HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Originator: rja@redwood26
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:00:46 CDT


In article <BtLwqr.MHG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
> I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
> term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
> the House Minority leader) has been in office for at LEAST 30 years!  If we
> look at other districts, I am sure there are many other "lifers" in
> Congress.

Vote them out if you don't like them.

> This has got to stop. I don't think the founding fathers intended for 
> congress to be a full-time career.

They did intend for the people to elect who they wanted.

> Therefore, I think term limits of 2 terms for Senators (12 years) and 
> 4 terms for Representatives (also 12 years, to be fair) would do nicely.

What wrong with democracy?  Do you think people are too stupid?

> Let me throw this out here as well: restricting the President to one term
> but lengthening it to 6 years (except when a VP inherits the Presidency, he can
> serve out the inherited, then run again on his own).

Great, then were stuck with 2 more years of bad presidents and 2 less years
of good presidents.

> I think there are PLENTY of capable people out there who can serve in gvt.

Great, they can run for election.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Increase in millionaires
Date: 27 Aug 1992 16:14:57 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <acj-zR=@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> In article <l9nnigINN7o@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Aug24.134822.3715@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> |> |> 	Why do some people feel that the number of millionaires increasing
|> |> |> since the last election is a *bad* result?
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> 	If that number was 100% of the population (ignoring the inflationary
|> |> |> effect that would have :), would that be "a bad thing"?
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> 	It would seem that anything that helped raise the median income is to
|> |> |> be looked upon with favor.
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> 	Unless you're assuming that economics is a zero-sum game and these new
|> |> |> millionares did it on the backs of the poor.
|> |> |> 
|> |> Sounds resonable to me.  We have more working americans below the poverty
|> |> level than ever in our history.
|> 
|> Source?  The only report that I've heard about was a Census report (I think)
|> which made a statement similar to the one you are making.  Unfortunately
|> the statement is a misrepresentation.  I believe the statement was
|> that we have more workers earning a wage which is below the poverty
|> line for a typical family of four.  Unfortunately the results weren't
|> adjusted for workers who aren't supporting a typical family of four.
|> Even if your statement were 100% accurate you haven't demonstrated
|> a cause and effect between the number of millionaires and the number
|> of people working below the poverty level.
|> 
I do not claim that more millionaires caused more poor people.  There is
no cause and effect relationship between the two.  They are both effects.
The cause is 12 years of tax and benefit programs designed to aid the rich
at the expense of all others.

The facts (more working poor and the top 1% controlling a greater portion
of the wealth) support this assertion.  In this economy, the number of
millionaires have increased because the government has taken from the poor
and given to the rich.  The theory is that if a millionaire can afford to
buy two expensive import cars rather than one american car, it will create
more american jobs, boost the economy, and increase taxation revenue because
the "workers" will have more to pay taxes with.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:56:16 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes to Martin Guerrero:
# > Gee, you're still equating slavery with abortion?  Haven't you learned
# > that FORCED CHILDBIRTH EQUATES WITH SLAVERY.  And neither is right.
# 
# Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
# Millions of couples are being ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into 
# having FORCED ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual 
# intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms against their
# will!!  The passion which enslaves them is the principal reason
# why there are over a MILLION ABORTIONS performed each year!  
# Forced orgasms are not right!  We must allow people to take back
# control of their bodies!  

You've never had an orgasm.  Have you, Mr. Holtsinger?

In your quest to come up with a witty comeback to Ms. Brindle's
summation of the essential truth about what it will mean to destroy
women's abortion rights, you have evidenced that your brain has
completely fermented.

Thanks, Mr. Holtsinger -- I've been eagerly awaiting the bend in the
logarithmic curve as your personality self-destructs.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42803 alt.politics.elections:11943 talk.politics.theory:3935
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:35:30 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

(attribution lost)
| >However the pejorative use of "liberal" in the USA seems to
| >want to completely drown out the good meanings of "liberal". It
| >is all very Orwellian - the aim seems to be to abolish the very
| >word "liberal". If we have no such word, we have nothing on our
| >vocabulary to attack the social right whose ugly face was
| >evident at the Republican convention.

In article <64942@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
| "All very Orwellian" is DAMNED BLOODY RIGHT. ...

Actually, I find much of what goes for libertarian equally
Orwellian.  Maybe Orwellianism is our fate.  As one 
instance, the little two-dimensional diagram with libertar-
ianism at the top is just about as arbitrary as the left-
right spectrum.  By setting the terms of the discussion,
the soi-disant libertarians produce the answer before it
question.  Even the term _libertarian_ is suspect; most
Usenet libertarians focus on property, and as I've
demonstrated in other articles, property rights as we know
them are a formation of state power; they can be used to
limit other kinds of freedom, like free speech and free
association.  

However, I don't think the present evolution of the term
_liberal_ is a Orwellian.  _Liberal_ has always meant several
different things.  Modern liberalism was constructed to
manage several problems which the bourgeoisie or managing
class thought had to be solved or at least mitigated to 
preserve the capitalist system and their position in it.  As 
these solutions are now being abandoned, and the problems
reappearing, libertarians and others will have the burden
and the opportunity to apply new solutions or rehash and
reissue the old ones, but only when they move beyond
the irrelevance of utopian fervor.  
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Trivia Question Time, for consistency....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:27:02 GMT

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
] In article <1992Aug23.181009.24397@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >
] >I presume then that BOTH of you oppose the Use
] >of Military Force to provide humanitarian aid
] >in both the former state of yugoslavia, as well
] >as in somalia, and other states currently
] >facing 'ethnic cleansing' by the current warlords
] >in control of the food distribution systems.
] >
] >
] >Heavens, but the notion of the "Superiority of Life"
] >being such a First Principle would prevent any use
] >of military arms, as such tend to KILL people.....
] 
] Might you be assuming too much?

Well that is why it was raised as a question...

I love those who can come out foresquare in favor
of the Sanctity of Life, and then try and tell me
later on that they are Supporter of the Troops....

Just want to know who be on who's side, and how
much of which rhetoric is merely in regards to
'that woman's problem' and how much of it is 
to be read as relevant to "Men's Issues."

Now you do have a point, a lot of folks don't
wish to think the matter through that far, and
then get a bit confused when they are called
mysoginistic in their thinking....

But if it is sauce for the Gander its.....
'Pre_emptive Retaliatory Nuclear First Strike' for the Goose...


ciao
drieux
-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Fiscal Responsibility
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 12:29:32 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Aug24.214327.28247@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>sc> Scott Cromar
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>sc> I don't like the idea of across-the-board spending cuts.  
>
>gs> Why not share the "pain" equally?
>
>sc> Because some programs are worth fully funding (like the immunization pro-
>sc> gram that Reagan gutted).  Others are worth junking entirely. There's no
>sc> good reason that we can't set priorities to govern our spending. 
>
>  Priority 1 should be justification of the program's existence. 
>  Priority 2 should be justification of the program's funding level. I have 
>  yet to come across a program that couldn't do the same functions for 5%
>  less. Consider such an attitude a modification of P.J. O'Rourke's "circum-
>  cision principle", ie, a little off the top never hurt anything.

How about cutting all programs, on and off budget, by 40 percent and
increasing the income tax to 50 percent!?  If that hurts too much, thenm
let's just monetize the debt and get it over with.

The fact is guys that our debt is growing at such a rate that already
all taxes collected west of the Mississippi River go to pay for the
interest on the debt, or should (they don't -- Congress continues to
borrow even to pay the interest payments).  The best guess-estimate is
that by the year 2000 there will not be enough revenues coming in to pay
the interest payment on the debt -- forget paying the debt itself.

Granted, Scott, there are a number of progrms that we should fund.
However, reality has a way of screwing us to the wall everytime.  The
reality here is that we simply have to start cutting spending and
increasing revenues.  We all know that that will not happen.  Congress
has never lived within its means, nor has any President since Wilson,
that I know of (please not this disclaimer).

All of the bantering about who is better for President, about voting the
rascals out, etc., etc., is just so much hot air.  Clinton has said
nothing that shows that he recognizes the problem, neither has Bush.
The Libertarians haven't given me any hope either.

Personally, I think that if America survives it will be because
Americans take back the government from the professional politicians.
They take it back and swallow the bitter medicine that surely must come.
And to take it back is not a matter of political parties -- that is the
old way of thinking.  We need new thinking, but most of all we need
action.  I for one and open to suggestions.

Over to you guys.

Gene Gross

Who cares what my company thinks -- they don't care what I think. ;-)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals and totalitarianism (was Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:36:18 GMT

dq> Doug Quarnstrom
gs> Gary Strand

gs> Do I really need a law to tell me to wear a seat belt when I drive? Come 
gs> on!

dq> I don't know.  Do you?

  No, but I suspect that you do. You probably need a law to tell you when to
  blow your nose, too. (Hint: Do it when you can't breathe through your nose,
  and snot is running into your mouth.)

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Date: 26 Aug 1992 16:07:10 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

Just heard on CBS that a Federal Judge has declared the trial of
former CIA Spymaster Clair George to be a mistrial after the
jury was hopelessly deadlocked on the verdict. Walsh now has the
opportunity to re-try him.

What's the tally so far? 3 small cheeses, no big fish? Someone ought
to thank Walsh for showing us why this special prosecutor thing was
not that great an idea after all. 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:01:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <NELSON.92Aug25232203@sun.clarkson.edu>,
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Aug25.191613.23545@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> 
>    And then there is Mario Cuomo, Governor of NY.
> 
>    In general I simply have a hard time trusting members of the democratic 
>    party - they are too quick to raise taxes and 'help me' with new programs.
> 
> Get a clue -- Cuomo cut taxes in NY.  The only complaint that you might have
> about him is that he didn't cut them as fast as he said he would.
> 

Russ, Russ, Russ,

I am from New York State myself.  Cuomo is an economic nightmare and an
idiot.  I can't believe he won lo' those many years ago...
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [X] -- Put 10% of my Taxes to Paying on the National Debt.
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:57:11 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 8107@dg-rtp.dg.com, gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:

>To digress a moment, Congress has taken all of the money in the Social
>Security fund and replaced it with an IOU.  Someday that IOU will be
>called.  The problem is that the amount of the IOU is so great, the
>government can't pay it.

An interesting digression.  When did Congress authorize the administration
to do this?  I seem to remember Pat Moynihan raising a big stink about
the administration's tactic, but he didn't get much support from others
in Congress.  Did Congress officially approve the borrowing gimmick, or
was it something that the executive branch was able to pull off alone?

>All this talk of which candidate will be best for the country begins to
>pale when one looks at the actual troubles the lie ahead of us.  Neither
>Bush nor Clinton will be able to get us out of this one.  It has been
>growing through all of the administrations since Roosevelt's time to
>now.  That is historical fact not merely supposition.  This problem is
>the fault of both parties and a citizenry that has steadfastly refused
>to educate itself and force their elected representatives to act
>responsibly on all accounts.

I agree with much of what you wrote, especially the part that lays the
real blame on the people who bought the foolishness that their political
leaders were selling.  But your comment about everybody back to Roosevelt
being responsible sounds typical of the Republican line recently.  The fact
is that nothing like our present problem existed before the benighted
Reagan administration, with its idiotic "supply side" patented snake oil,
came to power.  The reason we can't pay off the debt is that Congress went
along with the lunacy.  Now that we finally have to pay for it, our
erstwhile salespeople are dancing around pointing fingers at each other.

You are right that Clinton doesn't have a total solution to the problem.
But he has some good ideas, and, once in office, he'll try to take the
economy back to fiscal soundness.  Like you, I doubt that his present
plans will come near to doing the trick.  However, when both the Congress
and the Presidency are controlled by the same party, there will be less
gridlock in government and more pressure on both branches to fix the mess.
(BTW, this is Bush's line, too, only his plan relies on changing both
houses of Congress to Republican control.  Vote for him if you believe
that that will happen. :-)

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George "Santa Claus" Bush buys votes
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:39:47 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

:FREDERICKSBURG, Va. (UPI) -- President Bush signed legislation outside
:a corner drug store Friday to increase loan guarantees to small
:businesses -- and denied that he's engaged in checkbook politics to win
:votes.
...
:Besides, he told reporters, ``You see the reception I got. So it was
:the right thing to do.''

At last, we have a clear enunciation of Bush's economic philosophy.

:On a campaign swing to South Dakota and Texas Tuesday, Bush won
:cheers when he announced $1 billion in wheat subsidies and $775 million
:in disaster relief for farmers.

Didn't his most recent budget proposal include a $3 billion cut for
these same subsidies he's announced a $1 billion increase for?  Will
the real George Bush please stand up?

:He also received the thanks of workers at the General Dynamics Plant
:in Fort Worth, Texas, when he approved the sale of $6 billion in General
:Dymanics jets to Taiwan, reversing a 10-year ban on the sale of advanced
:fighters to the island nation.
...
:He offered no response when asked if his decisions were at all
:politically motivated. Democrats and editorial writers have accused Bush
:of trying to buy the election.

:Overall, Bush has proposed more than $20 billion in new health and
:education measures without specifying how he would pay for them, while
:also advocating an across-the-board tax cut financed by unspecified
:spending reductions.

Mr Decisive, isn't he?  I guess the last four budget proposals by the
White House stand as a monument to Bush's Stealth Economics (or as a
monument to wimpy indecision, one or the other).

:Bush broke away from the White House Friday to sign The Small
:Business Credit and Business Opportunity Enhancement Act that would
:increase these federal loans over the next five years from $100 million
:to $700 million.

And they said Bill Clinton was Santa Claus.  

I think we've posted a lot before on the fundamental failings of the
SBA.  Maybe it's time for me to dig out my file on the SBA again so
that we can all be reminded what a pork barrel it is.

:Clinton's economic plan, he jibed, has three parts: ``Taxes, taxes,
:taxes.''

Bush's plan, as exemplified by his budget proposals consists of three
parts too: Borrow, Spend and Repeat.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 15:13:33 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: na
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug27.170829.25174@spdc.ti.com>, burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.072315.1702@meteor.wisc.edu> stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug27.021557.11240@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> >>In article <1992Aug26.035138.1468@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
|> >>>If 3/4 of your income is paid in taxes, you need a new accountant.  Income
|> >>>taxes are higher in Europe.  Value added taxes more than make up for
|> >>>sales taxes.  The big unknown to me is what comparison they have to
|> >>>property taxes?  Anyone else know?
|> >>
|> >>Well, let's see if I can get close to the Taxpayer's Union number.
|> >>
|> >>Federal Income Tax		33.0%
|> 
|>   FIT is charged to adjusted gross income, so is not 33% of all income.
|> 

It is also a marginal rate so that various portions of the adjusted
gross income are taxed at 0, 15, 28 and 33%.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:33:31 GMT

In article <17bu1nINNk27@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
} ... if we made a
} rule reducing taxes on the Hearst family, they could pump a lot more
} money into the economy, create jobs, etc. But it wouldn't be fair.

What, specifically, is unfair about it?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: gross@monarch.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 18:26:55 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Aug25.191613.23545@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>Democratic in the near future.
(Much deleted......)

Let us not forget President L.B. Johnson --  remember the oft heard
refrain from his administration "Hey, Hey LBJ, how many kids did you
kill today!!"

I haven't forgotten!!  I lived through his fiasco!  And it was then that
I quit the Democratic party.

What I find interesting is that Ron Brown also ignored LBJ during his
speech before the DNC!!

Gene


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42609 alt.activism:15624 misc.headlines:6052