HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:53:13 GMT
 <1992Nov9.202406.18220@fid.morgan.com> <1dn7qnINNp34@pongo.West.Sun.COM>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1dn7qnINNp34@pongo.West.Sun.COM>, johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM
(John Chandler) writes: 
> 
> Could someone bring in some real facts here?  I do remember that 
> in '85, the debt had doubled from 1 trillion (which RR dramatically 
> deplored on TV in 1980) to 2 trillion.  I believe it went to 3 tril before 
> RR left office.  Anyone have more details?

Some Real FACTS would be nice, to be sure.  Let me take this occasion to
inform all readers that a paltry $29 will get you the official "Statistical
Abstract of the U.S." (GPO stock number 003-024-08159-8).  Three to five
years' worth of ALL the gov't statistics are there -- and IMHO, this
newsgroup would benefit immensely from an infusion of reality. 
Send your check to:

  Government Printing Office
  Box 371954
  Pittsburgh PA   15250-7954

>>Lets also not forget who controls the public debt - Congress.
> 
> How many balanced budgets did RR or GHWB present to Congress?

Irrelevant, since no president can spend a single taxpayer dollar.  
Assuming that you know this to be true, have a care -- this myth has been
spread by the left for so long, that it is now gospel in the minds of many
Americans (mostly those who have never glanced at the Constitution).  This
"truth" will bite Clinton in the ass, and now, it's too late to change it.
To paraphrase another thread, "Hey!  Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!" 

------ 

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
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: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:41:01 GMT

In article <Y5==g6-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu 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.  If the only reason
  for this is higher income and they are, as you say, already 
  generating a level of income that is satisfactory to them, maybe
  it is better, not only for them but for society as a whole, if
  they started spending some of the time not in a search for more
  of those elusive, worth-less dollars, but skiing, or with their
  kids, golfing, whatever makes them happier.  And in addition,
  it would leave the field a little more open for a few more jobs
  to be created at a lower tax rate (because 2 people making 
  $200,000 each will pay less tax than 1 person making the whole
  enchilada, right? :-) and thereby improve the distribution of
  wealth (if you assume that distributing it more evenly, based
  on work input, of course, not just simply by arbitrarily 
  distributing it, is a good thing - I do).   

  I kind of like your thoughts :-)  Sorry...

  Jon Rosen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Subject: Re: US Election: The Real Historical Parallel
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:18:34 GMT

darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:

<stuff deleted about analogies with previous elections>

>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 

Actually, a lot of the pundits (talking heads) have compared this year's
election to the '45 elections in Britain.  

>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.

	The kicking out of war heroes also occured at the end of
WWI, where Clemenceau and Wilson's party (Wilson handpicked his successor)
lost elections to candidates who promised to take care of home first and
not worry so much about the rest of the world.
	If the U.S. follows form, then U.S. citizens are going to demand
to be "rewarded" for the years of sacrifices they made to win the Cold
War--rewarded in the form of more social programs and faster progress at
home.

	-JG
From: IEGS@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA (IEGS)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: clinton's speech on earth day
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:38:39 GMT
Organization: McGill University

Does anybody know where I can get the text of Bill Clinton's
speech on Earth Day?

 -- Berty
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: Thu, 05 Nov 92 09:56:28 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov5.072015.16063@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.024432.8138@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov4.161652.27663@colorado.edu> juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:
|> 
|> >Not to my knowledge: Exactly which federal programs benifit the
|> >rich more than the poor? A vert large chunk of the budget
|> >goes to entitlement programs that benifit the poor exclusively.
|> 
|> Farm subsidies.  Defense pork.  Social Security.
|> 

There is no doubt that there are wealthy individuals who get benefits
from the government, particularly through farm subsidies.  However, the
solution is to eliminate the subsidies, not increase taxes on some group
because others in the group receive subsidies.  As for Social Security,
it is very much a *middle class* entitlement.  The millionaire gets no
more than the person earning $50,000.  Upper income earners see a lower
return on their dollar than lower and middle income earners.  Even if
Social Security primarily benefitted the wealthy, the solution is to
eliminate the program, not raise taxes.

|> (As far as I can tell, the only programs that benefit the poor
|> exclusively are Medicaid, AFDC, Head Start, food stamps, and one or two
|> others.  These COMBINED are tiny.)
|> 

They are hardly tiny.  However, I think if you really looked at who
gets the 'goodies', it is primarily the middle class.

|> >>and b (this argument
|> >>is why sales tax is considered regressive, for example) are true, if not c.
|> 
|> >How would you fee about a flat tax on all income above the 
|> >cost of living? This addresses your points b and c: Everyone
|> >would pay an equal and fair share of their disposable income.
|> 
|> And it could actually save money; first of all, it's much easier to
|> raise revenue by eliminating loopholes than by raising tax rates.
|> Secondly, for everyone except H&R Block, it would make tax-time much
|> much nicer.  Less time wasted on tax preparation is more time to have
|> fun/make money/stimulate the economy.
|> 
|> Then replace the corporate tax with a VAT.  
|> 

You're on the right track, however I disagree about VAT.  The corporate
tax should be eliminated.  The income tax should be eliminated and
replaced with a consumption based tax with a base level exclusion.
Social Security should be phased out and individuals should be allowed
to invest their retirement funds in investments which they, not the
government, own.


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.clinton
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu  
Subject: GAYS and ARMS
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:33:00 GMT

A pro-gun co-worker of mine, owns six or seven semi-automatic "assault" 
weapons, recently said that with Clinton as president, within the year 
he'll be a criminal.  

To this a gay co-worker responded that as an homosexual, with Clinton as
president, within the year he WON'T be a criminal...

RLC!!!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Re: Email address for Clinton?
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:15:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.063328.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> dwhitney@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>--Does anyone on this newsgroup know if there is an email address for Clinton?
>Since we (the public) are encouraged to be in contact with our political
>representatives/senators/presidents, it would seem like this would be a
>great way to do it.
>
   Well, it's an *easy* way to do it.  Yeah, we're encouraged to be
   in contact with our political reps, but there's a hierarchy
   of importance attached to how you go about doing it.  Generally
   I've heard it goes

	phone > letter  in terms of importance attached
	I don't know where telegrams fit in.
   
   The rationale is that people who are willing to spend money making
   a phone call probably are more adamant in their view than those
   "merely" taking a factor of 10 or 50 longer to write a letter.

   I suspect email from an individual would get a very poor rating
   of importance. 

   Wayne

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:20:23 GMT

In article <27219@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>If your FSLIC example is the best you can offer (it's wrong by the way
>>as insurance only goes up to $100,000 deposits) then forget a).
>
>The statutory limit is $100k but in practice the regulators have often
>had depositors of amounts greater than that covered in full or large
>part, & I don't remember any cases where people were completely cut
>off at the $100k ceiling (I'm sure if there are some, I'll hear about it
>here).  The idea is to keep confidence in the banking system, & rigid
>adherence to the limit mite not be the best idea.

I remember a case of a black-owned bank in Harlem failing.  In that
case, they just shut the bank and paid depositers only up to the 
$100,000 limit.  Many of the depositers with more than 100K were local
charities (I know a local church had about 300K).  The moral of
the story is if you are going to keep more than 100K in a bank,
make sure that it is a bank where the depositers have a lot of
political pull.  IMHO, since this is all taxpayer money, if they are
going to insure SOME deposits over the limit, they should insure
ALL deposits over the limit.  My preference would be that they NOT
insure deposits at all, failing that they should ONLY inusure up to
the $100,000 limit.

>This is not really the case -- the top rate is 31%.  Middle class folks
>have a top marginal rate of 28% or less, typically.  We used to have
>a complex progressive tax structure.  It's history.

This is FALSE !!!   For the middle class the top marginal tax rate is about
42 %.  Before people get all bent out of shape, I am calculating this
by including FICA (yours and your employers "contribution").

Guido


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16745 alt.politics.democrats.d:427 alt.politics.elections:23387 ba.politics:6970 co.politics:1763 ne.politics:2861 nj.politics:643 or.politics:554 ny.politics:166 talk.politics.misc:59424
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
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: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:01:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Nov10.182118.29026@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, by fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary):
[speaking of taxes]
> ....
> .... I guess the underlying concept it that
> everyone has a right to enjoy what they earned. The fact that they
> and afford to be robbed does not justify theft. (By the way, I suspect
> the analogy between taxes and robbery is something else you "don't get."
> But essentially they are the same: Taking money by threat of deadly force.
> The only excuse for taxes, is collective needs _so_ vital as to justify
> this sort of behavior.)

And From article <1992Nov10.180108.24301@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, by fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary):
> In article <1992Nov10.143036.2167@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
> ....
> >But in the end, the working poor and the middle class pay for the
> >interest in taxes, but don't have the kind of savings to enable them to
> >benefit from it. 
> 
> Wrong: They benefit from the current levels of government spending, which
> the defecit makes possible. (Would you suggest, for example, that a
> bank was the only one to benefit from a loan? The borrower gains money
> to spend on something he wants. That is a benefit he receives in 
> exchange for paying interest.)

I wonder why Frank Crary sees more benefit in the national debt than
in taxes.  Both borrowing and taxing are sources of funds for the same
benefits.  In fact, without taxing, borrowing would be impossible,
since no one would lend to a borrower with no source of income but
more borrowing.  At least, no one should.

> It's a little bit frightening to see defecit spending and the payment
> of interest so freely disconnected: They are the same issue; you can't
> do the former without doing the later. It's suggestive of the way 
> the federal debt became so large: People weren't connecting the
> consequences (paying interest) to their actions (defecit spending.)

It's a little bit disorienting to see borrowing and taxation so freely
disconnected.  If you enjoy government borrowing, sooner or later you
have to be taxed to pay it back.

Or does Frank want us to keep borrowing more and more to pay the
interest on the debt, without ever paying it back?  We can borrow
indefinitely to pay unemployment benefits and welfare benefits, and
pay the military, and build roads, and it's only paper?

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:45:41 GMT

In article <rabjab.229.721103085@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>>I was always under the assumption that a Democratic administration would
>>be hostile towards any technological development.  Like the space program
>>in general.  Were the delays in the shuttle program in the late '70s
>>caused by Carter or was this just a coincidenc??
>
>I dimly remember technical problems with the main shuttle
>engines (one or two exploded under test) and with the tiles.
>Remember it was Kennedy who sent us to the moon.  Maybe Clinton,
>late in a possible second term, will make popular the notion
>of going to Mars (assuming he succeeds with his social programs).
>
I hope that Clinton could actually promote both space projects and social
programs at the same time.  Pardon the conservative bias, but I don't want to
see the space program taking a back seat to social programs.   As I said in
a previous posting, NASA should trancend partisan politics.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: brianm@cc.gatech.edu (Brian N. Miller)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Reply-To: brianm@cc.gatech.edu (Brian N. Miller)
Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:30:07 GMT

In article <FOX.92Nov7015449@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>
>Well, maybe if I was sixteen, and there were lots of ads everywhere
>saying how sexy and popular I would be if I did it, and if crack
>companies sponsered lots of cool sporting events, and all my
>friends were doing it, and there were crack vending machines in
>every bar, and...

YES!!!  I've died and gone to heaven!
I want my kids to grow up in that environment!
Dean Jerding 
(dfj@cc.gatech.edu)
(ccsupdj@prism.gatech.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16199 alt.politics.bush:13406
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Governor Taxes"
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:04:21 GMT
Distribution: usa


"... higher import tariffs on European goods..."

Hate to tell you this but this was BUSH's doing.  Clinton
is not the president yet.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<rabjab.224.721014274@golem.ucsd.edu>
	<1992Nov6.184406.28686@iitmax.iit.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:54:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.184406.28686@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:

   First of all, I don't think all that many people would start using
   legalized drugs.  After all, how cheap would crack cocaine have to be
   for you to use it?  As another example, if you don't smoke now, would
   you start if cigarettes were free?  I suspect that most people who
   don't use crack now wouldn't use it even if it were cheap and legal.
   I know I wouldn't.

Well, maybe if I was sixteen, and there were lots of ads everywhere
saying how sexy and popular I would be if I did it, and if crack
companies sponsered lots of cool sporting events, and all my
friends were doing it, and there were crack vending machines in
every bar, and...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: PRESIDENTIAL DOOKIEHEADS
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:46:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.150724.460@lrc.edu>, dorham_r@lrc.edu rants:
> 
> 
> 
> To All cLiNtOn/gOrE supporters:
> 
> Thanks so much for being so stupid...
> 
> Democrat = idiot = stupid = pigface = pondscum = cvcc graduate

I love you, too.  But I think "stupid" should come before "idiot."

> I KNOW THAT YOU'LL VOTE REPUBLICAN NEXT TIME !!!!!!!

It's possible; Alzheimer's is on the rise.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: *+* NEWSFLASH *+* MUST READ !
Originator: wdp@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:03:50 GMT


To all who have read Mr Del Boccio's rather intense post, I say this.

I have known Louis for over 20 years, and despite his poor grasp of
the typewriter keyboard and some political statements that *I* dont
agree with, My experience of him is that he IS an intelligent and 
decent fellow whom I am proud to consider my friend.

I, BTW am a STAUNCH Clinton supporter, but have no malevolence toward
either Bush or Perot supporters.  Actually, I doubt that Louis truly
feels as strongly as his hastily typed article might suggest.  He HAS
posted a retraction, stating that he was just 'blowing off steam'.

Also, Mr Del Boccio is VERY new to Usenet and, perhaps, could use a
bit of space & seasoning, especially in these powder-keg groups :-).
I would only ask that you all offer HIM the same level of slack that
we all needed when we first became active on this net.

Thanks

William Pfeiffer
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Trade war (was: January Surprise)
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:11:38 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov11.172456.17309@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> In article <LARRY.92Nov9123632@boris.webo.dg.com>, larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
>>
>>It is very FLAT.  The democrats are verbally backing this stand
>>against unfair trading practices that the US has been trying to change
>>for years. ... [Moynihan] said, the woman
>>(name slips me) that suggested the tariffs was doing an excellent job
>>and he felt she should be retained in her current job.  He said, "Good
>>for her, she chose white wine..."  Meaning she targeted the French
>>specifically.
> 
> Okay, would somebody please explain why retaliatory measures are such a great
> idea?  

	Because when you don't do it, you get what we have with Japan.  Where
they ship everything they make over here and we beg to open a single Toys R Us
store over there.

> Aren't they just *asking* for a tit-for-tat escalation?  If European

	No.  It takes two to tango.  Is arresting someone for a crime asking
for more crime?

> countries are unfairly subsidizing certain imports, wouldn't it make more
> sense to apply a compensatory tariff on those specific imports at the level of
> the government subsidy?  

	That's what we did.  We put tariffs on compareable goods.

> E.g., if canola seed is worth $1/lb (I made that up)
> and the French government subsidizes it for $0.20/lb, reducing the selling
> price to $0.80/lb, why don't we just put a $0.20/lb tariff on it?  It could
> probably even be set up to track the government subsidy, so if the subsidy
> drops the tariff would too, automatically.

	Your tariff also has to compensate for the farmers who go out of
business because canola is only selling for $0.80.  And for the distributors
who no longer have seed to trade or products made from that seed....

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16983 alt.politics.democrats.d:491 alt.politics.elections:23612 talk.politics.misc:59824