HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:24:00 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep09.043421.986@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>John, let's make it simple.  You claimed in your original message that
>"Under Carter, unemployment rose to near depression levels."  Now,
>you must be basing that on some data.  So tell us, what year(s) are
>you talking about and what was the unemployment rate?
 
I'm basing it on YOUR data.

If Carter puts the economy into a tailspin, then gets booted out of
office for high inflation, high interest rates, a failed foreign
policy, etc., all of those things don't go away the moment that Ronald
Reagan is elected to office.

It takes 1 or 2 years for a policy decision to work its way into the
economy.  It takes another 1 or 2 years for the policy decisions which
are put in place to reverse the earlier damage to work their way into
the economy.  There are no "magic" pills.  LBJ had Kennedy's tax cuts
passed in '64.  The economy didn't get overheated from that round of
stimulus until '68 or so.

You don't just point at the White House, say "So and so was President,
look at years <X> through <X + 3>" and say "So and so did such and
such."  Reagan entered the White House with the economy is bad shape
and getting worse.  He left the White House with the economy in good
shape and getting better.

>Give your constraints that the first year or two doesn't count, I have
>Carter at 6.1 (1978), 7.1% (1980), 7.6% (1981).  Reagan didn't even
>beat that until 1984, when he got 7.5%.  By the end of his term he had
>gotten it down to 5 or 6%.  Carter's record is by no means admirable, but
>if you consider 7.6% "near depression", then you must consider the current
>situation "near depression" and blame Bush like you blamed Carter.

Except that you didn't count Carter's last "year" - 1982.

>I only have data through 1989, but if you average Reagan's unemployment
>from 1982 through 1989, I get 7.9%.  His average is higher than Carter's
>high!

Again, Reagan's "High" is 1982.  Sorry, but bills aren't passed through
Congress and implemented in zero time.  1982 still belongs to Carter.
As for taking an average, that's bunk.  If someone takes a perfectly
sound economy and after the end of 4 years turns it into shit (which is
what Carter did), you don't give him credit for 3 years of good times.

>Get back to me when you can make statements you can back up with facts.

I think I have already.  You just want to live in a fairy-tale world
where January 20th is the dawning of a new day ...
-- 
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
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Check again 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:19:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.160439.11761@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j writes...
>In <7HgDr*rX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Sep2.230311.11857@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
> 
>>> I got news for you, the only newspapers that aern't conservative are 
>>> privately owned. And they are less than 10% of circulation in the US.
> 
>>That is utter nonsense.

Do you have anything other than a huge generalization to back this
up?

  We have a liberal newspaper here also.  We had another, but
>>it went under.  The conservative newspaper had a letter yesterday complaining about
>>it's liberal bias.

This just shows that conservatives don't know a liberal when the read one.

  You don't seem to know what a liberal newspaper is.  Could it be
>>that you are so liberal that you think that they are all conservative?
> 
Another generalization. I call the newspaper conservative when they 
back conservatives in an election. Does that make sense to you? It 
would if you aern't too emotionally attached to your politics.

>>> How can the Republicans say that they are fiscally conservative when
>>> they have given us the largest deficit in this country's history.
> 
>>They haven't had the power (i.e. the House of Representatives) to stop the
>>Democrats from spending us into bigger and bigger deficits.  
>
They owned the Senate in the early 80's, which happens to be when the 
deficit began to spiral. Also, and this gets back to my original point,
how can the Republicans take credit for the growth of the 80's and not
the deficit it left. Furthermore, how can you turn around and BLAME the
Congress for the current recession and take credit for economic growth
that preceeded it.

>>You seem to believe
>>that since the little spenders haven't been able to balance the budget, that we
>>should just give the BIG spenders free reign.  Let's see, spend much more until
>>the budget is balanced - yep, that's typical liberal "thinking."
>
Besides the fact that I haven't said anything of the kind (putting words
in my mouth again?), I have a chart in front of me that graphs
the federal debt as a percentage of GDP. It says that in 81' (the last
year of the Carter budget) it was around 34%. In 92' it is around 70%.
Hmmm. Do you have any stats that can contradict this? I doubt it.
(from "Monetary Trends" June 1992)

-Garrett
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:03:55 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21505@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <3510.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
>>   Let me see if I have this right... its too much hassle for YOU to prove
>>   that Fred started the flames, so therefore it is HIS responsability to
>>   prove that you started it?

>It has NOTHING to do with how =hard= something is, but rather with how
>=possible= it is.  It is impossible to "prove a negative".  The other
>person can always say "well, you haven't re-posted all of the news that
>you wrote."

>I have already proven that Fred started the flame-fest.  I did so by
>posting an article in which he made a grammatical flame.  He is free to
>dis-prove this by finding an article which pre-dates my posted one, but
>he hasn't done that yet.  I predict he will never do that.

No, you have proven no such thing.  All you have proven is that at one
point in time I flamed you for grammar (if you want to call that mild
a remark a 'flame').  Your prediction is a quite safe one, since I've
laready stated that, unlike some people who apparently have no better
thing to do with their time, I don't go around collecting old netnews
so that I can 'prove' things like this.

>Please, don't argue logic if you don't understand it.  The concept of
>"proving a negative" is Logic 101.

If you'd follow your own advice, many of your posts would be a lot
more readable.  I predict that you won't, though.  People like you
always put different rules on everyone else than you want for
yourselves.  Just look at the difference in your evaluations of Carter
and Bush, for example.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:42:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.150527.12865@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep9.233117.851@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Maybe the wild version will do better than the mild version, but
>>you can't ignore the similarities; you have to explain them.
>
>Explain them?  Hell, I can't even FIND them.

Start with the tax increase.  Clinton's plan is to up rate paid
by folks in the top bracket.  What was the major feature of the 1990
tax increase again?

Of course McCall can't find the similarities; he's not looking for
them.  He's looking for something to cover the fact that his candidate
is proposing more of the same, and we know that was a mistake when
Bush did it.  Since we don't have any reason to believe that the
policy makers have more effect than the policies enacted, the answer
to "will Clinton's wild version work out better than Bush's mild
version" is less than helpful to Clinton advocates.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:42:43 GMT

In <1992Sep15.013618.14163@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

>In article <21498@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. H writes...

>>the economy slowed.  There are only two fixes - loosened monetary policy
>>(and no, lowered interest rates ARE NOT how you ease monetary policy,
>>you have to actually lend the money, and banks aren't doing that ...)
>>or lowered taxes.

>This is one of those either/or choices. (either you're for me, or
>against me) Both of these are capitalist choices. Does anyone have 
>have a non-capitalist choice?

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'non-capitalist' choice, but there are
only a few tools in the government's arsenal that can be used to
stimulate the economy.  These are Fiscal and Monetary policy.  Fiscal
stimulus works by direct increases in demand (more government
spending).  Running a deficit is the classical way for a government to
stimulate an economy.  However, fiscal stimulus by itself can have
only short-term effects, and we have been running deficits for so long
and they are now so large that this tool is effectively out of reach
of the government.

In order for fiscal policy to have any long term effects, it generally
must be accompanied by an expansionary monetary policy.  The increased
money supply leads to lower interest rates and more available money
chasing the same amount of goods.  This is a slightly more indirect
stimulus of the demand side.  However, given the relatively low
interest rates that the government has set, there does not seem to be
any real shortage of liquid capital; instead, there seems to be a lack
of demand.  This is partially due, of course, to the fact that the
banks and various credit institutions are holding their rates for
customers unrealistically high when compared to inflation and credit
demand.  They are doing this in an effort to try to recover on some of
their bad investments.

So that seems to say that NEITHER of the classical tools are available
to the government this time around.  What needs to happen is for the
structural problems in the banking industry to be addressed, the worst
of the bad loans written off, banks closed as necessary (while the
cost of all this is still potentially smaller -- the S&L bailout would
have cost only 10% of what we are going to have to pay now if it had
been addressed promptly), so that the remainder are in a position to
lower the real interest rates to something that will actually
stimulate the economy.  The banks aren't going to write off those bad
debts until they are forced to, either by Federal regulators or by
changes to the banking regulations which force them to.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:32:30 GMT
 <1992Sep08.233257.21544@NeoSoft.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep08.233257.21544@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

> In article <SLaDr*hX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > Tell me exactly how it is better for the children to have divorced
> >parents?
> 
> 	Shal we make a list? We shall!
> 1.Dad rapes the kids.
> 2.Dad beats the kids.
> 3.Dad rapes mom.
> 4.Dad beats mom.
> 5.Mom rapes dad.
> 6.Mom beats dad.
> 7.Mom rapes the kids.
> 8.Mom beats the kids.
> 9.Dad fools around with other women, or just one woman.

You mean Slick Willie?

> 10.Dad fools around with other men/man.
> 11.Mom fools around with other men/man.
> 12.Mom fools around with other women/woman.
> 13.Mom's joined a Satanist cult.
> 14.Dad's Jim Pritchett. (just kidding).
>  
> Ah, but I'm just shooting ducks in a barrel.....

Yeah right.  So, according to Joe, everyone should be divorced because of the
few who fit the above.

> >  Is it better for the kids to spend more time with a babysitter than
> >with mom, so she can go be frustrated in workplace?
> 
> 	Most of the time, for the reasons that cause such a circumstance,
> yes.

Really?  Why?



> >  It is patently obvious to
> >anyone with a functional brain that the traditional family is the best way.
> 
> 	If so, how did you come to this conclusion? (-:

I have a functional brain.  Why didn't you come to the same conclusion?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:48:20 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <3510.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
>   Let me see if I have this right... its too much hassle for YOU to prove
>   that Fred started the flames, so therefore it is HIS responsability to
>   prove that you started it?

It has NOTHING to do with how =hard= something is, but rather with how
=possible= it is.  It is impossible to "prove a negative".  The other
person can always say "well, you haven't re-posted all of the news that
you wrote."

I have already proven that Fred started the flame-fest.  I did so by
posting an article in which he made a grammatical flame.  He is free to
dis-prove this by finding an article which pre-dates my posted one, but
he hasn't done that yet.  I predict he will never do that.

Please, don't argue logic if you don't understand it.  The concept of
"proving a negative" is Logic 101.
-- 
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: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Pl
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:39:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525


FJM> trusted in other areas.  Perhaps you should make up a list of
FJM> Presidents who have had extramarital affairs or who are rumoured to
FJM> have had them, and then see how you come out.

FJM> Let me help you get started:  George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, John
FJM> Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt.  You can add from there.

   Let's not forget John-boy's favorite SuperChristian and Founding Father
   Thomas Jefferson, who carried on an extramarital affair with Sally
   Hemmings, one of his slaves.

      David Brooks

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                                                                                                   
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
From: hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick)
Subject: Re: Sex Education (was lots of other subjects)
Organization: Only When Necessary
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:31:06 GMT

In article <exuptr.465.716066284@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.032302.23073@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>
>>        Sex education is there for one reason only: to give kids the
>>straight facts, pure and simple. No 'message', no preaching. They
>>could get hearsay, mythology, and lies from their friends, bathroom
>>walls, or porn mags. If we don't give them the straight facts, no one
>>will.
>
>It is a straight fact, is it not, that the best way to avoid pregnancy and 
>STD's is abstinance?

Not quite. The word "best" makes that statement a value judgement.
Abstinence is indeed 100% effective against pregnancy and disease,
but whether that makes it best is up to the individual to decide.

>                     Abortion, single mothers, unwanted childred, and nasty 
>diseases are all quite factual, and these should also be pointed out as the 
>harsh reality of consequences of sex, with or without "protection".

No, they are possible consequences, just like broken bones, brain
damage, high insurance rates, and air pollution are possible
consequences of riding in automobiles. We all try to minimize the
likelihood of those undesirable consequences, while maintaining
the benefits of the corresponding activities.

-- 
\-- Henry Velick   \  Millions long for immortality, who don't know what   \
 \-- Datalingus     \  to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.   \
  \-- Austin, Texas  \ -----------------------------------      Susan Ertz   \
   \-- 512-459-5770   \ Purveyors of Fine Graphics Software and Consultation  \
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 12 Sep 92 13:11:46 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

> In article <kBTwqB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
> Winemiller) writes:
[Regarding T. Jefferson's campaign for presidency]
> >The extraordinary lesson from this
> >is that the _subject_ of a candidate's Christianity was a proper (relevant)
> >thing to bring into public consideration.
> 
> Was it?

Yes.  Certainly at that time.  Apparently there was no significant objection
to discussing the religious affiliation of presidential candidates.

> Is any item offered in an election proper, then?

Probably not.  Objections would be raised by lots of people regarding
"improper" subjects that were raised by a few.  Personally, I think it's
proper to consider subject matter that bears significantly upon a
candidate's character.  (Of course, you might not think that religious
affiliation (or lack thereof) bears upon character.  Apparently the people
of Jefferson's time did.)

> And, even if it was "proper", wasn't slavery "proper" at that time, as well?

In my opinion it would have been quite proper to discuss Jefferson's
ownership of slaves.  Perhaps they did.  (If not, they should have!)

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:15:59 GMT

In article <21487@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>If the top 50% of the income earned generates 97% of the income tax
>revenue (and I believe that is the correct ratio),

I do not believe it; someone please supply a reference.

>select those two
>groups generates a ratio of 32.3 to 1.

And this ratio is not very meaningful.  Income tax is just
one way the government hits people's wallets, and it's virtually
the only revenue component that has any progressivity at all.
Incidentally, a good way to reduce this ratio would be to
narrow the disparity in income levels.

>As for Social Security, if you start including SS payments, then you
>need to start including SS payouts, Welfare payouts, etc.  By the time
>you do that, you will find that you have to earn roughly $27K as a
>family of 4 before you even have a POSITIVE input.  This is based on
>the average level of benefits for a family being about $5K per year
>and the 1991 tax tables, plus 7.55% FICA.  If you make less than that,
>the $5K you get from the government is greater than the taxes you put
>in.  So much for the poor paying all these taxes.
>
>As you can see, you don't have to pick the poorest of the poor before
>the taxes that are paid in don't even pay their fair share of the cost
>of government.
. . .
>John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler

Let's talk about a young married couple earning a
combined $25,000 per year.  They pay 16% of their gross income in
federal income and FICA, and this doesn't even count the employer's
equal FICA contribution, which directly impacts their earning
potential.  They do not get any social security or welfare benefits.

Now how much more do they need to pay to cover their fair share?

As for the truly destitute, who are hardly paying taxes at all,
what can we reasonably expect?  Blood from a stone?

------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com

Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: George v. Congress
Originator: patrick@mozart.convex.com
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:41:51 GMT
Reply-To: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <sP7Dr*6X0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>
>I don't hear much from the "Bush machine."  They still aren't nearly as active as
>the Slick Willie machine.
>
Then you haven't been paying attention.  Back when Perot was looking like
the main action, Bush had over 100 people looking for dirt to throw at
this "non-candidate".  They found a number of "important" things, including
the fact that Perot had some employees investigated for possible wrongdoing.
They orchestrated a campaign that was successful enough to cause Perot to
withdraw from the mudbath.  I'm sure these same people are not unemployed
now.

By the way, on the liberal press: I believe that the press is neither
liberal nor conservative (although the press contains members of each type).
Rather, the press is led around like a pack of scavengers by whoever is
better at manipulating the herd at any given time.

- Patrick McGehearty

ps. To all posters: please keep your margins under 80 columns as a mercy
to those readers who are still limited by older technology.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4899 alt.politics.clinton:4322