HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:33:18 GMT

In <1992Dec15.090738.16952@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:

>In article <1992Dec10.140419.21677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> But George Bush has never seemed to understand that.  His approach
>> seems to be submit things you know they won't approve then cry when
>> they do what you expect them to.

>	And Congress has done the same things.  Earlier in this very newsgroup
>was a excerpt that that had done just that.  Finally, they'd pass a bill with
>pork or tax increases, but under a name that would look very bad if Bush
>vetoed it as well.

Well, of course they have.  But what did George Bush do when it
happened?  Did he veto it, did he go to the American people and
explain what was going on, or did he just sign it and then bitch about
how 'Congress made me do it'?

The point is that someone has been talking as if everyone but the
House is irrelevant to the process, and that's simply not the case.
It is part of the President's JOB to lead, whether Congress really
wants to go or not.  Hell, Reagan managed to get things done, didn't
he? 

>>>Now admitedly this is a pretty severe example.  But if the Congress decides
>>>to prove to the President that the Congress REALLY DOES control the
>>>legislative branch of government, Congress will pull exactly that kind of
>>>stunt.
>> 
>> That's right, and in the next elections we'll see a bunch of new
>> people.  You think Congress is somehow magically monolithic and immune
>> to public opinion and pressures to do something?

>	The stunt has been pulled, and several incumbents are still in office.
>While not immune, it is large and there is no "one" person to blame.  It
>takes a lot of effort, more than most people can take the time for, to
>determine who is really doing what.  There is so much finger pointing, that
>most people get confused.  Also, you have the other side with "I'm a Democrat/
>Republican and my party can do no wrong" type attitude.  They are blind to the
>problems and fallacies in their own party, but all too eager to jump on some
>comment that the other party is very bad.  But parties are really too blame,
>since both serve their own interests, and occasionally ours...

Except it HASN'T been done, because the President folded like a house
of wet cards.  I think that George Bush found out that the people
aren't buying the finger pointing anymore.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:46:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.222926.25240@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> Doug Andersen (hari@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
> : Japanese companies are well known for studying markets extensively before
> : entering, how many US companies have really studied the complicated
> : distribution networks in Japan?
> 
> Leclerc claims that the "complicated distribution networks" are set up 
> specifically to keep out foreign competition.  If this is true, then it won't
> make any difference how much you "study" it.
 
No doubt that's part of it, but to some extent is fits the way Japanese
society is complicated and somewhat indirect.  Let's face it, a lot of
American companies are lazy and want everything handed to them on a
platter.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE IN INDIANAPOLIS
Keywords: school, choice
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:11:04 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Fred McCall writes, in part,

>It is a combination, actually.  This brings us full circle back to the
>original discussion; that this is also favoured by the Religious Right
>because it's a way to make the State pay for a religious education for
>their children.  Thanks, but no thanks.  I think there's something in
>the Constitution about that.

I don't believe the Constitution prohibits an individual from spending 
entitlement money from the state on things the state itself would be
prohibited from spending it on, as long as the distribution of the money
is equitable and not discriminatory.

A welfare recipient is not forbidden to tithe a percentage of his welfare
check.  Likewise, there is no restriction on how you spend your social security
check, which is a pure entitlement.  It could go entirely to a religious 
retirement home.  Constitutionally, it seems like the same principle would 
apply to education vouchers, as long as they were equally available for all children.

In one of the most successful voucher programs, the G.I. Bill, I believe 
accredited religious colleges were eligible under both the post WW2/Korea 
and Viet Nam versions. The government gave the money to the individual,
not the college.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Protectionism (Was Re: Protectionism and Japan -fred is a hoser)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:09:53 GMT

In article <BzBKHv.vx5@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>>You need to look at the overall effects on the economy, which simply
>
>The over all effects of protectionism are always very bad, and everyone
>who's ever studied economics EXCEPT YOU knows it!

	I thought about this again last night, and realized that, if true,
we must find another world with which to trade. Otherwise, we are stuck 
in a global protectionism, which is "always very bad". Bummer. Maybe this
explains the global economic slowdown?


>FRED, YOU IGNORANT SLUT.....

	You keep arguing this as though everyone else in the game is
free trading. Let's ask everyone who ever studied economics what to
do if a trade partner slaps a 50% import fee on everything. Continue
"free trade"? Don't tax their imports as much? What do we do to impact them?
If "nothing" is the answer, what stops anyone from unfair trading? It's
in their best interests not to protect? You do agree Japan protects, at
least moreso than we do? If so, how is that over-protectionism working
so well? You see, I don't understand these highbrow economics. (-: Please
explain.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE IN INDIANAPOLIS
Keywords: school, choice
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:00:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Dec14.231104.13380@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>Fred McCall writes, in part,

>>It is a combination, actually.  This brings us full circle back to the
>>original discussion; that this is also favoured by the Religious Right
>>because it's a way to make the State pay for a religious education for
>>their children.  Thanks, but no thanks.  I think there's something in
>>the Constitution about that.

>I don't believe the Constitution prohibits an individual from spending 
>entitlement money from the state on things the state itself would be
>prohibited from spending it on, as long as the distribution of the money
>is equitable and not discriminatory.

College is voluntary.  Education up to a certain level is mandatory.

>A welfare recipient is not forbidden to tithe a percentage of his welfare
>check.  Likewise, there is no restriction on how you spend your social security
>check, which is a pure entitlement.  It could go entirely to a religious 
>retirement home.  Constitutionally, it seems like the same principle would 
>apply to education vouchers, as long as they were equally available for all children.

Only if no one was required to attend school.

>In one of the most successful voucher programs, the G.I. Bill, I believe 
>accredited religious colleges were eligible under both the post WW2/Korea 
>and Viet Nam versions. The government gave the money to the individual,
>not the college.

Once again, college is voluntary.  If all there are are religious
colleges, there is no law requiring you to attend one of them.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Tarrant County UWS meeting (12/15) -- School Funding Reform
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:26:00 GMT

The following info comes from a KGBS interview with local 
Tarrant County United-We-Stand Co-Chairs: Dwayne Roberts
and Brett West.

Tonite at 7:00, at the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine
(in Ft. Worth I think) there will be a meeting for input and
presentations covering Texas School Finance Reform. The 
address is 3500 Camp Bowie at the intersection of Montgomery.
If your going to attend (pardon short fuzed notice) please
call for reservations at (817) 831-7189.

Speakers will include: Garfield Thompson, Kent Gusendorf, etc.


Other contact info of note:

	UWS Conference on The Public Connection BBS
	@ (817) 738-7336, leave message to Jim Ratts
	for access.

	Tarrant UWS Chapter may be reached 
	@ (817) 831-7189, or 4909 Airport Freeway.


-- Stephen

-= If you're press, I'm not sure they'll let you in. =-
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:27:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <BzBr0x.Kw5@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>In article <1703@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>Fred: (sic: Where does human potential begin?):
>
>>How about all the way back to the first signs of pregnancy? That's where
>>the potential begins.
>
>	Why? If a man wears a condom, and it works, hasn't he terminated a
>potential human? No, not all intercourse ends in pregnancy, but certainly no
>pregnancy occurs with an absolute form of birth control. Would an
>absolute form of birth control (tubes tied) terminate potential humans?
>No doubt about it. IMO.

You are blurring the distinction between the potential for an egg to be 
fertilized and the potential for a fertilized egg to be born. I was talking
about the latter.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:09:03 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec14.231443.19649@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Griff Miller X7114 (miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com) wrote:
>: But John, this has nothing to do with babies. To compare an unborn child 
>: to an uninvited guest is completely ludicrous.
>
>Why?  The "parents" didn't want to conceive a child, they wanted to have
>sex.  I didn't want you to come into my house, I left the window open to get
>some fresh air.

Because the baby didn't intrude, he was put there by his parents.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: The Economist on Maquiladoras.  TX/Mexico Free Trade.
Summary: free trade is good
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:57:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

Trade:
^^^^^^
In the most recent issue of The Economist, there's a good article on
U.S.-Mexican border problems that also deals with the trade issue. An
interesting fact:

p.22: "For every plant on the Mexican side, there is usually at least a
warehousing operation on the American side. If a maquiladora's managers
are American, they commute across the border each day.  Moreover,
Mexicans love to spend their money on American goods, which, for them
at least, spell high quality. McAllen in Texas, across the river from
Reynosa, thrives on the Mexicans who flock each weekend to the
brand-new retail malls that ring the town.  By one estimate, 40-60% of
all wages earned at maquiladoras are spent on the American side. A
study made for the McAllen region concluded that for every dollar
generated by jobs in the Reynosa maquiladoras, a little more than a
dollar was generated for jobs in McAllen and the surrounding region."



-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:15:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.

In article <1992Dec10.225247.10491@novell.com>, bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
|> In article <ByyM3y.2B4A@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:
|> >	1)If you are receiving SS now, nothing changes:
|> [...]
|> >		B) If you have paid < 20 years of SS TAX, then you MUST
|> >		   start a longer "phase out" period, say 10-15 years where
|> >		   you pay less and less and then nothing with no benefits
|> >		   upon retirement.
|> 
|> According to your plan, someone who is collecting SS could collect more
|> than what they paid in, while someone who has paid in for less than 20
|> years will have to CONTINUE to pay in and wind up with nothing.  You're
|> not even attempting to maintain the fiction that these younger folks
|> will get anything out of SS, you're out and out stealing from them.  Is
|> this intended and if so, why?
|> 
|> Brendan

	Again, this plans has flaws and numbers would need to be run
	to get actual years, phase out times, but the goal is the same.
	Get rid of SS. It's a lie that we can't afford anymore. Lots of
	people won't like it, but that's too bad, at least the Govt won't
	be stealing from them the rest of their lives, just for little
	while longer.

	The US is in deep shit financially, and some sacrifices need to be
	made or it'll only get worse. If I read you attitude right, you
	fall into this catagory(as I do) but don't want to get screwed
	any more than you already have. This is the same attitude that
	keeps entitlements alive("don't mess with mine") when they should
	be phased out. Yes, the younger people get screwed, but less than
	if we perpetuate(sp?) this lie longer. During the phase out period,
	it's up to the individual to put the money no longer being taken
	by the government and put it into a savings plan. Most probably 
	wouldn't, but then the retirement issue is out of the Government's
	hands and into private industry(where it belong IMHO).

	-dewey
---
Dewey Coffman		ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM			dewey@ctci.com
11400 Burnet Rd				All opinions are mine.
Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA		(512) 823-6463
===============================================================================
	"I do hope that you rot in Hell"   -The Christian JFH II
Don't Bag it. 1-800-453-SMOG, This letter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
From: boyd@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: It's who you know that counts
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:31:40 CDT
Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX

Though not a Clinton supporter, I have been fairly impressed with the way he
has conducted himself since his victory.  But, I do have to question one of his
decisions.  Why do you choose an incompetent childhood friend as your Chief of
Staff?  Why not choose someone that knows how Washington works, or even choose
someone who knows how anything works.  McLarty obviously does not know much
about anything except whom to choose as a childhood buddy.

--
Tom Boyd     (512)832-3611                   "The fool!"
Fisher.Rosemount Systems Division
  of the Emerson Electric Corporation
boyd@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: WELFARE REFORM: MD MAKES REQUIREMENTS STRICTER
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:15:20 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

            =====  GOAL ONE:  SCHOOL READINESS  =====

*1   WELFARE REFORM:  MARYLAND MAKES REQUIREMENTS STRICTER
     Thousands of Md. welfare recipients will risk cuts in their
assistance payments if they are unable to prove that their
preschoolers have received annual medical checkups (Lippman,
Balto. SUN; See DRC 7/2).  The potential cuts are part of the
final phase-in of the state's welfare reform and will go into
effect Jan. 1.
     The SUN reports that parental "responsibility" will be
determined by their getting checkups for their preschool-age
children and ensuring that older children go to school at least
80% of the time.  "State officials maintain that the program is
not intended to punish, just to encourage clients to send their
children to school and make sure they are healthy," the SUN
writes.  Parents could lose up to $25 per child per monthly check
for failure to abide by the law.
     Earlier this week, Md. began mailing warnings to welfare
recipients who have not met the requirements.  The SUN writes
that although the state's nearly 80,000 welfare households have
gotten several reminders of the requirements in person and by
mail, almost 10% have not complied.
     Kathy Cook, director of the Md. Dept. of Human Services
office of police development and administration said:  "We've
been working with them since April.  We sent mailings.  And every
client had at least one conversation with a social worker."
     But one Baltimore welfare advocate said that her office has
received "a steady stream of complaints from disgruntled or
confused clients."
     The SUN writes that Md. is the first state to tie preventive
health care to welfare, but that the attendance component is not
new.  Wis.'s "Learnfare" program, which is similar, experienced
unanticipated problems, according to the newspaper (See DRC 4/9).
The SUN reports that "some women were penalized because school
systems issued flawed attendance reports," and in some instances,
"Older children traded their attendance for material goods or
greater freedom."
     Md. was the second state to receive a federal waiver from
government requirements of the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children programs; Wis. was the first (12/18).


-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: Re: Protectionism (Was Re: Protectionism and Japan -fred is a hoser)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:02:34 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <BzHF8K.LJu@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>	You keep arguing this as though everyone else in the game is
>free trading. Let's ask everyone who ever studied economics what to
>do if a trade partner slaps a 50% import fee on everything. Continue
>"free trade"? 

Yes. 

>Don't tax their imports as much? 

Always.

>What do we do to impact them?

They're hurting themselves.  They're hurting us too.  We have to
try to get them to stop.  But preferably not thru trade measures.
if your neighbor is hitting himself in the head with a hammer, your
response should not be to do the same thing to yourself until he stops.

>If "nothing" is the answer, what stops anyone from unfair trading? 
>It's
>in their best interests not to protect? 

Right.

>You do agree Japan protects, at
>least moreso than we do? 

Yes.

>If so, how is that over-protectionism working
>so well? 

It's not.  They're having a recession.  They're standard of living
is much lower, especially considering that their productivity is nearly
as high as ours.  They're in the midst of a banking crisis at least
as bad and probably much worse than our S&L crisis.  Profits are down.

>You see, I don't understand these highbrow economics. (-: Please
>explain.

I don't always either.
-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:38:56 GMT

In article <1703@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
Fred: (sic: Where does human potential begin?):

>How about all the way back to the first signs of pregnancy? That's where
>the potential begins.

	Why? If a man wears a condom, and it works, hasn't he terminated a
potential human? No, not all intercourse ends in pregnancy, but certainly no
pregnancy occurs with an absolute form of birth control. Would an
absolute form of birth control (tubes tied) terminate potential humans?
No doubt about it. IMO.
 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: tx.politics