HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:51:45 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are Tax and Spenders in second place
 <1992Sep3.221337.27549@oakhill.sps.mot.com>

In article <1992Sep3.221337.27549@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
(Patrick J. McGuinness) says:
>
>In article <lacb8jINNdab@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael
>Polen)
>writes:
>>During an interview on PBS yesterday, the statement was made that if you
>>added up all federal welfare programs since the 1930's (the onset of
>>federal welfare), the total is a small percentage of the S&L bail-out
>>cost.  Does anyone have access to data to support or refute this?
>
>Sounds utterly bogus to me.(*)
>
>Using ballpark numbers: We spend $200-$300 billion a year on
>"welfare" programs - Food Stamps, housing, AFDC, and the like.
>Add in SS and medicare and you've got about three S&Ls worth of
>spending per year.
>
>Or ... HUD alone is $25 billion (just checked the 1992 budget)
>and food stamps is in the same ballpark (I think it's about $30 billion).
>
>So you might say that the S&L bailout, at about $200 billion,
>is equivalent to the Food Stamp bill for almost 7 years, or HUD
>for 8 years.
>
>The comment has been made that we have spent $3 trillion
>since the 1960's on welfare. Well, our multi-trillion investment in
>military may have helped win the cold war.
>What has our welfare spending wrought in the "War on Poverty"?

Well, if you believe the article in the Wall Street Journal,
apparently we have won the War on Poverty with all this welfare
spending.  Who would have guessed that the WSJ would "prove" that
the Great Society worked???
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.
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:59:34 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Eric Gorr) writes:
|> > >>     Instead of paying women for having children outside of wedlock and not
|> > >>     working, we should give parents who are unable to support their children 
|> > >>     an opportunity to temporarily place them in a foster home, get back on their 
|> > >>     feet, and take the kids back.  That will take away an incentive to raise
|> > >>     one's children poor with no man in the house, and reduce the number of 
|> > >>     children living below the poverty line.
|> > >
|> > >This is the dumbest idea i've ever heard of....snatching children from
|> > >their mothers arms - how horrible.  There are much better solutions then
|> > >that one.
|> > 
|> >     Shatching kids from their mothers arms is your idea - I proposed
|> >     giving parents an OPTION of placing a child in a foster home 
|> >     TEMPORARILY, till they get back on their feet financially.  The goverment 
|> >     would pay for the foster care (cheaper and, more importantly, the incentive
|> >     to raise one's child in poverty would not be there).  Another word,
|> >     the welfare benefits should go to the child, but not necessarily to 
|> >     the child's parent(s).
|> 
|> Sorry, I misread what you wrote.  
|> 
|> Ok, fine, give them the option.  
|> 
|> >     BTW, if you had to choose between the two alternatives, which one
|> >     would you choose?
|> 
|> Don't know.  Don't have chilren yet - but I would say that I would have to
|> be pretty bad off to even consider that option.
|> 
Actually it is a fairly silly idea.  The idea of someone else raising your
children for a period of time sucks.  First, you have no control over the
quality of foster homes -- some are good, some are terrible.  Second, the
assumption that someone can "get back on their feet" implies that the lack
of education and resources of a lifetime can be cured in a few months while
someone else babysits.  Not likely.

How about paying these women to perform their most important function.  See 
that thier kids attend class every day and do their homework every night.
No homework, reduced support.  Let's work on eliminating the problem, not
minimizing it's cost at the expense of making it worse.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:43:56 GMT

In <BtLx26.MMx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:

>sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>>A NY Times - CBS Poll of 903 registered voters shows that Bush has lost
>>his post-convention bounce remarkably fast, even for someone with Bush's
>>ability to screw things up.

>>The current standings in their poll are:

>>Clinton: 51%
>>Bush:    36%

>>This is widely different from a post-convention poll which showed
>>Clinton leading by 45% to 42%. That one was a poll of 1186 voters.
>>53% disapprove of Bush's handling of his job, 38% approve. This 
>>figure is virtually the same as before the convention.

>>Clinton's +ve rating is 36%, his -ve rating is 28%. His -ves
>>have gone up 4% as compared to the pre-convention figures.
>>However, it's a lot better than the 34% unfavorable rating 
>>registered immediately after the convention.

>Ah, but the polls can change quickly. Look what happened to a "reformed"
>Labour Party in the United Kingdom.  John Major STILL won, despite the
>worst recession since the 1930's.  AND all the polls said he would lose,
>right up to election day.

I've given up following polls, for that, and a number of other
reasons. My feeling these days is that the various media outlets are
commissioning all these polls just to create news. (And the right-wing
side of me says that they're doing it to help their liberal
agenda. I wondere'd be getting daily polresults if Clinton was behind
20 points.) (Oh,ah, I'm a journalist, and yes, for the most part, they
have a "liberal" --as defined in the US-- agenda.)

Michael
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Coming Debt Crisis (was 10% of Taxes to Paying the National Debt.
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:06:18 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
> 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.

> America is about to get what it deserves.  And our children, their
> children, and their children, will probably curse us every day of their
> lives as they struggle under a burden we can't even begin to imagine.

So how do you suggest that we vote?  Up till now, my preferred voting
method has been to ask the following questions:

1)  Has the incumbent been fiscally responsible or publicly advocated
fiscally responsible policies?  (I vote to return the incumbent if and
only if he or she has done so.  To date, I have not voted to return
any incumbent to Congress or the Senate in any of the districts where
I have lived.  And I have been represented by members of both parties.)

2)  Which of the viable opposition candidates talks the best line on
fiscal responsibility?  I vote for that person.  (Before flaming away,
note that I interpret "viable" rather broadly.  I've even voted
Libertarian before, in cases where the LP candidate didn't belong to
the whacked-out, wierdo, pseudo-cultist wing of that party.)

I haven't been voting for very long, but I have to admit that I am
frustrated and infuriated by those of my elders who insist on
mortgaging my future in order to preserve their current level of
benefits.  Who gave them the right to sign my name to their credit
card receipts?  If the current ruling generation wants to maintain the
current level of benefits, they should raise taxes to a level
consistent with paying for them.  If they want to pay lower taxes,
they should learn to do with fewer government services.  Which
decision they reach matters less to me than that a decision is made.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:54:35 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug25.182451.15307@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
]Precisely. The main argument against the capital gains tax cut isn't that
]it 'benefits the rich'. It is that the tax code shouldn't prefer some sources
]of income to others. It is the job of the market to make these decisions.

But some sources of income ARE different than others. For example,
capital gains are frequently made with stock in companies, but the
companies are already paying taxes. In that case, the capital gains
taxes are double taxation. Likewise, dividends are subject to double
taxation. Finally, capital gains taxes today tax imaginary (inflated)
gains which makes it often confiscatory, and capital losses cannot
be used to offset the gains in a reasonable manner.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 20:18:57 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Aug27.164618.11575@kadsma.kodak.com>

> One thing that you think carefully about: the right to vote an incumbent
> out is empty unless there is a plausible alternative. In today's big-money
> campaign system, many incumbents run either totally unopposed, or with
> opposition only from fringe candidates. This is because the accumulation
> of huge campaign 'war chests', in advance of the campaign, effectively
> serves to discourage worthy opponents from entering the race. The only
> way to neutralize this effect is by introducing term limits.

Bullshit.  There are plenty of other ways to neutralize that effect
without term limits.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:07:41 GMT
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US

One of these days someone is going to ask Quayle, "If, during your stint
at the National Guard you were ordered to shoot an anti-war protester,
what would you have done?"

Oh, that probably wouldn't have happened, he had a clerk job at the
Indiana National Guard.

Similarly, some silly reporter will probably ask Clinton if a cave-in
by Saddam Hussein would hurt his election chances, or an upturn in
the economy.

Sad to say, I agree with the Republicans that the press is behaving
irresponsibly.  I don't think their approach to "teaching" the press
will do any good, rather it is making the press respond in an even
more biased fashion.  The conservatives see it as their duty to spin
things to the right, and the rest start adjusting what they call
"moderate" to the left.

It is almost laughable seeing conservatives complain about how the
Networks aren't refering to the Democrats as "left-wing liberals" when
the same people call the Republicans "far right conservatives"

This guy wasn't complaining about being called names, but that both
parties weren't called equally perjoritive names!

What is your bets on the next really vicious question?


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 04:14:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug25.220643.28500@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>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.
>>
>
>The international and domestic business community voted on Bush's
>economic plan this week...taxs cut and vague spending cuts...the
>bottom has fallen out of the US dollar in international markets...
>a freefall which may yet force the Fed to begin raising interest 
>rates.
>

Of course a weak dollar helps keep jobs in the USA, helps improve the 
trade deficit and is generally good for political discussions!
-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.

Organized crime must be stopped. Sweep the democrats out of congress!
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:20:36 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Aug27.153228.6119@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
|> 
|>   Did anyone besides me see the special report on CNN this last weekend about
|>   politics and Hollywood? One little stat they mentioned was that 76% of do-
|>   nations from Hollywood persons goes to Democrats. It's pretty much uncon-
|>   tested that the majority of movie/TV actors, producers, directors, and so
|>   on are liberal, and I believe it's these people that Dan Quayle is talking
|>   about.
|> 
It must have something to do with the fact that with very few exceptions,
actors, producers, etc. are poor people, working hard and looking for their
big break.  The average member of the screen actors guild, according to a 
report I saw on a new magazine recently, makes less than $10,000 a year.

|>   Just think for a minute -- make a list of conservative TV/movie stars, and
|>   a list of liberal TV/movie stars. I guarantee the latter list is much long-
|>   er.

Maybe they are smarter that the average citizen.  (It is all in how you
look at it.)
|> 
|>   Oh, and one more thing -- the studio PACs gave less money to Congress than
|>   the letter-carriers union did. We're not talking a lot of money from that
|>   source.
|>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BCCI and Jimmy Carter (again)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:23:33 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug28.201414.25162@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.171312.19696@inel.gov>, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
...
> 	This is backtracking, but even so, there is no reason to suspect 
> Carter of helping BCCI, except for his connections with a charity that recieved
> BCCI funds. That relationship has already been explored, and Carter has been
> exonerated. It's not clear what you would have Carter investigated for, or
> where such an investigation would start.

	Carter, no.  Bert Lance, yes.

	Bert Lance had numerous outstanding loans (loans which depeneded on
government, no less) which he paid off by selling his Georgia bank to: BCCI. 
That was their window into the US.

	Coincidence that Bert paid off his loans by selling to BCCI?  Looks
mighty suspicious.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:41:38 GMT

In article <MATT.92Aug21120132@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <BtC5FF.GE8@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>   Dammit, Anders, why'd you have to spill the beans?   Don't you know
>>   there are people on Usenet who actually believe that economics is
>>   more than just rain dances and witch doctors?
>
>In fact, I am one of them.  However, I also belive that economics is
>not free of ideology: economists have a position (whether implicit or
>explicit) about what an economy should be like, and about what
>questions are important.  It isn't possible to say whether a change
>benefits or hurts the economy without some set of values.
>
>You will find, for example, that there are very few Marxist economists
>in the United States, but there are a fair number of them in
>Europe---and their version of economics is very different than that
>which comes out of the rather conservative intellectual climate in
>American economics depatments.
>
>What economists say can be interesting, and sometimes worth paying
>attention to.  We really ought to bear in mind, though, that what they
>say is always filtered through their own political positions, and we
>should insist that those political positions be stated openly, instead
>of hidden.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:59:04 GMT

Term limitation is a foolish idea. All it really does is limit our
choices. It is often the case that the best person for the job is
someone who has had the job a while. Why limit our choices? If someone
is doing a bad job, it is your right to vote that person out of office.

What it really is, is Republicans can't STAND it that more Democrats
get elected, so if they can't beat them fairly, they'll attack 'em
with yet another straw man. BTW, during the Reagan years, Republicans
were screaming to eliminate the term limitation on the Presidency.
It's poetic justice that the Presidential term limitation was pushed
through by the Republican majority in Congress during Truman's Presidency,
in reaction to Roosevelt being re-elected so many times.

Term limitation is yet another example of Republican hypocrisy.


Kathy
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42400 ca.politics:7123 ba.politics:4825
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:11:54 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <8221.983@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
    >>But, I don't vote (never have, never will), so don't blame
    >>me.
    >>
    >Allright! You dont vote..never have and never will. And you
    >complain about life in America?!?! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT! SHUT UP
    >AND SIT DOWN! Noone who does not take an active role in the
    >management of their home/business..ie:YOUR CONTRY...has the
    >right to complain. You've said it all. I advise those
    >intelligent people on this net to completely disregard
    >anything this man has to say. He has no right to squak!!!!!
    >
    >...
    >
    >Yeah...that's for sure...you're short on alot of things here
    >bud. You dont have the right to participate here....you
    >complain and yet you do nothing at the polls where it counts
    >in terms of Bill .. Referendums...and other legal entities up
    >for the vote to the majority! Why dont you just sit down in
    >your nice comfortable easy chair and be an arm chair
    >intellect like 70% of the entire voting bloc in the last
    >presidential election.....
    >
    >That's right..70% who could vote..DID NOT! NONE OF THEM HAVE
    >THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. You got what you deserved bud...the
    >bad part is...you and the rest pof the 70% dragged me and
    >mine into the dirt of this country with you!

Jawohl mein Herr! Ist mein stiff arm salute gut enuff for you?

Hey, look, over there ... yes you. Step right up and vote!

Do it in secret. Pick your choice, one of two that have been
selected for your coercive pleasure.

Let's see, candidate A, Mr. Goebbels, or candidate B, Mr. Trotsky.

Come come now -- you must pick one, you MUST exercise your choice.
How else can we legitimize this incredibly bad coercive system?

After all, the ONE thing BOTH parties ALWAYS agree on, is no matter
what, vote. Golly, the one thing they agree on all the time ...

Sorry to upset you so much, but I don';t believe in Kinds and
royalty either. Some people, in some countries, get just as upset when
I say that as you do know.


If the system continually presents you with a choice of two evils, the
only morally legitimate option is to not make a choice.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:53:31 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>
>I might have a partial answer for this. In the latest issue of Rolling
>Stone magazine they have an article (p33) that says: 
>
>	"Canada has lost an estimated 460,000 jobs since signing
>	a free-trade agreement with the United States in 1989."
>			William Greider
>
>It doesn't come out and say that the job loss is directly because
>of the free-trade agreement, but it sure does imply it (the article
>is about the expected job losses from the NAFTA).

We plunged into a recession shortly after the collapse of the Meech
Lake Accord on the Canadian Constitution in May 1990, well before the
United States and then Europe and then Japan started to take downward
vectors in their economies (maybe we should be blamed for starting the
whole mess! (-;) since that created a collapese in confidence on the
nation's future, and we all know that business likes stability.

In 1990, a Canadian blue-ribbon panel led by Jean de Grandpre' (who
was president of BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises)) concluded what most
sensible or cynical of people had figured ... it is impossible to tell
which jobs were lost due to market optimizations and which jobs were
lost due to normal occurences in the market, coupled to a recession
that was already beginning up north much earlier than in the rest of
the west due to the failure of the Meech Lake Accord culminating
months of national anguish.  The de Grandpre' conclusions rocked the
Mulroney administration, who were already budgeting for such programs
and thus abandoned them when the new deficit numbers came in ...

The issue of retraining died up north after that conclusion.

<Of course, this study may be ignored by the US Left just as how the
US Right has been ignoring a conservative Fraser Institute update to
their 15 year-old study on British Columbia health care access, which
has been cited down here time and time again as current fact ... with
NAFTA, reading the U.S. papers and thinking back 3 years ago to Canada
it's deja-vu all over again ... (-;>

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc