HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Irrelevant question Re: The 128 'Clinton' taxes
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:53:32 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <5637@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>A completely unrelated question for the Bushies:
>>
>>A local Republican Senatorial candidate is trying to wheedle votes away from
>>his Democratic rival by promising to cut costs by firing the 14 elevator
>>operators in the Senate building.  Would anyone happen to know what percent of
>>the deficit would be reduced ...?
>
>One, if there's only one elevator, then I'm sure there's a problem and
>that cutting 14 elevator operators is needed.

So what percent of the deficit would be reduced?

>Two, Do you work in a building that has an elevator operator in it
>anymore?

Any more than what?  

What percent of the deficit would be reduced by firing the 14 elevator opera-
tors in the Capitol Building?

>Three, I can only guess how much elevator operators get paid in the
>office building referred to here, but we may be talking about $40K per
>person. (I got $35K per year salary working during the summer. My number
>is strictly a guess.)

Were you an elevator operator?  If so, then you can answer the question I
asked:  what percent of the deficit would be reduced by firing the 14 elevator
operators?  By the way, Federal wages are generally lower for any particular
job than private wages, so if you made $35K/year as an elevator operator for
a private company, these 14 Federal employees probably made less.

>Four, probably these 14 will not be unemployed, but they will be
>reassigned to new positions in government. Probably become valets for
>Senators at the Capitol or something.

Hershensohn's entire point is that the Federal government will be saving
oodles of money by firing these 14 elevator operators and that Congress has
been all but criminally profligate in giving these people jobs.  Hershensohn
wants these 14 people to be unemployed.  He claims it will make a real dent
in the deficit.

And you still haven't answered my question:  what percent of the deficit will
be reduced if Hershensohn succeeds in depriving these 14 people of their
livelihood?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244	     ---------------------+
| "Creativity in programming is to find deep simplicities in a complex	  |
| process."					- Harlan Mills 		  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8718 alt.politics.bush:7913 alt.politics.elections:15367
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:29:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.113817.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>>How can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and 
>>>gloom in the American work place? 
>> 
>> What president are you talking about, Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjami?  If, per
>> chance, you are ascribing this observation to Governor Clinton, you should
>> realize that it has already been established that Clinton made such a remark
>> only in Bush's imagination.  Why do you think not not even Bush still makes
>> that claim?
>
>Actually, you are in error here (get used to it) I am refering to Gov. Clinton,
>and basically the entire Democratic campaign strategy. But if you demand
>specifics, I refer you to a speech, given by the Gov. in Portland, CT. on
>September 8, 1992:
>"Unlike our competitors, this nation has no national strategy, no comprehensive
>partnership between business and workers and workers and education and
>government..."

Where's the doom and gloom. This is just a statement of fact.  
Have Republicans decided that statements of fact are outside 
acceptable bounds of political dialogue.  If so, that explains
why this administration has been unable to formulate a reasonable
policy to get the economy moving.  You can't fix problems if you
refuse to even admit they exist.

>So when Gov.
>Clinton only focuses on trumped-up negative themes, he alienates those of us
>who are working VERY hard to keep our heads above water. 

And, Gov. Clinton talks about "negative" facts so that the nation
will confront its economic proplems and prosper again.  If you want
to be "working VERY hard to keep [your head] above water" four years
from now, by all means vote for George Bush.  If you want this
nation to grow economically, so we can work very hard to improve our
standard of living, vote for Bill Clinton.

John D.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8093 talk.politics.misc:48992 alt.politics.bush:7427
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Libe
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:17:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep30.164229.26570@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

(In discussing Democrats)

>
>They support nationalized healthcare: Nationalized healthcare is a 
>            socialist concept -- just look at the countries that have
>            it.  

An excellent idea!  Let's look at some of the countries which have national
health insurance - countries like, for example, Germany, Japan and Canada.
The first two examples have overtaken the US in economic performance, per
capita and living standards over the past 10 years.  Canada should also do so
in the next 5 years if current trends continue.  The present US health
insurance system is simply a drag on the US economy.  It adds an average of
$1000 to every new American car and is a strong disincentive to people
starting their own business or moving off welfare.  It's time you started
looking at the facts instead of spouting off all this drivel about socialism.

Further to that point, a bipartisan report has recently compared the health
care reform plans of Pres. Bush and Gov. Clinton.  The authors of the report
included former members of the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Johnson and Eisenhower
administrations.  The report concluded that the Bush plan would cost
2.2 trillion dollars more, over the next 12 years, than would the Clinton
plan.  Further, the Clinton plan would cover all Americans by 2005 while
the Bush plan would leave 27,000,000 without any health insurance and a
further 11,800,000 underinsured.  (Source UPI).

Peter Lauren.

>
>One might call the Democrats liberal socialists, but they are more
>socialist than liberals.
>
>Of course, the term "liberal" is more commonly used these days to mean
>a liberal socialist.  (Remember that dictionaries tend to lag the
>language by a number of years.)
>
>-- 
>"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
>no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
>committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
>gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7843 alt.politics.bush:7216
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:08:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University


In article <1992Sep30.004106.21516@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc
.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>
>>FACT:  FOUR OUT OF FOUR budgets that Bush submitted were larger than
>>the previous year's budget.
>
>FACT: There is no Federal law requiring a balanced budget.
>
>
>>FACT:  Clinton as Gov. had 12 out of 12 *balanced* budgets.
>
>FACT: Most states have either a state law or constitutional clause
>requiring a balanced budget.
>
>MD
>--
>--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your
>--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances
>--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
>-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /

It is a shameful existence when we must have legislation to force our elected 
executives to do their jobs.
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   | "Read my lips ... I'll do anything to
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  get reelected ... I knew nothing about
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|  Iran-Contra."  What credibility problem?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Organization: No organization.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:54:01 GMT

You can play with numbers all you want.  "New taxes" can be defined as
just about anything.  That subject has already been covered here over
and over.  It seems that most of Clinton's "new taxes" were cases where
one tax was split into two but the same $$$ was collected.

Anyway...

I think the real question to ask is, "Am I paying more taxes now then I
was 12 years ago?"  I can't answer that because 12 years ago I wasn't
out of college yet.

However, I checked with my parents (who live a similarly SOL as I do,
so it's a decent reference of comparison) and they pay MUCH MORE taxes
now than they did before.  This is by % of income.  (no, they haven't
retired or anything like that which might put a spin on the figures)

If you want to look at real dollars (adjusted for inflation) you get
the same answer.  They were better off THEN.

Who is the "TAX AND SPEND" president?  I say it was Bush.

I suggest everyone do the same kind of research.

Tom

P.S.  I really wonder what kind of flames this will get.  Unless they
claim to have broken into my parent's tax records, I'm going to be very
surprized at their reply.

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:37:17 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):

     In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
     saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
     Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
     two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
     to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
     of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
     1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
     for federal poverty programs.

It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
dwarfs his private generosity.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Who's the chicken?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:07:38 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.13 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research


Now that the republicans have proposed debates that Bush will attend, they're now
calling Clinton a chicken if he doesn't accept.  All of Bush's people were 
excited. Mary Matlin(I think I got her name right) was calling Clinton to
back his "macho" image by attending the debates.  Fitzwater said "Clinton 
better accept."  This was all before Clinton made his official response to 
Bush's proposal.  Isn't it neat how a symbol like a chicken can move a 
mountain, i.e, getting Bush and, fair to say, Clinton to debate.
 
On this chicken thing:  I heard Bush start calling Clinton a chicken for avoiding
the draft.  Gee, he (Bush) just doesn't get it.  Yes, call me a chicken for avoiding
getting myself in a position of being killed for unclear reasons (yes, I know, there
were many reasons why we were in indochina, but please don't repeat them here), yep,
I'm guilty as charged,  But when you avoid a debate, it is not (at least I didn't think
it was) a choice between life and death, "chicken" seems very appropriate but not
equivalent to the former in the least.

--
Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:25:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
-egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
->c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
->>So who's in the lead in terms of number of books sold, current ranking, etc.
->>
->>Ross Perot's Book, Albert Gores, Rush Limbaughs, or Clintons Biography?
->
->Limbaugh's book is on the top (#1) of the NY Times Bestsellers List, as
->of Sunday.  <head shaking, wondering "Why?">
-
-Rush Limbaugh is #1 on NY Times bestseller, hardcover.
-Ross Perot is #1 on NY Times bestseller, softcover
-  Ross's book came out in August - I am not sure when Rush's
-  book came out but I think it was about the same time.

Rush's book was pre-released in early September and officially released
on the Monday that his TV show first aired (circa Sep 14). Demand for
the book was so high that Simon and Schuster had to print more copies of
the book than there were originally.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I was this absurd before I ever heard of Rush Limbaugh. Honest!
*** .sig undergoing modifications ***
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WEE WEENIE WILLIE
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:18:20 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <BvHt1I.A6I@oryx.com> xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:
>A few days ago George Bush issued a challange for 4 debates.
>
>This morning I read that "Wee Weenie Willie"  will only accept
>3 debates.  Bring out the chicken suits!  (or is that a conflict
>of interest with the Arkansas poultry industry - or maybe that's
>Hillary bashing).

Ahh a republican "cry-baby", George wanted to get Gov. Clinton off
the campaign trail by keeping him locked up in debate prep sessions,
The move failed. Also the Nov 1 Idea for a debate so Uncle George
could drop a bombshell and not let Clinton dispell it before the 
election was also defeated. More republican election BS trying to 
have everything their way, well THIS IS NOT 1988 ! the republican 
cheap tricks politics are not working this time. 

The slick one got you again....

tim 





-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Bizarre Clinton Love Child Rumor
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:04:40 GMT

In article <BvEs0M.1Ey@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ziauddin@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Tasneem Ziauddin) writes:
>I know this sounds strange but I am not making it.  A co-worker told me that
>there is an allegation that Clinton has a black "love child" somewhere in
>Arkansas.  While this charge does not change my opinion of him, I'm still
>interested in finding out more.  Has anyone else heard this rumor and have
>any information on it?
>
>Thanks.

Early in the campaign there was a black woman in Ark. who is married to
someone else and has a child who complained about the rumors about Clinton
being out of control.  She cited as an example that she had to talk to her
child about rumors that she had had an affair with Clinton that she denied
having. She believed the press would bring it up so she had to talk to the
child.  She said one source of concern was that her daughter might be told her 
real daddy (the husband) was not her daddy.  The woman insisted that story
was not true and that she had not had an affair.  She got pretty hot about
it.

Don't know if this is the source of the rumor you heard, but offer it for 
what it's worth.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7752 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6060
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush is (or is he?)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:35:13 EST
 <1992Sep24.145710.4338@desire.wright.edu> <1992Sep26.215227.26510JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: hypocrisy seems to be at the root of all Democratic ideals :)

In article <1992Sep26.215227.26510JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
...
> "	So fine, donate the money to charity, but don't think you can force
> "everyone else to do so.
> "
> 
> No, I'm sorry - we have a moral obligation to help those in need. As I've

	And then:

>   I'll vote as I choose and you have no right to tell me how to vote. If


	What fun!

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Job Creation (Arkansas vs. USA)
Date: 27 Sep 1992 03:05:54 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <47895@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:

Re-formatted (watch your line-lengths!)
>An amazing bit of statistical data:

#This morning on the TODAY show, Katie Kouric (sp?)
#was interviewing James
#Carville from the Clinton Campaign and Charles Black from the Bush Campaign.
#Mr. Carville said that according to Bush's
#Secretary of Labor, Lynn Martin, in the
#last two years more jobs had been created in
#Arkansas than in the other 49 states
#put together.  Since Black did not deny
#this statement, it appears clear to me that
#she did indeed say that and that it must
#be true no matter how unbelievable it sounds.
#If you consider the population of Arkansas in
#comparison to the population of the
#rest of the USA, this piece of data is really amazing.

You may have misinterpreted the statistic. Since total job growth has
been close to zero, and in fact negative if we restrict to civilians,
it's easy for a state with + job growth to have done better than the
other 49. The catch is that California (for example) LOST a great number
of jobs.

It is not, I believe, true that Arkansas was #1 in job growth, but it
may have been close.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Why won't you answer, Mr. Gore?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:48:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.005909.4460@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
(Stupendous Man) writes:

|>	Money should be used to help develop other country's economic standing
|>so that (in part) they can be better trade partners with the US?
|>
|>	Why can't you answer that question, Mr. Gore?
|>
|>Brett                                                      

1) It isn't a question, it is a statement with a question mark appended.

2) Al does not read the USEnet, if you want to get inj touch I suggest you try
email or the telephone.

3) I don't suppose that many politicians outside the Looneytarians would
subscribe to the view that watching other countries sink into bankrupcy is in
the long term ecconomic interests of the USA.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek)
Subject: Re: WEE WEENIE WILLIE
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Oryx Energy, Dallas, Texas.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:28:46 GMT

In article <BvI04F.JtI@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
|> xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:
|> : A few days ago George Bush issued a challange for 4 debates.
|> : 
|> : This morning I read that "Wee Weenie Willie"  will only accept
|> : 3 debates.  Bring out the chicken suits!  (or is that a conflict
|> : of interest with the Arkansas poultry industry - or maybe that's
|> : Hillary bashing).
|> 
|> As I heard it, a compromise was reached between Slick's folks and
|> Chicken George's folks about how many of what kind of debates there
|> will be.
|> 
|> The big problems Clinton had with Bushwacker's debate scheme was that
|> the last debate would be held so close to the election, and that
|> some of the dates Bushwacker proposed conflicted with big baseball
|> games.  Of course, Chicken George is so out of touch with the
|> American people that he wouldn't know about major league baseball....
|> 
|> : Q:  How many Dave C Jarzabek's does it take to change a light bulb?
|> : Q:  Duh...  What's a light bulb?
|> : ---------------------------------------
|> : What are the 2 most commonly heard Dave C Jarzabek expressions?
|> : -- Honest, mister, I was just helping that sheep back over the fence.
|> : -- Don't fart in muh face, Clem!  SHIT!
|> : ----------------------------------------
|> : Q:  What did Dave C Jarzabek say when he was visiting the Chichen Ranch?
|> : A:  Honest, Bo, I was just helping that chicken back over the fence.
|> 
|> It doesn't feel all that nice to have your own flames turned on you,
|> does it?


   You must have really strained the old brain muscle to come up
    with these retorts!

   If Woody Allen had lived in Arkansas, there wouldn't be anything
    unusual about his "family affair". 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush