HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 10:39:12 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov6.203939.25141@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
|> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
|> 
|> $ Guess we know how you feel about successful individuals, i.e. they don't
|> $ deserve the fruits of their success...tax'em to the hilt.
|> $ [...]
|> 
|> I've heard this argument many times but never seen any evidence of it.
|> When people's tax rates go up as a result of increased income, people
|> don't decide that it's not worth the trouble and then seek lower-paying
|> jobs.  When I see people not bothering because the tax rates are too
|> high, then I'll believe this argument.

Do you bother to read anything?  In the last week I have seen countless
articles on what you should do now in anticipation of the coming
tax hike.  Things like accelerating income, deferring deductions,
investing in tax free munis, etc.  Tax changes *do* affect how much
people earn and invest.  The issue is not that someone would turn
down a higher paying job, its whether they would put *additional*
effort into earning the higher salary.  Perhaps the new job requires
more travel.  It may not be worth the extra effor to earn the higher
pay, if much of the gain simply goes to the government.  Take a
good look around, tax policy *does* influence earning behavior.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:31:56 EST

In article <1992Nov9.183044.13115@netcom.com>, dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk) writes:
> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> 
>>Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
>>OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.
> 
>>For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
>>down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
>>I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
>>assholes.
> 
>>If you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WE DON'T NEED YOU NOW, OK????
> 
>>Jeez...
> 
>>-Garrett
> 
> Gee, a very intelligent argument.  Shows us how tolerant some of the non-
> conservative dorks are!  
> 
> Give unity and cooperation a chance!
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------
> 
> Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent --Salvor Hardin

Hey Amerika, Lighten up!

-Garrett

(Denise, tune into an hour of Rush Limbaugh ok?)
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Carter, Inflation, OPEC, energy policy
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:47:25 GMT
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center

In article <1992Nov11.144214.20605@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

   Matt Landrum writes:
   >MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
   >
   >   Hi. Could some sane rational grownup, someone perhaps who was a literate
   >   nonpartisan adult during the Carter years please connect the above
   >   concepts.  I am oh so very confused about the economy under Carter and
   >   just how much he was responsible for the high inflation rates.  What did
   >   he do specifically that made them so high, or fail to do to lower them.
   > 
   >A recent Louis Rukeyeser column suggested that the Carter
   >administration provided a stimulus to the economy after it had
   >already turned the corner which accelerated and exaggerated
   >the return to inflation (and the rate of inflation that would
   >be expected).

   Not to put the Carter before the hearse, but what the h*** kind of 
   stimulus could Carter have provided that wasn't prevalent tons more
   during the last 12 years? defecit spending? tax cuts? It is to
   groan-inwardly-in-spirit. If monetarists are to be believed just
   as only we can prevent forest fires, only printing presses cause
   inflation.

my taxes went up and my deductions went down

   As for me, my only economics training consists in paying food bills 
   and the mortgage. I don't know what caused the inflation of the 
   late 70s and am also anxiously awaiting some kind of answer.
   -- 
   Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> My bad.     

I suppose it depends on where you are in the business cycle, the
marginal propensity to consume, the aggregate demand (which the energy
crisis surely affected) blah blah blah.  Too bad the column wasn't
more specific.  Rukeyeser bitched that Reagan was talked into the
1986 tax reform bill and from 87-92 was nothing like 81-86.  I'm
no Reagan/Bush fan I was just mentioning something I read by someone
with some degree of experience in the field.  Perhaps someone
else can spew forth another bullshit theory?
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap
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: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Nov10001715@ussr.std.com>
	<PA146008.497.721429912@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:47:25 GMT


From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) [responding to me]
>>However, when the country is running $400B yearly deficits we've
>>basically created an inverse situation from what is at all healthy,
>>essentially robbing from the average guy to give to the wealthy.
                               ^^^^^^^
>>
>>Now what would be one way to correct that situation...?
>
>       If the problem is, as you say, that the money is being taken from
>the poor to give to the rich, cut government interference and the problem
     ^^^^
>will take care of itself.  The problem, though, is considerably more
>complex. 

I'm sorry, but what part of the word "average" did you have so much
trouble with up there that you decided to replace it with "poor"?

>>Indeed, please give me your thumbnail figures for your "equal
>>validity" argument. I gave you mine.
>
>      I dunno.  Considering that the poor have more numbers, and thus more
>votes, I'd think they share the blame.

What percentage of the US do you believe is poor?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
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: yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Paramax Systems, Ivyland, PA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:22:45 GMT

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.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe they could afford it before they had the kids.

>
>>Don't make assumptions
>>and preach population control when the discussion is taxes.
>
>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.
>
>                                     Frank Crary
>                                     CU Boulder

Frank,

Go back and read my original post again.  I posted a few points about
how people could be in the situation described, and pointed out that
judgement in not necessarily the cause.  Taking specific sentences from
my argument without addressing my substantiations (education, divorce,
unemployment) allows you to make the same assumption the original poster
made.

My point is the same that others have made, that a family making 30k a
year with three kids should be able to afford to live.  Many make less.
And, to go back to the point made by the person that suggested the three
kids/30k per year scenario - the family might have made 50k per year
before the kids were born.  But after day care costs, taxes, and all
other expenses related to working while raising kids, it is not cost
effective for a mother to go back to work.  There was a time in this
country when families could afford to do this.  But then, times have
changed, haven't they.

Steve

Stephen Yavorski			internet - yavo@ivy.unisys.com
NEXRAD Integration			phone    - (215) 443 - 7500
Paramax Systems Corporation
Ivyland, Pennsylvania
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: *+* NEWSFLASH *+* MUST READ !
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:55:13 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu
Keywords: Say your prayers America

>      Tonight I have sad and disturbing news on Nov,3rd the United States
>      America "the new Russia" had an election and again the blind majority
>      was taken in by a slick talking used car salesman sissy boy pansy
>      looking con artist...

I voted for Bush, but as an American I think the above is uncalled for.
Clinton will soon be President and deserves the respect of that office.

----------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15927 alt.politics.democrats.d:315 alt.politics.elections:22741 ba.politics:6782 co.politics:1602 ne.politics:2724 nj.politics:540 or.politics:439 ny.politics:67 talk.politics.misc:58329
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
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: 5 Nov 92 16:19:44 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <1992Nov4.235410.29520@EE.Stanford.EDU> bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) writes:
>>I may add, that despite the media bias toward the liberal party, the last 
>>three elections have seen *conservatives* voted into office!  I encourage all
>>voters to really think about what they are doing!  Clinton's stand on moral 
>>issues is quite frighteneing!  Besides that, he has PROMISED to raise taxes!
>
>Don't worry, politicians rarely keep their promises :-)
>I also think the above statements are rather misleading and uninformed
>if not downright untrue.

Straight from the mouth of the liberal media! Peter Jennings made the statement
about the past 3 elections on the night news about a week before election day.

>
>>I would much rather be safe than sorry, I voted Bush/Quale!
>
>There's no 'e' in Quayle, is there? :-)

Yes, there is BOTH a y and an e in Quayle.  



BTW, why was milly, (the Bush family dog) recently put to sleep?  


... because she kept chasing the Quayle, and peeing on the Bushes :)


-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16596 alt.politics.elections:23267 talk.politics.misc:59201
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: None
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:09:38 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov7.184418.28004@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>BTW, I heard Fowler-Coverdell Georgia Senate race might be going into
>a runoff, but I haven't heard any confirmation on this. Is this true?

It's true, the run-off will be on Nov. 24th.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:59:58 GMT

rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:

>Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?

>Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
>of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
>probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
>and other major projects.

    Hey, I'm just about as big a space fan as they come (I was home from
school watching the Challenger), but if NASA sends any more multi-billion-
dollar missions up to launch 1.5 foot silver balls, I too will be for
some space program cuts.  That was just stupid.

    The Space Shuttle is really nifty and all, but NASA needs to keep a
little perspective as to which missions actually need crews and which
can be launched by unmanned rockets.

    I'd also like to see more money spent developing an actual reusable
space plane, rather than throwing away half the system every time a
mission is flown.

--
   Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
      "Who can doubt that pleasure is the only goal of a reasoned life?"
                                                   -- Epicurus
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16040 talk.politics.misc:58435 talk.politics.drugs:7338
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Legalizing drugs, part II
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:45:09 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>>Ask yourself why you abstain from using drugs.  Is it because they are
>A *great* example from Richard Lawrence Miller's book "The Case for Legalizing
>Drugs": how cheap would cigarrettes have to be before you would begin
>smoking them?  What if they were a dime a pack?  Would you take up smoking
>then?

If we go to socialized medicine, there will be a massive effort to 
discourage drug use (cigarettes, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and everything
else).  If you told your perspective health insurance provider you
were a dope addict, would they give you nice low rates? ---- no way!!!

For all you drug afficianados out there:  the more socialized the
government gets --- the less freedom you will have!  CERTAIN drugs
may be decrimalized, like Marijuana, but never expect many of
the others to gain that status!  Ok, tax drug sales, but how much
will you need to bring in to cover all the potential health problems of
a drug addict and possible offspring!?  I'm telling you, combining
legalized drug sales, socialized medicine and government would be
just plain nuts, though it would be a drug pusher's dream.

I promise you, I will vote against it!  I don't care how many
conservative judges recommend it! (like the one in L.A.)

-------------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:54:06 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>                                --Blair
>                                  "What do you mean, let
>                                   gays *into* the military?"

Actually, the plan is to let them lead the first assault...

----------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16760 alt.politics.bush:13709 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8324 alt.rush-limbaugh:9397
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Popular Vote - Mandate or No Mandate?
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:21:13 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

I'm not going to argue this largely semantic question; I would just like to
point something out to all you people who are having fun pointing out that
almost sixty percent of voters voted for someone other than Bill Clinton:
_more_ than sixty percent of voters voted for someone other than George Bush,
and _eighty_ percent of voters voted for someone other than Ross Perot.
So there.  What's the big deal?

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the military
Keywords: homosexuals
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 19:27:44 GMT

In article <matrix.721260216@sol> matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu (Goodman Byron) writes:
>Well, for those of you that voted for him the first thing on his agenda will
>probably to allow homosexuals in the military.  This country is going to be
>screwed after four years.  Folks I dont think you understand what this is 
>going to be like.  It will be worse the the Carter administration.  
>
>We homosexuals are permitted to serve with hetrosexuals is the day our military
>loses the rank of world power.  The will be so much inner-conflict that the
>military will not be able to complete it mission.  I'm in the Marine Corps
>and if anyone says that the majority of the soldiers want fags in your wrong.
>Infact your dead wrong.  Homosexuals will destroty the combat effectiveness
>of the Marine Corps.  When you hit the beach you dont want to worry about
>someone grabbing your ass.  Your worried about getting shot.  People say
>homos can reframe from their sexuals desires, but the a hetrosexual marine
>cant stop worry if that fag is going to give him AIDS or truck to screw him
>in the ass.
>
>You people did a real good job of getting him in.  After the liberals get done
>with America, it will not be a country of prosparity.  We will be a socialistic
>society.  
>

If anything hurts the effectiveness of the military, it's moronic
jarheads like you.

Many fine soldiers have been forcibly and wrongly discharged for no
other reason than the fact they are gay.  In many cases, these
individuals were everything the military could ask a soldier or officer
to be -- except they were homosexual (or had been accused of being
such).

>
>The problem is in the familys.  Liberals do not want to take responsility for
>their childrens actions.  Instead they want to blame societys problems on
>guns, racism, and our education system.  Open your eyes.  If our children
>were taught morals, the diference between right and wrong we wouldnt have 
>the problems were having today.
>
>I welcome your responses. matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu
>
-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:18:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.155600.26424@mercury.cair.du.edu> kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.033133.15536@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.174211.26672@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>>Remember too, that yes, Clinton has clearly won the election, BUT he
>>>goes to the White House with almost 60% of the voters having NOT
>>>voted for him.
>>
>>Actually, according to surveys, people don't vote for candidates. As
>>a rule, they vote against the alternatives. Clinton is going to the
>>White House with almost 60% of the people having voted against him.
>>
>Please remember that Clinton was in a three-way race (whatever you personally
>think of Perot, he was a candidate in the end), and will end up with
>~40-43% of the popular vote.  With Perot running at about ~18%, in 
>reality Clinton did well.  Certainly not an overwhelming mandate, but
>not bad either...

But in other 3 way races, 1980, 1968, and also to some extent 1948
and 1924, the winning candidate did get 50% of the vote.
So Clinton really didn't do as well as in those cases.
For example, in 1980, Reagan had close to a 10 point win.
*even* if every Anderson vote had gone for Carter, it would have
been a Reagan victory. Here, of course, a Bush+Perot vote would have
swamped Clinton.  The last comparable race was 1912.

Pat
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: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:39:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov06.031958.61102@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>>
>> [about phase-out of Social Security in its entirety]
>
>I agree with this in the case where the person can put aside a
>certain amount of money (to be determined later) that cannot be
>used until retirement.  

You mean like IRAs, except that the money cannot be withdrawn
for any purposes?

>                        However, there are a large percentage of
>Americans that do not have the common sense to do this and these
>are the ones that need the Social Security System.  

Good point -- I'll change my statement (this is not meant to
imply that I believe in trying to legislate away stupidity).

I propose:

Immediately eliminate INVOLUNTARY contributions to Social Security.
If you want to participate, fine.  Whomever pays in for the full
term is eligible for eventual full benefits.  For those who have
paid for years, and don't want to pay any more, there should be
some form of pro-rated remuneration.

Now, how do we handle the corporations' contributions?  Do we
leave them as is, and allow cash payments of same to those who
are not participating in Social Security?  Personally, I think
this would be fabulous!

I don't know what ya'll think, but *I* could certainly use the
approx $250 per month I'd get off such a plan.  I can guarantee
you that this would provide very nicely for my retirement --
even were I to invest poorly, I'd still end up with more money
than I'll be getting from Social Security, which is $0.00.

Dave
From: kloomis@cco.caltech.edu (Kate E. Loomis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: HILLARY FOR A-G
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:55:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

egilmour@ac.dal.ca writes:

>Clinton should make Hillary Attorny-General

Here here. Now that the election is finally over, am I the 
only one that is looking forward the the Hillary we saw last
year (before all the "cookies" bs)? I find this woman to be 
a great inspiration to me, and I hope that she can show that
the "first lady" can be at least as usefull to the country as
some mini-attack-dog VP.

Kate
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