HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:11:17 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Carter, Inflation, OPEC, energy policy

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.
  I am 34, was in college in the Carter years.  I remember Ford's WIN
buttons, which suggests to me that inflation was already problematic
before Carter took office (WIN=Whip Inflation Now).  But I also remember
thatt OPEC (bunch of Arab states that got together to control Oil prices)
jacked the oil prices way up, which further screwed the economy.  I
remember Carter having an energy policy (boy, do I remember sweltering
out summer weekends in the Univ of Ill psych dept with no air) which
goal was to make our economy less dependent on foreign oil.  So weat
we wouldn't
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15704 alt.politics.democrats.d:293 alt.politics.elections:22521 ba.politics:6718 co.politics:1572 ne.politics:2682 nj.politics:517 or.politics:414 ny.politics:46 talk.politics.misc:58046
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
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
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:21:04 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Nov4.230232.2011@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>: I might add, Ralph, that two years ago Clinton 'promised' the people of 
>: Arkansas that if re-elected as governor he would serve the entire four years.
>: As we saw from the 1988 presidential campaign, what politicians promise 
>: during the campaign, and what the do in practice are often two completely 
>: different things.  In this case, I'll bet my hat (to quote Perot) that Clinton
>: raises taxes on people with incomes far lower than $200,000.
>
>I might add, Rick, that Clinton asked the voters if he should "go" for the
>presidency before he did.  They said yes...
>
	But then again, Perot asked his volunteers if he should get back
into the race. He says they said yes, but most people admit his method
was suspect. What makes Clinton's method above this level? Did he call
a special election to vote on it?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:37:58 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Nov6185405@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.201258.15504@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>
>   In article <MDL.92Nov5144420@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>   >In article <rabjab.201.720915937@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>   >   Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?
>
>   >Dan Quayle will get the fuck out of it and maybe they'll let
>   >Richard Truly (a great American) run it like he's paid to do.
>
>Goldin, Truly is gone.
>
>   >   Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
>   >   of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
>   >   probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
>   >   and other major projects.
>
>Pah!
>
>   >Clinton is on record as supporting the super-collider
>
>   I was always under the assumption that a Democratic administration would
>   be hostile towards any technological development.  Like the space program
>   in general.  Were the delays in the shuttle program in the late '70s
>   caused by Carter or was this just a coincidenc??
>
>Actually I believe the shuttle first flew in 1981? That would suggest
>that the bulk of development and construction was under Carter. For all their
>rhetoric the Republican administrations don't exactly have a stellar
>record on space issues, a lot of the NASA malaise looks from here to have
>developed under Nixon and Reagan more than anyone else...
>
Then perhaps what we need is a spce program t that can go beyond partisan
politics.  This should apply to any large scale government project.

Simon
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
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:47:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.045647.27179@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>Take a look at the form: Line 13:
>>"Income: Capitol gains or (loss) (attach Schedule D)" [where you
>>must itemize your capitol gains] and Line 14: "Income: Capitol gain
>>distributions not reported on line 13". These are added in
>>to get your taxable income.

>  This is pure nonsense and shows an incredible lack of understanding.
>  Read the IRS tax instructions again.  Go talk to a CPA.  READ THE
>  STATEMENT ABOVE for Chrissakes :-)  Line 14 is for CapitAl gains
>  NOT REPORTED ON LINE 13.  Those reported on Line 13 are NOT reported
>  again.  You DO NOT, REPEAT DO NOT, pay both regular and capital gains
>  tax on the same gains.  

I'm not claiming that capital gains are reported twice on the form 1040.
However, one way or another (e.g. line 13 and scheduel D or line 14)
_all_ capital gains are reported and taxed as income: You do, in fact
pay regular income tax on capital gains. Someone posted earlier that
if you pay capital gains tax you don't have to pay regular income tax
on that money. However, the IRS seems to have a different opinion.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16289 talk.politics.misc:58721 talk.politics.drugs:7363
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:14:12 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>Perhaps cocaine-laced soda
>pop would make a comeback.  Who would take the risk of using crack
>when they could go down to the local cocaine bar and have a choice of
>seven delicious drink flavors?

Sounds a lot like the Korova milk bar in Clockwork Orange!
The distopia described in that movie featured a couple of other
interesting innovations, as well.
Two of them were the psycho-neutralization of violent crime, and 
the criminalization of opposition political activities.

-------------------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17061 alt.politics.democrats.d:520 alt.politics.elections:23699 ba.politics:7089 co.politics:1940 ne.politics:2957 nj.politics:707 or.politics:618 ny.politics:228 talk.politics.misc:59987
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
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
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Summary: True public employee raise information
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:52:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Nov12.184033.5936@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
	(deleted)
>
>I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
>of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
>Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
>tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
>any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
>gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...  
	(deleted)

	I don't know about your state but for the last six years the state
employee's of Massachusetts have had no pay raises.  That's no cost of living,
nothing.  In effect with the current mild inflation rate about a third cut
in pay.
	Also,  I notice you state that a public servant,  for which I read
public employee,  should be willing to accept less of a pay increase than
the norm.  Why?

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345 
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: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:48:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <HDB=G2@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> 
> Note, followups set to talk.politics.misc...

Sorry, I don't get that newsgroup -- so if you never see this post, please 
let me know.  <g>

> In article <1992Nov8.061043.2585@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> |> In article <1992Nov7.194101.15129@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
> |> >>If you are already living comfortably, at some tax rate
> |> >>you will decide that your time is worth more than you will get
> |> >>by working the additional hour, or taking the additional time
> |> >>to research investments, etc.  You will simply say screw it, 
> |> >>I would rather go play golf, go skiing, etc.  An hour spent
> |> >>generating income is an hour not spent doing something you
> |> >>may enjoy more.  The higher the cost of generating income, the
> |> >>more likely you are to forgo that activity and do something
> |> >>else.
> |> 
> |> >  Your point is well taken, and in fact may be EXTREMELY good
> |> >  justification for RAISING the taxes.  It is sad in this society
> |> >  that people are constantly spending time, often doing something
> |> >  that they are merely satisfied with (or occasionally dissatisfied
> |> >  with), when they could be enjoying life more.
> |> 
> |> You are assuming that no one else benefits from their making
> |> money. This is sometimes true (junk bonds, for example). [...]
> 
> One thing about junk bonds.  They aren't the great satan that most
> people think.  They are primarily a way for smaller companies to
> raise money.  They are 'junk' only in the sense that they are
> riskier than higher quality bonds.  They are riskier because they
> represent the debt of a smaller company.  They also exist because
> of the perverse tax laws that favor debt financing over equity
> financing.
> 
> James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
> University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
> Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         


You are the only person in any of these newsgroups to not only know what 
junk bonds are, but to actually point out that they're not some
supernatural means of letting the rich get richer by some magic spell.  My
faith in humanity is restored. 

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Inflatio (was: STUPID VOTER AND STUPID PERSON)
Keywords: STUPID,inflation
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:03:55 GMT

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

>Please enlighten me. EVERYONE putatively ascribes the inflation of the 1970s
>to Jimmy Carter. Just what is it that Carter did to create that inflation?

It was consumer spending that
fueled the inflation of the 1970's. 
Carter was responsible, indirectly, for bringing inflation under control.
He appointed Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve, who 
brought inflation under control with a tight money policy
(and also led to interest rates of 21%).

Bert Lance did warn Carter that if he appointed Volcker
to the Fed, that he would not be re-elected.

>unelected independent body. If the Fed's Board of Governors all woke
>up feeling daffy one morning they could print 4,000,000,000,000 simoleons
>and wash away the debt with a blink. And the Prez couldn't do a thing
>about it.

An unelected, independent body in control of the money supply
is necessary otherwise the money supply will be manipulated 
during election years to ensure the election of the incumbent.

(I suspect Jeff Davis understands this stuff better than me.)

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Science Fiction?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:33:31 GMT

In article <rabjab.250.721359951@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>   "The store had during the afternoon become almost deserted. Usually
>a flow of customers passed through the check-out stands, but not today.
>The recession, Vic decided.  Five million unemployed as of February of
>this year.  It's getting at our business.  Going to the front doors he
>stood watching the sidewalk traffic.  No doubt about it. Fewer people than
>usual.  All home counting their savings.
>   "We're in for a bad business year," he said to Liz.
>   "Oh what do you care?", Liz said. "You don't own the store; you just
>work here like the rest of us.  Means not so much work."  A woman customer
>had begun unloading items of food onto the counter; Liz rang them up, still
>talking over her shoulder to Vic. "Anyhow I don't think there's going to be
>any depression; that's just Democratic talk. I'm so tired of those old
>Democrats trying to make out like the economy's going to bust or
>something.""
>                 ---Philip K. Dick, "Time out of Joint", p.9, 1959
This is interesting.  Tell us a little more about this story., if possible.
Simon
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and a Security Clearance
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:46:14 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: bg086@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 04 Nov 92 13:51:39 -0400

>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.

Of course this is total hogwash.  I have corrected this error at least
five times on this group.  There are certain cases in which travel by
persons ALREADY WITH ACCESS TO SENSITIVE MATERIAL is restricted.  The
material has to be unbelievably sensitive, though--I was allowed to
travel to Communist China even though I had an *active* Top Secret/
Special Compartmented Information clearance.  

However, travel to these same foreign countries *before* ever getting
a clearance is next to irrelevant.  (You will be questioned about the
nature of your travel in these countries, but an obvious short tourist
trip will be irrelevant.)  There's a big difference.

Even if the worst possible scenario about Clinton were true, if he had
carried signs that said things like "U.S. Baby-Killers Out of Vietnam"
and "U.S. War-Criminal-Imperialists Go Home" (not unlikely signs to be
seen during an average anti-U.S. protest in the 60's) while in Oxford
and Moscow, it would still be irrelevant, because it falls into the
category of political activity.  People who know nothing about this
subject (elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) springs to
mind) seem always to assume the opposite--that the security clearance
process is intended to exclude "liberals" or those holding "unusual"
political views.  This is nonsense, and is directly contradicted in my
own experience.

Now, if you want to talk about whether Ron Dellums (the second-ranking
Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee) could ever get a clearance,
what with the connections he seems to have with Sr. Castro . . .
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Subject: Re: Taxes on Foreign Companies: IRS=$3b, Clinton=$45b
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:47:48 GMT

In article <bill.721616921@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
>
>>Apparently, the US collects less than $1 billion in these
>>taxes right now even after some increased efforts in this area over the
>>past 2 years.  The IRS apparently says that Clinton's plan to 
>>use $45 billion in these taxes to help pay for the $220 billion he
>>proposes in funding for domestic programs will never be collected 
>>because it just isn't out there.  The IRS head (I don't have the name
>>right now.) estimates that there's $3 billion we could collect at 
>>the very most.  I assume that anything more than that would have to be
>>the result of changing the tax code.

>Oh, it's out there alright.  The real question is whether we
>can get it back.  The Japanese have hired many of America's
>best lawyers to help them avoid corporate taxes, at a time when
>the U.S. has scaled back on its I.R.S. lawyers.  Not that I
>blame them, but they're now experts on this pertinent
>subject.

Your speculation really doesn't help any.  The IRS recognizes that 
the Japanese and other companies are averting taxes, but also claim
that it adds up to about $2-2.25 billion in lost taxes at the most, not $44 
billion.  I also pointed out that the IRS seems credible in this statement
since it was made after the election, and since the IRS would probably
benefit from Clinton's proposals.  If you have an alternate source on
these figures, I would very much appreciate it.

Rocky Giovinazzo
From: IO11216@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Now that Clinton has won, what are we suppose to do?
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:09:20 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System


     Now that Clinton is President Elect are we supose to sit back on our
duffs and let him steer the car while we nap?   I think not! The world is
changing and we cannot let one man control its destiny. Our destiny must be
in our own hands not in Clinton's, Gore's, or Congresses. Don't sit back now
you have shown the world who you wanted now show them what you want.
     Iraq is still there and don't think for a minute that Saddam is going to
be quivering in his boots over Clinton. We will undoubtedly have to go back
into Iraq, but there can be no second guessing our descition. When we go it
must be decisive and absolute. Though it can't just be the US. The coalition
must exist again.  Clinton cannot do this himself, we need todirect it. We
must make it the world vs. Saddam, not Corperation not Clinton, not The
Primeminister of England, but the WORLD.
If you want my reasons for this thinking I will gladly tell you. If
people respond I will post my reasons.
PCN
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16310 talk.politics.misc:58745
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Carter (was: Gov. Clinton Responds to the Internet)
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:35:50 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.102146.20526@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.152508.8101@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov3.104357.1459@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
...
>> >Carter cut the top Capital Gains Tax rate (from 49.1% to 28%).
>> >Good or bad idea?  (Just checking...)
>> 
>> Russ' heart is in the right place, but his grasp of history
>> is a little off .... this piece of legislation was *not* Carter's
>> idea; he initially opposed it. To recap from a post by John Otto,
>> reciting a Consumer Reports article:
>> 
>> * 1978 Revenue Act.  This was actually the turning point in the tax code,
>>        which may disappoint those who want to blame everything on Ronald 
>>      Reagan... [It] was the 1st supply-side tax cut, enacted by a Dem
>>        Congress over Pres. Carter's bitter objections... most regressive
>> (Emphasis mine^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)
...
>> Yes, the Cap Gains rate cut was a good idea .... That should
>> have tipped you off that Carter do *not* think it up. :-)
> 
> 1) Carter's objections (not that I remember them) were not "bitter" enough 
>    to prevent him from signing.
> 2) Picture the *Democratic controlled Congress* pushing for a Capital-gains 
>    reduction.  Is this a good idea that Congress thought up?

	But wait, there's more: The person leading the charge was: Lloyd
Bensten.
	Heh.

> Sounds like Reagan (in '81) was just following Carter/Congress's tax 
> cutting lead. :-)

	No, there were supply-siders before Reagan.

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: johnch@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (John Chandler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:18:04 GMT
Organization: IMF
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <1992Nov10.135313.217@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>In article <1dn7qnINNp34@pongo.West.Sun.COM>, johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM
>(John Chandler) writes: 
>> 
>>>Lets also not forget who controls the public debt - Congress.
>> 
>> How many balanced budgets did RR or GHWB present to Congress?
>
>Irrelevant, since no president can spend a single taxpayer dollar.  

It's not irrelevant.  I don't accept the implied assertion that poor 
old RR and GHWB were valiantly bucking the current when, at least in 
terms of overspending, they got approximately what they asked for.

John C

QUIT
ed for.

John C
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15976 alt.politics.democrats.d:320 alt.politics.elections:22774 ba.politics:6792 co.politics:1606 ne.politics:2733 nj.politics:544 or.politics:443 ny.politics:71 talk.politics.misc:58367
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Note to Perot supporters
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:19:20 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Bx7LzG.3rq@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff 'ifucanreedthisumustuzeunix' Aitken) writes:
>
> ...  I heard (though this may be wrong)
>that approximately 53% of eligible voters actually voted....

I heard 54%.  In California 75% of registered voters voted; which brings me
to an interesting question:  in which states was the percentage so low that
the national average was only 54%?  Can anyone post the stats on what per-
centage of eligible voters voted in each state?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Science, as actually practiced, is a complex dialogue between data and   |
| preconceptions."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc