HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:16:28 EDT

In article <1992Aug21.232259.2120@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
>>the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
>>a Republican Senate.
> 
> No, it didn't.  The Repubs had a senate majority for TWO years of those
> EIGHT years, not the six years that Luck asserts.

See what I mean. Excuses, excuses. The Buck doesn't stop on George's desk.
Its them damned liberals.

Harry Truman said "The Buck Stops Here" BECAUSE he was willing to take
RESPONSIBILITY AS PRESIDENT for what happened during his term. THAT is
leadership. JIMMY CARTER ALSO TOOK RESPONSIBILITY DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION.
You won't see that with the recent republican leaders (this is not
a slam against republicans, just thier leadership), all they do is
blame someone else. The Buck Stops Here. Not on George's desk.

The recent display at the RNC reinforces this. They don't want to take
*one differential element* of the BLAME for the bad things, but they
take 100% credit for the good things. How lame.

> 
> The House has some responsibility, and all spending bills must
> start there.  How long has it been Democrate controlled?
> 
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Keep it flowing Andy. You're OK at it.

-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:47:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.231343.24285@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
}In article <1992Aug11.184323.22403@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
}>In article <1992Aug11.161250.2483@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
}>>...
}>>should be 100%,
}>...
}>Revenues" back in '82) have found it to be closer to around 70%.
}...
}Ah, the Liberals are learning, but they are still behind the "curve". :-)

Leftists want to be fair to the poor.  Rightists want to be fair to the
rich.  In my conception of Liberalism, I was trying to say, it's not a
question of fairness.  It's just going where the money is while minimizing
disincentives to create wealth for all of us.

}The evidence from the 1981-3 tax cuts is that the Laffer curve peak
}is well below 70% and probably *below* 50%. ...

I stand corrected and defer to the opinion of those who know more.
70%, 45%, whatever.  I also happen to think that we ought not to tax
corporations, but I don't know whether that can count as a liberal
position.

Now, can we make the tax system mostly paperless?

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10510 alt.politics.clinton:1870
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Keywords: Recession
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:02:44 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>Just for clarification here. The "Carter Recession" started in 79', shortly
>after oil prices were mostly deregulated, and lasted into 1980. The 
>country was at least technically out of the recession by the election, but
>not soon enough to save Carter (hmmm, sounds familiar). The Reagan 
>recession started in spring of 1981. We were on the last few months of
>Carter's budget so Reagan accused Carter of the "Reagan Recession until
>well into 1982 (remember that?). The country technically came out of that
>recession in the spring of 1983, but unemployment never took any
>significant drop until the winter of 83'/84'.

My my, Reagan takes office in late January of 1981, a very short recovery
that didn't even start until the fall of the previous year comes apart
during the spring of 1981 (Note: Reagan has only been in office a couple
of months at the most), yet somehow it is the Reagan recession.  Anything
that happens to the economy during the first year of a new administration
can be fairly accreddited to the previous administration.

Just in case you were unaware, or just didn't want to know.  Federal budgets
run from November through October.  By the spring of 1981, we were only
half way through Carter's final budget.  I still see no reason not to lay
this recession at Carter's feet not Reagan's.  Reagan did not get his
first crack at the budget until November of 1981.  This is the budget in
which all of those infamous tax cuts took place.  Which meant that
many of them didn't go until effect until mid-1982 and early 1983.
(hmm, interesting timing.)
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Environment: Benefit vs. Costs (was: Re: A positive agenda conserv.)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:21:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.224353.5753@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.210148.25271@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>The Economist has many authors but they rarely get to put their byline
>>on an article.  Even if it did, do you include the byline when you
>>cite the NYT if it isn't on the editorial page?
>>
>>Also, the Economist keep real tight editorial control.  
>
>	But many of the quotes from the economist sound like editorial
>evaluations instead of news reports. Most quotes have plenty of 
>obvious bias and analysis in them. Therefore, it would be nice to have
>a name to put with the analysis. If the economist decides not to print
>bylines, that's fine - jusk keep in mind that its not straight fact.
>


  Sorry, but this struck me as very funny.  There is no such thing
as "straight fact".  I would think that is very obvious. 

  However, I find the perspective and analysis of _The Economist_ to be by  
far the most balanced and insightful of any non-issue specific publication.
Certainly the articles range from more to less editorial, but they
do a very good job of looking at all of the issues and are mature
enough to admit that even by choosing or not choosing to report an event
a decision is being made regarding the value of the news.

  I recommend you read it once in a while.  I would be very surprised
if you are disappointed. 


  With regard to your concern about individual authors, _The Economist_ 
maintains very strict editorial control.  The views
expressed do not represent the views of an individual writer,
but the views of the magazine.   _The Economist_, therefore, does
their best to ensure that their articles look at the whole picture and
not just one author's view.  I really don't think you get any closer to 
"straight fact" than that.  Certainly the reputation of _The Economist_
exists for a good reason.

  I don't recall your political position, but if you are a Clinton
supporter, you missed several issues on Clinton you would have loved 
earlier this year.  I'll point them out to you if you like.
(Basically, I'll do anything to get USENET readers to read _The Economist_
more.  I think it would improve the discussion in this newsgroup 
immeasurably.)



Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: Carl.Edman@iphase.UUCP (Carl Edman)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
From: ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gore Stages Environmental Show Trials
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:22:31 GMT
Organization: Oceans & Ice Branch

In article <168477D73.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
> The following excerpts are from an article with the above title, written by
> Patrick Michaels, associate professor of environmental sciences at the
> University of Virginia.
> 
[drivel deleted]

> Last spring, Gore called to town Sherwood Idso, a scientist at the Dept.
> of Agriculture's Water Conservation Project in Phoenix.  Idso has about
> 300 publications in refereed journals  A number of those articles describe
> experiments about the so called 'carbon dioxide fertilization effect',
> which translates into the idea that with adequate nutrition, raising the
> amount of carbon dioxide makes plants grow better.
> 
[yet more drivel deleted]

Mr. Hartley, I am sure that Al Gore would agree that, with adequate nutrition,
increasing the amount of carbon dioxide makes plants grow better, *all other
variables remaining the same*.  After all, it's true with people:  if they
are fed well, their athletic performance is better at low altitudes than at
high due to more oxygen.

Now look at the part of the above paragraph that I starred.  I'll repeat it:
*all other variables remaining the same*.  Point is, if carbon dioxide increases,
they don't.  Carbon dioxide retains heat reflected from the earth, raising the
temperature.  That's a fact, you can prove it in a lab.  More carbon dioxide,
more heat retained.  Result -- temperature goes up.  If the temperature is above
the plant's tolerance, no amount of nutrition or carbon dioxide is going to help
it grow.  I think your scientist is rigging his experiments to not reflect
the real interactive conditions on earth.

Here's an interesting fact (source:  Broecker et al., Nature, 1982).  If global
warming melts 3% of the Greenland ice cap, enough fresh water will go into
the Northern Atlantic to halt convection between cool surface water and warm
deep water.  That water is the main heat source for Scandanavia, which would
become uninhabitable.  When are we going to wake up and realize that we are
heading, at great speed, towards environmental catastrophe.

Jason
From: saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's interview goof
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:30:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>I don't believe the idea that Bush had the law in mind when he said
>his granddaughter would decide about abortion. I think Bush's advisors
>told him to come across as honest and compassionate (to contrast their
>ensuing and laughable attack on Clinton's character) in the interview,
>and so it wouldn't have played well for Bush to imply that he'd impose
>a decision upon his family. Unfortunately this contradicts has stated
>political position! But he did say he'd do anything to win...

I certainly hope that he and Quayle get pressed on this issue when 
they debate Clinton/Gore. Bush said that the choice should be his
grand-daughter's explicitly and yet he wants to make others lose that
choice. How could he reconcile this difference? Maybe if he got a reporter
who would press these issues... 

I actually like that Bush feels this way. Marilyn sounded like a witch
when she said that she would lock her daughter up for 9 months to make
sure she had the kid. 

							Saurav Chatterjee

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ "I'm on a five year plan - BA, MBA, BMW"              ** ** saurav@usa   @
@                                                       *  * (.ece.cmu.edu)@
@ 49'ers III-Peat! - never mind                         *  *  saurav@ocf   @
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** *  saurav@cory  @
@      Copyright (c) Chatterjee Enterprises, 1992        * *  saurav@ohm   @
@             All Rights Reserved Worldwide              * *(.berkeley.edu)@
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** **              @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jeffgus@netcom.com (Jeffrey Gustafson)
Subject: Transcript of speeches? --> GOP Convention
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 06:10:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: Where can I get transcripts?
Keywords: GOP conventions transcript

	Will any of the GOP convention speeches be posted here?  If
not where can I get transcripts of them?  I especially want Reagan's
speech.
	
			...Jeff
			jeffgus@netcom.com

P.S.  Does anyone know which of Lincoln's speech Reagan referred to
during his speech?
-- 
---
jeffgus@netcom.com
From: ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gore Stages Environmental Show Trials
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:55:54 GMT
Organization: Oceans & Ice Branch

In article <16847A975.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.142231.29347@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert) writes:
> 
> 
> >Here's an interesting fact (source: Nature, 1982)  If global
> >warming melts 3% of the Greenland ice cap, enough fresh water will go into
> >the Northern Atlantic to halt convection between cool surface water and warm
> >deep water.  That water is the main heat source for Scandanavia, which would
> >become uninhabitable.  When are we going to wake up and realize that we are
> >heading, at great speed, towards environmental catastrophe.
> 
> Wow!  A quote from 1982.  If you would have just gone back 10 more years you'd
> see the same people claiming the world would end due to global ice age caused
> by us horrible humans.

All I said was if warming does melt 3% of the Greenland cap, this will happen.
We know how much fresh water will shut off convection in the Northern Atlantic --
a large anomaly in the late 1960's put enough there to do just that, and the
result was cold temperatures in Scandanavia.

> 
> Read "The heated debate: Greenhouse predictions vs. climate reality" by
> Dr. Robert Bolling, Director of the Office of Climatology at the
> University of Arizona.  Note: it was published in 1991 - not 1982.
> He is very evenhanded on the topic and does not take a position on whether
> man made pollution is leading to global climate change.  He does however
> document the one-sided press coverage of the research findings and theory.
> You are left with a good deal of skepticism about global warming.
> The article you trashed made the same point - that Gore is not out to
> find out the truth.  He is out to gain political capital from making
> this issue seem so dire and clearcut.  It is neither.
> 
> Incidentally, most of the "warming" if you care to call it that, took
> place before 1938, which was BEFORE the carbon dioxide buildup you are
> so terrified of. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen.  That is what concerns
me, not what the temp. increase has been.  You look, see little temp. increase,
conclude "No problem".  It is known that carbon dioxide retains heat reflected
from the earth -- if we put enough up there, temps. will rise.

I think it is a matter of different approaches to this issue.  You would support
action if I could show a dramatic temp. increase.  By then, though, it will be
too late.  But let me even concede more -- you claim the data are uncertain.
OK, I don't believe so, but I'll agree.  You say that argues that we should do
nothing.  I think it argues that we should err on the side of caution, because
if global warming is right, by the time we conclusively establish that to your
satisfaction, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Jason
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GOP Convention:  How is it playing?
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:12:35 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In article <BtADC0.Mwz@well.sf.ca.us>, casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton) writes:
>
>How is this going over?

About as expected, no surprises.  A generally anti-Democratic approach, rather
than pro-Republican or pro-Bush.  The message seems to be "We're not great, but
we're better than *them*".  Buchanan's appearance fanned the ultraconservative
flames and offended most everyone else.  Reagan was a crowd pleaser but reminded
his fans that Bush isn't Reagan.  Missed Marilyn Quayle's speech.  Barbara
Bush's "conversation" was the most positive, and probably helped George more
than any of the others, but it wasn't really substantial--it was more of a
feel-good, one-big-happy-family thing.

I'd like to see Bush take the high ground tonight and apologize for his boo
boos, highlight the lessons he's learned, explain his agenda for the next four
years, and how he'll pursue it even if he doesn't get a Republican congress--all
without impugning Clinton's character.  But I'm not really expecting him to do
that.  He'll probably whine about the Demos, brag about his "accomplishments"
(like the Gulf War, the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Clean
Air Act, etc.), beg for a Republican congress, etc.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10586 talk.politics.misc:39727
From: ocb@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (owen.c.brennan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Nothing can save Bush (Not Baker or Reagan)
Keywords: I thought it was Sununu's fault, now it's Skinners
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:17:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: AT&T


George Bush the president who stands for nothing (except "recreating" during
a war) is now reaching back to Jim "never won an election" Baker to save
his loser presidency.  First it was labeled Sununu's fault and they
packed his bags for the fat farm.  Now it's Skinners turn to wear the 
blame hat.  THE PROBLEM IS GEORGE BUSH AND ONLY THE VOTERS KNOW IT!!

So Jim Baker who lost the only election he ever had the guts to try 
himself is coming back to "save" George Bush(from what?  being a 
retired millionaire?)  Baker has made a pretty good career out of sucking
onto people who can win elections but he'll give it the old Texas try.

And finally they are going to dust off Reagan, slap a diaper on him and
roll him out for all those that want to remember the go-go 1980's.
What's next Oliver North and Clarence Thomas doing a dual nomination for
Weather Vane Bush?  What an embarassment for a country with so many
intelligent people to parade out a bunch of shmucks that will possibly
run this country for the next four years.

Hopefully Perots candidacy will bring more nonpoliticians into politics
in the future.  Business people who actually have to do something and
create jobs and wealth to stay in business.

O.Brennan  
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:28:30 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University


	One more note.  The Reagan 96 months of interrupted real
economic growth WAS NOT the longest in American history.  The longest
such period was 109 months from 1960-69.  The rate was also higher in
the 60s.  
	The republicans at first acknowledged the 96 months as the
longest since 1970, the second longest in U.S. history, etc. but
seem to have gotten carried away with their rhetoric and forgotten
the real figures.  I am not denying the accomplishment, just pointing
out that it is not quite as big a deal as advertised.

	-JG
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11081 alt.activism:15162 talk.politics.misc:40876
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:31:58 GMT

In article <jhansen.713648637@convex.convex.com> jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>>Secondly, there's what's known as the "marginal utility" argument. It goes
>>something like this: the first x-thousand you earn goes to providing basic
>>necessities like food and shelter, this money has the highest utility to
>>you and so it is taxed the least.
>
>[Etc., etc.]
>
>This system wouldn't work either.  There would have to be different
>brackets for different sections of the country.  You can't expect
>someone living in rural Kentucky to be taxed the same way as someone
>living in urban California.

Why?  The person living in urban CA gets benefits from living there
that the person living in rural Kentucky doesn't get.  Why shouldn't
the CA resident pay the costs associated with those benefits?

Yes, rich people like to have servants.  So what?  If they're not
willing to pay them enough to keep them, why should society make up
the difference?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10372 alt.politics.clinton:1768 alt.politics.bush:1289 talk.politics.misc:39188
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:51:34 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug12.184106.19714@cs.cornell.edu>, allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
|> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
|> >Another net poster cited a contrived example wherein he
|> >suggested that the statistics I quoted from the Wall Street
|> >Journal were covering up what really happened. In his contrived example,
|> >he assumed for the sake of argument that the rich had their
|> >income double and had their net income rise 121% (remember,
|> >*everyone* got a tax break, even the rich). He also assumed that
|> >the poor had their income increase only 12.5% but had their
|> >net income rise 15% (remember *everyone* got a tax break). I simply
|> >analyzed his contrived example and pointed out that the ratio of
|> >net income rise to gross income rise was essentially equal in
|> >both examples (1.21 versus 1.2). I also pointed out that it was
|> >unrealistic to assume that the poor only saw a  15% increase over ten years.
|> 
|> That other net poster (me) cooked up an example to demonstrate that
|> the original Wall Street Journal article was not giving all the
|> figures.  The WSJ article claimed (I quote from Mr. Crisp's original
|> posting): "In 1980 the top 5% from an income point of view paid 36.4%
|> of all income taxes collected.  In 1990 the same top 5% paid 42.9% of
|> all the taxes....The contentions that the rich got massive tax breaks
|> in the Reagan years is unsubstantiated by facts presented in the WSJ."
|> 
|> The point I was trying to make is that it's perfectly possible to get
|> massive tax breaks and still end up paying more taxes.  Yes, the
|> example was contrived in that there was no effort to make it reflect
|> reality.  However, it demonstrated exactly what it set out to do.
|> 

What most posters also forget is that the WSJ and other income statistics
are not salary statistics, but family salary statistics.  If the lower
income families achieved their 1.2% growth by having a second person
go to work, all of these comparisons are specious.