HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Why Do Soak the Rich Schemes Always End Up Picking Everyone's Pocket?
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:45:42
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Distribution: usa
	<1992Oct15.172448.26837@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: jrm@cbnews.cb.att.com's message of Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:24:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.172448.26837@cbnews.cb.att.com> jrm@cbnews.cb.att.com (john.r.miller) writes:
-> In article <1992Oct15.061208.15888@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
-> > 
-> > 
-> >   "Mr. President, Read Our Lips: No New Taxes"
-> >   by J. Peter Grace
-> > 
-> >   ...
-> > 
-> >   If 100 percent of all untaxed income in this country above $100,000 of
-> >   taxable income were confiscated today, we would generate only enough
-> >   money to run the government for 19 days -- less than three weeks. There
-> >   simply is not enough money raised in the highest brackets to contribute
-> >   meaningful amounts of revenue.
-> > 
-> >   They once asked the famous bank robber Willie Sutton why he robbed banks.
-> >   He answered, "That's where the money is." And if you want to raise
-> >   serious tax revenue in this country, you have to go to where the money
-> >   is. Ninety percent of all taxable income in this country is generated in
-> >   brackets of $45,000 and under. More than 75 percent is generated by
-> >   people who make $25,000 or less each year. If politicians raise taxes, it
-> >   is these people, not just the rich, who'll be soaked.
-> > 
-> >   ...
-> 
-> Yet 10% (the rich) hold 90% of the wealth in this country. If what you say
-> is true, then something is very wrong with our "tax" system. Those who
-> have the least pay the most. I propose we tax the "holdings" of the
-> rich and shake some of that 90% loose to cover the tax bill.
-> 
-> 			John Miller

	Think about what you're saying.  People, especially people
that are going to keep it, don't hold wealth; they spend it in order
to build on it.  When they spend money to expand their companies, they
hire more people and buy more products from other companies.  If you
tax these ``rich'' and take away a big chuck of that money, they are
not going to spend as much.  Less spending means less expansion and
less jobs.

	There isn't a golden mattress sitting on top of some big some
of money somewhere.  The only thing the government relocating funds
will do is take the money from where it can best expand the economy.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Why do Clinton and his net.apologists insist on DODGING this question?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:26:02 GMT


Will people earning less than $200,000/year see higher or lower taxes under
a Clinton administration. Why do Clinton and his net.apologists insist on
equivocating on this crucial question? Is Quayle right or not? Will we be
replacing one tax-and-spend republicrat with another or not?

Lets have some truth in advertising, for a change.

Give us the Bill!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Americans believe Anita Hill
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:44:19 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <84638@bcsaic.boeing.com>, lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.021019.4598@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> : In article <1992Oct6.201554.19629@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
> : > The results of a recent poll by NBC and the Today Show indicate that a  
> : > majority of Americans now believe Anita Hill was telling the truth about  
> : > Clarence Thomas.  What took you so long?
> : > 
> : 
> : 	Two factors are influencing this:
> : 
> : 	1) General rise of female candidates/pride promoting awareness
> : 
> : 	2) The media as "Willie Hortonized" the affair so that every mention
> : casts Clarence Thomas as a liar.
> : 
> Another factor:
> 
> Despite Thomas' bland asurances in his hearings that he was
> open-minded and had no particular ideological axe to grind,
> his opinions during his first term reflect quite strong
> ideological views.  

	That's not the same as having an axe to grind.

> His opinion in the case concerning the
> beating of prisoner's (e.g. that severe beatings were
> unfortunate but not precluded by the "cruel and unusual
> punishment" clause) are quite disturbing to many people, even
> non-liberals.  Several conservative SC justices expressed

  	I seem to remember him being bashed for voting both ways on some issues
(bashed when reported as having voted one way, then bashed again when it was
revealed that he had voted the other way.)

> revulsion at that particular decision.  Since it is clear to
> many of us that he lied about his judicial philosophy, in
> order to get confirmed, we have no trouble believing that he
> could very well have lied about the Anita Hill matter.

	I don't think him being consistent in voting about constitutional
matters is lying about "not having an axe to grind". Even though I don't think
he's qualified to sit on the SC, I'd agree that beatings while in prison do not
consitute cruel and unusual punishment unless it could be demonstated that such
beatings were/are endemic.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:33:38 GMT



} >     Let's not "grant" them anything.  You see, that was the point.  What
} >the local government did *was* grant them a monopoly, which the federal 
} >government then decided had to be regulated.
} >     If the monopoly was the problem, why didn't the federal government just
} >tell the local governments they couldn't grant those monopolies?
} 
} In many urban areas, cable must run underground.  How do you *NOT* have a
} monopoly in such a situation?

There are several cable companies operating in the Denver area, and they
haven't had that kind of problem.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52244 sci.environment:12028 talk.environment:4233
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:11:40 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <JMC.92Oct14190838@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>BART paying for 50 percent of operating costs and nothing on its
>investment is not encouraging either for extending BART or building
>similar systems elsewhere.  Appartently the newer MARTA system is
>even worse.

	Consider that maintenance has to be paid for, and personnel to
perform various BART tasks have to be paid, electricity to run the
trains, and other such things.

	Compare the various car costs -- maintenance, fuel, insurance,
etc. Cars do wear out as you drive them, though this wearing out can
be fixed as one goes with appropriate maintenance.

	There is one cost of public transit that is not directly
incurred by a car driver -- that of paying someone to drive the
vehicle. In BART's case, the Train Operator is a train babysitter most
of the time, but the principle is pretty much the same. But in return
for paying someone else to do the driving, one has one's time and
attention free.

>If the stuff about how long a BART car lasts were relevant, BART would
>be paying its way.

	Don't forget these other costs...

>I have ridden BART several times.  It's ok as public transportation
>goes.  These have been on occasions when I drove to San Francisco
>and didn't want to repark, and where BART just happened to go where
>I wanted to go.

>The efficiency experts don't consider it relevant that not many people
>want to ride BART.  The arguments that they ought to want to ride BART
>are much more relevant to them.  Probably the Clinton-Gore Administration
>will be receptive to some ingenious proposals to coerce people into
>riding it, so work on them guys.

	Baloney.

	There is a significant fraction of SF <-> East Bay commuters
who commute by BART, so there :-) Of course, BART doesn't do much for
those who are far away from it, like those in the West Bay and the
South Bay areas. Furthermore, BART is good only for certain trips; the
rest have to be managed by other means, such as various local buses
and light-rail systems. Sometimes one has to use more than one
vehicle.

	I've seen BART park-and-ride lots _packed_ with cars. Try
going down the Fremont or the Concord lines in the middle of a weekday
some time, and you'll see.

	They even have a program of building garages at the stations,
so more people can park their cars there. I might add that this BART
feature is something that annoys transit purists, but some
neighborhoods are awkward to get around in by anything but a car.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: pfister@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (tom pfister)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:12:05 GMT

[A bunch of irritating, near-sighted arguments on both sides deleted]

First of all, I am all for family values.  Who isn't!?  Of course, my
family values differ significantly your family values.
As for the family leave bill, it is a wonderful idea and I'm sure any
employer who implemented it would be revered by its employees.  But it
is NOT the governments job to be regulating employer/employee relationships.
Let the unions or individual employees bargain with the employer for such
benefits.
One reason it is not a good bill is that it does not cover so many people.
One post here asserts that 75% of the people work for exempted small 
businesses.  So why are people at larger businesses more deserving or
or more needful of such a plan?  With 75% of workers exempt, any problem(s)
that the bill addresses is/are far from solved.

What the government should be trying to do is foster an environment in which
our economy is strong and a family can be supported on a single income.
THAT will do more more family values than strangling businesses with 
costly regulations.  (The cost of doing business in this country is already
too high, which is why so many jobs are being exported.)

Now the problem, as I see it, is limited to single parent families that
still need time off for family emergencies since there is not a second
parent to hold down the homefront.  That is a problem that needs attention
but is not very well addressed by the family leave bill.

Tom 
pfister@silver.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Subject: International Relations: any students out there? 
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:08:29 GMT

I was wondering if anyone reading this conference is a student (or teacher) of  international relations who would like to get involved in ongoing discussions
on issues and theoretical developments relevant to the discipline?

I am a final year undergraduate, majoring in politics and am possibly going to
be writing a 4th year thesis in this field next year, so would like to be able
to get involved in discussions with others in similar situations.

Feel free to reply via email, or this conference (though with the amount
of traffic going through here I might lose you).

Dey

Dey Alexander
Department of Politics, Monash University (Australia)
pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:48:26 EST
 <1992Oct7.212635.29350@seq.uncwil.edu> <1992Oct8.145350.4639@desire.wright.edu> <1b37jaINNn1n@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1b37jaINNn1n@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.145350.4639@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
>>	My father, when he was working with the government on various black
>>programs was simply not allowed to travel to Eastern Europe (much less USSR)
>>because of the nature of his work.  If he had gone, he would have lost his
>>clearance.  Even though our family root trace back to Hungary, Poland, and
>>parts of former E. Germany.  We simply couldn't go.
> 
>>	Remember, this is military intelligence we're talking about.
> 
> Stupendous, I see how you have gotten yourself confused.

	Andy, I see how you have gotten confused :).

> 
> Someone who holds a high-level security clearance is not permitted to
> travel to the Soviet Union or other Communist country. I believe the
> higher the clearance, the longer you can't go after you retire, too.
> (Well, ex-USSR.....)

	I believe that's what I said.  Although he can go now that he is
retired.  (Government can't do anything to him, unless it can prove his trip
would be a threat to national security.)

> However, someone who has visited the Soviet Union can easily get a
> security clearance afterward. There is a fear is that the person

	True.  I should have said "might result in no security clearance"...

> with the security clearance will either defect or be abducted. If he
> goes BEFORE he has the clearance, then there is no possible problem. Got
> it?

	Andy, you seem to believe that the government doesn't care where you've
been before you work for them.  Believe me, they do.

> It is simply a matter of record that tens of thousands of Americans went
> as tourists to Russia, even in 1969. They were not all KGB recruits, and
> I'll bet plenty of them got sensitive jobs later in life... like the
> Reagan-appointed judge.

	Never said they were.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 09:40:25 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <15OCT199215013551@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>, bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:
|>(David Veal) writes...
|> >     The federal government does not have to be forbidden to control
|> >contracts, but the other way around.  It must be granted that power, and
|> >it hasn't.
|> > 
|> The Congress is given powers to enact legislation in a number of
|> areas.  The authority to legislate in these areas incorporates the 
|> power to restrict contracts in these areas.  
|> 

Let's see, Congress is given the power to:

1.  Tax
2.  Borrow
3.  Regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States
    and with the Indian tribes
4.  Establish uniform rule of naturalization
5.  Coin money and regulate its value
6.  Provide for punishment of counterfeiting
7.  Establish post offices and roads
8.  Promote the progress of science and useful arts
9.  To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
10. To define and punish piracies commited on the high seas
11. Declare war
12. Raise and support armies
13. Provide and maintain a Navy
14. Make rules for regulation of land and naval forces
15. Provide for calling forth the militia
16. Provide for organizing, arming, etc., the militia
17. Exercise exclusive legislation over the seat of the U.S. government
18. Make all laws necessary and proper for executing the powers
    granted to the U.S.

Perhaps you would like to clarify which power allows the government to
restrict employment contracts?


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: peterd@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:13:26 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.183458.2087@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct1.113017.4473@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>|> >	A solution, if you are interested in charging per mile driven to gauge
>|> >wear and tear, is to add a little more functionality to the current computers
>|> >in cars.  
>|> 
>|> Could you tell me where I find the computer in my 85 Civic ? 
>|> 
>The engine control computer or the one in your radio?
Yeah right - my 62 Ford had neither, my 79 Toyota has just the radio.

I suppose I'm not doing my Duty by driving what I can afford,
not what is the latest and most Environmentally benign, or taking
mass transportation (Why is it better to take the bus at 3 passenger-miles
to the gallon verses my Toyota with just me at worst is 20 pm/g.?)

chus
pyotr

>-- 
>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
-- 
                 Peter D. Hampe, EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow. "Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."
                       Will be President for Food.
-- 
                 Peter D. Hampe, EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow. "Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."
                       Will be President for Food.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:41:40 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <adams.719167533@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>
>>If you accept that Clinton is going to win, then why don't you tone down the
>>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?  
>
>Just like the left toned down all of their screeching during Reagan and
>Bush's Presidencies?

     Y'know, "They started it," just doesn't impress me.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50070 ca.politics:8512 ba.politics:5926
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len B.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Message to Biff!
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:13:50 GMT
Distribution: usa

Email me Biff!!! I can't reach you.....I'll reply with phone #

Len

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:01:02 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct15.055312.3082@muddcs.claremont.edu> weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>In article <Bvsqz3.1L4@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>>In article <1avrpqINNsvg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>>>
>>>>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,
>>>>and Really are not the sort of things
>>>>that decent persons with good personal
>>>>hygeine standards would wish to involve
>>>>themselves in/with/towards.
>>>	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>>>Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>>>you flood your bedroom.
>>  What does this have to do with Bush?

You have to ask?

>	I don't know, but this group is getting kinda dull. We should have 
>more discussion like this.

Jeez, guys, here you have a great newsgroup called alt.politics.bush and you
can't think up anything to do with it?

Talk about whether apical dominance and trimming are a good idea.

Big Al.  Bet you didn't know bushes orgasmed, did you?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:42:01 GMT

In article <15OCT199215013551@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:

>In article <1688012A38.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes...
>>In article <14OCT199209444249@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
>>bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:
>> 
>>>In article <1992Oct9.214739.1488@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@stein.u.washingtonedu (Eric Sieferman) writes...
>>>>In article <9S5-sJB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>No, in the original Constitutional sense.  There is no power granted
>>>>>to the Federal government giving it the ability to interfere with
>>>>>such contracts.
>>>>
>>>			...
>>>
>>>Where is there a "right of contract" in the Constitution?  Where is
>>>the government forbidden to regulate contracts?
>> 
>>     The Constitution of the United States is an *empowering* document, not
>>a *restrictive* document.  In it the Federal Government is granted certain,
>>specifc powers.  Notice Article I, Section 8 says, "Congress shall have the
>>power to..", not "Congress hall be forbidden to..."
>	[discussion of Bill of Rights deleted]
>>     The government is given specific powers.  Amendment 10 further says
>>that only those powers listed in the Constitution belong to the federal
>>government, with all others being reserved to the states or the people.
>>     The federal government does not have to be forbidden to control
>>contracts, but the other way around.  It must be granted that power, and
>>it hasn't.
>> 
>The Congress is given powers to enact legislation in a number of
>areas.  The authority to legislate in these areas incorporates the 
>power to restrict contracts in these areas.  

    This is an extension of the power of Congress *in* those areas.  It does
not convery a general power to regulate contracts.  If you happen to know
where the Congress' power to regulate employment contracts is, or the power
you think it comes under, please specify it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc