HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:41:09 GMT

In article <80861@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard  
Wojcik,snake) writes:
> In article 11070@kadsma.kodak.com, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)  
writes:
> >
> >Yes, inflation was a serious problem under Nixon and Ford. But inflation
> >got even worse under Carter. Some might think that the second 'oil shock',
> >during which gas prices went from .55/gal to 1.30/gal had something to
> >do with this, but many prefer simply to attribute it to Carter personally.
> 
> OK, I'll bite.  Why would anyone reject the idea that the more than double  
rise
> in gasoline (& don't forget other oil products) caused inflation?  And what  
could
> Carter personally have done to cause inflation?  Did he so irritate  
shopkeepers
> with his liberal attitudes that they hiked prices in order to compensate  
themselves
> for their anger?
> 
[deleted]
> 
>     Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

The early Carter years were inflationary because the government printed money  
out the butt (quite a feat :-) ).  A price increase in one commodity will not  
cause long term inflation, although it might cause a near term spike.  The  
reason for this is that as resources are diverted toward the perchase of  
gasoline (in this case), they must be pulled from some other place (like  
hamburgers).  Supply vs. demand generally means that other commodities will  
drop in price to offset the one commodities' increase.  _Free to Choose_, by  
Milton Friedman, is an excellent book to read to understand this process.

Inflation occurs when the government prints money faster than the increase in  
Gross Domestic Product causing the value of money to decrease.

It was popular during the early Carter administration to print money (lower the  
Prime interest rate) to attempt to boost the economy.  Inflation usually  
increased 6-9 months after the presses increased their output.  Interestingly,  
late in the Carter administration, Carter appointed Paul Vocker as chairman of  
the Fed.  Vocker believed in a tight money supply to control inflation, but it  
was already too late for Carter to be re-elected.

Jim Brownfield
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41290 talk.politics.theory:3797 soc.culture.usa:6780 alt.conspiracy:10225
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:47:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <1992Aug21.144742.23278@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>>...  Many groups in America currently advocate force to impose
>>>their culture on others.  Some of them are "good liberals".
>>
>>Examples, please.
>
>- the multicultural requirements that have been inserted into the curricula
>of high schools and colleges, from the New York City school system
>to Stanford University.

Pardon me.  As a "good liberal" and civil libertarian I strongly oppose
efforts from any quarter to _silence_ free expression and eliminate 
civil discussion among those with different views.  I fail to see, however,
how "multicultural requirements" inherently represent imposition of any
cultural values on others (unless you mean the values of free and open
inquiry. I'm willing to be a bigot about that.)

>- meanwhile, schools likewise have sought to prevent, many times successfully,
>the formation of private Bible study groups,  

If public schools were the only forum available for churches to 
propagandize I might be more sympathetic to this form of cultural 
"tyranny."  In fact, actual Bible "study" groups have never been 
prohibited by the courts any more than the "study" of religion has 
been banned in schools.  What has been restricted is the use of 
public facilities for propagandizing in favor of specific religious
viewpoints (The reality of many "private bible study groups.").  That this 
view is consistent with almost _any_ interpretation of the First Amendment
(other than that of fanatic fundamentalists) is suggested by its
reaffirmation by the current conservative Supreme Court.

>- The existence of the NEA and NEH itself, which has been primarily 
>a promoter of "Good Liberal" projects, at taxpayer expense.

With the  exception of a tiny minority of projects, NEA and NEH grants have
gone to non-controversial, mainstream activities whose content upsets
no one.  In fact, I applaud those few instances of cultural adventurism
funded by the NEA/NEH that have managed to infuriate Helms and company.
Since almost all other major funding for the arts in the US comes from
conservative, corporate sources that dwarf the impact of NEA/NEH
funding, these activities represent a tiny counterbalance in favor  
diversity and provocation (a critical aspect of art's function.)  Not
by any means  the "imposition" of culture on anyone. 

>Personally, I think we would be better off *without* the NEA.
>
>---
>Pat

Steve
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
   ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp.  ms LL2-2B    |  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
   E. 22425 Appleway                   |  Ma Bell: 509 927-7034
   Spokane, WA  99220-4008             |  FAX: 509 927-2499
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mulvihill vs Chuck Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:29:18 GMT
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <4767@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>If one person is coerced into having sex, it is rape (or incest if it's
>family), and that person should not be held responsible for a decision
>that he/she did not want. 

Mr. Chuck, there is no moral case to be made for abortion in the case
of rape and incest if you hold the opinion that abortion is murder
of an unborn human. Abortion is either murder, or it isn't, and
the fetus conceived as a result of rape or incest is equally "innocent"
to those conceived by consensual sex. (I am on the pro-choice side)

In these cases, you are simply pandering to a minority of swing votes 
who would not support the anti-abortion position if abortions for these 
"special" cases were not available. I think that's disgusting on your part, 
personally. 

So easy to sell your morals down the road for a vote, eh?

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush 
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:48:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.205750.8790@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of their
> female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  

I'm sure Bush and Quayle would also support their childrens' decision to vote 
for pro-life candidates.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40299 ca.politics:6890
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:09:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug13011159@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
> In article <11727@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # The psychiatrist puffs on his pipe, and leans over: "Tell me, 
# # Clayton, how long have you let what a group insists on portraying 
# # themselves as influence your perception of them?"
# 
# Actually, from what I know of psychiatry and psychiatrists,
# the good doctor is more likely to say something like, "So
# this whole matter of homosexual politics seems to disturb
# you a great deal.  I can see that you have given the matter
# a great deal of thought.  And I can see that you have discovered
# some very compelling contradictions.  But what is it about 
# homosexuals that makes this matter so distressing to you?  
# How does all this make you feel?"
# --
# ----
# Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059

Until I discovered the widespread support for child molestation
in the gay community, and the recent efforts at oppressing straight
people with measures like AB 101, I didn't care, particularly.  I 
didn't like what they did, but it was really irrelevant to my life.
The discovery that NAMBLA has a lot of support in the gay community,
and the efforts of parts of the gay community to use the government
as a tool of oppression, means that I no longer have to choice
to just ignore their behavior.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:38:28 GMT


Can the Gov't force a woman to raise her child in a certain manner?

Can the Gov't force a woman to get an adoption?

Can the Gov't punish a woman for being unable to care for a child?

Can the Gov't force a woman to have a child?

Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?

Can the Federal Gov't allow State Gov'ts to infringe upon Constitutional
rights?

Can the Gov't selectively enforce Laws?

How do you force the Executive to do its duty, to protect and uphold the
Constitution?


-- 
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'.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39443 ca.politics:6746 ba.politics:4476
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: This is Crap and nonsense ( was Re: A Retraction)
Summary: I resent your implications.
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:45:22 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <11726@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>I referred to a posting a while back as "typical lying homosexual."
>One of my colleagues here pointed out that the lying homosexuals
>involved are a relatively small number -- unlike the number of
>homosexuals defending child molestation.
>
>It is definitely incorrect to imply that all homosexuals, or even
>most homosexuals on USENET are liars.

You are a fool- I am tired of going into newsgroups and finding this type
of trash discussion going on, in fact, I won't even call it a discussion.

It is time that you started talking about your own 'house' (hetero), the
child molesting that takes place between, male friends/fathers and daughters,
even the rare cases of female friend/mother and sons.  Or the seedy parts of
cities that contain the 'girly' shows etc. and the constant bombardment with
sexy half-clothed women on TV- or even doogie howser having a sex scene in
his 'family values' show. Let's talk about abused and battered wives- all done
by those loving balance family-value hetero males, and you can add the child
abuse on top of that, and how about adding war mongering (hetero males) and
our presidents responsibility for the death of many Iraqi childern.  I am
afraid that your arguments pale in comparison with what the 80-90 % straight
male adults have done to everyone.

>Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
>shun child molesters?
>-- 

Homosexual support for child molesting-  plain B.S., sure there is always 
somebody or some group that want to do things that everyone disapproves of
so stop trying to indict a group of people into something that most of them
are against.

Just because ( and I will assume here) that you are a white male doesn't mean
that you support the KKK or White Supremace.

Statistics can be used to slant and obviously give the impressions that the
user of stats wants.  And as we all 'should' know, statistics shows our
ignorance of situations or events, becuase we can't do any better at the time.
Take the classic examples of statistical confusion- have the number of rapes
of women go up, or are more just being reported. I think it is the latter.

Use logical arguments- at least even if you are wrong you sound more intelligent.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Wildly regressive taxes
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Aug 92 08:15:43 CDT


In article <1992Aug12.234414.12306@sequent.com>, bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the social security tax (FICA) the
> most wildly regressive tax imaginable?  An individual pays ~7-7.5% of
> his/her salary up to some limit after which s/he pays ***0%***.  Wouldn't
> it make more sense to pay 0% up to some limit, and THEN start paying this
> tax?
> 
> It seems to me that this accounts for a significant chunk of your average
> low income wage earner's salary.  While virtually none of the Rich (tm)
> person's earnings.

More info on the regressive nature of federal taxes:

From the Wall Street Journal (Tues, Aug 11, 1992):

A memo from Jack Kemp, Vin Weber, Newt Gingrich, Connie Mack, 
Trent Lott, Bob Kasten, and Malcolm Wallop.

     For people making just over $15,000 a year in 1992, the 
     effective marginal tax rate is 47%, compared to only
     23% in the mid-60s.  [The 47% figure reflects a 15% income
     tax rate, a 15% payroll tax, and the jolt of the phase out 
     of the earned income tax credit.]  The 1990 budget deal
     increased the top federal marginal rate to 34% from 28%
     for a family of four, a 21% increase.

> Why is it that we have hoards of people complaining about federal income
> taxes, and no one says $#!+ about FICA?

Because politicians (both parties) know that FICA is the only tax that
most of the public support and the public is too ignorant to see how 
the tax is being used (to support general spending).

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:44:41 GMT

In article <clafpq8@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>Local news:  the Yolo County (CA) Democratic campaign office has seen Repub-
>licans coming in every day starting this past Tuesday, disgusted with the
>speeches they've heard at their convention, asking what Clinton's plans
>*really* are and re-registering to vote as Democrats.  This is really some-
>thing considering that Yolo County (I've been told) is traditionally Repub-
>lican.

It's so Republican that it is one of the few counties in CA that voted
for Dukakis in 88....

Davis undergrads pull this stunt every four years.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: On having a mixed political outlook
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:05:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.171013.42228@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug9.200531.22387@Princeton.EDU>, pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug8.132113.42211@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>>I [am] culturally conservative and liberal on
>>>economics.
>>>
>>>Does this ring a bell with anyone?
>> 
>> I don't know what this means but I believe the Nazis had this
>> philosophy.  Sorry, just had to point that out.

I disagree. Culturally, the nazis were radicals, overthrowing 
established religious, cultural, educational and political institutions.
You cannot be a totalitarian and *not* be a radical, since 
totalitarianism implies complete control of all societal organizations.

Cultural conservative/liberal economics sounds in many respects
like the southern Democrats, or perhaps pre-1968 Democrats.
William Jennings Bryant.  Today, maybe they're Reagan Democrats.

>	No offense... You know, you're absolutely right.  That's 
>scary!  On the other hand, Leo Strauss once pointed out that it
>does not suffice, in order to refute an opinion, to show that 
>Hitler held it.

Again, Hitler didn't do it ....

Are you by chance a Straussian conservative?
It could be you are a Tory/traditional conservative?
As opposed to the neo-conservatives, who are really classical liberals
hounded from their own label by the egalitarians, socialists, and assorted
public nuisances that pass for modern Liberals.

