HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CSPAN Voter Manipulation
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:37:43 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <BxtsIy.H9r@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>It's not hard at all John.  Of course you can't prove much if you stick
>with rankings.  Pick out some statistics, employment, literacy, poverty,
>whatever.  Your choice.  Show that things got worse under Clinton and that
>he caused economic damage to Arkansas.

I think you are missing the point.  NOTHING got better.  When you rank
49th, it's pretty hard to get much worse.

OK.  You insist on some "thing".  In 1980, Arkansas had an average income
level that was 78% of the national average.  It was the same in 1989 or
so.

As the distinguished Senator from Delaware said to me once, "Where's
the beef?"  Where's the big improvement?  There ain't no big improvement!
And for your first clue, Clinton is now saying there won't be a big
improvement in the US economy.  He isn't even President and he's already
broken his word about

	* Economic stimulus package (says he might not be able to get
	  it passed)
	* Middle class tax cut (says the country may not be able to
	  afford it)
	* Gays in the military (says it isn't as simple as he thought,
	  so he's going to have a commission look into it)

The next clue is

	* Housing is the most affordable it's been in 18 years
	* Unemployment is the lowest in two years
	* Total jobs are the highest in American history
	* George Bush is still the President

In short, if Clinton is saying we won't get an improvement, why the hell
did you guys vote for him?  So the rest of the country can be just like
Arkansas - no improvement?

Bill Clinton has promised everyone everything he could.  At least George
Bush waited two years to break his word.  Bill Clinton took about one
week.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CHOICE: DEBATE BASED ON COMPETING PHILOSOPHIES
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:24:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov20.220527.14900@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.223257.11398@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
>>There is no doubt that private school tuition would rise with the 
>>availability of voucher money.  
>
>sure there is
>in fact, i disagree
>
>if it did, then presto!, you'd have more private schools open up.
>
>it's called supply and demand

You forgot the other half of the supply and demand equation.  If the
demand increases, the price will increase, making supplying the good
more profitable, encouraging more people to supply the good or service,
making the price go back down again.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
[ITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOY]
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:01:46 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21879@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Nov14.003656.28432@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> tcm@roma16.austin.ibm.com (Tom McDonald) writes:
>>   ...precisely why we need a fundamental right to not have religion forced
>>upon us:  the tyranny of the majority.  Heinlein was right (about the most
>>likely way the U.S. gov't could be overthrown).
> 
> Wrong answer.  What we have right now is exactly the opposite.  Children
> in school can pray over their lunch, they can't pray QUIETLY on a school
> bus, any club but a religious club is granted access to school facilities,
> and so on.

	I have to agree with John on this point.  Separation of Church-n-State
does not mean that religious groups are forbidden to use state (PUBLIC!)
facilities.  However, the State then has an obligation to allow *all*
religious groups equal access.  I would not have a problem with that.  However,
there are some religious groups that *do* have a problem with that.  Heavens,
their kids might be exposed to other beliefs and actually learn something!

> -- 
> John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:25:57 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <y0y+r*Hk1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.190629.2932@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>> Jim, you seem to have missed the little fact that we don't WANT to
>> have to go to your churches.  That's the PROBLEM.  We see no reason

>Who is forcing you to go to church.  Who has even suggested such a thing?
>Why do you keep making up this stuff?

It was YOUR suggestion, Jim.  

>> why we should have to subsidize the churches with special tax
>> exemptions.  And now people want us to subsidize sending their kids to
>> religious schools?  Makes me feel like I'm living in Iran.

>I wish that you were.  It would make you appreciate this country more.

Better find another flag to wrap yourself in, Jim.  The one you're
trying to use is ill suited to the sort of ideas you seem to have.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:39:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov12.181722.27222@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>David L. Cathey (davidc@montagar.com) wrote:
>: > : of having to either support them, arrest them, or bury them (or
>: > : perhaps some combination of those).
>: > 
>: > Actually you don't have to do any of these three.
>: > 
>: 
>: 	Well, I think my accountant might disagree with you on that point when
>: we send that check to the IRS...

>We only "have" to in the sense that it's how the system is currently set up.
>It doesn't mean that it makes sense or that it can't be changed.

To what?  The only system that avoids these kinds of costs (and it
doesn't, really, it just selectively imposes them) is total anarchy.
What you save in taxes you'll surely spend in ammunition.

>: 	I agree with Fred on this point, and you seem to be missing it
>: completely with this statement.  We are not complaining about constructive
>: uses of our taxes (schools, education), but we don't like having to spend
>: on negative uses (jails, prisons, etc).

>Everybody has his own idea about what's constructive, and they often don't
>agree.  What I object to is the stereotype that if they do poorly in high
>school academics, they will necessarily become criminals.  There are a lot of
>uneducated people who aren't criminals.  This is a gross oversimplification.

Gee, I object to that, too.  Given that we both object to that sort of
absolute statement, why did you even bring it up?  Of course, it's
another thing entirely to say that people who drop out or flunk out
are more likely to wind up being criminals than those who don't.

>: 	Sure it is, but you obviously assume that "free market" has emphasis
>: on "free".  Free Market is that goods are available, and you are free to
>: take advantage of them if you are willing to pay market cost.  We are just
>: defining market cost.  You have the right to pursue happiness, but that doesn't
>: mean that the school system has to guarantee it for you.

>I could say the same for English, Math, History, and Science.

You could, but then you'd be missing the point of having schools.  Of
course, you don't seem to get the point, anyway, so I guess that
wouldn't be any different.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Time out from the flames...
Date: 21 Nov 1992 21:59:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <21911@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>[ITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOY]

Congratulations, John! May he enjoy many long years of happy life.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
           "Cat: Four legs and an attitude." -- Jim Reese
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 00:08:23 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

David L. Cathey (davidc@montagar.com) wrote:
: 	However, you are an adult, the the high school student isn't.  That's
: why they can't buy beer, cigarrettes, hard liquor, etc...

Well then let the parents enforce no pass-no play then.  It would be better
than total strangers making the choice.

: 	Without No-pass/No-play, the student would flunk school, not
: graduate, not get into college, and most likely never get advanced coaching
: that would entice a scout to draft them to a Pro team.  Thanks a lot, John...

Let's change that too.  If you insist on marrying football with college, then
let him take a football "SAT" and apply for enrollment in a college majoring
in football.  I wouldn't have any problem with that.  Why should he have to
waste his time taking calculus or chemistry or home economics when he wants to
play football?

:                              If no college wants to recruit him, then at least
: time is saved by not having to go back to get a GED.

People don't have the right to "waste time"?

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:58:27 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

David L. Cathey (davidc@montagar.com) wrote:
:                          When it comes to polititians, I tend to be a cynic,
: whereas you seem to more than willing to take Clinton at his word.

Of course.  Just like we took Bush at his word when he said "no new taxes".
It's one thing to criticize somebody for breaking a promise.  It's quite 
another to criticize somebody because you THINK he will break a promise.
We'll find out soon enough.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:53:59 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <21920@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.004106.1@deep-13.gizmo.com> maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com writes:
>>You've spent more on insurance in two years than you could have ever spent in
>>medical bills? That is utterly absurd.  

Not really.  My insurance costs about $10,000 a year. over my lifetime I'll 
pay out more than I get back.  Most people do.

>>Two emergency room trips to have you
>>checked out after bicycle accidents is small potatoes.  Imagine how much money
>>you'd have spent if you had ... AIDS for example. 

My insurance company would cancel as soon as they found out if I got AIDS.  
So it's useless for that.

>>Or maybe leukemia, or a brain
>>tumor... or what if your neck had been broken in one of your bicycle wrecks.

More reasonable, for sure.  I'd seriously consider taking that risk if I had 
the option.

>Imagine if the entire planet had to have open heart surgery next week.  Then
>we'd have more medical expenses than any collection of premiums code pay
>for.

Who would do the surgery, I wonder?  I think we'd have worse problems than 
how to pay for it.

>Fortunately the odds are against that happening, so David only has to pay
>for his fraction of the risk of having open heart surgery.  But his point
>is well-made.  If I live a clean life, eat right, don't smoke, don't screw
>around, wear a bicycle helmet, floss after every meal, MY risk of incuring
>some medical expense is lower than someone who doesn't do one of those
>things.

>I will refrain from mentioning that my medical insurance was $300 per year
>the last time I carried my own ...

You will? ;-)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PEROT IN '96!

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org  <SLOW!>
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:16:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <BxIBq9.C21@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>lot of other voters.  After all, for years we've had voters who voted
>Republican (even conservative Repub) for President and Democrat (somewhat
>liberal Democrats) for Congress.

because the liberals do not hesitate to BRING HOME THE PORK no
matter how bad it will be for the country as a whole 

selfish people want that free lunch given from the country to them

but they don't want the president giving the WHOLE COUNTRY a free lunch,
(since it isn't really free then.)



-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
- FICA isn't a retirement plan. Money's spent. It'll be gone when you need it.-
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:13:43 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <21899@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>A command economy and socialism are not the same thing.  Clinton is
>trying to have a command economy when it comes to health care.  The

So what?  We also have a "command economy" when it comes to public education,
nuclear defense, road building, disease research, police and fire services, 
emergency medical treatment, and a lot of other things.  There are some
things which are more cost effective for the government to provide, because
for one reason or another the private sector can not do a better or cheaper job.
Under the present medical system there is no incentive to hold down costs,
bills have skyrocketed, and many medical professionals think that Clinton's 
approach will save a lot of money.  Go watch Robocop to find out why the 
private sector is not always the best choice for every service.

With apologies to Churchill:

Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world, except for all the others.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:51:17 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov19.002815.38389@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
>: But there is a Constitutional restriction against prohibiting the free
>: exercise of religion.  "Shall make no law" means NO law.  Which part of
>: NO don't you understand?
>
>They're not prohibiting his free exercise of religion--they're dictating
>under what conditions they will pay him a salary.  He's FREE to get a 
>different job.
>
>--
>John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
>        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
>    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"

Reposting:  I meant to say "the rest of the first ammendment"
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
In article <1992Nov19.002815.38389@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti
) writes:
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
>: But there is a Constitutional restriction against prohibiting the free
>: exercise of religion.  "Shall make no law" means NO law.  Which part of
>: NO don't you understand?
>
>They're not prohibiting his free exercise of religion--they're dictating
>under what conditions they will pay him a salary.  He's FREE to get a 
>different job.
>
>--
>John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
>        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
>    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"

And let him get a job at a religious school.  And let the parents
who want to send their kids to that school not be burdened with
paying extra taxes for the school that they don't send their 
kids to.

Actually, the rest of the first ammendment applies here, too.  
Quite aside from religion, a teacher should be free to teach and 
not be constrained by a curriculum and list of constraints from a
government institution.  Teaching is as much of an art as
Maplethorpe's photography.  The teachers must be free if they
are to do their job right.  And the parents should be free
to find the school and teachers that are right for their 
children.

Let's hear it for real diversity, choice in education.  Who knows,
parents, given a real choice, might even send their kids to the
local p.s. with all its diversity and freedom from superstition.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: How much tax DO we pay? (was Re: Clinton has won
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:57:54 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Nov14.222129.4823@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>In article <21846@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>>You know, it isn't the fact that I pay taxes that pisses me off, but rather
>>that I pay so damned much in taxes.  Including property, sales, federal
>>income, and social security, we will pay about $50,000 in taxes next year.
>
>Actually, a popular statistic bandied about by Libertarians is that
>47% of all wealth produced in this country... 47 cents on every
>dollar, that is... is given to the government: federal, state or
>local.
>
>If you ask me, that sounds like a pretty large number.

It might be a bit large but don't forget to include ALL the sources
where you're getting socked: not just federal income, social security
(7.5% you + 7.5% your company, ~15% if self-employed), and maybe state
and/or city income taxes (God, I'd hate to live in New York), but also
property taxes, sales taxes (look at your phone and electric bill -
you've got federal, state and local taxes there if I recall correctly),
it all adds up.

In other words, to some extent, I think we're getting nickled and dimed
to death.  Not that this isn't a good strategy to employ if you want
tax revenue - which would you notice more - a (for example) $5,000
total tax bill at the end of the year, or $5,000 taken out over a
spread of different ways?  I've read that this is one reason why you
are required to have your income taxes withheld and payed to Uncle Sam
each quarter - if you can convince people to OVER withhold, then they
are happy when they get "free" money back from the gov't at the end of
the year.  However, if they had to pay taxes in a lump sum at the end
of the year, they might pay closer attention to what those
congress-critters are up to.  This thing Bush asked Congress to approve
at the beginning of the year where they withholding (NOT the tax
liability) was reduced may be interesting - I think folks might be
surprised and perhaps a bit upset when they have to pony up come
January.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Self-employed pay how much SS? (was Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:29:08 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Nov15.140420.13884@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21846@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>the reforms in Social Security which are only now occuring (now that the
>>tax rate is 7.55% for workers and over 15% for the self-employed ...)
>
>This isn't correct.  Self-employed pay less, from what I understand.

Maybe it changed in '91 but for '90, self-employed DID have to pay both
halves of the SS ALTHOUGH if I recall correctly, there was some sort of
deduction which made it a bit less painful but not much.  How do I
know?  Back then I did some freelancing for a guy for about a year and
a half - I recall going from '89 to '90 and noticing that I'd be able
to get some relief from the 15% of SS so it sort of stuck in my mind.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.