HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Tax suggestion
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:00:38 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug31.171653.25732@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.144328.4618@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|>> In <1992Aug23.164957.8198@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:
>|>> 
>|>> >How about the following:
>|>>

>[...] [Social Security phase-out notion.]

>|>> 
>|>> The biggest problem I see is where the money is supposed to come from.
>|>> Folks paying in now are not putting money aside for their own
>|>> retirements; they are funding the payment of benefits to those
>|>> receiving them now.  Where is the money to come from to do the
>|>> 'payback', and at what market rates of interest would it be returned?
>|>> Where is the money going to come from to continue to pay benefits to
>|>> everyone currently drawing them (none of whom are going to quit --
>|>> that would be crazy)?

>'Tis indeed a problem, one that depends to some extent on how big a pot the SS
>system has, a number I don't have.  At worst, continued funding could come from
>general revenues -- in effect, simply replacing one tax with another -- but
>would at least offer the possibilities that (a) the size of the tax would di-
>minish over time, and (b), it would put an end to the system by something other
>than what I expect, under the current system, will be catastrophic means such
>as bankruptcy.

>As to the source of a "payback" fund, the same answer applies.

There is no 'pot'.  This money has been spent.  If you stop people
paying in (and hence funding the current recipients), you will have to
fund all benefits out of current revenues.


-- 
"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: boyd@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Spend, Spend
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:31:51 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX

In article <4193PB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>
> Got some other choice better than Bush (regarding deficits and taxes)?
>
Regarding deficits and taxes -- try Marrou, the other presidential candiate on
your ballot.

--
Tom Boyd     (512)832-3611             "She looked fluffy,
boyd@turtle.fisher.com                       but she struck like a cobra!"
From: troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:49:36 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <Btv04x.35y@rice.edu>
evan@is.rice.edu (Evan R. Wetstone) writes:
 
>                                            ...   both Conservative
>and Reform Judaism agree that when the mother's physical health is
>endangered,  an abortion is required.
 
        I'm not Jewish,  so I feel perhaps more objective in seconding
that.   My understanding of the pro-life stance  (being an advocate and
having been previously involved)  is that it agrees:  if the mother's
health  (life at least)  is endangered,  abortion is in order.
 
>But if your laws (like a constitutional amendment banning abortion) get
>passed, we are no longer allowed to follow our religious laws.  What then?
 
        The problem is not abortion,  but  "abortion-on-demand".
I don't think that you realize that abortion-on-demand hurts women more
than do controls on abortion-in-general.   Be careful that you don't
just inject  so much smoke,  because these cases need to be addressed,
but there is a bigger problem.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:48:09 GMT

In <P7RBr*3W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>Just look at all the spending bills that didn't get passed because of the President's
>veto, or threat thereof.

In other words, THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE for all the
deficit spending we're doing.  Either he can control it (via veto and
threatened veto) or he can't.  If he can, then he is responsible for
the deficit.  If he can't, then there's no reason to reelect him.


-- 
"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: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:47:53 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:

> 	The Tenth, on the other hand, explicitly says that the Feds
>    have no powers other than those explicitly listed in the United
>    States Constitution.  Now, the fact that the Supreme Court refuses 
>    to do it's self-proclaimed duty simply means they won't use the 
>    teeth, not that the teeth don't exist.  The lower courts have the 
>    power to use those teeth if the SC drops the ball.  The Rock Island 
>    Armory case is a good recent example. 

I've not heard of this case.  Would you please summarize for those of us who
missed it?

(BTW, you made some good points in your post w.r.t. the SC not doing its job
about interpreting the U.S. Constitution.  IMO we've lost much of the
balance that comes from enforcing the separation of powers between the
federal and the various states' governments.)

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4533 alt.flame:12394
From: system@korova.uucp (razorback)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.flame
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 23:39:35 CDT
Organization: VHF void tube of the mind (713) 492-2783

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

> In article <1992Aug20.160829.28245@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.co
> 
> >Unfortunately, this is just one in a string of notes from John Haugh
> >II that seems to indicate that he *IS* a total asshole.  I still
> >consider that HIS problem, though, and not mine.
> 
> I've always wondered, why do people say  "total" asshole?

well, thats because its not just a PART of an asshole, like a sphincter 
rim or a butt-cheek pimple, but the whole, entire COMPLETE asshole.

squid

--
              VHF void tube of the mind (713) 492-2783
        "where you can find the Zeta Greys SAFEWAYING themselves
                into the WONDERBREAD *heart* of America!"
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 16:52:43 GMT

In <1992Aug26.235917.29522@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.222237.27913@bradley.bradley.edu> 
>pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>> It is possible (even likely) that passing out condoms encourages sexual
>> activity.  However, not passing out condoms does not prevent sexual activity,
>> and I'm willing to bet that passing out condoms creates a net drop in
>> the number sexual "problems" that are created by sexual activity.  Things
>> like VD, Pregnancy, what have you.
>Passing out condoms has resulted in an increased birth rate among
>teenagers at a Colorado high school.  See the article below.

The article you cited seems to indicated that the at-school nursery
probably has more to do with the rise in pregnancy, and I'm inclined
to agree with that.  I do see the point that sex education could also
be related though.  I don't think a newspaper article is really sufficient
basis to make a strong claim of a direct link between passing out condoms
and increased birth rate.  There are far too many possible variables (like
the nursery I've already mentioned.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
          When you're swimmin in a creek, and an eel bites your cheek,
                               That's a Moray...
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:09:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525

RT> >George should study American history; the nation's heritage is based
RT> >upon escaping religious persecution and State sanctioned religions.
RT> >The religious right would have America back in those situations which
RT> >our ancestors fought to escape.

RT>        No.   That's not at all correct.   The  "religious right"
RT> has much the same theology and ideology as the  "founding fathers".
RT> The latter is weakening because the schools don't teash history like
RT> they used to.   (actually,  both are weakening because churches don't
RT> teach theology like they used to)

        Actually, a great many of thr "Founding Fathers" were Deists,
which means that they followed the creeds of NO organized religion
(This is certainly true for Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Ben
Franklin). They were about at far from the religious right as you can
get! It must be true that the schools don't teach history, or you
would know that Mr. Franklin was in fact a memver of the Notorious
"Hellfire Club" and would today be labled a "pervert", and certainly
would not be allowed a place in government! As for the churches not
teaching theology, I suppose it would depend heavily on which church
you were talking about. I strongly doubt that the religious right
would approve of most of te founding fathers if they knew what they
were really up to!!!

        David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *               
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4723 alt.politics.clinton:3740
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:21:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pretty unorganized

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

>He [Johnson] left Nixon with
>a recession in 1968 - Carter did the same thing to Reagan.  By contrast,
>Reagan and Bush ...

And Bush is about to do it to the next pres...
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:36:24 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

All right, John.  Just who is this Patrick Henry person whose word we
are all supposed to accept as "the ultimate truth?"  He sounds like some
wacko bible thumper to me.  Did he get liberty or did he get dead?  
It's just like some old bible thumper to go sullying the name of God
by dragging it into politics!


	Judy
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:26:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <qucBr*oV0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> Only if he is willing to hold the entire budget hostage.  Remember, it is all or
> nothing with the veto.  Do you really want the President and Congress to play
> "chicken" with the entire government?  (well, maybe...)
 
Sure, why not.  Sometimes you have to play hardball.  In fact, that's the
problem right now, no one is willing to play hardball so we get all sorts
of horrible compromise bills that don't accomplish anything.  It
worked for Reagan, and while we can debate all day whether it was a good
or bad thing, the fact is that a strong president can do it.  George
Bush doesn't fit that ticket.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Democracy   (was Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 04:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: houston
Organization: Rice Pudding

In article <BtxH29.MAw@rice.edu> dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes) writes:
- In article <BtwrsF.A1J@rice.edu> gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble) writes:
- >[...]  As my old friend George Bernard used to
- >say, "Democracy is a device that insures that the people shall be
- >governed no better than they deserve."
- 
- "Democracy is simply the illusion that the masses know what they
- want, and deserve to get it, good and hard, preferably with some
- energy behind it." -- H. L. Mencken


Democracy, n.:
        A government of the masses.  Authority derived through mass
meeting or any other form of direct expression.  Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion,
prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
                -- U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932),
                   since withdrawn.


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack   |   
  kossack@qvi.com   |   Guinness and Harp and Bass ... oh my!  
  +1 713 240 2073   |   
  
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Tax suggestion
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:43:47 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:

> How about the following:
> 
>   1.  Starting immediately, no one will be added to the Social Security
>       system:  no SSAN, no SS withholding, no SS benefits.  You keep your
>       own money to invest or burn as you see fit.  You also take respon-
>       sibility for your own retirement.
> 
>   2.  People already paying into in the SS system can opt to stop having SS
>       withheld and receive a lump-sum reimbursement, plus accrued  interest,
>       of everything they've put into the system so far.  The SS system keeps
>       the employer matching "contribution" for use as described below.  Peopl
>       taking this option forfeit all subsequent benefits, but as above, are
>       free to invest/blow the reimbursement and the money no longer being
>       withheld.
> 
>   3.  People currently receiving SS benefits can also opt to quit as in 2, bu
>       may opt to continue to receive benefits.  The SS system will pay these
>       benefits out of the retained employer contributions.

I'd go for these suggestions.  For palatability, I could also live with SS
continuing for those who _volunteer_ to use this system as their retirement
savings program.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep1.035542.8257@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>I'm not sure what paper you're refering to, but here's the changes in
>real output, divided by Democratic & Republican administrations.  This
>is from my econ text (Abel & Bernanke), which cites the Economic
>Report of the President (1990) as its source.  The administrations are
>from Truman (after the '48 election) through Reagan II.

How about we stick to modern history?  American society has changed
considerably since Truman.  Most of us weren't even born when Truman
was first president 40+ years ago (seeing as the average age in this
country is in the 30's ...)

Under Johnson, inflation and unemployment soared.  He left Nixon with
a recession in 1968 - Carter did the same thing to Reagan.  By contrast,
Reagan and Bush have made America the number one exporter again, after
losing ground to both Japan and Germany.

As for unemployment, the total number of workers in the workforce has
dramatically increased since Johnson was president.  It has had to
absorb literally tens of millions of women who, prior to Johnson, stayed
home and raised kids.  Under Carter, unemployment rose to near
depression levels.  Today, we consider 7.7% (the current level) to be
absolutely horrible.  If Carter had 7.7% unemployment and <4% inflation
(the current levels ...), we'd have had 12 years of Democratic
administrations.

You people have forgotten what 12% inflation and 9% unemployment feel
like.  This is why you think 4% inflation and 7% unemployment are so
damned awful.  If Bill Clinton inherits the current recovery, it will
take a few years to trash the economy.  And when it starts to sour and
he gets thrown out in 1996, the first few years that it takes to turn
the economy around will get passed off to the Republican who takes
over.  Most of the "studies" of Republican v. Democrat administrations
ignore the simple reality that the seeds of a recession are sown well
in advance.  The '81 - '82 "Reagan" Recession is really the dying
breath of Carter's administration.  Whatever happens in '93 and '94
will have nothing to do with Clinton - a $6T economy does not turn on
a dime ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:51:45 GMT
Organization: Tennessee Ernie Port Authority

In article <mumble> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
|        The problem is not abortion,  but  "abortion-on-demand".
|I don't think that you realize that abortion-on-demand hurts women more
|than do controls on abortion-in-general.

Yeah, much better to let the patriarchy decide when a woman can be
allowed to have an abortion.

Whoa, sorry.  Don't know what happened there.  Must have been
channeling for my radical-feminist lover.

-- 
Ben Gamble                              B0 f- t+ w- g+ k- s- m- e r-v p
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu 
       Oh ye who go about saying unto each other:  "Hello sailor":
       Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525


JFH> Flaming idiot?  Nah.  I'm the voice of reason and tranquility.


        ROTFLMAO!!!


JFH> John F. Haugh II

        David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Tax suggestion
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:43:28 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug23.164957.8198@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:

>How about the following:

>  1.  Starting immediately, no one will be added to the Social Security
>      system:  no SSAN, no SS withholding, no SS benefits.  You keep your
>      own money to invest or burn as you see fit.  You also take respon-
>      sibility for your own retirement.

>  2.  People already paying into in the SS system can opt to stop having SS
>      withheld and receive a lump-sum reimbursement, plus accrued  interest,
>      of everything they've put into the system so far.  The SS system keeps
>      the employer matching "contribution" for use as described below.  People
>      taking this option forfeit all subsequent benefits, but as above, are
>      free to invest/blow the reimbursement and the money no longer being
>      withheld.

>  3.  People currently receiving SS benefits can also opt to quit as in 2, but
>      may opt to continue to receive benefits.  The SS system will pay these
>      benefits out of the retained employer contributions.


>The net result will be that, in thirty years or so, the gov't will be out of the
>retirement insurance/welfare business, which it shouldn't have gotten into in
>the first place.

The biggest problem I see is where the money is supposed to come from.
Folks paying in now are not putting money aside for their own
retirements; they are funding the payment of benefits to those
receiving them now.  Where is the money to come from to do the
'payback', and at what market rates of interest would it be returned?
Where is the money going to come from to continue to pay benefits to
everyone currently drawing them (none of whom are going to quit --
that would be crazy)?


-- 
"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: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 30 Aug 1992 20:49:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <21431@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.191853.8496@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Usually?  What percentage, and from what source?  I know several
>>people who have had abortions and what you describe wasn't the case. 

>This question, not being a complete sentence, makes no sense.  But I
>will try to answer the question.
...
>>Every day?  How many a day, and from what source?

>Again, your question is an incomplete sentence, but I will attempt to
>answer it anyway.
...
>I believe that John Iacoleti (to use your spelling ...) put the
...

JFH, why do you weaken your own arguments by making these pointless
grammar and style flames? If you don't understand the question, say
so. If you do, then answer it.

Mixing otherwise relevant information with petty sniping only makes
you and your opinions look bad.


-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #