HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Depression of 90-92
Date: 11 Aug 92 03:17:18 EST

Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
 
I found these statistics in an issue of US News and World
Report (Unfortunantly I forgot to write down the exact date. I can tell
you that it was from this spring when unemployment was still at 7.3%
It is at 7.7% currently).
 
Over 200,000 white-collar jobs have been lost since this recession
began: during the downturns of 73-74 and 81-82, they increased by an
average of 800,000.
 
They real net worth of households declined in 1990 by the greatest
amount since 1947.
 
By the end of 1992, family income will have dipped below 1980 levels.
 
This recession is different from past downturns because many service-sector
jobs, especially finance, are permanently disappearing.
 
Private fixed commercial construction, plants and equiptment has fallen
to its lowest level since WWII.
 
Occupancy rates for commercial real estate are at the lowest levels since
the Great Depression.
 
Corporations and households increased their debt by over 71% since 1980.
 
After adjusting for workers employed part-time because they can't find
full-time employment, and those so discouraged they aern't looking for
a job, and factoring out the military, the unemployment rate has hit
11.1% (April's numbers). This is compared to 15.4% at the peak of the
81-82 recession (Reagan's) and 7.8% for the 79-80 recession (Carter's).
(parenthesis mine)
 
[Some of these quotes had more detailed statistics with them, but the
numbers were unreadable.]
 
From the April 6th issue of Fortune magazine I got these numbers.
 
Excluding government and health, more than half a million service
jobs have disappeared since mid-1990.
 
Another nasty reality: Some people tallied as self-employed are actually
underemployed, struggling as consultants or temporaries. Their hold on
the marketplace is tenuous, and their benifits often nonexistent.
 
If you add up categories of such workers--temps, involuntary part-timers,
and the like--you find growth in their numbers slowed in the past couple
of years. In the recession of the early 1980's, by contrast, the number
grew rapidly.
 
Adjusted for such cases, the jobless rate hit about 11% in the first
quarter, according to the Labor Department.
 
[As we all know things have gotten considerably worse since April
(just look at the unemployment rate). So if someone has more updated
numbers than these please post.]
 
[P.S. If you have numbers that discredit please send along (along
with source)]

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Some truths about the economy
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:51:58 GMT

In article <36816@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>Note, 30 years ago (1962) was the start of the largest post-war
>>economic expansion.  Where did the income rise take place?  Back
>>then or during Reagan?  The WSJ stats are incomplete without this
>>information.
>
>Please have the common courtesy to sign your postings. I like to
>know to whom I am responding. 

I thought attributions were posted automatically.

[some economic/historical facts deleted]

>
>Most serious discussions (both political and economic) that I have
>seen, take the incredible domination of the US in the global economy
>into account. Because this situation is very unlikely to ever happen
>again, it is pointless to compare economic and income statistics to
>that era. 

My comments were directed towards the WSJ statistic.  They claimed
that incomes for a certain age group has gone up by a large amount,
compared to the same age group X years before it.  I was pointing out
that the WSJ statistic was ambiguous in terms of this income gain:
they seemed to imply that it took place because of Reagan, even though
the time frame they cited was about 30 years.  The fram included the
Vietnam war expansion: if so great a gain occured during the Reagan
years, they would have cited it, fixed the time frame to the 1980s (a
rule of thumb about time frames: most of the important things
generally happen in the earlier portion, because, if it had happened
later in the time frame, they would have chosen that period: it would
be shorter, and would make the statistic even more dramitic).
Instead, the WSJ seems to have decided to misrepresent the facts.


--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:26:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.224434.14680@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
}In a previous article, tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) says:

}>but even in the states where the same set of rules is applied to all
}>parties there is always some magic criteria that allows a party to get
}>on the ballot free with no petitioning. guess which parties made
}>damn sure they already met this condition and nobody else did before the
}>rules were established.

}Yes, isn't this "magic criteri[on]" often the number of votes a party polled
}in the _last_ federal election? Thus ensuring the Dems and the GOP a place.
}I'm not saying this is just, of course.

yes, but not always (eg. in delaware it's pretty easy--you need to have
a certain number of people registered to vote as members to your party
(0.05% of the votes cast in the last gubinatorial election, in NH you
need to get at least 3% of the vote in the last gubinatorial election)

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10959 talk.abortion:32467
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 19 Aug 1992 20:51:20 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <seYe5xy00WBOI4GvBr@andrew.cmu.edu>, Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> 
|> Not only are the Republicans excluding homosexuals, they are excluding
|> pro-choice Republicans as well.  I have heard pro-lifers and pro-life
|> Democrats complaining because Clinton isn't giving them the time of day,
|> would not permit them to speak at the convention; but on the other hand,
|> the Republican party and President Bush are giving pro-choice
|> Republicans the same exact treatment, if not shoddier treatment. I don't
|> exactly see Bush allowing someone from the Republicans for Choice speak

Didn't you see Governor Weld of Mass.? Sure, he got booed when he said that
he was pro-choice, but at least they let him speak. There were other 
pro-choicers who spoke (notably Gov. Edgar of Illinois) but not about 
abortion.

|> It seems pretty clear to me so far. The clear message to pro-choicers as
|> well as homosexuals from Republicans is also, "Take a hike!" There is no
|> reason for a Republican to play holier-than-thou in this instance.

While you are right about their telling gays to take a hike, they are 
considerably less hostile towards pro-choicers. I guess the reason is
purely political. They can afford to alienate gays since the religious
kooks who vote for them will make up for gay Republicans who vote
Democratic or Libertarian; but they can't afford to alienate the pro-choice
voters since they cannot possibly be made up for by any other voting bloc.


|> Alison Colman

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:08:35 GMT


In a previous article, mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) says:

>In alt.politics.bush, rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>>
>>I think you guys and the media are splitting hairs.  Bush is
>>undeniably pro-life.  If his granddaughter decided to blow
>>someone's head off, in the end it was her decision, who else's
>>would it be?  Doesn't mean she would not serve life in prison, or
>>even death, or that her Granddad wouldn't still love her and support
>>her after she had done it.
>
>Are you for real?  You would support a relative who blows peoples
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^
>heads off?  You guys scare the crap out of me!  Quick!  Someone
>out there tell me this isn't a typical Republican position, please!

It's all connected with family values, methinks, blood being thicker than
water and all that stuff ...

>
>"Poor little Adolf, he's so misunderstood."
>
-- 

              "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"

                              -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Hostage Swap
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:55:10 GMT

From article by jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke):
> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> 
>> Pro-choice Republicans are
>> frequently sent to represent the party on pundit panel talk shows
>> (Lynn Martin, Alan Simpson, Susan Molinari, etc.)  I can't think of
>> any corresponding pro-life Democrats in high-profile roles at their
>> convention.

My gosh!!  The Pro-Life Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania and his
allies STRONGLY pushed for the RIGHT TO SPEAK at their convention, but
were DENIED solely on the basis of their abortion stand!

The Republican party on the other hand was NOT AFRAID to hear from
those who parted from the party platform at their convention.


> I propose that the Democratic Party exchange its pro-lifers for the
> pro-choice Republicans, as that is bound to significantly increase
> the size of the Democratic Party.

I propose we let people choose which party they'd like to be in themselves,
for whatever reasons they have.


> John

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:38:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.014828.6633@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>In article <BsvJy5.sz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>  You don't understand the proposal.  Joe Taxpayer with income of $21K
>>  only has to come up with $190.   (19% of the amount over $20K)
>
>Okay, I get it now.  Thanks to all who sought to enlighten me ;)
>In other words, it's like a progressive tax structure, except there's
>only two brackets, 0% and 19% (or whatever).

Not only is it "like" a progressive tax structure, it is one; it has
progressive marginal and average rates.

Note that more complex progressive tax structures (more brackets) have
"bad" properties.  For example, if we choose to tax married folk on
their total income, ignoring its distribution (as we must to keep
those who run small biz together from exploiting that), then there's
no way to avoid a marriage differential (relative to unmarried folk
with the same total income) of some kind.  Maybe that's an acceptable
price to pay to have more complex structures, but it is an inherent
property of them.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: a quote for this year
Date: 10 Aug 92  21:25:00 EST

-> How about Red China - they have executions and concentration camps?
-> How about VietNam... they do too, and they also persecute an ethnic Nobody, including myself, is talking about military intervention in China, but even when it comes to tying trade benefits for China to human rights reforms, I think that you'll see some sort of action on China from Bush when it's a cold day in Hell.  Seeing Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft toast Deng Xiaoping only a couple of months after Tiananmen Square, and seeing George Bush as one of the first Western leaders to meet with L
i Peng is a craven example to the world.

Let's see:  George Bush is willing to send troops to the Saudi desert to fight Saddam's aggression and, in his words, "defend our way of life", but he's not even willing to use the slightest economic pressure on China after they publicly butchered people seeking the freedoms we have?

As Teddy Roosevelt might have said, George Bush has the backbone of a chocolate eclair!

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

************************************************************************* "Freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorships."
             --Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, citizen of the world,
                   humanist, benefactor of mankind, winner of the
                   Nobel Peace Prize
************************************************************************

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 

From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject:  quayles look familiar?
Date: 20 Aug 92  19:22:00 EST

-> Answer: it's because Dan looks JUST like Princess Di and Marilyn
-> looks JUST like Prince Charles!  (It's true, look closely).

And I thought that Dan looked like Pat Sajak and Marilyn was the spitting image of Mary Tyler Moore!

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Oh Mister Graaaaant!"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:29:10 GMT

In article <p59m-0j.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
>In my opinion, gun control as a tool to help or hinder a military 
>takeover has little relevance.  Gun control also has little relevance 
>on organized or 'semi-organized' crime.
>
>Where it might help (but couldn't hurt) is getting guns out of the hands
>of small time psychos, children, and abusive spouses.

Abusive male spouses use weapons other than guns.  Guns are used on
them.  Is that bad?  (We've failed these women, and now you want to
eliminate the only chance they have left?)

Children can't legally buy guns ANYWHERE in the US.  Their parents are
already liable for anything their children do.  What additional gun
control measure can make guns less available to kids?

There are a number of possibilities suggested by "small time psychos".
Serial killers don't use guns, so surely gun control is irrelevant to
them.  The effective mass killers use fire and cars; convincing the
gun users to switch doesn't seem like a social good.  (Small time
psychos do have access to semi-organized crime sources.)  Unless
you're going to argue that there are significant numbers of small time
psychos who would use guns, but nothing else, and can't get them via
illegal means, ....

In other words, while those are laudable goals, what do they
have to do with gun control?

Of course, we could discuss currently active proposals for gun control
and see what they do, instead of arguing about what we'd like to have
done....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:34:19 GMT

In article <jc4m6tc.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.045125.14178@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>Finally, there is the argument that's already been cited by others that,
>>if you earn more, you have more of a stake in supporting the structures
>>that allowed you to do so, and therefore you should pay more tax on that
>>additional income.  As an oversimplified example, if you don't earn much
>
>By golly, if I have to pay more, I want my vote to count more! It is only fair!

JK Galbraith puts forth the argument that the bloc of white, suburban
middle class voters wield the majority of the political power in this
country.  Half of all Americans live in the suburbs now.  They have
monetary influence, and numerical power.  Poor, minority, urban voters
on the other hand tend not to have the funds to maintain a political
campaign.  Further, they tend to be discouraged by the seeming
injustice of the system (a glaring example is the fact that Bush has
appointed not one black to the Federal Appeals Court.  The one black
judge that Bush appointed was Clarence Thomas.  There is a short
article in this month's Harpers on this situation.) not to vote.


--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:24:12 GMT

In <1992Aug12.203543.14347@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.205628.29187@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>|>Wanted: What are the true conservative positions on:

>Let us see what the True Conservative Maggie Thatcher and cronies did?

>|>1) Foreign Aid?
>|>     a) Economic	
>You mean of couse back door subsidies to industry, only if absolutely
>necessary or if the company is donnating to Tory party funds.

>|>     b) Military
>You mean of couse back door subsidies to industry, only if the country
>does not happen to be bad guy of the month or if the company is
>donnating to Tory party funds.

>|>     c) Aiding insurgents/rebels
>Good idea, that way the market for selling weapons to the govt is bigger.

>|>2) Immigration
>|>     -- laws restricting, etc.
>"I feel the imigration offiecers would know what was expected of them
>with respect to coloured imigrants" - Winston Churchil.

>|>     -- citizenship, etc.
>If they have lots of money yes, otherwise no.

>|>3) Minimum Wage
>Abolished the wages councils (set up by Churchil), the only country in
>Europe to lack a minimum wage now.

>|>4) Solution to "racism"
>Mouthing platitudes and putting aq token Black candidate in a marginal seat.

>|>5) the "Buy American" idea
>Yep, they want to buy Trident.


>|>Feel free to respond but I kindly ask to keep it more objective than cynical.
>OK, I've saved the cynical stuff for last,

>The Conservative ideal is grab as much for yourself and bugger everyone
>else. Much as that idea may be shared by the majority of the population
>it is dangerous to have a government of such people since they are most
>likely to practice what they preach and stick their hands in the till.
>Witness the Regan Sleaze years...
             ^^^^^
              ^
>Phill Hallam-Baker

Thank-o there, Phil(l?), for your "objective" views. Just what the
doctor ordered. BTW, check your Webster's for Ronnie's last name. No,
on second thought, you might not find it. ;-)

-- 
Matt Marx: mmarx@csli.stanford.edu                  Lee/Lifeson '92
The Chinese say that when you die, you will "go to meet Marx." Hmmm.
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gov. Weld of Mass.
Date: 19 Aug 1992 18:10:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug18.190414.4534@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.184852.9019@udel.edu> lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>>
>>It was Capital Gang. They were talking to Gov. Weld of Mass. and
>>they remarked that while economically the platform was good, socially
>>it was not libertarian, and they asked Weld how he felt about that.
>>Does anyone what Weld is like socially? Apart from being pro-choice
>>on abortion, I don't know anything else about him.
>
>The Sunday NYT a couple of weeks ago did their cover story on him.
>He's a libertarian.
>
>
>
>--

He ran for Governor in 1990.  He won the Republican primary in an
upset against the official candidate.  Then he ran against the
Democratic candidate, president of BU, JOhn Silber.  Silber
is obnoxious and offends alot of people.  He likened putting children
in day care to child abuse.  He has a quick temper and never apolgizes
for anything he said.  A few days before the election he was interviewed
by a populare local anchorwoman and he was perceived as very rude to
her.  He was seen by liberals as a conservative, obnoxious
reactionary.  Weld is pro-choice and for gay rights. He won
52%-48% mainly becasue, I would suspect, many people couldnt vote
for Silber because he was so rude, obnoxious etc.  Weld was lucky
enough to be able to support prop. 3 to cut taxes but lucky that
it didnt pass so he had an easier time to balance the budget esp.
in his first time when a parttime mother worker for the state found
mega amounts of money owed Mass. by the fed. gov't.  Weld
is a millioniare (or the family is)
 and married to a Roosevelt.  The Weld family
has been around for along time.  Silber called him an orange-topped
WASP.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11083 talk.abortion:32687
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:08:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = (rocker) writes:

>> Also, remember that the Democratic position would not force an
>> abortion on any woman, while the Republican position would force
>> birth on a great many unwilling women.  You could call this an
>> inclusion, of sorts.

>The Democratic platform excludes developing human females from  
>membership in society.  It is an exclusionary policy. 

Mr. Atheist: George Bush has specifically stated that atheists should not
be U.S. citizens.

How exclusionary is that?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns