HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PAYCHECK DAMMIT!!!
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:18:55 GMT

|> >A single ostensibly contrary anecdote doesn't constitute proof of
|> >impossibility.  Proof?

I never said "proof."  I wrote e - x - a - m - p - l - e, example.

|> >out 'better'?  It could have worked out 'better' if Sam Walton had
|> >made a few billion less and that had been spread out over, say, a few
|> >hundred of his upper managers.  They would then have had funds to
|> >start other businesses, etc.  Over-concentration of wealth hardly
|> >constitutes something that's good for the economy.

First, Sam *did* make all his upper management rich enough to start
other businesses.  Many did.  Even some cashiers became wealthy enough
to start businesses if they wanted to risk their comfortable retirement
on it.  Who better decides "over-concentration?"  government, you,
or a free market?  If you guessed free market, you are correct.

|> >>Now look at it another way, say the late Sam was worth $6 billion.
|> >
|> >Then he wasn't the richest man in the country.  Bill Gates is worth
|> >over $8 billion.

It was just an example figure.  Fortune incorrectly ranked Sam #1, but
later realized that his wealth was shared with others in his family, so
they moved him down on the list and added the rest of his family.  Chill
out.

|> >>If you redistributed his wealth to every person in the country,
|> >>we'd each get roughly $24.  Which is better for the economy,
|> >>having a retailing company that is more competitive and probably
|> >>saving consumers billions a year, employing thousands of tax
|> >>payers, making thousands of other tax paying investors rich as
|> >>shit, and paying taxes itself, or a one-time $24 each?
|> >
|> >Once again, you only offer the two choices.  What is it with the black
|> >and white only logic, anyway?  How about if you redistributred his
|> >wealth to 1,000 people and gave them each $6 million.  Now, which way
|> >is the economy better off?  Or suppose you took $3 billion and used
|> >that to educate 100,000 engineers and scientists.  Now which way is
|> >the economy better off?

I illustrated the fallacy of redistribution by using an *ideal*
redistribution.  But let's look at your example.  I have $3 billion and
I know that if I make $3 billion more, it will be taken from me by the
government.  I relax.  Now, neither government nor I have the 3 billion.

|> >>So much for redistributing the wealth.
|> >
|> >Yep.  Seems to work pretty good if you do it with your eyes open as to
|> >where it is going and what effects it is having.

It only works well when done by a free market.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Who toppled Communism??
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:11:00 GMT

jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

>pigs.  If anybody wants me to, I'll even dig up the quote I have of Mister 
>time Man of the Year oh yeah look at how I ended communism Gorbachev saying 
>something to the effect of "when they think we are down and completely 
>destroyed, it is then that we will strike and crush their complacent armies 
>to a pulp."  I'm totally serious.  He said that.  

Please do. I have some Gorbachev-fanatic friends out here who might have some
sense knocked into them with a quote like that. 

-ACF
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:38:12 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>You know, what Reagan did was essentially a Keynsian policy: lower
>taxes, spend lots of money (in defense, not social/infrastructure
>expenditures).

Exactly.  What's the big deal? We always knew that if you borrowed a 
couple trillion dollars and pumped it into the economy, you'd have
growth.  What's surprising, actually, is how little the growth was
given the amount spent.  What's not surprising is how disproportionate
the growth was, given the Republican's supporters.
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10884 talk.politics.misc:40513 alt.politics.bush:2068
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:50:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <92231.213054A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> writes:
>"I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
>Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
>in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
>spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
>than it is Gorbatsjov)

The thing is that Bush does not have a coherent  domestic policy and is
prepared to do anything to get reelected.  Hence, the republicans try to
hoodwink the American public into believing that Bush was a major player
in bringing down communist dictatorship in Europe.  As a European, you
were closer to the events and can see the republicans' claim for what it is -
ridiculous propagander.  

As well as Gorbachev, credit should also go to Boris Yeltsin whom Bush
snubbed until after the collapse of the Soviet communist party.

Peter Lauren.
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: the "l" word and Republicans
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 11:43:53 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I think that, at least for the time being (maybe decades), it is futile
for libertarians to work within the Republican Party.  The fundies,
the puritans, the corporatists, and tories will fight like pitbulls
because they have nowhere else to go.  The party bosses have no
motivation to respond to libertarian initiatives because the "I don't
want to waste my vote" crowd will continue to bend over as Sarah Brady
and Old Read My Lips gradually relieve them of their guns and their
earnings.  They will outnumber you, outfinance you, and outslime you
every time.  If you don't believe me, check out the convention speech
by Reagan that was posted here, that alludes to how "tragic" it would be
if America were to forget how it taught the rest of the world about
freedom--while a newspaper in Lausanne, Switzerland prints a bar chart
showing USA having FOUR TO EIGHT TIMES the prisoners per 100,000
inhabitants of Western European countries.  If the architect of the
"war on drugs"--the most obscene attack on the Bill of Rights in 
American history--can get away with this kind of Orwellian doublethink,
then you are dealing with an entity corrupt beyond redemption any time
soon.

There is only one way I can think of to make the Republican Party worth
the effort to turn it around, and that is to make the Libertarian Party
a threat that the bosses will have to respond to, by giving *l*ibertarian
voters route to escape from their captivity.  Only a strong LP makes
the Republican Party worth dealing with at all.  The longer you put off
helping the LP, the longer you will have to wait (if you live that long)
before it will be worthwhile to work within the Republican Party.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10947 talk.politics.misc:40607 alt.politics.bush:2137
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us lau
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:25:36 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug19.033655.5007@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.015027.11470@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>In article <92231.213054A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> writes:
>>>"I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
>>>Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
>>>in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
>>>spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
>>>than it is Gorbatsjov)
>>
>>The thing is that Bush does not have a coherent  domestic policy and is
>>prepared to do anything to get reelected.  Hence, the republicans try to
>>hoodwink the American public into believing that Bush was a major player
>>in bringing down communist dictatorship in Europe.  As a European, you
>>were closer to the events and can see the republicans' claim for what it is -
>>ridiculous propagander.  
>
>  Well, his opinions are just that, his opinions.  To assume that they,
>in any way, represent the views of all Europeans or all European literature
>is just mistaken.
>
>  On a personal level, I know people from England, France, and even Croatia
>that disagree with the above opinion.  As a regular reader of _The Economist_,
>I can assure you that it gives credit to the policies of Republicans and
>their influence on the end of the Cold War (so at least one bit of
>European literature provides some credit to the Republican policies.)
>
>  Certainly giving Gorbachev and Yeltsin their full credit is just.  However,
>to pretend like U.S. policies had no effect upon the Cold War victory
>seems a bit odd.
>


Please, _The Economist_ is a conservative magazine, a pal of MAggie
who did all she could to pal up with Ronnie.  Dont take it as
the definitve opinion of Europe.

On the whole, America is perceived as arrogant by Europeans I would
think.  The status quo in power might like to not say that because
they want our money and support.  But in general, I think the poster was
pointing out the Bush was taking sole resposibility for ending the
Cold War which is ridiculous. He lucked out by being president
like Ronnie did.  GOrby deserves credit and in Bush's world vsion
he Bush is the only one he did anything.  The reply about Bush
looking for something positive in terms of his pathetic domestic
policies was right on target.

I'm afraid your friends in Europe dont cut it with me.  I did
graduate work in England and my spouse is Enlgish.  So I've
met them, talked to them and even lived there. 










Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:29:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.201059.23168@noao.edu> lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>
>Don't worry about those polls yet!  It seems the majority of the 
>voters are mindless, drooling idiots who are swayed like leaves
>in the wind to believe and follow the current media crap.  Let's
>face it - THE NETWORKS CAN SELECT ANY PRESIDENT THEY DESIRE -.

And the media have chosen Clinton as their favorite overwhelmingly.

Even Mort Kondrake said as much. He was amazed at how fawning of Clinton
the press had become. They have lost any sense of objectivity and
are swallowing Clinton press releases as Gospel truth and evangelizing
the wonders of the Clinton bus-mobile tour.
Meanwhile the media dumping on Bush continues ....

>Enough of the voting public will support the media choice, that    
>thinking voters will not make a substantial difference.  Hell, they
>could probably get Charley Manson elected.

Clinton/Manson?  Manson/Quayle?!
(Go home folks ... the election's over.)
--------
P. McGuinness
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: Read! modem tax! *read*
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:48:43 GMT

Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:

>     I recently was made aware of the fact that the political powers
> that be are considering a *MODEM TAX*.

Read alt.folklore.urban.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!anomaly!mpd         /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton)
Subject: GOP Convention:  How is it playing?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:23:59 GMT


I have my own opinion about the impact of the GOP convention on the
populace, but I live in the Bay Area so what do *I* know about "America"?

I'd like to know what *you* think--but more importantly I'd like to know
what you've been hearing "around".  How is this going over?
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Absurd National Guard Comments
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:15:08 GMT


In article <1683FAC34.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, 
JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com said:

> At least Quayle actually SERVED in the National Guard.

        clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-<DING!>
        clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-<DING!>
  +-->  clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-<DING!>
  |     clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-clacketa-<DING!>
  |     "Hey!  Anybody here know how to spell 'potatoe'?"
  |
  |
  +-------<  sound of Dan Quayle (and his trusty typewriter)
             actually serving in the Indiana National Guard... :-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: wkm@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (william.k.mcnally)
Subject: TRIM 4-102 for Dick Swett NH
Keywords: TRIM 4-102 for Congressman Dick Swett 2nd Dist. New Hampshire
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:15:38 GMT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIM 4-102 for Congressman Dick Swett 2nd Dist. New Hampshire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National TRIM (Tax Reform IMmediately)     Average | Voted | Voted 
 an adhoc committee of The John Birch Society      Cost    | for   | for  
 write:  TRIM, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913    per    | LOWER | HIGH
    (Start TRIMing your U.S. Congressman NOW!)   Household | TAXES | TAXES 
                                                           | & LESS| & BIG
  Legend   **** = LOWER TAXES       XXXX  = HIGH TAXES     | Gov't | Gov't
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H Con Res 287: Fiscal 1993 Spending Freeze.         $7,802 |      | XXXX
Amendment to hold much spending to 1992 levels,    (savings)
set five-year ceiling, save interest(Rejected 60-344 on
March 4, 1992, Roll Call #38.) Total Savings:$750 Billion

HR 3553: Higher Education Act. Reauthorizes,           $312 |      | XXXX
through fiscal 1997, aid to college students, even if
family has $78,500 annual income! (Passed 365-3 on 
March 26, 1992, Roll Call #62.) Total Cost: $87.7 Billion

H J Res 456: Fuscal 1992 Foreign Aid. Keeps            $76 |      | XXXX
unconstitutional givaways going through September 
at $14.6 billion per year rate. (Passed 275-131
on March 31, 1992, Roll Call #63.) Total Cost: $7.3 Billion

HR 4704: Savings and Loan Bailout. More taxpayer      $177 | **** |
billions for the bailout. Government shouldn't be in
the insurance business! (Rejected 125-344 on May 12, 1992,
Roll Call #69.) Total Cost: $17.0 Billion

HR 2039: Legal Services Corporation. The Constitution  $19 |      | XXXX
does not authorize spending for legal assistance for
private civil cases. (Passed 253-154 on May 12, 1992,
Roll Call #118.) Total Cost: $1.8 Billion

HR 4111: Small Business Loans. Taxpayers should       $187 |      | XXXX
not be force to guarantee loans for private business
ventures. Unconstitutional! (Passed 399-2 on May 12, 
1992, Roll Call #122.) Total Cost: $18.0 Billion

H Con Res 287: Fiscal 1993 Budget. Sets budget     $15,770 | **** |
level for 1993; a $68 billion increase from 1992.
Includes a $327 deficit! (Passed 209-207 on May 21,
1992, Roll Call #122.) Total Cost: $1.516 Trillion

HR 5260: Unemployment Benefits Extension.              $19 |      | XXXX
The constitution makes no provision for taxing
citizens to pay the unemployed. (Passed 261-150 on
June 9, 1992, Roll Call #179.) Total Cost: $5.8 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:33:07 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com () writes:
>The Bush campaign states that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in Arkansas.
                                                    ^^^^
>Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayer's advocacy group says the Rep.'s
>reached this total by counting some taxes twice and including some things like
>raising hunting fees.   But they also noted that Clinton raised the
>sales tax several times,.  They also said that Arkansas' tax system is
>regressive, meaning the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
>income taxpayers.  Note that this is meant as information and not
>as an "our boy" vs. "your boy" type of argument.

The Washington Post did it's best to put this number to rest a couple of
days ago.  They looked at the Rep. list of Clinton's tax increases.  He
raised the tax on five different types of alcoholic beverages; the Republicans
call that five taxes.  Two items on the list were _identical_, down to the
wording.  Three taxes listed spanned two lines on the list.  The SECOND LINE
WAS COUNTED AS A TAX!!  He imposed a $1 fee on convicted criminals; that was
considered a tax increase.  I can't remember the best one, however.  He 
lengthened a season (hunting or somesuch); it's counted as a tax.

The other Rep. taxlie is that Clinton is proposing the largest tax increase
in US history.  Sorry, George, Clinton won't push your 1990 tax bill out
of second place.  And first place will still belong to Ronald Reagan.

--f2
------------------
no face, no name, no number
no .sig
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gov. Weld of Mass.
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:04:14 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Aug18.184852.9019@udel.edu> lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>
>It was Capital Gang. They were talking to Gov. Weld of Mass. and
>they remarked that while economically the platform was good, socially
>it was not libertarian, and they asked Weld how he felt about that.
>Does anyone what Weld is like socially? Apart from being pro-choice
>on abortion, I don't know anything else about him.

The Sunday NYT a couple of weeks ago did their cover story on him.
He's a libertarian.



--
But this is.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:38:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.135211.2141@cs.tulane.edu>, lang@cs.tulane.edu
(Raymond Lang) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Aug12.113301.16060@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
> >                                         You are correct that the flat
> >tax would have to be around 19%, but you either ignored/were unaware that
> >all such reasonable proposals include exclusion of the first $X thousand
> >dollars earned from any form of taxation. (I believe $X thousand is
> >usually $20k, but I would have to look it up.)
> >
> >  So, you see, in both of your examples above the people making less
> >than $20k would pay $0 in taxes, while everyone else paid 19% on
> >everything over the first $20k.  Also, flat tax proposals include virtually
> >no deductions outside of this $20k.  The idea is not only to make taxes
> >fair, but to eliminate many of the distortive effects that our current
> >system causes.
> 
> Fine, put a cut-off any where you like; but then you end up with someone
> just above the cut-off having less left over than someone just below.
> Isn't that a "distortive effect"?
> 
> Besides that, the basic argument still applies.  If the cut-off is at
> $20K, then Joe Taxpayer with income of $21K still has a much harder time
> coming up with $4,200 than H. Russ Billionaire with income of a million
> a year has finding an extra $200K.

No, they'd only pay taxes on $1,000 (salary - cutoff).

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Summary: Addition  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Recession
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:25:45 GMT

In article <7976@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes...

>>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

Just clarification: recovery in summer, not fall, of 80'.

>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. 

You're not telling me anything new. If you read my previous post you'll
see that.

 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.)

This is all true, I won't deny that. But you are not taking everything
into account. For instance, a budget is not made up of just tax cuts.
Reagan's whole spending plan went into affect in November 81' and the 
recession continued to get worse (much worse) in 82'. Also, although
I might be wrong (if someone knows otherwise please correct me), those
tax cuts began taking less out of paychecks as of January 82'.
I'm not flaming you. I just trying to clarify the subject.

Standard disclaimer
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11091 alt.politics.clinton:2374 alt.politics.bush:2299 talk.politics.misc:40904