HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross)
Subject: Re: Reducing Spending (was RADICAL POLITICAL SOLUTIONS?)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 17:05:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Aug10.074804@macdfv.dfrf.nasa.gov> voracek@macdfv.dfrf.nasa.gov (David Voracek) writes:
>In article <Aug.7.18.29.49.1992.15483@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>|> 
>|> I agree that we need a line item veto, but I'm not sure how much good
>|> it would do with Bush at the helm.  After all, he has yet to identify
>|> the major sources of savings that would come about if he had a line
>|> item veto to exercise.  And, if he has some programs in mind for the
>|> chopping block, he should show some leadership and put them into his
>|> budget proposal.  (The few pork-barrel items he has identified as
>|> targets for a line-item veto add up to less than a billion dollars.)
>
>Scott,
>
>Only a billion dollars?  whew, you must work for the government.
>
>Because only in the government is a billlion dollars considered
>petty cash.... a Billlion Dollars!!!!  
>
>Dave

Billion nothing -- consider what it means to have a debt of just one
trillion dollars.

If you took $1000 bills and stacked them tightly until you had $1
trillion, the stack would be 63 miles high.

Better still, if you had started a business at the time of Christ
(1992 years for those who aren't Christians) and that business stayed
open 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and lost a million dollars each
day that it was open, you would still need another 700 years to reach
your first trillion dollar loss!!  And today, we owe nearly $4
trillion in debt on the "On Budget" items, and if you add in the
entitlement programs that are carried as "Off Budget" items, we owe
nearly $13 trillion!!

Maybe that's why government critters aren't phased by the mention of a
billion dollars.  And for most Americans, they can't even imagine a
million let alone a trillion -- what chance does a billion have. ;-)

Later,

Gene
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: re: Wildly regressive taxes
Date: 14 Aug 1992 18:59:28 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Don Pajerek) writes:
|> Bill Sears) writes:
|> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the social security tax (FICA) the
|> >most wildly regressive tax imaginable?  An individual pays ~7-7.5% of
|> >his/her salary up to some limit after which s/he pays ***0%***.  Wouldn't
|> >it make more sense to pay 0% up to some limit, and THEN start paying this
|> >tax?
|> >
|> >It seems to me that this accounts for a significant chunk of your average
|> >low income wage earner's salary.  While virtually none of the Rich (tm)
|> >person's earnings.
|> >
|> >Why is it that we have hoards of people complaining about federal income
|> >taxes, and no one says $#!+ about FICA?
|> >
|> >Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com
|> 
|> You are right about FICA, except that some people *have* been talking about
|> it. I recall distinctly a Michael Kinsley TRB column from years ago in
|> which he pointed this out, not to mention Sen. Moynihan's proposal to
|> reduce FICA taxes, which dates from the later years of the Reagan administration,
|> and which is far from dead.
|> 
If you consider FICA a tax, it is regressive.  If you consider it an
investment in a retirement plan it is fair, because each participant
benefits equally.  I believe the latter.  This is not to change my
earlier stance that, although fair, SS, as provided and adminstered today,
is the most inefficient method to secure the participants I can
imagine.  Fair doesn't translate to good.
From: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State (was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:38:34 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 713496394@mal-s1, dmeyers@mal-s1.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:
>In <1992Aug10.141607.17527@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>...
>>Government CANNOT give money to schools which REQUIRE courses in
>>religion.  It is against the Constitution and against the principles
>>on which this country was founded. 
>
>OK.  Here we go.  Now, nowhere in the constitution does it say that
>the government cannot pay for things religious.  In fact, it does
>and has for quite some time.  Keep in mind also, that there are many
>governments at work all at the same time without stopping.  There are
>towns/cities, counties, states, and the mean nasty old federal levels.

Here is the relevant part of the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof..."

I don't see any hedges in there, such as the one regarding militias in the 2nd 
Amendment, which would allow you to argue for ambiguity of interpretation.  Government
simply cannot legally support religious activity of any kind.  Fred is absolutely
right on this one.  It is true that the courts have gotten around the restriction by
distinguishing between religious activity and (how shall I put this?) secular activity
that just looks religious.  So Congress can keep its traditional prayers, and our 
coins testify to our trust (but not belief?) in God.  :-)  Let's face it.  The vast
majority of Americans are religious, and they are just not going to be sticklers for
enforcing this part of the 1st Amendment.  However, a line has been drawn, and public
payments for religious education clearly step over that line.  You can pass all the 
laws you want, but you are going to have trouble ramming them past even the current
Supreme Court on this issue.  If a school takes public money, then it has to play
by public rules.  And that means a totally secular education.

-----
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:10:18 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug17.190813.1645@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
]Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
]poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
]years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
]opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!

You seem to have forgotten the 30 million new jobs created during those
twelve years.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Personal debt (was Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:57:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug21.151240.23970@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <BtAqq6.8KH@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <92Aug20.134342edt.136@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>>
>>>Any reasonably sane and educated American would understand:
>>> 1) There has been, and is, a recession *throughout* North America.
>>
>>     Most recessions are characterized by massive debt-reductions but
>>     corporate and personal debt in the US have only declined a few
>>     percent and government debt has not declined at all.
>
>Most of what Peter Nelson says is accurate, but
>I have to dissent here. There has been much hoopla about debt problems,
>but corporate and private debt is *not* at unusual levels, from what I
>have read. 

  I suppose it depends on what is meant by "unusual levels".  Total
  consumer debt is over $900 billion and represents about takes up
  about 20% of income, compared to 16-18% during the early-mid 80's.
  Total (gov't+corporate+private) debt is 103% of GDP. (Sources: Stat
  Ab US, Economist)


>I think that the decline of housing values in many parts of the country
>has had a major impact on consumers sense of wealth.
>They have responded by tightening their belts and cutting their debt load.
>The latest Forbes, for example, shows consumer installment debt falling
>consistently over the last year. 
  
  That's because "installment" debt is things like credit card loans
  which have not dropped much, so many Americans are refinancing their
  houses, or taking out equity loans, paying down the credit cards,
  and motgaging their houses instead.   Granted, it's lower interest
  rate debt, but its not less debt.   The same thing is happening in
  corporate America: the WSJ reported today that so far this year 
  US corporations have floated a RECORD number of bonds.  The good news
  is that they are using much of this to pay down older debts.  But
  the bottom line is still that there's a whole lotta borrowing going
  on.

>With the drastically lower interest rates, the debt burden
>has become much less for business and individuals. 

  Depends on how you define "debt burden".  There have not been 
  drastically lower interest rates on credit card debt; and on mortgage
  debt, where there have been, the WSJ reported a few days ago that
  neither total debt, nor monthly payments are being reduced; instead
  people are opting for shorter-term mortgages, eg, 15 instead of
  30 years.  In the long run this will be good, but it offers no
  immediate benefit to the economy.

---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:32:07 GMT

In article <7988@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
>>abortion?
>
>>	If that isn't an interference with individual rights, then
>>what is???
>
>***sarcasm mode on***
>
>The government has been interfering with my rights for years.
>
>I want to take good old Betsy down to the Mall and get in some target
>practice, beats the heck out of deer.
>
>Some sniveling liberal garbage about "right to life", geeze, what about
>my rights.
>
>***sarcasm mode off***
>
>>/Loren
>-- 
>--Mark

That's funny. 

And why aren't they pro-choice to use pot? After all, it's one's right
to do what they want with their own body, in private... 

You could find contradictions with their freedom of choice stance all
day, y'know. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39405 ca.politics:6743 ba.politics:4474
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: A Retraction
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:55:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I referred to a posting a while back as "typical lying homosexual."
>One of my colleagues here pointed out that the lying homosexuals
>involved are a relatively small number -- unlike the number of
>homosexuals defending child molestation.
>
>It is definitely incorrect to imply that all homosexuals, or even
>most homosexuals on USENET are liars.


Let's take a look at this statement, shall we ?

				( set of all humans )

			heterosexuals		everyone else
	(USENET)	=====================================
	online		|	[1]	|	[2]	    |
			|------------------------------------
	offline		|	[3]	|	[4]	    |
			=====================================


It is definitely incorrect to imply that subsets [2] and [4], or, as
Clayton refers to them, "all homosexuals", are liars.

It is also definitely incorrect to imply that subset [2] alone is
composed exclusively, or statistically, of liars.

This can be proven, or at least statistically established, by turning
this statement on its head and saying that sets [1] and [3] are all
liars ... or by saying that sets [1] and [2] are liars ... or by say-
-ing that sets [3] and [4] are liars ... or by saying that sets [1],
[2], [3] and [4] are liars. Although this might be closer to the truth
than anything else said so far.	(-:

The semantics of your statement, Clayton, suggest that while it is not
true that sets [2] and [4], or even [2] alone, are composed primarily
of liars, leave it open to the interpretation that set [4], just maybe,
might be composed of liars. So *that's* where they're hiding !! (-:

Unfortunately, I don't think self-deception and sexual orientation are
explicitly linked, genetically, memetically, or causally.

>Now, can we discuss when the homosexual community is going to
>shun child molesters?

How about a real apology that doesn't weasle out through semantics ??

PS : I'm solidly ensconced in set [1].

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40275 talk.abortion:32186 alt.politics.bush:1908
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:08:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <16n43bINNh9h@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>
>I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
>are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
>born.
>
>William F. Tell
>UC Berkeley

Is the Mark Russell you are talking about the singer/satirist/song singing
person on PBS?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Is the ABA liberal-biased:Abortion/Hill
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:03:27 GMT

In article <l8iim2INNfvb@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 63892@cup.portal.com, Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com () writes:
>> The ABA gives Anita Hill an award for telling a story that most Americans
>> don't believe, and for taking a stand that most Americans think she is lying
>> about. 
>
>Arthur,
>	I don't suppose that you have any *proof* to support your assertion
>that "most Americans don't believe"?

His statement, I would guess, is based on the polls taken right after the
hearings, which showed the public overwhelmingly (70/30) disbelieving of Hill
and in favor of Justice Thomas,

More to the point: Did Anita Hill lie?
The answer is, yes, she did, about a number of things, if you look at
the widely unpublicized 'Anita Hill' report by Special Prosecutor Fletcher.
"Widely unpublicized" because the press doesn't want to let their valuable
sources catch flak. Fletcher was the special prosecutor investigating
who leaked the Hill affadavit to the press.

The report shows that Metzenbaum's staffer, Brudney, called Anita Hill
*23* times during September, and that Anita Hill faxed him a copy
of her written statement to the Judiciary Committee. Both facts are in direct
contradiction with Anita Hill's testimony on this. In particular, Hill
lied to the Judiciary committee when she said she gave the report only to
Judiciary committee members, and she lied in her testimony when asked about
the extent of her contact with Brudney.

There was good reason for her to cover up this connection.  It becomes clear
from the report that this information was distributed to several of the groups
opposing Thomas by Brudney.  This copy was what was eventually leaked to
Nina Totenberg and the Newsday reporter (forget the name).
In other words, Brudney was the conduit through which the report was leaked
- Sen. Metzenbaum's and Anita Hill's evasions notwithstanding.
(See The American Spectator, June '92)

----------
P. McGuinness

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Houston, TX
	<1992Aug18.224610.9047@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<RJOHNSON.92Aug19093856@conus.shell.com>
	<1992Aug21.004156.4507@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:21:01

smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
 >rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
 >>What if, for example, the child seemed normal in the womb, but when born,
 >>got tangled in the umbilical cord and suffered some brain damage?  Would
 >>you then be faced with a difficult decision of whether to put it out of
 >>your misery?

 >Yes, you are faced with the difficult decision of whether to cease life
 >support or feeding (in the case of severe damage) or whether to relinquish
 >custody to the state (i.e. put it out of your misery).

 >What was your point?

My point is that prior to birth, death of the fetus is an
alternative; after birth, it is not.  There is no consistent
way of believing both:
	1. the fetus is a person 
	2. abortion is acceptable
without believing that
	3. infanticide is acceptable (if it's a painful and difficult
	   decision)

Of course, many don't believe (1), but if that is true for the case
cited, the decision should not be difficult or painful.

[...]

 >Well, I don't have any figures, but did it ever occur to you that perhaps
 >since medi-cal does not cover abortion but does cover childbirth that 
 >abortion is not an available option for poor women to choose much of the 
 >time?

No, it did not.  That is useful input.  However, it has been brought
up here that pro-lifers tend to be less-educated, and since education
and income are correlated, the poor should have more tendency to be
pro-life.

 >Well, I agree here.  I think it is much more responsible to fund 
 >abortions for women who want them then to fund welfare and orphanages for
 >born children whose parents can't or won't raise them.

It is certainly more fiscally responsible IF all the abortions that
are performed annually translated into children that the state would
have to support.  This is not the case -- many people would be more
careful about conception-prevention (since "birth control" recently
came into question as a term), many children would be adopted, and
many would be kept.

But of course, fiscal concerns aren't what drive the abortion debate.
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: sechrest@z.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:09:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.174523.22812@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I understand that Pat Buchanan, speaking to the Republican
>Convention, declared that "we" should "take our culture 
>back." I assume that by "we" he means people like himself, 
>and by "take" he means the use of force, since present 
>American culture has come about as a result of voluntary 
>actions and relationships.  This proposal is clearly akin to 
>the fascist, Communist, and Nazi programs of subordinating
>culture to political -- governmental -- control, and of
>eliminating free expression. . . .  Or are there
>defenders of Buchanan who would like to explain his
>statement otherwise?

I think that Pat Buchanan is a jerk, but this is just stupid.

Consider the call of women (feminists) to ``take back the night.''
By ``take'' do they mean the use of force?  Does this mean that
their ``proposal'' is akin to the army enforced curfews of Fascist
coups?

Keep some perspective.

--Stuart Sechrest


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:10:15 GMT

In article <l8nns0INNd3a@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.061049.19344@athena.mit.edu>, howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug13.213828.9337@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Can the Gov't force a woman to raise her child in a certain manner?
>|> >
>|> >Can the Gov't force a woman to get an adoption?
>|> >
>|> >Can the Gov't punish a woman for being unable to care for a child?
>|> >
>|> >Can the Gov't force a woman to have a child?
>|> >
>|> >Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
>|> >
>|> 
>|>  Can the government enforce a religious doctrine that stealing or murder
>|>  is wrong?  This is getting tiresome...
>|>  Regardless of whether or not a particular religion teaches this, society
>|>  has to decide whether life begins at conception.  We can't go through
>
>WHY?  How is it important to decide who's religion is right when we are
>nation comprised of many religions (and non-religions)?  If somone made
>a person who believed abortion was wrong go through a forced abortion,
>that would be a terrible wrong, and is a violation of many laws.  Why does
>anyone want to do the same thing in the other direction?
>
>|>  the doctrines of every religion to make sure that none of our laws 
>|>  coincide with them.


It's not a question of whose religion is right, it's a question of public 
policy.  We can't just get rid of all our laws simply because they may
happen to be a part of someone's religion.  We have to decide not whose 
religion is right or wrong but rather what is or is not good public policy
independent of religious considerations both pro and con.  Good public
policy may coincide with someone's religious beliefs or it may conflict 
with them.  We have to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable restrictions
on actions.  

For example if I wanted to start a religion that required that every member
had to kill someone I cannot get protection for that religion simply because
its a religion.   What has to be decided is public policy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:54:23 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug19093100@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) 
writes:
>	Senator Biden is also co-author of S-1246, a bill to ban
>	various firearms.
>
>	Can we draw any conclusions from these facts?

How about . . . Biden is an idiot?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc