HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:46:01 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
 <1992Sep11.192329.28707@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 <1992Sep14.201349.11609@gtephx.UUCP>

In article <1992Sep14.201349.11609@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford
@ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) says:

>The truth is that a single payer system will have more waste (especially
>if that payer is the gov't).
>
>It is the gov't sponsored medical insurance that has driven the cost of
>healthcare through the roof.  Take a look back to when health care
>costs started rising dramatically: then look at when the gov't got into

I have and you're incorrect.  Compare the rate of cost inflation in
medical care to the rate of cost inflation in other goods.  You'll find that
this comparison improves after Medicare.  The rate of cost inflation in medical
care relative to other goods dropped after Medicare.



>providing healthcare costs.
>
>Gov't has made the medical profession an accounting business.  The big
>bucks from gov't insurance has created patients that don't care how
>much it costs and doctors who aren't hurting their patients when they

And what about private insurers who pay for 36% of hospital care,
and 48% of physician care.  They've played no part in this rise
in administrative costs?  I have a few physician friends who would
dispute that.

>overcharge.
>
>Now that gov't has made a mess of the healthcare business, they want
>to get into it deeper and mess it up more!

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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Family Leave (was Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:09:13 GMT

Doug Holtsinger (dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Sep9.170550.9688@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> 
: ujwb@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jeff Beer) writes:
: 
: >Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
: 
: >> Look at the facts.  Bush and Reagan has vetoed bill after bill
: >> in an attempt to stop the growth of the government.  The Conservative
: >> ideal is keeping government out of the individual's life and out of
: >> business.  For example, a bill in the works now will force business to
: >> provide long term maturnity leave; this is an expansion of government
: >> to take more control of private business.  Bush has vetoed this bill
: >> in the past and will probably veto it again. 
: 
: > Therefore, when he talks about family values, he is the biggest
: > liar and hypocrite I have ever seen.  The leave bill is something that
: > will help families.  But it involves sacrifices.
: 
: The family leave bill is going to help rich yuppies have children,
: and that's about all.  A company will likely fire any poor, working
: class individual who takes advantage of the 12 week unpaid leave
: authorized by the bill.  Companies know they can easily replace
: untrained, unskilled workers, and they won't be happy about a
: worker who takes temporary leave -- it costs them money to find
: a temporary replacement.  It'd be cheaper to fire them, and replace
: them with a new worker.  
: 
: The bill may have provisions to allow workers to keep their job after 
: they return, but there's nothing to prevent the company from firing them 
: for some contrived, unrelated reason.  
: 
: And in those situations where the worker doesn't get fired, the costs 
: of finding and training a temporary replacement will hurt American
: businesses, and possibly cost other people their jobs.  A President
: who is concerned about "family values" will veto this bill, because
: it will ultimately cost American jobs and hurt U.S. competitiveness.  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4911 alt.politics.clinton:5154
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Can someone check this out?
Date: 13 Sep 1992 16:21:40 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <BuI7Lx.A40@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:

#I don't know just what the Handbook said, but there was a news report
#recently that said that Clinton raised taxes _and fees_ one less time
#than Bush claimed that Clinton raised taxes in Arkansas.  (The Bush
#folks later said that GHWB meant "taxes and fees.")  However when
#you consider that many of those increases were things similar to
#raising the examination fee for getting a driver's license....  Is
#that statistic really a big deal, especially considering just how
#many tax and fee increases Bush has approved during his term in
#office?

During the Reagan Bush years as a whole, over 600 (counting the very
generous way that the GOP used on Clinton). Bush alone was I think
130+ , above Clinton,

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4987 alt.politics.clinton:5242 alt.politics.elections:13024
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:22:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Sep12.021513.22956@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

     Just a comment to all those who want to blame Reagan, Bush, and the
   Republicans for every problem in the country.  One big cause of our
   economic problems which I don't hear being mentioned is credit cards.
   Notice something different in the eighties with respect to credit cards as
   compared to the sixties.  In the sixties you had to have a perfect credit
   record over several years to even be considered for an oil company card.
   Beginning in the eighties just about anyone could get multiple credit cards
   with credit lines running into the thousands...

But consider, what could have persuaded the banks to grant all
this credit?  It was a combination of three things:

	1. Cheap federal guarantees of virtually all bank deposits
	2. Removal of most regulation of the banking business
	3. Refusal to enforce the few remaining regulations

This produced the feeding frenzy we called the 1980s.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,rec.humor,alt.fan.letterman
From: pancer@nyx.cs.du.edu (pat ancer)
Subject: Bush and VISA cards
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 04:38:33 GMT

Now which is it...
Is the guy on those VISA commercials imitating Bush's speaking manner
or is it the other way around?
Just wondering.

P.S.: sorry for the weird choice of newsgroups.  Shouldn't there be a
      group called alt.just.wondering to field this sort of thing?

--
Pat
You know, the ...um... *person* from SNL!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4950 alt.politics.clinton:5210 alt.politics.perot:1460 rec.humor:28525 talk.bizarre:29928 talk.politics.misc:45185 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5322
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:42:15 GMT
	<BD.92Sep12083407@fluent.UUCP> <BuH1Fy.FHv@news.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep13.191230.23082@umbc3.umbc.edu>
	<ART.92Sep13181129@world.std.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <ART.92Sep13181129@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
	[...]
	      Rush may not be interested in running for office, but he's
      sure interested in becoming a Republican party insider. There's big
      rewards available for someone who can be a daily 3 hour commercial
      for the Republican party.

   There are?  Care to enumerate these rewards?  If you do don't forget the
   supporting documentation.  Of course here's another one of those liberal
   claims of nefariousness that will remain undocumented, but somehow
   survive as truth.

Well, I'd say Rush is already seeing some rewards. Visiting the White
House and sitting at the right hand of the throne at the Republican
Convention is nothing to sneeze at. Rubbing elbows with the killer elite
of politics - it's simple POWER.

As a documented Evil and Liberal person, I don't see anything nefarious about
it, however. We all do what we have to do, and Rush is doing it. I'm not
the least fearful about his success.

   Given the kind of money Rush must make what other rewards could he want?

Something besides monetary rewards perhaps. Perhaps food for an ego that
is large enough to "interview himself!" in his own newsletter. His own TV
program. His own book. His own building. His own jet. His own ???

Rush has done all right for himself.

If Rush really speaks for so many people, then more power to him. It's still
a free country. (I'm free to disagree too.)

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Tularosa: tullies, roses, lava, white sands, and home of THEM! (atomic ants).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Welfare - The Truth Finally Revealed! was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: Tree huggers, Bud-chugging-hairy-backed-red-necked-conservatives
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:07:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <larryd.716498312@milton>, larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
|> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >|> and the path to success for women is to become a welfare mother.  She hasn't
|> >|> been installed with the middle class values of responsibility to support 
|> >|> herself, etc.  For her, there is essentially no downside to having a bunch
|> >|> of kids and living off the welfare system.
|> 
|> >Doesn't work. Do the math. You get less for each kid than it costs to feed,
|> >clothe, and house him/her. Each additional kid puts the family deeper into
|> >the hole. Like you said, the kids aren't stupid. They can do the math.
|> >Moreover, they have eyes to see how deep a hole the so-called "welfare mothers"
|> >find themselves in.
|> 
|> Who said they are spending the money on the kid?

Two points:

1) The ones who don't, don't don't for long (I've always wanted to
write a sentence with a triple negative...:^).

If the money isn't spent on the kids, and is instead spent on, say,
drugs (or am I misinterpreting your smugness?), then a) the kids
don't do well, b) the county takes them away (eventually), and 
c) mom gets no more money for them. Or they die, to the same fiscal 
effect.

2) None of which matters squat when talking about the vast majority
of welfare cases - most people are off welfare in six months, and
the abusers form an insignificant, though well-publicized, minority.
If you think otherwise, you've been listening to the Republichristians
too long, and haven't bothered to look up real numbers (which I, at 
least, did do).

Dan-o, of course, thinks that if they all got married, their
troubles would be over. Picture,if you can, Ozzie and Harriet
in South-Central LA. No, not Ozzie Osbourne, and certainly not
Harriet Tubman.

Anyhow, sorry to bust your bubble...well, no, not really. Just 
thought I'd be polite :^)

Don Coolidge
coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com

As for the subject of welfare reform, I'd like to see some.
It ought to take the form of training for real jobs, so that
people aren't simply thrown back to the tender mercies of the
market when they're able to try another go at things. Lack of
any meaningful training is a recipe for potential recidivism, 
and "workfare" does nobody any good unless the experience can 
help the welfare recipient get a decent job when the indenture 
is finished...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5207 alt.politics.elections:13185 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3783 talk.politics.misc:45575
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:15:36 GMT

In article <5238@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>I have enclosed a previous article where the quotations from Hillary's
>papers are given. Pardon the commentary if you don't like it, but that's
>the way the file was. If you can tell me how her works should be
>interpreted, I (and the network) would be grateful.

Okay, I'll bite.

>From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
>
>The quote in question is the following:
>
>" The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency
>relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving
>of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social 
>institutions specifically designed to safegaurd their positions. Along
>with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include
>marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system."

This says that not everyone gets the same absolute set of rights.
One obvious example is that a minor child is legally subject to
a lot of parental control.
The quote does not say that this is wrong, although it does provide
a good launching point for discussion about how far this
rationale for depriving people of rights should go in particular
circumstances.

>Her other pearl of wisdom is the following:
>
>"I prefer that [court] intervention into an ongoing family be limited to
>decisions that could have long-term and possible irreparable effects if they 
>are not resolved. Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling,
>cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others
>where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child's
>future should not be made unilaterally by parents. Children should have
>a right to be permitted to decide their own future if they are 
>competent."

>Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu

This says that to the extent a young person has the ability to
make responsible, informed decisions about his or her life,
he or she should have legal right to pursue some choices even
if parents do not approve.  As a generality, this is reasonable.

The first quote established that children do not have full
rights parity with their parents; the second quote asserts that
they should nevertheless have some rights.

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (The web)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: New standard for Alt.Politics.XXXXXXXX
Date: 8 Sep 1992 22:25:03 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: whirlwind.berkeley.edu



I hereby declare the contents of this post official alt.politics.XXXXXXX
language.



Here's a little interesting thing I found.  
Reprinted without Permission.

One of the lines was contributed by a friend of mine.

If you have any  interesting additions, please email me!



NEW POLITICALLY CORRECT LABELS FOR 1992:
(from the Heuristic Squelch, compiled by Julie Comparini)

OLD LABEL				NEW LABEL

Conservative				Reactionary
The Establishment			White Power Elite
Blind					Visually Challenged
Mute					Vocally Challenged
Dead					Metabolically challenged
Alive					Temporarily Mechanically Abled
Ugly					Aesthetically Challenged
Short					Vertically Challenged 
					   (Contributed by Gary Gin)
Rude					Politically Correct
Psychopathic				Socially Misaligned
Bald					Follicularly Challenged
Retarded				Mentally challenged
Non-white, non-male			Oppressed
Fat					Gravitationally Challenged
Pregnancy				Parasitic Oppression
Lazy					Motivationally Challenged
Drug Addict				Narcotically challenged
Janitor					Sanitation Engineer
Woman					Gyno-American
Dish Washer				Utensil Sanitizer
Dairy					Where cows are raped
Ranch					Where cattle are murdered
Fishing					Raping the Oceans
Farming					Exploiting Mother Earth
Paper Bag				Processed tree carcass
Biology Department			Where animals are tortured and then
					murdered to fulfill the sadistic 
					fantasies of white male scientific 
					lackeys of imperialist drug
					companies.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: mitchell@mehlville.ncsa.uiuc.edu (myself)
Subject: Re: Clinton Staff Blasts 'numbers game'
Reply-To: mitchell@mehlville.ncsa.uiuc.edu (myself)
Organization: NCSA - University of Illinois @ Urbana/Champaign
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:15:45 GMT

In article <lassfeINN6pm@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@suntory.mips.com
(Michael Polen) writes:
|> Marc Mueller) writes:
|> |> LITTLE ROCK, Ark.(AP)-
|> |> 
|> |> Is the great tax debate over? Bill Clinton's staff has released a list
|> |> that shows 127 tax and fee increases during his tenure as governor, one
|> |> less than the number cited by the Bush-Quayle campaign.
|> |> 	That might surprise people who remember Clinton aide George
|> |> Stephanopoulos calling the 128-item list issued by the Republican camp
|> |> as "ludicrous." He said the list "shows that the Bush-Quayle committee
|> |> can add about as well as Dan Quayle can spell."
|> |> 	Clinton himself said about the Bush-Quayle list:"Like they said
|> |> they know it's not true, but they do it because they think it works."
|> |> 	But his own list compiled by the Arkansas Department of Finance
|> |> and Administration, says there were 34 tax increases and 93 fee increases
|> |> during Clinton's 12 years in office, for a total of 127.
|> |> 	His list also includes 73 instances in which taxes ws.

When I read this article in the Chicago Tribune, it was slightly longer.
It went on to mention that a comparable list for the last 12 years of
Reagan-Bush oversaw some 600 tax and fee increases.  I could be wrong
about the exact number, but it was astronomical compared to Clinton.

David Mitchell
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4777 alt.politics.elections:12885 alt.rush-limbaugh:4613 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5277
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: I made a mistake Re: For those who missed it ...
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:17:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

I made a mistake about the phone number: it's 1-800-326-1200, not 328.
The poster regrets the error.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:16:56 GMT

In article <27672@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>   Where is the "education president?"  Is he the same guy whose
>justice department is fighting MIT when MIT and the Ivy Leagues try
>to offer "needs-blind" admissions?  Doesn't this seem like a stretch
>of the anti-trust laws?  Professional baseball was granted exemptions
>from anti-trust laws; why not MIT?

Professional baseball's exemption is STATUTORY.  Anyone who thinks
that MIT deserves too can support a law to give it one.

The MIT case had nothing to do with need-blind admission, it was over
price-fixing so that MIT wouldn't "bid" more for a student than any
other school.  Sure, MIT would like to pay as little as it can, but
students being bid for are hurt by that practice.  MIT thinks that it
shouldn't have to compete on price and the law disagrees.

Note that other schools figured out that they didn't have a case, that
they were breaking the law.  MIT disagreed, and was wrong.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5186 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3772
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:16:30 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?

In article <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com>, rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) says:
>
>Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
>wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
>disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
>never heard the term religious left?

Because it's at least "well meaning" as opposed to the religious right
which wants to soak middle-class working people to provide disastrous
hand-outs to the wealthy.  Remember Jim Bakker & Jimmy Swaggart?

Jeff Luck                                 *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University            "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                  -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:36:01 GMT

In article <farenebt.716582810@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>They must try and find some middle ground. Neither side believes in
>SOME restrictions. For them, it's either all (gun control) or nothing
>(NRA). 

Farenell demonstrates once again that he has difficulty posting without
misrepresenting someone's views.

The NRA HAS NEVER advocated NO gun control.  Farenell even knows this;
we've discussed SPECIFIC NRA proposals.

Stop lying Farenell.  The fact that you don't like the proposals
doesn't mean that they don't exist.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush