HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:33:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr4.062159.4292@cs.rose-hulman.edu> carneyda@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jr Dan Carney) writes:
>All I would like to say is that Perot seems to be, based so far only on  
>his interview with King and the other posts here, sensible and willing to  
>do only what the people want. I don't know about you, but I am sick of the  
>same old crap. A politician states all of these great things he is going  
>to do for us(environment), than does none of them. I wonder who that could  
>be? It isn't just Bush either. Does anyone remember the 70s? That  
>inflation was sure great. It was a Democrat in charge then and now a  
>Republican is in charge and not doing any better. I think it's time for  
>someone different to be in charge. What could Perot do wrong that no one  
>else hasn't already done wrong? It's time to quit thinking about tradition  

  I'm glad you like Perot as a candidate, but for the right reasons?  The
mindset of "he can't do any worse," is not a good one to go on.  Perot
has outlined specific plans and reforms.  He also wants the support of
the voters, which is why he wanted to be put on the ballot by the people
in all 50 states.  Perot is NOT running because he thinks he can't do any
worse.

>and time to start thinking about who the best person for the Presidency  
>is. I'd have to say that right now I would probably vote for Perot. This  
>is only my opinion. I realize there are still reasonable candidates who  
>are Democrats and Republicans, but they have lied before and will lie  
>again. Who knows, Perot may lie to, but hey, I am willing to give it a  
>shot, what about you? 
>
>Also, Is there a list where I could see every candidate's views for each  
>separate social issue, such as abortion, gun control, etc.?(excuse my  
>ignorance, but I just noticed this newsgroup)

  I'm getting one together for Perot; not sure when I'll have it completed.
For your two issues above, he is pro-choice and I believe favors stricter
control on handgun sales (no sources yet).


    Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: hhuang@m4-035-15.MIT.EDU (Han-Young Huang)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush's 1993 Federal Budget
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:58:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Apr16.215802.8952
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Well, I haven't gone to my Congressman or Senator for a a review or summary of
the budget, but I was looking at the Bush 1993 budget, and this is the one
which is currently being haggled over in Congress.  This list is from 2/1's
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Review (CQ for short).  This is the summary
sheet of summary sheets.  For anybody curious, I strongly suggest looking at
the dozen or so more pages on greater specifics.  I am not clear on what the
difference between "budget authority" and "outlays" is, but "budget authority"
are the figures which make it into 7 o'clock headline news and front pages of
newspapers.  I imagine outlays is actual cost (notice defense).  To repeat,
this is the proposed Bush 1993 budget, with all the subtleties you can derive
from that (like lower defense cuts and lower entitlements increases than a
Democratic budget).  Treasury is the interest on the debt, and I'm pretty sure
offset receipts is whatever the government gets from selling bonds and
investing, etc.  I can make sure of this if anybody is curious.

Figures are in millions:

				Budget Authority	   Outlays
			92 estimate	93 proposed	92 est	93 prop

Legislative Branch		2684	2855		2760	2788
The Judiciary			2389	2833		2371	2763
Executive Office of the
  President			226	264		199	255
Funds Appropriated to the
  President			25135	11691		11482	11316
Agriculture			62163	64840		61794	59373
Commerce			2938	2829		2869	2883
Defense - Military		276020	266996		294422	277786
Defense - Civil			28015	29221		27890	29250
Education			29441	32339		26528	30410
Energy				16868	17070		15719	16292
Health and Human Services,
  except Social Security	264623	290418		263409	289342
Health and Human Servies,
  Social Security		284440	298593		280654	295817
Housing and Urban Development	25165	24323		24184	28141
Interior			7007	6333		7098	6542
Justice				9873	10745		9367	10354
Labor				37855	35601		42286	38443
State				4683	5381		4539	5175
Transportation			36103	38963		33371	34495
Treasury			292239	313734		290613	312114
Veterans Affairs		33578	34192		33603	34109
Environmental Protection Agency	6504	6785		5948	6164
General Services Administration	598	347		444	1183
National Aeronautics and Space
  Administration		14321	14994		13819	14088
Office of Personnel Management	36830	39786		36141	37593
Small Business Administration	1173	738		455	297
Other independent agencies	72132	75372		66593	76547
Allowances			-96	-464		-96	-426

Undistributed Offset
  Receipts			 -115986   -124808	 -115986   -124808
(On budget)			(-84529)  (-91326)	(-88036)  (-91326)
(Off budget)			(-29948)  (-33482)	(-29948)  (-33482)

TOTAL				1455425	 1501160	1440977	 1497472
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:952 talk.politics.misc:18296
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: more info on Perot: 1st article of 2
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:06:45 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

Kamchatka Charlie writes:
>Ron Dippold writes:
>>Excellent.  This is what happens when we no longer subsidize their
>>shoddy business practices.  Someone else is doing it when they declare
>>bankruptcy, but that's another issue...
>     I like this comment, "but that's another issue..."  It's alright for
>INNOCENT people to pay for other's mistakes, but HELL IF I'M GOING TO PAY IN
>ORDER FOR A COMPANY TO HAVE THAT EXTRA MINUTE SO THAT IT CAN GET OVER ITS
>TROUBLES.

No, it is another issue.  If a shoddy company is kept propped up, we
all pay for it continuously and forever.  If a bad company goes
bankrupt, the ones who get shafted are the companies which have chosen
to deal with that company.  They may be innocent, but they're not
totally disinterested parties who get screwed.  I really said "another
issue" because I don't agree with current bankruptcy laws...


>     And to think--with regulation we would have had to worry about
>five or six possibly nonprofitable companies; now we don't have to
>worry about any of them.  Thousands of jobs lost; few of which will
>come back to those who had them (and none of them at near the wages
>they were earning before)--and for some strange reason I see you
>smiling like a chershire cat.  Why???

It's like lancing and cleaning a pus-infected wound.  You can let it
continue to fester or you can take the pain and take care of it.  The
bottom line is that air travelers have more routes available at
cheaper prices.  Companies _are_ going to get a nasty shock when their
government guaranteed prices are removed, as with any other form of
welfare. 


>>>In 1978, the average age for our airlines planes was 7.56 years.  Today, it
>>>is 13.5 years. In comparison, the average age of European and Asian planes
>>>is 10.4 and 8.7 years respectively.
>>If the planes are still safe after 13.5 years I don't see a problem
>>with this.

> It has nothing to do with the planes; it has to do with the
>companies being unable to replace the planes.  One thing I learned
>from my accounting and business classes--a company is truely healthy
>only if it can give all necessary and preferable upkeep to its assets.

Necessary and preferable.  It hasn't been necessary to replace them,
and apparently definitely not preferable.  If they still meet air safety
regulation standards, there's no reason to replace them.


>(I'll follow this post up later with a lesson in depreciation and
>upkeep)

Duhhh, gee, would you?  Christ, we know the principles of depreciation
and upkeep, we have different ideas about how they apply, apparently.


>>As soon as everybody chooses the wrong side, it then, by some miracle,
>>becomes the right side.
>--correction:  As soon as the powerful and rich choose the wrong side; it then,
>by some miracle, becomes the right side.

Tell it to the Bolsheviks.
-- 
You've been through Hell?  And what did you bring back for me?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 07:13:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.205332.21357@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:

>
>What is Bush's economic program? From where I sit, it looks like this:
>	1) Keep interest rates low.
>	2) Reduce Capital Gains.
>	3) War endlessly with congress  so #2 never happens.
>
>Is there more to his plan than this?

Perhaps it is Congress that should get down to business.  Bush gave his
state of the Union address back in January.  He set the March 20 deadline..
well, where has the Congress been?  

William F. Tell

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sysmatt@aix3090b.uky.edu (James M. Simpson)
Subject: Re: How Perot can make Clinton President
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:31:25 GMT
X-Bytes: 

That's not quite the way the election system works. A candidate wins not by
getting a majority of the popular vote, but by getting a majority of the 
electoral vote. In 3-way races, it's quite possible for the leading candidate
to win without a majority of the popular vote.
Each state has a certain number of electors, based on its population. All
the electors in each state are given, on an all or nothing basis, to the 
candidate with the highest popular vote in that state. It would be quite
possible for Perot to get 20-30% of the popular vote without winning a single
state. In this case, he would get no electoral votes. His only significant
would be if he drew a much larger votes from one candidate than the other,
thus tipping the balance in favor of the other. If his support came from   
an equal number of Bush and Clinton supporters, he would have no significant
impact on the election. The fact that the popular vote was split 45-35 instead
of 60-40 would not affect the electoral votes.
On the other hand, if Perot did manage to win a few states, and the other 
states split closely between  Bush and Clinton, it is possible that neither
would receive an electoral majority. In this case, the election would be
decided by the House of Reps. You're probably right that the Democratic
majority in the House would elect Clinton if this happens. On the other hand,
it would take 220 votes in the House to win. If a rep can be bought for
$500,000, Perot could buy the election from the House for only $110,000,000,
which is only a 10% overrun over what he's said he's willing to spend.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: what does Clinton have to SAY?
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:30:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The main principle underlying Clinton's philosophy is that the
government should help people to help themselves.  A corollary is that
it should not help people who do not help themselves.

(Obviously, this is different from Bush's philosophy, which is...what
is it anyway?  Judging by his actions, it is that the government
should have no role in helping people who do not contribute to
Republican campaigns.)

For example, Clinton has proposed a two-year limit on welfare receipts
for the able-bodied, after which they will either put in four hours
per day of community service, demonstrate that they are in a job
training program, or show some overriding reason why they can't do one
or the other.  This proposal strikes me as a useful extension of the
1988 welfare reform act, which the Bush administration has been
implementing as slowly as possible.

Other examples of this philosophy include learnfare proposals that he
has implemented in Arkansas.  For example, kids who drop out for no
good reason have their drivers' licenses revoked.  Most critical
reports of Arkansas education point out that it ranks between 47th and
50th on per-pupil spending (the rank depends on the measure used), but
the graduation rates and the college entrance rates have both
increased dramatically under his administration.

Clinton's philosophy has also led to what some consider to be an
overly cosy relationship between business and government in Arkansas.
In general, according to a story the Times put out the week before the
NY primary, the Clinton administration has tried to negotiate
voluntary restraints before resorting to regulation.  As the Times
reports, this approach has failed in some cases and worked in others.

(In fact, if you want a fairly critical look at Clinton's Arkansas
record, look up the copies of the Times during the week before the NY
primary.  The stories concentrated on the negative aspects of his
administration, but they did throw in a few favorable things as well.)

Of course, the attitude that government should only help people to
help themselves has not gone over very well among the left wing.  Many
liberals have complained that Clinton "blames the victim."
Personally, I find his philosophy of personal responsibility to be a
refreshing change to the usual rhetoric we get out of the Democrats.

I don't think that you can reasonably charge that Clinton has only
recently come to these ideas.  Clinton, as one of the prime movers and
shakers of the DLC, has worked for quite a while to shift the
Democratic party towards the center.  In particular, the idea of
personal responsibility has been a central theme of his rhetoric for
as long as he's been on the national stage.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jimj@engin.umich.edu (James Joseph Jewett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Brown is prochoice on abortion, despite "rumors"
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:34:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <STEINLY.92Apr6165916@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>Does this mean that only lawyers with _large_ families would be
>appointed to the Supreme Court by President Brown?
>Is this related to his alleged unPCness on abortion???
> ;-)

What?  Brown is definitely pro-choice.  He seems to take it as a given
that people would know this about him, though, so he usually tacks it
onto the ends of his speaches, without any transition.  And he always
uses the word "totally", even though it sounds awkward.  ("I am totally
in favor of a woman's right to choose.")

(This usage annoyed me more each time.)

He was also at the big rally recently -- you can probably get other quotes from
there.

-jJ	caen tends to bounce and swallow my mail.  Please use:

jimj@eecs.umich.edu		Take only memories.
jewett@um.cc.umich.edu		Leave not even footprints.
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:46:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>It never ceases to amaze me that people who are pro-choice want to put
>_all_ of the nation's health care money into the hands of the folks who
>gave us the abortion gag rule at federally funded clinics.  So the
>solution is to make _all_ doctors federally funded.  (Yes, I know a
>Democratic administration wouldn't promulgate the gag rule, and I
>don't know what Perot would do.  But you're trusting that _every_
>administration from now on will be pro-choice.  Touching faith,
>really.)

This is the most cogent argument I've seen thus far *against* 
national health care!

						--  Michal
From: ikeda@vxcrna.cern.ch (IKEDA,M./EP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:06:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr6.171650.25690@udel.edu>, lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes...
>In article <6APR92.02212324@umbc2.umbc.edu> williamf@umbc2.umbc.edu writes:
> 
>>>Despite what Clinton says the Value Added Tax is NOT a sales tax,
>>>it is a tax on the profits of business. 
> 
>>  You mean Clinton was REALLY lying to us all along?  Again?  The VAT 
>>  in Europe & Britain is tacked right onto the list price.  The customer
>>  pays it at the POS and the retailer is responsible for collecting it and
>>  forwarding it to the government.  That surely appears to be a sales tax 
>>  to me.  How is going to differ in the US?  
> 
>This is how it works in Europe, maybe, but as I said, it is a tax on
>the profits of business. A business takes its income, deducts the costs
>of materials, etc, and multiplies by 13%, and that is how it will pay
>taxes. Either Clinton doesn't understand this, or yes, he's been
>lying.
> 

I am really confused.  Perhaps everyone has a different definition of
VAT.  Here in Europe, VAT works very much like a sales tax.  For example
in France where VAT is 18.6%, if you get a bill (electricity, phone,
car repairs, etc) you will get everything itemised and then the VAT is
tacked on at the end.  In the UK the VAT is 17.5%, however, if you
mail order from there to another country, most businesses will remove
the VAT off the price.  This is just like mail ordering from those
New York warehouses, but you don't pay the New York sales tax.  Nothing
about "profits of business" is calculated into the payment of the tax
by the consumer.  So what does Brown mean by a 13% VAT?
-- Makoto
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Request for Information about Libertarian Beliefs
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:46:28 GMT


In article <sasswb.703440362@k2> sasswb@unx.sas.com (Scott Bass) writes:

>I would like to know more about the tenents, beliefs, and planks (if that's
the
>right term, I'm going back to high school history) of the Libertarian Party.
>If possible, use short, succinct, "bullet" approach to listing the beliefs.
>Of course, if some beliefs are more complicated, feel free to use whatever
>words are necessary to explain the belief.  Please keep editorializing to a
>minimum, but both sides, pro and con, are welcome.

Economic Policy Bullet:  Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gecko in the movie
Wall Street:  "Ladies and Gentlemen, Greed, for want of another word, is Good."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: Jamie Zawinski <jwz@lucid.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic town hall (was Re: Ross Perot)
Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA
	<1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU> <MAS.92Apr7215508@csa.bu.edu>
	<1992Apr9.074335.3417@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: usa
X-Windows: Putting new limits on productivity.
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:34:51

In article <1992Apr9.074335.3417@leland.Stanford.EDU> ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour) wrote:
> In article <MAS.92Apr7215508@csa.bu.edu> mas@csa.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich) writes:
>>
>>It seems to me that this electronic town hall idea may sound good, but
>>has an enormous potential to be mis-used.
> 
> Point taken.  But part of the concept is obviously believing in the
> integrity of the person (or people) responsible for presenting the
> information.  The motivation is to take the power away from the special
> interest groups and return it to the people by educating them about
> what in the heck is going on.

It's not clear to me that this is any better.  In fact, I think it's worse.

Let's assume for the moment that the presentation preceding the vote is truly
accurate, with all sides of the issues represented, and with all relevant
background information presented in such a way that everyone who is capable
of voting is informed enough to make a decision.  

I think that's patently impossible, but for a moment let's assume it anyway.

Pure democracies, as this would be, are a VERY VERY bad idea.  It's called
"tyranny of the majority," and it's the reason that what the US constitution
embodies is a republic (or democratic republic, or whatever the proper term
is), and not a pure democracy.  Think state religion.  Think sodomy laws.
Is this the kind of government that you want?  I sure don't.

> Anyway, do you think the blockheads in Congress now are doing a better
> job of informing their constituents of the various issues than Perot's
> concept could?

No, they're not.  I think that having an informed public is a good idea, so
that people will elect representatives who truly do represent them, but most
people are not qualified to make these sorts of decisions, and never will
be.  It takes more than a few hours in front of a TV to understand why it's
a bad idea to force your views on others: you could be on the other end of
the stick.  Presumably someone who actually makes it to congress understands
this to at least some degree.

I'm reminded of a poll that was conducted a while ago; random people were
shown a verbatim copy of the first amendment, without being told what it
was, and were asked if they would support such an amendment to the
constitution.  The overwhelming response was no: "you can't let people 
say just *anything*..."

	-- Jamie
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:858 talk.politics.misc:18028
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Tsongas pulled a boner on health care
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 13:03:58 GMT

> In Canada, one must take whichever doctor is given to him.

Where did one get this idea?
-- 
Mark Brader, Toronto			"Don't be silly -- send it to Canada"
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com			     -- British postal worker