HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:01:33 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Distribution: na
 <1992Sep09.230926.25617@watson.ibm.com>
 <1992Sep10.000819.9854@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <1992Sep10.160138.16096@watson.ibm.com>

In article <1992Sep10.160138.16096@watson.ibm.com>, john@johniac.austin.ibm.com
(John Iacoletti) says:
>
>In article <1992Sep10.000819.9854@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>|> I dare wager that a faw fewer percentage of Canadians have to
>|> wait in health care lines in clinics and emergency rooms and
>|> a far greater percentage of Canadians have greater doctor choice
>|> than Americans, if you include the uninsured and the underinsured
>|> in the American numbers.
>
>Yes -- by design.  If you can't pay the bill, you're hardly in a
>position to complain about waiting in line.  In Canada, EVERYBODY
>waits in line.  This is progress?

Is it progress?  Well, it would help if you had your facts correct so
we could make a judgement.  In Canada, in what few lines exist, your place
in line is determined primarily by a trained physician's judgement of how
urgent your medical need is (although there are isolated cases of political
and economic power being used to jump the line).  In the U.S. income and
employment determine who waits in line, with often those people who are
most in need by any objective standard not getting care until it's too late.
This is "the best health care system in the world"?

>
>|> The so-called private American system is as socialized as any in
>|> the world...except it is a caste socialism, with immense subsidization
>|> of health care for particular elite classes, and hardly any for others.
>
>This is an interesting claim.  In what way is health care for the
>elite immensely subsidized in the United States?

One of the largest tax break in the U.S. system is the tax deduction for
insurance.  The IRS estimates that this tax break primarily benefits
middle income and upper income individuals who work for large corporations.
By some estimates it makes the effective price of health insurance to
persons in the higher brackets close to zero.

>
>|> Canadians are not crossing the border in droves to receive care,
>|> and although there are occassionally delays for elective surgery,
>|> polls always show Canadians are among the most satisfied people
>|> in the world with our health care system.
>
>Sure...especially the people who aren't paying for it.  Why don't you
>tell us what the taxes are like in Canada?

Who's not paying for it?


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4618 alt.rush-limbaugh:4455
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: September 7, A Day That Will Live in Infamy...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:49:33 GMT
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

: >Bushism from '88 (did TNR coin that term by then?):
: >"September 7: A Day That Will Live in Infamy."
: 
: >			-- _Bob Roberts_
: 
: What?

I believe that Ms. Levy's quote refers to a comment made by Bush on 7
September, 1988, in which he claimed that that date was the anniversary
of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

I sort of enjoyed the comment made by one of the "question-posers" in a 
debate on 25 September, 1988: "It's Christmas, Mr. Vice-President."

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(The Persian Gulf War was)
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			"a stirring victory for the 
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			forces of aggression against
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		lawlessness."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle		
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5010 talk.politics.misc:44951 alt.politics.bush:4797
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:56:27 GMT

In article <lb1ivgINNns0@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>|> Chris you miss the point.  The liberal bias in media refers to Maria (I know
>|> this one is totally misspelled) Shribert asking one of economic advisors
>
>You mean the Maria Shriver that is a member of the Kennedy clan and
>the wife of Democratic VP candidate?  
>

A little clarification:

Maria Shriver is the wife of Arnold Schwarzeneger, a Republican who
(for constitutional reasons) will never be a VP Candidate.

She is, however, the daughter of Sargent Shriver the 1972 Democratic
VP candidate.  (Of course, if she had married Sargent it would have
given Newt Gingrich a few juicy lines, but alas she didn't.)
Sargent Shriver married one of Joseph Kennedy's daughters, I think
Eunice, which makes Maria the niece of John, Bobbie, and Teddy Kennedy.


John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: altman@leland.Stanford.EDU (John David Altman)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 20:06:25 GMT

One of the original sources of the recent spate of "media bias" was Brit
Hume of ABC news, a regular tennis partner (or is it jogging partner) of
the president.  Then there is Thomas Friedman of the NYT, a good buddy
of James Baker.  And the MacNeil-Lehrer Administration Forum News Hour.

In this era when the media think that the major requirement for carrying out
their job is to cultivate sources (cocktail party journalism), the
accusation of media bias is ridiculous.


				John

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4093 alt.politics.bush:4124
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: SC flamefest
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:49:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.143544.23650@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>I find the Congressional Record to be useful since it is almost completely
>unbiased. It is very useful in getting a handle on some issues, voting
>records, floor speeches, etc.

Unbiased?  Floor comments by Congresscritters are unbiased?  Congressional
testimony is unbiased?  The selection of people allowed to testify is
reasonable?  Wowsers!  I wanna live in LaFave's reality.

The CR isn't even an accurate record of floor speeches.  "Revise and
extend" is standard and near-universal practice.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Anti-Clinton posters
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:20:24 GMT

In <14735@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:


>Why don't you Anti-Clinton people take your butts over to alt.election.bush.
                                                               ^^^^^^^^
                                                      (ahem) " politics"
>and quit wasting so much bandwith, thats why there are TWO diff. groups.


I'm sure it'll stop as soon as anti-Bushities do the same. BTW, this
newsgroup is alt.politics.clinton, not
alt.clinton.advocacy.and.no.criticism.or.else

Deal with it.


-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5475 tx.politics:5235
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:06:43 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep14.170104.6283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>Haugh didn't write "long-term", he wrote "tax-sheltered".  Haugh
>currently makes long-term investments because they pay off.  He'll
>change to tax-sheltered for the same reason.

Actually, Haugh currently makes a wide variety of investments, not all
of which are long-term.  Haugh will switch to tax-sheltered because
Haugh has managed to stick enough money into other investments that
Haugh can afford to play stupid tax shelter games ...

Tax shelters are for idiots.  Anyone who buys an apartment to write off
the depreciation and mortgage interest isn't paying careful attention
to that home mortgage with the $80K balance.  I figured (and I've since
tossed away the sheet I figured it on ...) that I will make about $80K
(in current dollars) over the next 12 years or so because I'll NOT pay
interest and NOT take the tax writeoff.  I will NOT get $1,000 or so
back on my tax return, but I also will NOT pay $7,000 in interest
either.  And the $2,000 I'll save in interest (less the tax kickback I'm
not getting ...) isn't taxed.  A penny saved is a penny earned - but
that penny comes tax-free ;-)

So, Haugh will only play games with tax shelters when it becomes
apparent that the government is really trying very hard to make Haugh
want to play that stupid game.  Clinton is making it very obvious that
he wants Haugh to play stupid games with tax shelters.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:54:46 GMT
	<92248.080841JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
	<1992Sep4.155744.29434@tamsun.tamu.edu>
	<18dduoINNp6a@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep8.232418.3977@desire.wright.edu>
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <1992Sep8.232418.3977@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <18dduoINNp6a@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep4.155744.29434@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>> 
>>>Congress has shown that regardless of revenue they will spend more.
>> 
>> Please explain, then, why the deficit throughout the Reagan Bush years
>> has been almost exactly what was in the President's budget proposal,
>> and in some years the Congresionally-approved budget had a smaller
>> deficit.
>
>	Political games.
>
>	But what does that have to do with Congress' spending addiction?  That
>somehow the presidents since 1969 have been pushers?
>
>	If you want an example of how congress spends *more* than what the prez
>may want:
>
>	Extending jobless benefits.  Where did this money come from?  It
>didn't.  They (congress) simply added it directly to the debt.  Nice, eh?
>Sure the president could not sign the bill (yeah, right.  In an election
>year?) but then again, congress can over ride the veto.

On the other hand, Bush said in his acceptance speech:

  So, beginning tonight, I will enforce the spending freeze on my own.

And every day you see him on TV enforcing his spending freeze. Has anybody kept
count of how much blatant election year spending Bush has promised in the 20
days since he made this speech?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
                                   -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
From: cruz@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Nancy Cruz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Real Reagan Record
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:37:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab

In article <Bu1rI6.8CA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell) writes:
>crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>>Have any of you read the  August 31 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.  I found 
>>this quite amazing.  On pages 25-62 is found the cover story, THE REAL 
>>REAGAN RECORD.  Many (a dozen or so) authors have each taken one plank 
>>of the conventional liberal tale of how Ronny ruined America, and 
>>smashed it to pieces.

Amazing what one can do with statistics.

>
>>Some of the subjects covered are:
>
>>	Liberal claim		This article says
>
>>Household income went down	NOT
>>Rich got richer			not much
>>Poor got poorer			NOT
>>Poor are normal families	NOT


What exactly is meant by 'normal' families.  And does it make it one
difference.

Nancy
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Nancy Cruz - a.k.a. "Tensha, the Icewoman" |   New York University    |
|      cruz@lab.ultra.nyu.edu                |Ultracomputer Research lab|
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:53:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.015047.26876@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

   >You don't
   >seem to care what the facts are as long as you can try to blame Clinton
   >for some wrong doing. Typical Republican strategy. If you hadn't had the 
   >Long-term-memory-removal operation that seems to be required of all good
   >republicans, you might remember that when we were approaching draft age we
   >were almost expected to find a way to avoid the draft. Now people try to 
   >turn it into a character flaw. The reason it is held against Little Danny,
   >is that he seems to have loved the Vietnam war and any other war for that
   >matter. 

   Goodness!  Getting a little defensive are we?  Speaking of (exremely)
   short memories...  you may recall that it was the Quayle bashers who
   were criticizing him for not doing anything illegal, BUT, he had to have
   help to get out of the draft.  Just yesterday I asked, not whether
   either of them were wrong to do what they did, but whether it was fair
   to critcize one and not the other when they did essentially the same
   thing.  The response was, "well, at least Clinton didn't have to get
   help."  

Actually, this is not right.  The fact is that one of Quayle's well
connected relatives called the commander of the gurard unit and asked to
get Dan into the unit.  The commander, as reported in the Boston Globe,
replied that Quayle should just come on down and sign up, they had plenty
of openings and would take anyone qualified.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:05:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.182544.10583@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>Legalizing drugs is not a question of personal freedom.  It costs
>society too much in terms of lost production.  Therefore, this cost
>far outweighs the importance of the individual's so-called "right"
>to destroy his mind and body.

Even if we buy this argument, the war on drugs is justified only
if its benefits exceed its costs.  It isn't enough to "fight drugs"
you have to actually win.  If you don't, the war is a waste, no
matter how much drugs "cost".

We need not buy the argument either.  Individuals don't owe society
their full production.  They "owe" only what they're willing to do in
order to get what they want.  If society doesn't have anything to
offer that people value more than zombiehood, society will have
to do without their "production".

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 11:33:13 CDT
Organization: Consultant
Reply-To: "Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu>
Distribution: us
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Sep8.000005.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> (alt.politics.clinton), matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
> I'm curious, and want to find out how patriotic people are.  Bill Clinton
> dodge the draft.  I consider him a coward.  I just got out of the Marines and
> spent my time fighting for this country.  Why would I want to vote for a man
> that dodged the draft?

Why do you find it necessary to question someone's patriotism if they support 
Bill Clinton?  He questioned the US policy regarding Vietnam.  It's not like 
WW II where we were *attacked* before we got involved despite requests from 
Britain.  We need people, thinking people, in government who question policies 
and don't follow blindly.  A willingness to go to war does *not* make you more 
patriotic!!

Do you question the patriotism of people like Oliver North, who, while wearing 
a uniform, tried to subvert the Constitution, and lied to the Congress about 
his activities?  Do you question the patriotism of the people of the Reagan-Bush 
Administration who let him procede with covert operations?

> 
> This is my question, are you really going to vote for this man?  A man that 
> runs from a fight.  What's going to happen if we end up in a war. (Which could
> very well happen with the state the world is in right now.)

You bet I'm going to vote for him and I'm going to work to see that everyone 
I know understands that he is better for this country than George Herbert 
Walker Bush.

> 
> LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
> 	   paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
> 	   and believes homosexuality is normal.
> 
> If you have any comments direct them to matrix@unt.edu.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria L Boyd PhD

boyd@vax.anes.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Bush Says Jobs are important, Owls are not
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:22:04 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <lbbolgINNg26@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, jav@rhiannon.sitka.sun.com (Joyce Vanderpoorten) writes:
> What!!! where does Bush get off making a closed minded statement like
> this - Owls vs. Jobs.   God I hate that man.

     Well, I think Clinton is your man.  Isn't his domestic plan
named : "Putting People First -- But Not Ahead of Northern
Spotted Owls?" :-)

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: The answer is tax-n-spend
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:36:03 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Sep10.000602.4023@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupend writes...
>In article <1992Sep9.155242.11519@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> In <21465@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>....
>>>> Spending isn't a "drag on the economy".  What do you want to cut to
>>>> fix the current deficit?  After that list, tell me what you want to
>>>> cut to fix the new deficit from cutting taxes.  If you can come up
>>>> with a reasonable explanation for this, you'll be ahead of George
>>>> Bush.  He's said he wants to cut taxes, but isn't going to talk about
>>>> how he plans to pay for it until January or so.
>> 
>>>Which president in the early '60s cut taxes by $10B and raised revenue
>>>as a direct result $14B?
>> 
In 81' (the last year of Cater's budget) revenue increased by 15.9% over
1980. In 82' (the first year of Reagan, and the beginning of his tax cut)
revenue increased by just 3%. The following year revenue DROPPED by 
2.8%. In 1985 revenue increased by 10.2%. The following year (after 
Reagan realigned the tax code and dropped taxes on the rich by even
more) revenue increased by just 4.8%. 
	One last thing to remember, the number of people in the 
country increased every year. More people in the workforce, more
people paying taxes.
	(numbers from U.S. Treasury dept.)

>	Cutting taxes at this point will not create a deficit.  Revenues will
>increase to make up the "paper shortfall".
>
I wish I could do that with my budget. I also wish the govt. could.
BTW, I almost forgot. The tax cut in 82' also had huge spending cuts
and the revenue still decreased, and the deficit still increased.

>	That's because it doesn't need "paid for".  (That's not the reason he
>isn't saying anything, though. :)
>
Why isn't he saying anything then?

>Brett                                                      

-Garrett
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Patriotism (was Re: alt.politics.clinton)
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:45:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: gte

In article <1992Sep10.213014.7161@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
> It seems like a peculiar form of patriotism to allow Bush to continue to ruin
> the country because of questions about Clinton's draft record.  The only
> consideration should be: who will do the country the most good as president.
> Bush's dirty campaigne tactics and his refusal to discuss the issues fairly,
> in open debate, would appear to indicate that Bush believes Clinton to be
> stronger on the issues and, therefore, better suited to the job.

Bush is bad: Clinton will be a hell of a lot worse -- just look at the
tax increases and the lack of economic growth in Arkansas.

As to refusing to publicly debate: four years ago, the Leage of Women
Voters (I may have the wrong group name??) was sponsoring a presidential
debate.  The Libertarian candidate asked to be included and the LoWV agreed.
Shortly thereafter the debate was cancelled.  

Going with your logic, the Libertarians must be stronger on the issues and, 
therefore, better suited to the job.

> Clinton has made a considerable effort to spell out his proposals in detail,
> both before and after the Democratic convention.  He has even posted very
> detailed descriptions of his proposals on this network.  

And, like most wild-eyed, liberal schemes, net expenditures exceed net 
income by 25% or more.  Clinton has come up with a hundred ways to help
the poor s.o.b. who won't help himself -- what he left out was how much 
he's got to take off the plates of *my* children in order to take care
of these helps s.o.b.s.

[...]
> -Bush's spending cuts - the details of which he has refused to release until
> AFTER the election.

At least he's pointing the gun in the right direction.  Clinton want to 
simply keep spending more.  The result can only be more taxes.

[...] 
> It is a sure bet that if (God forbid) Bush is reelected, his approval ratings
> will plummet as soon as he starts to impliment his (undisclosed) spending cuts.
> Unfortunately, by that time it will be too late to get rid of him.
> 
Likewise for Clinton's spend and (later on) tax, tax, tax.


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics