HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Reducing Spending (was RADICAL POLITICAL SOLUTIONS?)
Date: 15 Aug 1992 05:58:12 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <Aug.14.11.58.36.1992.21312@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

|> The Democrats may control Congress, but I don't think that it is wise
|> to try to blame a whole party.  Serious members of both parties have
|> proposed real cuts, and members of both parties have rolled pork
|> barrels.  The problem is cowardice on the part of too many members of
|> both parties.

True. There's a book out on this just last week. Talks about some of the
more egregious examples of pork. Prominent Democrat pork-meister is of course,
Robert "Never use simple words where complex ones will do" Byrd. Prominent
GOP-ites mentioned were Al D'Amato and Ted Stevens.

|> 
|> (For example: Hank Brown is highly rated for fiscal responsibility by
|> the conservative Taxpayers Union even though he is a Democrat.  The

Hank Brown (Colorado) is a Republican (At least, he was sitting on the
Republican side during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings by the
Judiciary Committee).

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41011 alt.politics.bush:2356
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:30:26 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
 <1992Aug16.185505.6152@ncsu.edu> <01cyz1r@rpi.edu>
 <1992Aug17.141935.6159@oakhill.sps.mot.com>

In article <1992Aug17.141935.6159@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
(Patrick J. McGuinness) says:

>As for health care, he has proposed malpractice tort reform, and has
>proposed a system of tax credits to fund the medical insurance of
>those without such insurance.  This last proposal came out just this
>year.

After he realized health care was going to become an election issue because
of the PA election.  It's more election year politicking.

Even the AMA admits that malpractice tort reform could, at most, reduce
NHE by 20 to 30 billion, an admirable goal.  Yet it hardly makes a dent in
our cost problems.  The insurance reforms Bush proposed have not even been
detailed yet.  He has not even submitted a bill to Congress.  In any case,
reforms similar to his outline have been tried by several states in recent
years.  They failed miserably, having almost no effect on reducing the numbers
of uninsured.

If you think Bush has a "plan" you've been inhaling too much.



Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.121734.13578@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <Bsy8DI.4xG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>> 
>> You are quite right.  However, I really was speaking from the viewpoint
>> that most of us in this society hold.  I think most of us are willing to
>> make this assumption as in rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>> happiness.  Please note that the right to liberty or the pursuit of
>> happiness are contingent on the right to life.  The right to life,
>> though, is not dependent on liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  They
>> modify the right to life.  All three have been described as inalienable.
>
>That one is contingent on the other does not at all prove that
>the one must be subservient to the other.
>
>Rights in the United States are not at all based on what most of
>us in society hold.

I disagree with this statement.  Majority rule is the basis of any
democratic republic.  The Supreme Court is there to make sure that the
rights that the majority agree to are fairly distributed.  But the
rights exist because of majority opinion.
>
>Please tell me where you get a copy of the Constitution with a
>right to life mentioned, or the right to pursue life or liberty
>or happiness.  My copies don't mention these and since other
>people's copies do, I am worried that my copies are all the
>wrong versions.  Maybe I have an early draft?

No, Dean, you have a later draft, sort of.  Those rights are
specifically referred to only in the Declaration of Independence.  I
think it is fair to say that the Constitution builds on that.  You may
disagree.  But I think my contention is well founded.  (BTW I'm pretty
sure that I never stated that those rights were mentioned in the
Constitution.  If I did I was wrong.  If I didn't please don't misquote
me.)

Tim


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:54:56 GMT

In article <11743@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <63949@cup.portal.com>, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:

># Did you watch the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco?  The NAMBLA marchers
># were booed and subjected to thrown trash all along the parade route.
># 
># Would you consider that to be shunning child molesters?
>
>It's a start.  But I understand that a lot of signs were carried
>as well decrying "yellow journalism" against NAMBLA.  It sounds
>like the community is still quite divided about child molestation.

So?  Make up your mind.  Is the community "divided" over the issue or
is there a "sea of support" for it?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.211611.5621@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
 
>
>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>
      [...]
>>>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
>>>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
>>>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates
>>>opportunity for ALL to advance!
>>>
>>>
>>Indeed. The reason capital is fleeing overseas is not the spectre of
>>"cheap labor", as some like to think, but the desire to shelter capital
>>from historically stratospheric tax rates. Cheap labor alone is not the
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
>huh?  how do you figure?  and what does fleeing overseas mean?  doesn't
>that conflict with that debter nation thing (national borrowing).
>
 
Take a look at my last post in which I detailed the net change in capital
flow between 1980 and '87, from a $28 Billion outflow to a $139 Billion
capital inflow.
 
We are not a debtor nation, despite some rather ignorant stats thrown about.
Here's why:
 
US investment overseas dates back to before WWII. Some of it dates back
to the 19th century. Foreign investment in the US, for the most part,
is fairly recent, with Britain and the Netherlands being the earliest
large investors and Japan being the most recent large investor.
 
The confusion to the uninitiated stems from the fact that government debt
figures are based on evaluating all investments at par from time of
purchase. If a US firm invested $100,000 in Great Britain in 1949, it's
still carried on the books as having a net value of $100,000, despite the
fact that there has been capital appreciation and that 1949 dollars in no way
equate to 1992 dollars.
 
The exact ratio is probably near impossible to compute, but the generally
accepted ratio of book value to actual value is around 3:1. In other words,
US investment overseas is undervalued by 66%. Similarly, certain foreign
investment in the US- noteably Great Britain's- is also undervalued. During
the 80s, Japan wasn't the single largest investor in the US; Great Britain
was, and The Netherlands also held a significant stake.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40017 ca.politics:6845 ba.politics:4554
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:51:07 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
	<Bt4AtB.6n9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na

Excerpts From Captions of netnews.talk.abortion:
17-Aug-92  Re: Another good reason not..  Tim Buckley@s.psych.uiuc (5556)   
>I think that it is quite rational to speak of what the majority holds to
>be of value when one is speaking about a democracy (representative or
>direct).  It is at the very least fair to speak of what the majority who
>vote believe.  And that is what I have done.

On election day, we will know if a majority values a Bush presidency
over a Clinton presidency or vice versa.  However, when there exists
more than two objects for society to value, then talking of what a
majority holds to be of value is very perilous.  Arrow's Theorem from
economics tells us there is no rational way for society to decide among
more than two alternatives on the basis of the individual preferences of
the members of society.  On many issues (e. g. abortion) on which people
bring a variety of obscure motivations for their views, it is
mathematically impossible to speak of a majority view on the issue. 
Thus, we can not speak at all of what the majority who vote believe.
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:36:50 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 3740@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.210005.13671@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
> 
> > It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos like Mary
> > Matalin protest the New York Post article on George's alleged affair
> > with a staff aide.  I wonder why the same indignation was not present
> > when the Clinton allegations surfaced.
> 
> Because the allegations concerning Bush come third-hand -- supposedly
> from the mouth of a dead man -- with no other supporting evidence,
> while those concerning Clinton were corroborated by a casette tape
> with Clinton's own voice on it.

Hmmmm, I don't recall the "Star" releasing complete tapes, only parts of
them.  From what I've heard of the tapes (no, I didn't call Floyd Brown's
900# :^D ) there was no "corroborated" evidence.  Add to that that she
(Flowers) was paid, they "met" in a hotel that hadn't been built and a
couple of years prior to the article in the Star she had signed an
avidavid (sp) saying that she had *not* had an affair with Clinton.  I'd
say the cases (both Bush and Clinton) are both pretty weak.

> 
> > It's rather fun to watch the Bush operatives wallow in their own
> > sleaze.
> 
> Ahem.  I was unaware that any Bush operatives had anything to do with
> Gennifer Flowers going public with her story.

I guess it all depends on how "connected" you think that Floyd Brown
is to the Bush campaign.......

Bob De Guc
tired of sleaze from *both* camps...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:48:52 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug21132230@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
@In article <1992Aug21.010113.3137@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@   In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug20155009@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
@   @In article <1992Aug20.063950.18437@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@   @	   Fast enough trains can successfully compete with air travel.
@   > <  Consider the example of the French TGV, which travels at 180 mph in
@   > <  some routes, <
>
@   >	Name them. 
>
@	   The Southeast line and the Atlantic line.

@   >	I've ridden TGV twice and the train never
@   >	exceeded 100 mph. I don't believe that train could
@   >	come close to 180 miles per hour.

@	   The TGV has to travel more slowly when it is not running on
@     dedicated track.

>	I rode from Lausanne to Dijon twice, Dijon to Paris once.
>	Is that the "southeast" line referred to above?

	The Southeast Line runs between Paris and Lyon.

	I don't have a train schedule for France with me, so I can't
really tell if you had traveled on the dedicated TGV tracks or not.
Off these tracks, the TGV travels only as fast as an Amtrak NEC train.
Maybe you should take a look at whatever schedule you consulted.

>	If so, you are misinformed as TGV never exceeded
>	100 miles/hour.

	See comments above.

	Next time you take a train trip in France, _check_ to see if
it is on the Southeast or Atlantic TGV lines. Those are where the TGV
travels the fastest.
From: lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Election Reform Idea
Summary: new election process needed--
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:17:31 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.misc
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA


   Many of us are dissatisfied with our choices for President this 
election.  Consider for a moment how we might revamp the system to
truly give us a "Choice".

1) Have one candidate chosen from each state.  Give any individual
   who can accumulate a sufficient number of signatures, some air
   time to expound their beliefs and positions on the issues.  (One
   hour would seem sufficient) Have a primary election and a run-off
   between the top two contenders.

2) From the candidates submitted from the states, have regional elections
   using the same policies in regard to media attention as for the
   aforementioned state elections. (note that the amount of money spent
   on these processes is relatively small and the public is not 
   continually inundated with political rhetoric and mudslinging.  The
   only campaigning allowed aside from the prescribed media coverage 
   should be limited to personal appearances by a hopeful candidate.)
   Four to six regions should cover the country sufficiently and give us
   enough diversity of candidates.

3) The Regional election winners now can run in the national presidential
   election.  Each candidate can be given tax supported air time, as with
   the state and regional elections, for an hour or two and perhaps 
   participate in a debate session.  This process whould take place a
   week or two before the elections and the only publicity they would 
   be allowed to receive is from analysis of their positions by the media.

 Hey, this idea might have some refinement necessary, but I think it might
 work and we might actually have a choice in an election held in this way.
 A barber, a salesman, a construction worker, just regular people with
 good ideas would have a realistic chance to lead this great country!


*******************
 Rich Lund
 lund@noao.edu
*******************

Opinions stated are my own and not sponsored by my employer ect.:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:12:47 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 187@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Well, then do you have an objection to the following?
>
>  Have a personal exemption of (just making up numbers) $20,000. >Anyone whose AGI is less than that pays no tax. Those that make more 
>than that all pay at a flat rate. Doesn't that take care of the pain 
>of the poor?  Doesn't it also cause the rich to pay a lot more tax 
>than the poor or even the middle class? Even so, it would be called 
>very "regressive" by the "soak the rich" crowd.

I have no objection whatever to the principle of taxing higher income
levels at higher rates.  Rich people seem to get on quite well, even
when they get to keep less of their second (or more) $100K.  I'm not
against tax reform, but my idea of tax reform is to alleviate the
financial problems of people who are struggling harder to survive, not
rich people who can afford a greater tax burden.

>Welfare exists partly because of compassion and partly because it
>was a POPULIST thing. One could buy the votes of poor people, while
>not losing the votes of the middle class, by convincing the middle 
>class that only the rich would pay.

Welfare is an old idea that goes back centuries.  Most civilized
societies nowadays have a system of welfare in place, even when
they are poorer than us.  You may like to think of it as little more
than a cynical measure to get votes by stealing money from the rich,
but you give me no reason to believe that. 

>If the rich own the government, how do you explain the TEFRA of 1986, 
>which hurt the rich far more than the poor? How do you explain the >taxation of capital gains? How do you explain the double taxation of 

My somewhat cynical remark was that you "could argue" that the rich
own the government.  The argument is quite simply that rich people
pay more money to politicians and have greater access to them, 
especially when laws are drafted.  That doesn't really give them
absolute power in the sense of a real owner, but it certainly does
skew the system in their favor.  There are very few loopholes in the
tax code that were asked for by poor people. 

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Philandering George Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:22:51 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 7501@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> 
> I have never met Floyd Brown, but I am acquainted with Brent Bozell
> (who has worked together with Brown on occasion on certain projects).
> I can tell you for a fact that, since they have put together
> independent pieces promoting certain political candidates, they are
> PROHIBITED BY LAW from having ANY contact with either the candidate
> himself or with his official campaign whenever they happen to be
> independently promoting said candidate.

Yes, I'm aware of this law.  I just find it funny that whenever Bush demands
that they stop, they do his bidding.  This is true of the ads that Brown
aired during the Thomas hearings and more recently when he called the family
of a girl that had committed suicide because (so it was rumored that) she
was impregnanted by Clinton. 

It's nice to see that the Bush camp uses a "law" to say that they can't do
anything about sleaze from their end and yet attacks the questioning of Bush's
rumored affairs as the work of Clinton without proof.  In fairness to the Bush
camp, I think that the Clinton camp would do the same thing if the shoe was
on the other foot......



Bob De Guc
voter
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39367 ca.politics:6735 ba.politics:4468
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:28:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.213612.10398@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>
>Richard, maybe this guy's talking about 30 million jobs created south of
>the border or in asia or wherever our manufacturing base took them?
>
>
>	Bye, Judy.

  Well, I'm not sure what period he was covering, but employment
in 1980 was 97.6 million and was 117.7 million in 1990.  These stats
are pretty easy to find.  You may want to look them up before accusing
him of lying.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:51:55 GMT

rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:

>pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>   How about RU 486?  It works by 'withholding assistance'.
>   Paul.


>In much the same way as pulling life-support from a recovering
>patient is 'withholding assistance'.

so does "the pill".  it makes the uterus un-hostly.  that is
why the catholic church preaches against the pill.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:05:07 CDT


In article <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
> All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
> disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
> Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
> mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.

Yea, I can just see Hitler on the Volkswagon micro-bus tour.   :-)

> Very dangerous man, indeed!

But still less dangerous than the incumbant.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