increase) to get passed.

I believe that in this case, the sales tax increases were to pay for
changes in the public education program in Arkansas.  Though not
spectacularly successful, the changes did have a positive impact.  And
at least they were paid for in the here and now rather than by
borrowing from the future.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Henry A. Waxman
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:47:05 GMT
Organization: The Lab Rats

In article <1640500017@igc.apc.org> harelb@igc.apc.org (Harel Barzilai) writes:

}by Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic Representative from California and
}chairman of the House Health and Environment Subcommittee.

and all-around great guy who's so concerned about our health that he
wants to protect us from evil stuff like more than 90mg/day of Vitamin C

this guy has his nose so far up the ass of various special interest
groups, such as the pharmacutical companies, that it would probably cost
about $10 million to bribe his own opinion out of him.
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11270 misc.education:3200
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.education
Subject: Re: American schools (was: Liberal v. Conservative)
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:39:29 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <2A947681.18330@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
}...
}Giving the current educational system more money is like giving a heroin addict  
}another shot, because "he _really_ needs it _so_ badly". ...

Without conceding the appropriateness of the simile in other respects,
I'll remark that the strategy of giving him another shot does have its
points.

}So why not just increase payments to american teachers to achieve the same  
}effect ?
}.... Attempts to at least attract higher quality new teachers by only paying  
}them the higher salaries would be killed by the teachers unions faster than you  
}can say Al Shanker.

There are two answers to that.  First, withholding salary increases from current
teachers who shouldn't have them is just not that important (even if there were
a good way of telling which shouldn't).  We want to improve the system -- this
is just start-up overhead.

Second, eligibility for the higher salaries can be made to depend on increased
credentials, for new hires and, if political realities permitted it, perhaps
current teachers also.  (What the credentials should be is another subject;
I know that a results based system of measuring quality of teaching would be
better than a credentials based one, but I think credentials is the best we
can do.)

}...
}No, I'm afraid that there are no solution to the education disaster short of  
}fundamental reform.

I have a moderate's distrust of fundamental reforms.  They always turn sour,
by proving to produce only an illusion of progress.

} And (did I mention this before ?) the only way to such  
}reform is genuine school choice.

That means an America 2000 type program with enough money pumped into it so it
has a chance of actually helping?  Maybe.  Or that means abolishing public
education?  Huh-uh.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:59:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.175539.26604@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>Let's throw this question out to the net.
>>Where is the Laffer peak?
>
>>My layman's guess would be, based on what I've seen and read,
>>is that it is in the 30%-50% area.
>
>the answer is....depends.

Quite right (if we're trying to express it in terms of marginal rates,
even though marginal rates are affected by marginal
deductions/loopholes).

>the more "loopholes" that are available, the lower the Laffer peak!!

Wrong.  Loopholes increase the difference between effective tax rate
and the stated rate by reducing the former.  People's behavior is
affected far more by the former than the latter.  Thus, loopholes
allow a higher stated rate for maximum revenue than would otherwise
be the case.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:43:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.210148.25271@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.222636.25840@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>	[ Text of quote deleted ].
>
>>	I've often seen _The Economist_ quoted in this way, even in
>>reference material. It makes _The Economist_ sound like a TV-show
>>detective, like _The Enforcer_ or something. Does one person write
>>everything in this magazine, or is it possible that _The Econimist_
>>has many authors, that can sometimes contradict each other? 
>
>The Economist has many authors but they rarely get to put their byline
>on an article.  Even if it did, do you include the byline when you
>cite the NYT if it isn't on the editorial page?
>
>Also, the Economist keep real tight editorial control.  

	But many of the quotes from the economist sound like editorial
evaluations instead of news reports. Most quotes have plenty of 
obvious bias and analysis in them. Therefore, it would be nice to have
a name to put with the analysis. If the econimist decides not to print
bylines, that's fine - jusk keep in mind that its not straight fact.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:44:34 GMT


In a previous article, tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) says:

>In article <l8j6ntINN1kv@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>}Michael Lee) writes:
>
>}> Here's an interesting fact or two:
>
>}> It is extremely difficult for third parties and independents to get on
>}> the ballot.
>
>}> The Republicrats (or is is Demopublicans?) like it that way.
>
>}This is an assumption it is easy for the Republicans or Democrats to get
>}on the ballot.  Wrong.  The rules are the same.
>
>you are partially correct, and partially wrong here, but either way this
>statement is very deceptive.
>
>in most states the rules are the same for all parties. a few have a
>double standard where the rules explicitly don't apply to the Dems or
>Reps.
>
>but even in the states where the same set of rules is applied to all
>parties there is always some magic criteria that allows a party to get
>on the ballot free with no petitioning. guess which parties made
>damn sure they already met this condition and nobody else did before the
>rules were established.

Yes, isn't this "magic criteri[on]" often the number of votes a party polled
in the _last_ federal election? Thus ensuring the Dems and the GOP a place.
I'm not saying this is just, of course.



>
>in about 15 states the Libertarian Party is now included in the set of
>parties that have automatic ballot access (as long as we maintain a
>certain number of registered voters, or get a certain percentage of the
>vote in a statewide race) but it wasn't easy getting this far.
>-- 
>tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
>tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences
>
>"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
>
-- 

              "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"

                              -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Liberal v. Conservative
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:34:35 GMT
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes
> In a previous article, cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) wrote:
> >But of course the former is very unlikely to happen as long as the education  
> >establishment is in control and becomes virtually impossible if one of its  
> >closest political allies - Bill Clinton - becomes President.
> 
> I also don't think it's fair to assume Clinton would be a pawn of these
> vested interests that you claim are so bent on control. The means of 
> Clinton's educational turnaround in Arkansas might not have pleased 
> everyone, but it was very results-oriented. I don't think he would be
> content to continue a policy that is, as you say, obviously ineffective.

I'm afraid there is. If I may be so incestous and quote myself from a few days  
ago. 

Carl Edman wrote:
> Well, I'm not quite so sure of that. I consider education
> to be the worst   problem facing the US today. The abysmal
> failure of the american educational   system on the
> primary and secondary level will still be felt when
> budget or   trade deficits will be long forgotten
> memories. And the educational   establishment under the
> control of the NEA, the AFT, teachers colleges and   their
> various auxilliaries has been the road block for any
> meaningful reform   (i.e. any reform having any point c)
> beyond a) hire more educationists and b)   pay them more).
> So when almost a year ago I saw a Clinton speech to the NEA in  
> which he promised that he would be their man in
> Washington, that was one of the   two events which changed
> my attitude towards him from benevolent neutrality to  
> opposition. (The other one was that he took on Robert
> Reich as his economic   advisor). Since then it has been one
> single long love affair between Clinton   and the
> education establishment. The NEA voted to endorse
> Clinton with 82% of   its votes - the highest ever. AFT
> president Al Shanker urged his union to fight   tooth and
> nail for Clinton with such emotion that he came to the
> verge of   tears. I'm afraid that if Clinton is elected the
> status quo will have scored   another victory and all hopes
> of improvement in education will have to be   postponed for
> at least another four years. 

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:29:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.154930.6730@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.114027.3020@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.151553.29003@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>>dumps.  Paul Portney, and American economist, guesses that the costs of
>>the 1990 Clean Air Act may be $29 billion to $36 billion a year, in exchange
>>for benefits worthy anything from $6 billion to $25 billion."
>>
>>  -  The rest of the article is quite good and can be located in the
>>August 8th issue.
>>
>> 
>>Pat
>> 
>>-- 
>>Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
>>sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
>>(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
>
>A study by the American Lung Assoc determined that air pollution has a
>health cost of between $11.8 and $82 billion/year.  Many cost/benefit
>studies of environmental degradation are skewed against cleanup because
>they don't include externalities.

  Well, I (of course) haven't seen the study, but it would surprise me
if Mr. Portney did not include expected health costs in his analysis.
After all, it would be an obvious omission if he did and I don't see
how he could arrive at $6 billion - $25 billion in benefits if he didn't.

  However, what does often happen in green-based cost/benefit analyses is
that they assign a very high value to the cost of "life and health" while
ignoring the externalities that lead to damage of "life and health" due
to decreased livelihood brought about by the cost of regulation.

  To be sure, cost/benefit analysis has a long a way to go, but so far
the greens have been making up the rules.  At any rate, I would rather have
the arguments be over numbers and assumptions than over completely 
unresponsible accusations and beliefs.

Pat

  
-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Cary Zeitlin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Liberal v. Conservative
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:24:23 GMT
 <saurav.713817333@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In Message-ID: <saurav.713817333@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:

>In the last decade, the word 'Liberal' has become a derisive word
>used to label someone as out of the mainstream. Now suddenly we find
>that Clinton has taken a centrist ground on many issues, and that
>Bush is taking a extreme right-wing view of many issues. What
>is especially sad is that he is not advocating the views of the
>Goldwater-right that believes in small gov't, but rather the
>views of the religious right that wants to impose their narrow views
>on everyone on social issues.

The results from the Republican platform committee this week affirm
Saurav's statements. With great alacrity,  Clinton has stolen the
center. This leaves the Republicans in the position of having
only one real constituency -- the extreme right, which they now
have to shore up because the real right-wingers never did care
much for Bush and have been further alienated the past four years.
It remains to be seen whether Bush can wage anything other than
a campaign of hate- and fear-mongering, especially with all the
lunatic-fringe baggage he now has to carry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cary Zeitlin                        ZEITLIN@SLACVM.SLAC.Stanford.Edu

Standard Disclaimers Apply                 "If dirt were dollars
                                            We'd all be in the black."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10919 talk.politics.misc:40564 alt.politics.bush:2105