HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:35:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.234839.22066@novell.com> mwalker@wc.novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.201116.21122@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.195725.9314@leland.Stanford.EDU> jimbo@leland.Stanford.ED
>>>
>>>Note that, although the tax rate on the wealthy is much lower than in 1977,
>>>they still pay the same percentage of tax--amazing how that works, isn't it?
>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure how you're interpreting the phrase "Proportion of federal income
>>taxes paid by the wealthiest 1%"  If it mean simply the percentage of the tax 
>>pie kicked in by the top 1% then there is no linkage to the tax rate.  The 
>>interpretation I draw from your list above is that there are more people in the
>>top 1% than in the late 1970's.
>
>That's good, isn't it? That interpretation would also mean that the poorest 40%
>are becoming fewer in number.

Well, it would be good except that the interpretation that is more in
accord with the facts is that the wealth of that top 1% has increased
dramatically, so that a lower percentage of that wealth amounts to the
same proportion of the 'pie' as before.  In other words, the very
wealthiest people have gotten much wealthier since the 1970's.

Fun with numbers, indeed.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:636 talk.politics.misc:35775
From: eek@ocarina.mitre.org (Ericka Kammerer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More from the Education President
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:13:59 GMT
Reply-To: eek@csmil.umich.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va


 ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Donpaul C. Stephens) writes:
|> > 
|> >Federal provisions exempting employer-provided educational assistance 
|> >plans from federal income tax withholding expired June 30, 1992.
|> > 
|> >Here is another place that the government could help us.  A simple
|> >tax deduction or tax credit for money spent on education.
|> > 
|> >Have Fun
|> >Greg Scott
|> >gjs@wdl1.wdl.loral.com

|> Yes, i'd call students a special interest if they want to get us to vote
|> for someone because we don't have to pay our fare share.  I don't like
|> getting a lot of tax taken out of my pay, but I'll pay the same tax
|> everyone else does that earns what i do.  I believe that we don't pay
|> Social Security taxes while in college, that helps the money go a little
|> further, but as for federal, state and local...why?

|> If you don't care to improve yourself, then don't come crying to me when
|> you drop out so you could make more money NOW.  Look at the future and
|> what your plans would cause

	The problem in this case is that students are being taxed on
money they never actually received.  If your employer is paying for
your education (while you're working full-time usually), you never
actually see that money, except that you get to go to school.  If
you're taking two courses per semester year 'round at night at a
relatively expensive school, this could easily add up to over
$7000 in benefits.  You wouldn't have extra money withheld from
your paycheck (unless you made arrangements for it) and when
tax-time came around, you'd be hit with a a rather large amount
owed to the government.  This can be especially traumatic for
students who are working on their undergraduate degrees at night
and are unlikely to be earning all that much money on their day
jobs.

	I'm all for students paying their fair share of taxes on
monies they actually earn (wages, assistantships, etc.) for the
reasons you give above, but I draw the line at tuition-remission,
fellowships, and employer assistance since the money never
actually passes through the students' hands.  If I can pay for
health care and child care expenses on a pre-tax basis, why can't
I (or my employer, actually) pay for my education that way, too?

Ericka
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: allen@iastate.edu (Kenneth R Allen)
Subject: Re: Gun Rights Advocates (was Re: An invitation to explore the Libert...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:51:12 GMT

And if you did own guns it may not be a good idea to admit it here.  It is
known the the FBI recieves a full feed of network news and widely assumed
that they moniter the "subversive" groups (alt.drugs, alt.sex.bondage,
alt.politics.marrou, etc.) and while any given federal agency usually can't
find its records, I bet admitting you have a gun here will get a mark on
your file somewhere in Washington for when the Police State of America
really starts to roll.  As a matter of fact, I probably just earned 
myself (another) one with this article.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:40:58 GMT


In article <1992Jul24.164004.19295@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes...
> 
>You vote for Marrou. Bush loses and Clinton wins. The democrats then
>stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges.
> 
The scenario is unlikely since Reagan/Bush have recently overhauled most
of the court with relatively young people.  We are likely 2 or 3
Presidents down the road before a significant directional change can
again be made in the court.

>In this case, I AM voting for the lesser of two evils.
> 

Unfortunately, that's all we will get:  Evil.  In 1988 gun owners voted
for Bush because he promised to protect the right to keep and bear arms.
He then turned around and banned semi-auto importation, pushed a magazine
ban, and indicated he would sign a crime bill containing waiting periods
and domestic semi-auto manufacture (and who knows what other gun control
measures) if it had the things he wanted in it.

Assuming Clinton wins, we know what he will try to do.  If Bush wins,
he'll just use gun control as something to trade with Congress to get his
other programs enacted.

Either way, we (gun owners) lose.

I want a fundemental change in the political atmosphere in the United
States, including complete recognition of the right of self-defense and
therefore of the right to keep and bear arms.  I know I'll never see that
by continually voting for the lesser of the evils.  I'm willing, if
necessary, to take some short term hits to achieve my long term goal.

The RKBA battle isn't in the Presidency this year anyway.  The battle is
in the Congress.  The congressional leaders of the gun control movement
are nearly all retiring or facing tough battles.  Gun owners can help
behead the beast, taking the matter out of the President's hands.  There
are political races where I would vote libertarian unless a
pro-gun/anti-gun race between Republicans and Democrats was very close at
the polls.  I'd probably then grit my teeth and make a short-term "lesser
of the evils" decision.  I did that with Bush in '88 and lived to regret
it.  So this time, it's Andre Marrou and Bush/Clinton be damned.
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:259 alt.politics.elections:8869
From: david@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:24:09 GMT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

In article <1992Jul22.044551.361@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In article <s4dmt!f.jmoody@netcom.com> jmoody@netcom.com (Jim Moody) writes:
>>
>>Isn't it curious that Republicans seem to want to vest more and more power
>>in the hands of the President when its a Republican President?  And that
>>power is gained at the expense of the elected representatives of the people.
>>Autocrats to the end.  
> 
> I hate to destroy this bit of 'logic' with a little bit of fact, but
> Clinton has also said that the President (of whichever party) should
> have a line-item veto to prevent pork barrel riders and such.  Last
> time I checked, Clinton was a Democrat.

I hate to destroy this bit of 'logic' with a little bit of fact, but
Congress will NOT give it to him so he can say what he wants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Link                 david@alice.lrc.edu
Lenoir-Rhyne College          
Hickory, NC  28603 (USA)      I make no claims, but God does.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:40:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.082241.146532@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:



>A woman who wants an abortion must call a clinic and schedule
>an appointment.  I doubt that appointments are necessary to
>buy guns.  

     Generally not.  But would you accept a law which required that an 
appointment be made a certain number of days in advance?

     That is essentially what a waiting period is...

>Susan

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:53:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.185034.13106@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.002943.4459@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>Do you know what the words "well-regulated militia" mean?  Well regulated,
>>according the Oxford English Dictionary, when said of troops, means
>>well disciplined/able in shooting, and "militia" according to the 1792
>>Militia Act meant all free males from 17 to 45.  Furthermore, the
>>first clause of the Second Amendment is *not* a restrictive clause,
>>it merely states the reason for the second clause--which acknowledges
>>an unlimited right to keep and bear arms.
>
>Poppycock.  The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens
>to "keep and bear arms".  If it had, there would have been wording such as
>"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
>The first clause of the amendment is indeed a restrictive clause because
>it spells out the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. 

Bullshit.  The first clause is UNRESTRICTIVE.  It's a preamble, and serves
to protect the existence of militias.  The second clause is unlimited.

>The second
>amendment was written to prevent the newly formed national government from
>disarming the state militias.

Bullshit.  The Founders all spoke of arms in the hands of the private
citizens.

"No free man shall *ever* be debarred the use of arms."  --Thomas Jefferson.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion,
 in private self-defense."  --John Adams

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people.  To disarm
the people is the best and most efficient means to enslave them."
  --George Mason

The "National Guard" interpretation is revisionist bullshit from
the 1960's.

>In the past, Congress has, using their
>powers to regulate commerce, enacted legislation restricting firearms
>sales.  None of this legislation was vetoed by the Supreme Court.

In 1939, the NFA Act subjecting sawed-off shotguns to regulation was
upheld because they had no militia use, implying that arms having
a militia use ARE protected.  Just because the Supremes haven't
overturned a law, doesn't mean it's constitutional.  The Illinois
District Court, in fact, has overturned a portion of the 1986 Machine
Gun Ban.

>In addition, the Bill of Rights was also never intended to apply to the
>states; only to the national government.  It wasn't until 1940 that the
>first amendment was "interpreted" to apply beyond the federal border and
>only then by virtue of the 14th amendment.

Dead Wrong.  The first incorporation case came before the turn of the
century.  You fail.

>BTW, using a 1792 defintion to explain something written in 1788 has no
>crediblity.

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, dimwit.  Back to school.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1102 alt.politics.bush:376 alt.politics.elections:9367
From: puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Evolution of a presidency...
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:43:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory

In article <1992Jul30.042350.7440@news.columbia.edu>
  egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

> In article <55487@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> 
>   jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:

>> 1988:  READ    MY     LIPS,   NO    NEW    TAXES
>> 1992:  SHUT    UP     AND     SIT   DOWN    !

> Hmm.  Both of these are commands.  Interesting....

Of course, as Fearless Leader says, he's "not the most articulate 
emotionalist."  I'd like to add one to this list, if I may:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|     "Get this [economic plan] passed.  Later on, we can all debate it."     |
|         -- George Bush, 12-FEB-92                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1146 alt.politics.perot:1150 talk.politics.guns:18432
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:58:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: UB

In article <1992Jul21.184349.19291@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.220413.11641@sma2.rain.com> fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Broo
>ks) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.154135.23260@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) wr
>ites:

>>>Here are excerpts from the 1992 Democratic platform.
>>>
>>>
>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
>>>controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of
>>>the most deadly assault weapons. We do not support efforts to restrict
>>>weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes.
>>
>>    I am sure this line will get them a lot of votes in Los Angeles.
>>Law and order has nothing to do with gun control. This kind of backward
>>reasoning will cost the Demos at least 10 million votes.
>
>How do YOU come to your conclusion?  Strict gun control has
>lowered homicide rates in foreign cities.  It remains to be
>seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
>platform above work.

The LA riots.  Name one city where strict gun control has lowered
violent crimes in foreign or domestic cities.  I can site a few
domestic cities where the opposite can be show, however, such as
New York City, or Washington D.C., or Chicago, or LA, etc...

followups set
to the proper newsgroup.  Gun control advocates cannot come up
with a decent argument for controlling guns, other than the
"warm fuzzy feeling" effect, therefore they have abandoned
talk.politics.guns and post their messages elsewhere.

One of the things about Perot that really bugged me was that
he never provided a strategy to describe what he would do
for gun owners.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:579 talk.politics.guns:17857 talk.abortion:28661
From: uk09365@nx08.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Rights and Legal Manuevering (Was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:42:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.192145.16282@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki)  
writes:
> In article <veal.138@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)  
writes:
> >     The view that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals  
is
> >a fairly new one, originating primarily in the twentieth century.
> 
> You've got it backwards.  The view that the Second Amendment does apply  
to
> individuals is a fairly new one, originating primarily in the twentieth
> century.  It's also a very contemporary idea that the Bill of Rights
> applies at the state (non-federal) level.

	The why was TANEY, CJ concerned about blacks being
guaranteed an individual RTKABA if they were deemed to have
the rights of citizens?
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Who owns what? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:40:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.184453.19350@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:

>>>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:

>    I read it in todays Columbus Dispatch containing the same statement , that
>the top 1% of the nation now have more wealth than the bottom 90%, 

These two statements are not the same.

>and in 1980,
>America was #1 in wages an average person made, now it's #13 in the world. 

Also misleading. Measuring wages is open to interpertation due to fluxuations
in currency. In 1980 for example, the $$ was stronger than it is now.

However if you measure labor vs buying power the USA is still number one.
This means that, for example, the average worker in the US needs to work
fewer hours to earn the money to buy a produce than anywhere else.

>   I don't know the figures. But I do know America has the largest number of 
>billionares in the world, and the largest  number of people below poverty
>line. 

Hold on a second here. Are you actually telling me that there are more
people living in poverty in the USA than in India or China or some other
third world nation? You can't possible be serious!

Does the average person actually believe this? I guess that's why
Clinton is ahead in the polls.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------276 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:29:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <Brv573.2q6@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>
>>So, Mr. Novak, why should someone not have to wait for an
>>abortion (not a right enumerated in the Constitution), but
>>have to wait to exercise the right to keep and bear arms
>>(enumerated in the Second Amendment)?
>
>Because they're not a well-regulated militia.

Do you know what the words "well-regulated militia" mean?  Well regulated,
according the Oxford English Dictionary, when said of troops, means
well disciplined/able in shooting, and "militia" according to the 1792
Militia Act meant all free males from 17 to 45.  Furthermore, the
first clause of the Second Amendment is *not* a restrictive clause,
it merely states the reason for the second clause--which acknowledges
an unlimited right to keep and bear arms.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:409 talk.politics.misc:35494
From: mary@Cayman.COM (Mary Malmros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:12:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: crisp@netcom.com's message of 22 Jul 92 20:52:44 GMT


In article <c7fm8bd.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

   In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
   >[]
   >Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
   >its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
   >operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
   >manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.
   >
   >Thanks, George.
   >-- 
   Thanks, Congress for:
   Minimum wage legislation

   Thanks Unions:
   for pricing labor higher than the prevailing global rate.

The "prevailing global rate"?  And just what would that be?  The rate
that people are paid to manufacture chips or sneakers in Southeast Asia?

We can all count, so it's obvious to us why it would be attractive to
a manufacturer to go where the cheap labor is.  The problem is that
US labor, unionized or not, just can't match those rates, because it
simply is not a living wage if the place that you're living is anywhere
in the US.  Whether or not it's a living wage in Indonesia is the 
subject of another debate.

I apologize for not being able to quote some numbers on overseas workers'
wages, but I'm pretty sure that in the two cases I mentioned they are 
laughably tiny (on the order of a few dollars a day or less).  
--


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mary Malmros     | Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
 mary@cayman.com  | Phone 617-494-1999  Fax 617-494-5167  AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:01:19 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Jul22.114509.14058@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu sez:

>  The Right to Life party is rather big in NY -- I think it
>might have even gotten the third line of the ballot but I am not
>sure if it still does.  

RTL has never been the third-largest party in NY.  After the Democrats
and Republicans, the two most significant parties are the Liberal and
Conservative Parties.  While somewhat more influential than the
Socialist Workers and other small parties, RTL has never carried much
weight by itself.


-- 
		       Apres moi, Les Etooges.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns