HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:24:21 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan27.203439.19846@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <1k643gINNju7@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan26.215032.6700@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> >|> In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan26094626@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
|> >|> >	Is Smith aware of the difference between "babysitter"
|> >|> >	and "live-in nanny and driver"?
|> >|> 
|> >|> Whatever difference there may be, it is not one that the law cares about.
|> >|> Failing to pay FICA for either is equally illegal.
|> >
|> >I'm surprised at you.  This statement is simply wrong.  Typically
|> >a babysitter is a free lance operator.  The babysitter is essentially
|> >running his/her own business.  It is the responsibility of the babysitter
|> >to pay his/her own FICA, not the person who contracts with the babysitter.
|> 
|> My impression is that the law was recently changed on this so that this
|> statement is incorrect, and that FICA wants parents to chip in for
|> babysitters that they pay more than $50/quarter to.  
|> 

You may be right, I don't know if the law has been recently changed.
However, as a result of the Baird flap, several newspapers have written
columns on what is required and what isn't.  Every one of those stated
that if the babysitter worked for others in addition to your family,
you did not have to worry about FICA because the babysitter was his/her
own employer.  It wouldn't surprise me if the government is trying
to find creative new ways to gouge the American public, however.


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 talk.politics.misc:69815 misc.legal:23314
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:59:00 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan23.104902.25898@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <14021@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Do you subscribe the view that the 1942 decision in which a farmer
# #growing wheat FOR HIS OWN CONSUMPTION ONLY could be fined under
# #authority derived from the interstate commerce clause?  Is this an
# #example of the application of "necessary and proper" to the 
# #regulation of interstate commerce?
# 
# Yes.  It was a stupid law, to be sure, but stupidity does not equal
# constitutionality.

Very true.

# Economically, it makes no difference whether the farmer in question
# is growing the wheat for his own use, or selling it to his next-door
# neighbor.

Economically, no.

# Congress unquestionably had the power to regulate the interstate sale
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# of wheat.  Allowing individuals to escape the regulation would have
  ^^^^^^^^
# eviscerated the regulation.  Therefore, the Court chose not to reach
# the absurd result you would have them reach, which is that Congress
# can only regulate interstate commerce when it is ineffectual in doing
# so.

You mean, the Court decided that wheat that was never sold, never
left the farm, and so, never was part of "interstate sale of wheat,"
was within the federal government's authority to regulate.  LOOK WHAT
YOU WROTE!  The Court would have had to say, "There's no interstate
commerce here -- you can't tell the guy what he can do."

Mr. Frank, you are an intelligent person.  Why have you so utterly
accepted the Big Government Can Do No Wrong viewpoint?  This is a
clear case of stretching the federal government's authority FAR
beyond any rational definition of "interstate commerce" and you
STILL defend it.

# ## And indeed, none of this has happened in the field of taxation.
# ## The interpretation of "necessary and proper" in Court history has
# ## followed Hamilton's guidelines.
# #
# #Gee, do you suppose Hamilton's statement was intended to cover
# #any possibility besides taxation?
# 
# I'm open to other examples.
# -- 
# ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

You mean, his example was only intended to refer to taxation,
and nothing else?  Are you serious?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69498 alt.rush-limbaugh:15006
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Xenophanes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Xianity
Keywords: xi, xeros, xulon, Xenophon, Xerxes
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:43:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan22.081401.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, 
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...

>egilder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric Gilder) writes:
>>>You guys really need to learn how to spell christian.  
>>>Christ was a person (and God) not an "x".
>> 
>> Wes, "Xn" has been an abbreviation for "Christian" since the catacomb days.  
>> Just like "Xp" means Christ and that IHS one sees on some communion tables 
>> means "Jesus"  "X", in this case is "Chi", the first letter in "Xpostos" 
>> which gets transliterated Christ, whereas IHS is Iota Eta Sigma, from 
>> IHSOUS, which is from the Hebrew Yeshua, and gets transliterated to English 
>> as either Joshua or Jesus.  OK?
> 
>     Therefore: our new Secretary of State is Warren Xopher; Xopher
>Reeves is to play Al Gore in "The Bill Clinton Story"; Xiane Amanpour
 ^^^^^^--- wonderful typecasting ;-)

>is a reporter for CNN; and Malcom X was really Malcom Christ.  :-)
>    I think some people use the "x" abbreviation because of their
>struggle in either writing or saying "Jesus Christ." 

>     C. Perttunen

I very much enjoyed EG's "X"planation, and must confess that xmas
and such have always bothered me as not only being: rushed, secular,
and de-personalizing, but also disrespectful. 

Of course, x-appellations are often intended to yank the chains of 
those hung-up on names (rather than The Named). So I'm gratful for 
no longer having to feel uncomfortable with Xtian and other x-variants;
and gladly acknowledge my mistaking the name for Thee Named, all to often. 

Which is funny, since I'd gotten over my hang-ups with the 10,000 names 
of GOD, in whatever manifestation (Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim, YHWH, Allah, 
Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Bahgli(Sp?), Krishna, the I AM, Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit....).  Best it seems is to forego the name and regard
Thy Presence -- God of Gods, King of Kings, -* Thou *- for whom no human
description could likely ever be adequate (except through Christ).

Which brings us back again to X. 
Which looks like a leaning cross. 
Which also looks like a Greek chi, or Roman 10.
Which is also the mathmatically horizontal axis.
Which is also an unknown quantity, or unidentified person. 
Which is also short for "trans" as in xformer, and "crys" as in xstal.
Which is also the notation for the discrete time transform in systems theory.
Which is pronounced "z" if a beginning letter, and "sh" in Portuguese.
Which marks the spot....

{ ooops, sorry, just a bit of xtc. %-}

Just consider it a political-innoculation, xenograftically.
"Strange," yes a bit, I'll agree.

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen    "XXX"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69915 alt.activism:21397
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:02:57 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan26.193114.318@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

|Jack, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  The
|Libertarian Party believes that workers have that right.  I fail to
|understand why you think they don't.

I believe the logic is.  If yer not fer us, yer agin us.
Neutrality is not allowed.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:38:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1k15enINN7o8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:
>
>>In article <1jnh0mINNls0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>>     And, I find it hard to characterize an economy where 1/3 of 
>>>     all goods and services are consumed by government as 
>>>     " already privatized ".
>>
>>  Sorry, but no matter how hard you find it, economics measures
>>  "privatization" by who produces the goods and services, not
>>  by who consumes it.  This is one of the reasons why despite 
>>  Sweden's huge social-welfare and defense establishments, it
>>  is still technically incorrect to call them "socialist" 
>>  since 90% of their GDP is produced by private industry.
>
>
>        Yes, yes, of course.  How could I have been so wrong, as
>        Sweden prospers beyond my wildest imaginings.  The U.S. 
>        should adopt their system.


  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?   Did I say
  anything about adopting their system?    Are you on drugs
  or do you always have problems with emotional stability?

  I am merely pointing out an economic fact:  that privatization
  refers to who *produces* goods and services, not who consumes
  them.  The US has not done as much privatization as other
  countries for precisely the reason already stated by others
  in this thread: there was less to do to begin with -- only
  the most miniscule part of our GDP (note what the letter "P"
  in GDP stands for) was not already privatized.            


---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: <None>
From: medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:13:41 -0500
Organization: Hiram College
Nntp-Posting-User: medkeffjs

In article <15628.2b60d43f@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> 
> The waiting for Perot thread has some serious distortions in it, basically
> the statement that Adolph Hitler was a leftist! NOT. Here is the political
> spectrum. You sort it out.
> 
> 
>                                      1                                 2   3
> Commun. Social.  Demo.          Repub.    Bush     Reagan  Dole  Quayle A.H. ??
> |       |        |              |         |        |       |     |      |    |
> v       v        v              v         v        v       v     v      v    v
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> LEFT                  CENTER                RIGHT            RUSH      FALWELL
> 

I was surprised to see that "RUSH" and "FALWELL" were ideologies..... I wonder
what exactly it is they stand for, in the way of a coherent set of beliefs?
And Dole to the right of Reagan? Come on...... And why are Republicans to the
_left_ of every named Republican leader? 

> 1. Ford, Nixon, and their moderate followers

More to the point, Sen. Kassebaum, Mr. Rudman, Sen. Specter (sp?) down at
the so-called Republican Majority Coalition would inhabit this area now. I
am familiar with nobody who "follows" Ford within the party, still.


> 2. Dan is no Adolph Hitler... 

Yes....

> 3. This is Adolph Hitler.

No. Adolph Hitler, you will recall, was the leader of the National Socialist
Party of Germany. That would put him solidly in the left, between Communism
and Democrats. However, it is of course much more reasonable to observe that
Hitler had a set of disconnected political beliefs, some of them rightist
and some of them leftist, that added up to stupidity rather than a glorious
seat within the political spectrum, just a bit off to the right of Dan
Quayle. Hitler's political operation was not one that aimed to convince the
masses of a right-wing ideology, it aimed instead to find scapegoats for
Germany's problems and justifications for Hitler's expansionist tendancies.

> Left wing represent a government which supports individuals regardless of
> their status in society. 

Well, then why did the communists of the Soviet Union kill anywhere from
forty to sixty million of its citizens? If what you mean by "support 
individuals regardless of their status in society" is actually equal
opportunity killing, you are right.

> Right wing represent government which is solely
> concerned with an individuals status with society along.

I am not sure what you were thinking when you wrote this.... Anyway I do
not know what it means.


                                     Jeff Medkeff
                                     medkeffjs@hiramb
                                     medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Debt / AT&T Monopoly
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:30:51 GMT

Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <C1472D.1or@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >You do make a valid point here.  The government can and does retire its
: >debt all the time.  The government owns vast amounts of resources and
: >assets.  The difference between a 30-year T-Bill and a 30-year mortgage
: >is that the T-Bills are interest only and mortgage payments include some
: >portion dedicated to principle.  
: 
: Minor nitpick.  You get principal back when your T-bill expires.
: 
: The government then rolls over the debt, but that's because people
: know the government's good for the money.
: 
: >But I submit that debt to pay off existing debt is bad.  
: How do you figure?  It's just rolling over the old debt.  Why are
: two thirty-year T-bills worse than a hypothetical sixty-year T-bill?
: 

My mistake.  I meant debt to pay off existing debt payments...

: >Monopolies can be good, too.  In the case of AT&T, phone service to the
: >majority of the US was cheaper than it has been since deregulation/split
: >up of AT&T.  
: 
: That's completely false.  The cost of long-distance service is down some
: 30%.
: 

Local calling went UP.  That is the service that MOST of the US uses.
Perhaps I was not clear about this...  The cost of a long distance
call is hardly more than the cost of a local call (to the phone company).
Before deregulation, long distance rates were made higher so that local
rates could be lower and of easier access.  

: -- 
: ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
: standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
: the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Hillary in Charge of Task Force
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:17:07 GMT

In article <C1ItFu.LHA@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>In article <C1IKK1.A1n@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>>I read in the newspaper the other day, that President Bill is putting his
>>spouse in charge of a task force to come up with ideas for reforming
>>health care and health insuranse in the U.S..  
>>
>>Question: Is Hillary qualified. Does anyone out there know if she has a
>>clue to the issues of broad based health care and insurance. Is there
>>anything in her past career that remotely qualifies her for the task. Or
>>is this another symbolic gesture on the part of Fuhrer Willy to impress
>>the politically correct folks and the radFems?
>>
>>If anyone has any ideas about this, please share them.
>
>    Hillary should have gone through a Senate confirmation process.

Why? As head of this 'task force', Hillary has no authority whatsoever.
She neither creates nor enforces any binding rules or regulations,
as do bona-fide Cabinet officers and other Executive Branch offices.

In 1983, Reagan created a 'blue ribbon panel' to make recommendations
on Social Security reform. Did anyone demand that the head of that
panel (Alan Greenspan) be confirmed by the Senate?

As to Kolker's question on qualifications: she's a damn sight more
qualified than you are, bub. Just keep on hating. Maybe by the time
four years is up, you will have consumed yourself in your own venom.

>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Follow the money" Deep Throat
>Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:55:07 GMT

In article <C19pGE.8us@unix.amherst.edu> acbonin@unix.amherst.edu (Adam Bonin) writes:
>One thing I have to add that the "necessary and proper" clause itself is 
>unnecessary and redundant.  If one is to establish a body (Congress) and give
>it areas of jurisdiction (the enumerated powers), then it follows naturally
>that it _must_ have the means to achieve the enumerated ends.  Even without
>the clause, it must logically follow that it exists for the government to have
>any power whatsoever.
>
>But my question, and I'll put it to Ted and anyone else who wants to play with
>it, is this: Is the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" at the 
>beginning of I,8 a _separate_ enumerated power of Congress, or does it merely
>serve as a preamble to the enumerated powers listed below?

Well, Madison thought that GW was confined to enumerated legislative
fields committed to Congress.  Hamilton's view to the contrary seems 
to have carried the day.  I'd buy the proposition that the GW clause
gives Congress the right to spend, if not regulate, as they see fit.
Having the Court decide between which spending is for "general welfare"
and which is not, beyond cases where the Congress is clearly wrong,
however, is much too close to the judicial veto provision which the
Founders intentionally rejected -- though one of the reasons they
rejected such a veto was because of the power of judicial review, so
that doesn't quite foreclose judicial review of legislative spending
decisions, though that's the way the current Court treats the issue,
possibly because there's really no way to define a line between GW
and non-GW spending.

That's my first cut at it.  I could be convinced otherwise, though,
with a bit more research.  I've certainly been wrong before.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69576 alt.pagan:15796 talk.religion.misc:27455 talk.abortion:57755
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: "It's the economy, stupid!"
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:40:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.133520.2550@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <C14tAw.FMn@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>}In article <1993Jan19.135040.16713@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>[various flues and colds around the world]
>}>
>}>Regardless of slogans, the world is still there...
>}
>}Yes, but why should we solve their problems for them?
>
>Maybe you missed it - we live on earth.

Sorry, I keep forgetting about those Canadian armored divisions poised on
the North Dakota border not to mention those Mexican terrorists infiltrating
the American lawn care industry.

Silly me.
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Family Leave Bill
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:17:11 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <1k3eouINNkqh@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
|> In article <44048@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)  
|> writes:
|> >> 
|> > And even beyond that, why do only people who work for large companies
|> > get to play? There are millions out there who work for small, Ma and Pa
|> > operations. Are they less needing of family leave? And if the size of
|> > the company is involved, why is this less of a problem for larger
|> > companies than smaller ones? Key people are key people; or is the
|> > premise that large companies are inherently overstocked with personel?
|> > 
|> 
|> It only works for big companies because they have the resources
|> to fill in for some one for a couple of months.  

So family leave is not a costless proposition, as some would claim?

|> If a company has 500 employees and one goes on leave, that leaves 
|> 499 (and they've only lost .2 percent of their work force.  If the 
|> corner store employs 5 people and 1 goes on leave, they've lost 20% 
|> of their work force. That's much harder to compensate for.
|> 

However many supporters of family leave claim that a person shouldn't
have to choose between family and job.  That the job is their 'right'.
If it truely is a 'right', and if a person truely shouldn't have to
choose between family and job, why are people who work for smaller
companies denied their 'rights'?  Sounds like a violation of equal
protection.  If family leave is a 'right', then the government should
rightly protect the right, regardless of the economic hardship.
After all, we don't let small companies use slaves just because it
would be cheaper, do we?  If, however, family leave isn't a right,
then the government has *no* business interfering in the employement
practices of *any* business, large or small.  I happen to believe
the latter.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<Jan.15.22.05.57.1993.26003@romulus.rutgers.edu>
	<1993Jan21.162625.17617@aber.ac.uk>
	<Jan.22.07.10.37.1993.754@romulus.rutgers.edu>
	<CINDY.93Jan22211912@solan10.solan.unit.no>
	<Jan.25.07.53.29.1993.27105@romulus.rutgers.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:47:02

Question to the net at large:  Was there anyone else other than Mr.
Kaldis who thought my post about "posting in everyone's native
language" was intended SERIOUSLY?

If so, i apologize.  If not, he's in worse shape than i thought.  Take
a valium, Ted.  You get so upset about things that really don't affect
you... like my sense of humor.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69828 misc.legal:23321