HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: Elites Wage Class-War Against Middle-Class & Poor
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:46:25 GMT

The Decline of America: Elites Wage Class-War Against Middle-Class & Poor

                --------------------------------------
                Study: 90% Pay More due to Tax Changes
                --------------------------------------

    "WASHINGTON-- 90% of American families pay more in federal taxes
    now than they would if the tax laws existing in 1977 had been left
    in place, Citizens for Tax Justice reported Thursday.

    But the very rich, as a result of tax-law changes over the last 13
    years, are paying up to 36 percent less than they would have, the
    group said.

    The results are similar to finding reported two weeks ago by the
    Congressional Budget Office.

    Several congressional Democrats cited the report as additional
    proof of their contention that the Reagan and Bush administrations
    pushed changes in the tax law that reward the rich and penalize
    everyone else."

[From: Chicago Tribune, 3/9/90 p.12. While our Free Press reports
"Read My Lips" etc as front-page material, this little fact, affecting
only 90% of their readers, was reported by the Tribune in the tiny
note I've just reproduced, near the bottom of page 12.]


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52377 alt.politics.clinton:10928
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!^H^H^H^H^Hbit inventive!
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:48:58 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <treilly.719164397@vincent1.iastate.edu>, treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
> In <1992Oct15.134256.22401@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> 
>>In article <treilly.719124552@vincent1.iastate.edu> treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
> 
>>>billion (not 200 billion) dollars.  
> 
>>Quayle quoted $100 billion.
> 
>>>He then said that an environmental plan of that magnitude (world
>>>wide) is needed, and that cost should not be bourne by the U.S. alone.  
> 
>>It does say (according to NPR) that the cost should be disprportionatly
>>by the US.
> 
>>Perhaps you can tell us all just how much Clinton wants to spend to clean
>>up other peoples environmental problems?
> 
>>   Allen
> 
>      Allen- 
>      My refernece to the 200 billion dollar amount was to point out that
> stupendous man was incoorect- 200 billion was stupendous man's figure,
> not mine- i was pointing out that he was mistaken.

	Allen knows that.  But why are you dwelling on typos and misremembered
figures...?

>      Further, look at what gore said- the cost should not be bourne
> by the U.S. alone.  Disproportionatley, maybe.  But not alone.  

	So what's the number?

>      i do not know how much Clinton wants to pay for other countries
> problems.  It is gore's book, not Clinton's and i have not heard clint
> say he categorically will employ things that gore asserts in his book.  
> My purpose is not to advocate Gore's p[olicies, but to point out that
> his opponenets are using his assertions and figures in ways he did not intend.

	No, it was a lot like a spelling flame, which you are vainly trying to
squirm out from under.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:05:00 GMT

cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes...
>John VietNam Veteran Moore writes:
> 
>   To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
>   Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
>   "willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
>   and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
>   least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
>   reprehensible and offensive.

John I agree, it sucks.  While other young men were fighting and dying 
in Viet Nam -- Bill Clinton took a "vacation" around the Soviet Union. 

While others such as Sam Johnson and Jim Stockdale were rotting in POW
camps -- BRAVE BILL CLINTON was (at least) on a merry Christmas tour in 
the heart of communism. At most, BRAVE BILL was planning out his presi-
dential career 20 years later as a fellow-traveler in the communist 
enlightenment, and the ultimate mole.

>Mr. Vietnam Veteran, the pathetic issue that you're flogging is what's
>known as a red herring.....

And you Mr. Brewster -- lets step back just to the known and "admitted"
facts. BRAVE BILL was on VACATION in the Soviet Union while others of
his generation DIED.

>Have you ever heard of being a tourist?  I know
>quite a few people who visited Moscow in that era--AS TOURISTS.  

I guess the war protest was hard work, huh?? 
And I wonder what "excellent vacation" BRAVE Bill has in mind for US.

>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com

-- Stephen Tice  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Election predictions
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:25:50 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct15.034652.19022@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:

>By bringing in Baker to the campaign they show they consider
>Bush's re-election more important than Bush's foreign
>policy:  The Start II Treaty, the Arab-Israeli Peace Talks...

If Bush doesn't win re-election.  Anything Baker does on any of those 
things is wasted motion anyway.  Clinton will bring in his own team
and proceed to mold each of them in his image.  If you really want to
keep Baker as secretary of state, the best way to do that would be
to re-elect Bush.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 16 Oct 1992 11:14:11 CDT
From: <U53903@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: What's wrong with line-item veto?

=========================================================================

Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 16 Oct 1992 10:16:08 CDT
From: <U53903@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject:     What's wrong with line-item veto?
Follow-up to:  U53903@uicvm.uic.edu

As a fairly committed Democrat, I wonder why it is always the Republican
party that discusses the line-item veto.  While I realize that this is
probably because of their smaller numbers in Congress, I don't
understand what the real problem is.  As I see it, there are two major
arguments used against the idea of a line-item veto:

1)  It will disrupt the checks and balances between the legislative and
executive branches of Congress.

     Why is this necessarily the case?  The checks and balances system
will still be in place; if the President vetos a portion of a bill, the
Congress can always go back and try to override that veto.  Why do we
constantly have good legislation sunk because of all the extras attached
to it?

2)   Minority groups will be exluded from the process due to lack of
representation, which will lead to a further denial of rights, etc., etc.

     While I realize that this may occur in some cases, it seems to me
that the rights of minority groups (and I don't just mean race) are
Constitutionally protected.  Any discriminatory practices could be
resolved in the judicial branch.  Beyond this, it seems that some very
large problems in our country must be taken care of immediately, and
that in end, choices must be made.  If we continue to hold up needed
legislation because of attempts to forward the interests of small groups
(not _protect_ their interests), nothing will get done.  Besides,
won't jump-starting the economy help almost everyone?

I'm starting to ramble a bit, but I hope the point of my question comes
through.  I see so much that needs to be accomplished, and so much
standing in the way.  Why not make an attempt to clear the road for
needed legislation?  For my own sake, I'd like to start a dialogue
about this, because I find the current situation frustrating.  If I'm
being naive, please help me out...although I don't promise to change
my mind!

I apologize for any glaring errors in the posting of this question.
This is my first time posting an article, and God knows if I'm
doing it correctly.  Please send any replies to me directly - I
check my mail frequently, but have less of a chance to review
the networks.

My address is U53903@uicvm.uic.edu

--David Moore
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate 2:  "Please state your position on Term Limits..."
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:11:24 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio

From article <1992Oct16.075407.9367@Princeton.EDU>, by niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):
> In article <15OCT199223481973@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
>>I think we ought to limit terms, and do all that other stuff afterwards.
> 
> Well, that doesn't surprise me, Mr Tice.  No one ever accused you of
> being for democracy.  You and your Ross "We can amend that dang
> Constitution" Perot.

First of all, this may come as a shock to you but we really can amend the
constitution.  It has been known to happen and suggesting that it
might be necessary to solve a problem is not a bad thing.

Second, if you honestly believe that term limits are not democratic,
why aren't you speaking out against presidential term limits?
 
> Guess what -- terms already are limited.  Congressmen have 2 years,
> Senators have 6.  After that, if these people want to go back to
> Congress, people have to vote for them!  They have to get reelected!
>
> Wow!  What a great system!  We get to keep the legislators we like, and
> get rid of the ones we don't!  What could be better than that?

How about a system that is consistent.  Either establish term limits
for congress or get rid of the term limits on the president.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52423 sci.environment:12049 talk.environment:4240
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:37:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct14.163009.26180@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

MARTA fares cover only 10%
>of *operating* cost. The other 90% is looted from the highway trust
>fund and a 1% general sales tax. This time the money is coming from
>pairs of pants that aren't sitting in MARTA seats.

By Georgia law, MARTA fares are required to cover 50% of operating costs.
Though at no time during its history has MARTA gotten significantly above
this level.  
Construction costs though are 100% subsidized.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Time For Clean Sweep -was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:39:42 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 21650@awdprime.austin.ibm.com, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>These sentiments are understandable.  But if you're honest you have to
>agree that Congress is at least *part*, if not most, of the problem.
>
>And since they're part of the problem, then shouldn't dumping them be
>part of the solution also?
>
>Be fair this November.  If you're voting for Mr. Clinton, vote against
>Congressional incumbents too, regardless of their party.

I'm afraid that this kind of simplistic argument is what got us into this
mess in the first place.  As long as you have different political parties
controlling Congress and the Presidency, you'll have gridlock government
and each side blaming the other.  The Democratic Party is about to assume
control of both branches of government this time around.  That is going to
place enormous pressure on them to fix the mess.

I don't advocate voting a straight ticket, since both parties can have very
capable people.  But, other things being equal, you should vote for the same
party this time around.  That is the only way to get politicians to stop
playing the blame game and to start working together to find solutions.  If 
you vote for Bush, then vote for Republican senators and congressional reps.
If you vote for Clinton, give him enough rope.  Give him Democratic senators
and congressional reps.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:50:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Oct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
> [bunch of stuff deleted]
>
>Then, there is the fact that a several of pages from his state department
>file are missing - specifically those from that period. This is VERY
>suspicious.
>
Yes, this is very suspicious.  I think we should get to the bottom of
this missing pages business.  I suspect, though, that when we do the
Republicans won't be too pleased with what they find.  Namely Richard
Nixon.  Lets not forget that Clinton was a state chairman of the
McGovern campaign and that any information about a trip to Moscow would
have been much more useful in 1972 than it is now.  Also, I seem to
recall something about Nixon keeping lists of enemies, the CIA spying on
US citizens at the time.  And wasn't there an illegal break-in
(Watergate) during the 1972 election?


Hey, hows that for a conspiracy theory?

Paul.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton will clarify
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:14:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <MATT.92Oct9115353@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
}In article <1992Oct9.152414.15518@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
}
}> "I was in protests against the United States, but I didn't inhale^h^h^h^h^h^h
}> organize."
}
}Is it your opinion that protesting against a particular war that the
}United States is involved in (a war, remember, which was so divisive
}that the government never even had the fortitude to officially declare
}as a war) is the same thing as protesting against the United States?

Naturally, you where there and noted that the protestors were verbose
in their declarations against the war and they were not saying anything
resembling "down with the USA!".  I think not.

}Does patriotism really require unquestioning support of every
}government policy, no matter how foolish or immoral it may be?

Nope.  Question:  How are you suppose to be influencing governmental
position if you will not even address the government (i.e. not even
in the same continent)?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Addendum on Human Rights Treaties
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:48:26 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>The Decline of America: Addendum on Human Rights Treaties
>
>
>    "The U.S. did not, however, take the necessary steps to allow the
>    far more frequently used individual complaint procedure -- doing
>    so requires signing the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
>
>    "The reservations package includes"
>
>    criminal procedure: the U.S. reserves the right to execute
>    juveniles and to treat them as adults in exceptional circumstances
>

In other words, we're not going to relinquish our rights to punish
criminals when, where and how we see fit.

Sounds like a good thing to me.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Republican Fear
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:49:05 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <Bw2usz.5Hs@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:

-> did you see the CNN report on the "Spin Fest" after the first
-> debate? Verrry Orwellian. As the reported noted, the Founding
-> Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

 CNN even showed a Democratic representative surrounded by reporters and
he was explaining how well Governor Clinton did. The problem was that the 
debate was still going on in the television monitors near the crowd.
 "The ultimate spin". "Psychic spin."

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 23:36:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.234424.23312@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>
>Do you know anything about going to Moscow
>at that time? Did you know that the Soviets investigated you before giving
>you a Visa? Did you know that you were accompanied at all times by an
>Intourist "guide" who was a KGB informer? Did you know that if the Russians
>felt that you weren't favorable to their cause, they didn't let you in
>even as a tourist? In fact, do you know ANYTHING about what was going on
>at that time?

Can you say, "False premise"??

There were several groups that were allowed to visit the USSR with relative
ease.  This included anyone they considered an American intellectual or
leading young citizen.  Just being a Rhodes Scholar would get you in
because they wanted those people to be exposed to the USSR.

This is why Clinton was able to go on this trip just like other young
scholars before him and after him.  You don't know as much as you think you
know about how people got into the USSR at that time.  The rest of your
posts reveal you to be a high-level paranoic when it comes to visiting the
USSR.  Go read who else was along on this trip, for cryin out loud.  The
list includes a bird colonel and a Reagan judicial appointee. You don't
know what you're talking about and assume that the trip was related to the
war, and that it was a pay-off for anti-war activities.  That is a false
premise.  It was a normal trip for young scholars.
 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: health care
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:04:26 GMT

In article <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>#This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health 
>#care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line 
>#to pay for th[text deleted]
>
>Can anyone document the statement that "87% of Americans have
>comprehensive health care plans"?  
>
>Susan

13% _not_ having coverage would be about 34 million people assuming a
population of 260 million.  This is a little under the frequently
quoted numbers, but close.  However, many of these "comprehensive"
plans are considered inadequate.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: TRADE NEWS: Media Invents Mexican "Support" for NAFTA
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:56:03 GMT

...Just posted to misc.activism.progressive...


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Subject: TRADE NEWS: Media Invents Mexican "Support" for NAFTA
--text follows this line--

    "The group also mentioned a new survey by the independent Mexican
    Institute of Public Opinion which finds Mexicans pretty evenly
    split over the deal.  Fifty percent of the poll's respondents said
    they did not think the government acted appropriately in seeking
    NAFTA compared to 48 percent who approved."
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    At this point, an objective of the EC and US could be to come
    CLOSE..TO completing the talks .. before the end of the year.
    Such an announcement would allow both sides to promote the
    agreement without having to release potentially unpopular details
    before the election [..] This weekend's talks are shrouded by such
    secrecy that it has not been announced where the talks will take
    place nor how long they will last [..]

[...]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:16:55 GMT


In a previous article, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) says:

>In 1969 and 1970, I attended anti war demonstrations.  Eight years
>ago, I visited the People's Republic of China, a communist country,
>and home to George Bush's buddies, the butchers of Tianeman Square. 
>I do not remember most of the people I met during my visit. Am I
>unpatriotic? 
>
>James L. Heilman

I hate to tell you, James, but not only are you unpatriotic, you are,
by the logic of Bob Dornen and the rest of the radical right lunatic
fringe, probably a covert KGB agent and actively working to overthrow
the american way of life....

(sigh...what a country....)


>__________________
>enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu 
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc