HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:43:28 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Aug16.151553.29003@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug11.163946.14614@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>]In article <BsnqHt.73E@wrs.com> string@wrs.com (String) writes:
>]> .... What DO you stand for over there on the 'right'.
>I am also on the right, but have a few disagreements with Patrick
>McGuinness' otherwise excellent posting.
>]
>]>the environment...
>]
>]Enforce existing laws and regulations. Look for areas where market-based
>
>Examine existing laws and regulations and determine a reasonable
>tradeoff between environmental regulation, property rights and
>economic progress.

Agreed. Your statement is much better; it hits the spot.

>]Encourage moving away from fossil fuels to nuclear power, conservation,
>]and alternative fuels.
>
>No! Get the externalities right and let the market decide.

"get the externalities right" sounds contradictory to "market decide".
If you mean "figure out a fossil fuels tax, and that's it" - then okay.
I would favor standing back and letting the market decide as
much as practicable.  I *disfavor* the way the nuclear power
industry has been needlessly strangled.

>]>the W.O.D. ...
>]
>]Continue efforts in enforcemnt and treatment, and vigorously pursue violation
>]of law. Review and eliminate the abuses occuring in the RICO statutes,
>]e.g., w.r.t. seizures.
>
>Recognize that "enforcement and treatment" will not work without
>draconian measures including even more threat to civil liberties.
>Legalize drugs, and use the enforcement money saved (2/3 of the
>total budget) for treatment and education.

Except most treatment is largely ineffective.  The only real
"treatment" is to have people not use drugs in the first place.
>
>Stop using legislation to enforce morality in the case of
>"victimless crimes", a truly oxymoronic term to one who recognizes
>natural rights.

I disagree that drug abuse is victimless.
I can only point to James Q. Wilson's "Against the legalization of Drugs"
in Commentary a few years back (Jan 1990?). It was the best exposition
of the validity of drug laws I know of.

---
Pat
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Naturalized Republicans
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:34:48
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu's message of 20 Aug 92 19:23:56 GMT


   In article <1992Aug20.124946.11141@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
   |> 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?

Hillary Clinton?

(I heard she was a Goldwater supporter in the 60s)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *
  
  
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: patrik@cup.portal.com (Patrick M Crumhorn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dave_barry
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 16:35:42 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

   Dave Barry as president WOULD do away with government.  I'm sure
of it!!!  B-)
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:36:25 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:

>Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
>the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
>abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
>that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
>situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
>for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
>1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
>   insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.
>2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
>American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
>back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

	The republicans always point out that there are not enough rich
people that significant revenue can be raised by increasing their taxes.
They forget the corrollary that there are not enough rich people that
enriching them will significantly improve GNP.

>3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
>rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a 
>monumental deficit in the 90's.

	The bloated military budget also may have been responsible for
the real period of decent growth in the late 80s.  The benefits to
defense contractors, sub-contractors, areas around military bases etc.
provided a huge boost to the economy--albeit paid for by deficit spending.

>Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
>that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?

	I can't.  The conservatives have developed an almost religious 
ideology around the free market and lower taxes that they can use to
justify the system, despite any evidence contrary to their beliefs.  See
my post "Are Republicans bad for economy" to see the real GNP growth
figures under various administrations and policies.

	-JG
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11168 talk.politics.misc:41044 alt.politics.bush:2374
From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 21:01:59 GMT

In article <19276@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>But I don't want to distribute hardships equitably.  The fact that some
>people die fron AIDS does not justify giving everyone else AIDS to make
>that hardship equitable.  

Not a terribly good example.  Would you endure financial hardship (say, in
proportion to your risk of contracting the disease) to see it eradicated?
I'm not arguing that this is feasable, rather, I'm saying that most people
would be willing to endure compensating hardship to prevent personally
dire consequences (such as death from AIDS).

>The fact that some people cannot walk does not
>justify placing shackles around Michael Jordan's feet to make that
>hardship equitable.  

No, you are right.  I think, however, that Michael would gladly lean down and
offer support to someone who needs his help (he has repeatedly done that sort
of thing).  Why do you object?

>The fact that some people are dirt poor does not
>justify making other people poorer to make that hardship equitable.

No, again you are right.  But, if you could do something about it, wouldn't you
want to help?  What if your business depended upon such people stepping out
of poverty to continue (personal hardship)?  Would you be willing to help in
proportion to the amount your business (and you personally) benefit?  Would
you be willing to help to keep your government intact (almost all revolutions
have occured when there is a large difference between rich and poor)?

Finally, do you understand the concept of societal responsibility?

-- Brett
bfish@sequent.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:29:44 GMT

In article <19690@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>
>Sorry, but I don't buy that argument.  The highest priced crime prevention 
>programs are in the inner cities.  The wealthy pay, out of their own pockets,
>for private security outfits to patrol their high class neighborhoods.  If you
>want to base tax rates on what a person gets out of the government, tax rates
>for the poorest sections of the country would be darn near 100%.  Using your
>argument, the tax rate for SC Los Angeles must be raised sky high.
>

It can be argued that there indirect benefits from paying, say, for
someone else's education when that person can't afford a decent one.
It will help keep them out of jail because they will have real, legal
opportunities (this also means you can cut down on your private law
enforcement).  It will allow them to be more productive members of
society in the long term, meaning your tax burden will be lessened.
If society provides a safety net, it will be less likely they will
land in it when there is a downturn (your taxes will be less).  And so
on, in the name of enlightened self-interest.
--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11285 alt.politics.clinton:2593 alt.politics.bush:2509 talk.politics.misc:41283
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:36:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug17.144328.6560@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.151553.29003@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>>Keywords: 
>>
>>In article <1992Aug11.163946.14614@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>]In article <BsnqHt.73E@wrs.com> string@wrs.com (String) writes:
>>]> .... What DO you stand for over there on the 'right'.
>>
>>Examine existing laws and regulations and determine a reasonable
>>tradeoff between environmental regulation, property rights and
>>economic progress.
>
>Agreed. Your statement is much better; it hits the spot.
>
>"get the externalities right" sounds contradictory to "market decide".
>If you mean "figure out a fossil fuels tax, and that's it" - then okay.
>I would favor standing back and letting the market decide as
>much as practicable.  I *disfavor* the way the nuclear power
>industry has been needlessly strangled.
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Well, it depends on how you look at it.  It appears now that the cost of
finding a suitable location to dispose of nuclear waste is approaching
infinity due to the NIMBY syndrome.  I think this is a very real cost
which needs to be factored into any economic evalutation of a nuclear
power plant.  And I don't view this as a cost that the government has
put on nuclear power but rather the population as a whole.

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: politics
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:49:25 GMT

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <9xgywtl@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>The Democratic platform excludes developing human females from  
>membership in society.  

1. Fetuses have NEVER held "membership in society".  Despite Chaney's
wildly erroneous claims of "before Roe v Wade, when fetuses were 
considered people...", fetuses have never been considered ANYTHING
but fetuses.  They were not a tax deduction, they were not counted
in the census.

2. If a woman wishes to _treat_ her fetus as a "member of society",
she is perfectly free to do this under the Democratic platform.
There is nothing to stop her, no way of "excluding" her wish to
do so.  Therefore, your first statement is not correct.

>It is an exclusionary policy. 

This statement, also, is not correct.

Democrats would not legislate against bringing to term.  Republicans
would legislate against abortion.

Your "argument" fails.

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: h2n5451@sigma.tamu.edu (NOBOA, HOMERO L.)
Subject: Re: Latin Americans for Clinton?
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:50:00 GMT

In article <l944dkINNn6d@girtab.usc.edu>, rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes...
>In article <1992Aug18.161727.13162@afit.af.mil> dsonnier@afit.af.mil (David L Sonnier) writes:
>>You left one out.
>>5.  Increase government spending so that by 1996 the federal debt is
>>$25,000,000,000,000.00 instead of just $4,000,000,000,000.00.  
>>Congress (Check bouncers, middle-of-the-night-pay-raises, etc.) spends
>>money, not the president.  Congress opposed President Bush's balanced
>>budget amendment, as well as every other attempt to reduce federal 
>>spending.  And congress is controlled by Democrats.  They can't wait
>>to get their hands on a president who will go along with their tax-and-
>>spend philosophy of solving problems with "programs" instead of through
>>encouraging free enterprise.
> 
>Well, maybe if Bush had submitted a balanced budget, the congress wouldn't have
>to play it all by ear, hm?  
> 
>What the hell is tax-and-spend philosophy that Republicans keep crowing 
>(together with "liberal")?  If you tax, you spend.  I thought that was a
>normal thing.  It's what you spend on that matters.  Like the ENVIRONMENT 
>and EDUCATION, rather than 'invisible' bombers that don't work.  Maybe if
>the environment/education president cared more about the environment and
>the education of future citizens rather than the current state of the
>rest of the world, he'd actually get reelected.  Plus the country would 
>be a LOT better off.
> 
>And keep this out of s.c.l-a.  Followups set accordingly.
> 
>5150
> 
> 
May I know what all this very interesting and cultural discussion has 
to do with latin-america?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Naturalized Republicans
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.124946.11141@doug.cae.wisc.edu> sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>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?

A number of the Cold War Democrats probably became Republicans after
the Vietnam war.  Their concern was primarily the Soviet Menace.

Probably a number of conservative Southern Democrats (Dixie-crats),
who were opposed to the civil rights movement, became Republicans
(I suppose Helms is one of these).

Moynihan, a Cold War Liberal, became a neo-conservative, and saw
the light again when he switched back to the Dems.


--
But this is.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10984 talk.politics.misc:40681 alt.politics.bush:2179
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us lau
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:29:45 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Patrick, I agree with you somewhat when you say the in-power Republicans
probably had some influence on those events -- it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to see that the lunatic fringe is running this country. Why
shouldn't our economic enemies be afraid of us?

	Bye, Judy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: News Flash: Bush has been focusing on domestic policy all along!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 22 AUG 92 04:06:38 GMT


Much of the message I've gotten from the GOP is that major events 
overseas during Bush's term caused him to focus on the new world order.
And now he's going to turn his attention to domestic issues?

I suggest again that Bush played a passive role in most foreign affairs.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I didn't like the convention 
speakers (including Bush himself) trying to make it sound like he was
responsible for the fall of communism. He took too long in merely 
acknowledging Yeltsin. Helmut Kohl has taken the boldest steps in 
assisting the guidance of Soviet restructuring.

Bush's domestic record has been varied at best; generally a clinic on
the Presidential Veto. I was expecting an acceptance speech high on 
specifics but instead we'll have to "wait until January." And this 
proposition that Congress is to blame for everything won't win him 
any more support. 

Arsenio Hall, in reference to Bush's "Elvis Economics" comment:

"The difference between Bush's economic agenda and Elvis is that some
 people claim to have actually *seen* Elvis."

-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
From: WHAT'S.A.MATTER.YOU?@iphase.UUCP (WHAT'S A MATTER YOU?)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Depression of 90-92
Date: 11 Aug 92 03:17:18 EST

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

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush: ""It's time to fight back!""
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:57:47 GMT
Organization: Clark University

Are we really supposed to buy this line? Bush's operatives have been
trying to dig up dirt on opponents since the beginning of the primaries!

I also can't believe that the media has questioned whether or not both
conventions will be "successful." Given weeks of preparation and an
auditorium full of ardent supporters, any idiot could bring the house down.
(Maybe that's the point...)

Bart
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10478 alt.politics.clinton:1849 alt.politics.bush:1433 talk.politics.misc:39437
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:28:05 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug12.001844.18886@reed.edu> bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo)) writes:

>The richer you are, the more dependent you are upon, for example, the government
>to keep looters out of your house, etc. etc.  Or do you see this as a needless
>social program?  It seems to me that is people are living in this country and
>making lots of money, they're pretty dependent upon the government to maintain
>a climate that will allow them to do this -- ergo, higher taxes.

If that were true, why do rich people have to spend so much money on guards
and security systems.  I believe the rich are already carrying their load in
this area.  Other areas would probably fall out as well if we could look
at without being blinded by jealousy.

The government maintains the market so that anybody with the drive and
gumption can become rich.  This is not something the government did for
the rich, it is something they did for themselves.

BTW, I believe an unbiased examination of government policies would show
that the government is quite hostile to capital accumulation.  In fact
rich people end up getting rich despite the active opposition of government.
You are arguing that rich people should pay to support this active opposition.

>bobo
>bowman@reed.edu
-- 
--Mark