HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: I will not vote Democratic - here's why.
Organization: None
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:43:04 GMT

In article <1big8aINNpfv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
>
>In a previous article, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) says:
>
>>>>  The ONLY reason Clinton is currently leading in the polls is due to the
>>>>fact that a majority of Americans believe that under a Clinton
>>>>administration only the rich will have their taxes raised and through this
>>>>additional revenue Clinton will revitalize the economy.
>>
>
> No, the only reason Clinton is leading is because people believe
>President Bush when he says he is not interested in domestic affairs.
>
>-- 
>Ben Hansen
>bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu


I didn't say the above, which may not be obvious. I had included it in a 
posting I sent out. 

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Perot `92

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17007 sci.econ:8118 talk.politics.misc:52012
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:20:58
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<Bw0tDA.IJ0@apollo.hp.com> <1992Oct14.135647.5914@hemlock.cray.com>
	<Bw6354.DA3@apollo.hp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: caisr1.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:34:15 GMT

In article <Bw6354.DA3@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.135647.5914@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>I agree with both posters.  Economicly, GDP growth will be slow for the 
>>next few years.

>>around).  Even 2+% annual growth (twice as much as under Bush) and 
>>slowly falling unemployment will be enough for the Dems to keep the 
>>White House in 1996.                                 

>	 . . . assuming they don't try to fix the deficit.  But NOT
>	 addressing the deficit would be slow economic suicide.

Yes, but "slow" implies that it's the next guy's problem.

My guess would be that a Clinton administration would increase the
rate of growth in the deficit (the second derivative of the debt) at
about the same rate as the Bush administration, but with more of the
money going to civilian programs.

I think Clinton will likely follow Reagan's model of spending our way
out of a recession into another economic boom (possibly with increased
inflation).

I expect trillion dollar deficits by the end of the decade.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.010232.8678@NeoSoft.com>, hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes...
>In article <1992Oct15.125744.4200@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>> Lets not forget that the (democratically-controlled) Congress has to
>> approve ALL spending, revenue-raising, taxes. The President has no
>> power to spend money unless Congress gives it to him. Only the Congress
>> can borrow money and go into debt. Its in the Constitution (Article 1, 
>> sections 7,8).
> 
>Ever hear of the veto?  If Bush had had more than 1 veto overturned he
>might have a case.  But it's clear that he agreed to the budget
>compromises.  If he didn't veto the spending bills he's just as
>responsible as Congress.

Also, the president SUBMITS the original budget to Congress.  Traditionally,
this forms the starting point that Congress works from.  Granted, they
are under no obligation to pay it any mind, but the goal is to avoid the
veto process by starting with what the president wants.

Q: HOW MANY BALANCED BUDGETS (INCOME = EXPENSES) HAS GEORGE BUSH SUBMITTED?

(1) all four years
(2) 3 of 4
(3) 2 of 4
(4) 1 of 4
(5) has never submitted bal. budget









and the correct answer is.....









(5) George Bush has never submitted a balanced budget to Congress.
Not to mention the budgets were often based on very rosy projections
about tax revenues.

Oh, I know you're going to say "we reduced the deficit $xx in 1989"
but while we put money towards the debt, the budget still spent more
than that installment (er...what's the point?).  That's our government.


>-- 
>Doug Andersen
>hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: DEBATE: OPINION FROM AN UNDECIDED
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:54:57 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct12135735@physics3.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
# 
# Face it: when candidates are speaking to tens of millions of people,
# at a major media event which will decide their political future,
# nobody---and I mean *nobody*---will just "be himself," and speak
# without giving thought to his delivery and to the political
# ramifications of what he says.
[...]

# If you thought that Bush looked more natural than Clinton, all that
# means is that Bush was a better actor than Clinton.  "Natural" is just
# the last thing you'll find at an event like this.

Oh come on.  This natural = slick sophistry might work to convince yourself
that Clinton is a good guy (a professor of mine, who called himself a
"yellow dog democrat," referred to Bill's "awful simper"), but it just
doesn't explain everything.  Simply because he knows some statements will be
good politically, a candidate will not give a uniform delivery of all.
True belief will come out in how convincing he is.  Why are some people so
impressed with Perot?  His persona is more convincing than the others';
mostly because it's pretty close to his actual beliefs.

Of course, one can be paranoid about this (nothing new, on the net), but
there is a limit.

-- 
ssc@nwu.edu | Nam castum esse decet pium poetam (Catullus 16)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan)
Subject: Election '92 Drinking Game
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:17:26 GMT


I've started the bare bones of a drinking game for this
election season.  Seeing as how we have 2 presidential
debates left, this might prove useful.  Please append
your own rules.


One drink each for:


Clinton says anything about "change."

Bush says anything about "trust."

Perot talks about forming a committee.

Clinton swings his hand around like he's holding a pen.

Bush moves his hands around like he's describing a woman's figure.

Quayle does his karate-chop hand motion.

Gore looks like he's about to open up his shirt and reveal
	a Superman costume.

Someone interviews Mary Matalin after a debate.

Bush says "Tax and spend."

Bush says "Gridlock Congress."

Clinton says, "Investment tax credit."


--
"I have a cunning plan." -- Baldric
                                                             patrick m. ryan
     nasa / goddard space flight center / oceans and ice branch / hughes stx
                     pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov / zmpmr@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:57:03 GMT

In article <UepmRx200WB004p2Fk@andrew.cmu.edu> Joelle Ann Mellon <jm7w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>Second, just to watch out for something else that could throw a twist
>into this years election, what are the chances that and elector would
>vote against his candidate? I know it's illegal in some states, but not
>all, if I recall? Does anyone have anything specific on this, like when
>the last time it happened was and if anyone has said anything about the
>possibility?

It happened last in 1988, actually.  One of the electors committed to
Dukakis voted Bentsen for President instead.  I don't know which state
that elector was from.

>
>Danke.

Bitte.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16681 talk.politics.misc:51634
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Class Warfare in America (was Re: Upper--middle--lower clas
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 00:19:54 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Mark Wilson writes:
>>
>>"There are two classes of people in this country.  Those who work for
>>a living and those who vote for a living."
>>
>The poor and the future don't vote.
>-- 
>Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
>can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.

Before most presidential elections of late--certainly this one--the
sitting Prez has leaned on his lackeys at the Federal Reserve Board
to crank up the money supply.  This is the equivalent of blowing a
whiff of cocaine up the nose of the economy.  You get lots of apparent
energy now, but pay for it later.

The man who was the chief inspiration for State economic intervention
in this century was the man who said, "In the long run we are all dead"--
John Maynard Keynes.

That "the future" does not vote is very apparent indeed.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:08:30 GMT

In article <Bw5CDA.KK2.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>>Mona Charen on Crossfire this evening revealed that not only did Gore 
 
In article <1bj2arINNagm@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>This is a pet peeve of mine.  How come John Sununu, Pat Buchanan and
>Mona Charen, ex-Republican Administration members all, get to pose
>on CNN as journalists?  

Because Jesse Jackson, Bob Beckel, and Mark Shields (all of whom have
worked for the Democrats at one time) get to pose on CNN as journalists.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:19:08 GMT

In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com writes:
>
>
>	One thing is nearly certain. During the next four years the
>president of the United States will have to call on young men and
>women in the military to fight and die. We all hope and pray that this
>does not happen, but only a reckless fool would refuse to consider it
>as a real possibility. It is entirely likely that the cause they are
>asked defend will be a questionable one. After all, Presidents and
>Congresses have been known to make mistakes.
>	So, who do you want to be asking your children to march off to
>war and not return? Do you want the man who, when it was his turn to
>go, weaseled out by running off to England?  Or do you want the man
>who flew off the aircraft carrier wondering if he would ever return? Do
>you want the man who meditated on his future political viability while
>in a comfy dorm room at Oxford?  Or do you want the man who was
>wondering about the value of war while floating in the Pacific Ocean
>after being shot down?  

So what if he was shot down in WW2. What is this? A military state in
which we must have soldiers to run our government (not that I have 
anything against them). You are talking about a hypocrite who wanted
to get rid of the "wimp factor" by sending 500,000 troops into the
middle east to save the rich Kuwaitis from the evil dictator. The very
same dictator that Bush and his cronies created. Give me a break.
I want this guy as far away from Washington as possible.


>	The President of the United States has to have the moral
>authority to lead the military. He is, first and foremost, the
>Commander in Chief of the most powerful army the world has ever know.

And, naturally George Herbert Bush has the "moral authority" to lead
the "most powerful army" in the world. This is a joke right? 

>If Gov. Clinton is elected, every soldier who is asked to fight and
>die will have the right to say : "HE DIDN'T GO WHEN HE WAS CALLED, WHY
>SHOULD I?" Any notion of self-sacrifice in the name of duty will have
>to be compleatly abandoned. While Gov. Clinton may be a fine
>administrator, a great speaker, and a good politician, he lacks the
>moral authority to be Commander in Chief. He can still be patriotic,
>he can still love his country, he can still serve in politics; but the
>moral authority to ask someone to die is purchased with actions, not
>with talk.
>	Before you fire up your flame throwers, take some time and ask
>yourself how you would really feel if Gov. Clinton told you that your
>child (or you) had to go and die for this county? 
>

Sorry. My flame throwers are on automatic. And,  as far as Clinton is 
concerned, I wouldn't even want him to tell my  kids to take a dump!

John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.192520.5706@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin) writes:
> 
> Also, in both versions of the question: deficit and recession: the KEY
> word and emphasis was placed by the person asking on the word YOU.
> How has this affected YOU PERSONALLY.
> Bush started answering that question by talking about interest rates!
> And that's not what she was after.  I could tell that easily when she
> asked the question, why couldn't Bush?
 
I found the question very amusing (1) because it was so poorly-worded
that nobody could figure out what to answer, and (2) because Bush couldn't
give the obvious answer:

"How has the national debt affected me, personally?  Well, for starters,
I'm going to be out of a job in four months," or, "have you looked at the
polling data recently?"

The first would have been disaster, the second within the realm of
possibility.

 
*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16578 alt.politics.bush:9017 alt.politics.clinton:10221 alt.politics.perot:2096
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:49:21 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore) writes:

>(Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>
>> Recent Poll results, ordered by number of electoral college votes.
>> 
>> ! == Candidate has lead of 10% or more. 
>> EV == Electoral College votes for that state (270 votes needed for victory).
>> 
>> State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot   State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot
>>
>>   AR    6    25     58!    6       NM    5    30     38    13   ...
>
> How is it that Clinton has no lead in Arkansas? Are they wiser to this guy
> than the rest of the nation? 

With Clinton ahead of Bush in Arkansas by 33%, how much of a lead does Clinton
have to have before you call it a lead?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:57:58 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <Bvzv1G.6@neon.rain.com>, dougc@htbawd.rain.com (Doug Carter) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.015203.13538@eng.umd.edu> georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>>Unlike Bush and Clinton, I heard on the news that Perot didn't even rehearse
>>for the debate. Yet Perot did so well. This lack of rehearsal made Perot
>>appear more spontaneous and genuine than the other two candidates, and it
>>impressed me a lot.

  I think Perot did one heck of a job last night.  I think he came off as the
take-charge kind of person that he wants to present himself as, without pinning 
down to too many specifics that his opponents can attack.  He even handled a
question on one of his major political problems, that gas tax.

>>I'm going to vote for Clinton, though, because I think Clinton has a better
>>chance of beating Bush than does Perot. However, I'd vote for Perot instead
>>of Clinton, if I thought Perot had a chance to win.
>>
>>The person to vote for is whoever you believe has the best chance of
>>beating Bush, and that person is still Clinton.
> 
> WRONG! The best person to vote for is the one who you think will get the
> job done. This is not a horse race or a beauty contest. A vote for Perot
> is a vote *for* Perot. A vote for Clinton is a vote against Bush.

  There I think you are wrong.  In the eyes of many voters, all the election is
is a beauty contest, a horse race, and a war of attrition.  If Perot can show
that a vote for him might mean something in this race, I'll be more than happy
to vote for him because I support him more than the other two.  But I feel a
responsibility to put George Bush out of office, and my vote is my only weapon.

> You
> are voting for Clinton only because Perot is ~10% in the polls. What if
> all the candidates were even in the polls right now? Who would you vote 
> for then? Don't let pre-election polls sway you away from voting your 
> conscience.
> 
> It's time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils.

  Can't agree with you more, but if Perot is only going to get 10% or so, then
it's not going to make any difference.
 
						Mike Falkner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: Clinton's BS economic plan
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 06:00:16 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Originator: clin@erlang.src.umd.edu


In article <Bw51AH.5ny@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, pa56680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (P. Ialamanna) writes:
>I'm getting really irritated at these Clinton supporters who claim that
>his tax increase won't affect the middle class. If I understand it corectly,
>Clinton wants to raise tax on the top 2% of wage earners and not to the
>middle class. Okay fine, but what gets me is that middle class people beleive
>that this won't affect them. HOW CAN IT NOT AFFECT THE MIDDLE CLASS? Let's
>face it, the top 2% of wage earners are usually providing some goods or service
>to the general public(i.e. middle class). If their taxes are increased(cutting
>into their profits) what do you think will happen?
>The price of those goods and services will go up. Who ends up paying for it?
>Not the top 2% but the middle class, again. Who benefits? The government who
>will get the increased tax revenue paid for on paper by the upper class but
>in reality is subsidized by the middle class in the form of higher costs
>of living. Don't fall for it folks. Let the money stay in your pocket;
>Let you be the one to decide what governmental expenditures (or personal
>expenses) be paid for with YOUR money.
>
>We need less government spending, not more!

   You can always vote Liberterian.   I believe they have always advocated
a much larger spending cut than any Republican.

>
>If you support Clinton's economic policy, be aware of the big picture.
>

   I don't know if the top 2% directly offer services and goods to the public.
It's my view that even the richest of rich do not make anywhere near the kind
of money that corporations make selling their product line.  I doubt taxing
the rich in personal income will make them decide that they need a bigger
salary to compensate and pass this cost to the customer.  If you had
said that the money would affect corporations, and that would be
passed on, then I could buy that.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: pawlicki@kodak.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:01:14 GMT
Reply-To: pawlicki@kodak.com



	One thing is nearly certain. During the next four years the
president of the United States will have to call on young men and
women in the military to fight and die. We all hope and pray that this
does not happen, but only a reckless fool would refuse to consider it
as a real possibility. It is entirely likely that the cause they are
asked defend will be a questionable one. After all, Presidents and
Congresses have been known to make mistakes.
	So, who do you want to be asking your children to march off to
war and not return? Do you want the man who, when it was his turn to
go, weaseled out by running off to England?  Or do you want the man
who flew off the aircraft carrier wondering if he would ever return? Do
you want the man who meditated on his future political viability while
in a comfy dorm room at Oxford?  Or do you want the man who was
wondering about the value of war while floating in the Pacific Ocean
after being shot down?  
	The President of the United States has to have the moral
authority to lead the military. He is, first and foremost, the
Commander in Chief of the most powerful army the world has ever know.
If Gov. Clinton is elected, every soldier who is asked to fight and
die will have the right to say : "HE DIDN'T GO WHEN HE WAS CALLED, WHY
SHOULD I?" Any notion of self-sacrifice in the name of duty will have
to be compleatly abandoned. While Gov. Clinton may be a fine
administrator, a great speaker, and a good politician, he lacks the
moral authority to be Commander in Chief. He can still be patriotic,
he can still love his country, he can still serve in politics; but the
moral authority to ask someone to die is purchased with actions, not
with talk.
	Before you fire up your flame throwers, take some time and ask
yourself how you would really feel if Gov. Clinton told you that your
child (or you) had to go and die for this county? 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17183 talk.politics.misc:52211