HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsl+@pitt.edu (John S Lundberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 101
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:46:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <993@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Things like economic trends don't change from day to day and it will
>be at least six months from now before you can see any impact
>on the economy that Clinton might have.

The economy's sure to change between now and six months from now
but I really doubt that anyone will be able to say, definitively,
why it changed or what impact Clinton had on the change.  Most of the
noise that gets made about the economy is just guesswork or people
grinding their axes.

I don't doubt that government has an impact on the economy but consider
the woes of a company such as IBM.  Literally billions of dollars in
value has evaporated in recent weeks as its stock price has fallen.  
Whose fault is that?  Is it anyone's fault?  Consider GM: they produced a
lot of truly crappy products for a large number of years.  Did anyone
in government mandate that they'd produce a disaster like the Vega, which
probably created more customers for Honda than all of Honda's advertising.
How many thousands of jobs have evaporated as a result of the failures of
IBM and GM and other companies whose fortunes are declining?  

A lot of the economic problems of this country have absolutely nothing
to do with the government but people still seem to have the expectation
that they can install a new wizard in the Land of Oz who will fix all.
Or, conversely, they see a new wizard installed and start to believe that
if only we could get rid of the wizard that everything would be fine.  It's
all self-delusion.
-- 
John Lundberg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:37:45 GMT

> = (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>> = (Dan Hartung) writes:

>>Please note that FIFTEEN, yes FIFTEEN of our presidents have been elected
>>with less than 50% of the vote.  That's more than one third.  In fact, if
>>you discount vice presidents who succeeded, it's closer to HALF.

Stunned by the truth, Paul lamely plods on...

>Care to post a brief summary of the results of the terms of those "winners"?

Truman comes to mind...but so does Nixon.

Oops.  Guess Paul's silly insinuation means nothing.

>For instance I believe old Abe Lincoln was the winner of these.  Civil War,
>assasination is this what we have to look forward to?

Lincoln *caused* the Civil War?  Read a history book before you
embarrass yourself like this.

Without Lincoln, this country would be two; one of 'em would be
remarkably similar to South Africa.

Polls of Americans consistently list Lincoln and Washington
interchangeably as the #1 and #2 best presidents ever.  I concede this
only shows that you are far out of the mainstream in your estimation of
those men, which is probably why a popular election has left you so
whiny.

Of course, your insinuation that *Lincoln getting assassinated* is a
mark against Lincoln himself shows you really quit thinking when you
answered this post.  It also shows how dishonest you are, Galvanek.

>>Fact of life in America, my friend.
>>
>>By the way, what is "disillusional"?

>Ummm I believe it's the old tactic of a net poster to find spelling, typing
>and grammatical errors to nit pick about.  

Hmmm...it couldn't be because that net poster doesn't know what the fuck
you're talking about?

>Usually surfaces about the time
>they know they've been clobbered in an arguement and have run out of ammo 8^)

Right, Mr. Lincoln-caused-his-own-assassination.  Let's talk Mattel
Shootin' Shell.

>The ivory tower
>is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 

Heh heh.  Communism, eh, Mr. Cohn?  What a maroon.  

Rave on....


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES AGAIN
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:52:54 GMT


Regarding the thread on federal funding of universities, I will add that here
at Columbia, funding has been reduced significantly over the past two years.
As a result, private funding has increased and in fact overshadowed the 
income differential. The same process has been, to my knowledge, repeated
at all of the other Ivys as well. 

I do not believe that we need rely on federal money; it certainly will be used 
if received, but the fundamental point is this:
  Taxes (and administration) at the state and local levels will always be more
efficient because there is less to oversee, and so fewer people needed to do
the overseeing, and therefore fewer dollars are skimmed off the top for 
overhead. Or, you get more of your money for your money.

David
dnm9@columbia.edu
David
dnm9@columbia.edu
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:24:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1262.42.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
>Look boneheads, anytime you have 3 *real* candidates, it's very tough to
>get a majority (that is-over 50%) of the popular vote.

Very true.

>Lucky for us,
>our forefathers had the vision to create the electoral college where the
>winner of the popular vote will get a MAJORITY (over 50%) of the
>electoral vote (which is being held today).

Not true. I believe that Truman was elected over Dewey with Dewey getting
a bigger % of the popular vote then Harry. The electoral college was setup
by our fore-dads in an attempt to make sure that the smaller states(population
wise)would have as much to say about who gets elected as the states with
larger populations. 

What I have not seen posted is the fact that Bush performed worse in the
% of popular vote of any incumbent since Taft 80 years ago. And the 2nd or
3rd worst showing of an incumbent EVER. These are just the facts.


Stan Knight
|Never forget that the # of bonehead reps. is equal to the # of bonehead dems.|
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:41:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec15.173637.23056@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>
>Have you watched any of the conference Paul or read any of the
>transcripts?

I've not had the chance to see or hear it first hand but I've been 
watching the analysis of it at night and reading about it in the WSJ 
and the consesus opinion I hear is that this is a grand farce designed
only to create an illusion of interest in different ideas and gain
support for his own.  I've yet to hear one serious journalist, economist
or political analyst express an opion to the contrary.

>how ridiculous you sound. There have been many people at this conference
>with ideas which differ drastically from Clinton's and they are stating
>their concerns openly. 

No doubt, but so what?  Is any of what he's hearing going to get used?
The answer to that question is the ONLY one that matters.  So what if he 
listens to all these opinion and then does what ever wants anyway, in that
case what value does this conference?  i

The simple fact is that this conference and the media show surrounding it
can lead to only one of two conclusions.  

a. either he had no plan during the campaign, as Susan Estrich (sp?) says,
   in which case he lied to the American public when he said he did and
   now he needs to come up with one.

or

b. he has a plan, like he said he did, and now he is just putting on a 
   show so he can come back later and say - well we listened and we decided
   go this way - when in fact he he had decide long ago.


Pick one, I'll accept either answer as truth.  No matter what the case though
it still means he's intentionally lied to the American public, the only 
question is when and how.  Or perhaps there's another option I've not
yet considered??

>this partisan belly-aching is giving me gas. Maybe you would like to
>at least give him a chance to submit something BEFORE you squeal
>like a pig?

Gee Norman it wasn't me doing all the screaming in Washington when he 
announced his intentions on lifting the ban on Gays in the military,
I wonder who it was.  You're right he's not President yet nad he's already
managed to polarize opinion on several matters, quite a go there Bill.
And you know since that day that he made his announcement, of the 8 people
I know for certain that voted for him (actual people not net friends) 
7 have already said they regret having voting for him.  In part because
of that position (and to so degree the way he handled it) and in part
because of his cabinet appointments.

PSG 
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: Double standard
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:44:41 GMT


green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>Well, it's started.  Now we're going to be able to see the real double
>standard in action.

>Clinton, after starting out and naming a couple of moderate, pro-business
>and anti-deficit Democrats to Treasury and Budget director, took the low
>road and came up with some real winners.  Will they be examined as closely
>as past nominations by Republican presidents?  John Tower was raked over
>the coals for his womanizing.  Will Henry Cisneros ("One of the finest
>leaders of our generation" : Al Gore) be asked about losing his job as
>mayor of San Antonio for HIS womanizing?  Will Johnetta Cole be asked
>about her past activities in Cuba?  Will Ron Brown be asked about his
>law firm's activities, such as being the biggest lobbyist for the S&L
>industry?  Will anyone ask what the qualifications are for some of
>his other appointees?

>I doubt it, it'll be a rubber stamp by the Democrats, to be returned by
>a rubber stamp by the Prez.

You mean there are no Republicans in Congress? If these questions aren't
asked, it will be Bob Dole and the Republicans who have let us down,
not the Democrats. That's what being the "loyal opposition", as Dole
is so fond of calling his role, is all about. I say sure, let's ask all
the relevant questions and hear the truth, I don't care who's the party
in the White House.

-----
Eric Smith         | Joel:  "What do you guys want for Christmas?"
erics@sco.com      | Gypsy: "I want a pony!"
erics@infoserv.com | Crow:  "I want to have the power over who lives
CI$: 70262,3610	   |         and who dies."

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: kristian@cs.uchicago.edu (Kristian Simsarian)
Subject: Obtaining Clinton/Gore Technology report?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:01:05 GMT



	Apparently Clinton and Gore have a report on expected
technology and research needed for the 90's and beyond.  Does anyone
know how I can get a copy of this?


Thank you,

Snail mail:
1100 E. 58th St RY152
Chicago, Il 60637


-- 
Kristian T. Simsarian			University of Chicago AI Laboratory
email: kristian@cs.uchicago.edu		CS Dept. Chicago, IL 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:52:59 GMT

dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:

>I haven't come up with a reasonable solution to the roads issue, but
>as regards local phone and cable TV: the governing body (usually the
>city government) reviews the offers of the different companies
>offering service and picks that which is suitable (determined by
>price, personnel, offers, etc.)  If the company doesn't work out, then
>ditch them and pick up a new one.  You'll see that even now there are
>several cable companies which vie for different markets.  The
>incentive is built-in--if the people complain to their gov't., the
>looters will be booted.

Hmmm...  Do you know of any cases where this has happened?  I haven't
ever heard of it happening, but then again something like that isn't
exactly national news.

I know that I've never really been happy with the cable service I've
received from three different companies (one in Austin and two in
Dallas -- I moved to an area serviced by a different company).  The
current one, while certainly much lower in price (basic charge of
$14.95/mo) only carries 22 channels (including 10 local broadcast
ones).  They've never responded to vocal or written requests about
adding channels.  They provide service through a couple satellite
dishes in the back of the apartment complex, which results in a lot of
interference from planes and weather (I'm near a small airport).

As for the phone company, the particular area I'm in is newly
developed, and many services aren't available.  Dallas/Ft. Worth has a
type of phone option called a "metro" number which allows toll-free
calls within the "Metroplex".  This service is an example of one I'd
like to have but is not available.  Also, the service provider here
has long been the target of grumblings from customers.  The other
provider for the Dallas area has a much better reputation.  I must say
that when I lived in an area serviced by them I was much happier.

I'll welcome the cable bill when it goes into effect.  Then I can tell
them to shape up or ship out.  I mean, how long do they _expect_ me to
have to get someone _else_ to tape MST3K for me, HUH? ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
From: MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: re: Paul Galvanek claims...
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:24:00 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Paul, I cannot argue with you anymore.
  I do not think I am reading extra things into what you write.
  Thus far you have stated without offering one iota of support
  1) Gays make terrible parents, because your sig O feels she
     was damaged by her lesbian mom
  2) Studies show that your point of view is correct:  though you
     could not name the studies
  3) Then when I named a study: you said psychological studies
     are not science (but your N of 1 experience constitutes
     support)
  4) You implied that I got my job through affirmative action
     because I am female.  I think it had to do with my program
     of research, but guess not.
  Your arguments come from your emotions not rational thought, otherwise
you'd at least admit that you haven't considered the alternative hypotheses.
I can't argue with someone who is bound to his own personal experience.
I do recommend however that your Sig other deal with her issues with
her mom.  Her problems with her mom is spilling into an unwarranted
dislike of a whole group of people.  I am sorry for the two of you.
                                  Melissa Brown
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:58:05 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <746@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.215704.4901@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>first priority was JOBS, period. This was the number one issue according
>>to the polls (followed closely by deficit reduction). Clinton's plan was
>>the
>>only one to address this issue.
>
>If he indeed had a plan, then why is he putting on this show they call the
>economic summit?  Would you like me to post the comments appearing in
>yesterday's papers, from leading Clinton supporters, as to why he really
>didn't have a plan or need one?  An out right admission as far as I'm
>concerned that he lied, once again.  

Pardon?  Give me a citation on how Clinton didn't really "have a plan
or need one."

The rationale for the summit is in part politics.  It is to show that
he is concerned about economic issues, and to prepare the nation for
long-term fixes that may be painful.  He is making the case that the
nation's economy is suffering from structural problems that will not
be resolved by an upturn in the business cycle or short-term
pump-priming.





--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18567 alt.politics.bush:14538 talk.politics.misc:64174
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Double-Digit Inflation - The Real Story
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:47:45 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

A popular prediction among Republican "doomsayers" is that with a Democrat
in office, we'll have double-digit inflation like we did under the last
Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.  I've been doing some reading, and have
discovered that the real story is somewhat different than the Republican
die-hards would like us to believe.

The roots of the large inflation of the seventies date back to the Nixon
administration.  Nixon, pressured by dwindling gold reserves, took the dollar
off of the gold standard in 1971 and announced to the world, in effect, that
the dollar was backed only by our word.  Having no commodity limiting the
money supply, the printing presses started to roll, the money supply increased
faster than was appropriate for our level of economic growth, and inflation
began to rise.  Inflation rose constantly, peaking under Carter at over
13 percent in 1971.  The trend of an increasing rate of inflation was one
which started in 1971 under Nixon and ended in 1979 under Carter.

Why did inflation drop?  In October 1979, during the Carter presidency, Paul
Volcker, newly appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, stopped the
printing presses.  Disinflation (slow-down in the rate of inflation) occured,
and along with it the unfortunate but necessary temporary softening of the
economy and increased unemployment which must accompany any lessening of
inflation.

Hence, an examination of the facts shows that the root cause of seventies
inflation was actions on the part of the Nixon administration, and that it
was during the Carter administration that the necessary remedy for inflation
was enacted.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: michaell@snake15.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: /usr/lib/news/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:20:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.214329.2749@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <758@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>The bottom line is that running any university is no accomplishment of epic
>>proportion in my opinion.  And doing so brings nothing in the way of 
>>experience to the task of running a department the size and scope of DHHS.
>>
>>Yes, so UW-Madison is X largest school, so what?  Stack the largest of them
>>up against a Fortune 500 company and it's still a little bit of nothing in
>>terms of real world employement and administrative problems.
>
>This is goofy. Running a university means you have to
>   --suck up to alums to get endowment money
>   --deal with every union under the sun, except maybe the UMW.
>   --deal with the fact that you can't just fire someone who's
>     incompetent, because he/she has tenure
>   --suck up to the government for a little dribble of federal or state funds
>   --feed and board thousands of people
>   --make sure your football team is good enough to be a money-maker.
>
>I for one would much rather run a Fortune 500 company than deal with all the
>bullshit a university administrator has to. But you're probably one of those
>guys who gets mad because his professors are more interested in research than
>teaching, right? 


And to get to the place we started all of this, DHHS Secretary-designate
(and UW-Chancellor) Donna Shalala abley managed all of those, and instigated
some programs that improved (though of course they aren't ideal) the situation
of undergraduates here at the University.

And to put it in more context, the governor who she's dealt with is a
Republican.

Michael Lee
From: michaell@snake28.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:24:40 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/rn/organization

In article <632@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>After the '88 campaign, and hearing Bensten's positions, anyone who believes
>he's still a moderate, let alone a conservative, should for their own sake
>take some time to evaluate just how far from mainstream they've drifted..

If "conservative" is the mainstream, why do Democrats now control all of the
federal government, and most state and local governments as well?

I could give a damn what the "mainstream" really is personally - the only reason
that is at all important is for who'll win the next election.  And as we've
seen, it isn't for the washed-out liberalism of Dukakis or Mondale, and it
isn't the far-right of George Bush's 1992 campaign.

Michael Lee