HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:06:39 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov12.193244.9448@spectrum.xerox.com>, rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
|> In article <zTC=h!=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov12.081725.12946@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
|> >|> In article <1992Nov11.005956.23879@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> >|> >In article <1992Nov10.210356.11971@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
|> |> 
|> >
|> >No, what is really scary is self-rightgeous individuals who wish
|> >to force their notion of compassion on other people.  I will
|> >certainly agree that generosity and compassion is an important
|> >part of being a Christian.  However, whether a person is being
|> >generous enough to qualify as a 'true' Chrisian is something
|> >to be determined between that person and God, it is not to
|> >be determined by you or some 'democratic' majority.  
|> 
|> Generosity, nor any other GOOD WORK will ever make anybody a Christian.

I never said that, nor did I mean to imply that.  Generosity and 
compassion are necessary but not sufficient criterion to be
a Christian (IMHO).

|> 
|> >Imposing your notion of generosity on other people is no different than
|> >imposing your moral beliefs on other people.  I find both concepts to be 
|> >anti-Christian.
|> 
|> Christian means to be Christ-like.  Did Christ impose his morals on others?
|> No!  However, he did voice his beliefs, giving the people the CHOICE to 
|> accept them or not.  I find no difference here.  No one is forcing you to
|> accept his or her view.  You are free to choose.  I find nothing anti-Christian
|> about what was written previously, nor do I see it as being imposed on anyone.
|> Lighten up!  This is a discussion group.  If we aren't allowed to discuss here,
|> it would be just a    group.
|> 

You miss the point.  I'm not arguing that the previous poster shouldn't
be able to give his opinion, it is the result of what he advocates that
I'm opposed to.  His position is that all people should be compelled to
give a portion of their income to the government for charitable purposes.
The implementation of that idea *is* an imposition of his morals on
others.  Remember he brought up the idea of being 'Christian'.  I find
it ironic that someone who would bring this up would also espouse
a philosophy which seems counter to Christianity (again, IMHO).


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16493 alt.politics.democrats.d:382 alt.politics.elections:23175 ba.politics:6900 co.politics:1694 ne.politics:2815 nj.politics:602 or.politics:508 ny.politics:127 talk.politics.misc:59044
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM
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: 9 Nov 92 04:56:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA

In article <1992Nov8.005533.28857@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.093340.7001@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>[munched description of capital gains taxation]
>>  You do not, no matter what you think, pay tax again on the money
>>  you earned....
>
>Sorry, but this isn't the case: After you pay the capitol gains tax,
>the money you made is considered income, and must be reported on your 1040
>and you must pay income tax on it. Take a look at the form: Line 13:
>"Income: Capitol gains or (loss) (attach Schedule D)" [where you
>must itemize your capitol gains] and Line 14: "Income: Capitol gain
>distributions not reported on line 13". These are added in
>to get your taxable income. At are there any related deductions.
>On capitol gains, you are required to pay _both_ capitol gains _and_
>income tax.
 
  This is pure nonsense and shows an incredible lack of understanding.
  Read the IRS tax instructions again.  Go talk to a CPA.  READ THE
  STATEMENT ABOVE for Chrissakes :-)  Line 14 is for CapitAl gains
  NOT REPORTED ON LINE 13.  Those reported on Line 13 are NOT reported
  again.  You DO NOT, REPEAT DO NOT, pay both regular and capital gains
  tax on the same gains.  

  Please, anyone who sees this posting, don't take my word for it,
  call your accountant.  You do NOT pay tax TWICE on money invested
  for capital gains purposes.  You pay only on the gain, and you only
  pay once.  

  The only time you ever hear financial people talk about the "double
  taxation" problem is in reference to small corporations which 
  distribute their profits to their stockholders.  Here, the CORPORATION
  pays a tax on the profit (at 20% or 50%) and the distribution to the
  shareholder is once again taxed as a capital gain or ordinary income,
  depending on the situation.  This is what Subchapter S corporations
  were invented to avoid.

  Jon Rosen
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: seed@joker.mil.ufl.edu (Steven Seed)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Machine Intelligence Lab, University of Florida
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 06:00:50 GMT

>>>>Why don't you complete the truth?  Clinton has promised to raise taxes
>>>>on the RICH!($200,000 or more)
>>>
>>>Is raising their taxes any more acceptable, just because they are
>>>a minority of the voters? By this logic, it is also acceptable to
>>>tax _any_ minority, if the majority feels like robbing them.
>>>
>>>                                                Frank Crary
>>>                                                CU Boulder
>>>
>>
>>This is another typical tactic: when confronted with indisputable facts,
>>change the subject.
>>
>>-- 
>> Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
>> From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
>
>
>
>How has he changed the subject at all? He is introducing a comparison.
>The quesiton is, is it right to raise the taxes on an arbitrary segment
>of the population? He is introducing another arbitrary group, for
>whom the question is it right to raise THEIR taxes would mostly
>elicit a "no" from most people. I think the comparison is both fair and
>enlightening.

Excuse me! But the "rich" are not an arbitrary group. They are the ones that
have been living it up for the past 12 years with the tax cuts. It's time that
they pay their fair share! The minorities (what ever you mean by that) have
suffered along with everone else except for the rich elite.

  Just because you cut taxes on the wealth is no guarentee that they'll invest
in the country.

Steve---------"I'm outa here!"
From: dorham_r@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: PRESIDENTIAL DOOKIEHEADS
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:07:23 GMT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC




To All cLiNtOn/gOrE supporters:

	You've won and we ( the intelligent American people) have lost.

Now please grant me one wish since victory is yours...

Make a list of all the reasons that you voted for clinton, based upon 

all the things that he said that he was going to do, then make a check

mark by it each time clinton actually completes a campaign promise.




Sooner or later you will realize that you've been suckered in by

SLICK WILLIE/GORE.

Thanks so much for being so stupid...



Democrat = idiot = stupid = pigface = pondscum = cvcc graduate




I KNOW THAT YOU'LL VOTE REPUBLICAN NEXT TIME !!!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Subject: Inaugural Committee?
Summary: Who What Why When Where and How?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:59:55 GMT

Is there any information available about Inaugural activities?  My wife
and I are interested in working on the Inaugural Committee, and want to
know who to contact.  Thank you.

-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: handd@tramp.Colorado.EDU (handd)
Subject: STUPID VOTER AND STUPID PERSON 
Keywords: STUPID
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:46:57 GMT

WHAT A STUPID CHOICE FOR 1993~1996!!!!!

1993=> DOUBLE UNEMPLOYMENT + DOUBLE INFLATION + DOUBLE DEFICIT =>1996
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton isn't Carter
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:58:59 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov6.130328.25689@njitgw.njit.edu>, aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:
> 
> It's possible that Clinton won't be reelected, but that will
> be because the mess that Reagan and Bush left (quadrupled
> deficit, rusting infrastructure, moribund financial system
> tattered cities, burgeoning underclass
> -- all direct results of Reagan/Bush policies) require some
> tough and unpopular medicine that may not pay off within 4 years.

Uh-huh.  So Clinton gets the credit for any positive developments, and Bush 
takes the rap when Clinton's plans don't pan out?  We all know that's the 
way history will be re-written, but you can't re-write the rules of 
politics so quickly.

In "American 'History' 1980-1992 According to Carville," the unpublished guide
to the Clinton campaign, it clearly states: 

"...everything that went wrong in the country after January 23, 1981 will 
be placed at the feet of Ronald Reagan and George Bush.  In particular,
when referring to negative events after January 1989, key phrases to
remember are 'Bush PRESIDED OVER ___________ ' (nasty event here) and
'__________ was the direct result of Bush's POLICIES'." 
(pp. 45-46)

The artful use of these phrases implies that Congress apparently recessed
from 1981 until last Thursday.  At least, have the honesty to admit that
many of our problems are the direct result of regulations legislated by
Congress.  

------

 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."
From: Steve Freedkin <sfreedkin@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 06 Nov 92 17:43 PST
Subject: Re: *+* NEWSFLASH *+* MUST READ !
Nf-ID: #R:1992Nov5.055052.1764@gagme.chi.i:1219755005:cdp:1588800051:000:103
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!sfreedkin    Nov  6 17:43:00 1992


Apparently, Louis has no more grasp on facts and thinking skills than he
does on spelling and grammar.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17059 alt.politics.democrats.d:518 alt.politics.elections:23696 ba.politics:7087 co.politics:1937 ne.politics:2956 nj.politics:706 or.politics:617 ny.politics:227 talk.politics.misc:59984
From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:04:37 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <KVC=yK=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
[in response to:]
>|>     4) How about safety legislation?  Should companies be permitted
>|>        to just forget safety (since it clearly impinges on profits)
>|>        just to make a bigger buck, and let the workers be damned?
>|>        Back to the sweatshops of the 1890s, huh?  
>|> 
>
>Health and safety legislation generally followed improvements made
>by companies (see Hayek, et. al. in "Capitalism and Historians" and
>T.S Ashton's "The Industrial Revolution" for more info).  Safety
>is obviously a concern to employees, although safety can be overdone.
>Companies that provide a safer work environment will be able to 
>attract more workers than those who don't, assuming workers value
>safety.  

I'd venture to say this is a misguided statement, as it assumes 100%
mobility of the work force.  To take a recent example as illustration,
those people who were killed or injured in that chicken processing
plant fire down south would no doubt have preferred a safer working 
environment than the one they had, but economic opportunity being poor,
they took what they could get.  Did they "value safety?"  Let's be
realistic, everyone values safety. Sometimes we have to choose "less
safe" in order to make a living.  Personally, I find this to be very
sad, but in cases like this  chicken processing plant, the lack of
safety was inexcusable!  Plucking chickens should not be a risk-choice
occupation (as opposed to something like steelwork, where certain dangers 
are inherent in the job itself, e.g. falling).  "Safety can be overdone"?
"You culdn't pay me enough to take that job, it's far too safe!"  I realize
you mean that safety measures can be more extensive than YOU feel
necessary.  I can't say that I agree.

Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
 but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16229 alt.politics.democrats.d:348 alt.politics.elections:22985 ba.politics:6853 co.politics:1635 ne.politics:2770 nj.politics:570 or.politics:472 ny.politics:97 talk.politics.misc:58649
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
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: 6 Nov 92 15:12:36 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov5.024432.8138@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>The question, then, becomes which if any of a,b, and c are true.  I
>>personally feel that a (for example, how much more does it cost to insure
>>a $1,000,000 deposit than a $1,000 in an FSLIC bank)
>
>This assumes most of government spending goes to bank insurance. In 
>fact, this is an almost trivial fraction of the budget.

Have you already forgotten the S&L failures?  If so, you have a short memory,
since they're still happening.  It was not a "trivial" expense by any stretch
of the imagination.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
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: mguyott@eriador.prime.com (M. Guyott)
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:24:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.060546.7374@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>Actually, there IS a state without a sales tax. New Hampshire. (unless
>of course it has passed one since I was an undergrad at Dartmouth.)

Actually, I believe New Hampshire does have some form of sales taxes (liquor,
cigarettes, gasoline).  You are right that they do not have a flat rate sales
tax on almost all goods, like say Massachusetts.  But New Hampshire does
have a relatively high tax on food served in Restaurants.  I believe it is
an 8% tax.  I belive that this is why the Pheasant Lane Mall in
Nashua/Massachusetts (don't remember the community) is half in New Hampshire
(all of the retail stores) and half in Massachusetts (all of the restaurants/
fast food places).  But I could be wrong about this.

I lived in New Hampshire for 4 years as an apartment dweller and in
Massachusetts for 4 years as an apartment dweller and I found that it cost
me just as much in "taxes" to live in NH as it did to live in MA.  NH has
much higher costs for driver licensce renewal and registration renewal then
does MA.  These higher registration costs more then offset what my MA excise
tax bill was.  But I guess part of the problem was that I worked in MA the
whole time and had to pay MA income tax no matter where I lived.  I might
feel differently if I had worked in NH.

As an aside, what will happen to the people who live in MA and work in NH and
who currently have to pay MA income tax on the money they earn in NH when NH
finally approves an income tax?  Will they pay tax in both places?

Here's an area where the state of MA really has it both ways.  If you live in
MA and work in NH you pay MA taxes.  If you live in NH and work in MA you pay
MA taxes.  They only way to avoid MA taxes is to avoid MA.  But all in all,
it is worth it to me to live in MA.  I know that may sound wierd.  I guess
I'm really a socialist deep down inside.  (But I did vote for Perot!)

One of my all time favorite bumper stickers read:

   "Live free or live in Massachusetts"

This was on a car with NH plates!

Marc
----
Two of the worst things we teach our children are that a knowledge of science
is nice but not necessary, and a knowledge of sex is necessary but not nice.

Marc Guyott              Constellation Software, Inc.          (508) 620-2800
                         Framingham, Mass. 01701 USA                Ext. 3135
mguyott@primerd.prime.com       ...!{uunet, decwrl}!primerd.prime.com!mguyott
mguyott@eriador.prime.com       ...!{uunet, decwrl}!eriador.prime.com!mguyott
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15862 alt.politics.democrats.d:307 alt.politics.elections:22675 ba.politics:6762 co.politics:1594 ne.politics:2711 nj.politics:532 or.politics:429 ny.politics:59 talk.politics.misc:58254
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
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: 5 Nov 92 21:12:31 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:

>To say that an inheritance tax, which only taxes the unearned gains
>of the heirs, is a disincentive to anything - or that it is unfair -
>is, IMO, pure selfish nonsense of the kind which put the economy in its
>present condition.
>
To say that society has a right to seize a significant portion of the lifetime 
gain of a man simply because he died is anti-investment and a disincentive
to building capital and wealth.  It asks that the wealth be squandered
instead of invested.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Perot's latest "infomercial"
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:34:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.191220.19975@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <Bx5B6B.Kqp@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>
>>The professional politicians of the Clinton campaign are particularly
>>adept at lying with statistics.
>
>The reality is that politicians are expected to lie through their teeth,
>particularly when it comes to financial reality. If they didn't, who would
>vote for them?

I think you are missing the "...with statistics" part.
Yes, Pols pad their resume and call the other guy bad things,
but as noted in a recent Wall Street Journal column, Clinton/Gore
engaged in some of the most egregious lying about recent economic
statistics.

What they've essentially done is repeat the kinds of HarelStatistics
that have been repeatedly posted, then debunked here and elsewhere.
Lies about the economy were central to Clinton's campaign because
he was running and economic theme - he needed to say things were worse
than they were, that Reagan's terms were bad when they were a startling
success, stir up the old class-warfare "rich-get-richer" stuff, etc.
The smoothness with which they did this is one of the keys to their victory.

Pat
From: Erik_Ramberg@SMTP.esl.com (Erik Ramberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GAY MARINE SPEAKS OUT
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:05:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: esl

In article <10NOV199218070944@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu wrote:
> 
> This message is posted for a friend of mine.  I will forward all
> responses to him. 
> 
> Bud
> 

Very well put, I just hope you and your fellow enlisted who support you,
band together and educate the rest of the masses.

-Erik

------------------------------------------------------------------
  "I like those 's' words  Q-skiing, skating, s..."


Nothing that I say can be construed as the opinion of my employer.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16879 alt.politics.democrats.d:458 alt.politics.elections:23506 ba.politics:7015 co.politics:1807 ne.politics:2900 nj.politics:671 or.politics:582 ny.politics:194 talk.politics.misc:59640
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:29:06 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <1992Nov11.005956.23879@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.210356.11971@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:

>The discussion is why such a family should be given a tax credit, to
>protect them from the results of their choice. I see no reason 
>why they should be.

Not So!  I wrote the reply, and that is NOT the discussion.  Tax CREDIT is not
the issue, tax C-O-N-T-R-O-L is!  Many families are borderline making it, and
new increases in tax push them over the edge.  At the same time, the taxes 
which caused a major change in lifestyle for that family, are put to good use
studying the sex life of protoplasm, or some other worthwhile cause that just 
can't wait ...

This is the discussion: do, or will, tax increases help Joe and Jane Public
more than they will hurt them?  I say tax increases help only special interest
groups and politicians, and they hurt everyone.

-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15903 talk.politics.misc:58307 talk.politics.drugs:7315