HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:47:29 GMT
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Nov05.033339.20227@eng.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
>
>In article <d-h1g4=@rpi.edu>, mancur@vccsouth13.its.rpi.edu (Rick Mancuso) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.151823.4676@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) writes:
>>>
>>>That's not the reason for raising their taxes.  The reason is that
>>>their taxes have been lowered (as compared to the middle class) for the
>>>past 12 years.  This group of citizens benefited from the economic
>>>policies that have hurt most of the rest of the citizens, and they were
>>>able to do this because the President supported that system.  Consider,
>>>if you wish, any tax increase on that group as a correction and remedy
>>>to past "abuse of power" and "inequity".
>>>
>>>Your idiology may vary.
>>
>>
>>I'm sorry, but mine does.  If I'm not mistaken, the upper tax bracket when 
>>Reagan took office in 1980 was 70%.  To me that reaks of socialism.  I agree 
>>with Bush on this point:  The American people are not taxed to little, the 
>>government spends too much.
>
>    I think it was 50%.   70% sounds more like Sweden.

The top income tax rate was at 70% prior to 1981. It was dropped from 70% to
50% in the Reagan (Kemp-Roth) Tax Act.

It was dropped to 28% in 1986 (with no loss of revenue from high-income
taxpayers; in fact, revenue gains were made.)

It will be heading above 50% again if various Democratic proposals are
enacted.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: zing@wilber.rich.nt.com (Leon Z. Lee)
Subject: Slick Willy...1st Flip
Organization: Northern Telecom, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:25:42 GMT

CBS News justn reported this morning that after months of opposing the
North American Free Trade agreement reached among Pres. Bush - Canada -
Mexico...Pres-elect Clinton just announced that he will accept the trade
agreement without any reservation or amendments.

This is flip No. 1.   Stay tuned for additional flips...signing out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Leon Z. Lee                        |  Only able to post to USENET.
 Global Meridian-1 Patch Project    |  No connection to INTERNET.
 Meridian Service Systems (MSS-GMP) |  Opinions posted are solely mine.
 Northern Telecom Private Networks  |  Phone: (214) 684-4680   ESN-444
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16617 alt.politics.democrats.d:406 alt.politics.elections:23290 ba.politics:6930 co.politics:1728 ne.politics:2840 nj.politics:623 or.politics:533 ny.politics:146 talk.politics.misc:59233
From: europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:44:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Nov9.191921.28413@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, by doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver):
> 
> Calm down Jon! In fact you are right that consumption tax based on sales is in
> general regressive.  But a consumption tax based on the level of consumption
> would work just like an income tax, with progressive marginal rates etc.
> The only real difficulty is how do you measure consumption, but this is not
> hard at all.  It's something like cash-flow accounting.  On Jan.1 take all
> income earned from all sources (capital and labor) ad in the begininning of
> the years savings (taken from the previous years return) and subtract current savings:
> consumption=earned income + other income + savings at the start of the previous year - savings at the beginning of this year.
> The left-hand side is what is taxed with exemptions for income levels and pro-gressive tax rates.
> For example: On Jan 1, 1992 my savings is at $5000.  In 1992 earn $10,000 in wages, and a return of $500 on my savings.  My total cash flow for 1992 (representing how much money I had to spend) was $15,500.  On Jan 1, 1993 my saving is at 
> $7500.  My taxable consumption is $8000. See, wasn't that easy, and no need for
> it to be regressive.
> 
> -David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)

OK now, let's see if I understand this correctly. A hurricane/earth-
quake/what-ever takes place, my home gets trashed, and I have to pay
a tax on top of that to rebuild?   
How about my wife or children get sick and we have to pay a tax
on top of the medical expenses?
etc....

See, wasn't that easy! I think I could grow to like this system. NOT!!!
( or did I over look something ? )

Ron Capik            via: europa@cbnewsh.att.com
(aka: the NJ Editorial Minstrel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 10:29:28 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov12.081725.12946@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
|> In article <1992Nov11.005956.23879@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov10.210356.11971@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
|> >>>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
|> >>>	income have 3 kids????
|> >>Could be because they want them!  
|> >Fine: Why should they be made immune from the consequences of this
|> >choice? If they want to have more kids than they can afford, that's
|> >fine. But they should live with the result: Poverty. We are under
|> >no obligation to save them from their own bad judgement.
|> >
|> >The discussion is why such a family should be given a tax credit, to
|> >protect them from the results of their choice. I see no reason 
|> >why they should be.
|> 
|>   As a feeling, caring human being, I constantly wonder how all
|>   of you "only the tough survive" people ever get up and look
|>   at yourself in the mirror in the morning.  You should all be
|>   ashamed of yourselves.  You remind me of Scrooge in Dicken's
|>   Christmas Carol: "Well, maybe you should let them alone to 
|>   starve.  It would reduce the surplus population."  
|> 
|>   What's really scary, is that many of these same people call
|>   themselves true Christians.  Christ would be ashamed of you.
|> 

No, what is really scary is self-rightgeous individuals who wish
to force their notion of compassion on other people.  I will
certainly agree that generosity and compassion is an important
part of being a Christian.  However, whether a person is being
generous enough to qualify as a 'true' Chrisian is something
to be determined between that person and God, it is not to
be determined by you or some 'democratic' majority.  Imposing
your notion of generosity on other people is no different than
imposing your moral beliefs on other people.  I find both
concepts to be anti-Christian.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: What Conservatives fear most
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:11:26 GMT

In article <sulkanen.721069782@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> 
> It's hard to gauge the effects of conservative rule on an economy
> that is already so instituionally socialized.

Apparently the English think they have it gauged. Why then are they moving so
rapidly toward privatization? Hmm. Guess that's why Kinnock lost huh?
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard
		Jack Kemp in '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:10:25 GMT

In article <Bx8n1B.DKx@beach.csulb.edu>
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
> Before you go hog wild, remember that much of that time the Democratic
> party has been a single party in name only and that many so-called Dems
> were southern Democrats who had more in common with their Republican
> colleagues than their Democratic ones much of the time. It's only been
> with effective enforcement (and inactment) of the Voting Rights Act that
> southern Democrats have been representative of the party as a whole.

Another factor is that most racists like Strom Thurmond left the party
and joined the GOP, where their ideas better reflect the mainstream of
the party. :-)

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17109 alt.politics.democrats.d:543 alt.politics.elections:23751 ba.politics:7112 co.politics:1987 ne.politics:2972 nj.politics:719 or.politics:629 ny.politics:240 talk.politics.misc:60062
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:02:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.033316.29196@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.013206.23295@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: 
: 	If you will find for me _any_ part of the Bible which commands
: an _egalitarian_ marriage (not one with supposedly complementary
: roles), I will concede that also. By egalitarian I mean something
: comparable to friendships, especially between those of similar social
: positions.
: 
>I'm paraphrasing, but I believe this comes from Genesis.

>God created woman from Adam's rib so she could stand beside him.  She was not
>created from his head to stand over him, or from his heel to be below him.  

	I reread the relevant passage, and the surrounding passages,
and this part of the Bible plainly states that Eve was created for
Adam's benefit -- and from Adam's body, I may add. From where is
irrelevant, unless one is obsessed with reading meanings into every
little thing. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

>Douglas C. Meier		|  Read the Democratic party platform, then       
>Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  the 1933 Nazi Germany platform.  Now note 
>This University is too Commie-	|  the similarities.
>Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

	And consider the Nazi views on women and gays -- a lot in
common with the Religious Right: women's task in life should be
_Kinder, Ku"che, Kirche_ (children, kitchen, church; and that includes
_no_ political activism of _any_ kind, now matter how Politically
Correct [Phyllis Schlafly and Marilyn Quayle should just shut up]),
while gay people should be exterminated.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: Call for Radical Tax Simplification
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:35:22 GMT


For most Americans, the federal income tax process should be paperless and
require no intervention.  I believe this strongly, and I think a lot of
people would get behind this idea if they believed it possible.  I am a
well-educated professional in a technical field, and I still find it almost
insanely complex each spring to navigate the morass that our tax system 
has become.  Sure, you can hire somebody --- but that is symptomatic of
the problem at hand!  I certainly don't mind paying taxes (much), but I
mind the headache and inconvenience considerably!

I shudder to think what people with less patience/education/etc feel when
they are faced with this unfair yearly burden placed upon the people by
our insensitive government.

Use your voice - call your senator/rep:  radical tax simplification and
reform is needed NOW.


My $0.02,


jb



--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
                  Message for Clinton:  fix it or out!
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
--                         std. disclaimer                             --
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16747 alt.politics.democrats.d:428 alt.politics.elections:23390 ba.politics:6972 co.politics:1765 ne.politics:2862 nj.politics:644 or.politics:555 ny.politics:167 talk.politics.misc:59430
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:03:08 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>>To who?  You?  Picture this: Take a single earner family with three pre-school
>>children (doesn't pay for wife to work), making around 30K/yr.  Keeping a 
>>home, and food on the table is a balancing act in this scenario.  Even when
>>you get rid of such un-necessary bills such as a second car, cable TV, etc.  
>>*ANY* increase in taxes (above the normal cost of living wage increase) topples
>>the whole apple cart.  What we have to do is get control of GOV'T SPENDING !!!
>>Getting control of Joe Public's wallet has never, and will never, solve the
>>tax problems which we are facing.
>
>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>	income have 3 kids????
>
>	People have to be held responsible for their actions - until they
>	are held accountable for generating mouths to feed, I can't
>	see subsidizing it!
>

Yessirree...we vile, nasty heterosexuals are *definitely* responsible.
Obviously, if the folks who sponsered Amendment 2 had *really* wanted
to solve some problems, they would have legalized discrimination against
*us*! After all, it's just a metter of *choice*, right? 

;-), for the humor-impaired.

Steve
From: Steve Freedkin <sfreedkin@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 06 Nov 92 17:52 PST
Subject: Re: Deep Space 9
Nf-ID: #R:1992Nov5.191928.25215@ncsu.edu:-1738372763:cdp:1588800052:000:1266
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!sfreedkin    Nov  6 17:52:00 1992


I'm not sure Alt.Politics.Clinton is the place for this, but here's a bit
of info:

Entertainment magazine had a cover story on Deep Space 9 in its Sept. 25
issue.  Bascially, the program appears to jump off from the concept of
the inter-planetary dive bar in Star Wars.  Deep Space 9 is a space
station that features, among other things, a bar and holographic brothel
run by Ferengi.  The one Star Trek: The Next Generation regular who will
become a DS9 character is Colm Meaney, playing Chief Miles O'Brien, who
is promoted from the Enterprise's transporter chief to the Operations
Officer of DS9. 

"In Deep Space, we set out to do all the things we couldn't do in Next
Generation," says Rick Berman, an executive producer of both series.  "We
wanted the space station to be the antithesis of the Enterprise.  We
wanted it to be strange and uncomfortable and confusing.  We wanted it to
seem alien, with a small 'a'."

He doesn't explain what Alien with a large 'A' would be.

There will be lots of aliens and intrigue.  The series is now in production,
and I believe it's to premiere in the spring, but the article doesn't say,
and another article I read which *did* say has long since gone to the
recycling center.  Hope this helps a little!

-- Steve Freedkin

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: USA Today/CNN tracking poll -- final results
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:56:49 CST


In article <1992Nov6.110837.5445@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.163352.22678@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> 
> 	Joe, just want to say thanx for doing this during the election.  Great
> job!
> 	(Anyone who has posted graphs knows who tedious it can get :)
> 
> > USA Today/CNN Tracking Poll:
> > P = Perot,  B = Bush,  C = Clinton,  x = other or undecided
> > actual vote:
> > p = Perot,  b = Bush,  c = Clinton
> ...
> >                  % preference (likely voters)                Clinton lead (%)
> >       0    5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50    0    5   10   15
> >       |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
> > 10/26 |    x           P                  B     C            |     o        
> > 10/27 |     x         P                     B C              | o            
> > 10/28 |    x          P                     B  C             |  o           
> > 10/29 |    x        P                         BC             |o             
> > 10/30 |    x        P                        B  C            |  o           
> > 10/31 |     x        P                    B      C           |      o       
> > 11/01 |     x       P                     B       C          |       o      
> > 11/02 |    x        P                      B      C          |      o       
> > 11/03 |                  p                  b    c           |    o         
> >       |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
> >       0    5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50    0    5   10   15
> 
> 	Just wanted to make an observation here.  Does anyone remember what
> happened on 10/30?  The press pulled their own "October Surprise" and trumped
> up Casper's notes to be a "smoking gun" for Bush on Iran-Contra.
> 	Bush recovered from that, but not enough.

If you've been listening to some of the post-election coverage, Bush knew he
was going to lose long before Nov 3.  They even booked a smaller room for
their "victory" celebration a week before the vote.

"The economy, stupid."

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16268 talk.politics.misc:58696
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:35:48 GMT

In article <BxIn3y.57z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> bondc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Clay M. Bond) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.033316.29196@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>
>Ah, but it was the Republicans, not the Democrats who ran the
>traditional family values platform.  Drink plenty of liquids,
>take plenty of aspirin, get plenty of rest and don't call in the
>morning.
>
Nah, aspirin makes me break out.

>And instead of throwing around meaningless labels that only the
>mindless use, try getting a clue.
>
You mean that clue that says I have to accept the agenda of the left-wing
loonies without question, otherwise I'm just not enlightened and should
probably crawl back into my cave?  That clue?  That same clue the sociology
profs want me to get?  Sorry that isn't clue, that is just being trendy.

I don't like trendy.  Trendy seems to circumvent conscious thought and
pondering.  I was at one time one of the trendy Demo-redistributors, and have
since changed my ways after the hypocrisy of what I was being asked to swallow
slapped me in the face.  Hard.

So there.

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Read the Democratic party platform, then       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  the 1933 Nazi Germany platform.  Now note 
This University is too Commie-	|  the similarities.
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:02:58 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to 
>take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take 
>care of him.) I do think the government should protect 
>people from criminal invasions of their rights, and (I suppose,
>although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
>protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.


This sounds Libertarian, is it?

Charlie

-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@koneko.shr.dec.com		    *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17081 alt.politics.democrats.d:530 alt.politics.elections:23714 ba.politics:7098 co.politics:1961 ne.politics:2965 nj.politics:714 or.politics:625 ny.politics:235 talk.politics.misc:60008
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:53:03 GMT
Followup-To: ne.politics
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <BxoDHA.Cp@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <Bxo9z3.Kzx@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>>	(deleted)
>>	Also,  I notice you state that a public servant,  for which I read
>>public employee,  should be willing to accept less of a pay increase than
>>the norm.  Why?
>
>    Because they are overpaid for what they do.  Otherwise, they would be able 
>    to find a better paying job elsewhere.  I'd keep the freeze in tact
>    until there is a shortage of them.
>

	By that logic,  everyone is overpaid for what they do:
		If they are not overpaid then
			they can find a better paying job elsewhere
		They haven't.
		QED
 

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot