HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Convention review
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:37:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.212546.1291@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.194653.23927@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>..
>>
>>That's funny, I always thought it was the democratically-controlled
>>House that wrote the checks.
>>
The "Democratic Leadership in the House" Tom Foley and the gang 
mentally controlled innocent republican congressmen like
Dick Chenny into write rubber checks with their democratic counterparts.

no wonder they called him SPEAKER Foley!  :-)  (Hint:  Issac
Asimov's foundation stuff)  
>
>Did you really think that?
>
>Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
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 18:41:06 GMT

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>Another net poster cited a contrived example wherein he
>suggested that the statistics I quoted from the Wall Street
>Journal were covering up what really happened. In his contrived example,
>he assumed for the sake of argument that the rich had their
>income double and had their net income rise 121% (remember,
>*everyone* got a tax break, even the rich). He also assumed that
>the poor had their income increase only 12.5% but had their
>net income rise 15% (remember *everyone* got a tax break). I simply
>analyzed his contrived example and pointed out that the ratio of
>net income rise to gross income rise was essentially equal in
>both examples (1.21 versus 1.2). I also pointed out that it was
>unrealistic to assume that the poor only saw a  15% increase over ten years.

That other net poster (me) cooked up an example to demonstrate that
the original Wall Street Journal article was not giving all the
figures.  The WSJ article claimed (I quote from Mr. Crisp's original
posting): "In 1980 the top 5% from an income point of view paid 36.4%
of all income taxes collected.  In 1990 the same top 5% paid 42.9% of
all the taxes....The contentions that the rich got massive tax breaks
in the Reagan years is unsubstantiated by facts presented in the WSJ."

The point I was trying to make is that it's perfectly possible to get
massive tax breaks and still end up paying more taxes.  Yes, the
example was contrived in that there was no effort to make it reflect
reality.  However, it demonstrated exactly what it set out to do.

Mr. Crisp's retort--that the additional figures give rise to another
statistic that supports his claims--is reasonable.  Comparing the
increase in net income to the increase in gross income is a useful
statistic, and it is interesting to note that in the artifial example,
the numbers work out to be similar (actually 1.34 to 1.2, but that's a
quibble).  It would be interesting to find out the ratios for the real
world, wouldn't it, though?

But even if the ratios are the same, it merely suggests that the rich
have benefited from the massive tax breaks.  After all, if--in the
artifical example--the rich tax rate had stayed at 40% rather than
dropping to 30%, then the rich net income would have risen more
slowly, and the ration for the rich would be smaller.

So, yes, the WSJ article did not substantiate the contention that the
rich got massive tax breaks.  But it's clear (from an artificial
example), that those same figures do not REFUTE the contention.  THAT
was the other net poster's intent in his example.
From: dletcher@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Drew Letcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Iowa Political Stock Market prices
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:26:23 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA


Iowa Political Stock Market prices as of Thursday August 20, 1992:

PRESIDENTIAL VOTE SHARE (Dividends based on Nov. 4 Vote Share)
                  Bid     Ask    Last
     BUSH	0.442   0.470   0.449
     CLINTON	0.446   0.468   0.451
     PEROT	0.056   0.095   0.085

PRESIDENTIAL PLURALTIY (Dividend of winner pays $1/share, others $0)
                  Bid     Ask    Last
     BUSH	0.423   0.440   0.439
     CLINTON  	0.500   0.508   0.508
     PEROT	0.044   0.052   0.052

To see the latest prices:

     telnet ipsm.biz.uiowa.edu or 128.255.44.2

For more information contact:

     email: ipsm@scout-po.biz.uiowa
     phone: (319) 335-0881

The IPSM is a non-profit research project of the University of Iowa,
College of Business Adminstration.

-- 
Drew Letcher            | Specializing in PC network application programming.
Systems Programmer      | DOS, Netware, NetBIOS, IPX/SPX, etc.
drew-letcher@uiowa.edu  | 

From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Read! modem tax! *read*
Date: 15 Aug 92  17:15:00 EST

     I recently was made aware of the fact that the political powers
 that be are considering a *MODEM TAX*.  What I have read was
 that a 6 dollars per hour was being discussed.  Not only is
 this an absurb amount of money but why should we be charged
 to use the phone lines that we are already paying for &
 ALREADY BEING TAXED FOR!!!

     Write, and/or call, make YOUR OPINION KNOWN!

   The following members of Congress are on the Senate Communications Subcommittee:

The Honorable Daniel Inouye         The Honorable Slade Gorton United States Senate                United States Senate SH-722 Hart Senate Office Bldg      SH-730 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC  20510-1102          Washington, CD 20510-4701


The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen         The Honorable Ernest F Hollings United States Senate                United States Senate SH-703 Hart Senate Office Bldg      SH-703 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC  20510-4301          Washington, DC  20510-4301

The Honorable John Breaux           The Honorable Conrad Burns United States Senate                United States Senate SH-516 Hart Senate Office Bldg      SD-183 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC  20510-1803          Washington, DC  20510-2603

The Honorable John F Kerry          The Honorable John McCain United States Senate                United States Senate SR-421-Russell Senate Office Bldg   SR-111 Russell Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510-2120           Washington, DC 20510-0303

The Honorable J James Exon          The Honorable Wendell Ford United States Senate                United States Senate SH-528 Hart Senate Office Bldg      SR-173A Russell Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC  20510-2702          Washington, DC  20510-1701

The Honorable Albert Gore           The Honorable George J Mitchel United States Senate                United States Senate SR-393 Russell Senate Office Bldg   SR-176 Russell Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC  20510-4202          Washington, DC  20510-1902

The Honorable Bob Packwood          The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate                United States Senate SR-259 Russell Senate Office Bldg   SH-522 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510-3702           Washington, DC 20510-4101


The Honorable Larry Pressler
United States Senate
SH-133 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510-4101


  If you have any further information that will help with this
  matter then please make the information known so that we can
  stop this, RESPOND & encourage others to do the same.

                               Thank you,
                                            Mark

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:26:51 GMT

ja> James Allan

ja> I think it might be better to argue that income taxes take from the for-
ja> tunate and give to the unfortunate (or less fortunate).  I have a little
ja> difficulty buying the argument that someone who is born into miserable
ja> circumstances is somehow responsible for her position.

  I've always hated the terms "fortunate" and "misforunate". Makes it sound
  like we're all in some big crap shoot, where we land being the result of
  pure luck or chance, with no input from our own actions. Sorry, but I
  didn't get to where am I today by luck, or "fortune". I've worked my ass
  off in both school and the real world, and I'll enjoy the rewards my labors
  have given me, thank you very much.

  Sure, there is such a thing as bad luck, but too often people confuse bad
  luck with just plain stupidity.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:36:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.035214.5123@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <n73m#+j.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.183249.21977@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>
>>>One reason a progressive tax system is more "fair" is that, in a real
>>>sense, 10% from someone earning 10K hurts more than 10% from someone
>>>earning 100K.  People with a lower income must devote a greater part
>>
>>Hey, I'd go for a 10% flat rate tax in a heartbeat! I haven't heard your boy
>>Clinton ppropose it though, but seeing he seems to promise everything to 
>>everybody, he just might! When he does and CAN CONVINCE ME HE CAN DELIVER
>>it, he gets my vote!
>
>Well, it could be that our boy Clinton doesn't want to drive the
>Federal deficit to astronomical heights,

... could have fooled me.

He proposes a plan strikingly similar to the '90 budget deal,
except instead of cutting spending a little, he's adding a chunk of spending.
(Thanks to the '90 deal, we added a hefty chunk to the deficit.)

Let's see: Raise taxes and add regulations and spending, the new taxes fail
to raise expected revenue as we head into "triple dip" recession, due
to the burden on the economy.
Increased spending sends the deficit higher while tax receipts
fall flat. (Hey, it worked in '90, it could work again in '93!)

Are you *sure* he doesn't want to increase the deficit?
Sounds like a pretty good recipe to me.

--------
P.McGuinness
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:15:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.021019.4424@Princeton.EDU> kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.231343.24285@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>The evidence from the 1981-3 tax cuts is that the Laffer curve peak
>>is well below 70% and probably *below* 50%.
>>See Lawrence Lindsay's "The Growth Experiment".
> 
>Lawrence Lindsay. Now there's an objective source.

Yup. It's well-researched, and is a good read too.

>>In just a few years, the Federal Govt took in more at a 50% rate
>>than at a 70% rate.  In addition, cuts from the 50% range to the 
>>30-40% range lost very little revenue, even over the short term
>>of a few years. Over the long run, it probably would be a net plus.
>>
>>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.
>
>I can't believe the Laugher curve is still taken seriously.

I can't believe that any thinking person could dispute that tax rates will
effect taxpayers' economic behavior. The Laffer curve is just a
characterization of that almost tautological statement.

>Sweden, that
>tax and spend hell on earth, has managed to increase marginal tax rates
>into the 90% range without any revenue loss.

This contradicts what I have read. Sweden, along with many other
countries *reduced* tax rates in the 1980's. What's your source for your
contention?

>Many other European
>countries have maintained high marginal rates without any revenue loss.

Names? Numbers? Evidence?

>I would also like to see the details of this claim that the 81-83 tax
>cuts were revenue neutral.

Not the whole tax cuts, but the 70%->50% rate change on high incomes.
See Lawrence Lindsay's "The Growth Experiment". (I hate to sound like
a broken record, but it has the most complete data I've seen on the
Kennedy cuts and the Reagan cuts.)

>In the light of the subsequent fiscal
>developments, I find it hard to believe.

In light of the fiscal developments in Mexico, where they
cut tax rates *and* reduced their deficit at the same time, I find it
hard to believe that a decade-old tax cut that cost less than $50
billion in revenue per year is blamed for our current budget deficit.
It has become a convenient scapegoat, to mask our real failure in
controlling spending.

--------
P.McGuinness
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GOP Chairman Lashes Hillary
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:58:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med


Is this an article about cross party S&M marital infidelity?

Subject: Re: GOP Chairman Lashes Hillary

-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:27:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.202932.18402@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>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.

Greens are trying to change the rules.  Most cost/benefit studies I have
seen previously were championed by the right.
>
>Pat
>
>  
>-- 
>Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
>sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
>(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke

I am not aware one way or the other whether the Amer Lung Assoc study used
"green" methods, but I believe the cost figure were health expenses paid,
not intangibles, as you suggested.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: NASA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:58:36 GMT

The Crisp-in-ator writes:
>purpose is served that is in our interest by registering all guns?
>What is wrong with registering criminals instead? How about registering
>Liberals? How about registering Socialists?

  Actually, a policy along those lines was implemented in the not-too-distant  
past.  It was called McCarthyism.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11119 alt.politics.clinton:2402 alt.politics.bush:2327 talk.politics.misc:40936
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:59:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <15CPBCR6@cc.swarthmore.edu> Glenn Stauffer <stauffer@cc.swarthmore.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.174246.26420@news.columbia.edu> Elizabeth G. Levy,
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu writes:
>>And no one is advocating taxing the rich of 99% of their income.  Is
>>this your paranoia about liberalism showing through?  If tax rates for
>>the wealthy are raised one or two percentage points, we may be able to
>>lower the rate for the poor.  This would reduce the burden the poor.
>>
>
>If you have any intention of ever reducing the Federal Debt, it will be
>centuries before
>the poor see any reduction in their taxes.  The poor would be much better
>off if the rich
>were induced to invest money in domestic industry.
>
>The question I have (for which, admittedly, I have not spent much time
>looking for the
>answer) is:  How many rich people are there and how much will we have to
>tax them in
>order to cover the rising cost of government programs, reduce the debt,
>and ease the tax
>burden on the rest of us.  I'd guess that, in order to accomplish these
>goals, the income
>measures by which the "rich" are defined will continue to broaden until
>people at my
>income level are considered "rich" and have the pleasure of having our
>pockets further emptied.
>Oh Joy!

If you are really intersted in reducing the tax load on the poor, how about
dismantling the FICA taxes? Fo the poor, these are the largest tax load
they carry, and for the folks that make more than $55K and som change,
it stops. In other words it is a regressive tax in all senses of the 
definition.

-- 
Richard Crisp             Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "I don't brake for Liberals"  (408) 253 4541 fax

The richest 5% of the population paid 36.4% of the income taxes collected
in 1980. By 1990 they were paying 42.9% of the income taxes. Furthermore
they had an increase of 17.9% in dollars paid. The total tax base increased
while inflation and interest rates decreased under this pro-growth taxation
policy. The assertion that the rich got an unfair tax break by shifting the load
from them to the poor is simply unsupported by fact. These figures came from
the Wall Street Journal 8/5/92

Two things in life are certain: Death and Taxes. With Death it doesn't
get worse if the Democrats are elected.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10323 alt.politics.bush:1239 alt.politics.clinton:1737 talk.politics.misc:39099
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:59:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

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.

<Interspersed with cries and sobs:>
Wait! But he raised taxes to lower our deficit! Where did he go
wrong???
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
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: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.114027.3020@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>
>
>  I'd like to add a little quote from _The Economist_ that I think
>is particularly well-worded on this matter.
>
	[ 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? 

	I'm sorry if this sounds petty, but it would be nice to have
the author's name along with the publication when being quoted.

From: WHAT'S.A.MATTER.YOU?@iphase.UUCP (WHAT'S A MATTER YOU?)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP