HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 14:28:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.031705.3690@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.190659.27803@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug21095144@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>>
>>>	Tell me how to stop Congress from spending $1.5 for every
>>>	$1.0 in revenue.
>>>
>> 
>> The President submitting a balanced budget?
>
>	How naive.
>
>	And congress will just roll over and play dead while you slash their
>reelection-errr pork barrel-- err local investment projects?

This is true, but how many times did Congress pass a budget with
a smaller deficit than the one submitted by Reagan/Bush?

Clearly, the Republican Administrations are complicit in this, no
matter how much finger pointing they do.



--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: BUSH: Second Term Economic Agenda 
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:24:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug21.144407.10499@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>          Text of President Bush's Acceptance Speech
...
>
>    So, beginning tonight, I will enforce the spending freeze on my
>own.  If Congress sends me a bill spending more than I asked for in my
>budget--I will veto it fast--faster than copies of Millie's book sold.
...

>...  I have a brand new idea.
>
>    Taxpayers should be given the right to check a box on their tax
>returns, so that up to 10 % of their payments can go for 1 purpose
>alone:  To reduce the national debt.
>
>    But we also need to make sure that Congress doesn't just turn
>around and borrow more money, to spend more money.  So I will require
>that, for every tax dollar set aside to cut the debt, the ceilings on
>spending will be cut by an equal amount.  That way, we'll cut both
>debt and spending, and take a whack out of the budget deficit.

...
>    When the new Congress convenes, I will propose to further reduce
>taxes across the board--provided we pay for these cuts with specific
>spending reductions that I consider appropriate, so that we do not
>increase the deficit.  I will also continue to fight to increase the
>personal exemption and to create jobs by winning a cut in capital
>gains taxes.
>
...
>    I will extend for 1 year the freeze on paperwork and unnecessary
>federal regulation that I imposed last winter. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think Bush's economic agenda for the 90's can be summarized
    in a single statement:

        sell more copies of Millie's book








-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:08:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.174523.22812@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I understand that Pat Buchanan, speaking to the Republican
>Convention, declared that "we" should "take our culture 
>back." I assume that by "we" he means people like himself, 
>and by "take" he means the use of force, since present 
>American culture has come about as a result of voluntary 
>actions and relationships.

Let's go with that assumption.

>This proposal is clearly akin to 
>the fascist, Communist, and Nazi programs of subordinating
>culture to political -- governmental -- control, and of
>eliminating free expression.

"clearly" only if we go with the assumption, but we are so ...

Fascists and communists are not the only folk who use force to impose
culture.  Many groups in America currently advocate force to impose
their culture on others.  Some of them are "good liberals".  Since
Fitch only complains when certain cultures are imposed by force, we
know that Fitch isn't really objecting to using force to impose
culture, but the use of force to impose cultures that he doesn't like.

There's nothing wrong with being a partisan whiner, but it is
deceptive to hide it behind "general" concerns.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40304 ca.politics:6896 ba.politics:4612
From: jwh3@PO.CWRU.EDU (Junwei W. Hou)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Correction: Bill Analysis: 48,000 should be 480,000
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:35:17 GMT
Reply-To: "Junwei W. Hou" <jwh3@po.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu, ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu

Correction:  In my analysis, the no. of worldwide level of immigrant
visa for family-sponsored immigrants is 480,000, not 48,000.

			Junwei
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Maoist view of cooperative world trade--a response
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:05:29 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Aug13.225618.29488@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> thuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tze-yau Huang) writes:
me>Why exactly are Taiwan and S. Korea special cases in development?  The
me>"Taiwan model" is being followed with roughly the same results in
me>Latin America and Mainland China.  
>
>Hello Joe, how does your summer go?

O.K.  I now know a little more about supernova than I did when the
summer started.

>Both Taiwan and Korea were partially
>industrialized as parts of Imperial Japan's war machine 

But how is that relevant to the "Taiwan model" of development?  

>Latin American are special too in the way that they failed
>to industrialize at the same time with her North American sisters.

My guess is that Latin America had huge landed elites, and it was
against their interests to promote industrial development.  So they
didn't.

Regardless, I don't see how these special circumstances rule out the
use of the Taiwan model for other places.

>Can China continuously grow on mostly export profits?  

The whole point of export driven industries can attract enough capital
to spark production for internal use.

>Who is going to pay for those profits to raise GNP per capita 
>tenfolds for the Chinese

The money made from exports will used to build new factories which can
produce products for internal consumption.  As these new factories are
built, it will be possible to increase the money supply so that
Chinese can buy the output from the factories.  Profits from those
factories can be used to build even more factories. etc. etc.

It's in the nature of capitalism, that wealth, properly invested, can
be used to produce more wealth.  The point of exports is to get the
initial amount of wealth.

>I even have doubt on
>wether we are going to destroy biosphere before all Chinese can live as
>an average Taiwanese now.  

I don't see why should be the case.  Resources can always be recycled
if they become scare enough.  Energy can't be recycled, but there are
a lot of different sources of energy, and you can use technology to
reduce energy demand.

As long as you limit population growth, then I don't see much of a
problem.

>US life style for all human beings might
>simply be impossible for the limitation of our Earth. 

Why?  The United States consumes a lot of resources, but a lot of that
is "wasted."  Both Europe and Japan consume about half the resources
per dollar of GNP than the United States does.

As long as you keep population from exploding without bound, I think
you can insure a U.S. standard of living for everyone in the world.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "Dennis Xu (203)4327873 (o),              (203)2309685 (h)" <DENNIS@VENUS.YCC.YALE.EDU>
Subject:      A special panal discussion on Mainland-Taiwan Relationship
Reply-To: "Dennis Xu (203)4327873 (o),              (203)2309685 (h)" <DENNIS@VENUS.YCC.YALE.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:45:00 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

		Yale Mainland-Taiwan Society

			Presents

A Special Panal Discussion Session on Mainland-Taiwan Relationship



    Invited Speakers:

	Mr. Shen Chun-Shan

		Former Dean of School of Science and Professor
			of Physics at Tsinghua University, Taiwan.
		Chairman of the Board of the Directors of Ying Chang-Chi
			Foundation
		Research Advisor of China Reunification Commission

	Mr. Zhang KaiYuan

		 President Emeritus and Professor of
			History at Central China Normal University

	Mr. John Fei
		 Fellow of National Academy at Taiwan,
			 Professor of Economics at Yale University

   Time  	2:00 pm  Sunday Aug 23, 1992 in

   Place	Room A51 Waston Center
		Yale School of Organization Management.
		52,Hillhouse Ave.
		New Haven, CT

  	A reception will follow immediately in Steinbach Lounge, also at 52
Hillhouse Ave.

	For more information, please send e-mail to ymts@venus.ycc.yale.edu,
or call 203-785-1774, 203-230-9685.
From: laiichung@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (L. D. ROPER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Maoist view of cooperative world trade--a response
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:29:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.china
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <77527@ut-emx.uucp>, joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes... 
>Why exactly are Taiwan and S. Korea special cases in development?  The
>"Taiwan model" is being followed with roughly the same results in
>Latin America and Mainland China.  

= I don't understand your meaning of " the same result " . Do you mean L-America
  and China follow the same type of development happened in Taiwan ?
  Well ,about China , the development didn't happen very long ago ( at most 10
  years ) and the situtation is still changing . I can't be pretty sure what 
  will be . Will this lead to " Dependence development "
 happened in 3rd world ?
  Or , this will lead to the breaking up of China ? 
  The same case in 3rd world , what happened in the L-America countries is they
  didn't get rich from the " center-margin dependence economy " but Taiwan did .
  It seems that they follow the same economy role played by Taiwan in 60' now .
  But the economy is not like 60' ,it's in recession , besides the ecology cost
  neglected by Taiwan in 60-80' can't be the advantage ( more or less ) of the
   3rd world . Just look at the " Earth Summit " held in Rijo .
  Well at least from now , I can't see they are follow the same way as Taiwan 
  did in 60'

                                                        I Chung Lai

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Maoist view of cooperative world trade--a response
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:31:12 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <13AUG199211294110@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> laiichung@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (L. D. ROPER) writes:

> I don't understand your meaning of " the same result ". 
> Do you mean L-America
> and China follow the same type of development happened in Taiwan ?

Yes.

> Well ,about China, the development didn't happen very long ago ( at most 10
> years ) and the situation is still changing. 

I think that the Mainland passed the "point of no return" around 1985.
"Economic reform" may speed up or slow down on the Mainland, but it's
impossible that it will go backwards.  The conservatives tried very
hard to reinstitute more central control over the economy after
TianAnMen, and failed completely because the society had changed too
much.

> I can't be pretty sure what will be.

Most likely, a bigger, messier version of Taiwan.
  
> The same case in 3rd world, what happened in the L-America countries is they
> didn't get rich from the "center-margin dependence economy" but Taiwan did.

The problem with much of the Third World is that they followed "import
substitution" strategies which Taiwan gave up in 1962.  Import
substitution relies on making the currency expensive (to allow for
easier importation of manufacturing goods) and low interest rates (to
allow for easier borrowing to build factories).  The problem with the
IS strategy is that because you are encouraging imports and borrowing,
you are discouraging exports and saving.  

The result of this is that you end to with extremely inefficient old
factories and no capital to build new ones.

In the past ten years or so, Latin America (particularly Mexico which
shares a border with the United States) has moved away from import
substitution to export directed economies.

> It seems that they follow the same economy role played by Taiwan in 60' now .
> But the economy is not like 60', it's in recession.

Recessions come and go.  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: CNEWS@conan.ie.orst.edu
Subject:      Re: IFCSS HQ's reply about my previous message
Reply-To: CNEWS@conan.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:15:16 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu, ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu

> Dear Mr. Li,
>      ......
>
>      About the IFCSS Protection Account, the money in that
> account is open to CCSA, that has been and will continue to
> be the position of the HQ. So far, CCSA has not requested
> help financially.
>
>      About the leadership, please be informed that the lobby is
> under the leadership of Geng Xiao, President of IFCSS. All other
> people and groups are in charge of certain areas, such as visiting
> Congress, coordinating nation-wide campaign, etc.
>
>      About the "hungry troops", the HQ will do its best to feed
> the troops. But at this time, we need proof to believe that the
> troops are "hundry."
>     ......
> ZQS
>
   In my understanding, the money in different accounts with specific
   purposes can not be transfered from one to another from a legal point
   of view.  I think, that is why the CCSA did not request any money from
   the IFCSS Protection Account, and the money in the IFCSS Protection
   Account can not be used for lobbying activities unless a written
   confirmation can be gotten from the authorities.

   According to the Report of the council emergency meeting, the
   CCSA/Immigration Fund Account is used for the Lobbying activities at the
   Capital Hill, while the IFCSS Protection Account is used for coordinating
   nation-wide campaign.

   Please correct me if I am wrong.

   BTW, I was told that the lobbying team(s) in D.C. are using their own
   credit cards to pay for the lobbying activities.  God bless them!
   As our support, we are sending another $800 to the IFCSS/CCSA.



  __________________________________________________________________
 | ZK Xu                   | "A-whop-bop-a-lu-bop, a whop-bam-boom!"|
 | Oregon State University |                                        |
 |_________________________|________________________________________|>
=======================
ZK Xu
Oregon State University
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: JIANG <JIANG@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Donations from University of Florida
Reply-To: JIANG <JIANG@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:06:00 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT <CHINA-NT@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>

       Donations to IFCSS/CCSA from UNIV. OF FLORIDA

As part of the lobbying effort, the lobbying group here in the University of
Florida has collected around $2000 donations from individuals in the University
of Florida.  Of that amount, we have sent $1000 to IFCSS/CCSA account showing
our support. The biggest individual donation is $100 and the least is $10.
Besides, we have quite a few individuals who sent their donations directly to
IFCSS or IFCSS/CCSA before we started collecting donations.

We reserved the rest of the donation for further action on the upcoming
lobby activities.  If we don't need the money for local activities, we will
send the rest of the donation to either IFCSS or IFCSS/CCSA protection lobby
account.  We thank all the donators for their support.

We also would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to
IFCSS and IFCSS/CCSA, especially Dr. Zhao, Haiqing for their effort in lobbying
S1216.

Although we have seen a lot of mails calling for nation-wide coordination, we
have not seen a coordination network or the effort of doing so.  Before the
congress resume the sessions, can we take this time to organize the coordination
network so we are fully prepared for the final push of the bill S1216?

S1216 lobby group
at University of Florida
August 19, 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Yong Zhang <zhang@CGL.UCSF.EDU>
Subject:      SIGN-OFF
Reply-To: Yong Zhang <zhang@CGL.UCSF.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:52:30 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

SIGN-OFF CHINA-NT
YONG ZHANG
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: B118789@VAX.CSC.CUHK.HK
Subject:      E-Mail to PRC
Reply-To: B118789@VAX.CSC.CUHK.HK
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:41:00 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

21 August 1992

Several of my colleagues and I here at The Chinese University of Hong
Kong are interested in e-mail communication with scholars on the
Mainland.  None of us has ever sent or received e-mail from the
Mainland, but we understand that Internet is linked to CNPAC,
the China National Public Data Network serving several Beijing
universities and research institutes.

My question is this: Can anyone supply us with e-mail addresses
in the PRC?  Our research interests include not only the
communications infrastructure itself, but also the social and
political implications of e-mail in China.

Thank you for your assistance in this regard.

Dr. Bryce T. McIntyre, Ph.D.
Department of Journalism and Communication
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Maoist view of cooperative world trade--a response
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:22:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

/* acf3:talk.politics.china / thuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tze-yau Huang) /  6:56 pm  Aug 13, 1992 */
In article <77527@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
>Again, followups to this should go to talk.politics.whatever.
>
>Why exactly are Taiwan and S. Korea special cases in development?  The
>"Taiwan model" is being followed with roughly the same results in
>Latin America and Mainland China.  

Hello Joe, how does your summer go?

What is special is the bless from the US under the circumstances of Cold
War.  Unfortunately/Fortunately, Cold War is over now and both USSR and
USA lost on their economic front.  Both Taiwan and Korea were partially
industrialized as parts of Imperial Japan's war machine while Latin
American was satisfied with their agriculture and natural resources
output.  Most colonies in Asia and Africa were truely messed up by
Europeans.  Latin American are special too in the way that they failed
to industrialize at the same time with her North American sisters.
Maybe because they did not practice slavery or colonialism, or something
else split the Western Hemisphere into half.

Can China continuously grow on mostly export profits?  Who is going to
pay for those profits to raise GNP per capita tenfolds for the Chinese
population sixty times that many of Taiwanese?  I even have doubt on
wether we are going to destroy biosphere before all Chinese can live as
an average Taiwanese now.  US life style for all human beings might
simply be impossible for the limitation of our Earth.  It is time to
change old development theories and that will just make Taiwan and S.
Korea special cases in a special period of human history.

TY Huang
/* ---------- */
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: jwh3@po.CWRU.Edu (Junwei W. Hou)
Subject: Some explanations about S. 1216
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:17:24 GMT


Dear Netters:

	I really hate to see that some fellows have not bottom-up-ed
their beer cans by now.
	According the bill, as long as you are a PRC national arriving before
April 11, 1990, and have since then continuously resided in the U.S., you are eeligible for the benefit provided by the bill.  For those left the U.S. during
the stated period, if such absence can be described as "brief, causual and
innocent", they are still qualified for the protection.  For those visited
China and stayed in China less than 90 days during the stated period, they
are also qalified for the protection.  It is irrelevant what visa you are
holding, or whether you are employed or in school, as to the entitlement
of the benefit provied by the bill.  Of course, you may not be a drug dealer,
or a person engaging in unlawful activities in the U.S..
	I also received some netters' question regarding the significance of
a person's economic status on the eligibility.  It is absolutely, positively that a poorest PRC national, if he meet the conditions mentioned above, has the
same right as the richest PRC nationals with respect to the eligibility to the
protection provided by the bill.  It is unconstitutional that such a line is
drawn by economic status of a person in this case where the underlying 
principle is human rights concern.
	Furthermore, according to the bill, the Attorney General has the 
discretion not to apply the provisions in INA which exclude certain criminals
and communist party members from adjustment to permanent residence status.  
The guiding principles of this discrection is the consideration of family
unity, humantarian purposes or otherwise in public interest.


				Junwei Hou
From: H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Shenzhen
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908648@ccw205

Any idea what happened in Shenzhen in mainland 
China? Would informed person post something about
it in this news group.

Thanks,
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Zixiang Tang <tang@IMAFS.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:      Donation to IFCSS/CCSA from Minnesota
Reply-To: Zixiang Tang <tang@IMAFS.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:25:01 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

                    Donation to IFCSS/CCSA from Minnesota

                          Minnesota Lobby Group

                            August 11, 1992

        We are glad to know that the House of Representatives passed the
Chinese Student Protection Bill (S1216) on Monday, August 10.  It is a
great victory for the Chinese students who seek freedom and democracy.
        We appreciate very much the lobby efforts led by Dr. Haiqing Zhao
and his team.  His outstanding leadership in the lobby activities has
contributed a great deal to the successful passage of the bill.  As CCSA
has not raised enough fund to cover its expenses this year, the Minnesota
lobby group has decided to donate $1000 to CCSA to support its lobby
efforts.  We hope our donation will help CCSA continue to lobby the
protection bill so that it can be signed into law as soon as possible.
We also hope that our fellow Chinese students in other states will make
similar moves to support the lobby campaign which is vital to our security
and well-beings.
        We are considering further donations to the lobby efforts at
the national level.

                                     Jinhua Guan
                                     Zixiang Tang
                              at University of Minnesota
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china