HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Tax Deductions vs Credits
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:44:40 GMT

[I've intentionally deleted attributions because the point I'm
responding to is essential basic knowledge about taxation terminology.
People who don't know what the words mean can't contribute anything
useful to a discussion.]

>Tax credits are meaningless to people who have no money to pay taxes with.

No, they're not.  A refundable Tax CREDIT is money given back.  If you
owe taxes, you can use it to pay taxes, but if you don't (or owe less
than the value of the credit), a tax credit is money in your pocket,
assuming that you bother to file.  (Non-refundable tax credits exist;
they're only useful for paying taxes.)

Tax DEDUCTIONS are useless to people with no income, because they
merely reduce their taxable income.

Tax credits are more valuable to people with low marginal tax rates
than they are to people with high marginal rates.  For example, a $200
tax credit pays the taxes on $2000 for someone in a 10% bracket while
it only pays the taxes on $400 for someone in a 50% bracket.

Tax deductions are more valuable to people with high marginal tax
rates than they are to people with low marginal tax rates.  A $2000
tax deduction is worth $1000 to someone in a 50% bracket while it is
worth only $200 to someone in a 10% bracket.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: AMERICA'S BULLSHIT WATCH
Organization: maybe later
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:57:58 GMT

>Not really.  Bush doesn't get to stop being president just because of the
>election.  He has to do what he thinks is right, no matter what you or the
>

Everyone hoped that he'd START being president after the last election
but that didn't seem to get too far.  So what's the difference?

>So what you're saying is that Bush should have told the UN to screw off and
>just kept on going in Iraq?  I think not.  Had he done that, you probably
>
Why change now?
From: sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:32:07 GMT
Organization: ACME Widget Company, Widget Falls, Southern North Dakota



A few questions about happy families that I would like answered
concretely (abstractions not welcome).

1) What is the difference between Democratic and Republican family values?

2) What are examples of republican 'family values' policies?

3) How will they help to bring down the unemployment rate and the budget 
deficit?

4) Who thinks that campaining on a 'family values' platform is goofy?

Steve Brener




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.023447.11862@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.235026.2652@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>It show that Clinton doesn't respect other people's property when it
>>comes to pushing his agenda.  Like his buddy Joe Biden, he steals his
>
>The idea of "putting people first" has always been so ubiquitous that it is
>absurd to say that it is anyone's "property".

"Has Always"?  Try again.  It's a fairly new slogan.

>It's like saying that the term "end of year sale" is the property of
>the store which first used it.

Precisely.  That store WOULD own it if they wanted to.  Just as Coke
owns its name and slogans.  The fact that it can decide not to doesn't
change this.  We do have intellectual property in this country.  Does
Clinton think that he's entitled to a political use exemption?  (If
so, why will he object if I start using HIS name/slogans to raise
money and support for my purposes?)

Do you really want to claim that Clinton believes that anything that
he finds useful can't be owned by someone else?  Or, are you going to
claim that he's only entitled to steal other people's intellectual
property?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:48:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.144053.11873@bnr.ca> yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:
>One other item I forgot to include in my last post is that the
>allegations about Clinton's help from his dead uncle come from
>none other than a former Republican candidate for Governor in
>Arkansas. Now there's a reliable ( not to mention unbiased )
>source. And another thing, why are the republicans always basing
>stories on the actions of dead people that can't speak for
>themselves? 
>
>jeff.

Jeff, get a clue.  The democrats do it as well, so drop the holier-than-thou
attitude.  How about when the demos and the press tried to hang an alleged
affair on Bush and the basis for their allegations was a person who said
that a now dead former ambassador had told him about it.  That got plenty
of play in the media too.

Tim


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wre0498@rigel.tamu.edu (ERHART, WESLEY RONALD)
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.153709.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
>welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
>he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'
> 
>     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
>     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
>     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
>     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
>     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
>     you toil on it forever!'"
> 
>Are these words typical of a mainstream, moderate, centrist politician?
>
Not having read the book, I would be tempted to say that he just included this
because it was interesting.  Somehow I doubt that normal blood poisons 
the ground.:)
w. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3460 alt.politics.bush:3435 talk.politics.misc:42789
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:25:51 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <1992Aug27.023724.11331@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <BtLJyM.EvL@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.033838.5246@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>  Clearly Mr. Coffman has never been poor.  Poor people don't have
>>  $2500 dollars to pay out-of-pocket.  Nor do they have the money
>>  I mentioned above for more conventional insurance.
>
>Oh, I understand poor all right. My father never earned more than
>$3,000 a year in his life. We didn't have electricity in the house
>until 1954 when I paid for it. And I used to take a grass sack and
>go out along the tracks picking up coal that had fallen off the unit
>trains coming from the mine so we could heat the house and cook. I
>ran traplines and had nets in the river for money and food. I know poor.
>
>>  It's this "let them eat cake" attitude by people like Coffman which
>>  hands the health-care issue to the liberals on a platter.  When the
>>  liberals finally push through some bureaucratic monster of a govern-
>>  ment solution it's the Coffman's of the world, who don't have aclue
>>  what life is like for millions of people living in the real world
>>  who will be to blame.
>
>Jim Baker put it a little more bluntly. He said, "Fuck'em, they didn't
>vote for us anyway." Yes, I don't have much sympathy for the poor. In
>most cases it's their own damn fault. I've been there, I've seen it,
>I've lived it. I got out of there. They can too if they've got any
>grit.
>
 Horsedoody. You were lucky enough to inherit from your parents the smarts to
get out. If you had an average, or below average brain, you'd be stuck. It
wouldn't be your fault, but you'd be stuck anyway. What a shame you didn't
inherit any compassion or humanity, rather than that "f*ck you, Jack, I'm
alright" attitude.

Chris W.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3835 tx.politics:4744
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:17:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <vycBr*qV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>>(Hypothetical because the press won't press Slick Willie with any embarassing
>>questions.  They want him to win.)
>>
>>[Slick Willie]
>>  I am going to provide universal health insurance within 100 days of my
>>  inauguration.  It won't even cost anything!  I'll just make business pay for it.
>>
>>[Press]
>>  Yeah, free lunch indeed!  It is estimated that your health plan alone would
>>  cost half of the entire profits of all the businesses in America!  I wonder
>>  how many jobs that will cost?
>
>The well-off are already receiving a free health care lunch with with
>the current massive tax-subsidy program for health insurance.  The

The solution to this is not more subsidies, more government interference
and more regulation, as Mr. Clinton proposes, (and will get from the
Democratic Congress if elected.) 

The solution is deregulation.  Less interference.  And the breaking up of
the AMA monopoly labor union.

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
  Social Security isn't a retirement plan.  It's middle class welfare.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Novak, Charen, Limbaugh: What do they have in common?
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 06:43:10 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:

> In article <1992Aug30.194842.2019@ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.
> >
> >
> >   Man, every time I listen to these dweebs I wonder how big those
> >redwood trees up their asses are.
> >
>
> My, this does provoke a very vivid image :-).
>

Shudder... :-)

Seriously, though, Novak comes off as just a right-wing crazy, and Limbaugh is
a right-wing crazy.  Charen is funny to watch on TV.  Whenever someone says
something she disagrees with, she looks like someone in the room just farted.
If anyone's got a redwood up her butt, it's Mona.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.d,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
Subject: Clinton Image Wanted
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:07:41 GMT

I am looking for a scanned photos of Bill Clinton (with and without Al
Gore).  I want as many as possible.  I would like those flattering
campaign sort of shots.  I think I can handle just about any format, but
the more options the better.  (When you come right down to it, I'm not
very picky.  I'll take anything.)

Time to dress up the computer with good ol' Bill.

Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks tons.....

-bert smith

--
Overheard on the net: "George Bush said in 1988 that if I voted for
Dukakis, the economy would go to hell, crime would go up, and the
deficit would grow.  Bush was right -- I voted for Dukakis and look what
happened."
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Family Values
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 11:43:45 GMT

My mother went to hear Clinton speak in Corsicana, Texas the other day.
She went with other members of Parents & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who
were carrying a sign stating "Thank you for recognizing our families, too."
After the speech Clinton went around shaking hands, and my mother managed
to squeeze in - after shaking his hand she showed him the button she was 
wearing, "Another Straight for Gay Rights," to which he responded to 
positively.  So when talk of "family values" comes up, perhaps we should
talk about parents like my mother who actually _values_ their family.
Bush, Quayle, et al, seem to be more interested in silencing and demeaning
their gay and lesbian children (assuming, of course, that they had any).
So much for their family values.

========================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Tax Deductions vs Credits
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:25:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.175311.2170@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
 andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>>Tax credits are meaningless to people who have no money to pay taxes with.
>
>No, they're not.  Tax CREDITS are money given back.  If you have a tax
>bill, you can apply them to it, but if you don't, they're money in
>your pocket.

Actually, there are tax credits that are legislated such that you
cannot take the credit for an amount greater than the tax you owe.
Some allow you to roll the excess over to the next tax year, others
don't.  As usual with tax law, the details are messy....

--
 Robert Bickford      "A Hacker is any person who derives joy from
 rab@well.sf.ca.us    discovering ways to circumvent limitations." rab'86
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I recognize that a class of criminals and juvenile delinquents has
taken to calling themselves 'hackers', but I consider them irrelevant
to the true meaning of the word; just as the Mafia calls themselves
'businessmen' but nobody pays that fact any attention."            rab'90
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:41:04 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug28.131011.20998@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>Fact:
>	Bill Clinton received an induction notice. (This notice ment you were
>	drafted and would have to report for service.)
>	
>	He applied to be in ROTC.  ROTC would not take anyone who had been 
>	inducted.  The ROTC advisor is on record saying that had they known
>	Clinton had been inducted he would not have been accepted into the
>	ROTC.
>
>	Clinton then (after receiving a deferment for being in ROTC) resigned
>	from ROTC.  He did this once he knew he would not be recalled.


Fred, could you please post proof that Clinton received a draft notice 
BEFORE he joined ROTC?  As this situation was explained (by both
the media AND by his republican attackers), he joined ROTC because
he was scared he would get drafted -- not because he was escaping
a draft notice.  But then he felt guilty and put his name into 
the draft pool and got lucky and received a low number.  He did NOT
leave ROTC after he found out he had a low number but BEFORE.

Also, I have respect for someone who was hashing out
his feelings at age 20 and stepped back from a decision that
he felt was a mistake.  You show me someone at age 20 who isn't
hashing out feelings like this (especially about going to
a war that he opposed, but for a country he supported) and I 
will show you a fool who isn't thinking for himself.  

david redish
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: CREATION OF ALT.POLITICS.CLINTON
Keywords: in bed
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:55:52 GMT


In article <1992Jul18.212940.18771@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
|> In article <47=m9+-.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >A total slime bag as Democrats traditionally are. Cater to special interest
|> >groups, criticize and weaken the military, tax and spend, tax and spend,
|> >appeal to all the far out crazies and other weak members of society.
|>  
|> 
|>     Speaking about slime bags, I have long thought about this and want like 
|> to see other people's comment, 
|>  
|>     It seems most of the major scandls, such as the Water Gate, Iran-Contra,
|> HUD, arming Iraq, gunning down an Iranian civilian plane and lying about it,
|> S&L, etc... are mostly republicans' doing, thus giving me the impression that
|> people like Bush, Reagan, North, Meese, Keaton, Wenburger, Nixon, etc... are
|> the typical slime bags, people who claim high ideals but do whatever necessary
|> to benifit their own cause.  The names of those TV evangilists and their 
|> plight come to mind, those are the people who claim the high ideals of God. 
|> 
|>     As I stated above, this is just my impression. I am not well equipped with
|> history, nor am I political. What do you people think ?

I suspect both parties are equally guilty, BUT...

It occurs to me that Republicans distrust government, saying that anyone who
gets that much power will inevitably  misuse it.  Could it be that they are 
reflecting on what they will do (or have done, in the cases you mention) if 
and when they get power?  At least we can't say they didn't warn us!
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Take Note: Victory for Bush on another front......
Date: 26 Aug 1992 11:44:21 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	Gang Violence was one of the serious problems in LA.  President Bush,
as promised, eradicated  gangs from LA area.  Members  of various gangs take
part in picnics and baseball games together. They no longer kill people, but 
are in community service.  This is a great victory for President Bush in the
decades long war against gangs.  Street War has been won by Republican White
House.  People can walk in the streets without any fear of a cross fire.  Mr
George Bush, the great President of USA after Ronald Reagan  made LA a safer
place to live.  Of course, there are few (gang looking) groups around.  They
have "favorite group" status anyway.....


Vicky:
Aug 26, UMass
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:13:03 GMT

In article <2634@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> scott@nv10.uswnvg.com 
(Scott Eckelman) writes:
>I live in a suburban housing development which has 'covenants', among
>which is one which prohibits guns (even bb guns and slingshots!).  In
>order to live here, you have to sign the covenants.   This seems to be
>getting pretty common, at least in areas with housing associations.

Don't sign it.  I wouldn't.  

However, if you do sign, you could then to start an uprising
by "converting" as many of your neighbors as possible.  Wait till the
wives have some meeting so they won't be around to discipline their husbands,
and then get a bunch of the guys together and go to a range.  Have your
guns in the safe at the range and teach the whole crew how to shoot.  Let
them have a go at it.  If you convert enough people, you could eventually
move to overturn the clause at a meeting of the association members.

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



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton