HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:44:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan21.235434.12165@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>>>I am SO damn tired of hearing this cliche.  I am part of the
>>>middle class.  I do not receive medicare, medicaid,
>>>I pay INTO social security, and I receive NO benefit from ANY
>>>budget busting programs except, perhaps, some benefit from
>>>military protective services.  So WHAT, exactly, am I getting
>>>for my money??
>>
>>Have you no parents?  Do they also receive no Social Security
>>payments and no Medicare coverage?
>
>For the majority of people, the tax payments made into the social
>security system, if invested privately, would have yielded much
>greater returns. For the majority of people, the cost of private
>health insurance would have been smaller than the taxes spent for
>medicare. The people who get benefit from these programs are those who
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
>are so poor that they pay little in taxes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    The people who benefit the most from these programs could be split
    into three categories:

        the public servants who administer the programs, yet
        themselves do not have to pay the SS tax;

        the underprivileged ones whom our cruel society denies 
        the privilege of being able to contribute into the system;

        the current crop of retirees who are getting $1 in 
        benefits for every 15c they had contributed.

    From now on, every subsequent generation of retirees is going to
    get less subsidy then the previous one.  Clinton already is talking
    about raising Medicare eligibility age to 67 years.

    The boomers will be lucky to get 15c in benefits for every $1 
    they will have contributed.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:18:43 GMT

dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:

]In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan24151436@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) write
]s:
]>In article <1993Jan22.054522.21869@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.ed
]u (Ted Frank) writes:
]>
]><   Clinton never had a quota.  He had a goal of diversity.  Diversity by
]><   ethnic group, geography, and ideology has been common since the beginning
]><   of democracy in making appointments.  What Clinton proposed to do is
]><   expand this diversity beyond white males by including qualified women
]><   and minorities in the process.
]>
]>    Yes, we've noticed all the Asian-Americans in the Clinton
]>    cabinet.....

]Come on folks, Mr. Frank cannot win here.  If Mr. Clinton started appointing 
]Asians as well, and he should, then we need only wait for the "quota" attacks 
]to get louder.

]I fail to understand the situation where because a qualified minority gets a 
]position some must assume that (1) a quota system is in place, and (2) some 
]more deserving white male should have gotten the position.  Interesting that I 
]have had this pointed out to me by an acquaintance of mine, who finds problems 
]with quotas both not with hiring "friends of friends."

Well, when the one in charge only considers the member of the minority
and no one else, and states that that is policy in order to get
"diversity" - the first assumtion becomes correct. I would notice that
your second assumption is completely out of place, since Mr. Frank
was advocating (as a devil's advocate) an Asian-American, not a white male.

Clinton's "diversity" in his cabinet is a joke. 72% are lawyers, and
all are yuppies. Almost all are Washington insiders. Some "change"
and some "diversity." Snort!
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird should step aside
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:15:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:
>If the finalists he was refering to happen to be women, does that mean
>only women were considered?
>
>Keep looking for the quote...


     Nah, I  seen enough.  Better to continue work on my make-shift
     boat to the Cayman Islands and learning spanish.

>
>-- 
>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,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Children's Rights
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:05:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.015553.16766@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>This is true, but what it does do is remove institutional protection
>from those who simply are not mature or emotionally developed
>to make such a decsion. It opens up 15,16,17 year olds or younger
>to be preyed upon. I suppose that you also favour the removal
>of child-labour laws. I guess that a 16 year old is capable
>of deciding that he should work x number of hours for y
>level of pay?
>
>One of the roles of the government is to protect the helpless.
>and few would argue that children are not in this group.

This is precisely the problem I have with this particular plank in the 
Libertarian Party Platform.  

I am willing to support the principle that the calendar age of an individual 
is an arbitrary way to determine their majority.  I will further support an 
effort to discourage further laws based on age.  I will even support an 
effort to review all age based statutes and repeal those that are 
ineffective or unnecessary.  But until a clear, objective, and reasonably 
easy to apply gague of maturity can be developed, I cannot see supporting 
the abolition of all laws based on age.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: State's Rights
Summary: state vs. fed
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:32:35 GMT



You wrote:

>colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>>Of course they can.  They do it all the time.  but if they do
>>pass an oppressive law, who will stop them if they are subject to
>>no other authority.
>
>And who will stop the Feds if they pass oppressive laws?  Should we
>submit to the UN as some sort of global govt?
>

I take it that's one of your big worries - you mention it quite
often.  You'll notice I haven't advocated it - but you will keep
mentioning as if I had.  Let's say, that the Fed passes an
oppressive law - totally beyond the scope of your view of the
constitution?  What then?  If they are as all powerful as you
claim - then it doesn't really matter if that law is within or
beyond the constitution.  So what is your solution.  Dissolve
the Fed - dissolve the Congress?

>>>>Issues such as Sunday blue laws that discriminated against Jews and
>>>>other non-christrians,
>
>How?  So nobody can sell hardware on Sunday.  If thats your idea of
>oppression that requires Fed intervention, so much for balance.
>

I'm sorry if I bored you with the travails of non-christians, but
there it is.  The State of New York told everyone, Christian or
not, that they had to close their store in honor of the Christian
Sabbath - putting an extra burden on those who did not celebrate
it.  Yes, that is oppression to me.
 
>
>>The idea of what power the fed is limited to is always subject to
>>interpretation. Sometimes, I think, with sinister intent.  Take
>>Barry Goldwater, for example.  When black children were being denied
>>a public school education he said that he was personally opposed to
>>the practice.  However, he said, the fed could do nothing since
>>the Constitution did not mention education as an area to be controlled
>
>Is that different from "I personally oppose abortion, but don't wish
>to impose my view on others"?
>

No - it's not even close.  Goldwater was taking a rights issue
(whether black children were entitled to the education their
parents were paying for - and that white children were getting)
and recast it as an "education" issue.
 
>>If "proper state functions" are defined in (50) State constitutions,
>>then there is no limit to what they can do.  See above what I said
>
>And if proper Federal functions are defined in the Fed Constitution,
>then there is no limit to what it can do?
>

The 50 state constitutions can vary widely - enslaving people in
one state - freeing them in another.  They can be rewritten or
amended at the state level, while the Federal constitution is
ratified by the States.  It provides uniform protection for people,
no matter what state they live in.


marc colten



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Big Three Begs Big Government (again)
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:46:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.182947.27231@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>
>Is this the kind of "change" we get from the Clinton administration?


Question 1:

Did the Clinton administration *ask* the automakers to initiate this
lobbying effort?


Question 2:

Which candidate took a harder protectionist line during the campaign:
Bill Clinton or Ross Perot?


>- Karl Wee


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69941 alt.sex:43257 talk.religion.misc:27637 soc.college:6065 alt.peeves:19628
From: russ@bbxrbk (Russ Kepler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,soc.college,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:08:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: bbxrbk.1993Jan26.050834.28193
Organization: russ at home in Albuquerque New Mexico

In article <90641@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan25.151635.659@st-andrews.ac.uk> ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald) writes:
>
>|Would you be more shocked to learn that prostitution is legal here in stuffy 
>|old Britain? It's only *soliciting* that is illegal. What's the difference?
>|How should I know? Solicitors are prostitutes that get caught?
>
>I thought solicitors were attorneys?

Seems about right to me - i've been fucked pretty good by attorneys.

-- 
Russ Kepler, posting from home   russ@bbx.basis.com, bbxrbk!russ@bbx.basis.com
"It's better to be quotable than to be honest" - Tom Stoppard
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70146 alt.peeves:19668
From: jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:53:11 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <C1It7I.LEo@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>
>    Perhaps, but we are talking about a public policy issue here,
>    not a military operation.  Colin Powell happens to be an expert
>    on the issue, Bill Clinton does not.  In fact, Clinton has yet
>    to tell the public why he wants to allow gays serve in the military.
>

Oh, give me a break!  Nobody has ever told the public why we should
allow, say, redheads, or people who are exactly 5'8-1/2" tall, into
the military, and there really is no need to.  Anybody who wants
to defend our country has a right to do so.  As far as I understanding,
sex is prohibited in the barracks.  That includes both hetero, and homo
sexual encounters.  But what someone does on his/her off-time is his/her
business.

>    What we need is a public debate followed up by a legislation, 
>    not an executive order. 

What we need it the realization that if someone is a good solder/sailor/
marine, their personal life really shouldn't enter into it.

Jenny "I'm straight, but not narrow" Gutbezahl
-- 
***************************************************************************
jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu is Jenny Gutbezahl @ Univ. of Mass, Amherst
****************************************************************************
"I'm not cheap, love.  Loud, but not cheap."  - Dil in The Crying Game
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70004 talk.politics.medicine:699 soc.culture.usa:10144 soc.culture.african.american:14375 sci.med:24472
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:04:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.044626.19510@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.201607.4782@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>
>>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying penicillin,
>>despite having worked since age 13.
>
>A theft is still a theft, no matter what the purpose is.
>
>Dov
>

Are you so frigging bitbrained that you are incapable of distinguishing
things on the basis of motive?  The legal system in this country does it
all the time.

Jesus, buddy -- learn to see grey for Christ's sake. 

Janis C.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,soc.college,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:59:37 GMT

cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
] 
] Does this mean i think prostitution should be legal?  Yup.  (It is in
] Norway - a fact which seems to surprise the heck out of some people,
] for some reason...)

WHAT!!!!!!!

This the Immortal Land of St. Olaf!

The Patron Saint of Pious Pedantics Upon the HILL!!!!

WHAT!!!!!!

I am just SHOCKED!!!!!


ciao
drieux

ps: and to think we sent them Sid Rand,
and he was still UnAble to SAVE THEM!!!!!


ObPeeve: that I did not know this while
I was a student at Stained O'Laugh.....




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Most Campaign Promises Broken Before Inaguration?
Date: 19 Jan 93 02:06:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <13938@optilink.COM>, walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
> From article <C0z295.HE5@queernet.org>, by rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese):
> > In article <13928@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ##2. He was going to give a 10% tax cut to the middle class.  Whoops!
# ##It's gone!
# 
# # Hurrah!
# 
# Unlike my friend Clayton, I believed that the proposal to cut taxes
# was a bad idea, but we both would agree that it is a broken promise
# nonetheless.

I believe that cutting taxes would be a bad idea, also.  What's needed
is to cut spending first.

# Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
# AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
# "What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: suopanki@stekt3.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Reply-To: suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi
Organization: Unixverstas Olutensin, Finlandia
	<Jan.15.22.05.57.1993.26003@romulus.rutgers.edu>
	<1993Jan21.162625.17617@aber.ac.uk>
	<Jan.22.07.10.37.1993.754@romulus.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:55:16 GMT

>>>>> On 22 Jan 93 12:10:38 GMT, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) said:

>> Is this the same Ted "Tyre-Iron" Kaldis

Yes yes, the same Ted "Arsehole" Kaldis.

> This is America here.  

No, this is Usenet.

>In this country, the word is spelled "tire".

Who cares.

-Heikki

--
"If two men are having a fight and the wife of one tries to 
 help her husband by grabbing hold of the other man's 
 genitals, show her no mercy; cut off her hand."
	- Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70282 alt.peeves:19723
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN bias (was: Is the media liberal-biased?)
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:27:57 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.


>>As far as I can tell, there are very few
>>conservative media types in major positions.  We've got George Will, Cal
>>Thomas, and a few others that write editorials, and Rush on radio and TV,
>>but the vast majority of the media types are liberal (like the head of 
>>one of the big three news departments that was formerlly Ted K's chief of
>>staff)

William Safire and Arthur Laffer also appear on TV quite regularly.
You remember Laffer, the guy who promoted the "Laffer Curve" fantasy
that Reagan bought hook-line-and-sinker.  Thanks for the deficit,
guys.

-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:25:49 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan28.144053.1570@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J.  
LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1k73ktINNbo2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Richard A. Mulac,
> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
> > So, making promises to people which you have no intention of  
keeping
> > is not a reflection of character?  Hmmm, you and I must have  
grown up
> > differently.
> 
> I live in the real world Richard. I didn't hear you complaining  
when Bush
> broke almost every campaign promise he made. The fact is that  
campaign
> promises mean nothing because of the nature of politics. We may not
> like that situation, but we, the voters, created it.
> > 
>

In fact, I think you go too far here. Campaign promised don't
"mean nothing."  Campaign promises are a statement of what the
candidate would like to do. However, I recognize that 
the nature of the situation may make it impossible for the
candidate to DO what he would like to do.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:38:12 GMT

helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>
>Truman was proposing Universal Health Care in 1949. The beloved A.M.A. 
>pounced on it and called it socialized medicine. They also called HMO's 
>that, until most doctors realized that was the wave of the future and
>began starting their own group and HMO practicies.

In terms of their behaviour, there isn't much difference between HMO's
and socialized medicine a la the UK National Health System ... doctors
have a suit breathing down their neck.  Such practices are unknown in
the countries with the basic portion of health insurance made public:
Canada (where I'm from), France and Germany.

Doctors are conservative about practice; doctors in Italy recently had
mass protests because their government wants to move out of socialized
medicine to a universal health insurance system.  The UK Tories and
Liberal-Democrats solidly support their NHS (dunno why) and the
British MA is against any changes despite HMO-ish reforms for
freestanding practices made in the latter days of Thatcher.

My girlfriend's family are Germans, her father posted on assignment
here for a major Euro-American pharmaceuticals.  Her father is just
horrified that Americans put up with HMO's just because they are
"private", and in their thinking must thus be good ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life)
Subject: Re: State's Rights
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:00:42 GMT

colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:



>You wrote:

>>And who will stop the Feds if they pass oppressive laws?  Should we
>>submit to the UN as some sort of global govt?

>I take it that's one of your big worries - you mention it quite
>often.  You'll notice I haven't advocated it - but you will keep
>mentioning as if I had.  Let's say, that the Fed passes an

No, you keep saying that our rights can only be guananteed by appeal
to a 'higher' authority.  Should there then be one higher than Washington?
If not, why should there be one higher than Illinois?

>I'm sorry if I bored you with the travails of non-christians, but
>there it is.  The State of New York told everyone, Christian or

Hardly a travial.

>No - it's not even close.  Goldwater was taking a rights issue
>(whether black children were entitled to the education their
>parents were paying for - and that white children were getting)
>and recast it as an "education" issue.
 
He refused to force his moral views on other people when he had
no legal way (in his opinion) to do so.  Depending on the moral
viewpoint, that is either "tolerant" or "facist".

>>And if proper Federal functions are defined in the Fed Constitution,
>>then there is no limit to what it can do?
>>

>The 50 state constitutions can vary widely - enslaving people in
>one state - freeing them in another.  They can be rewritten or
>amended at the state level, while the Federal constitution is
>ratified by the States.  It provides uniform protection for people,
>no matter what state they live in.

The Fed Constitution can enslave everyone and provide uniform 
oppression also.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh