HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Boom Boom Boom Boom :)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.040745.3040@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.224147.3744@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupend writes...
>>In article <1992Aug25.173645.16913@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>>	In the last 100 years we've have four "boom" periods.  Each and every
>>>>one resulted from (in part) taxes being lowered.
>>> 
>>> We got 1920's (1924-1929, Coolidge tax cut) 1960's (1964-1969, Kennedy
>>> tax cut) and 1980's (1983-1989, Reagan tax cut).
>>> So what's the 4th boom period?
>>> 
>>	1890s.  (Thus "100 years" instead of this century.)  Sorry about that. 
>>I thought I had put in the dates.                          
>> 
>>Brett                                                      
>
>This isn't meant as a flame, but I seem to remember that after everyone
>one these "boom" periods there was a severe recession. 
                                      ^^^^^^
>
>1920's	followed by the 30's.
>64-69   followed by stagflation in the 70's (I remember a bad recession
>					in 73-74, but I think there was 
>					also one before then)
>83-89	followed by the present recession.
>I'm not sure of the exact date, but there was a depression in the
>1890's as well.
>
>Does anyone have a theory on this?
>

   I think you get one out of three on this.  The 1930s was
a severe recession.  '73-'74 was the result of an oil shock and
I wouldn't put much credence in associating it with the prior boom.

  The last recession was not that severe at all.  Look at GDP
growth.  Look at inflation, interest rates, and even unemployment.  
Now do the same with the 1930s and even '79-82.   Remember the media's
predictions for permanent "stagflation" during that time.

   Recessions always seem bad when you are in them, but 
once it is history and not the constant focus of our incredibly
silly media, it will not go down as a "severe recession" (unless
something very unexpected happens in the near future such as
another oil shock.)


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Shocking News About Clinton!!!!
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:08:24 CDT

In article 18140037@umbc1.umbc.edu, williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu () writes:

|>] The way I understand it, Gov. Clinton advocates school choice but
|>] does not support government financing of religious schools.
|> 
|   *My* understanding is that the Gov. does not support government subsidised
|   school choice regardless of the schools affiliation.  Conservatives want
|   parents to be able to write off the cost of private schools from their taxes
|   The Gov. is correct on this.  Public financing of 'school choice' would spell
|   the end of the public school system as we know it.  We'll look like Britain 
|   with a pernicious class system up our wazoos.
|     Stay Easy__
|       TheBigBopper

Bohunk!  Minnesota already has open enrollment.  Our program is often
touted as the model for Bush's plan.  We have not reached the end of 
the public school system at all.  We do quite well.

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:24:38 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug20.224302.2246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
]
]I understand, and accept, the idea that lower taxes can be an incentive
]for economic activity.  I am challenging the claim that there will be
]_enough_ activity to increase revenues.  The activity may increase by
]a marginal amount and that increase may also be transient, as has been
]shown for studies for the case of capital gains reductions.  Such a
]reduction will lead to a short-term increase as people cash in on
]paper profits, but after the sell-out, the lower tax rate becomes the
]dominant factor.

The Laffer curve can be clearly shown to be correct by looking at
the extremes:
  100% taxation yields 0 revenue because it stifles ALL legal economic activity
    0% taxation yeidls 0 revenue for obvious reasons
    x% taxation (somewhere in between) yields the most revenue. Above x%,
       the slope is negative.

One can argue all day about what the value of x is, but it is transparently
obvious that there exists a value of x greater than 0 and less than 100%.

But then, why are we talking about maximizing government revenues. I always
thought that the government was supposed to serve us. This logic is all
about how we can best serve government. Bad idea!
>
>-- 
>
>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)


-- 
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
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:01:43 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
 <1992Aug27.014829.3821@brownfield.glv.com>

In article <1992Aug27.014829.3821@brownfield.glv.com>, brownfield!jbrow (Jim
Brownfield) says:

>The last two and a half decades are the only ones in this countries history
>where we had medicare and medicaid to drive up the demand on doctors above the
>free market demand.  Also, the number of slots for medical students *is*
>limited by the AMA.  THIS is the "monopoly influence."

Look at the data.  The US costs have been rising since WW II, not just since
1966.  In fact, the inflation rate in medical care exceeded the overall CPI
by a larger percentage in the 1950-65 period compared to the 1965-1990
period.  Rising costs were a problem decades before Medicare and Medicaid.

Despite the "monopoly influence" the number of physicians per 10,000 persons
rose from 14.1 in 1950 to 22.6 in 1987.  In most medical specialties labor
economists estimate that we have a surplus of physicians.  If the AMA has
a "monopoly influence" they aren't very good at using it.

>I know that flipping through the yellow pages, or asking a doctor or friend
>for
>a referal is too high a cost for socialists (as opposed to extracting
>resources
>at gunpoint from taxpayers).  Some of us don't really mind having choices all
>that much.

Maybe if you'd stop trying to be so flip and defensive, you could take some
time to read the health economics literature on physicians.  Be careful
you might learn something new.

#In response to my note that in health economics certain theoretical and
empirical results indicate increased competition can increases prices.#

>In socialists' dreams.

No, in empirical research done by American economists, a decidedly conservative
bunch.
Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:32:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug24.205721.9905@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:

>That's not the point; I was responding to what you said. You maintained that
>getting the sperm and egg together, a pregnancy, was an act of human will.
>I pointed out that men and women often willfully act to PREVENT this, even
>if they do choose to have intercourse. I think this represents a reasonable
>attempt to avoid conception.

Of the point here but:
  Why do women and/or men want to prevent pregnancies in the first place?

  Don't women and men know that contraceptives do fail, and when they do
they risk a greater chance of STDs, getting AIDS, getting pregnant, and 
perhaps terminate their sons and daughters.

Note that the above concerns more of sex outside of the commitment of 
marriage.

>
>Of course, I don't agree at all with the principle that consent to sex =
>consent to bear a child, in the case of contraceptive failure or even in
>the case of not using contraception. So we're probably arguing from opposite
>viewpoints.
>

Perhaps I didn't word it right.  I didn't really mean to say that 'consent
to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like 'consent to
sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'  

So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
be held accountable for your actions. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pork Barrel Politics
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:07:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.172729.24096@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
} As I understood it, the act
} of bouncing a check off of the House Bank didn't cost any taxpayers
} anything.

I disagree.  Perhaps it did not cost much in monetary terms (Other financial
institutions pay for their operations through things like charging interest
on loans or the payment of penalties on overdrawn accounts.  Since the House
Bank did none of these, but rather paid for their operations through taxes,
it did cost the taxpayers.).

But it cost something even more valuable -- trust.  How can people, who
routinely write *dozens* of overdrafts (they really weren't bounced checks,
since the checks were covered -- just with someone else's money) *every
month* and don't even bother to keep their own records, be trusted to come
up with a responsible budget for the entire country?  How can people,
who are so reckless with their own money, be trusted with everyone elses?

Do you really want people, who show such a complete and reckless disregard
for finances, managing a $6 trillion economy?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:05:55 CDT


In article <mjenkins.715015044@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> Following this Pat Robertson thread, I keep noticing people mentioning
> Jesus Christ and saying he preached "love and tolerance."
> 
> I hate to have to point this out, but Jesus, while preaching love of
> fellow men and women, was very firm about who he was and what he was
> about...much of which has little to do with what people today would
> call "tolerance."
> 
> Check out his reaction to the money-changer in the temple...that's not
> very "tolerant" is it? Of course not, because these people were
> thieves in his Father's house.

I think Jesus would have a similar reaction to Pat Robertson as he did 
to the money changers.

> Jesus also said "I am the way, the truth, the life...No one comes to
> the father except through me." Funny, that's sounds pretty "fundie"
> doesn't it?

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things
that are God's."  I must have missed the part where Jesus said to 
establish a government in his name.  He doesn't sound too "fundie", does
he.

> Read the New Testament and see what Jesus was all about. You may be
> surprised.

I'm suprised how different it sounds than the "700 Club".

-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43042 talk.politics.mideast:19431 misc.headlines:6111
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Date: 1 Sep 92 06:02:17 GMT
	<1992Aug28.051358.8985@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug28094126@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug30.013328.18969@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Aug30.013328.18969@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug28094126@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>
>   # Do you have a wall and a drill?  Then you too can make a hole.
>
>	   I probably could.  But only on the house I currently live in.  Not
>   a house someone else currently lives in.  Or can you make yourself
>   invisible (and the drilling inaudible)?

Now this is getting very silly.  Why should a drill have to be
inaudible or the driller invisible to make a hole?  Just being
unobserved or even better simply forgotten would suffice.  Give me a
drill, an innocuous repairman's outfit, and your address, and I could
demonstrate to you how it works.

>   # If they need to look a little older, why, a light application
>   # of stain should be sufficient to create the illusion of decades of age.
>
>	   I believe that scientific methods exist to make this
>   determination.  The "illusion" would not last long.

Indeed, a stupid stain would not withstand a sufficiently broad
battery of scientific tests.  Has one been performed?  (your turn)

>   # I do not claim that the holes are fake; I have no evidence to make
>   # that claim.  It is naive, however, to deny that holes can be faked.
>   # No, I did not equate the physical evidence of mezuza holes with the
>   # verbal claim of continuous Arab occupation.  I did however point out
>   # the hypocricy of the demand that the Arabs produce complete legal
>   # evidence for ownership of homes and land or be thrown out by Israeli
>   # courts, and then implicitly accepting a hole in the wall as proof that
>   # the houses belong to Jews.  That is hypocritical.
>
>	   You claim you are not equating the two, but with your repeated
>   charge of hypocrisy you are doing just that.

If you misunderstand the hypocrisy, well, don't blame it on me.  A
hole is not the same as a verbal claim, but demanding full legal
paperwork (note that I did not say accepting a verbal claim) while
accepting a hole is hypocritical.  I wouldn't accept either a hole or
a mere verbal claim, myself, as proof of ownership of any property.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:20:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

>|> > >>     Instead of paying women for having children outside of wedlock and not
>|> > >>     working, we should give parents who are unable to support their children 
>|> > >>     an opportunity to temporarily place them in a foster home, get back on their 
>|> > >>     feet, and take the kids back.  That will take away an incentive to raise
>|> > >>     one's children poor with no man in the house, and reduce the number of 
>|> > >>     children living below the poverty line.
...
>Actually it is a fairly silly idea.  The idea of someone else raising your
>children for a period of time sucks.  First, you have no control over the
>quality of foster homes -- some are good, some are terrible. ...

    The foster care industry can, and should, be regulated by the goverment.
    Believe me, somebody who is getting a paycheck for raising a foster
    child would be much more receiptive to outside criticism that the child's
    mother who is guaranteed her welfare benefits regardless.

..............................................................  Second, the
>assumption that someone can "get back on their feet" implies that the lack
>of education and resources of a lifetime can be cured in a few months while
>someone else babysits.  Not likely.

    The chronic welfare population may already be beyond rehabilitation and
    should be grandmothered, though they would be offered the foster care 
    option too.  I am talking about the next generation of would-be welfare 
    mothers who we need to send a message that bearing a child out of wedlock 
    would yield no welfare benefits, and that they would be expected to either
    support their children themselves, or let somebody else do it.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: brady bill
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:41:59 EST
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.

 As U.S. Sets New Homicide Record, Bradys Joined by Hundreds of
Leaders in Launching Nationwide Campaign to "Free the Brady Bill"
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Gwen Fitzgerald of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792

   WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- From coast to coast today,
hundreds of police officers, teachers, mayors, doctors, ministers,
civil rights leaders, and victims of gun violence launched an
unprecedented drive to pressure the U.S. Senate to separate the Brady
handgun waiting period language from the omnibus crime bill and send
it to President Bush immediately.
   "Politicians had better wake up to the fact that the American
people are disgusted with the inaction in Washington, and will show
it at the polls in November," said James Brady, who joined New York
City Mayor David Dinkins, Acting Police Commissioner Kelly and U.S.
House Crime Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and
a host of others at a news conference in New York.  "Holding the
Brady Bill hostage to partisan bickering when more than 24,000
Americans were murdered last year is inexcusable.  This measure is
desperately needed and the people want action now!"
   Sarah Brady was joined in Atlanta by Mrs. Coretta Scott King,
Police Chief Eldrin Bell, and civil rights activists.  "The problem
in the U.S. Senate is that some lawmakers are holding the Brady Bill
hostage to the crime bill simply to gain a political advantage in an
election year," said Brady.  "There is widespread support from the
people and in Congress for the Brady Bill.  The U.S. Senate can't
use the crime bill as a political scapegoat while people continue to
die on our nation's streets."
   Newly released FBI data shows that 1991 set a new homicide record
-- up 4 percent from 1990.  Most were committed with guns.  In fact,
handgun homicide increased 14 percent from 1990 to 1991.
   Events were also held today in Houston, Chicago, Kansas City,
Kan., Los Angeles, Spokane, Wash., Charleston, S.C., Boston,
Lewiston, Maine, Albuquerque, and San Diego.  The campaign will
continue with events across the country throughout September.
   The Brady Bill passed the House and Senate last summer, but has
been gridlocked in the Senate as part of the crime bill since last
November.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Fiscal Responsibility (was Derailing...)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:27:19 GMT

In article <Aug.24.16.43.46.1992.14753@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

>gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>> sc> Scott Cromar
>> gs> Gary Strand
>> sc> I don't like the idea of across-the-board spending cuts.  
>
>>   Why not share the "pain" equally?
>
>Because some programs are worth fully funding (like the immunization
>program that Reagan gutted).  Others are worth junking entirely.
>There's no good reason that we can't set priorities to govern our
>spending. 

     Politics suggest otherwise.  All of those programs, not matter how
stupid, have constituents attached to them, who will scream bloody murder
if somebody looks at their budget funny.
     Across the board spending cuts, politically if not economically, may
be more feasible, because it allows the Congress to claim that everybody
is suffering equally.  It will be tough to come home and try to explain
why you voted to cut a program that benefits your disctrict while voting
to keep one in somebody elses'.
     Until the voters are prepared to let the reps do this, reasoned spending
cuts are unlikely.

>--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:15:00 GMT

In article <12103@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> What constitutional right of NAMBLA's is in jeopardy if the
> homosexual community refuses to associate with them?

I don't associate with NAMBLA.  Jeeze, Cretin, can't you
read?  I support the right of the organization to exist.

> Fine.  You've made your bed -- identifying with the exhibitionists
> in S.F. -- now you complain of having to sleep in it.

I don't identify with the exhibitionists in SF.  Jeeze, Cretin,
can't you read?  I don't care what the folks in San Francisco
do.  I care that the intellectually-impaired think that
because they happen not to like what they see in San Francisco
they can use it to justify bigotry against all gay and lesbian
people.  Take some responsibility for your own opinions.

I find it ironic that you're criticising the 'purity' of
somebody else's libertarianism.  You're a pretty lousy
example, yourself.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41927 talk.politics.theory:3861 soc.culture.usa:6875 alt.conspiracy:10293
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:03:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.election
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <l9leemINNdk@news.bbn.com>, ingria@BBN.COM sez:
>In article <1992Aug23.152947.10213@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>   >
>   >	I doubt that Pat Buchanan is planning any exhibition of
>   >	decadent art.
>
>Au contraire!  Buchanan used a clip of a film on female impersonators
>in one of his TV ads to indicate the sort of threats he sees to family
>values, truth, justice, apple pie, et cetera, et cetera.

The ironic part of his use of that clip is that Buchanan's ad alleged
that Bush's NEA had funded such "homosexual art".  In fact, the clip
in question came from a piece funded during the Reagan years.

Followups elsewhere.
-- 
Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
Disney and Coughlin were liars.   - Ed Nilges
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush