HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:52:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.024432.8138@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> ... Exactly which federal programs benifit the rich more than the poor?

* Defense spending: big profits go to defense contractors and their
  stockholders, plus the rich have more to protect.

* Law enforcement: again, the rich have more to protect.

* Farm subsidies: mostly go to big farm corporations.

* Water subsidies: billions of gallons of federally subsidized water go
  to big corporate farms in southern California.

* Export subsidies: help big businesses sell their products abroad.

* Transportation: federal money spent on airports and interstate high-
  ways benefit business and the rich more than the poor.  Money spent
  on dams and locks benefit property owners and pleasure boaters.  How
  many poor people have you seen flying or boating?  Many poor people
  never venture more than 50 miles from home.  They simply can't afford
  to travel.

* Education: government (especially at the local level) seems to spend
  more on schools in rich neighborhoods, benefiting rich children.

* Housing: Thanks to Sec. Sam Pierce, HUD money goes to big real estate
  developers to build housing where it isn't even needed.

* Savings & Loan bailout: depositors with more than $100,000 at risk
  are being covered by the FSLIC/RTC.  Many of these investors shopped
  for the highest rate, ignoring the rating of the institution.  Their
  greed should not be rewarded.

* SEC: protects stockholders.  Most poor people don't own stock.

* Food Stamps: the government (at least in my home state) used to give
  away food commodities.  The poor got more food for each federal dollar
  because packaging costs were low, there were no advertising costs, no
  profit, and no middle man.  Corruption was also minimal.  Its hard to
  buy drugs with generic peanut butter, but food stamps are almost as
  good as cash if you know the right people.  The USDA replaced the
  commodity program with food stamps so big food producers and grocery
  stores could make more money.

I am not against most of the programs listed above.  I'm sure society
benefits from having airports, highways, dams, sound financial insti-
tutions, regulated securities, healthy exports, and a strong defense.
However, I think wealthy people should realize that they have benefitted
the most from this great country and should be willing to pay their fair
share.

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: NO WAY!!!!!!
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:53:18 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>Hello there!  He won't get rid of all the armed forces, and military
>jobs is not the most economically productive jobs in the world.

Ah, the essence of Clintonomics: federally-funded chicken plucking!

-----------------------------
Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17104 co.politics:1985 nj.politics:718 ny.politics:239 talk.politics.misc:60046
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
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: 7 Nov 92 03:03:09 GMT
	<1992Nov4.060711.12219@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Nov6.203111.24700@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<1992Nov6.210459.2104@EE.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Nov6.210459.2104@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:

   To answer your question, I simply say that we who
   are NOT wealthy defend the rich because we see an injustice being
   done...

   Because they can afford to is no justification in my book. Just
   because someone can "afford" to give up something he has worked
   for and earned does not give the envious or resentful the right
   to take it away from him. Learn that.

We rich folk appreciate your concern, but many of us feel that
we will get good value for the additional taxes we will pay.
When you're rich you don't sweat over every dollar.   Maybe
that is why we get so much support from the non-rich - they
think a five percent tax rise will make a difference to us.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17003 alt.politics.democrats.d:501 alt.politics.elections:23639 ba.politics:7066 co.politics:1886 ne.politics:2941 nj.politics:693 or.politics:605 ny.politics:215 talk.politics.misc:59871
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 19:32:44 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <zTC=h!=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.081725.12946@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov11.005956.23879@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Nov10.210356.11971@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
|> 
>
>No, what is really scary is self-rightgeous individuals who wish
>to force their notion of compassion on other people.  I will
>certainly agree that generosity and compassion is an important
>part of being a Christian.  However, whether a person is being
>generous enough to qualify as a 'true' Chrisian is something
>to be determined between that person and God, it is not to
>be determined by you or some 'democratic' majority.  

Generosity, nor any other GOOD WORK will ever make anybody a Christian.
Christianity is not about good works, but rather about a relationship.
Please don't lump all do-gooders into the category of Christian.  Most 
people who do good to others, have something in it for themselves anyway.
Christians do good to others because they are commanded to, and they do
it freely, without expectation of any acknowledgement or repayment (on
this earth, that is).

>Imposing your notion of generosity on other people is no different than
>imposing your moral beliefs on other people.  I find both concepts to be 
>anti-Christian.

Christian means to be Christ-like.  Did Christ impose his morals on others?
No!  However, he did voice his beliefs, giving the people the CHOICE to 
accept them or not.  I find no difference here.  No one is forcing you to
accept his or her view.  You are free to choose.  I find nothing anti-Christian
about what was written previously, nor do I see it as being imposed on anyone.
Lighten up!  This is a discussion group.  If we aren't allowed to discuss here,
it would be just a    group.

ron
-- 
| 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:17057 soc.culture.asian.american:10063
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton....1st Women President ?
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:32:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Nov12.193815.9830@clipper.ingr.com>, jimmy@clipper.ingr.com (Jimmy Blair) writes:
> In article <Bx93p1.6It@wilber.rich.nt.com>, zing@wilber.rich.nt.com (Leon Z. Lee) writes:
>> 
>> Therefore....the question that I would like to submit to my colleagues on this
>> newsgroup is that will Hillary Clinton be such a power broker within the
>> confines of the White House (she does possess a Law degree...and she 
>> certainly is not the kind of lady contend only baking cookies at home).
> 
> 	We've already had one -- Nancy Reagan.  She practically had
> 	the power to hire and fire the closest aides to Ronald Reagan.
> 	This was possible because Mr. Reagan was a very passive man
> 	while his wife was both dominant and protective.  Clinton, on
> 	the other hand, is very active.  He talks so much, in fact,
> 	that I don't know how Hillary can get a word in edgewise.
> 	Clinton doesn't strike me as needing a food-taster in the White House.
> 	Hillary will have some input in education and "women's issues",
> 	but her ultimate power will be much more limited than Nancy Reagan's.


Don't forget Roselin Carter, who sat in on cabinet meetings!!

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17077 alt.politics.democrats.d:526 alt.politics.elections:23709 ba.politics:7095 co.politics:1957 ne.politics:2963 nj.politics:712 or.politics:623 ny.politics:233 talk.politics.misc:60002
From: hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines)
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: 13 Nov 92 21:37:17 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

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
to suggest that people who you want to call by the name "public servant"
should work for less.  It doesn't seem that you have choosen this path.
And criminal invasion of your rights???  Choose a country with a constitution
that supports this idea of rights.  You went on to suggest that we should
elect leaders who will tax us as we want to be taxed.  Guess what?  "We"
have and if you don't like it, then leave.
-Wade
"It just doesn't matter."  B.Murry
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: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.poliitcs,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:06:21 GMT

As requested by e-mail, I'm directing follow-ups away from or.poliitcs and
ne.politics.

In article <BxLL8z.E65@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) 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, and (I suppose,
>>although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
>>protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.

>This sounds Libertarian, is it?

I think so, but I'm not sure: I'm not a Libertarian, but I agree with 
them on a number of issues (and disagree on others.)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.asian.american
From: zing@wilber.rich.nt.com (Leon Z. Lee)
Subject: Hillary Clinton....1st Women President ?
Organization: Northern Telecom, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:12:36 GMT

I have been discussing election returns with my colleagues and an interesting
question was posed by various Asian-American co-workers.  They are saying that
the US finally elected a women President...namely, Hillary Clinton.

This by no means is an attempt to undermine Pres.-elected Clinton's support,
However, many Asian-American colleagues point out the demeanor and status
of Hillary Clinton and that she will not be a wife that simply gives advise
to the President...but rather, she will actually be drafting many of the
legislations yet to come before the Congress.

My colleagues' rationale are as follows...throughout the course of East Asian
politics...there have been numerous instances in which strong female 
personalities have come to dominate the political power structure.

The most notable female personalities
that comes to mind are Masako-dono of the Hojo Regency - Kamakura Bakufu
during the early-13th century Japan...and Tzi-Chi Tai-Ho (Empress Dowanger) of
the Ching Dynasty of early 20th-century China.  Both female personalities were
very strong in character and ruled from off the scene.

This off-the-scene power scheme is what the Japanese call "Kuromaki"...or 
the Black Curtain of the Puppet Theatre.  This power arrangement is quite
similiar to the position of Vice Premier Deng Shao-Ping (or Done Shopping in
colloquial English :) of the Mainland China in which the official head of the
government may not necessarily be the main political power broker. Another
example of the "kuromaki" can be seen in the resignation of Japan Prime
Minister Kaifu when he lost support from various factions within his own
party.

Therefore....the question that I would like to submit to my colleagues on this
newsgroup is that will Hillary Clinton be such a power broker within the
confines of the White House (she does possess a Law degree...and she 
certainly is not the kind of lady contend only baking cookies at home).
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Leon Z. Lee                        |  Only able to post to USENET.
 Global Meridian-1 Patch Project    |  No connection to INTERNET.
 Meridian Service Systems (MSS-GMP) |  Opinions posted are solely mine.
 Northern Telecom Private Networks  |  Phone: (214) 684-4680   ESN-444


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17079 alt.politics.democrats.d:528 alt.politics.elections:23712 talk.politics.misc:60006
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the military
Keywords: homosexuals
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:13:02 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <matrix.721260216@sol>, matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu (Goodman Byron) writes:
> Well, for those of you that voted for him the first thing on his agenda will
> probably to allow homosexuals in the military.  This country is going to be
> screwed after four years.  Folks I dont think you understand what this is 
> going to be like.  It will be worse the the Carter administration.  
> 
> We homosexuals are permitted to serve with hetrosexuals is the day our
> military loses the rank of world power.

I just figured out what this last sentence was supposed to mean ...
"calling Dr. Freud, calling Dr. Freud!"  It's usually worth going over
things twice to check for mis-spellings.  Apart from that, there's
nothing really worth responding to.

PS:  I thought our _country_ was a world power, not the military.  Or
is there a difference?

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: National Health Insurance
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:59:26 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

What might be the cost of National Health Insurance, an idea that
Clinton seems to be entertaining?  Where I work, approx.  $200/month
is set aside per month per person.  Assuming 250 million population,
the grand total comes to $600 billion/year!  That's half of the
national budget!  

-----------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16660 alt.politics.bush:13647
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Wine Tariff
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:36:36 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <14593.2afb2785@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> I heard on the radio that Bush's daughter just got married to some
> rich person in the California wine business. Is this true?
> 
> Is this related to the recent WINE TARIFF imposed by BUSH on the Europeans?
> 
> I smell a rat...

Oh, brother.  Yep, Bush will trash the European Community and send the 
French into poverty, all because of a rumor you heard.  Hang it up.

------

 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."
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Clinton Revolution
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:08:12 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov4.140305.28033@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
>    I remember when the Reagan Revolution started. Reagan told us
> how easy it would be: he would cut taxes, the ecomomy would grow
> itself, the deficit would close, and all the while, "Happy Days"
> blared in the background. As we all know, the economy did grow,
> but the deficit grew faster and it has caught up with us. The

	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.

	(As the need for an 80s FAQ file is becoming painfully evident, we have
decided to construct one.  Look for the preliminary file soon!)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16181 talk.politics.misc:58585
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cruel Joke?!?
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:36:08 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Bx808s.Do3@intime.intime.COM>, scottm@intime.intime.COM (Scott Michel) writes:
> All I've been hearing on our local community college radio station is the
> post election analysis (boring... How many times does it take someone to
> say that Bush ran a non-campaign?). But NPR's afternoon show has been going
> after Clinton's dark side, notably that he never gives a straight answer,
> as evidenced in the interview with Sam Donaldson and the question about
> Arkansas' right to work law.
> 
> Has this all been a cruel media joke, pumping up Clinton, now only to tell
> everyone what he's really like?!? What a hangover this'll turn out to be
> in four years (not to mention mine today!)
> 
> Happy to say, I was part of the 57% of the popular vote against Clinton.
> And, don't forget, that one gets what one votes for.

	I noticed a consistent trend among the media: a lot of them worked in
the Kennedy campaign in 1960 and/or the 1968 run by Robert Kennedy.  They 
seemed to want to translate that lifetime-experience into this year's 
election.  They keep talking about the similarities (there really aren't any) 
when what they are realling trying to do is regain the magic of "Camelot".

	Well, Camelot II is going to turn out to be a cruel joke.  But don't
look for the media to accept responsibility for misleading voters.

	I wonder how long Koppel's love affair with Clinton will last?

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Remember ...
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:57:32 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Mike Roncadori writes:
>
>Wasn't this the same Al Gore that stood up with his Wife Tipper
>about 10 years ago, and said that rock music has encoded satanic
>messages, when listened to backwards? I think that they wanted
>to ban certain genres of music, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>Our VP-elect and this guy are the same person, correct?
>
Tipper didn't want the music banned but labelled. Movies get a (more
and more meaningless) ranking...parents, she felt, would benefit 
by getting similar kinds of information about music. And (as a parent
of a teen and pre-teen) I thank her.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What Conservatives fear most
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:51:29 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Nov4.213803.17505@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Although it caused a lot of suffering for Democrat constituency groups,
>the Democrats obviouly had no problem with that.

Identifying a problem (calling a recession a recession) is nowhere near the
same as causing it.  Bush lost the election in great part because he consis-
tently denied the existence of our economic problems.  Just as it is extreme-
ly difficult to debug a computer program if you don't know that there are any
bugs, let alone what the bugs are, a majority of the voters recognized that
a candidate that doesn't know there are economic problems in this country is
unlikely to have a good method to repair them.  The people who were and are
able to notice a problem, define it, and think up ways to resolve it are to
be admired, regardless of which party they're affiliated with.

Yesterday, my boss congratulated my QA group (all 2 of us) for finding "The
Bug That Ate the SQL Engine", saying that it was clever of us to find some-
thing that destroys the product.  I pointed out that the bug had always been
there, and all we had done was notice it.  Sherzer getting mad at Democrats
because they noticed that the economy was suffering makes about as much sense
as the Dev group here getting mad at my group for finding The Bug in the
software that the Dev group wrote.  He would more logically get mad at the
creator of the budgets that drove the economy into the ground, just as the
Dev group here (if they had the time to assign blame, which they don't, even
if they were childish enough to want to, which they aren't) would more logic-
ally blame the person who wrote the code in the first place.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Science, as actually practiced, is a complex dialogue between data and   |
| preconceptions."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16049 alt.politics.bush:13330 alt.politics.perot:5232