HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:01:42 GMT

In article <JTURNER.92Nov6183144@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>> A point you do not acknowledge is that the value of your money due
>> to inflation goes down over time and there is NO current way to
>> offset that without paying taxes on the "dividends" you get if yoiu
>> invest your money.  The capital gains tax would be more acceptable
>> if it allowed for an adjustment of your initial dollar investment
>> based on inflation.  Example: I buy a house for cash $200,000.
>> Ten years from now I sell it for $300,000.  Why should I pay 
>> capital gains on $100,000 IF the inflation rate has essentially
>> offset that added $100,000 value of the home? 

>	But if someone else took the same money and put it in
>a mattress for ten years the government wouldn't pay them the
>difference in value at the end of that time.  Thems the breaks.
>Everyone loses money to inflation whether or not they invest.

The capitol gains tax is an _extra_ tax, in addition to income 
tax, on profits made by investment. If someone sells a house and
makes no profit after inflation, why should they be taxed for
the (artificial, fictional) profit? There is no question of
the government should pay the difference, just that there shouldn't
be an additional, government _punishment_ on top of inflation.
(Unless you are assuming that all money the government _doesn't_ take
is a gift from the government. In my opinion, that is a very disturbing
attitude.)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: National Health Insurance
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:28:29 EST

In article <rabjab.233.721105166@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
> What might be the cost of National Health Insurance, an idea that
> Clinton seems to be entertaining?  Where I work, approx.  $200/month
> is set aside per month per person.  Assuming 250 million population,
> the grand total comes to $600 billion/year!  That's half of the
> national budget!  
> 
> -----------------------
> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu

$200/month is way too much. The idea is too get health care costs down.
I don't have health care because I can't afford to shell out $240/month
on my meager $1500/month after taxes income. As a matter of fact, I have
to teach on the side in addition to my full time appointement as a 
post-doc to pay my $1800/month debt base. 

I have major dental problems, and cannot afford to even have it looked at.
Who knows, I may even have some serious health problems, but haven't been
in for an examination for 12 years. I can't afford it.

Health care is for the rich. The rest of you be damned.

You can't have rich people without a disproportionate amount of poor people.
Otherwise they wouldn't be rich! It's pretty simple.

-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:01:23 GMT

In article <trussell.720986398@cwis>, trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
> 
> >Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?
> 
> >Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
> >of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
> >probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
> >and other major projects.
> 
>     Hey, I'm just about as big a space fan as they come (I was home from
> school watching the Challenger), but if NASA sends any more multi-billion-
> dollar missions up to launch 1.5 foot silver balls, I too will be for
> some space program cuts.  That was just stupid.

It's true -- we only want really BIG satellites, with lots of parts that
can go wrong.  HST is a GREAT project :-).  If you don't know how a
project works, don't put it down.  LAGEOS is a simple, elegant research
project and no, I don't work on it.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: US Election: The Real Historical Parallel
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:12:50 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <18953@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:
>The candidates in the US election have been fond of harkening back to
>various historical elections as they predicted the outcome or tried to
>frame the issues. Bush liked to invoke Harry Truman (a Democrat!) and
>say that he would pull out an upset like Truman over Dewey. There have
>been other parallels also: Clinton invoking the 1960 election of JFK by
>talking of "generational change". And the Democrats have also referred
>to the first election of FDR tossing out Herbert Hoover (making the
>Bush = Hoover parallel). Then Bush talked about John Major's last election,
>the British Conservative winning in a squeaker when he was predicted by
>all the polls to lose. 
>
>All of these analogies have some validity, but I feel the one that comes
>closest hasn't been mentioned by anyone. In their first election after 
>World War II, the British kicked out of office Winston Churchill, their
>immensely popular war leader. It seems to me there is a real parallel here
>to Bush losing after "winning" both the Gulf War and the Cold War. A
>victim of his own "success", Bush and his ideology became largely 
>irrelevant in the post-Cold War era, as Sir Winston did after WWII.
>Thoughts, anyone? I'm particularly interested if any of you Brits agree
>that there is a parallel here.
>
>Richard

The end of the Cold War may have been a contributing factor.
But, I believe, that the economic problems of the US were the
major cause of Bush's downfall.  

High unemployment, the rising national debt, the gridlock in Washington:
these were the George's achilles heel.

-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
X-Xxdate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:50:28 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:53:44 GMT

In article <trussell.720986398@cwis> Tim Russell,
trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu writes:
>    Hey, I'm just about as big a space fan as they come (I was home from
>school watching the Challenger), but if NASA sends any more
multi-billion-
>dollar missions up to launch 1.5 foot silver balls, I too will be for
>some space program cuts.  That was just stupid.

Note that the LAGEOS sattelite was only one of the experiments that
went up on the STS-52 mission. Secondly, the LAGEOS satellite is small
so it didn't take up much space. The decision was made that to launch it
on the shuttle because there was no reason not to.
>
>    The Space Shuttle is really nifty and all, but NASA needs to keep a
>little perspective as to which missions actually need crews and which
>can be launched by unmanned rockets.

Agreed, but understand tht the reliability of our unmanned launch
vehicles is a bit suspect at the moment.

>
>    I'd also like to see more money spent developing an actual reusable
>space plane, rather than throwing away half the system every time a
>mission is flown.

Absolutely, although much less than half
is actually thrown away. I encourage everyone to write letters to their
senators and
congressmen supporting the single-stage-to-orbit program (SSTO) and the
national aerospace plane program (NASP). I would also encourage
everyone to support
the development of a modern flexible unmanned launch system. Any
efforts in space we put forth in the future will be made quicker and much
cheaper if we have a flexible, operationally-simple, launch
infrastructure.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16332 alt.politics.bush:13471 talk.politics.misc:58777
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Wine Tariff
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:18:44 EST

I heard on the radio that Bush's daughter just got married to some
rich person in the California wine business. Is this true?

Is this related to the recent WINE TARIFF imposed by BUSH on the Europeans?

I smell a rat...

-Garrett
From: ns@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Nancy M. Schnepp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton's other last name?
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:41:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

What was Clinton's last name when he was born?
I saw it on the news this summer but I sure can't
think of it now.  Thanks in advance.

Please e-mail. 
ns@physics.purdue.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15707 alt.politics.elections:22522 talk.politics.misc:58049
From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:24:09 GMT
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158

In article <1992Nov13.224831.25736@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>Actually, mankind has an abysmal historical record
>with regards to caring
>for others. Just take a look at the unspeakable attrocities
>being performed by the Serbians.
>
>Norman
>

Not to mention the unspeakable atrocities which have been performed on
Serbians for the third time this century.  Serbia was one of the earlier-
formed democracies in Europe, based on the French model, reborn in the late
19th century.  Allied with the U.S., France, and Great Britain in both
WWI and WWII against the Austro-Hungarian empire and Nazi Germany
respectively, Serbia has a historic record of fighting against tyranny.
Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina were enthusiastic supporters of Nazism,
and Hitler rewarded these former provinces of the Hapsburg empire with
their own Nazi puppet state in WWII.  In this Independent State of Croatia,
several hundred thousand Serbians, Jews, and Gypsies were slaughtered with
a vigor that even Hitler and Mussolini were sickened by. 

Serbia has not invaded Bosnia-Hercegovina.  More than 1,400,000 Serbs lived
in Bosnia-Hercegovina before this latest war began.  Serbians have lived in
these regions for more than 1000 years, and worked the land to sustain 
their lives.  Now there are more than 600,000 refugees from Croatia and
Bosnia-Hercegovina in Serbia proper due to this war, many of them Muslim
Croatian, or Jewish.  In fact, before this war even started, Serbs were
being ethnically cleansed in Croatia, being fired from their jobs because
of their ethnicity, citizenship and property rights were being denied to
non-Croats, Serbs were being murdered in cold blood in some villages only
because they were Serbian.  The barricades in Sarajevo were erected because
militant Muslims murdered a Serbian wedding party as they celebrated their
marriage.  

The U.N. Secretary General, and General MacKenzie, head of UNPROFOR in
Sarajevo at the beginning of this war made definitive statements which
rebutted the propaganda about death camps.  Both investigated the camps
and found only detention camps on all sides, none of which were particularly
pleasant places, but which are a part of all wars.  

I suggest that interested parties read:

        Serbs and Croats: The Struggle in Yugoslavia
        by Dr. Alex Dragnich
        Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich, 1992


for more information.

If you are ever forced to defend your own life on your own land, maybe you
will remember what happened to the Serbians in 1991-92.

-Nick

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu (VAN AUSDELN, LEO ANTHONY)
Subject: plurality clarification
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:59:00 GMT

>|> 
>|>         YEAR    PRESIDENT	    POPULAR VOTE [1]
>|> 
>|> 	1824	John Q. Adams		31% [2]
>|> 	1860	Abe Lincoln		40% 4 candidates got 40/30/18/13%
>|> 	1912	Woodrow Wilson		42% 4 candidates got 42/27/23/6%
>|> 	1968	Richard Nixon		43% humphrey/wallace got 42/14%
>|> *	1992	Bill Clinton		43% perot
>|> 	1856	James Buchanan		45% 3 candidates got 45/33/21%
>|> 	1892	Grover Cleveland	46% 4 candidates got 46/43/9/2%
>|> 	1848	Zachary Taylor		47% 3 candidates got 47/42/10%
>|> 	1876	Rutherford B. Hayes	48% [3]
>|> 	1880	James Garfield		48% 3 candidates got 48.27/48.25/3%
>|> 	1888	Benjamin Harrison	48% [4]
>|> 	1844	James K. Polk		49% 3 candidates got 49/48/2%
>|> 	1884	Grover Cleveland	49% 4 candidates got 48.5/48.3/2/1%
>|> 	1916	Woodrow Wilson		49% 4 candidates got 49/48/3/1%
>|> 	1948	Harry Truman		49% 4 candidates got 49/45/2/2%
>|> 	1960	John F. Kennedy		49% 3rd party candidates got .72%
>|> 					    kennedy/nixon got 49.72/49.55%
>|> 

just to clarify, and since the cicumstances of the above %ages are interesting,
i add the following footnotes. (as well as the notes above.)

	[1]	"The Universal Almanac"   1990   Andrews and Mcmeel publishers
	[2]	Popular/electoral=adams(31/84),jackson(41/99),crawford(11/41),
			clay(13/37); elected in house where speaker clay
			supported adams.
	[3]	tilden got 51% but lost electoral 185-184
	[4]	harrison lost popular vote by .8%, won electoral 232-168
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber)
Subject: "Governor Taxes"
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:43:18 GMT

Seems he just can't wait to make enemies out of his allies.  Billy boy has
already got the plans made up for even hihger import tariffs on European goods.
How long before he implements his payroll taxes to pay for his plans and drives
more industry from this country?  Sadie-boy's waiting in the wings for him too.
He's been laughing his a$$ off since the election.

Oh well... we have to live with this for four years...

Jack Kemp/Lynn Martin in 1996
(that's my ideal ticket right now)

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@stardock.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 11:05:57 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu


Note, followups set to talk.politics.misc...

In article <1992Nov8.061043.2585@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov7.194101.15129@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
|> >>If you are already living comfortably, at some tax rate
|> >>you will decide that your time is worth more than you will get
|> >>by working the additional hour, or taking the additional time
|> >>to research investments, etc.  You will simply say screw it, 
|> >>I would rather go play golf, go skiing, etc.  An hour spent
|> >>generating income is an hour not spent doing something you
|> >>may enjoy more.  The higher the cost of generating income, the
|> >>more likely you are to forgo that activity and do something
|> >>else.
|> 
|> >  Your point is well taken, and in fact may be EXTREMELY good
|> >  justification for RAISING the taxes.  It is sad in this society
|> >  that people are constantly spending time, often doing something
|> >  that they are merely satisfied with (or occasionally dissatisfied
|> >  with), when they could be enjoying life more.
|> 
|> You are assuming that no one else benefits from their making
|> money. This is sometimes true (junk bonds, for example). [...]

One thing about junk bonds.  They aren't the great satan that most
people think.  They are primarily a way for smaller companies to
raise money.  They are 'junk' only in the sense that they are
riskier than higher quality bonds.  They are riskier because they
represent the debt of a smaller company.  They also exist because
of the perverse tax laws that favor debt financing over equity
financing.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: SUGGESTION:  E-Clinton!
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:58:14 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin - River Falls

              


Congratulations all round to anyone in the Clinton campaign who might
be reading this, and condolences to anyone who was with the other campaigns
or who voted for another candidate.


And Now For Something Completely Different.....

E-clinton!

If anyone who was on the Clinton campaign is reading this, please take
notice of my following suggestion:
It has been one of the Governor's strnegths that he has tried to remain in
touch with the nation and ordinary people.
Another strength of the campaign was its recognition of UseNet and the
campaign's periodic postings of press releases to us....

Therefore, I suggest that the Clinton Administration maintain an email
address and a monitor of the traffic on this newsgroup....and dare I say it...
perhaps have the President himself or at least the Vice-President or some
cabinet members respond directly to a random selection of postings on
the group?   Not too many, maybe only 10 a day or 10 every two days, but
SOMETHING.  

Al Gore should support this, I would think.  It could save on gas from all
the bus trips!  :)


What do you lot think?


Steven.K.Manfred@uwrf.edu



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17070 alt.politics.democrats.d:522 alt.politics.elections:23703 ba.politics:7091 co.politics:1949 ne.politics:2960 nj.politics:709 or.politics:620 ny.politics:230 talk.politics.misc:59994
From: labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inheritance taxes
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:22:58 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation

stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:

>It's *easy* for someone whose salary never broke $50,000 to have an
>estate of a million or more, even though they couldn't lay their
>hands on a third of that amount while they are alive.  It will be
>even easier in the future, since the $600,000 exemption is (as far
>as I know) not indexed for inflation.  With inflation running at
>just 3% a year, the cost of living will double in less than 25
>years -- effectively, the $600,000 exemption will have become
>a $300,000 exemption.  And do you really believe that inflation
>will stay that low???

		More 'good' news! Congress is working on a bill they
		have apparantly been trying to get through for some years
		now (and with slick Willy they can now probably get
		anything signed) to lower the exemption to $200,000!
		Watch out.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:26:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.181837.21006@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <22319@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>In <1992Nov6.145038.19122@kadsma.kodak.com> (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>} In article <sulkanen.720974651@xanth> sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>>} >steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>} >>It's already lifted.  It was declared illegal yesterday by a Federal
>>} >>court.  _Darn_ the commie feminazies getting real medical advice!  Da
>>} >>noive!

>>} >Oh, they can get abortion info, just don't spend *my* money for it...

>>} Once tax money has been collected, it's not yours anymore.

>>If it is no longer mine, then whose is it?  If it belongs to government,
>>then since government sets tax rates at whatever arbitrary level it chooses,
>>that says government owns it all, and what belongs to the rest of us is
>>what government lets us keep.  I cannot accept that.  This is supposed
>>to be a nation where government is supposed to serve; not be served.

>This analysis is incorrect. Taxes, once collected, do belong to the
>government. However, the government cannot set tax rates at any arbitrary
>level. The people who set the tax rates are sent there by you, the voter.
>If taxes rise to unacceptable levels, people get voted out. It happens
>all the time, even this election. Some of the biggest winners in my
>area were the candidates who took 'read-my-lips' pledges on taxes.

Without getting into the philosophical debate, I'd say it's irrelevant
to the issue.  The "gag rule" didn't say that the organizations couldn't
use tax money to talk about abortion -- it said that organizations which
got tax money couldn't talk about abortion AT ALL.

*This* is why it was (and is) illegal, no matter what the Supreme Court
says.  It violates the law that the Congress passed.  It's another
example of unelected bureaucrats writing law when they're supposed to be
enforcing it, and unelected judges writing law when they're supposed to
be interpreting it.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.asian.american