HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Cuomo's track record (WAS: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic)
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:37:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175415.21820@philabs.philips.com> jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:
>In article <NELSON.92Aug25232203@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
>
>>Get a clue -- Cuomo cut taxes in NY.  The only complaint that you might have
>>about him is that he didn't cut them as fast as he said he would.
>
>Hmmm... time for a reality check.
>
>Cuomo has pushed to stop the income tax cuts which have been planned
>for a few years (part of an act passed years ago), but luckily he
>didn't get his way.  Therefore, it is true that he didn't raise INCOME
>taxes.
>
>-JPC
>
>-- 
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>John P. Curcio                  Go Bruins!                 Philips Laboratories

No way would Cuomo have raised taxes. The Republican Senate would never
pass such a thing. Even as it is, the idea of delaying the third year of
the income tax CUT was extremely controversial.

You fail to mention that all of this took place in an environment of severe,
and growing, deficits. Cuomo managed to come up with a reasonable solution
by BOTH increasing revenue AND holding down spending. As even you admit, no
*income tax* increase was involved. There are many states experiencing budget
problems, and many of them HAVE had to resort to income tax increases.

One thing I will definitely concede about Cuomo, however: he has done NOTHING
to control the growth of the bureacracy. NYS now has more State employees
per resident than any other state. The number of State employees has continued
to grow, even as the actual population of the state has remained flat. For this,
we should hold his feet to the fire.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:16:13 GMT

Someone wrote:

>GHWB
>was expected to slam Slick Willie by bringing up a bunch of rapists
>whose life sentences he commuted.



farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>Sure, it's another example of the kinder, gentler nation that 
>George "pro-LIFE" Bush has in mind.


So, you feel that the governing actions of an individual should not be
an issue discussed during a political campaign?

Or, only the records of those you support shouldn't be discussed, as
that would be "negative campaigning"?

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Warren Rudman for President? (was George for First Lady?
Keywords: Elections, Candidates, Presidential politics
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:55:50 GMT

In article <Aug.26.10.35.11.1992.25632@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>I've been interested in the "lead or leave" initiative headed by
>Rudman and Tsongas.  Maybe, if we're lucky, we might see the emergence
>of a Fiscal Responsibility Party made up of the responsible, centrist
>elements of both current parties.

	Sounds like a good idea. The Treasury is hardly a credit card
with an unlimited maximum and no monthly payments.

	I'm a bit annoyed at Republican demagoguery about the
Democrats being big spenders when they have been more than happy to
run up huge deficits for the last 12 years.

	One thing: although "spending" is often denounced in the
abstract, getting down to the nitty-gritty of what to cut is a lot
more difficult.

>Then again, maybe too many people, both rich and poor (see the recent
>Newsweek article), are riding the gravy train for such a party to ever
>have a chance.

	When one benefits from pork barrel, it's bringing home the bacon.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:58:04 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc


In <yvjndkn.adamsr@netcom.com> Rick Adams states:

|	I don't need to borrow a gun to see what it will do - I grew up on
|the streets and saw it first hand both there and as a medic in Vietnam.

|	You are perfectly correct in saying it would be stupid to permit
|someone to take your gun and shoot you with it - which is an excellent
|reason NOT to have a gun in the first place. You say you have a gun because
|someone was coming in your window one morning. Sounds to me like you are
|still alive, and since you didn't have a gun at the time, that person is as
|well.  I wonder if EITHER of you would be if you HAD possessed a gun at the
|time?

So, you are supposed to trust your life to blind fate?

You don't choose to be the victim, the CRIMINAL chooses you as the
victim. Read "What Cops Know" and see that the first thing a criminal
does when he gets to prison is to "pump themselves up." Fat chance
ordinary Joe and Jane Blow are going to fend off criminal attacks by
thugs without guns.

|	Some people are gun control nuts. I'm more of a "control gun nuts"
|advocate. People like yourself whose first response to any potential problem
|is to grab for a gun are a LOT more dangerous than any burglar will ever be.

Right. Give in to crooks. Give in to thugs. Keep giving in till it
you have no more to give. Give in to rapists; their lives are of
equal importance to the victim. 

It's a good thing those Korean shopkeepers didn't listen to this garbage
paradigm of survival. As one Korean-American said to the New York Times,
'I'm not going to lay down and die.'

It's clear how this thinking leads to people-sheep going quietly to
the slaughter.

---------
"Trust Steel" -- Mako, in Conan, the Barbarian.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci)
Subject: Re: Using misinformation
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:39:30 GMT

I wouldn't normally bother posting, however, there seems to be an
insistence on using statistical data about inflation and unemployment 
to make political points that is simply not true.

Since the data is easily available I have posted it below.

Data is from the 1990 Statistical Abstract of the US
published by the govt. printing office.  Feel free to order your own 
copy for about $30 at 202-783-3238.

CPI is consumer price index. 
Energy is increase in energy costs (primarily oil)  which is one of
   elements of CPI. Data is from chart 757

Unemployment is from chart 624 and is defined as percentage of labor
force including Armed Forces.

	 (% increase)  (% of workforce)
year	 CPI	energy	Unemployment
70	 5.7	 2.8	4.8	Nixon
71	 4.4	 3.9	Not available
72	 3.2	 2.6	Not available
73	 6.2	 8.1	Not available
74	11.0	29.6	Not available
75	 9.1	10.5	8.3	Ford
76	 5.8  	 7.1	7.6
77	 6.5	 9.5	6.9	Carter
78	 7.6	 6.3	6.0
79	11.3	25.1	5.8
80	13.5	30.9	7.0
81	10.3	13.6	7.5	Reagan
82	 6.2	 1.5	9.5
83	 3.2	  .7	9.5
84	 4.3	 1.0	7.4
85	 3.6	  .7	7.1
86	 1.9   -13.2	6.9
87	 3.6	  .5	6.1
88	 4.1	  .8	5.4

The data clearly shows that unemployment was higher under Ford
and Reagan than under Carter.  (One is certainly free to argue 
how long a particular administrations responsibilities carry over into the
next).

The data also clearly shows the direct correlation between inflation (CPI) and
energy prices.   Again this is not surprising since energy is one of the most
significant components of CPI.  Other elements in the in the "basket of goods
and services" include food, shelter, transportation, apparel and upkeep.
Oil has an impact over several areas since it is used to make fuel,
fertilizer, power factories, synthetic, etc.

For those of you who want to argue about how awful Carter's administration
was and what horrible economic policies he had, at least have the courtesy
to use valid data.  (If you have different numbers feel free to post them
along with their source).

My own interpretation of the data is that inflation was drastically 
reduced in the 80s due to falling oil prices and was on its way down
before Carter left office.  If you think that Carter or Reagan were
primarily responsible for driving oil prices up or down feel free to
argue that as well, but try to be specific on why or how they did it.
Don't forget to consider the big jump in energy prices in 74 and 75.
From: stevec@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Cumming)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:39:12 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <Aug.24.07.46.02.1992.23208@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>[Teddles offers to discipline any guy who wants to see his peepee]
>

I thought you prefer tire irons, Ted. The notion of your tiny little
fists hammering away, I'm sure, strikes fear into countless hearts.

Ted Kaldis. Master of the cheap shot and idle threat. World class asshole.
And net.idiot.




--
Steve Cumming		 boreal mixedwood dynamics and rogue
stevec@geog.ubc.ca				    ... how long you got left?
						    well how long do you reckon?
							
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:59:54 GMT

In article <l9nnk5INNemg@aludra.usc.edu>, rone@aludra.usc.edu (Ron
Echeverri) writes:
> What the hell IS this tax&spend GOP morons (note: not all GOPs are morons)
> keep spewing?  Will someone please enlighten me?

Grasshopper, true enlightenment must come from within, but meditate on this:

Many RepubliCan'ts believe that money springs from the Eternal Void, and
that one may spend as much as one wishes without any taxation at all. 
This is an illusion, for any person of wisdom knows that to spend money
one does not actually have is Deficit Spending, and will surely bring
down the wrath of heaven upon anyone who chooses this path.

RepubliCan'ts who fall prey to this illusion are like the foolish monk
who was a slave to his appetites, and tried to free himself by only
eating with his eyes closed.  He grew ever fatter, since he could not
see how much he ate, and much food was wasted, spilled on the floor,
because he could not see with his eyes closed.  The foolish monk knew
not why his girth increased, since he never even saw food any more, yet
he bloated until one day he was crushed beneath his own weight, a victim
of self-deception in addition to his voracious appetites.

RepubliCan'ts who follow this path know not whence the money in the
Treasury came, for they close their eyes and do not see the tremendous
borrowing they do.  They know only that they still have checks, so they
cannot be overdrawn...and they do not see taxes, so they must not be
Democrats.  They know not how much money is spilled upon the floor in
the form of ruinous interest payments...and in truth, they care not,
since they all know they will be out of office and living in walled
estates or on the beaches of Monaco when it all comes due, and some
hapless Democrat will have to explain where the illusion of prosperity
has gone.

For those in the grip of this madness, it seems a great evil to raise
any money before spending it, and they call this "fiscal conservatism"
and boast of it loudly.  There is no cure for this madness but a new
Administration.

Now go out and sweep the courtyard, Grasshopper, and contemplate what I
have told you.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Better Off ..)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 14:22:34 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Aug21.144901.4427@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>
>This voucher idea is the product of all those "white flight" types
>who want public support for their church schools. If adopted, it will
>effectively kill the American educational system for the underpriveleged.

I'm afraid you've had your head stuck in the sand.  There are several
black legislators who have not only proposed vouchers, but have managed
to get such passed through state legislatures.  One case is in Wisconcin
(I think that was the State, but correct me if I'm wrong).  The lady got
it passed and the vouchers were used within the Afro-American community
to send their children to private schools.

Those private schools were non-religious schools started by and for the
Afro-American community.  The children performed far above the average
for all students in their age group, nationally.

There are many private schools that are not religious.  And the number
of Afro-American private schools is growing.  This is particularly true
in the big cities where folks are looking for alternatives to public
schools that are a real joke.  Worse, the public schools have become a
breeding ground, not for education, but for crime.

The only educator so far who has ever done anything good in a public
school has been Joe Clark, and we know what happened to him!

Vouchers is not a racial issue; it is a people issue.  People, not race,
are educated.  The public schools have failed consistently to do their
job in the past decades.  The test scores prove this.  The drop-out rate
proves this.  The affluent have taken their children out of the public
schools and sent them to private schools, including religious schools.
This has left the poor to fend for themselves.  The politicians have
failed to fix the problems, so they blame it on "white flight."  But ask
those same politicians where their kids go to school.  Ask the wealthy
Afro-American lawyer, doctor, etc., where his or her kids go to school!
Answer -- private schools.

The voucher system, if done right, will help the poor to send their
children to private schools.  Or to a public school that is now
competing for funds.

And what I mean by "if done right" is this:  issue the vouchers for the
amount of money the Feds and State would have spent on the child.  For
example, if the money spent on the child is $4000, then the amount of
the voucher is $4000.

Gene
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 13:55:49 GMT

In article <BtqrGC.935@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <11991@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>You support laws to tell me how
>>to behave (antidiscrimination laws to protect homosexuals from the
>>consequences of their parades), 

Claytoon, the Great Net Libertarian, believes that people
only deserve their constitutional rights if they're
popular.  He'd really prefer that he gets to be arbiter,
but failing that he'd like to put everyone's rights up for
popular vote.

Not to mention, of course, that he thinks that the
appearance in public of Big Hairy Men In Totally Revealing
Leather provides justification for throwing a lesbian
couple out of their housing or a firing a random gay man
from his job.

>Guess what -- I'm in agreement
>with him on that much, and I'm straight...and a Libertarian.  Now let's see
>you tell ME I'm for gun control...

He *is* a maroon.  I'm one of them homosexual liberals, and
I fully support the right to keep and bear arms.  I always
have, but over the past several years it's become
increasingly clear that I really do need to make sure that
I have some protection from Claytoon and his ilk.  There's
a rabies epidemic here, after all.
-- 
"I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
me that my preference is fisting."  -- Theodore A. Kaldis

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Increase in millionaires
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:57:30 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug26141414@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.134223.28941@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>   But Bush did not increase the median income (in real terms), he descreased it.
>   He increased the mean income, this is not difficult, it's inevitable that a
>   technologicaly advancing nation increases it's GNP. Bush simply ensured that all
>   the jam went to the ultra rich.
>
>Wrong, plain wrong.  In 1981 the year Ronald Reagan assumed office the
>median US income was a little under $27,000.  In 1990 the median US
>income was slightly over $29,000.  In the case of the mean the figures
>are: 1981, $31,000; 1990, $35,000.  Source:  Alan Reynolds, "Upstarts and
>Downstarts".  National Review, Aug 31, 1992, pp25-31.
>
>Read it liberals if you dare, you won't like it.  Of course I don't
>expect to let a little thing like the facts interfere with what the
>liberals put out for public consumption.

I assume these are in constant dollars, or else your argument is in
deep doodoo.

Er, how much of this is attributable to the Baby Boomers reaching
their peak earning years?



--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43772 ca.politics:7447 ba.politics:5042 soc.motss:38227 ba.motss:1536
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:56:29 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <12129@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been collecting
>from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at the Traditional
>Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in Oregon.  You know what
>powerful ammunition this stuff is for their side.
>
>Do I make myself clear?

Again Clayton deludes himself into thinking that all GBL's are the same
person and are responsible for each others actions. Clayton are you
responsible for the actions of Adolf Hitler? After all he was straight.

If your getting harrasing phone calls deal with them like any grown up
would and call the police. 

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:10:31 GMT

In <1992Sep3.124045.8199@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>] >drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>] 
>] >>> Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
>] >>> Millions of couples are being ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into 
>] >>> having FORCED ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual 
>] >>> intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms against their will!!
>] 
>] > AMEN Brother And PREACH IT!!!!!!
>] > HeteroSexuality IS CUREABLE!!!!!
>] 
>] > As Long as Hetro's Are Allowed to Wallow in their Sin and Degradation
>] > what Will Protect the MORALS and SCRUPPLES and WholeSomeFamilyValues!!!!!
>] 
>] > I Agree Brother! OutLaw Hetro's NOW!!!!!
>] > Its Not enough to "Just Say NO! to Hetro!"
>] > We Must OUTLAW THEM! We Must Make THEM find The CURE!!!!!
>] 
>] I *hope* drieux (, just drieux) is joking, for his petty war against
>] heterosexuality (not to mention proper cApitalIzatioN) is inane.
>] Suppose we outlaw heterosexuality. Then the human race is extinct in
>] one generation. Think about it.

>think about the Fact that all the BRUTAL MASS MURDERES
>and MORAL DEGENERATE SICKO's on this planet were born
>by Flagrant HeteroSexuality!!!!!

Not to mention all the good people. 

>Hence it is Intuitively, Intrinsically, Self Evidently Obviously
>that HeteroSexuality is the Cause of All things Dark and Evil!!!!

And all things bright and beautiful. Your reasoning knows no sense.

>who KNOWs that we will all die out in one generation if
>we can CURE ourselves of HETEROSEXUALITY! Has anyone
>Really! Truly! Seriously Tried it before?????

I'll let you answer that last question yourself.

>HUM!!!!
HO!!!!

'Nuff flamed.

-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
So many newsgroups, so little time...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Inflation and Carter?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:48:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.094403.15893@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>
>It should be noted that, in both oil "crisis"s (1973 & 1979), US inflation was
>increasing *before* the oil supply was interupted.  This means the real (inflation
>adjusted) price of oil had been going *down* when OPEC moved to increase the 
>(nominal) price.
>
Wait a second.  Lets not forget that both oil crises were set off by
political crises.  In 1973 there was an Arab oil embargo due to one of
the many Arab-Israeli wars.  This didn't actually reduce the supply of
oil since only a few countries were boycotted but it interrupted the
distribution system which, in turn, reduced supplies here and therefore
increased prices.

In 1979 there was a very brief stoppage of production in Iran as the
Shah was overthrown.  This wasn't serious enough to cause an oil crisis
by itself but it led to a panic in the oil markets.  A shortage was
created as companies tried to build up inventories.  It should be noted
that in both crises world wide production was close to 100% of capacity
so any little interruption could create a shortage.
>
>Look at it this way.  You have a fixed amount of money and the price of
>something you buy (say gas) goes up.  Your choices are to either a) buy
>less gas, b) buy fewer other good, or c) some of both.  Producers will 
>try to pass their (oil) cost increases to consumers, but if consumers 
>have a fixed money supply, they cannot buy everything at the new higher 
>prices.  The result would be a recession (representing the shift in wealth
>out of the US) but not inflation.
>
What happens if your salary is automatically adjusted for inflation 
(i.e. a COLA)?  The price of oil goes up so the cost of living goes up.
Then you salary goes up so the price of whatever you produce goes up.
Presto, instant autocatalytic inflation.  I know that by the late 1970's
COLA's were popular in union contracts but I'm not sure what percentage
of the workforce had them.

Paul.