HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbrock@darkwing.uoregon.edu (David P Brockington)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: US Election: The Real Historical Parallel
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:08:54 GMT
Organization: The Opposition
NNTP-Posting-Host: darkwing.uoregon.edu

In article <18953@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:

Bunch o'stuff deleted here.  That brevity thing.

>
>All of these analogies have some validity, but I feel the one that comes
>closest hasn't been mentioned by anyone. In their first election after 
>World War II, the British kicked out of office Winston Churchill, their
>immensely popular war leader. It seems to me there is a real parallel here
>to Bush losing after "winning" both the Gulf War and the Cold War. A
>victim of his own "success", Bush and his ideology became largely 
>irrelevant in the post-Cold War era, as Sir Winston did after WWII.
>Thoughts, anyone? I'm particularly interested if any of you Brits agree
>that there is a parallel here.
>
>Richard

I have some admittedly petty problems with that model.  To begin,
Clement Attlee and Labour were elected before the end of the war,
although the end was clearly in sight.

A second interesting factoid is that the Tories, under Churchill,
were returned to power in 1951.  Does the United States have the
same fate in store?

One more bit.  The majority that Labour had in Commons following the 
1945 elections was the largest any party has had in Britain since 
the end of the war.  (Larger than even that of Thatcher in 1983
following the Falklands War.)  Bill Clinton was elected on a 
rare plurality, and the Democrats actually lost seats in the House
of Representatives.

-David Brockington
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:05:35 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov6.145038.19122@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
} In article <sulkanen.720974651@xanth> sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
} >steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
} >>It's already lifted.  It was declared illegal yesterday by a Federal
} >>court.  _Darn_ the commie feminazies getting real medical advice!  Da
} >>noive!
} >
} >Oh, they can get abortion info, just don't spend *my* money for it...
} >
} 
} Once tax money has been collected, it's not yours anymore.

If it is no longer mine, then whose is it?  If it belongs to government,
then since government sets tax rates at whatever arbitrary level it chooses,
that says government owns it all, and what belongs to the rest of us is
what government lets us keep.  I cannot accept that.  This is supposed
to be a nation where government is supposed to serve; not be served.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:07:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.004344.27794@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.212746.5694@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>>> Pardon my ignorance, but could someone please explain how a consumption-based
>>> tax works? How is the "level of consumption" determined?
>
>>A tax based on consumption is regressive: for instance, the sales tax.
>
>This isn't the case at all: A tax based on consumption _without_ deductions
>for the cost of living is regressive. The proposals being discused here,
>as I understand them, all include deductions and tax only consumption
>_beyond_ living expenses.
 
  Get another clue, Frank!  Jeez, this guy is filled with MORE misinformation
  than Pravda ever was :-)  First you spew nonsense about capital gains
  taxes being levied on TOP of regular income taxes on the same gains (which
  is total utter rubbish) and now you are spouting something about having  
  consumption taxes that have deductions!!!! Consumption taxes are almost
  always levied as sales, use or value-added taxes.  As such, they are
  levied at the point of sale, with no paperwork filed by the person who
  incurs the tax.  Thus, no deductions are possible, at least as I understand
  it.  How in the world can you tax consumption if you don't do it when things
  are consumed???  

  Jeez, maybe its the air in Boulder :-)

  Jon Rosen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Carter, Inflation, OPEC, energy policy
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:49:05 GMT

In article <92315.141117MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:


   Hi. Could some sane rational grownup, someone perhaps who was a literate
   nonpartisan adult during the Carter years please connect the above
   concepts.  I am oh so very confused about the economy under Carter and
   just how much he was responsible for the high inflation rates.  What did
   he do specifically that made them so high, or fail to do to lower them.
 


A recent Louis Rukheyeser (sp?) column suggested that the Carter
administration provided a stimulus to the economy after it had
already turned the corner which accelerated and exaggerated
the return to inflation (and the rate of inflation that would
be expected).


of course it could be said that if the world economy is the
reason for America's recession than OPEC was the cause
for the inflation in the Carter years.

maybe all of this is true to some extent
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.poliitcs,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 08:56:39 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov12.180621.4831@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> As requested by e-mail, I'm directing follow-ups away from or.poliitcs and
|> ne.politics.
|> 
|> In article <BxLL8z.E65@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
|> >>In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to 
|> >>take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take 
|> >>care of him.) I do think the government should protect 
|> >>people from criminal invasions of their rights, and (I suppose,
|> >>although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
|> >>protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.
|> 
|> >This sounds Libertarian, is it?
|> 
|> I think so, but I'm not sure: I'm not a Libertarian, but I agree with 
|> them on a number of issues (and disagree on others.)
|> 

I'm curious, have you ever take the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz?
If so, what was your score.  There is an interesting debate going
on in the libernet mailing list about how the party can attract
more people and still maintain its mission.  Many people believe
that the libertarian party is only for 'perfect' libertarians (those
who score 100/100 on the quiz mentioned above), even though the
quiz considers someone a libertarian if they score as low as 60/70
or 70/60.  If you haven't seen the quiz but would like to, let me
know and I can e-mail you a copy.  (Anyone who reads this message
can send me a request if you're interested)


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16964 alt.politics.democrats.d:487 alt.politics.elections:23598 talk.politics.misc:59801
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:20:08 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov10.143036.2167@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

|>In article <1992Nov7.183308.14033@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

|>>The interest on the debt benefits no one, rich or poor (and is more than
|>>15%...)

|>The interest on the debt benefits those who are wealthy enough to hold a
|>sufficiently large amount of government bonds.  Those who can save enough
|>tens of thousands of dollars in government bonds to exceed what they pay in
|>taxes to pay that interest greatly benefit from that interest.  In fact,
|>since we don't have a balanced budget, it would be fair to say that we're
|>not even paying the interest yet, and those who hold bonds are benefitting
|>from it.  But in the end, the working poor and the middle class pay for the
|>interest in taxes, but don't have the kind of savings to enable them to
|>benefit from it.  It amounts to a transfer of wealth from the working poor
|>and the middle class to the wealthy.

If you have a pension fund then you are benefitting.  GOvernment savings bonds
can be bought in denominations as low as $25.  You can also buy shares in
mutual funds.

By offering tax free bonds, the government ends up paying less in interest.
Everybody who pays taxes benefits from the government paying less interest.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: A "New" Reich
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:33:01 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     On This Week with David Brinkley, Clinton economic advisor
Robert Reich said that the current recession is not as deep
as the 1981-1982 recession.  This does not seem consistent
with the "worst-economic-conditions-in-50-years" theme I 
continually heard from the Clinton campaign.  Secondly, Reich
said that although Clinton did promise a middle-class tax
cut, it really wasn't a *salient* point.  Once again, I remember
Clinton campaign ads *trumpeting* that the middle class would
"get a break" under a Clinton administration.
     Just think what we'll hear *after* the inauguration....

     C. Perttunen
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: PKD's Time out of Joint **Spoilers!!** Re: Science Fiction?
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:04:26 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Nov11.185107.6145@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.141407.864@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>Oh, given that space weapons are involved, I'd say it was a GOP
>>>administration plotting against the protagonist. :-)
>>>
>>You post an article about plans for technilogical development then
>>criticize space technology!  :-)
>
>Actually, thinking about it a little more, it has to be a GOP regime.
>Proof?  Who else would create a virtual small town and blame a
>recession on the Democrats? :-)
>
>>
>>Now where would our technology go without the military??  :-)
>
>What I really want is a HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile.  It's
>used to blow up enemy radar sets.) set-up for my car.  Those pesky
>cops with their radar guns....
>
>:-)
>
Geez, no one has repsect for the police these days!

What we need is to keep building the stealth aircraft, in case another
Iraq-type country threatnes the world.  And then GM culd adopt the same
technology for its newest sports cars
(Unless we can't drive cars because after Clinton's environmental policies
are enacted).   :-)

Now the Democrats have perfected virtual reality--remember the late 70's??
-)    (our enemies are really nice people-yeah right!!)

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: Re: Clinton and a Security Clearance
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:36:52 GMT

In article <1d92jbINN9s9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bg086@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brad C. Wallet) writes:
|> 
|> I think the ironic part of the whole election is that given Gov.
|> Clinton's past record, he would not ordinarily be able to get a
|> security clearance.  That's no security clearance.  Not even a
|> Secret clearance.  Are the security checks too tight?  Well, to
|> make it so that he would have been, they would have to eliminate
|> almost all the requirements.  If anyone cares to dispute this,
|> I can state direct references to the laws.  I realize that this
|> character issue has been beat to death, but man is he scary.

   Gee, I drew just the opposite conclusion: the security clearance
laws must be old fossils left over from the days of Joe McCarthy
and J. Edgar Hoover and red scares and whatnot.  What's so sacred
about a set of bureaucratic rules about security clearances?

							- Lee
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: President Clinton -- What a nice sound
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:51:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <Nov.5.23.12.10.1992.29424@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>>Understand something (this is not a flame): most younger voters (myself
>>included) don't remember Carter.  I truly thought I was doing the right
>>thing in supporting Bush, so does that make me a hatemonger?? I hope not.
>
>I am only 29, but I do remember the Carter Administration and the
>effects it had on the country, my family, and myself.  It was very
>tough financially for many of us.  He was a very ineffective President.
>
>-- 
>David De Trolio - (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
>--------------------------------------------------
>Reagan-Bush 1980-1988 + Bush-Quayle 1988-1992
>Twelve Years of Strong American Leadership

i too am 29 but i remember something else about carter years...gas prices
doubled...gee...think that affected our economy?  i also remember carter's
worst defecit year at just under 100 billion and saw reagan and bush make that
look like 'peanuts'.  i also remember george-the-liar signing the 2nd biggest
tax increase in 1990 and watching the defecit climb and total debt mount
more than any time in history.  i voted for bush in 88 but he betrayed america
and arrogantly refused to see the recession or to answer to the american 
people who hired him(and now fired him).  oh, and i won't hold bush against
the republicans any more than i hold carter against the democrats...1 man
does not define a party for all time.  the republicans now have an opportunity
to come back to the center and dump those right-wing religeous control-freaks
and try again in 4 years and see if they can EARN my vote.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Carter, Inflation, OPEC, energy policy
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:21:30 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov11.144214.20605@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> Matt Landrum writes:
>>MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>
>>   Hi. Could some sane rational grownup, someone perhaps who was a literate
>>   nonpartisan adult during the Carter years please connect the above
>>   concepts.  I am oh so very confused about the economy under Carter and
>>   just how much he was responsible for the high inflation rates.  What did
>>   he do specifically that made them so high, or fail to do to lower them.
>> 
>>A recent Louis Rukheyeser (sp?) column suggested that the Carter
>>administration provided a stimulus to the economy after it had
>>already turned the corner which accelerated and exaggerated
>>the return to inflation (and the rate of inflation that would
>>be expected).
> 
> Not to put the Carter before the hearse, but what the h*** kind of 
> stimulus could Carter have provided that wasn't prevalent tons more
> during the last 12 years? defecit spending? tax cuts? It is to
> groan-inwardly-in-spirit. If monetarists are to be believed just
> as only we can prevent forest fires, only printing presses cause
> inflation.
> 
> As for me, my only economics training consists in paying food bills 
> and the mortgage. I don't know what caused the inflation of the 
> late 70s and am also anxiously awaiting some kind of answer.

	Keynesians say the way to cure a recession is deficit spending
(targeted, of course).  And the way to cure the resulting debt is by inflation.

	So then we get the 70s, where recession was followed by inflation,
without debt reduction but with higher unemployment and no economic growth.

	Oops.  Death of the Phillips curve, (re)birth of the supply-siders,
Volcker, Reagan, Boom.  Bush (rejection of supply-side), recession, and
now...back to the 70s for the "cure".

	Hopefully we won't have to endure an entire decade of this (again)
before we (re)discover the real cure (again).

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:32:35 GMT

In article <JTURNER.92Nov5110752@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>What you fail to realize is that $100 billion also ensures the
>domestic tranquility which is of great benefit to the rich.
>It keeps thieves in Harlem and off of Park Avenue.
>...The
>spending on the poor is in the interests of the rich.

This is practically a totology: Government by definition helps the
rich more than the poor? And therefore they should be taxed more heavily? 
Are you trying to calim the poor don't benifit from these government 
programs? If the rich really denifited from them, why is a major
goal of rich, conservative politicians to remove them from the
budget?

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: Clinton isn't Carter
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:38:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.130328.25689@njitgw.njit.edu> aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:

>I remember Carter too, and my family did very well thanks.

According to the BLS or CBO (can't remember which),  real incomes went down
under Carter,  while TAXES when way up.  You might have done fine,  but
the rest of us,  rich and poor alike,  didn't.

>We locked in government securities at mafia rates just in
>time for inflation to drop (which was the result of Carter's
>policies, by the way -- unpopular policies that ensured
>his unelection).

Hmmm.  Well the 20%+ stag-flation itself started under Carter.  Jimmy
always like to blame the runwaway inflation in latter part of his term
on the enormous rise in world wide oil prices.  Now what policies of his
are you refering to that supposedly put inflation under control? 

>It's possible that Clinton won't be reelected, but that will
>be because the mess that Reagan and Bush left (quadrupled
>deficit, rusting infrastructure, moribund financial system
>tattered cities, burgeoning underclass ll direct results of Reagan/Bush
>policies).

Right!  The Demon-cratically controlled congress didn't have a THING to do
with it at all. That's why they gained so many new seats in both the House and
Senate.

> require some 
>tough and unpopular medicine that may not pay off within 4 years.

Like MORE taxes and MORE deficit spending...right?

>He won't be unelected because he's like Carter though.
>Unlike Carter (and Bush) he has been a very effective arm twister and
>deal maker who (I believe) will play hard ball with Congress.
>This is one of the reasons people call him slick.  He may
>be the most effective executive since LBJ.

Strange comparison.  LBJ could twist arms in congress because he had about
three decades of experience on Capitol Hill.  Clinton has none.  Tom
Foley and George Mitchell have been all smiles lately.  They finally
found their "leader".  :-)

- Ted D.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Distribution: usa
Date:  9 Nov 92 15:50:33 GMT

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>In article <sulkanen.720974900@xanth> sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>>cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>>
>>>In article <sulkanen.720886922@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>>>Good.  I've been looking forward to Hillary Clinton as First Lady for
>>>several months.  Bar and Nancy always had their say; at least Hillary
>>>has a first-rate mind.
>>
>>It is specious logic to infer this from an Ivy-league law degree.
>>

>Who's inferring? I've listened to Hillary and have been impressed
>by what she had to say, and the way she said it.

Did you also get a law degree from an Ivy? You don't have to answer this if
you would rather not incriminate yourself.

>>>> 2. USNWR suggests that the Clintonistas and Congress will quickly work to
>>>> lift the gag rule on abortion counseling and lift the ban on fetal-tissue
>>>> research. 
>>
>>>Too late -- the courts just lifted it.  And why not?  The Reagan
>>>Counter-Revolution is under way.  OF COURSE it's going to be lifted.
>>>Next you'll tell us that you suspect Clinton will appoint a pro-choice
>>>Supreme Court Justice.
>>
>>Oh, he's already announced the litmus test!
>>

>Oh, I suppose Reagan and Bush didn't apply opposition to Roe v. Wade
>as a litmus test? As usual, when I do it, it's policy, when you do
>it, it's politics. Ha!

I didn't say anything about the R&B policy; rather I just noted that 
there will be a litmus test. Don't expect the politics of abortion
to be conducted on any higher plane of principle during the Clintonschina
(very loosely, Russian for "time of Clinton"...probably botched usage).

>>
>>Yeah, did you see George Mitchell on C-SPAN last night...he made it clear that
>>(i) the Congressional Dems would present their own agenda, thank you very much
>>and that (ii) they will resuscitate their vetoed bills to start the term off
>>on the right (er..left) foot.
>>

>I saw Mitchell. I didn't hear what you heard.

You need to listen more carefully.

Martin Sulkanen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs