HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Hunk)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:26:34 GMT

In article <1249@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	The Germans and the Japs have successful economies because
>their citizens work hard and they are focused on the international
>economy.

The German and Japanese economies are successful because they don't have to
pay military expenditures while the US takes the brunt of the cost.

So all that human resource and capital is freed up to be used in investing in
the economic infrastructure.

Hard work has nothing to do with it.  If it did, America would be enjoying
30 years of unparalleled prosperity, since Americans have been overworked
more and more since the 1950's -- with an average exceeding 50 hours a week.

But it's futile, because that effort was lost until now in a major war of
military and economic attrition with another (now collapsed) military giant.
It's just like the Byzantium and Persia on the eve of the Jihad -- large
empires easily overrun because they had exhausted one another in a perpetual
war of attrition.

The USSR collapsed because it went bankrupt from economic exhaustion, spending
upwards 30% of their economic resources devoted to the military at the peak of
the Cold War.  In fact a declaration of bankruptcy (in November) WAS the
mechanism by which the government dissolved.

America was stronger, and had a larger economy.  But its government too has
failed onder the burden of economic failure.  In fact, the President himself,
through his highly partisan filter, has openly admitted (1) the failure of the
American judicial system, (2) of the legislative branch, (3) the
ineffectiveness of the executive branch -- all 3 branches, in total -- and has
called for substantial alterations in our Constitution (did you all listen
carefully to his speech?) -- which virtually amount to a second
Constitutional convention.

The only thing he has yet to do is to attain the level of lucidity to where
he can quit blaming it on a group of politicians and recognize it for the
systemic failure that it is.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41459 alt.politics.elections:11361 alt.politics.bush:2601 alt.politics.clinton:2679
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush's Bogus Tax Cut
Date: 24 Aug 92 03:43:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


>SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (UPI)	...
>Last week, Bush said he would push for an across-the-board tax cut
>next year, provided Congress reduces spending.

>But Bush, who broke his 1988 pledge not to raise taxes, has refused
>to specify what cuts he would propose

Just how stupid does Bush think that we are, anyway?  In 1988 he told
us that he would propose specific spending cuts after the election
when he had had time to examine the budget.  He's had four years to
examine the fiscal mess left during his terms as veep, and he still has
yet to propose spending cuts within two orders of magnitude of the
budget DEFICIT (let alone the debt).

So now our hero tells us that he'd give us a tax cut if only those
EvilLiberalDemocratsControllingCongress would just specify appropriate
budget cuts.  What courage!  What daring!  What leadership!

What bullshit.

And then he has the gall to say:

>``He's accused me of fearmongering,'' Bush said to the Springfield
>crowd. ``Americans aren't afraid of cutting spending and cutting taxes.
>They fear most of all a rubber-stamping president who would rubber-stamp
>the spendthrift Congress. We're not going to let that nightmare happen.''

That "nightmare" is already in residence at the White House.

(Actually, I don't see why Bush is so upset with the
EvilLiberalDemocratsContollingTheSpendthriftCongress.  After all, the
budgets passed by Congress have been almost identical to the proposals
sent to the Hill by the White House.)

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:42:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.181031.29043@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>In <1992Sep3.124045.8199@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>Hence it is Intuitively, Intrinsically, Self Evidently Obviously
>>that HeteroSexuality is the Cause of All things Dark and Evil!!!!
>
>And all things bright and beautiful. Your reasoning knows no sense.

Boy,

Go out and get yourself a new sense of humor, the one you got doesn't
work.

Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43006 alt.politics.elections:12056 alt.politics.clinton:3639 alt.politics.bush:3642
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:46:43 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Aug26.163435.63758@uvmark.uucp> scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl) writes:
>
>  Now, let's see.  WHO was it that said at the 1988 Republican Convention?:
>  (paraprased)
>              "Congress will try to pass legislation to raise taxes,
>               and I'll say no.
>               So they'll try again to raise taxes and I'll have to 
>               say no a second time.
>               So again they'll try to raise taxes and, finally, I'll
>               just have to say:
>                    'READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!!' "

...and then they tried a fourth time, and he gave in.

Maybe that's all that he meant, that he would resist for a while :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:52:30 GMT

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:

>If the idea is to vote for the candidate closest to one's own views, why
>not write in your best buddy's name? Or your own name? Obviously, the
>factor of "chance of winning" has to be weighed when supporting a
>candidate.

The idea in voting is to vote for the person who you think will be the
best for the country (or state or whatever the office). Keep in mind, though,
most liberals and conservatives believe that their ideology IS the best for
country. I may not agree with conservative philosophy, but I know its intent
is not to damage the country. I realize that conservatives really believe that
their ideology is beter for the country; I just have an honest disagreement
in that sense. 

Concerning the "chance of winning" idea, I don't think many people believed
Perot had any chance of winning when he first entered; but I think he would
have done quite well, perhaps even overtaking one or both of the major
party candidates. 

In New York's 1990 governor's election, Mario Cuomo only polled about 53%.
I don't think anyone really believed that the Conservative (Herb London) or
the Republican (Pierre Rinfret) would actually beat Cuomo, but they combined
for about 47% of the vote and the 3rd party candidate nearly beat the GOP.
Obviously, that 47% could not bring themselves to voting for Cuomo even
though he was a prohibitive favorite. Even though he double the other two,
Cuomo's performance was enough of a statement from New Yorkers that Cuomo
certainly got the message (the message being that if there's money to be made
somewhere, and it's not being exploited 100%, then you are un-American...
refering to the Adirondack Park).

BTW-Can I limit the distribution of a post to a specific state(s)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL				"READ MY LIPS -- NO NEW IDEAS."
CLARKSON '95	     			  ---George Bush's apparent motto	
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41830 alt.activism:15405 misc.headlines:5933 sci.econ:7130
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:08:19 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Aug25.104847.24882@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>,
kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
|> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> 
|> >   3.  US corporate and personal debt are at astronomical levels --
|> >       it's *total hypocrisy* for someone with a wallet full of 
|> >       cedit cards with outstanding balances and car loans up 
|> >       the gazoo, etc,  or CEO's of companies with millions in
|> >       outstanding bank debt or floating huge corporate bonds,
|> >       or attempting LBO's of other companies, to whine about
|> >       government debt.  " . . . cast out the beam in your eye,"
|> >       etc.
|> 
|> Not really. The primary difference is that individuals and corporations
|> might be able to borrow money "up the gazoo", but there is a limit that
|> they eventually reach. The government has no such limit.
|> 

I disagree.  The credit worthiness of a particular borrower is not 
determined by the legislature but by the supply of credit.  Individuals
have a "limit" because creditors will, at some point, no longer risk
extending more credit.  The same applies to governments.  Despite the
fact that the U.S. Gov't is highly regarded, I can see a time when the
competitive market of potential lenders (World Capital) might choose to
lend elsewhere because the US govt will have such an enormous debt burden
that lenders will seriously consider the possibility of a default.

The US Gov't borrows by issuing T-bills and T-bonds.  If the credit was
questionable, then the competitive demand for an issue would be weak and
so would be the price.  Low price translates into high yield -- making the
bond behave like any other high-yield (junk) bond.

(Printing more money won't solve the problem.  One can only get rid of
debt by paying it off -- by creating equivalent value.)

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:33:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.222905.16787@nntp.uoregon.edu>,
Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
>If you're on welfare and can work, you must work in order to receive your
>welfare check.  I would suggest that only non-profit businesses (maybe?) or
>volunteer organizations be allowing to hire people on welfare.  There is
>typically no limit to the number of people these types of organizations can
>use to do what ever they do, also, they are better able to work with
>bizaare schedules, children, etc...  The welfare check would basically
>serve as that persons paycheck.
>
>What do you think?  I am not sure how well I explained it
>here...

So the Politically Correct volunteer organization goes to DC, begs
for a subsidy to support their worthy cause and the government
reaches into the pockets of the small business down the block and
takes away the money they were going to use to expand their business
and hire more people.

Government can not create wealth.  It can not create new jobs.  It
can only get to decide who has the money to create new jobs with
other people's money.

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42675 alt.politics.elections:11898
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Better Off ..)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 19:36:04 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug20.205954.6555@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
  <1992Aug20.222440.27721@pony.Ingres.COM>
  <1992Aug21.165953.26334@oakhill.sps.mot.com>

> zone, Clinton waffles.  Now Bush, realizing the error of the 1990
> tax hike (note that Congressional Democrats are unrepentant there),
> is proposing new tax cuts along with spending caps.

Is Bush also repentant for his several tax hikes other than 1990, or is
that the only one he thinks is a mistake?

Also, *which* 1990 tax hike is he talking about?  Using the methodology
Bush's campaign uses to define "tax hike" when they count Clinton's 128
tax hikes, Bush had several dozen in 1990.  Is he sorry for all of them?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:06:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.191613.23545@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>Democratic in the near future.
>

The international and domestic business community voted on Bush's
economic plan this week...taxs cut and vague spending cuts...the
bottom has fallen out of the US dollar in international markets...
a freefall which may yet force the Fed to begin raising interest 
rates.

Not that Clinton's plan is a whole lot better...of course.

The level of economic debate in the US campaign is basically on
the moronic level on both sides...both sides are promising a
free lunch.

Gerald
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Morality of Minimal Requirements on Health Insurance Payments (was: National Health Care)
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:39:49 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Jim Brownfield) writes:
|> Stewart Clamen) writes:
|> > In article <1992Aug25.232017.6291@brownfield.glv.com> brownfield!jbrow (Jim  
|> Brownfield) writes:
|> 
|> [stuff deleted]
|> > 
|> >    Whether its 51% to 49% or 90% to 10%, its still theft.  When you
|> >    have a system where people can opt out on the payment side as well
|> >    as the service side, you will have a moral system.
|> > 
|> > Is a national health insurance plan less moral than general taxation?
|> > forced military service? gun controls? seatbelt regulation?
|> > minimal auto insurance requirements?
|> > 
|> > I'm not arguing with you; I am just trying to understand your
|> > viewpoint.
|> > 
|> > --
|> > Stewart M. Clamen
|> 
|> I feel that all the above things are immoral.  However, I grant that argument  
|> that at least some general taxation is needed currently for national defence  
|> (although I think the country could be defended better with a lot less money).
|> 
|> The reason I'm arguing so vehemently against national health insurance is that  
|> I think it will eventually have exactly the opposite effect that the proponents  
|> claim.  In the long run, it will lead to poorer health care for everyone, and  
|> by the increase in taxation (theft), it will also hurt everyones' standard of  
|> living.  I prefer correcting the problems that government regulation and  
|> monopolistic protection have caused as opposed to introducing more control (and  
|> problems).
|> 
Have you considered the possibility that the reason we have the most expensive
health care system (per covered person) and the largest number of uncovered
citizens may be due to the fact we are the only industrialized country without
a national health care system of some kind?  What if a nationalized system
would actually take the per/person cost down and cover more people?  Would
that be a good use of taxation?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:34:03 GMT

> So the Politically Correct volunteer organization goes to DC, begs
> for a subsidy to support their worthy cause and the government
> reaches into the pockets of the small business down the block and
> takes away the money they were going to use to expand their business
> and hire more people.
> 
> Government can not create wealth.  It can not create new jobs.  It
> can only get to decide who has the money to create new jobs with
> other people's money.


I knew I didn't explain it very well.  This is not it at all.  The
goverment would not have to take money out of any existing programs or from
those that would exist.  

All of the money that goes to pay people WELFARE checks would be used.   

Only serious problems that most of these people have is the lack of
training and self-esteem to go out and look for real work.  My idea would
merely provide an incentive for people to make a contributition to society
(they won't get their welfare check if they don't and can work.).


Make sense now?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:21:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.004122.19187@morrow.stanford.edu>, GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
> Sorry James, but there are a lot more than two of use running for
> the the U.S.  Senate this year.  We have at least 4 in California
> alone (2 Dems, 1 Lib, 1 P&F) I also know of two more from Illinois
> and PA ans I'm sure I've missed some others.

And we have two in NY State.  
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:58:09 GMT

In article <1484@seqp4.sequoia.com> markr@seqp4.sequoia.com (Mark Roddy) writes:

>In <PA146008.242.714181907@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug18.195426.20499@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>     It's the politicians.  Passed by Congress, signed by the President.
>> 
>>     It is simplistic and absurd to try and lay the whole thing at
>>the President's feet.
>> 
>So it therefore must be simplistic and absurd to try and lay the
>whole thing on Congress. 

     Read the Constitution.  The power to appropriate money is given
to Congress, not the President.  The President has limited power to
stop the Congress, but no power to force the Congress to spend money.
 
     If the Congress had enough will (read 2/3 majority) it could
ignore the President.

     Yes, the President bears some of the blame, but the lion's share
goes to Congress.  When all is said and done, the President failed at
something that wasn't really his job in the first place.

>Yet that is exactly one half of the Bush
>battle plan, 

     Bush blames Congress, Clinton blames the President, and neither
side is likely to accept that, perhaps, the portion of the Federal Government
they control *might* have had something to do with it.

     That's politics.

>the other half is thinly veiled homophobic nonsense
>parading under the banner of family values. Bush accepts no responsibility
>for anything 'bad' that occurred under his watch yet claims all credit
>for everything good. This is infantile. If only I believed that it
>wasn't actually working.

     Yes, and on the other side of the coin we have his opponents
who blame him for everything bad that has happened, while saying that
everything good "just happened on his watch."
 
     There aren't any good guys in politics this year.

>>     To eliminate the deficit solely based on what is precieved as
>>"Regan/Bush's spending" would require you to *eliminate* the Defense
>>budget, just to start, and not even Clinton suggests that.
>
>>     The President may submit a budget, but not penny one is spent
>>without Congress' say-so.  If 2/3 of Congress decided to be fiscally
>>responsible, they could *ignore* the President entirely.
>
>Not one veto was overridden by Congress - so 2/3's could but they
>certainly didn't.

     When a bill passes with more than a 2/3rds majority, it is useless
for Bush to veto it.  A lot of What Congress ends up with, those 1000
page monsters, passes veto-proof.  Having his veto overridden
just makes him look (more) stupid.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:02:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <5122@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
> In article <12021@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Careful who you defend.  MPA is as close to an anti-Libertarian as
> >there is on USENET -- except maybe Ed Nilges.
> 
> I voted for Ed Clark in 1980. Used to be one a' them Libertarians. Still
> hold many libertarian beliefs. Since your reading comprehension and basic
> cognitive skills seem to not exist--and labeling and name calling seem to
> be your forte--here is my response to you:

> 								      MPA

Other than free speech, I can't think of a single libertarian
belief you've ever expressed.

All that post to ca.politics is support for more governmental
control, more taxation to fund more "art" that would otherwise
have to find a willing patron, more taxation for more government
indoctrination centers.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:56:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.021219.21764@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.010643.14418@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> 	And my favorite example of capitalist short-sightedness:

	[on the computer industry...]

	I was posting this example to show that there is a such a
thing as private-sector short-sightednesss. Sure, all but one of the
punched-card-machine makers ended up going out of business, but my
point is to be aware of changing conditions _before_ something bad
happens.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines