HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: William.Smallwood@f665.n106.z1.fidonet.org (William Smallwood)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Trade Balance
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:36:26 -0600

The USA has a negative trade balance principly as a result of unfair trade
practices. The cost of producing in another country is totally meaningless in
terms of trade. Do you use Yen to buy Sony? No!
When properly managed there should be no trade balance. Japan and Germany manage
their foriegn economics to insure a trade surplus.
Only the economic nieve think that a straight cost of production has effects
trade. While under attack by guerrillas, Guatamalla had its highest trade
surplus! Guatamalla did not even try to do this and their exports are not
renouned for quality. 
 
The trade balance is affected directly by the balance of payments. There is no
way to avoid that. All the trade restrictions in the world will only interfere
with the trade balance for a short time. With proper macro economic leadership
we can have full employment, a budget surplus, and a balanced trade acount!!!
 
The problem is that the only economists listened to fall in 3 catagories: 1) the
superspecialized who are ignorant of the total picture,
2) spokesmen for interest groups who bribe politicians, and
3) spokesmen for industry who bribe politicians.
These fellows are incapable of resolving problems and only screw up the issues
when consulted. Good luck Willie!
 
We need non-political economists for advisors who understand Keynesian, Labour,
Supply-side, Monetary, and International economics, and most importantly how
they relate and interrelate. These honest folks would soon be in conflict with
every wealthy interest group who has bought the ear of some portion of the US
government.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: CSPAN Voter Manipulation
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:01:19 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1enae4INN4k1@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamuts.tamu.edu (William Richard Jr Russell) writes:
>What in heck are you talking about? BILL CLINTON IS NOT PRESIDENT YET.
>HE HAS NO ABILITY TO CONTROL SPENDING *OR* RAISE TAXES.

Bill Clinton has said that he will

	1). Lower taxes on the middle class because they are paying
	    too much in taxes (actually, because the upper class
	    isn't paying enough).
	2). Raise taxes on the middle class to help reduce the size
	    of the deficit.

You cannot do both.  You can't even do both after taking office.

>Look, I realize campaign promises are frequently broken, but at LEAST
>give the guy a chance to get inaugurated before you accuse him of
>betrayal.

Why wait?  This is one pair of promises that we KNOW FOR A FACT Bill
Clinton is going to break.  The next four years of my life have been
dedicated to tracking every broken promise Bill Clinton makes.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
[COMING2/2/93TOAPLANETNEARYOUITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOY]
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:32:23 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>the reforms in Social Security which are only now occuring (now that the
>tax rate is 7.55% for workers and over 15% for the self-employed ...)

Well ...... Sort of.
This is really more Congressional voodoo.
Since your employer matches that 7.55%, it's really 15.1%.

You can pretend that since your employer pays it that it's "free"
if you want to, but it's coming out of SOMEONE's salary.

So tax rates are soon to be 36% (if Clinton follows through on
his pledge to raise them,) + 15% makes 51%.

51%

The federal government is doing such a fine job.  I'm really getting
my money's worth.  Hell they deserve more than half my money for all
the wonderful services I'm getting.  What a bargain.

NOT!  Plus they borrow more that I'll have to
pay back later.  (Your share is almost $17,000 now.)

That's before sales taxes and real estate taxes and (in most states,)
state taxes

If you live in NYC, add 9% city and 10% state tax for a total of 
70% plus another 12% for sales tax if you spend all your money there
and save none, (like most americans.)

It's like you almost have to pay for the priviledge of living there.

Which is why I like Texas.
Because 51% is more than enough.  Much more.

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
          - Fire public school administrators.  Hire more teachers. -
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:57:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.223808.28181@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Pardon me, but I don't believe the plan Clinton is proposing falls
> under the term 'socialized medicine' (unless they redefined
> 'socialized' when I wasn't paying attention ;-)).
 
What do you call it when the government starts deciding how
much people can charge for health care?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Time out from the flames...
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 12:05:42 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

> In article <21911@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh I
> >[ITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSAB
> 
> Congratulations, John! May he enjoy many long years of happy life.

 Same here John, where's our cigars! :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Bismark's law: The less people know about how sauasges
         and laws are made, the better they'll sleep at night
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:58:14 GMT

In article <21898@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> The key concept which you do not understand is the notion of checks and
> balances.  The President, as head of the Executive Branch of government is
> no more responsible for spending bills than the Chief Justice, as the head
> of the Judicial Branch, is.  Certainly the Chief Justice could declare most
> of the spending bills as unconstitutional.  That he hasn't certainly is
 
Give us a break John.  If the President has no responsibility for spending
bills then why does have the right to veto spending bills?  Why does he
submit a budget each year.
 
It sounds like you're finally ready to give all the credit for the growth
in the Reagan years to the Congress, since obviously Reagan had nothing to
do with the tax cuts.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 23:43:22 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
: So let me get this straight.  The Texas Government is free to discriminate
: against any employee it feels like.

It's not discrimination to prevent an employee from doing something that isn't 
part of his job description when he is at work.

: The Texas Government can tell you, as an employee, that you MUST read the 
: Bible,

Only if your job entails reading the bible, but I can't think of any 
government positions which would require this.

: or that you MUST NOT read the Bible.

You must not read the bible when you are working.  What you do on your own time
is your business.  If they fired you for reading the bible at home, or if they
refused to hire anybody who reads the bible at home, then that would be
religious discrimination as it is defined by law.

: Whichever it decides, as a condition of employment.  It could even
: dictate to women (or men - we have a woman governor ...) that they may not
: wear clothes and that they must submit to any sexual advances.  After all,
: there is no constitutional prohibition against sexual harassment ...

Some people would say that it violates the "equal protection under the law"
clause of the 14th, but sexual harrassment on the job is otherwise legislated
against anyway.

: I'd like to think that the 14th Amendment has something to say about states
: restricting the 1st Amendment rights of its citizens.
: . . . 
: Since religious freedom is a right of citizens of the United States, I'd
: say that Texas cannot make or enforce any law abridging that right.

That's not restricting anyone's first amendment rights.  The teacher in
question was hired to teach a fifth grade class.  If he wants to do 
something (ANYTHING) other than teach a fifth grade class according to what is
spelled out in his contract, then he can do it on his own time.  Silent
reading period is not his own time.  If he wants to practise his religion, be
it by reading the bible or smoking peyote or sacrificing animals, or kneel
towards Mecca, he has to do it when he is not getting paid to do a specific
job.

To carry your argument to the extreme, what if all he wanted to do was to read
the bible for 8 hours a day at work?  Do they have to keep paying him?  You
think our taxes are high now!

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fix this damn country
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:47:23 GMT
 <1992Nov2.152838.19985@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Nov2.152838.19985@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> Right.  George Bush asked for a certain amount of money.  Congress
> gave it to him, but distributed somewhat differently.  George Bush
> then signs off on that budget or sends it back for revision.  Repeat
> until signed.  Then George Bush then whines about how it isn't his
> fault and John Haugh talks about how the Executive has nothing to do
> with the process.  Well, from this, it looks like both George Bush AND
> John Haugh are without a clue as to how things work.

Fred again shows how little HE knows about how things work.  The President
is required to SUBMIT a budget (so Congress can shift the blame.)  Congress
has declared ALL of his budgets DOA.  There is NO iterative process to pass
the budget.  Congress simply does whatever it wants to do with its own version
of the budget.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: chris@cpvax.cpses.tu.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Texas 1993 Legislature Monitoring
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:18:57 CST
Organization: Texas Utilities, Glen Rose TX 


Howdy, I'm new to this newsgroup and have enjoyed the lively discussion of
the several topics that are floating around. I have a question that maybe 
someone can answer here. I would like to follow closely the workings of
the 1993 Texas Legislature. Is there an electronic form of monitoring the
day to day status of bills and committee work?
 
Thanks in advance for any direction you can give me.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:14:15 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov16.043415.2337@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.225044.39377@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>>Like it or not, =all= borrowing, spending, and taxing originates in the
>>House of Representatives.
>
>Well, in the same sense that the Electorial College is responsible for 
>electing the President. 

Correct.  How else would you explain a candidate who receives less than
50% of the popular vote getting more than 50% of the electoral vote?

The Electoral College is a feature.  That you don't understand how it
works agrees with the fact that you don't understand why the House
originates all spending and taxing bills.  This can be described in
three words, which are left as an exercise to the reader to figure out.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:54:55 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21877@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <Bxo07C.MqJ@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>As for "IMHO", I've never understood the point.  Who else's point of view
>>could I possibly be expressing besides my own?  Do you really think that
>>if I don't start each sentence with IMHO I'm claiming to have the truth
>>incarnate?

>If there is one thing I've learned about USENET, it is that people will
>SWEAR you are the most opinionate, obnoxious, closed-minded, bigot if you
>DON'T start every sentence with IMHO and pretend that you are stupid and
>all of your ideas are dumb.

Well, that's certainly what you did to me, so you must have learned
this lesson about USENET very well indeed.  Let's face it.  People
will only level this kind of charge at you if you say something that
they DISAGREE with.  It's not for nothing that a lot of people call
this place abUsenet.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:13:55 GMT

In article <7868@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <Bxo977.3C3@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>	Are you saying that one could _not_ believe in the existence
>>of the Christian God, for example, without denying He exists?
>
>That is exactly my position: I do not believe that there is a God, in any of
>the molds that the various religions espouse. I recognize, however, that the
>possibility exists. I simply do not have enough evidence to form an opinion
>one way or the other.

	Do you think it's possible that the Christian God exists? I have
to say I find it hard to reconcile your "I do not believe that there is
a God" with your "I simply do not have enough evidence to form an
opinion...". Those seem to me to be the atheist/agnostic stances, in
order. I must now confess that my perception of atheism has to be the
fault. I've always thought atheists were absolutely sure there was no
God, and that agnostics weren't sure. Where do I now draw the line?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush starts unpatriotic trade war.
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:04:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <Bxts3J.Guz@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov13.144057.7348@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Do you have any information to contradict it?  GATT says the French
>> are in violation and have been in violation despite repeated warnings
>> over a number of years.  The only uncorrected violation of GATT on our
>> part that I know of is the threat of reprisals we recently made.
> 
>The fact that the US is largely in compliance with GATT doesn't have
>anything to do with whether or not we have a relatively high level of
>tariffs. 

In other words, it doesn't matter whether we are playing by the
'rules' and they aren't or not.  We shouldn't do or say anything about
the fact that they aren't.  Sure; makes sense to me.  NOT!

> 
>> Define 'mercantilism'.  I believe you will find that it is part and
>> parcel of the economic system known as 'capitalism'.
> 
>That's not true.  
> 
>Capitalism: "The economic system in which all or most of the means of
>production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc, are
>privately owned and operated for profit under fully competitive
>conditions".
> 
>Mercantilsm: "The doctrine that arose in Europe with the decline of
>feudalism, that the economic interests of a nation could be strengthened
>by the government by protection of home industries, as through tariffs, by
>increased foreign trade, as through monopolies, and by a blance of exports
>over imports, with a consequent accumulation of bullion."
> 
>While not diametrically opposed, they certainly aren't the same thing.

No, but mercantilism implies that your economic system is capitalism
(mercantilism not being an economic system itself). 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:47:55 GMT
Reply-To: moller@austin.ibm.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Nov7.124216.21626@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

[...]

> 
> Fine, I'll make a counter proprosition for you.  Simply eliminate all
> extra-curricular activities for everyone.  If they want them, they can
> do them on their own time, their own money, and find their own
> facilities.  You like that 'solution' better?  I don't, but it would
> seem to fit with your reasoning here much better.  After all, it's not
> part of the curriculum.

Personally, I think this is a great idea.  People who want to dress in
funny clothes and chase spheroids are perfectly at liberty to do so; why
should the rest of us have to pay to abet their somewhat odd behaviour?

> 
> -- 
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "America is the only nation in
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   history which miraculously has
possibly represent its position.	|   gone directly from barbarism to 
					|   degeneration without the usual 
					|   interval of civilisation."
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Georges Clemenceau
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: YOU OWE ME FREE HEALTHCARE!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:02:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.142322.17141@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <BxvM36.5p6@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov15.223808.28181@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >> Pardon me, but I don't believe the plan Clinton is proposing falls
> >> under the term 'socialized medicine' (unless they redefined
> >> 'socialized' when I wasn't paying attention ;-)).
> > 
> >What do you call it when the government starts deciding how
> >much people can charge for health care?
> 
> That depends on just who is paying the bills.
 
Now you're really got me confused.  There is only one group that CAN pay
the bills.  The citizens/taxpayers of this country.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Stimulating the Economy
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.162300.19469@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:
> Similarly, trying to determine the precise stimulus necessary to correct
> some percieved shortcoming of an economy is highly intractable.
 
Not only that, but the timing is almost impossible.  A number of
Presidents have found that by the time the stimulus got working, the
economy was already in a solid recovery and the added stimulus just added
to inflation.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Only 2 Repubs voted for School Finance Plan
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:09:51 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin
             =====  LINE-ITEM LEARNING  =====


*7   FAIR SHARE PLAN:  STILL ALIVE IN HOUSE BUT NEEDS VOTES
     A proposed Texas constitutional amendment on school finance
recently received preliminary approval from the House on an 86-59
vote (Rugeley, HOUSTON CHRONICLE; See DRC 11/18, #9).  The
amendment, or Fair Share Plan, which is designed to bring an end
to the state's fight over school financing, still requires 14
more votes to pass.
     Only two Republicans voted for the amendment, according to
the CHRONICLE.  House Speaker Gib Lewis (D), Gov. Ann Richards
(D) and Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock (D) will lobby to get the 100 votes
needed to pass the measure today.  But Lewis "was uncertain he
could do it," according to the newspaper.  Lewis:  "We had to
find out where the votes are.  Now we know."
     Rep. Hugo Berlanga (D) said the Fair Share Plan could be
killed by partisan bickering, according to the CHRONICLE.
Berlanga:  "If we don't get some Republican and bipartisan
support on the effort, I mean we are doomed.  This session is
over."
     Before the vote was taken, members voted to append the
amendment in a "free-for-all" session.  Provisions range from
requiring the state to pay for all regulations it imposes on
schools to a prohibition against a state income tax unless voters
approve.
     A competing amendment by Rep. John Culberson (R) that would
have allowed the Legislature to define what was an equitable
school finance system, instead of the courts, also failed along
party lines 87-58 (11/19).


-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
          - Fire public school administrators.  Hire more teachers. -