HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:54:33 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: On the Beach, Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten, Nederland Antilles
X-Random-Thought: Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty

In article <OHLEFAJ@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> Does this seem worse than the bogus legislation they pass? Why?

Not fair, making me answer the real question ;-)

I think the reason people are so offended is that they "relate" to a
bounced check scandal much better than political graft or corruption.
=I= have a checking account.  =I= bounce checks.  (Well, not anymore
I don't ;-).  But =I= don't have access to PAC money, etc.  The reason
I mentioned the free loans is because it's tax time.  Had it been
some other time, I would have mentioned something else.

So, to get back to the point, no, I don't see the check kiting
business as "worse", but I do relate to it much better.  And I suspect
the rest of the country does as well, and that is why this is getting
so much press and causing so much upset.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | SITUATION WANTED:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |    Will write device drivers, turn status
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |    reports in late, and whine incessantly
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |    for food.  Serious inquiries only ;-)
From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: The tax curve (was Re: Ross Perot...)
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:46:46 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

In article <1992Apr10.000850.12276@NeoSoft.com
   hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
 
> Reawaken the public to what?  They still think they can increase
> spending (national health care, more unemployment benefits, better
> schools, house the homeless,etc) and at the same time solve the
> deficit, without increasing taxes at all!
 
 
    This is somewhat a change of topic, but since you mentioned
it, I thought I ought to respond.  You seem to indicate that you
believe that raising taxes will always raise the amount of money
that the government receives.  This is simply not true.  In reality,
the tax rate and income are related according to this graph.
 
          ~
  high    |                      xx
          |                    xx  xx
          |                  xx   !  xx
          |                xx     !    xx
 govern't |              xx       !      xx
   income |            xx         !        xx
          |          xx           !          xx
          |        xx             !            xx
          |      xx               !              xx
          |    xx                 !                xx
          |  xx                   !                  xx
          |xx                     !                    xx
  low     x_______________________!______________________xx_______
         0                  tax rate
                                  !
                               optimum tax rate
 
   From this graph, we can determine this fact:  there is a maximum
amount of money that the government can receive.  Given this fact,
it behooves those elected officials to not spend more than that
amount of money.  (now I suppose we could argue at what point
that optimum tax rate occurs).
 
   What I believe they (congress) should do, is simply not be allowed
to spend more than it brings in (ie.  a balanced budget ammendment)...
 
      ----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |  "Success is the realization of your
x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |       worthwhile dreams" ---  Dexter Yager
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |  "A goal is a dream being acted upon"
(409) 845-8454 (work)   |                          ---  Don Wilson
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgement
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:53:15 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Mar31.234320.13506@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

|> In article <20577@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
|> >Christianity is a pretty well defined set of beliefs, very few of which
|> >Joe "I beat my children from time to time" Mullany holds. 

You'd think after all the time Haugh spends insulting you, that he'd
figure out that your name doesn't have an "n" in it.  He sure
responds to a lot of your posts considering his claim that you're
in his kill file (like that's some badge of courage).

|> Oh, and: Do you spank? Do you have the courage to answer? answer honestly?
|> I hope so.

About the only thing John "I don't have any kids, but I'm an expert on
raising them" Haugh spanks is his monkey.

-- 
John Iacoletti                      Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
IBM Advanced Workstations Div.    "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail
Austin, TX                         on the ground.  Too hypothetical." - G. Bush
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:31:22 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Organization: On the Beach, Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten, Nederland Antilles
X-Random-Thought: Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty

In article <167CABAE5.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu> X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>                               If you don't like his policies, then
>you don't have to work there.  As a matter of fact, that's why I
>will never work for IBM-- I just hate to wear suits; but that
>does not mean that IBM doesn't have the right to make those
>employees wear those suits.

What is it with IBM and suits already?  I've been at IBM (though I've
never been an IBM employee ...) for three years and I only wear a suit
when I'm trying to impress someone with the fact that I own a suit.

I can count the number of times that's happened quite easily on my
fingers and toes.

Unless you are in sales or deal with customers, you don't have to wear
a suit.  I wear jeans or "Dockers" most of the time, and not just at
the Austin site either.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | SITUATION WANTED:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |    Will write device drivers, turn status
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |    reports in late, and whine incessantly
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |    for food.  Serious inquiries only ;-)
From: mcmahon@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael G. McMahon)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Response to another "right to bear arms" idiot
Date: 5 Apr 92 19:23:12 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <20600@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F
Haugh II) writes: 
>In article <1992Apr3.200244.8898@rice.edu> mcmahon@owlnet.rice.edu
(Michael G. McMahon) writes: 
>>   It is likely that the legislation they support and write is what
>>their constituants want.  If that is the case they should be praised, not
>>cut down.  
>[...]
>What Kennedy et al are supposed to be doing is what is best for the
>entire NATION.  What they are doing instead is conforming to the narrow
>minded wishes (or so you suggest) of their constituents.
   Jordan jumped on this as well.
   I feel it is clearly the task of the Supreme Court as well as the
president to do what is best for the entire NATION.
   It is less clear whether the task of a Representative is to "do the
right thing", or vote the way her constituants demand.  A scene that
come to mind is from the pre-Gulf War period.  A Representative was on
CNN stating that his district was _overwhelmingly_ committed to one side
of the issue.  BUT, he felt he had a moral mandate to do what he felt
was right instead.  This seems like grounds for impeachment, or maybe
just "not voting for next time" to me.
   Senators are even more nebulous in this.  Are they supposed to
represent their state, or do what's best for their state?  It is great
if they are concerned with the entire nation, but is that their JOB?  
    I think it would be BEST if every rep. and Senator did what was best
for the entire nation.  But this is a moot point if their "job
description" tells them to vote such that their constituants benefit. 
   
-mike

-- 
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist:
  the fashionable non-conformist.   -ayn rand
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:42:53 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <1992Apr16.043812.422@rice.edu> kossack@screech.owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>	OK.  I'm an idiot.  I just naively thought that there might be 
>   a connection between fiscal irresponsibilty in ones personal finances 
>   and fiscal irresponsibility wrt the Federal budget. 

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who are quite responsible
with corporate funds but quite irresponsible with their own finances.
I don't see a necessary relationship between irresponsibility in one
causing irresponsibility in the other.

Daryl

-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
     Seen on a bumper sticker: "My kid beat up your honor student."
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: west@esd.dl.nec.com (Mike West)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Distribution: houston
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:11:29 GMT

From article <1992Apr15.144938.14323@NeoSoft.com>, by hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen):
> Do you understand that the American people have a limited attention span? 
> You're worrying about stupid, minor details while our debt load gets
> bigger.  This year we spent over 20% of our budget paying interest on our
> debts!  

Actually it is more like 30%.  And that is 30% of the *budget*.  It
is even more if you compare it to *revenues*.  And more than that,
since the yearly deficit has never been reduced, them total debt
increases at a greater than linear rate.  As soon as they pass a
government run health plan and are forced to put the S&L losses on
the books, the total should exceed 75% of the revenues.

Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what will happen when the
government is in default (i.e. it must borrow to pay interest)?
It is a relevant question because, unless something radically
changes, that will probably happen in the next 20 years.

(Kind of gives extra reason for the governmental hurry to ban
 guns doesn't it?)

Mike West
west@esd.dl.nec.com
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Perot
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:58:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900


 David L. Cathey writes:
 
 >You have an excellent point.  The rally cry is "Cut the budget!",
>only+as long as it does cut *my* budget.  There are too many
>people that expect the goverment to provide them benefits
>(International as well as domestic).  "You cut someone else's
>benefits, but not mine.  I have a right to those >benefits!"
>Bullsh*t...  JFK had the right idea:  Ask not what your country
>can do for you,but what you can do for your country.  As much
>respect and concern everyoneseems to have about his death, no one
>seems to care anymore about what he stood for.  He wasn't perfect,
>but had some good ideas...        
 
 >Perot has the balls to say this, and many people are backing him.
>I suspect that many of them don't realize exactly how that will
>hurt them.  At least in the short run, but maybe they will be
>better off in the long run?
 
 What exactly is Perot saying?  Frankly I haven't heard him say
much besides "The system is screwed up and I'm going to fix it." 
And when he does say specific things, I'm less than thrilled with
his proposals.
 
 Perot has basically said that we can get rid of the deficit by
simply increasing our effort against government fraud, improving
tax collection and charging foreign countries for defense.  Let's
be realistic.  That isn't going to do the job.  It simply
perpetuates the myth that we can get rid of the deficit without
feeling any pain.  We can't.  
 
 When I hear Perot say "We need to start phasing out Social
Security, we need to get rid of farm subsidies, we need to make
large cuts in our defense forces, we need to phase out some of the
more useless federal departments" then I'll think he has balls.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1501 tx.general:233 austin.general:1541
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:43:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr10.000850.12276@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Unfortunately, I can't throw the American public out of office.  
>Reawaken the public to what?  They still think they can increase spending
>(national health care, more unemployment benefits, better schools, house
>the homeless,etc) and at the same time solve the deficit, without
>increasing taxes at all!
>We know that voting (the act of) correlates with education, with age, and
>with wealth.
>  If more people started voting, the greatest proportion would
>come from young poor uneducated people.  Do you have any reason to think
>that group has a better vision than the current group that votes?

	Where, then, do we go to get a new citizenry? England? Surely
their populace is smarter than ours. Japan? Sweden? China? Or, would all
possible electorates be too stupid to merit your support? We've got the right
people, IMHO, but we've become latent. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"All of the things that you used to believe in
Turned out to be true; you're guilty of reason."- Lou Reed
From: pny@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (Paul Ybarra)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgemen
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:06:44 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <272900093@trsvax> kasey@trsvax.tandy.com writes:
>
>>Statistically, Jews are the MOST charitable of all people in the US as a
>>group.  Charity is one of the foundations of our faith, and not only do we
>>just TALK about it, we PRACTICE it.
>
>If you really believe this, then you had better check your statistics again
>because Muslims are the most charitable organized group.

Charitable in number of dollars contributed or in number of contributers
of dollars?
From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:17:22 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

In article <1992Apr15.142530.1480@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
    jcj6@ace4.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
 
>*not hiring people who sleep around isn't a violation of the law, the
>*employer must be allowed to have that policy.
>
>I guess my question/statement would be why is it not the law?  Why do
>people think they have any right to tell me or anyone else how to live
>their lives.
 
    They (the ppl that work(ed) for him) gave him that right when
they agreed to work for him (presumably, with the foreknowlege that
those policies are in place).  If you don't like his policies, then
you don't have to work there.  As a matter of fact, that's why I
will never work for IBM-- I just hate to wear suits; but that
does not mean that IBM doesn't have the right to make those
employees wear those suits.
 
      ----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |  "Success is the realization of your
x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |       worthwhile dreams" ---  Dexter Yager
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |  "A goal is a dream being acted upon"
(409) 845-8454 (work)   |                          ---  Don Wilson
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:53:01 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <WGKEKS7@taronga.com> kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
> ...once upon a time, there was this notion of public service.  

However, public service was never intended to include a vow of poverty.

Let's take a look at that $125K salary after the raise for a minute. Can you
maintain two residences, one in the second most expensive housing market in
the country, frequent trips between the two, living expenses in an expensive
city, a large wardrobe of expensive clothing (for less will merely ensure that
you get ignored), and the other expenses of a political life on $125K per
year? I couldn't.

Sorry, but I can't argue with the last pay raise.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
   "While we liked developing Windows applications, we never inhaled." --
              Philippe Kahn, in Infoworld, 13 Apr 1992
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1531 tx.general:258
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:18:15 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: On the Beach, Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten, Nederland Antilles
X-Random-Thought: Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty

In article <1992Apr13.195921.21907@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Let me get this straight.  You think that overdraft protection is morally
>wrong?  I think you would find it hard to find ANYONE who would argue that
>overdraft protection is grossly immoral and should be banned.  Before
>there were checking accounts that earned interest, overdraft accounts were
>very common.  On the other hand, I think it's fairly easy to make an 
>argument that slavery is immoral.

And did they pay interest on these interest free loans?  Did they declare
these interest free loans on their federal income tax returns?  HELL NO!
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Every 56 days.   | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 | Give Blood, often.    | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats."
		-- Benjamin Franklin
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1526 tx.general:254 austin.general:1577
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:52:06 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr14.013144.16227@digi.lonestar.org>, jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes:
> Me, I want everyone's entitlements cut - including my on, assuming that I
> actually have some...
 
Hey, I'll make them a deal.  Take all my SS money.  In fact, as long as
they don't raise the rates, they can have my SS money for the next 5
years.  Then, let me off the hook totally.  Because I don't want to be
paying SS tax in 10 and 15 years when the rates are through the ceiling. 
Wonder what kind of accounting tricks they'll try then?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Throwing them out
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:20:17 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Radio Amateur k5qwb

One thing seems certain, the voters want to 'throw the bums out'. What 
isn't certain is what to do next. There is NO consensus about that. 
Everybody seems to have his own idea about how to 'fix the system'. 
Many people understand deficits, they are making car payments because 
buying a car on credit makes economic sense. Some government deficit 
spending makes sense too.

The candidates will NEVER address issues like on WHAT the government 
spends your tax money, only HOW MUCH. It's to their advantage to play 
to your emotions rather than facts/logic/reason.

Spending your tax money on 'infrastructure' can make your life better 
by more than the cost to you. Lowering your cost-of-living or improving 
your standard-of-living are issues you should weigh when considering 
how much tax you are willing to pay.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 
73,            internet     | lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org
Lyn Kennedy    packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
               pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154

-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us."  Pogo --------------
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1508 tx.general:240 austin.general:1552
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 11 Apr 1992 16:39:49 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <VNFEDM2@taronga.com>, kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
> 	But the central point (in my mind, at least) of the checking  
>    fiasco, is that Congress is _not_ financially responsible.  After  
>    all, if our elected reprehensibles can not balance, within $1000 
>    or so, their own checkbooks, how can we, as taxpayers, trust them  
>    to balance the Federal budget within $1000000 or so ???   
 
It's clear what they were doing was using the overdraft protection to get
short-term loans.  If I could get short-term interest free loans I'd sure
use them.  Blame the people who set up this overly generous perk.  But the
rest of them were just playing within the rules.  I think it's very
disingenuous for the media to claim that this was "check bouncing" or
check kiting" when it clearly wasn't.  There are plenty of legitimate
reasons to throw them out of office, we don't need to exaggerate.
 
> 	Spending more money than you have is, as far as I'm concerned,  
>    fiscal irresponsibility.  The fact that the house bank will cover 
>    those checks is irrelevant to anyone other than the poeple cashing  
>    them.  This so-called "Rubbergate" is about honesty and competence, 
>    not simply quasi-bad checks.   
 
Lots of people, given the chance to have interest free
short term loans, would take it. Look at the average amount of credit card
debt carried by Americans.  Using your definition, Congress isn't any
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1534 tx.general:264
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:46:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <20626@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
> And did they pay interest on these interest free loans?  Did they declare
> these interest free loans on their federal income tax returns?  HELL NO!
 
That's a good point.  I hope the IRS does go after them (though I 
doubt that's going to happen.  The IRS knows who holds the purse strings).
But the people aren't mad because Congress go interest free loans.
They're mad because they think we're talking about bounced checks.
 
And yes, I think it does matter why the people are mad.  Will all this
anger have ANY effect on the deficit.  I seriously doubt it.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com