HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's interview goof
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:25:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: hacgate.22907
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


: htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
: 
: >I don't believe the idea that Bush had the law in mind when he said
: >his granddaughter would decide about abortion. I think Bush's advisors
: >told him to come across as honest and compassionate (to contrast their
: >ensuing and laughable attack on Clinton's character) in the interview,
: >and so it wouldn't have played well for Bush to imply that he'd impose
: >a decision upon his family. Unfortunately this contradicts has stated
: >political position! But he did say he'd do anything to win...

In the analysis on NPR, an "expert" on political speach (I forget
both his name and his qualifications) suggested that Bush's
response to the question was deliberately chosen because of the
various ways that it could be interpretted.  Specifically, that
people who were looking for a strong anti-abortion stand would find
it there, and pro-choicers who were looking for a softening of his
position would find it there.  The goal is to keep centrists from
linking "Bush/Republicans" and "outlaw abortion" as a primary
reaction.

--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10877 alt.fan.dave_barry:588
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dave_barry
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:55:31 GMT
Distribution: na

tom writes
> just out of curiousity,
> 
> what kind of circulation does Dave Barry [libertarian/Anarchist] get?

Dave Barry may be funny, but he no libertarian or Anarchist. Witness the fact  
that he is a featured columnist in Liberal Opinion Weekly - The Magazine Which  
Guarantees That Your Prejudices Won't Be Upset. 

	Carl Edman

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:43:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.153917.28548@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>Benjamin Friedman, a Harvard economist, notes that the deficit
>spending was fine Keynsian policy until around 1984 or so, when the
>economy returned to full employment.  At that point, we should have
>stopped with the deficits.  Unfortunately, we didn't.  The gov't
>deficit then cut into investment.  According to him, the problem now
>is that the capital behind each American worker has decreased by a
>substantial amount (don't have the figures with me.  I can post his
>numbers later, if someone wants them).  This, according to him, is why
>the deficits right now aren't helping to jump start the economy:
>there's nothing to jumpstart; too much capital has deteriorated.  Of
>course, he's arguing for a massive infrastructure and human capital
>investment.  There's an article by him in the "New York Review of
>Books"; he was critiquing _Seven Fat Years_ by one of Reagan's
>economic advisors, and some other book.


  I agree that the deficit needs to be brought under control for the
reasons he mentioned.  However, if you look at the numbers instead of
the rhetoric, you will find that the deficit is due to _entitlements_,
which no politician can get elected by cutting.

  Entitlement spending was $313 billion/year when Reagan took office.
It was $533 billion/year when he left and is now $728 billion a year.

  As one pundit put it, there are essentially three big spending items
on the budget.  Defense, which is being cut (and is only 43% of Entitlements
anyway), Interest on the debt (which we can't cut), and Entitlements.
The problem with the deficit is to solve it a lot of people are going
to be unelected. 

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:43:57 GMT
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.

Raymond Lang writes:

>Secondly, there's what's known as the "marginal utility" argument. It goes
>something like this: the first x-thousand you earn goes to providing basic
>necessities like food and shelter, this money has the highest utility to
>you and so it is taxed the least.

[Etc., etc.]

This system wouldn't work either.  There would have to be different
brackets for different sections of the country.  You can't expect
someone living in rural Kentucky to be taxed the same way as someone
living in urban California.


--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:15:21 GMT

In article <jhansen.713648637@convex.convex.com> jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>Raymond Lang writes:
>
>>Secondly, there's what's known as the "marginal utility" argument. It goes
>>something like this: the first x-thousand you earn goes to providing basic
>>necessities like food and shelter, this money has the highest utility to
>>you and so it is taxed the least.
>
>[Etc., etc.]
>
>This system wouldn't work either.

I musn't have made myself clear.  I wasn't trying to propose a new
tax system, I was attempting to describe the system we have now,
giving the rationale behind progressive marginal tax rates.


>                                   There would have to be different
>brackets for different sections of the country.  You can't expect
>someone living in rural Kentucky to be taxed the same way as someone
>living in urban California

Aren't federal income taxes presently the same all across the country?
Are you saying that federal tax rates should be different in different
regions?  If so, I disagree.

Ray Lang
lang@cs.tulane.edu
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RNC musing
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:30:20 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <l9abfaINNhjn@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
> In article <37104@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:
> |> o Outright misleading lies from Bond, Quayle, and co; I expect that
> |>   from them. But when Bush mentioned the 1 tax-hike vs. 128
> |> tax&fee-hikes, I almost puked. Raising some obscure criminal fee by
> |> $1 is counted as one of those 128, raising alcohol tax on beer,
> |> wines, coolers are considered as 3 different hikes. gimme a break..
> |> Using the same rules, how many times did Bush raise taxes?
> 
> Reagan-Bush raised taxes 320 times under the same system of counting. They
> would be better off pointing out the fact that Arkansas is the only state
> in the Union to have a tax on food. 
> Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu


Nope.. California has a 'food' sales-tax surcharge for certain 
food products. This was introduced a few months ago.








__________________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                         |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@bhaskara.ucsd.edu |
##########################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Naturalized Republicans
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:49:46 CDT

While listening to the TV last night, one of the commentators mentioned how
Bill Bennett is a naturalized Republican, that is, originally a Democrat that
later became a Republican.  They went on to name a number of others:  Ronald
Reagan, Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, ...

Are there any naturalized Democrats?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11170 alt.politics.bush:2379 alt.politics.clinton:2466
From: pahst8+@pitt.edu (Paul Harm)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: REQUEST FOR BUCHANAN SPEECH
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:34:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: pahst8@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu



Could someone post Pat Buchanan's GOP Convention speech?

Thanks

pkh

kurtz@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:35:13 GMT

In article <16AUG92.16223310@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>In a previous article, cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) wrote:
>>Now don't be silly. The Republicans are the only major party who have a  
>>workable,fundamental solution to the dismal state of education. The Democrats 
>>- ever eager to please the teachers unions - are quite happy to defend the  
>>status quo indefinitely.
>> 
>>	Carl Edman
>
>Is that so? I guess I could be better informed on this, but I was under
>the impression that the Republican policy was to increase funding to 
>*private* schools, the idea being that this will increase competitiveness
>and result in better education overall. I see a darkly ironic parallel 
>between this and Reagan's trickle-down economics, if this is indeed a 
>good representation of Republican policy. I also think that Head Start 
>hasn't received enough funding.
>

  On Head Start, Bush has been responsible for the biggest increase in
spending on that program in history.  If it hasn't received enough funding,
it really isn't for lack of his efforts.  He has applauded the program
and its results.

  On the rest of the education system, the idea is not to increase
funding to private schools, but to give students vouchers and let them
have the choice.

  If you think about it, we have school choice now, but only for the
wealthy.  The wealthy (read middle-class and up) can choose where to live and
choose where to send their children.  America 2000 would expand this choice
to those who are not wealthy (middle-class).  Any funding transfer from public
to the private schools would be by the choice of the students and 
their parents.  

  Personally, I don't care where the money is spent.  It does not matter
to me whether a student is educated in a public or private school, just so
long as they get the best education.  Empowering them with the choice
of where to go to school certainly seems to enhance their ability to get
a good education.

 Actually, I also agree with Mr. Edman that the Democrats (under Clinton) would
probably support this plan if it weren't for the _very strong_ political forces
in favor of the status quo.   This assertion has certainly been supported
in the editorial pages of the WSJ, if nowhere else.

 Oh my, did I just start _another_ school choice thread? :-)

Pat 


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10990 ne.news:31
From: wkm@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (william.k.mcnally)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,ne.news,alt.politics.misc
Subject: Tax-time Shakedown TRIM 3-102 Swett NH
Keywords: Voting Record 3-102 Dick Swett 2nd Dist. NH
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:00:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIM 3-102 for Congressman Dick Swett 2nd Dist. New Hampshire
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National TRIM (Tax Reform IMmediately)     Average | Voted | Voted 
 an adhoc committee of The John Birch Society      Cost    | for   | for  
 write:  TRIM, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913    per    | LOWER | HIGH
    (Start TRIMing your U.S. Congressman NOW!)   Household | TAXES | TAXES 
                                                           | & LESS| & BIG
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR 2519: Fiscal 1992 VA and HUD Appropriations.       $842 |      | XXXX
Almost $2 billion more than 1991!  Loaded with 
unconstitutional spending! (Passed 390-30 on 
Oct. 2, 1991, Roll Call 286.)Total Cost: $80.9 Billion

HR 2686: Fiscal 1992 Interior Appropriations.         $131 |      | XXXX
An 8% jump from '91! Includes $176 million for National
Endowment for the "Arts!" (Passed 310-104 on Oct. 24,
1991 Total Cost: $12.6 Billion

HR 2508: Fiscal 1992-93 Foreign Aid Authorization.    $260 |      | XXXX
The Constitution makes no provision for so-called
"foreign aid!" (Rejected 159-262 on Oct. 24, 1991,
Roll Call 354.) Total Cost: $25.0 Billion

HR 2707: "Delayed Obligaions." Bookkeeping scamn       $45 | **** |
boosts Labor, HHS and Education budget by putting
spending on 1993 books! (Passed 234-188 on Nov. 6,
1991, Roll Call 383.) Total Cost: $4.3 Billion

HR 3768: Banking Reforms.". First the S & L bailout   $312 |      | XXXX
--now taxpayers are tapped for a "loan" of billions
to bail out the banks!(Passed 344-84 on Nov21,1991,
Roll Call 415.)  Probable Cost:$30.0 Billion

HR 3839: Fiscal 1992 Labor, HHS and Education       $2,131 |      | XXXX
Appropriations. The socialist welfare state marches
on! Up $22 billion. (Passed 364-58 on Nov. 22,1991,
Roll Call 417.)  Total Cost:$204.9 Billion

H J Res 157: Fiscal 1992 Supplemental Appropriations.  $72 | **** |
"Dire emergency" items include aid to Soviets, crop
payments.  (Passed 303-114 on Nov. 27,
1991, Roll Call 438.) Total Cost: $6.9 Billion

HR 2950: Surface Transportation.  Extends gasoline  $1,571 |      | XXXX
taxes for four years doubles federal funding of 
big city mass transit systems. (Passed 372-47 on 
Nov. 27,1991, Roll Call 440.)  Total Cost:$151.0 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Das Buchanankultur (was: ABC/Post POLL: No bounce yet for Bush.)
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:14:37 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Aug20.33028.6172@ms.uky.edu>, aras@ms.uky.edu sez:
>Also on Larry King live tonight someone from the audience
>asked Pat Buchanan about his use of the words "cultural
>purity" in his speech. This was reportedly in some of
>the newspapers. Buchanan flatly denied using the term.


Also sprach Pat Buchanan, Aug 17, 1992:

"It is a cultural war, that struggle for the soul of America."

"As they took back the streets of Los Angeles, block by block, so we
must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back
our country."

-- 
blah blah Communism blah blah Berlin wall blah blah school prayer blah blah
slick blah blah Communism blah blah Navy flier blah abortion on demand blah
blah Hillary blah blah Communism blah blah thirty million new j -- er, blah
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 23:21:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug22.051414.20800@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>>If you are really intersted in reducing the tax load on the poor, how about
>>dismantling the FICA taxes? Fo the poor, these are the largest tax load
>>they carry, and for the folks that make more than $55K and som change,
>>it stops. In other words it is a regressive tax in all senses of the 
>>definition.
>>
>
>Actually, I have to agree with you on this one, Richard.  The structuring of 
>FICA taxes is insane.  The way I would index it would be to *eliminate* the tax
>for people below the poverty line and set a flat tax for incomes up to 
>$100K above the poverty line. This way, it doesn't hit anyone too hard, unless
>you so happen to make an income at exactly the cutoff point.  One other place
>that has to be fixed is the double tax that self-employed people have to pay.
>This area is one of particular interest to me, and I am quite angry with 
>*BOTH* presidential candidates for completely ignoring the issue.


I would like to see the FICA tax eliminated entirely from the paycheck stub.
It seems to me that since the money just goes into the general fund anyway
these days (I think) that we should just do away with the separate, regressive,
tax item. Instead, the money should simply be called Federal Income Tax and
just bump up the Income tax rate a tad to cover it. In this way the tax could
be shifted away from being a regressive tax and the poor could get a much
needed break.

So I am proposing merging the two taxes into the umbrella of the Income Tax and 
to discontinue having the ~$55K ceiling on it since it would be buried
int he Income Tax anyway and making adjustments in the tax rates would
be able to provide the effect if still desired.

-- 
Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.        crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk        let's do it        (408) 253 4541 fax

Two things in life are certain: Death and Taxes. With Death it doesn't
get worse if the Democrats are elected.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10617 alt.politics.clinton:1992 alt.politics.bush:1660 talk.politics.misc:39838
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Which states are a MUST for Clinton ?
Date: 20 Aug 1992 16:03:48 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu
Keywords: States Clinton has to win

In article <tebarth.714308047@test35>, tebarth.bln@sni.de (Dominik Tebarth) writes:
|> Hi folks,
|> 
|> what i am missing in this news group is a discussion
|> which single states Bill Clinton must win to win overall.
|> Could it be roughly the same states Jimmy Carter did win in 1976 ?
|> If my information is correct, Jimmy Carter WON
|> (among others) Texas, Florida and NY
|> but LOST California !

Assuming that Bush retains his Southern and Western base, as
well as NJ, NH and Indiana (which currently looks like a big ~if")
and Clinton gets the NorthEast, Arkansas,Tennessee, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
Ca., Md. W.Va. etc.and the Pacific Northwest, then whoever wins any a
majority of Ohio, MI, Pa.  and Il. will win the election (This is a rough 
calculation).

Of course, if Clinton can defend his own base AND make inroads into some of
the Southern and Western states, he'll win it big in the Electoral College.
 
|> Which states should Bill Clinton get just to secure a
|> narrow victory ?
|> Can he win against California, too ? 

What do you mean by "against California?" If you mean, can he
win without it, the answer is NO. I doubt that he has to worry
about that though. After all, Ca. has a 9.5% unemployment rate.

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25337-buoni)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 16:34:08 GMT

If the tax system is so fair why don't we bring down everyone else's (nonrich)
rather than raise the rich's?  

BECAUSE: rich is a word the Democrats use to get people thinking 
"someone else"!  In the end, it never is.

I hope Bush quits (I love Kemp), but this is unrealistic.  I'll pull the 
Republican lever, run to the nearest restroom and lose my lunch.

Anyone running against the greatest TAX AND SPEND president of all times,
and claiming that we spend too little will NEVER get my vote.

Bill

My opinions are my own and do not reflect the thinking of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:07:04 GMT

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

>By golly, if I have to pay more, I want my vote to count more! It is only fair!

by golly, if you have enough $$$ you can buy influence and control
the representatives directly instead of indirectly through a vote:)



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:10:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.184711.16493@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.231343.24285@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>}In article <1992Aug11.184323.22403@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>}>In article <1992Aug11.161250.2483@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>}>>...
>}>>should be 100%,
>}>...
>}>Revenues" back in '82) have found it to be closer to around 70%.
>}...
>}Ah, the Liberals are learning, but they are still behind the "curve". :-)
>
>Leftists want to be fair to the poor.  Rightists want to be fair to the
>rich.
I'd like to be fair to all. Where do place someone like that?

>In my conception of Liberalism, I was trying to say, it's not a
>question of fairness.   It's just going where the money is while minimizing
>disincentives to create wealth for all of us.

Agreed. "Fairness" is a vague and fuzzy notion that seems to mask
a redistributive agenda in the tax code, as opposed to asking the
simpler question of: how do we raise money to feed the Government?
It is clear that at least some leftists think fairness to the
poor requires punitive taxation on the rich, even if it means
(viz. the Laffer curve) getting less than maximal revenue. 
But "where the money is" is invariably the middle class. Changing tax rates
on millionaires won't affect Govt revenues much.


>}The evidence from the 1981-3 tax cuts is that the Laffer curve peak
>}is well below 70% and probably *below* 50%. ...
>
>I stand corrected and defer to the opinion of those who know more.
>70%, 45%, whatever.  I also happen to think that we ought not to tax
>corporations, but I don't know whether that can count as a liberal
>position.
>
>Now, can we make the tax system mostly paperless?

I think to get there, you'll first have to make Washington DC
lobbyist-less. :-)
Seriously, a no-loopholes flat tax would help in that area, though.

>Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>

----------
P.McGuinness


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc