HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  5 Nov 92 14:44:11 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:

>>PS: ClintonWatch now begins:
>>
>>1. US News & World Reports notes in "Washington Whispers" that the Hillarator
>>will be an integral part of the nomination & appointment process. So much for
>>the campaign's "Donna Reed" transmorgification.

>Yep, better watch her _closely_; we can't let any goldanged independent
>females run wild as the First Lady, now can we, Marty?

"What do you mean you made a cabinet appointment without asking me???" -
courtesy R.Limbaugh

>>2. USNWR suggests that the Clintonistas and Congress will quickly work to
>>lift the gag rule on abortion counseling and lift the ban on fetal-tissue
>>research. 

>It's already lifted.  It was declared illegal yesterday by a Federal
>court.  _Darn_ the commie feminazies getting real medical advice!  Da
>noive!

Oh, they can get abortion info, just don't spend *my* money for it...

>>They also note that the new White House will need to accomodate
>>Congressional liberals; e.g. John Dingel (D-MI), who states that Clinton's
>>federally run health care plan needs to "go further".

>A health care plan modelled after the Netherlands' would work fine here.

Shall we get in line now to get our boils lanced in '95?

>-- 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15865 alt.politics.democrats.d:309 alt.politics.elections:22680 ba.politics:6767 co.politics:1596 ne.politics:2713 nj.politics:534 or.politics:431 ny.politics:61 talk.politics.misc:58257
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:05:07 GMT
	<1992Nov4.175312.26874@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<1992Nov4.203546.7171@colorado.edu>
	<1992Nov5.031802.13498@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University

What you fail to realize is that $100 billion also ensures the
domestic tranquility which is of great benefit to the rich.
It keeps thieves in Harlem and off of Park Avenue.  It is a sop.
There are/were 28 millioonaires in the Senate, one as president,
etc., the government is not a socialist institution.  The
spending on the poor is in the interests of the rich.

						--Jeff Turner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:55:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.093340.7001@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>  Okay.  You are all mixed up.  When you earn your money, you are taxed
>  on it.  As far as I can tell, you will NEVER EVER EVER again pay tax
>  on those same dollars...

>  If you invest your money in ANYTHING capital-related (stock, real
>  property, bonds, savings accounts, R&D, etc), and ultimately take
>  your money out with a profit, you only pay tax on the CAPITAL GAIN
>  (i.e., the profit made above and beyond the initial investment)
>  Hey, folks, that's why they call it the CAPITAL GAINS tax :-)

>  You do not, no matter what you think, pay tax again on the money
>  you earned....

Sorry, but this isn't the case: After you pay the capitol gains tax,
the money you made is considered income, and must be reported on your 1040
and you must pay income tax on it. Take a look at the form: Line 13:
"Income: Capitol gains or (loss) (attach Schedule D)" [where you
must itemize your capitol gains] and Line 14: "Income: Capitol gain
distributions not reported on line 13". These are added in
to get your taxable income. At are there any related deductions.
On capitol gains, you are required to pay _both_ capitol gains _and_
income tax.

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16452 alt.politics.democrats.d:380 alt.politics.elections:23145 ba.politics:6898 co.politics:1687 ne.politics:2811 nj.politics:600 or.politics:505 ny.politics:125 talk.politics.misc:58967
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:19:38 GMT
	<1992Nov4.060711.12219@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Nov6.203111.24700@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <trl1=hm@rpi.edu>
Organization: The World


>The majority of people who are rich got that way through hard work and plain 
>old smarts.  I think everybody aspires to be rich.  The notion of becoming
>wealthy is what separates capitalism from socialism.  To take your argument
>one step further, why not just decree that no one can make more than a
>million dollars.  Who the hell could possibly need more than a million dollars?

Reductio ad absurdum, straw-man argument.

Raising taxes on those who can afford it a few points is hardly
analogous to the doom and gloom you describe, and a very unlikely
outcome.

The country is in trouble, thanks to the Reagan/Bush "put it on the
credit card" excesses. The wealthy industrialists benefitted most from
their policies, if for no other reason than it made and kept them
wealthy (that's self-evident), it's not absurd to now ask them to help
solve the resultant problems before they're dragged down by the
effects of the deficit even more than the average person (who has the
most to lose in an economic collapse?)

No one is suggesting anything like you describe, I don't remember any
such shrill protests from the defense contractors when Reagan tripled
defense procurements. How come now they have a "right" to be left
alone? They certainly didn't want to be left alone when they were
sucking down those billions of dollars we were putting on the cuff.

Anyhow, I still think tax increases will be less important than just
getting the economy moving again. Taxes are paid on profits, increase
profits and we will increase corporate tax revenues without any
changes in the rules (other than perhaps paying attention to the
loopholes and cheats more carefully.)


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16242 alt.politics.democrats.d:352 alt.politics.elections:22997 talk.politics.misc:58663
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:05:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov5.160329.10551@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:

>have in baby boy Clinton is that he will somehow find a way to collect 
>some extra tax money from me!  I don't know how yet, but I am *SURE* it will
>happen!

If you happen to buy anything over the next four years, you will be helping
to pay for the taxes Clinton wants to impose on businesses.  Aren't you proud
to be doing your civic duty.

-- 
Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
Sometimes they don't even reflect the views of the author.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: elwin@victoria.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wonderful 'NEW' Plan
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:30:51 GMT

In article <1dll76INN4vj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
|> 
|> At last a post with a Subject line that doesn't start with   Re:
|> 
|>   USA Today has an aricle in todays paper about how the Democrats in
|> congress want to set about passing a capital gains tax cut to go
|> along with Bill Clinton's 'new' economic plan. 
|>   Wow this capital gains tax cut sure won the hearts and minds of the
|> Democrats in a hurry.

   Wally: I have a new slogan for your .sig: "Ignorance is Bliss!"
Clinton and the democrats have all along been pitching a capital
gains tax cut; just not as broad as Bush's. For example, the Dem's
plan would not cut it on short term gains (<6mo.?) and maybe not
on Ming vases and similar "non-productive" investments. Bush
wanted to cut *all* capital gains. The Dem's plan is designed to
steer capital into plant, equipment, jobs, etc.  Bush's plan had no
steering. 

|>   Democrats(to the people of The U.S.A.): "Well people it's like this
|> George Bush was right all along... We do need a cut in the capital gains
|> tax... Oh yes we know we called it a stupid idea for years and yes we did
|> know all along we were lying but hey who cares if we sacrafice the nations
|> economy for our own political motives? Remember character is not an issue
|> here."

   Do you fell pretty sheepish now, after writing all this slander nad
finding out it's false?

|>   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         |"God does not play dice

				- Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17089 alt.politics.democrats.d:533 alt.politics.elections:23718 ba.politics:7102 co.politics:1966 nj.politics:716 or.politics:627 ny.politics:237 talk.politics.misc:60015
From: europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:21:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Please, please... get me out of this ""flame war""! I never said any of
the stuff below!  It was Ron Goers responding to Frank Crary.
Please let me be the radical of my own choosing....      :-)
(seems like that auto ">" adder likes to confuse people)

Ron Capik  aka: europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik)


From article <hines.721690637@cgl.ucsf.edu>, by hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines):
> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
> 
>>I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
>>of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
>>Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
>>tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
>>any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
>>gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...  How
> 
> Yeah, other people should be willing to accept less.  What a sleazy thing
> ...and a bunch of other stuff...
> "It just doesn't matter."  B.Murry
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: What Conservatives fear most
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  5 Nov 92 14:56:06 GMT

dgr@RODIN (Daniel Robinson) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.144942.5406@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>+In article <1992Nov3.161147.5370@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
>+>    If Clinton succeeds, it will put the last nails in the coffin of Reagan-
>+> omics. 
>+
>+	Mmmm, no.  Reaganomics is a documented success.

>Hmmm, no.  Reaganomics is a documented failure.  The increase in the
>Federal deficit was underwritten by foreign banks; living the illusion
>of doing well while foreign banks picked up the tab.  What percentage
>of the Federal debt is held by Japanese banking institutions (to
>include insurance companies?)  Also, the idea that cutting the
>capital gains tax rate would increase investment in American business
>hasn't worked: capital always flows to the place of highest return;
>a lot of that capital went overseas.

Go read "The Real Reagan Record", in National Review (8/31/92)


Martin Sulkanen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16591 alt.politics.democrats.d:402 alt.politics.elections:23263 ba.politics:6925 co.politics:1720 ne.politics:2835 nj.politics:619 or.politics:528 ny.politics:142 talk.politics.misc:59189
From: klf@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (karen.l.fenton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:37:48 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: nj
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov6.203939.25141@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> 
> $ Guess we know how you feel about successful individuals, i.e. they don't
> $ deserve the fruits of their success...tax'em to the hilt.
> $ [...]
> 
> I've heard this argument many times but never seen any evidence of it.
> When people's tax rates go up as a result of increased income, people
> don't decide that it's not worth the trouble and then seek lower-paying
> jobs.  When I see people not bothering because the tax rates are too
> high, then I'll believe this argument.
> -- 

Actually, this is (and, for many years has been) a concern for 
women returning to the workplace. 

I know a lot of women who balance the *actual disposable* income they
get against the expense+tax side of the ledger. I'd be really interested in
a valid study of this: I think "taxing the rich", as we're
about to experience it, will have a disproportionate impact
on dual career families. 

I can speak from experience of several women I know who decided it
just wasn't worth it when their wages were taxed on a higher
bracket due to a spouse's income. They went back to the lowest paying job
of all.

Karen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16752 alt.politics.democrats.d:430 alt.politics.elections:23397 ba.politics:6974 co.politics:1770 ne.politics:2865 nj.politics:646 or.politics:557 ny.politics:169 talk.politics.misc:59441
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:18:13 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>>To who?  You?  Picture this: Take a single earner family with three pre-school
>>children (doesn't pay for wife to work), making around 30K/yr.  Keeping a 
>>home, and food on the table is a balancing act in this scenario.  Even when
>>you get rid of such un-necessary bills such as a second car, cable TV, etc.  
>>*ANY* increase in taxes (above the normal cost of living wage increase) topples
>>the whole apple cart.  What we have to do is get control of GOV'T SPENDING !!!
>>Getting control of Joe Public's wallet has never, and will never, solve the
>>tax problems which we are facing.
>
>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>	income have 3 kids????

I have many friends in this situation.  Why shouldn't they be able to live off
of 30K?  In fact, I know people with larger families who make even less than
that. The point I was trying to make is that a tax increase is not helping
anybody except the ones who pocket that money.
>
>	People have to be held responsible for their actions - until they
>	are held accountable for generating mouths to feed, I can't
>	see subsidizing it!

Who asked for subsides?  I'd rather see some more tax money back in the hands of
REAL people who have to balance their own check books.  

Let's be real here, how much money does it *really* take to run a country? 
20% or 30% of everyone's income???  Hell NO!  What ever happened to "public service".  When the people "serving" make 3 times what the public does, then
it's time to revise the system!!!  And I'll tell you up front, another tax
increase ain't the way to do it!

>
>	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.
>
I agree!  Let's get control!!! ... However, the FACT IS, we are no
longer in control!  Used to be a time where it was possible for a family such
as that to be able to survive EASILY on a modest income. My father's income 
was PLENTY for my family to live off of comfortably.  How about your parents?

-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:40:33 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <1992Nov12.002726.24327@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:

>In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to 
>take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take 
>care of him.) I do think the government should protect 
>people from criminal invasions of their rights, ...

I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...  How
about buying $300 toilet seats?  Anyone wish to vote yes here?  The list goes
on, and on, ...  I can see this method not only reducing our taxes, but getting
rid of the Nation's debt also.  

How about this idea?  ... we elect responsible people to represent us, send them
to Washington, and they can vote for us ...  NOT!  That will NEVER work!!!

-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16659 alt.politics.bush:13645
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:35:02 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <14592.2afb267d@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
> OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.
> 
> For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
> down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
> I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
> assholes.
> 
> If you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WE DON'T NEED YOU NOW, OK????

Ah, the eloquence!  The blinding wisdom!  Another member of the "party of 
inclusion" heard from!  Guess you're in line for a Cabinet post, right?  
Secretary of Tolerance, maybe?

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cfirth@athena.mit.edu (Chris Firth)
Subject: Re: US Election: The Real Historical Parallel
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:39:25 GMT


I think the analogy is  a fair one. In fact I had thought about the same
idea. By the way, the governmrnt that replaced Churchill - Labour- is now
reckoned to be the best post-war government UK has had.

Chris ( a Brit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle's Finest Hour
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:28:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.185409.14359@netcom.com> saf@netcom.com (Steve A. Feinstein) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.135648.27829@news.media.mit.edu> elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
>>
>>   That was Dan Quayle's finest hour last night. I was very
>>impressed. He was moving, eloquent, had the hand gestures under
>>control, and he stopped the booing in a commanding, graceful,
>>gracious manner. Truly a great concession speech. I think he's
>>found his role in politics. May he give many more such fine
>>concession speeches in the years to come!
>
>Yes but I can't understand why the crowd kept yelling out his I.Q.?  :-)
>-- 
> Steve A. Feinstein | saf@netcom.com | When a man points a finger at someone
>
there is much talk of him running for governor in 96 here in indiana.  our 
current gov., bayh, is now on his 2nd and last term.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Re: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:26:47 GMT

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>The point is this: there may be tax-and-spend Democrats, but
>Jummy Carter wasn't one of them. And there may be fiscally
>responsible Republicans, but Ronald Reagan wasn't one. The 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a more complicated issue than you make it out to be.  I refer you to 
Ross Perot's book, _United We Stand_.  In this book, Mr. Perot's conclusion
is that Reagan had a VERY GOOD reason for running such high deficits:  he was
trying to bankrupt the FORMER Soviet Union.  

 
>larger, less partisan point may be that to insure fiscal 
>responsibility make sure Congress and the White House belong
>to the same party -- then vote out rascals if they futz up.
>(I will be VERY shocked if Clinton's budgets aren't enormously
>more austere than Bush's ever dreamed of being, simply because
>there will be no one to shuck the blame off on.)

I sincerely hope that Bill Clinton will do his damndest to lower the deficit.
Again, i refer you to the book that has many fiscally sound ideas.  


*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* DISCLAIMER:  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of CCSO or the    *
*              University of Illinois.					      *
*******************************************************************************


>-- 
>Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> My bad.     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16239 talk.politics.misc:58656