HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:14:33 GMT

In article <Bx3H4H.L83@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  TANSTAAFL!   There is simply no way to pay down the deficit without
>  massive jobs losses.   Claims to the contrary by Perot (or Clinton

Peter, by always responding with a mindless "TANSTAAFL" to every issue,
you are avoiding the serious thinking required to bring about genuine
improvments.  Its so much easier to take the lazy road and do simplistic
thinking instead.  In your world people are always out to get free lunches
and you are always out to stop them.  Well, that doesn't always correspond
with the real world.

25% of your taxes are wasted paying interest on the national debt.
Go find your last form 1040, see what your total taxes were, and multiply
by 25%.  THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF YOUR TAXES YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY
IF THERE WAS NO DEBT.   Do you think this is a fair amount for you
to pay to subsidize jobs?  Is this the most efficient way to subsidize 
jobs?  How is this different from other welfare?  What about all the
jobs and productivity lost because private sector capital is tied up in
government debt?

If you don't have any use for that 25% of the money you save on taxes, 
consider that time is money, and people could trade that money to their
employers for an additional 5-6 weeks vacation time per year (well, Peter 
couldn't, he doesn't like vacations.)  Hmmm.  That just might help stop some 
of those "massive jobs losses", since employers could use the money to hire 
more workers.

Time for a summary.  If the government didn't spend 25% of our tax dollars 
on debt interest, each of us could benefit in one of the following ways:

(1) have a 25% tax cut without losing government services
(2) have 25% more government services
(3) take an additional 5-6 weeks vacation time per year without loss of income.
(4) some combination of the above.

What is actually happening of course is:

(5) Your money/work time/government services go into the bit bucket instead.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23372 talk.politics.misc:59400 tx.politics:7158
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:41:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <BxH0Fo.9G5@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.051618.5992@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>> I think Clinton will do a pretty good job.  My guess is we can expect the 
>> Democrats to control the White House for 8 to 16 years.  The reason it is
>> so unlikely the Republicans will win in 1996 is because that election
>> will be a mirror of 1984.  The Republicans will not have yet figured out
>> that the rightwing extremists in their party are making them unelectable.  
> 
>As much as I agree that the rightwing extremists in the Repub Party are
>disagreable, there isn't any evidence that they made any difference
>in the election.  This was an economic election and issues like abortion
>were pretty far down the list.  
> 
>I don't think Clinton will be able (or inclined) to take serious action
>on the deficit and debt and 1996 may well be another "crisis election".
>-- 
>Doug Andersen
>hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com

The economy today is in much better shape than it was when Carter was elected.
It is very likely that 4 years from now Clinton will be able to ask you if
you are better off now than in 1992 and get a resounding yes.  If it all
comes tumbling down the next year, he still wins reelection.

Bush lost for all sorts of reasons, but I think the big one was that people
became convinced that he not only had no vision (of whatever), but that he is
incapable of having one.  As long as the vision of the Reagan era hovered
around him, he did fine.  But it began to fade immediately after he was 
nominated, until in the last two years it disappeared entirely.  Bush's 
ideals never seem to transcend the personal level -- loyalty, optimism,
steadfastness under fire, etc.  But the President has to have more than 
that.  People want it.  The old time Democrats like FDR, Kennedy, and 
LBJ created mirage-like semblances of an ideal and made slogans like New Deal,
New Frontier, and Great Society to give the voters something to connect to.

Clinton got a smaller popular vote percentage than Dukakis did.  I think
this is partly because he too could only offer a vague abstraction 
called "Change".  If Clinton can formulate and articulate an ideal vision
of proportions worthy of the whole nation, he will succeed.  We can
only hope that the vision will be the right one.

Watching my wallet, and also the disturbing developments across the Atlantic.

G.P.
---
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: Its starting....
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 21:15:19 GMT

Well why don't you go back and refresh yourself on these
same aspects of the Bush and Reagan pre-presidential days.
I'm sure the same kinda big business stuff was going on 
then as well as now.  Geeze, you guys act like Clinton 
wants to give away the country.  Well I guess thats fair
cause I feel there's enough evidence that under the 
Reagan/Bush years that makes me think the same of these
two GOP-heads.  You remember things like increasing the
national debt by over 3 trillion in 12 years.  Boy I'm
sure we could do without that.  Give the guy a chance to
sit his fanny in the big chair in the white house before
freaking out with your paranoid delusions.  

--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sad comment on democracy
Date: 10 Nov 1992 15:28:54 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

William December Starr writes:
>
>Robert J. Skrobola said:
>
>>
>> I'll bite. 149 "bounced" (overdrawn) checks..
>
>149 "overdrawn" checks, I'll believe... with the important note that
>every one of those checks was honored by the bank and that not one of
>them "bounced" in the traditional sense of being returned for lack of
>sufficient funds.
>

Speaking of which, this "number of checks overdrawn" statistic
seems irrelevant - much like the question "How many times X
has raised taxes."  What should really matter is by how *much*
the House Bank accounts were overdrawn.

BTW, for all those accusing Lawrence Walsh of political shenanigans,
I'd ask you to look at your paper this morning.  You might see the
report that state department searched Ross Perot's passport file,
about two weeks after searching the passport records of Clinton
and Clinton's mother.  There was no FOI request for this information,
so the search was almost certainly illegal.

Lawrence Walsh *might* be guilty of politically timing indictments.
Someone in his staff *might* have been leaking things to the Clinton
campaign.  Frankly, I don't know enough to say.  Neither of these
is as great an offense as the abuse of power perpetrated by the
State Department goons.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: ralph@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (ralph.winslow)
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:29:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.042950.2105@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.192648.20381@sequent.com> jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say Noe" Kramer) writes:
>>In article <YOUNG.92Nov3132637@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>>>
>>>It occurred to me shortly after the '88 election that what we had
>>>witnessed was a mandate in favor of keeping felons locked up forever.
>>
>>Seems to me that if Bush was locked up four years ago a lot people might
>>be alive today who aren't.
>
>Name one, asshole!
>
>Ted   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

Can this asshole speak up for John?  How about Achmed Hussein of Baghdad?
Let's not forget - oh hell, I've forgotten the name of the guy who was
investigating the Justice Depts software rip-off scandal.

I doubt this helps, but Hey!
Ralph
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23005 alt.politics.marrou:2156 talk.politics.misc:58673 alt.politics.clinton:16250
From: ktaylor@umiacs.umd.edu (Kenneth Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:27:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

In article <1dbpanINN6l5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>
>In a previous article, gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven) says:
>>
>>It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!
>>
>>Right.
>>
>>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
>>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.
>
>Funny, it tells me that a resounding SIXTY-THREE PERCENT of the voters
>do not believe that George Bush should be president; and that a whopping
>EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT of the voters do not think Ross Perot should be 
>president. Congratulations, you can subtract. So can I. Isn't democracy
>wonderful? 


Yes, but the difference is that neither Perot nor Bush is President.
We now (or are soon to have) a president whom 57% of the electorate
has explicitly rejected.  That fact is not changed by the
further fact that we have two non presidents who were rejected
by even more people.  Obviously, we need a run-off if the
"winner" receives less than 50% of the popular vote.

Ken Taylor
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23006 talk.politics.misc:58674
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Date: 6 Nov 1992 23:39:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) says:

>  Richard Mulac writes:
>
>>  Wow!  Now we have a real "education" President in Bill Clinton.  Someone
>>who uses proper English words like "How're" when communicating to millions
>>of Americans in his campaign commercials (How're you doing?).  Maybe he
>>wants the Arkansas dialect of English to become the official language of
>>the US.  I can see it now.  In six months the White House is going to look
>>like the set from The Beverly Hillbillies.  Chelsea will have all her
>>"pets" living on the White House lawn and in the swimming pool.   (^:}
>
>     That's what I'm proudest of about America -- we don't have petty class
>distinctions here! :-)
>     Why is it that so many assume that people with Southern accents are
>stupid, just because they drawl? I grew up in California. I use words such as 
>"like" and "dude" a bit more often than is socially acceptable here in the 
>Buckeye State. And yet, despite this speech impediment, I still manage to be an
>honors student. Go figure. :-)
>     I know, Richard, it was a joke. And I did laugh. But I still wanted to 
>make the point that the way someone talks is no indicator of how much gray 
>matter is above the voice box. For example, anyone who listens to George Bush 
>when he's in hyperkinetic mode isn't going to be too impressed, right? :-)
>     With that, I will step off my soap box and continue as before. :-)

  I'm not even talking about the way he speaks.  I'm referring to their
campaign ad which talks about the last four years and at the end they 
plaster in big type across the screen:

                          HOW'RE YOU DOING?

Great example to set for kids.  And this man is going to IMPROVE our
educational system???

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1460 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23590 talk.politics.misc:59789 tx.politics:7242
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:15:59 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Doug Andersen) writes:
|> > Sounds to me like people were pretty concerned about social issues
|> > there, except for people who voted for Perot.
|>  
|> I think there was a lot of hype in the media about how the tone of the
|> Republican conventions turned voters off, but I don't think there is much
|> evidence to support that.
|>  
|> I'm not saying it wasn't offensive.  I just don't think social issues were
|> very important to people in this election.

I think this is exactly the point.  The Republican convention showed that
Republicans were more focused on social issues than economic issues.  Since
those issues were not very important in this election, the convention
demonstrated that the Republican Party did not want to be a player in 1992.

George Bush obviously tried to have it both ways.  He tried to show
support for the social agenda of those that controlled the platform, and
he tried to show an interest and concern for economic issues.  IMHO he
never succeeded in convincing people that he felt the economic issues
were more important than the social ones.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22653 alt.politics.perot:5165 alt.politics.clinton:15839
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Good Luck!!!
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:20:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:

> Well, as a Perot supporter I wish the Clinton/Gore team the best of luck
> in their new job. Naturally, I am disappointed that the candidate I have
> been supporting didn't win but you can't win all the time.

Perot didn't win, but he should get a lot of credit for the positive effect
he had on the campaign, to wit:  1) he raised everybody's consciousness wrt
to the deficit and what it will take to compete in the global marketplace,
2) he raised the tone of the campaign; without his presence, this might well
have been a replay of Bush/Dukakis, and 3) he got the public _engaged_ in
the issues.  IMHO, he did the public an enormous service.

> I sincerely  hope that by 1996 I can support the Clinton/Gore ticket, since
> that will mean that their administration has been doing a good job. The main
> issues that I will following would be:
>
>  * The federal budget deficit.
>  * Campaign reform.
>  * Government reform.
> and,
> * ACTION rather than talk.

The stakes are too high, so I don't think anyone in their right mind would
want Clinton/Gore to fail.  Btw, I hope no one is expecting an instant
transformation of our country into HappyHappyJoyJoy Land when Clinton/Gore
take office.  That would be like whipping a U-turn with the Valdez.

> For the sake of the country, I hope that these issues are addressed fully.
> If not, I will support another Perot candidacy in '96.

Being able to hold our highest elected officials accountable is a blessing,
isn't it?  It can be fun, too. :-)
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Final Results (major parties)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:30:59 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Nov5.030549.4807@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
|> 
|> 	I thought someone else would do this, but I guess no one
|> else will. These numbers are from today's San Francisco Examiner.
|> 
|> Misc. stats
|> ------------
|> Perot finished ahead of Clinton in Utah 29% to 26%. 
|> Democrats gained 1 seat in the Senate 58-42

Right now, it is still officially 57-42. There is still a
runoff to be held between Paul Coverdell and Wyche Fowler 
in Georgia. Given that Coverdell secured only 1 %-age point
less than Fowler AND that the Libertarian was supposed to
endorse Coverdell yesterday, the GOP has a good chance of 
making it 57-43. Further, one more special election to be held in
ND for Quentin Burdick's seat. Kent Conrad is the front-runner,
but there is a chance he could be unseated.

|> Democrats gained gained 2 gubernatorial seats to 30 Dem 18 Repub 2 Ind.
|> 
|> Democrats went from holding 61% of the House to 57%. 
|> Republicans went from 38% to 40%.
|> Independents went from 1% to 3%.
|> 
|> Presidential race by States
|> ----------------------------
|> All states from the South went to Bush except:
|> LA., ARK., and Tenn. (Geo. still undecided)

A UPI report that I have says that with 99% reporting, Clinton
has 1,005,889 votes, Bush has 989,804 votes. These are
unofficial results, but I think you can give Georgia to Clinton.

|> All plain states and mountain states went to Bush except:
|> COLO., N.M., Montana.

Nevada also went to Clinton (38-35). To me, this was the biggest
surprise of the election.


|> Hope this answers some questions.
|> Garrett@Ingres.com

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23754 talk.politics.misc:60065 tx.politics:7287
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:14:26 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov12.174739.25513@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>:                                                             Describe a
>: method that will pave YOUR STREET -- keeping the costs in mind.
>
>If I want my street paved, I'll get together with my neighbors and if they
>agree, then we'll chip in and pave it.  Why should YOU have to help pay to
>pave my street if you never use it?

More importantly, if I want to pave my street, I might just contact some
friends on the next street over and see if we can't all go in an get the
neighborhood repaved.

Instead, we have a MUD board that wastes on money on a fall down old house
they call the "Wells Branch Homestead" that most people don't know they
shouldn't have to pay for.  Let me keep MY money and let the people who
want a "Wells Branch Homestead" pay for with with THEIR money.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
Subject: Re: Sad comment on democracy
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:47:48 GMT

I would like to see the data behind the assertion that these were 'multi-
thousand dollar loans,' a usage which to me implies that ALL of these 
comgressional representatives, or even some.  I don't know if any, and 
surely not many of these people write multi-thousand dolar overdrafts.  Maybe
that was the total over time, but that is a different situation.

Ah,...no use debaating sometimes.  I'm too tired for this.  Believe it was
wrong.  Bottom line: people elected her.

Matt
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:10:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov6.211001.19136
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov6.182122.7359@ncsu.edu> prhaikal@eos.ncsu.edu  writes:
>
>>In article <Bx9ruw.8Jt@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>>>>    DC            4
>>>
>>>Gee, go figure!  Why do you think it might be that Washington
>>>D.C. only voted 4% for Perot when the national average was 20%?
>>
>>Because Washington DC is something like 90% black.
>
>Think again.  Who controls Congress? Democrats (unfortunately).  

Yes, they're 60% of Congress.  Of course, not a single Congressperson
votes in the District of Columbia.  And even if they were, it doesn't
explain why Bush only gets 9% of the vote.

>Who uses the biggest staffs? Congress.  

Actually, the executive branch and civil service is much much larger.

>Where do all the staff members live? D.C.  

No, they live in home districts, and in Maryland and Virginia suburbs.
DC is poor and black.

>So who are they gonna vote for?  Bozo.  That's also the reason
>why Maryland went so strongly for Clinton- Much of Maryland's suburbs 
>are D.C.

Have a clue someday and look at the actual voter registration numbers.
There aren't half a million congressional staffers.  Congressional staffs 
are not 80% Democratic, and people who work for the government have very
little influence on who gets elected in the District of Columbia. 
The DC vote has *always* mirrored the national African-American vote.  
And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the African-American vote did indeed 
go 87-9-4, Clinton-Bush-Perot, just like DC.

Take your conspiracy theories to Scott Barnes.  The rest of us know how
to think.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23187 talk.politics.misc:59063 tx.politics:7116