>			- Ken
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41128 sci.econ:7027
From: wall@pa.dec.com (David Wall)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:17:15 GMT
Organization: DEC Palo Alto


pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com writes:
    This claim about an increase in debt during the 80's is
    common, but it is not valid. Private and corporate debt
    was, in proportion to the economy, no larger in 1988 than
    in 1981.

garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
    I would like to see your sources for this (really). Because
    I saw an article from May that said Private and Corporate Debt
    from 81' to 91' increased by 71%.  (I'll give you the source if
    you want it)

jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
    I would like to point out that it is entirely feasible for
    both sources to be correct.  Private/Corporate debt could
    have increased by 71% *and* the amount of debt *in proportion
    to the size of the economy* remain the same.

Not to mention that the late endpoints are different!  It is
perfectly plausible to me that debt would be low (relative to
the GDP) while the economy was booming under Reagan.  Then old
Mr. Read-My-Lips raised taxes and increased spending and knocked
us into a recession, giving us -both- a lower GDP and more need
for all of us to borrow to make ends meet.

David W. Wall - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - wall@decwrl.dec.com
            "If this be magic, let be an art
                    Lawful as eating"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Comments on the Republican Convention
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:38:33 GMT

I was real interested in watching the Republican convention, attempting to keep
an open mind. Unfortuanately I am left with the following thoughts after the
first 3 days:

1) Why have the speakers repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton? Dont they know
its Bill that is running? Even Barbara (on Good Morning America this morning)
said that the convention has gone overboard on these tactics. According to CNN
the "12 year olds suing their parents" crap was taken out of context. In fact
what Hillary Clinton wrote about was praised by the Bushes a couple of years
ago.

2) Bush and company are beginning to sound like sour grapes constantly whining
about the Democratic Congress. Barbara and George have both said they have no
control over those in the party to continue to bash H. Clinton. It seems that
if he cant control even his own party, how can he control Congress. It is
obvious from the speakers and Georges record that he hasn't been too successful
in either.

3) Kemp and Gramm sounded more like "I know Bush will lose, but don't forget
about me in '96". 

4) Although Barbaras speach and Georges unrehearsed (uh hu) entrance onto the
podium was very moving, what did it have to do with the economy or the issues
of this campaign?

5) Besides family values which shouldnt be a campaign issue unless you have
nothing else to present, what is the campaign issues and how will George solve
them?

6) If the speakers spent have the time they spent on Democrat and Hillary
bashing on to issues and how they intend to usher in change, they might have
raised the standings in the polls as well as the chances for George to be re
elected. (One report out here in Houston shows George lost 2 points in the poll
from this time last week)

7) Does George think he can get up on the podium tonight and pledge to reduce
taxes.....and expect the public to BELIEVE HIM?

8) Buchanans speach reminded me of the phrase "barefoot, pregnant, and in the
kithen". 

9) The abortion issue should not be a major part of the campaign especially
since the convention did not have a unified stand on it. This is a tough tough
tough issue. They need to continue to de-emphasize it.



Well, I hope George can pull out something good tonight. Something exciting,
like Buchanan, but different. Something different like Gramm, but exciting.
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bu
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:06:26 GMT
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Aug18.131503.20425@hemlock.cray.com>, dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> () writes:
>
>
>|
>|So you mean they say things like, "Read my lips - no new taxes" and then
>|after being elected turn around and raise taxes?  Well, hopefully people
>|who vote won't stand for it a second time.
>|
>| margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
>
>So should I vote for the guy who did this, and then said, "I'm sorry
>it was a bad mistake", or the guy who says he promises to raise
>my taxes to fund spending like nobody before him?--And he calls
>that a change?!?!  It's a change I can live without!
>

Amazingly George Bush did both of these things.  He broke his no new taxes 
pledge, AND he signed the biggest tax increase in history to "fund spending 
like nobody before him".  George Bush...the candidate of change!!  How much
longer are the Republicans going to lie and run as the "party of fiscal 
conservatism"?
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc