HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GOP INFO NEEDED
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:34:01 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX

In article <Aug.20.17.13.33.1992.12060@pepper.rutgers.edu> varma@pepper.rutgers.edu (Harsh Varma) writes:
>
>Could anyone tell me what GOP stands for?
>Thanks.

Grand Old Party

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:25:47 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug13.174914.26669@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> In article <arb-8C#@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> 
|> >The problem with using the "marginal utility" argument to support higher
|> >(non-linear) taxes on the 'rich' is that it presumes some universal
|> >constant when it comes to 'utility'.  It is true that for a given
|> >individual, each additional dollar has lower utility.  It is *not* true,
|> >however, that person A's marginal utility scale will be the same
|> >as person B's.  Peoples tastes are different.  Person A may be able 
|> >to live quite comfortably on a particular salary, Person B may not.  Who
|> >are you to decide which lifestyle is 'correct'?
|> 
|> But it is undeniably true that basic living costs are not vanishingly
|> small.  Allowances for welfare run around $9K, I believe, and people
|> on welfare just get by in terms of housing, food, etc.  If someone
|> living on the edge of poverty had her taxes push her income below
|> $9K, isn't this a tremendous burden to inflict on her?
|> 

I've never advocated that.  I believe there should be a fairly generous
'zero' bracket (plus personal exemptions).  Above that point, however,
I believe the tax rate should be completely flat.  I don't care if
a person making $50,000 feels a little more 'pain' in paying his
tax than someone making $500,000.  Perhaps this will convince this
person to vote for representatives who will be more fiscally responsible.
As long as people think that they can continually shift costs to
somebody else, they won't have incentive to vote for responsible
reps., even if they ultimately are made worse off because of a
less robust economy.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:51:46 GMT

Its sort of like Bush's claim to have almost singlehandedly built the
Gulf War coalition and stood up to Saddam.  He is trying for and 
incredible amount of political currency from Desert Storm and then
acts surprised when people question whether he is too ready to start
another one for political benefit.

He is also completely closed to any criticism of his most glorious
acheivement, his conduct before and after the war.

He takes the cautious route in dealing with Gorbachev and then Yeltsin,
first trying to help Gorbachev hold the USSR together and supporting
Yeltsin only after the coup, and then not much.  He acts to maintain the
status quo and then claims his policies _forced_ the USSR to *change*.

Then he blames his caving in on the Budget deal in June 1990 on troubles
with Iraq!  If only he could've been that foresightful!  Remember, in
that great Budget deal one of things Bush was fighting to *FUND* was
subsidies of Iraq!




-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10690 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2546
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 17 Aug 92 01:26:35 EDT

In article <1992Aug14.000821.8215@nuchat.sccsi.com>, lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.162716.8706@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>>duke@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:
>>|> However, in the second part, he did say 'in the end it was the woman's
>>|> decision, who else's would it be?' (paraphrased) which sounds to me
>>|> like pro-choice. It seems like his previously public pro-choice half of
>>|> his brain is showing through
>>
>>I think you guys and the media are splitting hairs.  Bush is
>>undeniably pro-life.  If his granddaughter decided to blow
>>someone's head off, in the end it was her decision, who else's
>>would it be?  Doesn't mean she would not serve life in prison, or
>>even death, or that her Granddad wouldn't still love her and support
>>her after she had done it.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Instead of a "hypothetical case" how about a *real case* like Niel
Bush getting off scott-free frm his involvemnet in the S&L disaster. I
guess we all missed that since Desert Storm started at the same time
as his closed trial.

Is it a coincidence that Desert Storm Part II is coming to a Republican
Convention near you? Naah..


> 
> WRONG. Bush was pro-choice until he joined up with Reagan in 1980. I think
> that Bush has finally came to the obvious conclusion, that to be a right-to-
> run-your-life supporter, is in essence a very *bad* political decision.
> 
> All I have to say is - finally. I think it is, or would be, a wise move
> on Bush's behalf to come forward and clearly state a pro-choice stand, but
> he won't, because of the many republicans that vote on one issue alone.
> Which is also kinda funny. seeing as how there is an overwhelming majority
> of republicans that are pro-choice, but the platform is right-to-run-your-life.
> Strange how these things happen. I think the only chance Bush has of winning
> even a year's supply of TV dinners in november, is to change his stance
> on abortion. But, again, it won't happen.
> 
> "A true patriot protects his country from it's own government..."
> 

It's too late for Bush/Quayle to admit they are wrong. Most of the
mainstream Republicans are jumping ship. All that is left is the
hardcore Fundamentalist "Christians". What a joke. Crash and
Burn scenario..

-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:40:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.151553.29003@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug11.163946.14614@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>]In article <BsnqHt.73E@wrs.com> string@wrs.com (String) writes:
>]> .... What DO you stand for over there on the 'right'.
>I am also on the right, but have a few disagreements with Patrick
>McGuinness' otherwise excellent posting.
>]
>]>the environment...
>]
>]Enforce existing laws and regulations. Look for areas where market-based
>
>Examine existing laws and regulations and determine a reasonable
>tradeoff between environmental regulation, property rights and
>economic progress.
>

  I'd like to add a little quote from _The Economist_ that I think
is particularly well-worded on this matter.

  "So effectively have environmentalists greened public opinion that it
takes an unashamed reactionary to question the wisdom of becoming ever
greener and cleaner.  Most environmental pressure-groups are convinced
that the environment is so important that standards cannot be set too
high, and must be met regardless of cost.  When an annual public-opinion
poll asks Americans whether they share that view, a large majority agrees.
Europeans, too, now tend to believe that anything greener must be better.
Such belief will gradually come to haunt greenery's advocates.  For nothing-
not even cleanliness- comes free; and the costs of environmental policies
are likely to rise sharply over the rest of the century.  If the green
enthusiasm generated over the past four years is to survive in public
policy, the enthusiasts must learn the language of priorities, and
of costs and benefits."
   
   "In case after case, that language is being ignored.  America's
Superfund legislation is meant to clean up old toxic-waste sites.
An admirable aim: yet a recent study by the Rand Institute suggests
that 88 cents out of every dollar spent by insurers on such sites in 1989
went to cover legal fees and the like, rather than on dealing with the
dumps.  Paul Portney, and American economist, guesses that the costs of
the 1990 Clean Air Act may be $29 billion to $36 billion a year, in exchange
for benefits worthy anything from $6 billion to $25 billion."

  -  The rest of the article is quite good and can be located in the
August 8th issue.

 
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: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Naturalized Republicans
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:06:28 GMT


In article <1992Aug20.124946.11141@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, 
sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) said:

> While listening to the TV last night, one of the commentators
> mentioned how Bill Bennett is a naturalized Republican, that is,
> originally a Democrat that later became a Republican.  They went on
> to name a number of others: Ronald Reagan, Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms,
> Pat Robertson, ...

Apropos of very little, I'm reminded of the joke that was going
around Massachusetts a few years ago when the phenomenenally dumb
Edward King, the guy who beat Mike Dukakis in a Democratic primary in,
um, 1978, I think, and went on to serve one term as Governor,
announced that he was switching his allegiance from the Democratic
party to the Republicans -- that it would raise the average IQ of
_both_ parties... :-)

With regard to the list given above, well, I won't go so far as to say
that those defections improved the GOP, but they sure made the
Democratic Party a better place...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: California Senate races  (was Re: the Keating 5)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:47:52 GMT

In article <36875@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>,
rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:
>Has Herschensohn actually said he wants *more* defense spending?  As I
>understand it, he just wants to keep the levels the same.  He opposes
>the radical cuts proposed by the more "dovish" Dems.

Herschensohn was quoated at least once during the primaries as
saying that we pe4haps needed more defense spending.  He seems to
have backed off this position somwhat but his does not support
dense cuts despite the virtual dismantling of the "eveil empire"
which was used to justify the original buildup of the defense
budget.

>Most of Herschensohn's views are compatible with the suburban voters
>he's counting on to put him over the top, particularly Orange and San
>Diego Counties, as well as the Inland Empire.  This is how he won the
>primary, and this is how he hopes to win the general election.  I
>consider Herschensohn the second-best candidate of all the Republicans
>running (for either seat) in the primary.  Media-unknown Bill Allen
>(eek!  another black conservative) was tops.

Even in conservative Orange county 80% of voters are pro-choice.  As
someone who is adamantly anti-choice, Bruce has already lost many
Republican votes that are unlikely to be made up for by Democrats
crossing rank.  The best he can hope for is that enough Democrats
will so be bummed out by Boxer's spending record that they too will
simply not vote.  I haven't been able to tell from the reporting on
the polls so far if some Republicans have actually switched to Boxer
as well but she is way ahead in the polls one way or another.  Of
course, they haven't included me in any of the polls yet.

I still consider myself to be the only rational choice for people
who are both pro-choice and fiscally sane.  In talking to people
around the state during my campaign I am convinced that if people
actually had an absolutely equal chance to hear from all three of us
that they would choose me to represent them.  But since I don't
expect to raise anything near the amount of money that they will and
it is thus difficult to get the media to report on my campaign, most
voters will not get that chance unless individual citizens get
active on my behalf.

We need money and people who are willing to distribute campaign
material, if only to their friends and family.  Please call us at
1-800-89-4-JUNE to help in either regard.

/June
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10613 alt.politics.clinton:1989 alt.politics.bush:1655 talk.politics.misc:39834
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:52:46 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug14.142932.28234@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>More important is the world-wide intellectual trend away from belief
>in brute Government power to solve social problems.

	Does this also include reducing the size of law-enforcement
and military efforts, or else privatizing them?

	Does this mean the end of laws and regulations intended to
suppress abortion? Mandate official piety?
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: clinton's bravery
Date: 18 Aug 92  18:57:00 EST

-> How could you possibly know?  People who had TRUE moral objections to
-> the war left the country, went to jail, led the anti-war movement.
-> What they did right or wrong was to put their life on the line.
-> People who were looking out for NUMBER 1 went to school.  At least
-> Quayle went in if only halfass.  People lie to themselves.  They can
-> say I don't believe in this, I object to this and as long as they do
-> not have to prove it then you never know how true their belief is. How can you judge Clinton's motives, then?  And, I wouldn't call what Quayle did "going in halfass".  Quayle put his fingers on the line in the typing pool of the Indiana National Guard.  Fat chance of getting called up to head to Vietnam.

I respectfully think that you miss the point about Quayle.  The objection to Quayle in most people's minds, I think, is not that he dodged the draft.  Many young men did so during the Vietnam Conflict. The objection is that he dodged the draft, came back from the National Guard, and talked about how great 'Nam was.  There's real bravery for you.  And, to add insult to injury, Quayle consistently voted AGAINST any sort of veterans' benefits while in Congress.  Things like funding the storefront counseling c
enters for vets who suffered from post-traumatic depression syndrome, and other health and education benefits.

When it comes to doing things for vets of the war that he lionized as a young chickenhawk, Quayle didn't even get in halfass!!!

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Free speech is life itself."
         --Salman Rushdie

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: AMERICA: WHAT WENT WRONG?
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:21:13 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

America, "What Went Wrong?" is an extremely well researched, superbly
written book about the present state of our economy and how it
got that way.  It's a book every American should read as a matter
of political conscience.  Even those who don't agree with it's premise
ought to avail themselves of the issues it raises.  But, for those
of us who have been raised on 'the tube', tonight KQED (I know this
applies to the San Francisco Bay area) will have a Moyers program
entitled "America, What Went Wrong?" from 9 pm till midnight.
I suspect it will be connected with the book of the same name
by Barlett & Steele.

Oops, BTW, KQED is a PBS affiliate.

Marty L. Dart,
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: politics
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:23:05 GMT

In article <9xgywtl@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

> Also, remember that the Democratic position would not force an
> abortion on any woman, while the Republican position would force
> birth on a great many unwilling women.  You could call this an
> inclusion, of sorts.

The Democratic platform excludes developing human females from  
membership in society.  It is an exclusionary policy. 
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10328 alt.politics.clinton:1741 alt.politics.bush:1245 talk.politics.misc:39112
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 09:12:45 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Aug12.045125.14178@cs.tulane.edu>, lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
|> In article <3aa-Hy+@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >
|> >I have no problem with the rich paying more than the poor.  I don't
|> >see a rationale, however, for a semi-geometric rise in payment rather
|> >than linear.  If person A makes 10 times person B, I don't have a
|> >problem with person A paying 10 times as much in tax.  I don't see
|> >why he should have to pay more than that, however.
|> 
|> [...]
|> 
|> Secondly, there's what's known as the "marginal utility" argument. It goes
|> something like this: the first x-thousand you earn goes to providing basic
|> necessities like food and shelter, this money has the highest utility to
|> you and so it is taxed the least.  The next x-thousand goes for semi-basic
|> things like a telephone, a tv, a car, etc...things you could live without
|> if you had to, but nonetheless are of high utility, so this money is taxed
|> at a slightly higher rate than the first x-thousand.

The problem with using the "marginal utility" argument to support higher
(non-linear) taxes on the 'rich' is that it presumes some universal
constant when it comes to 'utility'.  It is true that for a given
individual, each additional dollar has lower utility.  It is *not* true,
however, that person A's marginal utility scale will be the same
as person B's.  Peoples tastes are different.  Person A may be able 
to live quite comfortably on a particular salary, Person B may not.  Who
are you to decide which lifestyle is 'correct'?


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: RNC musing
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:41:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: what.. me.. organized?



o The LATimes printed a list of the GOP positions on various issues,
  and the status of those positions. My problem, I agree
with many of those [less regulation, less spending], but have
serious reservations on some positions [foreign policy, social
agenda] and the GOP tactics. 

o Outright misleading lies from Bond, Quayle, and co; I expect that
  from them. But when Bush mentioned the 1 tax-hike vs. 128
tax&fee-hikes, I almost puked. Raising some obscure criminal fee by
$1 is counted as one of those 128, raising alcohol tax on beer,
wines, coolers are considered as 3 different hikes. gimme a break..
Using the same rules, how many times did Bush raise taxes?
 
o "Family values.. see how many children/grandchildren I have.. ain't
  I great.." All that proves is that Bush and children were good
baby-producers. It doesn't produce jobs, doesn't help the economy, 
or solve anything. Its a *personal* issue that nobody holds a high
moral ground on, nor should the govt poke their noses into. As one
ex-Perot worker put it, "it's a fluff issue".

o Which brings us to why some americans ever buy into these 
  fluff-issues; flag-wrapping, i-american-u-!american, pledge-of-
allegience, prayer, etc.. or dont they? I hope not..

__________________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                         |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@bhaskara.ucsd.edu |
##########################################################
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10387 alt.politics.clinton:1778 alt.politics.bush:1307 talk.politics.misc:39220
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:22:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.001844.18886@reed.edu>, bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo)) writes:
} The richer you are, the more dependent you are upon, for example, the government
} to keep looters out of your house, etc. etc.  Or do you see this as a needless
} social program?  It seems to me that is people are living in this country and
} making lots of money, they're pretty dependent upon the government to maintain
} a climate that will allow them to do this -- ergo, higher taxes.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

For one thing, the cost of protecting wealth is not proportional, let
alone progressive, to the amount of that wealth.  It costs no more to
protect a $100 bill than it does to protect a $10 bill.  A safe deposit
box costs the same whether it contains $1,000,000 or is empty.

Secondly, the income tax (the only progressive tax we have) is not based
on the wealth a person merely has, but is rather based on the wealth a
person creates or earns.  For instance, suppose someone has paid all the
taxes owed, and now has $10,000,000 remaining.  If this person now does
nothing but live on that $10,000,000, she will pay no further income tax,
because she earns no further income.  Now suppose at the same time someone
else earns $10,000,000.  That person will pay income tax on it, because
that money was earned and thus considered income.

So even if it was proper to go after rich people's wealth, the income tax
does not do that.  It only goes after the income of people who *try to
become* rich.
--
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