HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:38:18 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

You're so right, Jennifer! And don't forget who gave us the wonderful
savings and loan mess!  George Bush, who said we just can't afford any
more to help less fortunate or less able Americans, sure didn't waste
any time finding the money to bail out those crook friends of his either!

	Bye, Judy.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39879 ca.politics:6803 ba.politics:4532
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:42:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.224302.2246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.220745.25505@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
>>gs> Gary Strand
>>
>>gs> Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>>gs> spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
>>
>>da> And these two aren't related?  Maybe revenue increases were caused by
>>da> spending - you know, priming the pump.  My guess is that revenues would
>>da> decrease with tax decreases, just not as fast as the tax decreases.
>>
>>  Nope. Since a tax cut results in more income being retained by the taxpayer,
>>  and since this additional wealth can still be taxed, it's entirely possible
>>  (and has happened) that a tax cut can result in increased revenue, due to
>>  increased economic activity. The Laffer curve is really just plain common
>>  sense, and that's exactly what we're talking about.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
>
>I understand, and accept, the idea that lower taxes can be an incentive
>for economic activity.  I am challenging the claim that there will be
>_enough_ activity to increase revenues.

When we reduced the top tax rates in 1964 from 75-90% down to 62-70%,
revenues increased. For taxpayers earning over 500,000 in income,
it leaped 30%.

When we reduced the top tax rate in 1981 from 70% to 50%,
the tax revenue again was higher than it would have been under
the old law, and the share of income taxes payed by the wealthy
has increased. these increases are permanent and long-term.

" [in reviewing the data] the implications of these finding are
enormous. Tax rates over 50 percent are conterproductive from the view of
collecting revenue." - Lawrence Lindsay, "The Growth Experiment"

---
Pat
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.bush
Subject: Found!  Bush's new October Surprise.
Keywords: Pablo Escobar:  see Manuel Noriega, et al.
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:24:58 GMT
Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross)
Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet,                 Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang


	U.S. CHARGES DRUG LORD ESCOBAR IN JET BOMBING

	NEW YORK (AP) -- Prosecutors have charged Columbian drug
	lord Pablo Escobar and a reputed top enforcer for the
	Medellin cocaine cartel in a 1989 jetliner bombing that
	killed 110 people.

	Escobar, a fugitive since escaping last month from his
	luxurious prison compound in Colombia, and Dandeny Munoz
	Mosquera were named Thursday in a 14-count indictment.
	Munoz is in a U.S. federal penitentiary.

	Prosecutors allege they planted the bomb that brought
	down an Avianca Airlines jet in 1989, killing 110 people,
	including two Americans.  Because Americans died in the
	crash, the United States has jurisdiction to prosecute
	the defendants, the government said.

	Munoz was convicted in November of lying to federal law
	enforcers after he entered the country illegally.
	Prosecutors say he has killed 50 or more police officers,
	judges and other officials and was in the United States
	on an undisclosed murder mission for Escobar.

	"We must strike at the head," U.S. Attorney Andrew J.
	Maloney said in announcing the indictment filed in
	Brooklyn federal court.

	The prosecutor denied the government had any plans to try
	to apprehend Escobar in Columbia, a practice recently
	ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sounds picture perfect to me.  Come October, the president gives Stormin'
Norman a ring and says "How about a sequel to Operation Just Cause?"  Call it
Operation Storm the Polls ("Were going to war with Poland?!?" Dan Quayle is
heard to ask).

I see little or nothing in the way of George Bush using the military to
invade Escobar's hideout (wherever that is), to kill a bunch of people, and
(maybe) to come away with Escobar himself.

Clinton will be taken by surprise and will immediately endorse the military
effort (maybe even claiming he'd have used more force sooner), but to no
avail.  Bush will rise in the polls, pacifist democrats won't bother to vote
at all, Bush will come in ahead at the wire and Clinton will see victory slip
away like a drug lord in a Colombian jail...

Mark my words.  I'll be prepared for the big "I told you so" come November.
-- 
******************* INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU **********************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Post coitum omne animal triste.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Do I believe this?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:27:59 GMT

In article <MATT.92Aug19164743@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>It seems that the Republicans have come out with a list that purports
>to be a list of 128 tax increases which Clinton passed; this list is
>grossly padded and dishonest.  For example, one item is listed twice;
>three of them aren't items at all (just places where the description
>took more than one line); some of the items aren't tax increases at
>all (one item, for example, was a bill lengthening the season for dog
>racing); and others of them involve counting the same thing many
>times.  (A tax increase on alcohol, for example, was counted five
>separate times: beer, wine, wine coolers,...)
>
>So if you hear anyone use that number 128, just remember: this number
>has no basis in fact.

According to Michael Kinsley of CNN crossfire, counting the same way
there had been 132 federal tax increases since 1988.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 18:24:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.153541.25676@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <Bt8GIq.99E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>  I'm not sure what Mr. Moore's point is.  That we should be grateful
>>  that the economy's not in even worse shape?   The fact is that jobs
>>  have NOT trickled down.   There was a time in the US when someone 
>>  without a college education or the brains of a rocket scientist 
>>  could get a job sufficient to support a family on.   The 80's were
>>  good at creating two kinds of jobs:
>>
>>  1.    High-end white collar jobs
 [...]
>>  2.    Dead-end diddly-squat jobs like flipping burgers at MacDonald's
>>        which are insufficient to support a family on.
>
[ stuff deleted ]
>That element of truth
>lies in the fact that we (and the rest of the world) are in a changing
>information economy.  This change emphasizes education and not just college,
>but decent high school levels that allow workers to work better with
>the new machines and robots that require some modicum of know how such as
>the ability to read well.  This is a real problem in a lot of states where 
>25% - 30% of the populace have problems reading.
>
>  This has little to do with "policies of the 80s".  

I beg your pardon?  It sounds to me like the 80s are exactly the reason that
we have 25-30% of the populace unable to read in some states.  Where the heck
is the "education" president?

> It has a lot to do
>with changing times.  The answer is to prepare for those times by emphasizing
>education, not to act like there exists some way to ignore it and curl
>up into the past.

Exactly!  Now, who are you suggesting is going to provide that type of
education?  Somebody who wants to reduce revenue and reduce spending or
somebody who wants to increase revenue and reduce spending?  Sounds to me like
we have a better chance with Clinton.

>In fact, a good part of the reason
>for the slow growth in "average manufacturing wages" is because a large
>number of new entrants drag the figures down.

If you are willing to concede the reduction in wages is due to new entrants,
why aren't you willing to concede that the job market is shrinking?  If the
job market was expanding, then there wouldn't be so many new entrants to
drag the wages down.  This wage change may also be effected by companies
"laying off" workers who are close to pension and then replacing them with
new workers (at a much reduced wage) as profiled in "20/20" or "60 minutes" or
maybe both.

>  I don't suppose increasing employment figures are at all valid.

I am not aware of such figures (please excuse my ignorance), would you be
willing to post them so that we can talk on even ground?

-- Brett
bfish@sequent.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41250 alt.activism:15269 misc.headlines:5844 sci.econ:7046
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:17:04 EST
 <ATAYLOR.92Aug21095144@gauss.nmsu.edu> <1992Aug21.190659.27803@news.columbia.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: If were only that easy...

In article <1992Aug21.190659.27803@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug21095144@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>
>>	Tell me how to stop Congress from spending $1.5 for every
>>	$1.0 in revenue.
>>
> 
> The President submitting a balanced budget?

	How naive.

	And congress will just roll over and play dead while you slash their
reelection-errr pork barrel-- err local investment projects?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:11:42 GMT


According to Bush, if his plans had been implemented, according to
his economicists, there would be no economic crisis today.

Forget for a moment that these same advisers claimed that there was
no economic crisis for a long time after there really was one...
Somehow, Bush's claim to be able to accurately see the paths not
taken is not very convincing!

In the Good News.  After Two Years Bush has admitted he made a
mistake. (In raising taxes).  I don't want a president that takes
two years to admit an obvious mistake.  The mistake was promising
not to raise taxes.  It is more risky to run a business when you
don't know what taxes will be raised than when you know *precisely*
which taxes will be raised.


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
From: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Concentration of Wealth (Was: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:38:24 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@snake.tc-suns
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 9424@m.cs.uiuc.edu, carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
>In article <80346@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@snake.tc-suns (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>> [Airbus is #2 because of government subsidies and maybe it will make a profit soon]
>
>Why didn't you use your own company as an example? After all, it's #1.
>Or did it manage despite not being subsidized?

I don't think that any American company could be said to be subsidized in the same
sense that Airbus is.  The development of that company would have been totally
impossible without government funding.  It is true that Boeing might have disappeared
at one time without government contracts, but that is no longer the case.  The
commercial side is far more profitable, and the defense side has taken some heat for
acting as a drain on profits.  Unlike Airbus, however, Boeing and other aerospace
companies cannot sustain long-term operating losses.  They must sell their product
at a profit or die.  Airbus can just get government funding and sail through.  The
price of their aircraft in the marketplace does not have to reflect development 
costs.  Eventually, the Airbus consortium is supposed to fly on its own--after it
has bitten off a huge chunk of market share.

The point of my post was not to argue that American companies get no subsidies from
the government.  Quite the opposite.  I think that there is a reluctance to call
military-sponsored long-term R&D a "subsidy".  On the other hand, other government
long-term R&D support is felt, particularly by Americans, to carry the stigma of
a subsidy.  Net hyperbolists call it socialism.  That little bit of hypocrisy is 
going to cost us dearly in future competition with foreign companies.  Even after
Airbus has lost its direct subsidies, it will still see long-term R&D efforts funded
by EEC and national agencies.  American companies will be expected to undertake such
risky ventures by reducing their profits.  Which kind of company would you, as an
investor, want to put your money into?  One that gets other funds to take on
risky, high-yield ventures, or one that uses your money?  Which kind of company is
more likely to survive tough competition?  Think about it.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:14:52 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] > chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] >> In alt.politics.bush, MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu (Melissa Brown) writes:
] 
] >>> does all this talk about family values smack of McCarthyism?  
] 
] >> ... an ... editorial piece ... asserted that 'family values' 
} >> is a code word for the issue of women's role in today's society.
] 
] > Well I can't speak for the 
] > KneeJerkBleedingHeartWimpLiberalStooges
] > that have been in the white house for the last 12 years,
] > but when Good People talk about restoring our GodGiven
] > WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues we sure do NOT mean
] > anything like McCarthyism....
] 
] Young man, how dare you insinuate that "Clean for Gene" has anything
] to do with "Tail Gunner Joe!"
] 
] [--standard lemon-harangue pie deleted--]

But The YoungLady Was Worrying about The HORRORS
of "Clean for Gene" McCarthyism! What with all 
those PsuedoHippies Wallowing Around the street 
trying to Elect some TaxAndSpend Deomocrat
bent on Destroying WholeSomeAndTraditonalFamilyValues
and Running the Economy into the Toilet, and KowTowing
to Foreign Dictators.... 

If She had Meant "Tail Gunner Joe" She would
NOT at All been Worried, as we would be safe
from the Vile WickedNess of this Wanton World!!!!!!



ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Let's get real about AIDS shall we?
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:24:34 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
+eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+>	The War on Drugs strategy must be multifaceted. The attack must
+>occur from supply to customer. There is also an education component of
+>this strategy as well, as your kids (or just "kids") attest. But this
+>strategy must be as deep in American society as it is broad.
+>Individuals, families, communities, states, and the federal government
+>must all contribute to eliminate this scourge.
+
+Mr. Chuck, the "drug problem" is a government created problem, caused by
+people sticking their noses in where they don't belong and aren't wanted.
+The "War on Drugs" is not that at all, nor can it ever be - it is an attack
+on the fundamental right of people in this country to privacy.
+
+I will not, nor have not supported any strategy formulated by the you, the feds
+nor anyone else which involves prison terms for victimless crimes, boot camps
+for the crime of ingesting something that the government deems unhealthy, and
+wars of agression against countries which may not share our views on the
+subject, as well as peasant farmers trying to make a living.
+
+Your war is lost, Mr. Chuck. Why don't you go find something useful for
+the government to worry about.
	The "right to privacy" vs. general welfare is the conflict as
you have described it.
	Repeat the statement that you won't support any strategy that
anyone forms ... to parents whose kids have been shot at in drive-by
killings, gang wars, or overdoses. Tell that to the medics and the
policemen in Washington DC and Los Angeles and Miami who see
drug-related crimes day after day, night after night. The government
deems those appropriate drugs illegal because they can affect behavior
and they are very lethal. It's okay to support peasant farmers in
foreign countries "trying to make a living" than trying to stop the
killing in our streets and the hopelessness that pervades.
	The War on Drugs begins with each one of us. My cited paragraph
says it all for me.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:22:55 CDT


In article <1992Aug18.130532.19911@hemlock.cray.com>, dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:
> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> > Now, how's about those Demo flippers: 
> >
> > 1) Ted Kennedy (flipped from pro-life to pro-choice)
> > 2) Jesse Jackson (yet another flipper on the issue, used to say legal
> > abortion over the right to privacy was like legalizing slavery:
> > no personhood because the act's done in private) 
> > 3) Present VP candidate Al Gore, who used to vote 84% pro-life, is now
> > pro-choice totally. 
> > 4) That governor of Ohio who got beat badly in the last election.  
> > 5) Buddy Roemer, LA. Beat badly. Didn't even make the primary. 
> >
> > Hey, folks! You can contribute with others, here! 
> 
> Don't forget Jerry Sikorski of MN, who apparently swapped his
> position in order to position himself to take Durenburgers
> seat.  

I thought the flip-flop had more to do with polling data from
the 1990 election showing more pro-choice voters turning out
for Wellstone (than pro-lifers for Boschwitz) in Sikorski's
congressional district.  It's a moot point though, 'casue with 
the check-bouncing issue, Sikorski is not likely to get re-elected.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:49:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bt4x14.41B@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   Had Ross Perot stayed in the race, he too would have faced the
>   above problem, above.


  Ok, ok, I'll turn myself in to the Department of Redundancy Department.


---peter



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40346 talk.abortion:32244 alt.politics.bush:1945 talk.religion.misc:14162
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Another FetalIdolator Confesses!!!!!
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:43:36 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
]
] Just to let you know I am pro-life after eight weeks and believe
] in this for non-religious reasons.  I believe the pro-life stance
] meaning the belief that life has intrinsic value of its own, even
] in the womb (human life at that), is logically consistent and 
] DOES NOT require a religious theology.
 
Thank You Wes,

At Long Last you are willing to step forward
and admit that you do not wish to support 
your FetalIdolatry with Blasphemy against the OneTrueReligion!!!!

You are Now On your Way to Salvation!!!!!

ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39340 ca.politics:6723 ba.politics:4462
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:21:20 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11715@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
|> yet are homosexual.  Not many, though.

Not true, at least not for Judaism.  The Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
a branch of reform Judaism, has several gay/lesbian congregations.  And not just
in San Francisco.  There currently are at least 25, which are in Dallas, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, Florida and other places around the
country.  There are 848 congregations total in the UAHC.  (Source: Mrs. Edith R.
Lerner who makes up the directory of all US/Canada congregations, and who has
been doing so since the 1960s.)

|> In any case, both
|> Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
|> homosexuality. 

So, this has now been exposed, as the lie that it is.


-- 
If you believe that there is a god, a god that made your body, and yet
you think that you can do anything with that body that's dirty, then the
fault lies with the manufacturer.
					Lenny Bruce
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40121 ca.politics:6857
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: I demand
Date: 17 Aug 92 10:02:33 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	Congratulations to Melinda Shore for deftly satirizing the
Claytoon's position on gay people.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc