Conference back40::soapbox

She turned me into a _Newt_!



Well, I got better...

    	She has got a wart!!
    

    A true Hick who will be laughed out of office long before the next
    election.  The glare of the spotlight will not be kind to Newt.  He
    looks good though, If he would just keep his thoughts to himself he might last
    longer.  
               

	It's amazing how hard the spotlight glares at you when you disagree with
the mainstram liberal press.

ME

    as i said in the 'ole 'Box... The man is a classless would-be 
    dictator. 

	Are you saying his own words don't get ole eye of Newt in trouble and
that it's just the so called, "liberal press" that's doing it? Watch C-Span
sometime when he's on. They just run what he says. He's a scary dude....

    Newt is prehaps the biggest hypocrit to attain high office that has
    come through.
    
    He started holding office in 19789, but says he  favors term limits.  
    
    he talks about morality, but divorced a wife and the mother of his
    children (which helped him dodge the draft during Viet Nam) after 18
    years of marriage and while she was fighting cancer.  He remarried
    within a year of the divorce being final, but he talks about family
    values.
    
    He failed to meet his commetments to his ex wife and family, but favors
    tossing women off a support system who have simalar deadbeat fathers of
    their kids.  
    
    He talks about fiscal responsibility, but bounced checks in the
    congressional bank.
    
    He believes you can increase spending, lower taxes and balance the
    budget.  (see previous graf)
    
    He may be the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party since Bush. 
    He hasn't had the national eye on him before, but I believe the next
    two years will be entertaining.
    
    I would turn him into a toad, but he is already lower on the evolution
    scale IMO.
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    could unbiased analysis

| <<< Note 30.7 by CSC32::M_EVANS "perforated porcini" >>>


| He started holding office in 19789, but says he  favors term limits.

	You mean he isn't even in office yet!!??

| He may be the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party since Bush.

	I think Quayle and Bucannan had something to do with it...

	I have seen several execerpts of Newt's speeches.  Many things he says 
aren't as scary as you think (unless you are a liberal).  In fact, many of the
things he has said make a lot of sense to me.  When he says that we should cut 
out welfare programs that are not working, it makes sense,  Why fund sumething 
that is failing?  Throwing money at a problem has never solved the problem.  At
best, it is a band-aid.  Look at education.  We spend a lot of money in taxes to
educate the youth of America.  Yet, our education system trails those that spend
less.

ME

    <- Randon hits... Law of averages...

    Ellen Goodman's Globe column this week raised a number of provacative
    points about welfare reform.  I don't know if these supporting facts
    are true, but I'll bet they are:
    
    	Public charities?  Orphanages?  Been there, done that.
    	By the time of the Depression a third of the children in orphanages
    	had simply been abandoned by their mothers for lack of money.
    
    	The orphanage system proved so costly to run that 
    	the passage of federal welfare in 1935 as part of the Social
    	Security act was universally hailed as a great cost-cutting
    	measure.  (Newt was a professor of what subject?)
    
    While the concept of helping the elderly has become politically
    sacrosanct, and no one questions the idea of providing unemployment
    compensation, welfare has become heavily targeted (even though it only
    consumes $25 billion/year at the federal level).  Goodman claimed that
    welfare is the only entitlement program with a 'morality test.'
    
    What is so repugnant about white women and children abandoned by the
    father/provider?

    re: .7
    
    So NOW character IS an issue.  Where were you when Clinton got elected?

    What has character got to do with receiving welfare benefits in the
    first place?  Should we deny Social Security to disreputable elders?
    How about the indolent disabled?  Maybe loutish unemployed?

    
    .12 failed to mention that Ellen Goodman's Globe column is on the
    editorial pages of that (news)paper.
    

    Andy, that's why I called it a "column."

    
    Didn't realize the words were synonymous...

    Newt is just another politician who's job it is to obtain as much power
    as possible and then put himself up as an authority over our lives.
    Anyone who thinks that he is a hero has cranial-rectal inversion.
    
    ...Tom (likewise Dole, Clinton, Kennedy, etc, etc, etc)

    Well, not synonymous.  An "article" is supposed to be a reporting of
    facts.  A "column" is a signed opinion piece.  An "editorial" is a
    labeled but unsigned opinion piece.
    
    Anyway, I threw the factoids from the column out for discussion.
    Are they true or not?

| <<< Note 30.10 by REFINE::KOMAR "Just when you thought it was safe" >>>

| I have seen several execerpts of Newt's speeches.  Many things he says
| aren't as scary as you think (unless you are a liberal).  In fact, many of the
| things he has said make a lot of sense to me.  When he says that we should cut
| out welfare programs that are not working, it makes sense,  

	He wants to cut welfare, period. He wants the charities to pick up the
load, which is something they can't do now, but are going to be able to later
in life? Oh, and let's not forget that if a kid has a baby, they are on their
own. Like taking away welfare is going to solve the problem of teen pregnancy...


Glen

    re .13
    
    I was out there voting against a right wing hyppocrit who was also
    trying get the government into my bladder, my uterus, and my bedroom
    while proclaiming he was for civbil rights.
    
    meg

	Steve... me thinks it's voting fer the lesser evil....

    re: Note 30.20 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
    How many "welfare" programs are there in existance?
    
    A good example I heard yesterday was of the guy who's taking over
    the education committee.  "HE'S GONNA CUT EDUCATION BUDGETS!"
    
    True:  There are 250 little programs all over the place getting funded.
    Streamline 'em.
    
    I have a feeling this is what's going to happen with "welfare".  Cut 
    out the waste.
    
    Watch and see what they do Glen.  I'm watching too, believe me, if they
    do something stupid I'll be all over them like stink on chit.
    
    IMO: The repubs know the clock struck midnight.  If they even appear
    to be doing "business as usual" everyones gonna have some hurt coming
    onto them.  The dems that are left over know it as well.  I even thing
    BillC got the message.  That remains to be seen.

	Mike, I'm with you that cutting out the waste IS needed. I just didn't
get the impression from listening to Eye of Newt that he was gonna stop cutting
there. And to wait and see could hurt a lot of people that are already hurtin'

Who started referring to welfare and these other social programs 
as "entitlements"?  That's the beginning of the problem, the idea 
that people think they're "entitled" to this stuff.

daryll

    Re: .23
    
    >How many "welfare" programs are there in existance?
    
    I don't know.  Do we get to include subsidies (agricultural and
    otherwise) and inflated defense contracts?

    
    
    Bloat is bloat.....
    

    
    
    I agree on this entitlements nonsense.  I can remember my Dad talking
    about what was available before FDR's welfare.  There was always some
    form of government assistance for people who were having problems,
    but back then people who were receiving this assistance didn't EXPECT
    to live as well as the people who were footing the bills.
    
    You didn't find too many fat cats in the coal mining region of PA
    where I grew up.  I can remember many of the kids from some of the
    poorer families who worked their way through college and turned
    around and helped family members who were still struggling.  They
    didn't expect the government or anyone else to take of their families
    for them forever.
    
    When my grandfather was hurt in a mine accident my Dad was a sophomore
    in high school.  Granpop couldn't work any longer, so my Dad quit
    school and went to work in the mines with his 2 older brothers.  Dad
    got his HS diploma after the war and eventually completed a few college
    courses.
    
    I once asked him why the family didn't ask for assistance (I think it
    was the state that provided it in those days).  Dad said with 3 able-
    bodied men still living in the household it was a matter of pride
    NOT to stick your hand out if you were able to work.
    
    There will always be a need to help those who TRULY cannot do for
    themselves, but too many have stayed on welfare for too long and
    got too greedy; the system has got to change.
    

Note 30.20 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
>	He wants to cut welfare, period. He wants the charities to pick up the
>load, which is something they can't do now, but are going to be able to later
>in life? Oh, and let's not forget that if a kid has a baby, they are on their
>own. Like taking away welfare is going to solve the problem of teen pregnancy...
    
    glen, what you, wordy, and the rest of that bunch are doing is focusing
    on the media maligned nonsense. welfare MUST be cut. everyone knows it,
    and other entitlements, cannot be allowed to grow unchecked. newt
    hasn't outlined SPECIFICALLY what is to be cut. only that is needs to
    be cut. few would argue with that. if they had any sense at all.
    
    newt is performing a difficult job extremely well right now. he is
    establishing a mind set that the once thought "untouchable" must be
    addressed. he WON'T get everything he wants, tho he will ask for a lot
    knowing compromise (i know what he said about that) will be mandatory.
    on the other side, its the dims job to portray newt as the heathen
    devil out to get everyone left who still is sucking in the trough of
    the dims making - and even those they didn't create. fear coupled with
    ignorance are HUGE motivators. problem is its to late.
    
    americans have woke up. the dims will self destruct screaming the
    repubs are destroying the social fabric of american. the point made a
    couple of weeks ago is that america has decided to give up on the dims
    philosophy. the sooner the rest of america understands that the sooner
    real progress can be made. those that cannot or refuse to understand
    that are doomed to be trampled like so many scared, lost, political
    sheep. its your choice.

    IMHO, the salamander wouldn't know a Pareto if it hit him in
    his arrogant face...
    
    Someone needs to tell him "it's jobs, stupid" and get him of the crap
    like prayers in school, etc...
    
    Chip

    I would ammend that to it is JOBs that pay a living wage.  
    
    One of the reasons the clinton administration had backed off reform is
    because short of kicking people off, reforming the system is going to
    take money.  Workfare programs are fought tooth and nail by unions for
    municipalities as they don't want someone poor doing their job for less
    cost to the county/state/city or whatever.  to really get people off
    the public tit requires training for jobs that will pay enough to
    support a person and her children.  It requires that these jobs be
    available (good economy), and it also requires child care for the
    shifts to take care of the little kids.  We also need for people to
    have medical benifits, so if something happens to a kid or parent they
    have a way to retain a medical person and treatment.  
    
    Get rid of the entitlements for agribusiness, logging, mining and
    ranching, and then maybe will will have enough money to invest in
    people.
    
    meg

            <<< Note 30.31 by CSC32::M_EVANS "perforated porcini" >>>

>    Get rid of the entitlements for agribusiness, logging, mining and
>    ranching, and then maybe will will have enough money to invest in
>    people.
    
meg,	We agree that these subsidies should end. But just how much
	is spent on them annually? When looking for BILLIONS in savings,
	these programs are certainly not going to be the answer.

Jim

    Jim,
    
    the breakdown is substantially more than you may think.  About the same
    cost as AFDC, believe it or not.
    
    meg

            <<< Note 30.33 by CSC32::M_EVANS "perforated porcini" >>>

>    the breakdown is substantially more than you may think.  About the same
>    cost as AFDC, believe it or not.
    
meg,	Someone posted a figure of $14 Billion for AFDC, these subsidies
	total THAT kind of money?

Jim

| <<< Note 30.29 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| glen, what you, wordy, and the rest of that bunch are doing is focusing on the
| media maligned nonsense. 

	Haag, why must you think we're aligning ourselves with the media, and
aren't putting some thought into this ourselves, or actually believe that these
things will actually hurt our people? We give so much money to all the other
countries of this world, along with food, clothing and everything else. Yet
we're gonna cut this stuff off to our OWN people. This makes sense to you? It
certainly doesn't to me! So while I do realize that you do put some thought
into what you believe, and that your beliefs are yours period, do me a favor
and do the same? 

| newt hasn't outlined SPECIFICALLY what is to be cut. 

	Ya didn't see C-Span, did ya..... he specifically said teens who have
babies would not be covered. This won't address the teen pregnancy issue, only
make a bad situation for the inner cities worse. He also said he wants to see
welfare done away with.

| only that is needs to be cut. few would argue with that. if they had any sense
| at all.

	Gene, few would say reform is not neccessary. If that's what you mean
by cut, then we are agreeing on this one. If by cut you mean done away with
completely, then we're at oppisite ends of the spectrum on this. And if you
mean cut as done away with completely, I don't think you can honestly say most
would want that.

| newt is performing a difficult job extremely well right now. he is 
| establishing a mind set that the once thought "untouchable" must be
| addressed. 

	Actually, the thing I've seen about Newt is that what was seen as
"untouchable", is to be done away with completely. But it's only been 2 weeks
since the elections and there are holes popping up everywhere in the GOP. Dear
old Jesse ranted and raved about Clinton not being up for the job, while Dole
was saying he is. Newt is pushing for prayer in schools as one of his number
one prioities, and Dole is saying it should not be. Dole keeps insisting we
must work together, and Newt keeps saying we will not compromise. So we will be
in for an interesting 2 years. My hope is in the end we don't suffer because of
it. But from the indications SO FAR, the middle class and poor will be the ones
who suffer the most.

| on the other side, its the dims job to portray newt as the heathen devil out 
| to get everyone left who still is sucking in the trough of the dims making and
| even those they didn't create. fear coupled with ignorance are HUGE motivators
| problem is its to late.

	Gene, do you really think that the words Newt has spoken himself isn't
giving the world that impression? Why is it that you can rake Clinton over the
coals based on the words he says, come up with opinions about him based on what
he says, but we aren't capable of doing the same about Newt? Why is it when the
repubs portray Clinton in any fashion, that somehow doesn't influence your
opinion, but for Newt, the dems are giving us our thoughts? You aren't making
much sense here Gene.

| americans have woke up. the dims will self destruct screaming the repubs are 
| destroying the social fabric of american. the point made a couple of weeks ago
| is that america has decided to give up on the dims philosophy. 

	Gene, 2 years ago they gave up on the repubs too. If Newt is what we
have to look forward to, then in 2 years the dems will be back in control with
Clinton in office. 




Glen

    Mr. Gingrich's biggest challenge at this point is to make the
    transition from partisan gadfly to legislative leader.  IMO he hasn't
    got what it takes.
    

    
    Newt reminds me of an animal cartoon character, but I'm having
    trouble with who it is ?  Maybe a raccoon ?  His chief advantage
    is he doesn't look and act like death warmed over, like Foley.
    
    Tip O'Neill knew the Speaker was supposed to be a showman, as did
    many others.  Foley was poor in the Age of Remotes...
    
      bb

    <- He was the national Phil Donahue poster boy look-alike contest
       winner... Okay, if he wasn't he shoulda' been.

    Sunday's Globe, as part of a front-page profile of Newt, stated that he
    married his first wife, who was high high-school math teacher, when he
    was 19.  
    
    A Mother Jones article ("that has haunted him for years") said he
    served her with divorce papers in 1981 while she was in the hospital
    recovering from uterine cancer surgery.  He says he does not remember
    it that way but does not deny it.
    
    The Globe stated that his ex-wife *repeatedly* brought suit against him
    to begin and then to increase his child-support payments; the last time
    he increased payments to $350/month, in return for which she agreed not
    to ask again.

Note 30.35 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
    >> We give so much money to all the other countries of this world, along 
    >>with food, clothing and everything else. Yet
    >>we're gonna cut this stuff off to our OWN people. This makes sense to 
    >>you? 
    
    there is no direct corrrelation between domestic social programs and
    foreign aid. your analogy is apples and oranges.



>	Ya didn't see C-Span, did ya..... he specifically said teens who have
>babies would not be covered. This won't address the teen pregnancy issue, only
>make a bad situation for the inner cities worse. He also said he wants to see
>welfare done away with.

    abolishing the welfare systems as they exist today would be a positive
    step. as for teenagers having babies, i see nothing wrong with refusing
    aid to those teens who have children and are living at home (and this is a
    HUGE number). granted many of those homes are broken and in a mess,
    however, having more kids isn't going to solve a thing. i submit that
    even more drastic measures need to be taken to address the teen
    pregnancy issues. government checks are only one incentive (that's
    right, incentive) teen have to have babies.

>	Gene, few would say reform is not neccessary. If that's what you mean
>by cut, then we are agreeing on this one. If by cut you mean done away with
>completely, then we're at oppisite ends of the spectrum on this. And if you
    
    reform/cuts whatever you want to call. the system needs a massive
    overhaul. the best thing might be to just turn it all over to the
    states. get the damn feds out of it period. federal mandates are
    stifling the states ability to effectively implement programs.
    
>in for an interesting 2 years. My hope is in the end we don't suffer because of
>it. But from the indications SO FAR, the middle class and poor will be the ones
>who suffer the most.

    glen, us in the US, and the rest in the world, couldn't be in more
    peril than the last two years. one can only hope that some sense of
    sanity and leadership can be brought to bear in determining what
    government should be and do for the citizens.
    

>	Gene, do you really think that the words Newt has spoken himself isn't
>giving the world that impression? Why is it that you can rake Clinton over the
>coals based on the words he says, come up with opinions about him based on what
>he says, but we aren't capable of doing the same about Newt? Why is it when the
>repubs portray Clinton in any fashion, that somehow doesn't influence your
>opinion, but for Newt, the dems are giving us our thoughts? You aren't making
>much sense here Gene.

    acctually, i think my position is quite clear. you just don't happen to
    agree with much of it. that's hardly "nonsensical thought".

| <<< Note 30.40 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| there is no direct corrrelation between domestic social programs and foreign 
| aid. your analogy is apples and oranges.

	No Gene, it is not. We feed, clothe and help the poor. We call it
foreign aid. What do we call it in this country? Cuts. When we help so many
people and not ourselves, then there is something seriously wrong with this
country. Like I said, a lot of programs need to be updated. So lets do it so
those who DO need help to get back on their feet will have it and those who are
just too lazy to even try will have to actually do something about it. 

| abolishing the welfare systems as they exist today would be a positive step. 

	I disagree. To make changes, yes, to abolish, NO. 

| as for teenagers having babies, i see nothing wrong with refusing aid to those
| teens who have children and are living at home (and this is a HUGE number). 
| granted many of those homes are broken and in a mess, however, having more 
| kids isn't going to solve a thing. 

	If this wasn't so sad, it would actually be pretty funny. If a child
lives at home and has a child, and the home she is living in is financially
sound, then you're right, the child should not be able to get welfare. But when
the family is not financially sound? Then what? This is the biggest part of the
pie Gene. And for someone who realizes that many of these homes are also broken
ones, I'm surprised that you would even think this way. Yes, having more kids
is not going to solve a thing. But this is not going to prevent those kids from
having kids. If you want to solve that problem, then use measures that will do
that. Don't make an already bad situation worse.

| government checks are only one incentive (that's right, incentive) teen have 
| to have babies.

	Yeah, I know most teens just lye there during sex thinking, "If I get
pregnant for this first time, I'll get some money for me and the kid! What a
freakin goldmine!" Be real Gene. We are talking about kids here. If a child is
born, chances are most never thought about the consequenses, never thought
about welfare. After the 1st child it should be stressed by the welfare people
that no other kids will be covered. Because then they know up front, and they
have a reminder with them.

| reform/cuts whatever you want to call. the system needs a massive overhaul. 
| the best thing might be to just turn it all over to the states. get the damn 
| feds out of it period. federal mandates are stifling the states ability to 
| effectively implement programs.

	OK, so where do the states get the monies to fund stuff then?

| glen, us in the US, and the rest in the world, couldn't be in more peril than 
| the last two years.

	Well Gene, we definitely see things differently.

| acctually, i think my position is quite clear. you just don't happen to
| agree with much of it. that's hardly "nonsensical thought".

	IF your position is that the media or the dems have put the thoughts
about Newt into our heads and we didn't form them because of the words he
himself spoke, but don't think the media or repubs formed your thoughts about
Clinton, but Clinton's words themselves formed the thoughts, then you are
right. You are quite clear. But it would be clear as in being a hypocrite. So
where do you think we formed our thoughts Gene?

>    A Mother Jones article ("that has haunted him for years") said he
>    served her with divorce papers in 1981 while she was in the hospital
>    recovering from uterine cancer surgery.  He says he does not remember
>    it that way but does not deny it.

Isn't saying "I don't remember it that way" the same as denying it??? It
looks like he did deny it by saying what he said.

>    The Globe stated that his ex-wife *repeatedly* brought suit against him
>    to begin and then to increase his child-support payments; the last time
>    he increased payments to $350/month, in return for which she agreed not
>    to ask again.

There have been very messy, angry divorces in this country. It sounds like
this was simply one of those things... 

Again, this stuff happened long ago, if there was really any meat to it,
then he would not be where he is today... It's just the press acting 
hysterical so they're trying to find ANYTHING on the new leaders to make 'em
look bad.

It's oh so painfully obvious...

/scott

    Anent .42: Scott, saying "I don't remember it that way" (which is a
    paraphrase of his actual response) is *not* the same as denying it;
    it is the same as accepting it.  If Newt had denied it, it would have
    read something like this: "I deny that."
    
    Messy divorces happen, sure.  Sometimes fathers abandon their children
    as well, taking out their personal problems on innocents.  In fact,
    that is the single most common reason people end up on welfare: because
    they are mothers and children financially abandoned by fathers.
    
    Perhaps you have missed the point of this discussion.  For Newt to put
    both "family values" and welfare reform so high up on his agenda, when
    he is personally an example of why we have the problems in the first
    place, is astonishing hypocrisy.
    
    It sounds like you are still in denial over the facts of the case.
    Say, maybe I should say Chappaquidick never happened; after all, if
    there was any meat to it, Ted Kennedy would not be where he is today.
    No?  How about if I said Bill Clinton never wrote to his draft board?
    How could he have been elected Governor of Arkansas over and over if
    there was meat to that story?  What do you think?

| <<< Note 30.42 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| There have been very messy, angry divorces in this country. It sounds like
| this was simply one of those things...

| Again, this stuff happened long ago, if there was really any meat to it,
| then he would not be where he is today... 

	Scott, have you ever mentioned in any notefiles about teddy and his bad
driving habits? About teddy and the wimmin he's had? About Clinton and the
women he was supposed to of had? If so, how can ya make what Newt did sound
like it's just another walk in the park?

| It's oh so painfully obvious...

	Painful, yes, but depending on your answers, it might not be so
obvious....

Note 30.41 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
>	No Gene, it is not. We feed, clothe and help the poor. We call it
>foreign aid. What do we call it in this country? Cuts. When we help so many
>people and not ourselves, then there is something seriously wrong with this
>country. Like I said, a lot of programs need to be updated. So lets do it so
>those who DO need help to get back on their feet will have it and those who are
>just too lazy to even try will have to actually do something about it. 

    i, too, beleive that much to much is squandered in the form of foreign
    aid. however, i don't believe drastically reducing those outlays, and
    applying the "savings" to domestic pork is the answer. it'll only
    perpetuate a very sick system.
    
>	If this wasn't so sad, it would actually be pretty funny. If a child
>lives at home and has a child, and the home she is living in is financially
>sound, then you're right, the child should not be able to get welfare. But when
>the family is not financially sound? Then what? This is the biggest part of the
>pie Gene. And for someone who realizes that many of these homes are also broken
    
    you didn't read my note before jumping off on this tangent. i said
    cutting the federal aid is only one measure and that by itself would
    not be sufficient detterent to keep teens from getting pregnant to
    collect a check. solving difficult problems requires making difficult
    decisions. 

                   <<< Note 30.39 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>    The Globe stated that his ex-wife *repeatedly* brought suit against him
>    to begin and then to increase his child-support payments; the last time
>    he increased payments to $350/month, in return for which she agreed not
>    to ask again.

	Did anyone else notice the rather curious wording of this statement?

	It seems that the Ex wife brought suit FOR child support and
	then a number of suits to increase the payments. It does NOT
	say that she had to sue in order to get him to MAKE court ordered
	payments, as was originally claimed.

Jim

>	Scott, have you ever mentioned in any notefiles about teddy and his bad
>driving habits? 

   No.

>About teddy and the wimmin he's had? 

   No.

>About Clinton and the
>women he was supposed to of had? 

   Just Paula Jones... 

>If so, how can ya make what Newt did sound
>like it's just another walk in the park?

   Unlike affairs or whitewater, this reported story on Newt would be 
   very easy to verify for a reporter... Easy to find out when the wife
   was in the hospital and when the divorce papers were served, etc.
   Easy to find out via court records when/why/what Newt didn't pay child
   support etc... it's lazy reporting AT BEST to spread these rumors..

   If any of it were TRUE, it's be easy to prove... if it was easy to prove,
   the democratics would have used it in the election successfully.


/Scott

| <<< Note 30.45 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| i, too, beleive that much to much is squandered in the form of foreign aid. 
| however, i don't believe drastically reducing those outlays, and applying the 
| "savings" to domestic pork is the answer. it'll only perpetuate a very sick 
| system.

	Whoever said apply those monies to welfare? If the system is overhauled
correctly, it's going to save money in the end. But to get to that point, it
will cost. Mostly for job centers, computers, etc. 

| you didn't read my note before jumping off on this tangent. i said cutting the
| federal aid is only one measure and that by itself would not be sufficient 
| detterent to keep teens from getting pregnant to collect a check. 

	Gene, do you honestly believe that the majority of teens are thinking
about a welfare check while they have sex? 

| solving difficult problems requires making difficult decisions.

	But lets not make stupid decisions.


Glen

	Scott, his wife did come forward and talk. That was where they got the
information from. 

    Jim, perhaps you misread what I said, or perhaps I misread what the
    Globe reported, or perhaps they were wrong.  I understand that they
    reported that Newt did not begin to pay child support until his wife
    brought suit against him.  Further, he did not pay the court-ordered
    amount until she brought suit again.

Note 30.48 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
    >>Gene, do you honestly believe that the majority of teens are thinking
    >>about a welfare check while they have sex? 

    no. prior to having sex? yes, in many cases. but we have to look at all
    pregnancies by women on government aid. not just teenagers because,
    like you, i don't think many teenagers think at all before running off
    and screwing like minks. most do. but a lot don't. if we include all
    women in the discussion, then yes, i do believe many have children to
    collect the extra money. then let the "system" take care of the kids
    for the rest of their lives. those women (and their cooperating male
    counterparts) need one helluva wake up call. but you watch. any
    attempts to overhaul this system will bring all kinds of wild
    allegations out of the closet. false, totally blown out of proportion
    statements. like that idiot politico from IL on the news show yesterday
    hollaring about "taking babies from the arms of the very mothers
    providing a home and nourishment to them". christ, what BS.

                   <<< Note 30.50 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>    Jim, perhaps you misread what I said, or perhaps I misread what the
>    Globe reported, or perhaps they were wrong.  I understand that they
>    reported that Newt did not begin to pay child support until his wife
>    brought suit against him.  Further, he did not pay the court-ordered
>    amount until she brought suit again.

	That is not what your entry said. It stated he was sued to 
	start child support and that he was sued to increase child
	support. Nowhere in your entry does it state that he was sued
	to make court ordered child support payments.

Jim

    If he hadn't started to make payments, he didn't make any.  Right?

    
    
    I think what he's trying to say is that you left out 
    the 'court ordered' part.....
    
    
    Always the helpful....
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    <<< Note 30.53 by TNPUBS::JONG "This is revolting! May I have more?" >>>
                                   -< What? >-

>    If he hadn't started to make payments, he didn't make any.  Right?

	Quite true. Now tell me how he could have not made payments ans
	still not be a deadbeat dad.

Jim

>	Scott, his wife did come forward and talk. That was where they got the
>information from. 

1)  I never heard/saw anything from her.

2)  I don't trust the press to quote people correctly.

3)  I do believe the press to quote people out of context.

/scott

    
    Frank says Dave Shifflett in the RMN has some interesting facts about
    Newt.  I'll try to clip it out in the morning.

    One of them was a quote on what he had told someone on why he was
    divorcing his wife of 18 years.
    
    something about "she isn't young or pretty enough to be the first
    lady."  Talk about family values.

    
    was this third or fourth hand rumour?

>    One of them was a quote on what he had told someone on why he was
>    divorcing his wife of 18 years.
>    
>    something about "she isn't young or pretty enough to be the first
>    lady."  Talk about family values.

Boy, the liberal hysterics is even reaching higher levels then I originally
thought!!! 

It's not like he's president or anything... (yet!)

Funny how all this stuff about him is coming out now, eh?

I LOVE IT!!!! It's actually pretty funny to watch the democrates/liberals
get all hysterical and stuff over this...

/scott

    really meg. you believe that half baked garbage that was something
    someone somewhere sometime heard?
    
    lets face it. like all other high profile politicos the garbage coming
    out about newt will be 10% fak and 90% make believe BS. same ol. same
    ol.

    Re: .61
    
    >the garbage coming out about newt will be 10% fak and 90% make believe 
    >BS.  same ol. same ol.
    
    I wonder how many people are filing these words away for future use. 
    You shouldn't give people ammo like this; make them work for it.

    I wake up
    With my eyes shut tight,
    Hoping tomorrow will never come
    For you you you you you and I...

    
    
    Rep .50, .52 Steve & Jim
    
    Here's the whole quote from sunday's Glob,
    
      "According to court papers examined by the Globe, Jackie Gingrich
     charged in 1980 that Gingrich failed to provide enough money to pay
     for the support of the children, and she said the electric company
     was about to turn off the power. "despite repeated notice " Newt 
     Gingrich "has failed and refused to voluntarrily provide reasonable
     support," Jackie Gingrich alleged.
     
       As recently as last April, Jackie Gingrich won a judgement requiring
     her former husband to increase monthly alimony payments by $350,
     in exchange for which she agreed not to seek further adjustments, the
     court documents say."
    
    
    Not that I really like Newt but it sounds like a disagreement over 
    the amount of the alimony/child support payments not that he hasn't
    been making the payments.
    
    -mike
    

    
    
    
    Well, how much is  he paying now?  Anything?
    
    
    I cannot see how a man would not support his children although I know
    it happens.  I've also seen men make the payments, lose their job and 
    obtain a job at half the salary that was used to set the child support
    payment originally and not be able to make the full payment.  I've also
    seen women use the child support payments for new clothes for herself
    and other various things.
    
    Mike  

| <<< Note 30.51 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

| >>Gene, do you honestly believe that the majority of teens are thinking
| >>about a welfare check while they have sex?

| no. prior to having sex? yes, in many cases. but we have to look at all
| pregnancies by women on government aid. not just teenagers because, like you, 
| i don't think many teenagers think at all before running off and screwing like
| minks. 

	Gene, Newt has targeted a SPECIFIC group of people to NOT receive
welfare. The group is teens. That is why I was talking exclusively about them,
and not throwing in adults. When Eye of Newt says teen mothers will not receive
any welfare funds, he's talking out of his butt. If he thinks this will help
stop teen pregnancies, he's really not all there. Kids are kids. Kids raising
kids in the inner cities is hard enough without some help. BUT, IF a teen has a
child, it has to be stressed at that point again that no extra money will come
from more kids being born. Having the baby with them will be a constant
reminder of this. But dear ole Eye of Newt will ONLY make matters worse, not
better. If he wants to deal with teens having kids, then deal with it directly.
Deal with the families. Deal with the neighborhoods. Deal with reality.

| if we include all women in the discussion, then yes, i do believe many have 
| children to collect the extra money. 

	I fully agree with you Gene. 100%. But Eye of Newt has targeted a
specific group of mothers. THAT was what I was talking about. With ADULTS, it
should be set up that extra children doesn't mean extra money. On that we
agree.

| but you watch. any attempts to overhaul this system will bring all kinds of 
| wild allegations out of the closet. false, totally blown out of proportion
| statements. 

	Like the one you just made? :-)  Gene, the system will be overhauled. I
think EVERYONE, including Clinton will see to that. But let's be a little
realistic about this. Kids having kids not having a chance? Yeah, this makes
total sense to me.




Glen

| <<< Note 30.60 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| I LOVE IT!!!! It's actually pretty funny to watch the democrates/liberals
| get all hysterical and stuff over this...

	Scott, when people came out and jumped on the "All of the women Clinton
has loved before" bandwagon, weren't you there with them? You see, many
aligations have been made left and right about Clinton. So far they have not
been proven. Besides Jennifer Flowers, no women has proven anything. We spent
how many $$$ on Whitewater and still haven't found any wrong doing? Oh, I know,
Clinton was able to pay people off..... why do I get the feeling if anyone said
Newt could have done that you would throw another hysterical note in? Hopefully
I wrong....

| <<< Note 30.61 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

| really meg. you believe that half baked garbage that was something someone 
| somewhere sometime heard?

	Wow gene, this is a first. You ASKED someone if they believed it, and
didn't tell them it formed their thoughts. Amazing! 

| lets face it. like all other high profile politicos the garbage coming out 
| about newt will be 10% fak and 90% make believe BS. same ol. same ol.

	Then all this stuff we've been hearing about Clinton is only 10% fact?
Is this something you truly believe?

    >>the garbage coming out about newt will be 10% fak and 90% make believe 
    >>BS.  same ol. same ol.
    >
    >I wonder how many people are filing these words away for future use. 
    >You shouldn't give people ammo like this; make them work for it.
    
    no many would be my guess. most aren't smart enough to pick up on the
    opportunity.

    
    If you see nothing else of politics in 1995, switch on the State of
    the Union late January.  If you like, turn the sound down or even
    off.  As Clinton speaks, watch Newt in the highchair behind him.
    This body language will tell you all you'll need to know about the
    State of American politics !
    
      bb

Note 30.66 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>from more kids being born. Having the baby with them will be a constant
>reminder of this. But dear ole Eye of Newt will ONLY make matters worse, not
>better. If he wants to deal with teens having kids, then deal with it directly.
>Deal with the families. Deal with the neighborhoods. Deal with reality.
    
    if you will recall this was the overall theme of the republicans '92
    presidentail campaign. all you dimms were running around screaming
    "it's the economy, stupid" and patting each other on the back. you also
    voted AGAINST the very thing you're now advocating. anyone with a brain
    knows that if the core family breaks down you have chaos. LOTS of you
    forgot that in '92 and we're all paying more for that transgression. 
    
    what hypocracy.

>	Scott, when people came out and jumped on the "All of the women Clinton
>has loved before" bandwagon, weren't you there with them? 

I don't really think so... I never talked about Flowers. I believe the only
one I've spoken of is Jones... but I mean, she filed a lawsuit and my purpose
in speaking of her was to show more the hypocracy in people who tried to 
discredit Jones yet loved Anita Hill...

>You see, many
>aligations have been made left and right about Clinton. So far they have not
>been proven. 

Yes to many aligations. And yes, some have been proven (Flowers for one)...

>Besides Jennifer Flowers, no women has proven anything. We spent
>how many $$$ on Whitewater and still haven't found any wrong doing? 

I dunno how much we spent... but then again, how much money was spent on 
Watergate before any wrong doing was found with Nixon??? Also, don't forget
about all the various people who have had to resign thanks to whitewater...
To me that IS a sign that there was wrong doing...

>Oh, I know,
>Clinton was able to pay people off..... why do I get the feeling if anyone said
>Newt could have done that you would throw another hysterical note in? Hopefully
>I wrong....

I never said nor hinted that Clinton has paid ANYONE off? Where do ya get that
from???

/scott

| <<< Note 30.71 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| if you will recall this was the overall theme of the republicans '92 
| presidentail campaign. all you dimms were running around screaming
| "it's the economy, stupid" and patting each other on the back. 

	Well, you're wrong about one thing Gene. I ain't a dem. I ain't a
repub. I'm an independant. I voted for a repub guv, and a dem sen-ate-tor. 

| you also voted AGAINST the very thing you're now advocating. 

	Welfare reform? Always thought it should be reformed. Back in dear ole
Dukes days was when I wanted to see those on welfare working. Back in 87 or so.
So I guess yer wrong on this one too Gene.

| anyone with a brain knows that if the core family breaks down you have chaos. 

	The core of a family is what to you Gene? It's love to me. It's the
parent(s) being there for the kid. Life is full of turmoil. Whether it's
divorce, death, injury, sickness, whatever. If love is there, then you have a
core that will help get through the tough times. If it ain't, no matter how
many parents you have, it ain't gonna work too well. That is why a lot of
people did not vote for the repubs in '92. They (the repubs) were too blind to 
see that the core does not always = 2 parents. That life is not simple, and LOVE
is needed far more than the number of parents. One good parent is far better 
than 2 bad ones. But they (the repubs) could not see that. 

| LOTS of you forgot that in '92 and we're all paying more for that transgression.

	No, LOTS of us saw reality Gene. Not a narrow picture of how someone
believes it should be. LOVE Gene, that's the thing that's MOST important.

| what hypocracy.

	Actually, what forsight.



Glen

    re .73
    
    come on glen, you can do better.

    Re: teens having kids
    
    Apparently the major motivation isn't money, but rite of passage. 
    Fathering a child "proves" you're a man.  Having a child "proves"
    you're a woman.

Note 30.75 by DTRACY::CHELSEA 
    
    >Apparently the major motivation isn't money, but rite of passage. 
    >Fathering a child "proves" you're a man.  Having a child "proves"
    >you're a woman.
    
    have any of the clowns professing to know about such matters actually
    talked to teens and asked them? i have. to about 150 teens last winter
    while teaching them my "star trek comes alive" class. the overwhelming
    majority, at least here and this ain't the ghetto, said if they became
    pregnant it would be an accident. the boys said the same. all indicated
    they knew how to prevent pregnancy's if they choose. the number one
    reason for deliberately getting pregnant would be to spite superiors,
    mostly parents.

            <<< Note 30.75 by DTRACY::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

    Re: teens having kids
    
  >  Apparently the major motivation isn't money, but rite of passage. 
  >  Fathering a child "proves" you're a man.  Having a child "proves"
  >  you're a woman.

   According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune's interviews with 
   teenage mothers in the area, this is exactly what they were told.
   Have a baby, get out of the house, get welfare, a rent subsidy, 
   and food stamps.

   Hardly independent, but that's what they think.

   daryll

| <<< Note 30.74 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| come on glen, you can do better.


	What was so hard about that Gene. Where do you see the problem with
.73. Saying I can do better than that without explaining what you find wrong
with it isn't telling me much.


Glen

    .75, Chelsea...
    
>    teens having kids
>
>        Apparently the major motivation isn't money, but rite of passage.
    
    Not meaning to be crude, but I think the main motivation is "wanting to
    have sex right now!" and not having the moral foundation to either wait
    a while or be responsible about it.

>| you also voted AGAINST the very thing you're now advocating. 
>
>	Welfare reform? Always thought it should be reformed. Back in dear ole
>Dukes days was when I wanted to see those on welfare working. Back in 87 or so.
>So I guess yer wrong on this one too Gene.
    
    glen, this is what i am harping about. 43% of the voting public
    rejected the family values platform the repubs had in '92. now many
    didn't do it consciously, but they rejected the concept nevertheless.
    many hard core dimms even made fun of it and did so publically with the
    "it's the economy, stupid" slogan. you reap what you sow. 

    
    Newt is a brilliant man with a vision and the leadership to implement
    it.  He would make an outstanding President and i hope his future holds
    this for him.  but he's needed for the next 5-10 years as the speaker
    to get the house straightened out!
    
    jeff

    Bwhahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha............................

| <<< Note 30.80 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>



| glen, this is what i am harping about. 43% of the voting public rejected the 
| family values platform the repubs had in '92. 

	Throw in those who voted for Perot and that number goes higher, doesn't
it Gene? 

| now many didn't do it consciously, but they rejected the concept nevertheless.
| many hard core dimms even made fun of it and did so publically with the
| "it's the economy, stupid" slogan. you reap what you sow.

	You keep saying the word "you". Because of that I thought you were
singling me out of the crowd. Sorry bout that. But I did vote for who I did
because the repubs and their family falues stuff didn't really cover what was
important with the family, love. I also voted dem because the likes of Pat
Bucannan scares the hell out of me. Talk about a man with hate on the brain.

How the Gingrinch Stole Congress!
by Kris Rabberman & Scott Prevost


Every Who
Down in Whoville
Liked Elections a lot . . .

But Newt Gingrinch,
Who lived on Mount Gridlock,
Did NOT!

The Gingrinch loathed voting, the whole campaign season!
Now, please don't ask why.  No one quite knows the reason.
It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
May have been that his brain was two sizes too small.

But whatever the reason,
His brain or his shoes,
He stood there Election Eve , hating the Whos,
Staring down from Mount Gridlock with a Gingrinchy frown,
At the candidates stumping below in their town.
For he knew every Who who was thinking that night,
Would cast their votes wisely--against the far right.

``And they're worried about issues!'' he snarled with a sneer,
``Tomorrow's the election! It's practically here!''
And the gears in his head began frantically spinning,
``I MUST find a way to keep liberals from winning!''

For tomorrow, he knew all the Whos in the know,
Would vote for the DemoWhos all in a row,
For Wofford and Foley, Feinstein and Cuomo.

Then the DemoWho Congress would do what he'd hate,
Come up with new programs, and then legislate!
Healthcare and gun bans they'd gladly create,
But such progress the Gingrinch would only berate.

And THEN they'd do something
He liked least of all!
Every DemoWho in Congress, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, and say with one voice,
``We're for women's rights and we're also pro-choice!''

They'd work! And they'd work!
AND they'd WORK!  WORK!  WORK!  WORK!
And the more that the Gingrinch thought, with a smirk,
The more that he thought, ``I must STOP their hard work!
``Why since Who-sevelt's years I've put up with it now!
``I MUST stop the liberals from winning!
. . .  But HOW?''

Then he got an idea!
An AWFUL idea!
The Newt 
got a HORRIBLE, AWFUL idea!

``I know just what to do!'' Gingrinch laughed in his throat.
``I'll make empty vows in return for their vote.''
And he chuckled, and clucked, ``I've got a great con.
``With these lies we'll pay homage to President Ron!''

``All I need is a gimmick . . .''
The Newt looked around.
But since ideas are scarce, there were none to be found.
Did that stop the old Gingrinch 
>From finding a scheme . . . ?
Of course not, he had the Republican team.
So he called Mr. Dole, and he eagerly said,
``I need to make use of your sly, sneaky head.''

Then they made up a plan,
That was terribly Dole-y,
To unseat the speaker,
Congressman Foley.

And they wrote up a contract.
They did it that day,
And they chortled and laughed,
``All the liberals must pay.''

As the Gingrinch and Dole formulated their schemes,
Based on trickle down theories and far right extremes,
The DemoWhos, calmly, were dreaming their dreams.
First Gingrinch and Dole, with a gleam in their eyes,
About Clinton's record, told many lies.

Then they told of the programs they'd gleefully pinch,
Who better to do this than Mr. Gingrinch?
They got stuck only once, on the issue of ketchup,
So they got on the phone and they called Orrin Hatch up.
Then both of them sunk to a terrible low.
``Entitlements,'' they grinned, ``are the first things to go!''

Then they slithered and slunk, with smiles most unpleasant,
Obnoxiously trashing the left, past and present!
``With Huffington, Romney, North and Santorum,
``We're sure that the left cannot help but deplore 'em!''
With ads so misleading they're practically criminal,
``We'll use our PAC money for commercials subliminal!''

``We'll bombard them with TV, and a racist disc-jockey!
``Who supports Chuck Haytaian and dark-horse Pataki.
``We'll support Ollie North, and Dewine over Hyatt,
``And with all of his cash, we'll have Huffington buy it!''

``When we win, we'll control each and every committee,
``To be sure funds are sent to nary a city!
``And Alfonse D'amato,'' (the dork from New York),
``can continue to rant about Bill Clinton's pork!''

``Against Feinstein and Boxer's ardent protesting,
``Senator Packwood can keep on molesting!''
By the twisted up logic of Jesse and Strom,
``With gays in the army, we lost Vietnam!''

``A lineup like this is Clinton's worst fear,''
said Gingrinch to Dole, with a dastardly sneer.

``Taxes, the wealthy should not have to pay,''
the maniacal duo was eager to say.
``And when Congress is ours, we'll have prayer in the schools,''
Muttered Dole to the Newt, ``Disregard liberal fools!''

The plan was enacted,
The ballots were cast,
The sham made the voters return to the past.

The Gingrinch was gleeful, and Dole started gloating,
before all the Whos had completed their voting.
``We now have a mandate!'' they said with a laugh,
Even though, of the votes, they received only half.

With snickering Newt in the role of the Speaker,
The prospects for changes have never been bleaker.
``The plans that we've outlined, we won't be revising,''
said Gingrinch, ``We simply ABHOR compromising!''

The day of this scary Republican showing,
We started to notice Newt's head slowly growing,
Though now we can say, as you may have inferred,
His brain starting shrinking that day, so we've heard.

Though the Whos may be worried and shaking in fear,
>From the dastardly changes that soon may be here,
The way Whos can solve this is really a cinch,
In '96 vote against cynic Gingrinch!

Note 30.83  by BIGQ::SILVA
    
>	You keep saying the word "you". Because of that I thought you were
>singling me out of the crowd. Sorry bout that. But I did vote for who I did
>because the repubs and their family falues stuff didn't really cover what was
>important with the family, love.
    
    nonsense. you can't have politicians trying to define something as
    intangible as love. they have to address the fundamental problems that
    are destroying the family structure. you can't make anyone love their
    family no matter what you do or give them. however, if you remove some
    of the obsticles that are breaking up families, then "love" has a much
    better chance to develop, grow, and be nurished. dismissing the entire
    repub campaign for failing to address that what they can't, and
    shouldn't, define is shallow at best.

    Re: .76
    
    >have any of the clowns professing to know about such matters actually
    >talked to teens and asked them?
    
    Yes.  And they didn't go down there to interview kids, either.
    
    >at least here and this ain't the ghetto
    
    Different social environment, different reasons.  Teenage pregnancy is
    a lot more of a problem in a ghetto environment than in yours.

    Re: .79
    
    >the main motivation is "wanting to have sex right now!"
    
    Sex can be considered a rite of passage ("Congratulations, you're
    really a [man | woman] now").  Pregnancy is a proof of that rite.
    
    Sex would explain teenage pregnancy, but not teenage parenthood.

| <<< Note 30.85 by 35272::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

| >	You keep saying the word "you". Because of that I thought you were
| >singling me out of the crowd. Sorry bout that. But I did vote for who I did
| >because the repubs and their family falues stuff didn't really cover what was
| >important with the family, love.

| nonsense. you can't have politicians trying to define something as intangible 
| as love. 

	If they are going to preach about family values, what value is greater
than love? I'll give you a hint, there is none. Which kid has a BETTER chance
of growing up right, a poor kid who's parent(s) love her/him, or a poor kid
who's parent(s) don't love her/him? Apply this to any catagory and the answer
is still the same. Love is going to to be the key to making something work. It
is the GREATEST of all family values. It can help keep single and double
families together, with the kids turning out just fine. So as long as they
spout off family values, then they HAVE to be talking about love in there.

| they have to address the fundamental problems that are destroying the family 
| structure. you can't make anyone love their family no matter what you do or 
| give them. 

	I never said they could make anyone do that. But THEY (GOP) are
defining what values are needed. Love is the biggest one. It is NOT something
they apply universally. Only to a select few.

| however, if you remove some of the obsticles that are breaking up families, 
| then "love" has a much better chance to develop, grow, and be nurished. 
| dismissing the entire repub campaign for failing to address that what they 
| can't, and shouldn't, define is shallow at best.

	Gene, you are one of the best comedians in here. Really. They have
defined what the family should be. It does not match reality. That is why I
write them off. Not this other garbage you're talking about.



Glen

RE:                <<< Note 30.88 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>	Gene, you are one of the best comedians in here. Really. They have
>defined what the family should be. It does not match reality. That is why I
>write them off. Not this other garbage you're talking about.



You are aware, are you not, that Donna Shalala (a member of Clinton's cabinet)
stated in testimony to Congress, that Dan Quayle was right



Jim

Note 30.88 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>| nonsense. you can't have politicians trying to define something as intangible 
>| as love. 
>
>	If they are going to preach about family values, what value is greater
>than love? I'll give you a hint, there is none. Which kid has a BETTER chance
>of growing up right, a poor kid who's parent(s) love her/him, or a poor kid
>who's parent(s) don't love her/him? Apply this to any catagory and the answer
    
    you must have turkey on the brain glen. of course love is important.
    perhaps more important than anything else. but you want government to
    devise methods, programs, policies to help love evolve, grow, and
    nuture in the family? what nonsense. what government should do (pay
    attention now), if it can, is address those issues and prevent good
    loving homes from developing. most past policies have resulted in the
    opposite. misery disguised as "compassion".
    
>	I never said they could make anyone do that. But THEY (GOP) are
>defining what values are needed. Love is the biggest one. It is NOT something
>they apply universally. Only to a select few.

    and please name those "select few"!!

>>	Gene, you are one of the best comedians in here. Really. They have
>>defined what the family should be. It does not match reality.
    
    cite your documentation. i want to see specifically who, what, and
    where the GOP proposals define what "the" family should be!

| <<< Note 30.89 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper" >>>



| You are aware, are you not, that Donna Shalala (a member of Clinton's cabinet)
| stated in testimony to Congress, that Dan Quayle was right

	Jim, you're agreeing with something from Clinton's cabinet? :-)  And
you will find repubs who don't agree with the mainstay of the gop. So what's
the point you're trying to make Jim?



Glen

| <<< Note 30.90 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>



| you must have turkey on the brain glen. of course love is important. perhaps 
| more important than anything else. but you want government to devise methods, 
| programs, policies to help love evolve, grow, and nuture in the family? 

	Uhh.... no, I never said that. What I am saying is to spout off a two
parent family is needed for it to work, and to look down on any families that
don't match this "scheme", isn't dealing with reality. A single parent who
loves their kid is going to have a much better chance of that kid turning out
right than a two parent home that could care less about the kid. 2 parents
don't = kid turning out ok. But the message that has been sent around is that 2
parents are needed. This is pure bunk. I also love how they come to their
conclusions. They take the 2 parent home, and compare it with the single family
home. I would think if they were to compare homes that were a little more like
each other, it would show the real story. So many single family homes are due
to teen pregnancy, father leaving, that an accurate picture can't be painted.
Too much hardship to start off with. If you compare hardship cases (1 parent)
with hardship cases (2 parents), then you have something. You will be able to
see, through the different catagories, just where the actual problems are, and
not say single parent families are worse than 2 parent. Remember, inner cities,
geographical location (state), the burbs, work, all play a part in everything.
To lump them all into ONE catagory does nothing. With the correct way of doing
it you could tell which single/2 parent families had problems, know the reasons 
why for that catagory, and THEN can work on solutions. Then you're dealing with 
reality, and not scare tactics. But I guess it is easier to say, "Single parent 
homes have a harder time having their kid turn out right than a two parent 
family."

| what nonsense. what government should do (pay attention now), 

	I wish you had been paying attention. 

| is address those issues and prevent good loving homes from developing. most 
| past policies have resulted in the opposite. misery disguised as "compassion".

	I agree but disagree with the policies. The compassion is there, but
the programs just got blown out of proportion, weren't regulated, and the
outcome is what we have today. We need to check the waste. We then need to
chuck it. Welfare, for it's design, COULD actually work and help those who
REALLY need it. The trick is to revamp the policy and get the abusers off. Then
once that is done, work with the people still on it to get back into the
workforce. I was quite happy to see talk this morning about getting the system
revised, but spending money for training and job placement. So while in the
long run the system will be cheaper to run, I think the first year, anyway, we
won't see much, if any savings. 

| >	I never said they could make anyone do that. But THEY (GOP) are
| >defining what values are needed. Love is the biggest one. It is NOT something
| >they apply universally. Only to a select few.

| and please name those "select few"!!

	You never watched the repub convention? 

| cite your documentation. i want to see specifically who, what, and
| where the GOP proposals define what "the" family should be!

	The repub convention. And it's even in color.



Glen

 nevermind, Glen

.90 | and please name those "select few"!!
    
>	What I am saying is to spout off a two
>parent family is needed for it to work, and to look down on any families that
>don't match this "scheme", isn't dealing with reality. 
    
    	So what you're really saying, in a convoluted way, is that the
    	two-parent family is the "select few".

| <<< Note 30.93 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper" >>>



| nevermind, Glen


	okey dokie

| <<< Note 30.94 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>



| So what you're really saying, in a convoluted way, is that the
| two-parent family is the "select few".


	Very good Joe. Very good.

Note 30.92 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
>	I agree but disagree with the policies. The compassion is there, but
>the programs just got blown out of proportion, weren't regulated, and the
>outcome is what we have today. We need to check the waste. We then need to
>chuck it. Welfare, for it's design, COULD actually work and help those who
>REALLY need it. The trick is to revamp the policy and get the abusers off. Then
    
    i think this is exactly what the repubs intend to do. that it needs
    getting done is something i think we agree on. my dissappointment lies
    in your seemingly naive view that we can tinker with the system and
    make dramatic turnarounds. this is a serious problem. it demands
    serious solutions. timely ones. the failed policies of the last 30
    years made a mess of it and i see lots of dimms, especially here,
    defending lock stock and barrell. their hopes tied to preserving the
    whole damn system.

>| and please name those "select few"!!
>
>	You never watched the repub convention? 

    no. i was busy. surely this is documented somewhere. i am sincerely
    interested in where it says what peoples will severely impacted by the
    repubs intentions. or are you going to take the advice and just forget
    it?

| <<< Note 30.97 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>



| i think this is exactly what the repubs intend to do. 

	Listening to Eye of Newt made me think he wants to do away with the
program. Listening to Eye of Newt made me think that children having children
will be the hardest hit group, and they are the one's that will need the most
help. Listening to Eye of Newt it made me feel that he isn't interested in
looking at the whole picture, but just with one tiny portion of it and making
it seem worse than what it is. You want welfare to go away, then the inner
cities will need some major help. More officers, more community involvement,
and more offices to train/help people get jobs. If you have that, then it's a
good start. But each locality may have different problems, and it all needs to
get looked at. I mean, if a kid has a kid, will they be finishing school? Some
will, some will not. Will they be heading to college? Some will, some will not.
As all these nots add up, do you end up with the majority? My guess would be in
the inner cities, yes. In all inner cities? Not sure. But these are SOME of the
things he doesn't seem to look at. The prevention methods. Eye of Newt seems
more interested in just getting the people off of welfare. So he is not someone
I have a any faith in for solving the real mess.

| that it needs getting done is something i think we agree on. 

	Yes, on that we do agree.

| my dissappointment lies in your seemingly naive view that we can tinker with 
| the system and make dramatic turnarounds. 

	In the long run, yeah, I think we can. But it involves more than just
handing or not giving out money. It goes back to the streets, the
neighborhoods, the families. All of these things help lead us to where we are
today. Then the handouts came and made it even worse for some, and not helping
where it was needed most. Getting them back to work. So if this is a naive view
of things in your mind, then I guess I am guilty. But if you view it as naive,
I hope you take the time to explain why. Like what have I mentioned that's so
naive?

| the failed policies of the last 30 years made a mess of it and i see lots of 
| dimms, especially here, defending lock stock and barrell. their hopes tied to 
| preserving the whole damn system.

	Could you name these people you have personally have seen that don't
want any reform at all?

| >| and please name those "select few"!!

| no. i was busy. surely this is documented somewhere. i am sincerely interested
| in where it says what peoples will severely impacted by the repubs intentions.

	Read what I wrote above. The poor will be poorer, the lower class will
be even lower. To take away the money and honestly believe that's the solution
is wrong. Getting the people in a position that they are working, cleaning up
the neighborhoods with the help of police and residents, families getting back
to loving and caring for their kids, will help eliminate the welfare problems.
Far fewer people will ever need it. But when the "few" that I was talking about
ealier are seen as the only ones who can really do anything, that's sad. The
few, which are 2 parent families, are not the solution. 

| or are you going to take the advice and just forget it?

	You know me better than that Gene.


Glen

    
    so you think that evolution should be resisted..?

| <<< Note 30.99 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>


| so you think that evolution should be resisted..?



	Huh?

Note 30.98 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>	Listening to Eye of Newt made me think he wants to do away with the
>program. Listening to Eye of Newt made me think that children having children
>will be the hardest hit group, and they are the one's that will need the most
>help. Listening to Eye of Newt it made me feel that he isn't interested in
>looking at the whole picture, but just with one tiny portion of it and making
>it seem worse than what it is. You want welfare to go away, then the inner
    
    i listen. you listen. the liberal media listens. they all get a
    different view. one thing that for sure is coming down no matter our
    opinions. the federal government is getting out administering a lot of
    the welfare programs. there is a lot of pull from the states to simply
    cough up the money and let the states administer it. i've heard the
    cries that the states screwed it up before. i don't buy that but it
    don't matter either. the states are going to get another chance. and
    that's good. what's good for MA is NOT necessarily good for SD.

	Gene, you haven't touched the naive part yet. Are you going to or do
you realize you were wrong? 

	And yes, I agree that what may be good for MA may not be good for SD.
Each state will have varying problems. Each state should try to fix their
problems. It would take it away from people like Eye of Newt who aren't really
interested in fixing the real problems, just interested in handing out fewer
$$$$, which in the end costs us much more because now these people are
destitute even more so, and all of the problems still exist. 


Glen

>Gene, you haven't touched the naive part yet. Are you going to or do
>you realize you were wrong? 

    i've been wrong here before and admitted it freely. once in 1990 and
    the other in '92 i believe.
    
>	And yes, I agree that what may be good for MA may not be good for SD.
>Each state will have varying problems. Each state should try to fix their
>problems. It would take it away from people like Eye of Newt who aren't really
>interested in fixing the real problems, just interested in handing out fewer
>$$$$, which in the end costs us much more because now these people are
>destitute even more so, and all of the problems still exist. 

    yes. handing out fewer dollars is an overall goal. you even admitted
    that needed to happen. and your view of a "power hungry newt" looks
    damned silly here with newt agreeing to hand over LOTS of governmental
    power to the states. i look forward to the day when my taxes aren't
    needed to pay for the destitute in MA because of stupid MA politics.
    you build the pig pen, you will soon get to play in it.

Glen

| <<< Note 30.103 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

| >Gene, you haven't touched the naive part yet. Are you going to or do
| >you realize you were wrong?

| i've been wrong here before and admitted it freely. once in 1990 and
| the other in '92 i believe.

	So are you going to touch the naive part or just keep side steppin the
issue. You made the claim, I'd like to see if it still holds water. (not that
it ever did for me)

| yes. handing out fewer dollars is an overall goal. you even admitted that 
| needed to happen. and your view of a "power hungry newt" looks damned silly 
| here with newt agreeing to hand over LOTS of governmental power to the states.

	You forget he still wants kids who have kids to not be covered, he
wants a certain limit imposed and if any state goes over that limit, they have
to hit other assistance programs, which will hit shelters, homeless and the
elderly. Putting a limit on it all is not going to fix the problem. It is going
to make it worse. Fix the problems and limits won't be needed. I understand
that Weld wants to impose a 90 day limit, and if you are able to work, you'll
be out in the workforce or be cut. This will help eliminate those who don't
feel the need to work. But if there is no job to go to, no day care assistance
for mothers, training if unskilled, then the plan will be a failure. 

| i look forward to the day when my taxes aren't needed to pay for the 
| destitute in MA because of stupid MA politics.

	You will find that MA will be one of the leaders in reform. My hope is
that the reform will be realistic, and not assinine. I hope they attack the
problems, not create new ones.

	BTW, who are those people that don't want any change in the welfare
programs? You said there were lots of dims that wanted it to remain the same,
just who are these people you know of?



Glen

    
    how long to prop up the underclass? forever?
    

| <<< Note 30.105 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>


| how long to prop up the underclass? forever?

	If we have a system in place that actually helps them move up instead
of depending on a handout, it should not take long to see changes. You need
jobs, you need training for those jobs, you need police in high crime areas,
you need neighborhood participation on getting the streets back, you need
families, whether one or two parent households, to start caring for their kids
(if they aren't already doing that). You start making changes, you will get
results. It ain't gonna be easy, but unless it's done, nothing is going to fly.


Glen

    
    we do all this now and have done for a long time.
    but all we have to show is a class of folks who
    
    a) hate everyone and lack social skills
    b) are devoid of work ethic
    c) are untrainable 
    
    

    RAH,
    
    If this was already done, then the "class of folks" you listed wouldn't
    exist.  
    
    We don't have training, we don't have commerce where the people who
    need the jobs are and heaven help you if you live in an area like mine
    with little-to-no mass transit and jobs at least 10 miles from where
    you live.  In case you haven't priced it lately, try and find daycare
    that you would feel comfortable leaving your kids with for less than
    $85.00/week and which also accomodates your lack of mass transit and
    strange hours.  
    
    Get daycare in "the projects" and decent transportation to get people
    to jobs.  Get some form of affordable health care so a child's or one's
    own serious illness doesn't force one back onto welfare when the money
    runs out.  get training for real jobs, not hairdressing or clerical
    work.  (NOTE to admin people: I am not running down your jobs but
    having seen the writing on the wall I know that admin jobs days are
    numbered)  
    
    then, when everyone does have a good shot at a living, I bet you will
    find very few who remain outside society. 
    meg

>Listening to Eye of Newt it made me feel that he isn't interested in
>looking at the whole picture, but just with one tiny portion of it and making
>it seem worse than what it is. 
    
    	Listening to you always refer to him as you do makes me feel that
    	you aren't willing to look at the whole picture either, but just
    	your media-fed impressions and biased expectations.

    
    don't goof off in school
    
    don't get involved with drugs, alcohol, or premarital sex.
    
    don't live in "projects"
    
    don't live where you can't afford to.
    
    don't have kids you cannot afford.
    

    
| we do all this now and have done for a long time.

	And just how do we do this now. People can stay on welfare right this
second who could be working. Just how do we do it RAH?

    a) hate everyone and lack social skills
    b) are devoid of work ethic
    c) are untrainable 

	Please, if you will tie that into just most of those on welfare, and
then make it stick. I think what you are doing is taking the vocal minority and
applying it to most, if not all people. IF, and I say IF, this is the case,
please don't, unless you can make it stick with facts.
    

| <<< Note 30.109 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| Listening to you always refer to him as you do makes me feel that you aren't 
| willing to look at the whole picture either, but just your media-fed 
| impressions and biased expectations.

	Then you aren't listening to me Joe, as I have stated repeatedly it is
his OWN words that have me thinking the way I do. I'm beginning to think that
the one who will be able to do the most to promote the Republicans is Bob Dole.
That is something I'd never thought I would say. But so far, anyway, he seems
to be the one who has been able to smooth out the edges. If he can keep his
temper in order, he could actually accomplish an awful lot.


Glen

| <<< Note 30.110 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>


	This is becoming comical.

| don't goof off in school

	List the reasons why one may goof off in school. Then list solutions
for them. 

| don't get involved with drugs, alcohol, or premarital sex.

	List the reasons why one may get involved with drugs, alcohol or
premarital sex. Then list solutions for them. 

| don't live in "projects"
| don't live where you can't afford to.

	These can SOMETIMES go hand in hand, and become oxymorons when they do.
If you can only afford to live in the projects, then you're screwed by your
logic.

| don't have kids you cannot afford.

	List the reasons why one may have kids they can't afford. Then list 
solutions for them. 


	You know, it's really tough to know if you're really being serious
here, or just trying to get a reaction.....



Glen

    
    you seem to be confused. i don't see this as a government
    responsibility. the government has created the problem,
    in large part.
    
    the social ills enumerated previously are not something 
    *the government* owns. only the principals can do anything 
    about it. the misconception here is that its the government 
    which needs to own this.
    
    government can and should uphold law, order, and security 
    for all. they should leave charity to the foundations, churches,
    and private groups.
     
    
    

    re: Note 30.108 by CSC32::M_EVANS
    
    > If this was already done, then the "class of folks" you listed
    > wouldn't exist.
    
    No, "we've done this already, and it hasn't worked".  Why will it
    magically start working now?  People will take a handout for as long
    as it's given.  Some folks will advance themselves.  Some will not.

| <<< Note 30.113 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


| List the reasons why one may goof off in school. Then list solutions for them.

	There are many reasons why one would goof off in school. For some, it
may be just that they don't want to learn. With this, it is up to the parent to
stress the importance of an education, and take ALL steps neccessary to make
sure the kid learns. For some it could be the situation at home. Parents not
caring, parents abusing each other (verbally/physically) or the kids (add
sexually). A ton of solutions here. They range from taking the kid(s) out of
the home if abuse is happening to them, to take the wife or husband out if
there is one parent abusing another physically, to counciling the family to get
through the problems. All of these things have the parents involvement. You
will have some people who are just slow learners. These people will need extra
help to get their education. This is where the parents and teachers come into
play. Of course there is the usual stigma that goes along with a slow learner,
but that is something for parents and teachers to dispell. And I know there are
more that I haven't even listed.

| List the reasons why one may get involved with drugs, alcohol or premarital 
| sex. Then list solutions for them.

	Why would one get involved with drugs, alcohol? Could be they were led
by example. If parents are doing it, the kids could very well do the same. I
think the answer here is pretty simple. Peer pressure is another way. Parents
and teachers will be needed with this. Police and neighborhood participation
will help clean out the users. 

	Now, what about premarital sex? Hormones. :-)  For the inner cities it
could be a whole range of things. A lot of it doing with the home, a lot of it
doing with perceived love. What has to be stressed is that if one is not ready,
wait. Explain the facts as they are. Get the parents involved. 

| | don't live in "projects"
| | don't live where you can't afford to.

	Working will help bring one up in the world. Self esteme can be a
wonderous thing. It can bring those who at one point had no hope up to a point
where hope is possible. With the help of the residents and police, the projects
could be a safe place to live. MUCH safer than they are now. 

| | don't have kids you cannot afford.

	This pretty much stands on it's own grounds, unless religious beliefs
come into play. 

	Anyway, to give it to you in a nutshell, PARTICIPATION is needed. By
our communities, our schools, our law enforcement, EVERYONE. That is the only
way we're going to clean this mess up. I figured since I asked you, I should at
least answer it as well.



Glen

| <<< Note 30.115 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>


| No, "we've done this already, and it hasn't worked".  Why will it
| magically start working now?  People will take a handout for as long
| as it's given.  Some folks will advance themselves.  Some will not.

	Mike, please list the steps that have been taken to reform welfare to
date. Is there even a list. The steps have not been done, this is why the
handouts are still there.


Glen

    Mike,
    
    Trust me, it hasn't been done.  If it had been Colorado wouldn't have a
    40% recidivism rate for the people who get off AFDC.  Children's and
    personal illnesses are the biggest factor, followed by no childcare. 
    You can't just lock the kiddies in the house while you go to work.  DSS
    takes an extremely dim view of this and will remove children from
    their homes and families.  You can't get treatment for an illness if
    you have 
    
    1.  No insurance
    
    2.  No money
    
    3.  Nothing the hospital considers of value.  
    
    While the medical people in this country (and their bloodsucking
    administrators) will take care of emergencies, chemotherapy for a 
    child with leukemia isn't considered an emergency, nor is surgery 
    for a non-lifethreatening problem, even if the illness/injury is 
    disabling enough to prevent one from working.  
    
    meg
    
    

Note 30.104 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>| yes. handing out fewer dollars is an overall goal. you even admitted that 
>| needed to happen. and your view of a "power hungry newt" looks damned silly 
>| here with newt agreeing to hand over LOTS of governmental power to the states.
>
>	You forget he still wants kids who have kids to not be covered, he
>wants a certain limit imposed and if any state goes over that limit, they have
>to hit other assistance programs, which will hit shelters, homeless and the
>elderly. Putting a limit on it all is not going to fix the problem. It is going
    
    this is not what i heard. this talk of limiting where the states can
    spend the money. of course, there will be limits on government handouts
    to the states. they can't be given an open check. after watching the
    governors this past weekend i think they will be able to work out
    something reasonable with the GOP congress. and do it cheaper as well.
    
>to make it worse. Fix the problems and limits won't be needed. I understand
>that Weld wants to impose a 90 day limit, and if you are able to work, you'll
>be out in the workforce or be cut. This will help eliminate those who don't
>feel the need to work. But if there is no job to go to, no day care assistance
>for mothers, training if unskilled, then the plan will be a failure. 

    your panicking. i read welds statements and watched him as well. unless
    that bastion of "free" thinking, the glob, has more detail, i didn't
    see where anyone was specifically targeted to be thrown out in the
    streets in 90 days. if the states are given the money and authority
    it'll take MA 3 years to get it half implemented. remember, you've got
    fat boy standing in the way of progress, even if if smacks one iota of
    change.
    
>	BTW, who are those people that don't want any change in the welfare
>programs? You said there were lots of dims that wanted it to remain the same,
>just who are these people you know of?


    the dimms controlled congress for 40 years. what we have today is
    primarily of their making. just watch the news and see which ones bitch
    the loudest at proposed change. they are on every night. they had their
    chance and blew it. we have a miserable system today. and they have the
    gall to stand in front of the camera's and insinuate what's being
    proposed (FOR DEBATE THEN VOTE - not unilateral proclimations for
    enactment) is nothing short of welfare reform disaster?

Note 30.108 by CSC32::M_EVANS 
    
    >We don't have training, we don't have commerce where the people who
    >need the jobs are and heaven help you if you live in an area like mine
    >with little-to-no mass transit and jobs at least 10 miles from where
    >you live.  In case you haven't priced it lately, try and find daycare
    >that you would feel comfortable leaving your kids with for less than
    >$85.00/week and which also accomodates your lack of mass transit and
    >strange hours.  
    
    i'm sure there are people who feel such obstacles are overwhelming.
    they are not. i know LOTS of people who obey the laws, work hard, pay
    their bills, and live productive, happy lives that overcame much more
    difficult issues than this. much more. sure, some people could use help
    to get started. problem is, most don't want to get started. its to much
    work. 

    haag,
    
    The one group of people I don't see anyone asking what they need to get
    on their feet are the recipients of afdc.  To me a lot of AFDC's
    problems with reform is that it is driven by people who have a vested
    interest in staying employed, therefore they design "programs" which
    don't work.  At least 75% of the costs of afdc goes to social workers,
    (oxymoron?) eligibility technicians, and people who are supposed to be
    helping people get off the dole.  Now if you magically could get the
    people currently on AFDC productive, what are you going to do with the
    parasites that have been soaking up the cash?
    
    meg

    
    >The one group of people I don't see anyone asking what they need to get
    >on their feet are the recipients of afdc.  To me a lot of AFDC's
        
    the same can be said for many government programs. collectively they
    are a disaster. there may be some shining spots somewhere, and if they
    have to be sacrificed for the collective good so be it. massive change
    always effects the good and the bad. the way it is today, the bad WAY
    out number the good. i am sure there are people in genuine need of some
    assistance to get on their feet. i am also quite sure that the VAST
    majority couldn't care less about getting off of assistance.
    
    i have an even worse theory that is based on a lot of facts. our
    government run social systems have failed totally at instilling the ONE
    thing in its recipients that made this country great. they have destroyed
    their desire to pursue happiness. that's PURSUE. it means you must work
    to attain it. its not something that's handed out to you. my theory is
    that our government run social system has bred mass classes of peoples
    in this country so dependent on handouts the very concept of "pursuing
    happiness" as something they themselves must initiate and work at is
    totally foreign. and in those cases, yes i admit it, they can't succeed
    in achieving self sufficiency on their own. and they surely are not
    going to achieve it with government handouts.
    
    we need to change things and right now. hard choices for sure. but it
    has to be done.

    Gene,
    
    I don't believe that the vast majority of people on AFDC have  lost the
    motivation to persue happiness.  I do believe they aren't turned on to
    the tools to make it easy.  I do know that one thing that keeps many on
    AFDC who would like to get off is medical problems in them or their
    kids.
    
    Trivia:  What is the average number of people in a family on AFDC and
    the average length of time on AFDC?
    
    meg

Note 30.123 by CSC32::M_EVANS
    
    >I don't believe that the vast majority of people on AFDC have  lost the
    >motivation to persue happiness.  I do believe they aren't turned on to
    >the tools to make it easy.
    
    then the program is basically useless as a helping agent. i'm not
    convinced it isn't by design. there are a lot of fat cushy jobs that
    depend on this stuff. and those leeches are the only ones that actually
    get real last benefits. that's why radical change is needed. now.

    
    my question is, what are the costs associated with cutting welfare
    programs?  clinton et al say, well, we can't afford to cut welfare
    because of the costs involved.
    
    at my house, when we cut an expense, it costs us no money at all!
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    If you just drop people from the roles, then you might not have an
    expense in the short run, but then there are expenses involved when
    these people are suddenly put out in the street.  There are small
    children involved here, and if you aren't going to starve them, you
    need to have some sort of care involved for at least the short term
    while their parents root hog or die.  
    
    If you plan on leaving them to starve, you only thought the aftermath
    of the Rodney King verdicts was a riot.  The amount of law enforcement
    needed to keep you and me from losing everything we own is going to be
    costly.
    
    Now, if you are looking at getting people off in a sustainable way,
    then you need, training, childcare, medical care, and a host of minor
    thingies to get this working.  This costs money.
    
    meg

| <<< Note 30.119 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| this is not what i heard. this talk of limiting where the states can
| spend the money. of course, there will be limits on government handouts
| to the states. they can't be given an open check. 

	I think it was either the McGlaughlin(sp?) thing, or David Brinkley
that showed it.

| your panicking. i read welds statements and watched him as well. unless that 
| bastion of "free" thinking, the glob, has more detail, i didn't see where 
| anyone was specifically targeted to be thrown out in the streets in 90 days. 

	Did we not watch the same thing? I saw him say that once everything is
in place, that 90 days will be given to anyone who is capable of working to get
jobs or be cut. Where he didn't go into details for training, childcare, etc,
it's too early to know for sure. BUT, like I had said, if these things aren't
present, the policy will fail. So panicking? No, as I need to hear more.
Looking at what could be problems? Yup.

| if the states are given the money and authority it'll take MA 3 years to get 
| it half implemented. remember, you've got fat boy standing in the way of 
| progress, even if if smacks one iota of change.

	You crack me up Haag. You really do. Weld will get it through, like
everything else he wants. Kennedy will have nothing to do with it.

| >	BTW, who are those people that don't want any change in the welfare
| >programs? You said there were lots of dims that wanted it to remain the same,
| >just who are these people you know of?

| the dimms controlled congress for 40 years. what we have today is primarily of
| their making. just watch the news and see which ones bitch the loudest at 
| proposed change. 

	Thanks Gene. You did prove something to me. You said you KNEW of many
who were bitchin. Yet 3-4 times I've asked for those names, and you never did
list them. So it seems like you're blowing a lot of smoke here. Too bad, as I
thought if anyone would say something like that and be able to prove it, that
would be you. Oh well, another dream shattered.

| they are on every night. 

	Gene, I asked the question because I have NOT heard ANYONE who has said
they did not WANT welfare change. You have still failed to offer ONE name, even
though you stated you knew of a few.

| we have a miserable system today. 

	You are correct. But the repubs are for cutting ALL money to people, and
the dems are for handing out money. What we need is someone who will address the
real problems at hand. 

| and they have the gall to stand in front of the camera's and insinuate what's 
| being proposed (FOR DEBATE THEN VOTE - not unilateral proclimations for
| enactment) is nothing short of welfare reform disaster?

	It is Gene. The repubs plan does not address the problems. Of course
the dems plan never really did either.



Glen

| <<< Note 30.125 by USAT05::BENSON >>>


| at my house, when we cut an expense, it costs us no money at all!


	OK, we make the cuts moneywise ONLY. We have all this extra money. But
wait, now we have families who had little training in anything out in the
streets. Shelters are overflowing. Robberies of stores and people on the
streets rise. More police are now needed. People begging everywhere. Each and
every one of these things can happen if we just make money cuts. I truly
believe that it will cost money to reduce welfare. And when this happens,
welfare, for the most part, will go back to those who need it.


Glen

    DOOM!

    re. 128
    
    gees glen. i sure hate to shatter any myths you have about me. lordy
    mercy sakes. we have a communications problems.
    
    i stated that many congresscritters are bitching to the high heavens
    about the repubs proposed changes to welfare. you asked for name of
    those critters that didn't want changes to welfare. apples and oranges.
    you prolly can't find a congresscritter that will deny changes need to
    be made to the welfare system. if that's what you're asking for then,
    no, i don't have any names. however, if you want names of those
    bitching about the repubs proposed changes, tho there ain't much
    detail, and its only for discussion and vote, then i got names. lots of
    them. from mayors to senators. until we agree what you want, naming the
    culprits is pointless.
    
    we prolly agree more than disagree. its just that you're more wrong
    than right. but i'm a forgiving type.

    >we prolly agree more than disagree. its just that you're more wrong
    >than right.
    
    Uh oh Gene... think about this...
    
    Suppose you and Glen agree 60% of the time, and disagree 40% of the
    time. Now, suppose Glen is wrong 60% of the time and right 40% of
    the time... that mean's that since you agree with him, you're also
    wrong 60% of the time... :-)
    
    -b

    
    Brian,
    
    Not necessarily.  Haag *may* only be wrong 20% of the time!  :^)
    

    re -1
    
    
    "may" is the correct position. 

| <<< Note 30.131 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| gees glen. i sure hate to shatter any myths you have about me. lordy
| mercy sakes. we have a communications problems.

	Thank God Gene. I'd hate to have what I thought was a sure bet go down
the tubes! :-)

| i stated that many congresscritters are bitching to the high heavens about the
| repubs proposed changes to welfare. you asked for name of those critters that 
| didn't want changes to welfare. apples and oranges.

	Yes and no. I also asked if it were people who did not want ANY change.
That was the key point. In your note you stated something to the effect that
there were some who did not want one iota changed. Then I asked for those
names. So when you state below:

| you prolly can't find a congresscritter that will deny changes need to
| be made to the welfare system. if that's what you're asking for then,
| no, i don't have any names. 

	it answers my question. You know of no one who doesn't want change. But
you know many who think the repubs are going too far. I guess you can throw me
into that group.

| we prolly agree more than disagree. its just that you're more wrong than right
| but i'm a forgiving type.

	Why thank you Gene. I guess that makes you more Right? :-)

What's this I heard yesterday?

Newt's writing a "science fiction spy novel" that has a "X-rated" passage
about a sex kitten who...er...meets up with a political character in the book?
He's gonna tone it down to a "PG13" level...

If androids dream of electric sheep then extremist moralist demagogues 
must dream of...

(Also mentioned that Bush was mentioned in the book and described as
"goofy". Newt said he didn't do that.)

    
    Wonder if this is going to turn out to be:
    
    	Books 2 / Speakers Nil
    
    								-mr. bill

    	I thought it was some French ex-prime minister writing such
    	a novel...

    The 'Forecast Issue' of 'Money' magazine has "THE NEWT CONGRESS AND
    YOUR MONEY" with the 't' in NEWT in red script, on the cover.
    
    Bob

    	
Subj:	How the Gingrinch Stole Congress

(forwarded)

this came my way and i thought y'all might enjoy some *seasonal* cheer :-)

How the Gingrinch Stole Congress!
by Kris Rabberman & Scott Prevost
> >
> >
> > Every Who
> > Down in Whoville
> > Liked Elections a lot . . .
> >
> > But Newt Gingrinch,
> > Who lived on Mount Gridlock,
> > Did NOT!
> >
> > The Gingrinch loathed voting, the whole campaign season!
> > Now, please don't ask why.  No one quite knows the reason.
> > It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right.
> > It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
> > But I think that the most likely reason of all,
> > May have been that his brain was two sizes too small.
> > 
> > But whatever the reason,
> > His brain or his shoes,
> > He stood there Election Eve , hating the Whos,
> > Staring down from Mount Gridlock with a Gingrinchy frown,
> > At the candidates stumping below in their town.
> > For he knew every Who who was thinking that night,
> > Would cast their votes wisely--against the far right.
> >
> > "And they're worried about issues!" he snarled with a sneer,
> > "Tomorrow's the election! It's practically here!"
> > And the gears in his head began frantically spinning,
> > "I MUST find a way to keep liberals from winning!"
> > 
> > For tomorrow, he knew all the Whos in the know,
> > Would vote for the DemoWhos all in a row,
> > For Wofford and Foley, Feinstein and Cuomo.
> > 
> > Then the DemoWho Congress would do what he'd hate,
> > Come up with new programs, and then legislate!
> > Healthcare and gun bans they'd gladly create,
> > But such progress the Gingrinch would only berate.
> >  
> > And THEN they'd do something
> > He liked least of all!
> > Every DemoWho in Congress, the tall and the small,
> > Would stand close together, and say with one voice,
> > "We're for women's rights and we're also pro-choice!"
> >   
> > They'd work! And they'd work!
> > AND they'd WORK!  WORK!  WORK!  WORK!
> > And the more that the Gingrinch thought, with a smirk,
> > The more that he thought, "I must STOP their hard work!
> > Why since Who-sevelt's years I've put up with it now!
> > I MUST stop the liberals from winning!
> > . .  But HOW?"
> >
> > Then he got an idea!
> > An AWFUL idea!
> > The Newt
> > got a HORRIBLE, AWFUL idea!
> > 
> > "I know just what to do!" Gingrinch laughed in his throat.
> > "I'll make empty vows in return for their vote."
> > And he chuckled, and clucked, "I've got a great con.
> > With these lies we'll pay homage to President Ron!"
> >
> > "All I need is a gimmick . . ."
> > The Newt looked around.
> > But since ideas are scarce, there were none to be found.
> > Did that stop the old Gingrinch
> > From finding a scheme . . . ?
> > Of course not, he had the Whopublican team.
> > So he called Mr. Dole, and he eagerly said,
> > "I need to make use of your sly, sneaky head."
> > 
> > Then they made up a plan,
> > That was terribly Dole-y,
> > To unseat the speaker,
> > Congressman Foley.
> > 
> > And they wrote up a contract.
> > They did it that day,
> > And they chortled and laughed,
> > "All the liberals must pay."
> > 
> > As the Gingrinch and Dole formulated their schemes,
> > Based on trickle down theories and far right extremes,
> > The DemoWhos, calmly, were dreaming their dreams.
> > First Gingrinch and Dole, with a gleam in their eyes,
> > About Clinton's record, told many lies.
> > 
> > Then they told of the programs they'd gleefully pinch,
> > Who better to do this than Mr. Gingrinch?
> > They got stuck only once, on the issue of ketchup,
> > So they got on the phone and they called Orrin Hatch up.
> > Then both of them sunk to a terrible low.
> > "Entitlements," they grinned, "are the first things to go!"
> > 
> > Then they slithered and slunk, with smiles most unpleasant,
> > Obnoxiously trashing the left, past and present!
> > "With Huffington, Romney, North and Santorum,
> > We're sure that the left cannot help but deplore 'em!
> > With ads so misleading they're practically criminal,
> > We'll use our PAC money for commercials subliminal!"
> > 
> > "We'll bombard them with TV, and a racist disc-jockey!
> > Who supports Chuck Haytaian and dark-horse Pataki.
> > We'll support Ollie North, and Dewine over Hyatt,
> > And with all of his cash, we'll have Huffington buy it!"
> > 
> > "When we win, we'll control each and every committee,
> > "To be sure funds are sent to nary a city!
> > "And Alfonse D'amato," (the dork from New York),
> > "can continue to rant about Bill Clinton's pork!"
> > 
> > "Against Feinstein and Boxer's ardent protesting,
> > "Senator Packwood can keep on molesting!"
> > By the twisted up logic of Jesse and Strom,
> > "With gays in the army, we lost Vietnam!"
> > 
> > "A lineup like this is Clinton's worst fear,"
> > said Gingrinch to Dole, with a dastardly sneer.
> > 
> > "Taxes, the wealthy should not have to pay,"
> > the maniacal duo was eager to say.
> > "And when Congress is ours, we'll have prayer in the schools,"
> > Muttered Dole to the Newt, "Disregard liberal fools!"
> > 
> > The plan was enacted,
> > The ballots were cast,
> > The sham made the voters return to the past.
> > 
> > The Gingrinch was gleeful, and Dole started gloating,
> > before all the Whos had completed their voting.
> > "We now have a mandate!" they said with a laugh,
> > Even though, of the votes, they received only half.
> > 
> > With snickering Newt in the role of the Speaker,
> > The prospects for changes have never been bleaker.
> > "The plans that we've outlined, we won't be revising,"
> > said Gingrinch, "We simply ABHOR compromising!"
> > 
> > ____________________________________________
> > 
> > The day of this scary Whopublican showing,
> > We started to notice Newt's head slowly growing,
> > Though now we can say, as you may have inferred,
> > His brain starting SHRINKING that day, so we've heard.
> > 
> > Though the Whos may be worried and shaking in fear,
> > From the dastardly changes that soon may be here,
> > The way Whos can solve this is really a cinch,
> > In '96 vote against cynic Gingrinch!
> > 
> >
> >
> > DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are not necessarily the
> > opinions of Dr. Seuss, or those with an interest in his estate, or
> > anyone related to him, or anyone he met only once on a crowded train
> > traveling from New York to Chicago, or his former next-door-neighbor's
> > dog Max.  Some stanzas of the preceding work were directly stolen from
> > Dr. Seuss' classic work, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," without the
> > permission, expressed or implied, of Theodor or Audrey Geisel, or
> > Random House, Inc.  This work was created solely for the amusement of
> > the authors and should not be copied, distributed or otherwise
> > duplicated by any means (electronic or telepathic included) without the
> > expressed written consent of whoever owns the copyright to the book the
> > authors plagiarized to create this masterpiece.  Any evidence to the
> > contrary should be construed as purely accidental and not the intent of
> > the authors (who, by the way, receive no monetary benefit  for having
> > written the poem, but had to pay an overpriced lawyer for  this
> > disclaimer) .  The authors accept no responsibility for any nightmares
> > or other psychological problems caused by reading this work  to
> > liberals already suffering from Post Election Stress Disorder.
    

	It's funny, a guy who wants family values wants to put the kids of
single mothers in an orphanage. The guy who wants to cut these mothers off of
welfare to save the country money, is gonna have to divert that savings to the
orphanges. The guy who said that 800 cases of babies being born and put into
the trash says the orphanage idea is the answer even though anyone with any
sense knows the answer to the problem is attacking it from the root, not
sitting on ones butt until it happens.

	Funny, I could think of many ideas that could cut down the amount of
kids who have kids, mothers having more kids for more welfare money. How come
this guy is so good at pointing out what he thinks is wrong, but does nothing
about attacking the problem(s) from the source, but from an after the fact
position?



Glen

    Glen,
    
    The guy wants to force personal responsibility.  
    
    The state ain't gonna take your baby.  The state ain't gonna pay
    you to sit on yer arse and make babys and watch donohue on teevee
    either.
    
    They will however fund orphanages and stuff for people who
    may require those services.
          

	Mike, FORCING responsibility by taking the baby away makes no sense.
Nip the problem in the bud BEFORE it happens, not after. His plan does NOTHING
for that.

RE:               <<< Note 30.144 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>




>Nip the problem in the bud BEFORE it happens, not after. His plan does NOTHING
>for that.


 Great idea!  Now...how do you propose doing that?




Jim

>How come
>this guy is so good at pointing out what he thinks is wrong, but does nothing
>about attacking the problem(s) from the source, but from an after the fact
>position?

    	Sounds just like you with respect to abortion.  You'd rather
    	sit on your thumbs until complete solutions are avaliable for
    	cases of rape/incest/mother's-life-in-danger/etc.
    
    	So you said you can think of solutions to teenage pregnancies.
    	Why not share them?

	Joe and Jim. I have stated my positions on what ideas would work all
along. My suggestion is you take time to read them.


Glen

 Maybe you could summarize them for us?  Not sure if I can take the time
 to wade through all of the ratholes looking for them.




Jim

    Glen,
    
    I don't see where Newt sez he's gonna take babies from there mommas.
    He ain't.... UNTIL YOU ASK FOR MONEY.  Then you play the game and the
    ownership/possession of the child is subject to change.
    Soooooo.... don't put yer hand out.
    
    
    If "eye of newt" is gonna take kids, tell me where he said it.  Where
    specifically did he say this?  Educate me.  I think you're wrong.
    You're freaking out before necessary.  Believe me, If newt says
    something stupid (er, actually tries doing something stupid) I'll
    be freaking out alongside you.  And remember, I'm heavily armed.  8^O
                                                     

    	re .147
    
    	OK, Glen.  Just a pointer would be sufficient.  Really.

    Orphanages are more expensive than welfare.  More overhead.
    
    And they can't be orphanages, if the kids have a living parent.

    Glen:
    
    Interestingly enough, I proposed mandated birth control for those who
    want to go on welfare.  I asked in the abortion topic that if Norplant
    were completely safe, would you support it.  Some of the women in the
    topic flat out said No!
    
    I find it amazing that compromise takes some bending to and fro, yet
    women who yell rights rights rights are the least bendable!!
    
    -Jack

    Orphanages are not more expensive than welfare...what a silly thing to
    say (unless of course you leave out the rest of the picture beyond the
    welfare check itself: medicare, food stamps, federal housing, etc.).
    
    
    -steve

    REF 30.153
    
    Why wouldn't orphanages cost more than welfare?? I believe it would and
    probably significantly so... there would be the rent/mortage for the
    buildings, the utilities, and then the staff -- you would have the
    adminisistrator ... at not too shabby a salary I'm sure, than a couple
    of assistant adminsistrators, and supervisors, the clerical staff plus 
    the child care workers, the cooks, the cleaning people, probably a
    nurse.. we can't forget the insurances, then there would be food,
    clothing, medical care -- and I'm sure many more items that I haven't
    even listed -- 
    
    Plus, if the parent(s) are fortunate enough to find jobs, they probably
    will be very low paying jobs, $5.00 - $6.00 an hour -- will their net
    pays be enough to pay for NON-subsidized housing, food, etc...  because
    if we are still allowing subsidized housing and food stamps and
    medicaid, based on the low incomes, what have we really accomplished...
    
    When I read these notes, and folks are so intense and angry about
    people on welfare, I sometimes get the impression that they are 
    assuming these "welfare people"  have the same earning power that they
    have, that they are just plain lazy...
    
    Yes, we need to re-look at welfare, but orphanages will, in my opinion,
    become another beaurecratic expense ...
    
    Carla
        

| <<< Note 30.149 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>



| I don't see where Newt sez he's gonna take babies from there mommas. He ain't
| UNTIL YOU ASK FOR MONEY. Then you play the game and the ownership/possession 
| of the child is subject to change.

	This is exactly what I am talking about Mike. If there is a welfare
system in place, and someone qualifies for it, why should they lose their kid
because of the hard times? Remember, if a plan is in place that will give those
who are capable of working a chance at getting a job, then why is there a need
to take the child from the mother? Is this a plan to make it easier for the
mother to work because she won't have any children to worry about? If this is
the case then you will have a lot of mothers who aren't gonna feel like doing
much of anything after having their kid ripped away from them. Do you really
think a mother is gonna just jump right to work after losing their kid(s)? Of
course you will end up with mothers who have kids that won't ask for assistance
living out in the streets. Yeah, quite the plan Mike. Quite the compassion for
the American people. They want people to get off welfare and go back to work,
I'm all for it. If someone has to lose their kid in the process, I'm dead set
against it. 

| Soooooo.... don't put yer hand out.

	....and live in the streets....

| If "eye of newt" is gonna take kids, tell me where he said it. Where 
| specifically did he say this?  Educate me.  

	Sunday on Meet the Press. He used the babies being born and put in the
trash scenerio.

| And remember, I'm heavily armed.  8^O

	<grin>

| <<< Note 30.152 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Interestingly enough, I proposed mandated birth control for those who want to 
| go on welfare. I asked in the abortion topic that if Norplant were completely 
| safe, would you support it. Some of the women in the topic flat out said No!

	Jack, it's because you feel that welfare is taking your tax dollars and
are putting it someplace where you don't want it. But if the proposed changes
go into effect, Norplant will not be needed under your standards. New kids will
no longer mean extra bucks. But of course implimenting Norplant under those
conditions seems kind of weird, as you have many families who aren't on welfare
who have kids they can't afford.


Glen

    Newt Gingich has suggested that first Lady Hillary Rodham clinton rent
    the Mickey Ronney movie "Boys Town" before she criticizes his plan to
    resurrect orphanages.  
    
    Remember even Bob dole and Phil Gramm have come out against Newts plan.
    
    Estimated INCREASE in costs to us if 1/4 of the initial 1 million
    children  to be cut off is $8,000,000,000.  Just a minor drop in the
    bucket.
    
    current costs for a child on Welfare:
    
    	$2,644/year staying with the parent
    
    	$4,800/year in foster care
    
    	$36,000/year for "residential group care"
    
    source child Welfare League of America
    
    meg

	To answer Jim and Joe, it's easy. You educate. But you educate from a
stronger standpoint than what it's being done now. Schools educate because
parents aren't doing what they should be doing. First, parents need to take the
responsibility to go out and gather all the facts about having sex, the risks,
things like that. Then they must sit the child down and explain both the good
and the bad. I say both because kids know about the good, and to not bring it
up and explain why it's good, when it's good, may not have a full effect on
them. You also need to explain the bad. Stress abstinence, and then here is
where it becomes subjective. Many people will stop at the abstinence message,
but I think we need to be realistic about it. Some kids will have sex anyway,
afterall they are just kids. I would strongly talk about protection. I'd rather
have both ends covered. Of course talking about protection also means talking
about the good and bad parts about it. It also means discussing the proper use
of condoms. 

	But I believe the inner cities will be the hardest part. With broken
families, it may be harder to get the message across. With gangs and the like
around it could also be harder. In this area we need to get the neighborhoods
to start taking action on the crime. We need the police there to help bring the
neighborhoods back to what they should be. We need to clean up the schools as
well, as like the streets, it isn't a place where anything taught by the
parent(s) is likely to stay pat. IF we do this, the parent(s) will have a
BETTER edge at putting the right message out, and not having it changed as 
often as it would with the system there is now.

	Does this help you out gents?


Glen

Note 30.142 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
>	It's funny, a guy who wants family values wants to put the kids of
>single mothers in an orphanage. The guy who wants to cut these mothers off of
    
    glen, you meg and the rest of that bunch have harped and harped on this
    orphanage thing. and your all wet. newt DID NOT advocate taking babies
    away from welfare mothers and putting them in orphanages. his statement
    was taken entirely out of context and the liberal press and swallowed
    hook line and sinker by panicking left wing kooks. what newt really
    said, now pay attention here, was:
    
     "the welfare system is so bad today that some of those on it might be 
      better off in an orphanage".
    
    now that's a far cry from your rantings about baby snatching.

	.158
    
>	To answer Jim and Joe, it's easy. You educate. 
    
    	Just "it's easy"?  If it were so "easy" you'd think we'd be doing
    	it already.
    
>	But you educate from a
>stronger standpoint than what it's being done now. Schools educate because
>parents aren't doing what they should be doing. 
    
    	That's a pretty subjective statement...
    
>First, parents need to take the
>responsibility to go out and gather all the facts about having sex, the risks,
>things like that. 
    
    	You seem to have a pretty low opinion of parents.  You are saying
    	that parents aren't educating the kids, and that they don't have
    	the facts.  At least you have all the facts though...
    
>Then they must sit the child down and explain both the good
>and the bad. I say both because kids know about the good, and to not bring it
>up and explain why it's good, when it's good, may not have a full effect on
>them. 
    
    	"The good" as you see it is pretty subjective too.  I see *no* good
    	in sex outside of marriage.  Now I agree that you see *that* as
    	subjective on my part, and I accept that fully.
    
    	So when you then say:
    
>You also need to explain the bad. Stress abstinence, and then here is
>where it becomes subjective. 
    
    	I disagree with you wholeheartedly.  It became subjective when you	
    	stated that the answer was easy.
    
>talk about protection. I'd rather
>have both ends covered. 
    
    	Condoms only cover one end!  :^)

>	But I believe the inner cities will be the hardest part. With broken
>families, it may be harder to get the message across. With gangs and the like
>around it could also be harder. In this area we need to get the neighborhoods
>to start taking action on the crime. We need the police there to help bring the
>neighborhoods back to what they should be. We need to clean up the schools as
>well, as like the streets, it isn't a place where anything taught by the
>parent(s) is likely to stay pat. 
    
    	But you said it would be easy.

    Gene, I don't think Newt said that babies would be forcibly taken from
    welfare mothers, but he did explicitly link his proposals with
    orphanages.  Clearly the intent is that welfare mothers would give up
    their children.  What kind of "family values" does that promote?

    	Jong, what kind of "family values" does the welfare system promote?

    Still obsessed, Joe?

    Joe,
    
    It at least has the hope, particularly when linked with child support
    enforcement in getting families back together.  I see nothing in Newt's
    proposal that says it will improve anything except possibly the
    economic status of a certain class of dr's you find reprehensible.
    
    meg

    	Obsessed with whay, Steve.  I'm directly responding to a reply
    	of yours, not beinging you into some discussion that you're not
    	even participating in.  If you don't want people to reply to
    	what you write, don't write anything.
    
    	Now answer the question.

    Joe,
    
    I didn't think steve had an obsession with cheese making by-products

    Anent .157 (Meg):  It's "Rooney," by the way.  Unfortunately, Spencer
    Tracy is dead.  Perhaps Newt ought to rent "Oliver Twist."

    	re .166
    
    	From the mistress of typos.  I can't ever recall making an issue
    	of your many ones (until now, since you started throwing the
    	rocks.)  Would you like me to start pointing yours out to you?  I'd
    	rather not have to stoop to that...  
    
    	re .164
    
>    It at least has the hope, 
    
    	Sure.  Tell us all about the hope that welfare provides for people.

| <<< Note 30.159 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>




| "the welfare system is so bad today that some of those on it might be 
| better off in an orphanage".

| now that's a far cry from your rantings about baby snatching.


	Haag, IF that was all that was said, why would Dole take the oppisite
position as Newt did? There was another guy who did as well (a repub), but his
name escapes me now. If there is no big deal, why are his own party members
distancing themselves from him?


Glen

| <<< Note 30.160 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

| >	To answer Jim and Joe, it's easy. You educate.

| Just "it's easy"?  If it were so "easy" you'd think we'd be doing it already.

	We could if the parents would do their job.

| >First, parents need to take the
| >responsibility to go out and gather all the facts about having sex, the risks,
| >things like that.

| You seem to have a pretty low opinion of parents.  You are saying that parents
| aren't educating the kids, and that they don't have the facts. 

	Both. Some will educate, but without the facts of TODAY, the message
may not get out. And as far as a low opinion of parents goes, not all parents
are like this. But I could be wrong, but I think you were one who said
education should not happen in schools, but at home. IF this is a true
statement, why do you think the education started in the schools?

| >Then they must sit the child down and explain both the good
| >and the bad. I say both because kids know about the good, and to not bring it
| >up and explain why it's good, when it's good, may not have a full effect on
| >them.

| "The good" as you see it is pretty subjective too.  I see *no* good in sex 
| outside of marriage.  

	Then Joe, I would suggest that is what you teach your kid. But to
explain the good and when it is good might help take out the kids wanting a
piece of ass attitude.

| >You also need to explain the bad. Stress abstinence, and then here is
| >where it becomes subjective.

| I disagree with you wholeheartedly. It became subjective when you stated that 
| the answer was easy.

	The answer IS easy. Implimenting it is the hard part.

| >	But I believe the inner cities will be the hardest part. With broken
| >families, it may be harder to get the message across. With gangs and the like
| >around it could also be harder. In this area we need to get the neighborhoods
| >to start taking action on the crime. We need the police there to help bring the
| >neighborhoods back to what they should be. We need to clean up the schools as
| >well, as like the streets, it isn't a place where anything taught by the
| >parent(s) is likely to stay pat.

| But you said it would be easy.

	I said the answer is easy. Implimenting it is the hard part.


Glen

    re: Note 30.154 by ISLNDS::JALBERT
    > Why wouldn't orphanages cost more than welfare?? 
    
    Why couldn't orphanages be supported by local churches?

>education should not happen in schools, but at home. IF this is a true
>statement, why do you think the education started in the schools?
    
    	Because the schools do not like what some parents want to teach.
    	Some parents want to tell their kids that any sex outside of
    	marriage is wrong.  Some parents want to tell their kids that
    	homosexual sex is morally wrong.  Some parents want to teach their
    	kids that with the proper choices (such choices as were made by
    	those same parents, and their parents, etc.) there is no need for
    	contraception, or "safe sex" or any other kinds of artificial
    	control.  
    
    	But you see, that's not the "korrect" message, so the schools are 
    	now forced to override it.  *THAT* is why sex education (what I 
    	assume you are referring to by the broad use of "education" above) 
    	has started in the schools.

    
    Dole did not "take the opposite view", since there are more than two
    or three views about welfare.
    
    The one gaining great momentum in DC is, abolish both federal funding
    and all federal mandates, dump on states, claim victory.
    
    And Clinton would sign it, too.
    
      bb

    .171
    
    > Why couldn't orphanages be supported by local churches?
    
    partisan politics, mebbe.  the best and most effective church-operated
    orphanages the world has ever seen were run by the shakers, who took
    kids and taught them christian devotion and useful skills, and then,
    when the kids reached majority, offered them the choice of going out
    into the world to make it on their own, with a financial sendoff, or of
    staying and becoming a shaker.
    
    the "orthodox" churches felt threatened enough by this that they
    lobbied for laws forbidding the adoption of children outside their
    birth religion, thus effectively putting the shakers out of business.
    
    business as usual, for organized religion, is putting everyone else OUT
    of business.  that's why i, for one, consider religious orphanages a
    very bad idea.

| <<< Note 30.171 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

| Why couldn't orphanages be supported by local churches?


	Why aren't they now? They couldn't afford it. IF they could, don't you
think every church would have one now?


Glen

	Base it on facts and it would work. Base it also on geographical
locations and it will work. Some areas may need a lot more done to make it work
than others. 

re: Note 30.155 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
>	This is exactly what I am talking about Mike. If there is a welfare
>system in place, and someone qualifies for it, why should they lose their kid

Your freaking out.  Relax.  Make sure the system that is devised DOESN'T
do this.  As it works now, accepting any goverment funds has strings
attached.  I'd like to see that change too, but... let's deal with the
major problem.

>| Soooooo.... don't put yer hand out.
>	....and live in the streets....

No, you'll just need to get help from a different system.  Maybe a church.
They're already bitching like hell, because if the fed quits providing
the gravy train it'll cut into the churches windfall.

>	Sunday on Meet the Press. He used the babies being born and put in the
>trash scenerio.

I think newt is blowing smoke in this case.  This is an emotional issue
and he's catering to that.
99.99999% of babies DON'T wind up in the trash.  99.99999% of the babies
born after the system is fixed still won't end up in the trash.  The system
is broken.

Note 30.169 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>| "the welfare system is so bad today that some of those on it might be 
>| better off in an orphanage".
>
>| now that's a far cry from your rantings about baby snatching.
>
>
>	Haag, IF that was all that was said, why would Dole take the oppisite
    
    so what else was said? all of you claiming baby snatching might be
    somewhat believeable if you had factual data, not press initiated
    hysteria, to back up your rhetoric. so glen, wordy, et al, what exactly
    did newt say to convice you that his policy is going to snatch babies
    from their mothers????

    Haagster,
    
    Newt has proposed taking the money away from teen mothers and using
    that to fund orphanages and group homes.  
    
    You are talking about 1 million children here.  
    
    meg

Note 30.179 by CSC32::M_EVANS 
    
    >Newt has proposed taking the money away from teen mothers and using
    >that to fund orphanages and group homes.  
    
    i'm not all that certain giving money to group homes is the answer.
    however, i am all for taking the money out of teen mothers hands.
    they have proven they won't spend the money wisely so lets try
    something else.

    
    Newt got in big trouble over the weekend for suggesting that the
    administration is on drugs.  He claimed that was the DC rumor.  While
    this would certainly explain some things, I kind of doubt it, as the
    administration can't even inhale properly.  They are now waxing
    righteous and irate in denial.  I suppose we have to take their
    word.  Their horrific performance has been achieved naturally,
    without significant chemical additives.
    
      bb

What Newt said was that a percentage of the staff couldn't get security
clearances because of past chemical abuse problems.  He did NOT say that
they're currently on drugs.

Bruce

>Note 30.154    
 
>    Why wouldn't orphanages cost more than welfare?? I believe it would and
>    probably significantly so... there would be the rent/mortage 
    
    Who pays the rent/mortgage for welfare folk?  Federal housing programs
    cost billions per year.  Better one roof than hundreds.
    
>    for the buildings, the utilities, and then the staff -- 
    
    Who pays for federal housing, utilities and the huge federal
    bureaucracy that controls welfare?
    
>    you would have the adminisistrator ... 
    
    And you have welfare administrators...and social workers...etc.
    
>    at not too shabby a salary I'm sure, 
    
    Bureaucrats do remarkably well, to the expense of the taxpayer.
    
>    than a couple of assistant adminsistrators, and supervisors, the clerical 
>    staff plus the child care workers, the cooks, the cleaning people,
    
    Other than cooks and cleaning people, you have all the rest already
    under the welfare programs.
     
>    probably a nurse.. we can't forget the insurance
>    then there would be food, clothing, 
    
    Welfare checks, food stamps.
    
>    medical care -- and I'm sure many more items that I haven't
>    even listed -- 
 
    Medicare.
       
>    Plus, if the parent(s) are fortunate enough to find jobs, they probably
>    will be very low paying jobs, $5.00 - $6.00 an hour -- will their net
>    pays be enough to pay for NON-subsidized housing, food, etc...  
    
    I lived in a one-bedroom apartment not too many years ago...paid my
    rent, had enough food, had a car, paid car insurance, and if I was real
    careful I could even save just a small bit for "luxuries".  I made
    $4.00 an hour at the time.  I also worked as many as 4 jobs at one
    time.
    
    My Mom (who was a single mom for much of my growing up period), bought
    a house, fed two kids, bought us clothes, kept us clean and even could
    save enough to buy us birthday and Christmas presents.  She made
    $12K/year at the time...the only other help was a small amount of child
    support.
    
    My sister is raising a fine young lady in Dallas.  Before this last
    job, she made about 12-13K/year (in that general neighborhood).  He
    daughter has never gone hungry, lacked clothing or day care (when she
    was too young to leave at home during the summer when she had to work).
    She gets a very small amount of child support...when it comes in.
    
    Was money tight in all the above situation?  You bet.  The fact remains
    that all of us have made our OWN way without help from the government.
    Why is it too much to ask that others put forth the same effort?
    
>    because
>    if we are still allowing subsidized housing and food stamps and
>    medicaid, based on the low incomes, what have we really accomplished...
 
    Phase out all the above.  The economic explosion that would occur
    afterward would be amazing, and would create opportunities enough to
    take care of many formerly poor people...if they are willing to work.
       
>    When I read these notes, and folks are so intense and angry about
>    people on welfare, 
    
    Actually, it isn't the people who are on welfare that I am angry with
    (though those who feel that they are "owed" my tax money do rile me). 
    What angers me more than anything is knowing that this system is
    destroying self esteem, motivation, and family.  What really makes me
    mad is the mentality it gives the population in general, that we are
    all "entitled" to something that we haven't worked for.  This
    mentality is becoming more and more widespread, and is causing
    irreparable harm to society.
    
>    I sometimes get the impression that they are 
>    assuming these "welfare people"  have the same earning power that they
>    have, that they are just plain lazy...
 
    Not all people are "equal" in abilities.  However, abilities is not the
    main issue.  The main issue is HARD WORK.  Ask any self-made
    businessman how he became successful...he will tell you that he
    worked his butt off, and probably went through some pretty tough times
    at first.  Anyone who is willing to work HARD is capable of earning a
    living for himself and his family, IMO.
       
>    Yes, we need to re-look at welfare, but orphanages will, in my opinion,
>    become another beaurecratic expense ...
 
    Yes, they will be a bureaucratic expense.  Let the states run them,
    though, not the federal government.  That way, as welfare is being
    phased out, the states will have more of their tax money to fund state
    programs such as orphanages.  The fed has no business trying to set
    standards for the entire nation, it really does not make sense (Tenth
    Amendment problems aside for a moment).  
    
    Compared to the plethora of entitlements that the average welfare
    receipient has access to, orphages can't possibly cost any more if they
    are run properly.
    
       
    -steve         

    Steve,
    
    Why not end welfare for those who can easily afford it first?  We
    subsidize profitable businesses to the tune of almost twice that of all
    welfare costs.  if you end corporate welfare, instead of kicking some
    of the least powerful people in the country when they are down, then I
    will happily join you in finding a better solution to the poor and
    unpowerful.
    
    meg

| <<< Note 30.178 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

| >| now that's a far cry from your rantings about baby snatching.
| >
| >	Haag, IF that was all that was said, why would Dole take the oppisite

| so what else was said? all of you claiming baby snatching might be
| somewhat believeable if you had factual data, not press initiated
| hysteria, to back up your rhetoric. so glen, wordy, et al, what exactly
| did newt say to convice you that his policy is going to snatch babies
| from their mothers????

	Newt said that future mothers who try to get on welfare will have their
babies taken from them and put into an orphanage. IF it applied to mothers with
drug problems who were seeking help or not, abusive mothers, ONLY, then I would
agree. But his plan includes teen moms. This is where his plan fails.


Glen

| <<< Note 30.180 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| i'm not all that certain giving money to group homes is the answer. however, 
| i am all for taking the money out of teen mothers hands. they have proven they
| won't spend the money wisely so lets try something else.

	Ok Haag, show us the proof. 


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 30.185 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>	Newt said that future mothers who try to get on welfare will have their
>babies taken from them and put into an orphanage. IF it applied to mothers with
>drug problems who were seeking help or not, abusive mothers, ONLY, then I would
>agree. But his plan includes teen moms. This is where his plan fails.




 I'm sure you have his exact quote at your fingertips, right?




 Jim

| <<< Note 30.182 by AQU027::HADDAD >>>


| What Newt said was that a percentage of the staff couldn't get security
| clearances because of past chemical abuse problems.  He did NOT say that
| they're currently on drugs.

	Yeah, and that % was?????  1%. That comes out to under 10 people. And
the other repubs also said that the program to test for drugs will keep them
out of the staff. 


Glen

    re:  NEWT ACCUSES WHITE HOUSE of Past Drug use..
    
    This was interesting in that he himself, when asked about smoking pot,
    admitted that he had...
    
    Carla
    

    Re; .182 That's not exactly all (what he said). He specifically
        implicated them... Right or wrong he's sucking his heel again
        so stop defending him.

| <<< Note 30.187 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper" >>>



| I'm sure you have his exact quote at your fingertips, right?


	Exact quote, no. But they were talking about it with a repub this
morning on Today. In fact, the repub said he would dump the orphanage clause to
get the bill through. It kind of got me thinking that maybe eye of newt is off
on the tangents so when the dems argue them down, it looks like the repubs gave
in. This could be very interesting, but that would mean that newt ain't what
he's projecting himself as right now.


Glen

    
    
    
    He said the use by the WH officials was within the last few (4-5)
    years.  

    re: .184
    
    Meg, I've stated before that I am not for "welfare" for the rich,
    either.  The government shouldn't be tweaking things to the extent that
    they are meddling today.  Of course, the difference between tweaking to
    help create jobs by TAX BREAKS, and tweaking everyone's paycheck and
    handing the money over to folks that do not produce, is emmense- at
    least economically.
    
    The economy is not some zero-sum game where tax breaks to corporations
    are equivalent to directly taxing people and giving that money away to
    an unproductive group via entitlements.
    
    -steve

     The percentage was 25%, and the time frame was "within the last 4-5
    years" and the source was "a highly placed law enforcement official" (I
    think.) He was relaying information told to him by someone else.
    
     Frankly, I don't have a difficult time believing it at all. Indeed,
    I'd bet the percentage is probably even higher. Face it, people, pious
    strutting aside, government workers are people, too, and people do
    drugs. Lots of people. What's missing here is _it just doesn't matter._
    They are still able to function productively (there may be debate on
    what constitutes productively) in society.
    
     My problems with Newt are his silly focus on the drug war, and his big
    push for prayer time in schools (regardless of my disagreement with the
    1962 decision, it's just not a priority at this time.) At least the man
    has vision and understands that replacing one oligarchy with another is
    not progress.

    Vision? Maybe. Sense of priority? Not! Class and tact? Hardly...

    
|   At least the man has vision and understands that replacing one
|   oligarchy with another is not progress.
    
    Yeah, right.  His contract with America, and I quote:
    
    "cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third"
    
    Did you all read that as cutting the number of House committees by 1/3?
    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.  Wrong answer.  Commas count.  To Newt.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    I saw a report on the changes Newt wants in the committee structure 
    of the House.  Something like 3 out of 25 abolished and their
    responsibilities redistributed; and one other, Energy, substantially
    trimmed and its powers redistributed.  One suspects he has probably
    attacked the ones where he has the fewest powerful allies, or which
    have the least number of senior republicans, or ones where the
    responsibilities can arguably be easily reassigned to committees where
    he does have a stronger hand; not to mention ones where the PACS gave
    too much money to the Democrats and not enough to Republicans (these
    are likely to be the same places, it all ties together.)
    
    DougO

|    glen, you meg and the rest of that bunch have harped and harped on this
|    orphanage thing. and your all wet. newt DID NOT advocate taking babies
|    away from welfare mothers and putting them in orphanages. his statement
|    was taken entirely out of context [rant rant rant rant]....

    Nonsense.  You didn't read the fine print in your beloved contract?
    Silly you.
    
    QUOTING Newt's Contract:
    
    The Personal Responsibility Act (Welfare Reform)
    
    Reducing Illegitimacy
    
    The bill is designed to diminish the number of teenage pregnancies and
    illegitimate births. It prohibits AFDC payments and housing benefits to
    mothers under age 18 who give birth to out-of-wedlock children. The
    state has the option of extending this prohibition to mothers ages 18,
    19, and 20. The savings generated from this provision to deny AFDC to
    minor mothers (and to mothers age 18 to 20 if the state elects that
    option) is returned to the states in the form of block grants to
    provide services -- but not cash payments -- to help these young
    mothers with illegitimate children.  The state will use the funds
    for programs to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to promote adoption,
    
    *******************************************************************
    ************  TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE ORPHANAGES,  ***************
    *******************************************************************
    
    to establish and operate residential group homes for unwed mothers,
    or for any purpose the state deems appropriate. None of the funds
    may be used for abortion services or abortion counseling. 
    
    
    								-mr. bill

Note 30.181 by GAAS::BRAUCHER
    
    >>Newt got in big trouble over the weekend for suggesting that the
    
    that's not how i see it. newt made the statement with cold, calculated
    purpose. and this admin is falling for the plot hook, line, and sinker.
    look at the response the admin provided. slick, the witch, panetta all
    made public statements about newts comments. previous amdinistrations
    would have had the press secretary declare the allegations nonsense
    and move on to the next question. not slick et al. they have to rant
    and rave about it on national tee vee. gives LOTS of credibility to
    the allegations.
    
    this admin is in panic mode now and it'll get worse. they are being
    extremely sensitive to just about anything that's stated in public that
    they don't like. and they are lashing out at it. its a helluva
    situation when the president of the united states sits around watching
    news casts to determine who/what to refute next. all that wasted effort
    as the world burns.

    Well I for one find Speaker Gingrich's hypocrisy astonishing.
    When asked about his own drug use, he said it merely demonstrated that
    he was "alive and in graduate school" at the time.  In other words,
    it's OK for him, but not for others.  What crap!

    
    reminds me of the family values flap.  according to the media/elitist
    left, the repubs screwed up when someone accidentally got on this
    family values thing and decided it was a good issue.  and then there
    was the disastrous '92 repub convention, according to the media/dems.
    
    it's important to understand that the family values issue was
    calculated by repubs (Kristol's Project for a Republican Future, to be
    exact).  two years later, the repubs have overtaken the congress in a
    landslide.
    
    jeff

Note 30.198 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
    
    >    minor mothers (and to mothers age 18 to 20 if the state elects that
    >option) is returned to the states in the form of block grants to
    >provide services -- but not cash payments -- to help these young
    >mothers with illegitimate children.  The state will use the funds
    >for programs to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to promote adoption,
    >
    >*******************************************************************
    >************  TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE ORPHANAGES,  ***************
    >*******************************************************************
    >
    >to establish and operate residential group homes for unwed mothers,
    >or for any purpose the state deems appropriate. None of the funds
    
    don't go blowing a GD gasket bill. the way the bill reads the state has
    multiple options on how to spend the money TO AID THE WOMEN AND
    CHILDREN IT WILL BE WITHELD FROM!! it says NOTHING about mandatory
    orphanages. or federal government mandates of ANY kind for programs to
    help these people. where the hell does it say federal, or state,
    government WILL build, maintain, and populate orphanages. christ, you
    guys are as paranoid as your boy friday in the WH.

Note 30.186 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>| i'm not all that certain giving money to group homes is the answer. however, 
>| i am all for taking the money out of teen mothers hands. they have proven they
>| won't spend the money wisely so lets try something else.
>
>	Ok Haag, show us the proof. 



    cabrini-green, chicago. there are hundred more just like it. is that
    what your objecting to changing?

    We are the state.  We know how to take care of your child.
    
    Does the bill explicitly permit states to take Federal block grants and
    establish and operate orphanages, yes or no?
    
    								-mr. bill

    ]One suspects he has probably attacked the ones where he has the 
    ]fewest powerful allies
    
     One suspects, huh? Wow, that's authoritative. Maybe another "one
    suspects" he's eliminated useless committees and restructured
    committees whose power structure was mangled during 40 years of
    democratic "rule".

|   we're reduced to speculating about possible malevolence...
    
    Yes.  Around here, noon to three each weekday on the WRKO, plus
    twice a day on WFXT.
    
    								-mr. bill

	Haag, for someone who doesn't want government controling them, you seem
to not mind the money to be taken away and allow the state government to hold
onto it and dangle it where the STATE sees fit. 

     I agree with eye-of-newt on the UN observation. I don't like him,
     but when he's right, he's right.
    
     Chip

    Tanks ya...
    
    Chip

    Re: .183
    
    Perhaps you should consider the figures Meg quoted in .157:
    
    |current costs for a child on Welfare:
    |
    |	$2,644/year staying with the parent
    |
    |	$4,800/year in foster care
    |
    |	$36,000/year for "residential group care"
    |
    |source child Welfare League of America
    
    You claim group care is cheaper, but we have empirical evidence to the
    contrary, and empirical evidence takes precedence over supposition.
    
    The orphanage plan won't eliminate welfare, federal housing or any 
    number of other programs, so you don't get to make substitutions.

    You also ignored my report that when the orphanage system was replaced,
    the change was hailed as a significant cost *savings*.

Note 30.204 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
    >Does the bill explicitly permit states to take Federal block grants and
    >establish and operate orphanages, yes or no?
    
    permit, yes. mandate or even suggest, no. which state(s) are you aware
    of that has stated it/they will replace its welfare system, AFDC - whetever,
    with orphanages? i don't know of any myself. and if one were to choose 
    that route, and the people don't support it, then its the people job to
    vote them out and someone else in who will spend their money according
    to their wishes.
    
    what this pissing contest is all about is that the left wing kooks
    don't trust the majority to vote their way anymore. tough. they had 40
    years to get something done and failed miserably. its time to try
    something else. one thing this discussion has proved is that what left
    of the liberal power brokers, those screaming that "newt wants to take
    babies away from their mothers", are so far from the truth as to
    warrant classification as whacko's.

    ....the dimms are now executing "the politics of panic".

re: .213 by haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag::haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag
    
|   >Does the bill explicitly permit states to take Federal block grants and
|   >establish and operate orphanages, yes or no?
|  
|   yes.
    
    Thank you for that honest answer.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >]One suspects he has probably attacked the ones where he has the
    >]fewest powerful allies
    >
    >     One suspects, huh? Wow, that's authoritative.
    
    Mark, you're acting as if I'm making some hugely damaging accusation. 
    I'm not.  I'm expecting that he's attempting to undercut the power base
    of his opposition.  What do *you* think he's doing?  And if you say
    that he's engaged in pure reduction of those unnecessary organs of
    unneeded parliamentry overhead, I'd say you're agreeing with me; of
    course the definition of what isn't needed is what he cannot control.
    This is my take on the cynical approach they'll be using.
    
    >  -< we're reduced to speculating about possible malevolence... >-
    
    for the record, I don't think it is out of malevolance that one detroys
    the power bases of the opposition; it is done out of prudence.  What're
    you so bent out of shape for?
    
    DougO

    
    State control means state control.
    
      bb

Note 30.207 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>	Haag, for someone who doesn't want government controling them, you seem
>to not mind the money to be taken away and allow the state government to hold
>onto it and dangle it where the STATE sees fit. 
    
    i prefer the state determine how the states welfare monies should be
    spent vs the feds. i would also advocate the states provide more latitude
    to local communities on the dissemination of said funds. that's
    advocating less government control. so what's your point?

Note 30.215 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
   >>>>-< deconstructivist prose deleted.... >-
    
    
    rrrright.

>|   >Does the bill explicitly permit states to take Federal block grants and
>|   >establish and operate orphanages, yes or no?
>|  
>|   yes.
>    
>    Thank you for that honest answer.
 
    cute. now answer the question. which state(s) have indicated they will
    replace their welfare system with orphanages? which states have newt
    and the nasty contract mandated to take babies away from their mothers
    and put in orphanages. this is, after all, what many of you are
    claiming will happen. it's what the loony left wing kooks are saying in
    the press - which gladly oblidges. i gave an honest answer -
    selectively twisted by you, now fess up. which states are going to do
    this?

    You claim that the language in the Republican contract means nothing. 
    I say it means something.
    
    It's as simple as that.
    
    
    And you didn't know of any states yourself, what a surprise.
    Several states are talking and have been talking about punitive
    measures.  These punitive measures include taking children away
    from parents and putting them in foster care, putting them up for
    adoption, and yes, putting them in "group homes," better known as
    "orphanages."
    
    								-mr. bill

| <<< Note 30.218 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| i prefer the state determine how the states welfare monies should be
| spent vs the feds. i would also advocate the states provide more latitude
| to local communities on the dissemination of said funds. that's
| advocating less government control. so what's your point?


	The government is telling the states where to draw the line. The
governement is telling the states that the money has to be used for <insert
places>. How is the government giving the states the ability to run their own
welfare when the government keeps interfering?



Glen

| <<< Note 30.219 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>



| cute. now answer the question. which state(s) have indicated they will
| replace their welfare system with orphanages? which states have newt
| and the nasty contract mandated to take babies away from their mothers
| and put in orphanages. this is, after all, what many of you are
| claiming will happen. it's what the loony left wing kooks are saying in
| the press - which gladly oblidges. i gave an honest answer -
| selectively twisted by you, now fess up. which states are going to do
| this?


	This morning on Today, the repub they talked to said any mother who is
getting coverage NOW, will still have coverage the day after the bill gets
passed. He talked about NEW cases, but wouldn't talk about what happens down
the road for those under coverage.

   >This morning on Today, the repub they talked to said any mother who is
   >etting coverage NOW, will still have coverage the day after the bill gets
   >passed. He talked about NEW cases, but wouldn't talk about what happens down
   >the road for those under coverage.
    
    I just hope this doesn't have the same "beat the rush" effect that
    the assault weapon ban did...
    
    -b

Note 30.220 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE 
    
    >You claim that the language in the Republican contract means nothing. 
    >I say it means something.
    
    hogwash. i had to go to great lengths to get you to "see" what really
    is written there. thus your admission...    
    
    >>And you didn't know of any states yourself, what a surprise.
    
    you know of nowhere where they have instituted policy to take babies
    away from their mothers. and a futher admission...
    
    >Several states are talking and have been talking about punitive
    >measures.  These punitive measures include taking children away
    
    ...that nothing has been decided. that's a long way from where we
    started. which was with you, meg and the others saying newts policies
    are going to take babies away from their mothers. i am glad we got that
    part clear. about the only thing decided is that that STATES THEMSELVES
    will have much more say. right glen? and they will have many options.
    right bill? and that if you don't like the way your state implements
    welfare reform you can vote your state critters out. right everyone?
    outside of some very general, non-binding statements, whats this got to
    do with newt? oh....left wing loonies running scared i believe.
    

    
    And by the way, Bill Weld has reduced welfare headcount quite a bit
    without violating any federal mandates.  For example, in the welfare
    for medical reasons, he announced a medical exam would now be required.
    Guess what ?  25% of the recipients didn't bother re-applying !
    
    This is a bloated boondoggle, and you can bet the states are going to
    chop all this mandated abuse as soon as they get the power.
    
      bb

    Gene, let's say you're right, and the states will not be implementing
    the orphanage option written into the Contract.  That wouldn't convince
    me that Newt's idea was a good one -- on the contrary, it would
    convince me that Newt's idea was a *bad* one (something I already
    believe), which *fortunately* the states didn't adopt.
    
    Is this your idea of a good policy maker -- someone whose own ideas are
    so off-the-wall that you have to reassure people that they won't
    actually be implemented?  Or is this your idea of a conservative
    legislator -- one whose legislative initiatives are ineffectual?

    zzzzzzzzap!
    
    Steve's still good for a zinger or two now and then.
    
    DougO

    I'm glad I'm seen as good for *something* 8^)

    re: Steve

    Well, when you're right, you're right.

    Darn.

    I had speculated that the conservatives were going to
    trot out the "it was just campain rhetoric!  He just
    said it to get elected" tapdance they brought out during
    the "Know Newt Axes" debacle.

    From the others we're now getting "well, ha, guess we don't
    NEED term limits NOW!"  I wonder what THAT dog-n-pony show
    will be like.

    \john

    re .226
    
    Good point. With all this hoopla about the G.O.P.'s mandate, why are
    all the conservatives telling us that the states will save us from
    Newts plan. I thought this was supposed to be good for the country. If
    the best that can be said about a plan is that the states won't
    inplement it, that's pretty sad. 
    
    BTW I saw some finacial statistics on "Group homes" today too. They
    average 7 times more expensive then comparable welfare payments.
    
    BTW part 2  average FDC payment (nationally) is 375 a month. Wow what
    luxury, where do I sigh up. ( I realize there are other payments such
    as food stamps ect. that go with this but still)
    
    
    							S.R.

 the reality of newt's proposal doesn't match the rampant speculation
 we're seeing here in the 'box.  he discussed the orphanage issue during
 a press conference last week, which was televised on c-span.  the point
 he made was that over 800 babies were abandoned in d.c. last year, and
 the orphanages, or "group homes," or whatever would be chartered to
 accept unwanted babies - with no questions asked - to give a young mother
 an alternative to throwing the baby in a dumpster.  that his comments
 didn't lead off the cbs news is no surprise.

bill

>  <<< Note 30.226 by TNPUBS::JONG "Once more dear friends into the breach" >>>
>                          -< Not much of an argument >-
>
>    Gene, let's say you're right, and the states will not be implementing
>    the orphanage option written into the Contract.  That wouldn't convince


Which contract?  

Bruce

    Bruce,
    
    see Contract for America
    
    Newt seems to be working on the title of Republican Waffle, make a
    strong statement and then bwegin backing off of it.  Well maybe it is a
    boomer trait.
    
    meg

>           <<< Note 30.233 by CSC32::M_EVANS "perforated porcini" >>>
>
>    Bruce,
>    
>    see Contract for America
>    
>    Newt seems to be working on the title of Republican Waffle, make a
>    strong statement and then bwegin backing off of it.  Well maybe it is a
>    boomer trait.
>    
>    meg
>

Highlight that here in the "Contract WITH America" not "... for America".

Bruce




    REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

**  For more information, call 1-800-742-2662,  **
**  effective Wednesday, September 28, 1994.    **


The Contract's Core Principles.  The Contract with America is
rooted in 3 core principles:

     Accountability - The government is too big and spends too
much, and Congress and unelected bureaucrats have become so
entrenched to be unresponsive to the public they are supposed to
serve.  The GOP contract restores accountability to government.

     Responsibility - Bigger government and more federal
programs usurp personal responsibility from families and
individuals.  The GOP contract restores a proper balance between
government and personal responsibility.

     Opportunity - The American Dream is out of the reach of too
many families because of burdensome government regulations and
harsh tax laws.  The GOP contract restores the American dream.

****************************


                       The Contract

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as
citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to
change its policies, but even more important, to restore the
bonds of trust between the people and their elected
representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we
offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written
commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of
one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that
will transform the way Congress works. That historic change
would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive,
and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning
of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of
the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act
"with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right."
To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of
scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way
free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican
majority will immediately pass the following major reforms,
aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people
in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country
also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a
comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee
staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax
increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by
implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we
shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be
given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair
vote and each to be immediately available this day for public
inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative
line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an
out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same
budget constraints as families and businesses.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT

An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing,
"good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death
penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this
summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and
additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their
neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting
welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for
additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare
programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with
work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT

Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption,
strengthening rights of parents in their children's education,
stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care
tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in
American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax
penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to
provide middle class tax relief.

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT

No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the
essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen
our national defense and maintain our credibility around the
world.

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT

Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces
seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on
Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private
long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of
what they have earned over the years.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT

Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation,
neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis,
strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded
mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT

"Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and
reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of
litigation.

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT

A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians
with citizen legislators.

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report
to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget
savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the
legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget
deficit will be less than it would have been without the
enactment of these bills.

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their
mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract
with America.

***************************

For more information, call 1-800-742-2662, effective Wednesday,
September 28, 1994.

| <<< Note 30.231 by GLDOA::SHOOK "head 'em up, move 'em out" >>>




| the reality of newt's proposal doesn't match the rampant speculation we're 
| seeing here in the 'box. he discussed the orphanage issue during a press 
| conference last week, which was televised on c-span. the point he made was 
| that over 800 babies were abandoned in d.c. last year, and the orphanages, or 
| "group homes," or whatever would be chartered to accept unwanted babies - with
| no questions asked - to give a young mother an alternative to throwing the 
| baby in a dumpster. that his comments didn't lead off the cbs news is no 
| surprise.

	Bill, it was no surprise that Dole is distancing himself from what you
feel is a media blown story. If there is no harm in it, why is Dole (and repub
Kerry I believe) distancing themselves from Eye of Newt from the get go? Why
did some other repub leader go on the Today show yesterday and state up front
if the orphange part had to be cut out, that would not be a problem? If it is
so harmless, why are all the main GOP leaders running away from it?


Glen

    Glen,
    
    Could it be the Dem's don't have a lock on running in "panic mode?"
    
    meg

| Could it be the Dem's don't have a lock on running in "panic mode?"


	Come on meg, you know they would never admit that! No, they will have
to find another answer, if they even bother to answer it. :-)


Glen

    > the reality of newt's proposal doesn't match the rampant speculation
    > we're seeing here in the 'box. 
    
    One is reminded of soapbox hysteria over gov position nominations, over
    health care, over trade negotiations, over foreign policy...usually at
    the expense of the Democrats.   payback is a b*tch, ain't it?  oh,
    you'd rather we discuss the text of Newt's proposals rather than the
    semi-hysterical interpretations thereof?  Sorry- you who've lived by 
    the soundbite will die by the soundbite.
    
    DougO

Note 30.226 by TNPUBS::JONG
    
    >>Gene, let's say you're right, and the states will not be implementing
    >>the orphanage option written into the Contract. 
    
    yeah. lets. because most states won't do this no matter what. and the
    feds won't mandate it. period.
    
    > That wouldn't convince
    >me that Newt's idea was a good one -- on the contrary, it would
    >convince me that Newt's idea was a *bad* one (something I already
    >believe), which *fortunately* the states didn't adopt.
   
    what idea is that wordy? orphanages? start thinking a little bit. the
    repub (not just newt) signed the contract that will give the states MUCH
    MORE latitude in how they implement welfare reform within their
    boundries. among the multitudes of options was listed orphanages.
    nothing more or less was stated or implied. christ, you liberals are
    gettings paranoid.
     
    >Is this your idea of a good policy maker -- someone whose own ideas are
    >so off-the-wall that you have to reassure people that they won't
    >actually be implemented?  Or is this your idea of a conservative
    
    that's not what i said. i said the STATE GOVERNMENTS, supported by the
    people in those states that vote, will decide how welfare reform will
    be enacted. the feds will simply be giving them "x" dollars to do the
    job. comprehension problems this week? sheesh.

    you left wing kooks make me laugh with all this talk of repubs
    distancing themselves from this minor point or that minor point. look
    what's happening to your quacks in the WH. its wholesale abandonment.
    and, as i predicted, it'll get MUCH MUCH worse as i will elaborate on
    in the slick topic where it belongs. remember i said this. MUCH WORSE!!
    and quickly too.

	Gene, Gene, Gene..... if all the points were minor, why would they feel
the need to distance themselves from them?

    	re .-1
    	
    	Because the anal-retentive liberal press is more powerful than
    	the truth for most Americans.

| <<< Note 30.242 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>


| Because the anal-retentive liberal press is more powerful than the truth for 
| most Americans.

	Yeah, that's why they spew crap about the "liberal press" all the time,
but now with Eye of Newt, they just distance themselves. Not a very good
attempt of yours Joe.


Glen

Note 30.241 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
>	Gene, Gene, Gene..... if all the points were minor, why would they feel
>the need to distance themselves from them?
    
    define "distance themselves". has anyone who originally signed the
    contract withdrawn their support? to be sure they all didn't agree with
    all the points in the contract, but they did sign it as an overall good
    starting point. your facination with non-binding minor details is
    absurd.

| <<< Note 30.244 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>



| define "distance themselves". 

	I've been doing so Gene all along. 

| has anyone who originally signed the contract withdrawn their support? 

	From parts of the Newt plans, yeah.

| to be sure they all didn't agree with all the points in the contract, 

	Then this was a ploy to get the american people on their side. I mean,
would YOU sign a contract that you didn't agree with Gene? Thanks for helping
point that out to us.

| but they did sign it as an overall good starting point. 

	A contract is supposed to be binding..... why is it ok now that some
repubs who signed it want to back away from it? Surely you wouldn't let the
dimms get away with that now, would you?

| your facination with non-binding minor details is absurd.

	No.... a contract is supposed to be BINDING. You don't sign it unless
you plan to do what it says. Well, unless you got fancy lawyers who will get
you out of it... but then that would be sleazy, wouldn't it Gene?

Glen

Note 30.245 by BIGQ::SILVA 

>| define "distance themselves". 
>
>	I've been doing so Gene all along. 

    dodge and weave.
    
>| has anyone who originally signed the contract withdrawn their support? 
>	From parts of the Newt plans, yeah.
>
>| to be sure they all didn't agree with all the points in the contract, 
>
>	Then this was a ploy to get the american people on their side.
    
    oh. i see. you would prefer to try and enact major legislation WITHOUT
    the american people on your side. your boy slick is trying that now.
    and failing miserably.
    
    >I mean,
    >would YOU sign a contract that you didn't agree with Gene? Thanks for 
    >helping point that out to us.

    you really are having a helluva time comprehending today glen. i doubt 
    that anyone signing that contract agreed with ALL the points in it. its
    called compromise. something slick is finding out the hard way is
    mandatory to get anything done in our system of government. you really
    are looking silly.
    

| <<< Note 30.246 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>



| >| to be sure they all didn't agree with all the points in the contract,
| >
| >	Then this was a ploy to get the american people on their side.

| oh. i see. you would prefer to try and enact major legislation WITHOUT the 
| american people on your side. your boy slick is trying that now. and failing 
| miserably.

	You crack me up! They knowing signed something they all didn't agree
with from the beginning. They are now backing away from those things they said
they would do, and you see nothing wrong with this. Failed miserably? I don't
think so.

| you really are having a helluva time comprehending today glen. i doubt
| that anyone signing that contract agreed with ALL the points in it. its
| called compromise. 

	Gene, if one compromises to come up with a contract, that is one thing.
To start backing away from a signed contract is not compromise, it is
backpeddling. Something you keep saying is wrong, but something you now feel is
ok cause it's the repubs?

    House Republicans have agreed to cancel funding for 23 policy
    focus/internal wonk tanks, including the women's caucus, the black
    caucus, and the main democratic policy body.  Newt continues to do what
    we predicted/observed yesterday: chop out his oppositions power bases.
    Mark Levesque hasn't yet come back to tell me why it bent him out of
    shape so bad for me to share that observation yesterday.
    
    DougO

    dougo, cancelling the funding for those organizations is a good thing.
    we've hashed that over many a time.
=========================================
Note 30.247 by BIGQ::SILVA 
    
| >| to be sure they all didn't agree with all the points in the contract,
| >	Then this was a ploy to get the american people on their side.
| oh. i see. you would prefer to try and enact major legislation WITHOUT the 
| american people on your side. your boy slick is trying that now. and failing 
| miserably.

>	You crack me up! They knowing signed something they all didn't agree
>with from the beginning. 
    
    do you suppose the FF's all agreed with ALL aspects of the constitution
    before the signed it? this ain't a cute tidy little world of black and
    white glen.

>| you really are having a helluva time comprehending today glen. i doubt
>| that anyone signing that contract agreed with ALL the points in it. its
>| called compromise. 
>
>	Gene, if one compromises to come up with a contract, that is one thing.
>To start backing away from a signed contract is not compromise, it is
>backpeddling. 
    
    you avoided the question earlier. so i ask it again. which signers of
    the contract have retracted their support for it?
    
    None. Backpeddling is something YOUR elected leadership is very good
    at. i am surprised at your ignorance of its definition.
    

    	All this "liberal press" garbage is going to make me ill.
    If something conseravatives support doesn't get a good write up it's
    because of the Liberal press. Makes it convient for winning arguments,
    out stuffs facts but your is from the liberal press. How is it that no
    magor news source, in your conservative opinion has a conservative
    slant. Seems that would be a good selling point if what you all said
    was true, and I bet somewhere, money would win out over ideolgy.
    
    								S.R.                            

    re -1
    
    the mangement of NBC and CBS OPENLY admit they support most of the
    agenda put forth by the democrats the last 40 years. back to bill
    haley's time and then some. they don't hide the fact. so what makes you
    believe their organizations don't reflect that philosophy? 

    re -1
    
    	I sure they do reflect that philosophy, but that doesn't mean that
    they aren't capable of a little journalistic intergrity now and them.
    Alot of the conservatives in this box seem to work on the idea if it
    came from the main stream media (i.e not Rush, the national review or
    the 700 club) then it's garbage. And what makes the what the openly
    conservative minority media (as listed above) trust worthy enough to
    not let thier agenda intrude (don't try to tell me they don't have one)
    when the mainstream media can not be trusted (in your APPARENT opinion,
    I don't want to say what your opinion is for you)
    
    	Also, what about the news mags. I watch very little network news
    except for CNN and C-SPAN
    
    
    						S.R.
    

    .235

>	Bill, it was no surprise that Dole is distancing himself from what you
>feel is a media blown story. If there is no harm in it, why is Dole (and repub
>Kerry I believe) distancing themselves from Eye of Newt from the get go? Why
>did some other repub leader go on the Today show yesterday and state up front
>if the orphange part had to be cut out, that would not be a problem? If it is
>so harmless, why are all the main GOP leaders running away from it?


    well, kerry is a dem who has been known to distance himself from
    his _own_ positions, so his current position on any issue could
    be termed temporary.  (recall his impassioned speech in the senate
    against the clinton budget, right before he voted for it.  he was
    also strongly against the gulf war.  for a while.)

    as far as bob dole and the other unnamed repub go, i would have to 
    see exactly what the q&a were to see if in fact they are responding
    to newt's idea or some media-contrived baby-napping scheme. :*)

    bill

    
     .238
    
    >One is reminded of soapbox hysteria over gov position nominations, over
    >health care, over trade negotiations, over foreign policy...usually at
    >the expense of the Democrats.   payback is a b*tch, ain't it?  oh,
    >you'd rather we discuss the text of Newt's proposals rather than the
    >semi-hysterical interpretations thereof?  Sorry- you who've lived by 
    >the soundbite will die by the soundbite.
    
    well, so far it appears that only a few of the most liberal dems are
    are buying - or generating - all of the hype about newt and his evil
    band of repubs.  he likes to point out in his speeches that in the 
    period leading up to the election his media coverage was 100% negative,
    so he is well-steeled against these "soundbites."  and, they have had
    no impact on his popularity in the house, at least among the majority,
    as evidenced by a recent election.

    the disarray of the dem party right now would seem to guarantee that
    a supply of soundbites will be available for mangling by the media and
    a boxer or two for years to come - direct from the speaker's chair. 8^)

    bill

    I was going to say that Newt was doing his own dirty work without
    any dem help, but I won't.
    
    I was going to say that it may be as embarrassing for the repubs to
    abandon him now, hence his "popularity", but I won't.

    
    
    RE: .248  Nice try to promote your liberal agenda, Doug.  Here is a
    list of the wonk tanks that are targeted.
    
    
    Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus
    Arts Caucus
    Auoto Caucus
    Black Caucus
    Border Caucus
    California Democratic Congressional Delegation
    Children and Families Caucus
    Democratic Study Group
    Environmental Study Conference
    Federal Governmnet Service
    Hispanic Caucus
    House Wednesday Group
    Human Rights Caucus
    Hunger Caucus
    Narcotics abuse and Control Caucus
    New York State Congressional Delegation
    Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition
    Older Americans Caucus
    Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation Steering Committee
    Populist Caucus
    Republican Study Committee
    Rural Caucus
    Space Caucus
    Steel Caucus
    Sunbelt Caucus
    Textile Caucus
    Travel and Tourism Caucus
    Woman's Issues Caucus

    and no more commemorative legislation!!
    
    jeff

    
    News stated that many of these caucuses can't account for a large % of
    monies budgeted to them...
    
      I hope they ferret out all those greedy scumbags....
    

| <<< Note 30.250 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>



| >	Gene, if one compromises to come up with a contract, that is one thing.
| >To start backing away from a signed contract is not compromise, it is
| >backpeddling.

| you avoided the question earlier. so i ask it again. which signers of the 
| contract have retracted their support for it?

	Dole, Kerry, and some guy who's name escapes me right now who was on
the Today show 2 days ago. 

| None. Backpeddling is something YOUR elected leadership is very good at. i am 
| surprised at your ignorance of its definition.

	Nice try Gene, but you haven't answered anything yet...

    Watched Newt & Armey on C-SPAN last night; they pointed out that
    the Republicans also had LOS that didn't do a very good job of
    accounting either.  They pointed out that they could have just cut
    at the liberal caucuses and provided more for those that were of
    interest to the conservatives, but they felt that the tax payers
    had spoken and that meant NO FUNDING for any special interest group
    so they zapped them all.
    
    Newt said the caucuses don't have to disband; it's just that the
    new House isn't going to allow the tax payers to foot the bills.
    
    

| <<< Note 30.254 by GLDOA::SHOOK "head 'em up, move 'em out" >>>



| well, kerry is a dem who has been known to distance himself from his _own_ 
| positions, so his current position on any issue could be termed temporary.  

	I'm talking about the repub Kerry, not the dem Kerry.

| as far as bob dole and the other unnamed repub go, i would have to see exactly
| what the q&a were to see if in fact they are responding to newt's idea or 
| some media-contrived baby-napping scheme. :*)

	Dole states we must work WITH the dems, after Newt states no
compromise. Newt talks about the orphanage thang, and Dole says no. 
Everytime he opens his mouth, it seems Dole is saying the oppisite. 
Dole APPEARS to WANT to work with the administration, and Newt seems 
hell bent on NOT. 


Glen

    
    dole will win no points working with the BC administration.  that is
    clear to him i'm sure, regardless of his dovish facade.
    
    jeff

           <<< Note 30.250 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

Gene, as someone universally recognized for his unbiased perspective, I 
have to say you lost this one. Big time.

>    do you suppose the FF's all agreed with ALL aspects of the constitution
>    before the signed it? this ain't a cute tidy little world of black and
>    white glen.

You mean some parts of the constitution can be ignored? Where's MadMike 
when we need him?

>    None. Backpeddling is something YOUR elected leadership is very good
>    at. i am surprised at your ignorance of its definition.

No. Backpeddling is a politician's favorite form of exercise; BC's not 
better or worse at it, and no more inclined to practice it, than anyone
else - on either side of the aisle. 

    Gene Haag, you say I'm paranoid over this orphanage thing, like it
    never existed as an option, but here's an entry in the hot new Internet
    newsgroup alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich that shows Newt is still eager
    to Twist us.
    
    Paranoid?  Ha!  Next thing you'll be telling us all the talk of orphanages 
    was just a fantasy concocted by 'BOxers...!
    
Article: 319
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!world!prc
From: [email protected] (Peter R Cook)
Subject: Re: Newt's Hypocrisy on Meet the Press
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <[email protected]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 15:39:03 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: nntpd.lkg.dec.com alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:319 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:163027
 
[email protected] (Elizabeth C King) writes:
 
>	I thought Newt looked pretty good on Meet the Press for a couple 
>of minutes.  He brought out the charts to show how the budget can be 
>balanced merely by cutting growth (Social Security Excepted) in existing 
>budgets.  I think he calculated that an across the board cut of 20% of 
>the projected budget for 2002 could be achieved without cutting real 
>money for any budget item.  Sounded pretty good.  But, then I think he 
>said he was for increasing the border patrol and creating a NEW orphanage 
>system. 
 
	Even though it would work wonderfully (IMHO), I don't think the
	orphange plan will go through.
 
 
-- 
Peter R. Cook 						[email protected]  
PRC Records			                        [email protected]
Marlborough, MA USA	                                Up the Irons Forever!
               BLUE STEEL's debut release coming December 1! 

What he said was that there are 800 babies per year being dumped into
dumpsters in DC alone.  He said an orphanage is preferrable to the dumpster.
Is that something that a liberal can agree with?

Bruce

|    LISTEN WITH YOUR OWN EARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|   What he said was that there are 800 babies per year being dumped into
|   dumpsters in DC alone.
    
    Two points.  Either some conservatives have major problems with their
    ears.  Or some conservatives lie.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Bruce, it was a joke...  You had to be here to get it.
    
    Seriously, though, is a national policy of cutting off welfare to
    newborn infants going to increase or decrease use of dumpsters? Newt
    would have us believe it will decrease. I believe it will increase, as
    such policies have throughout human history.

    
    RE: .265
    
    Good one Steve!!!!
    
    The guy starts out by saying... " I thought Newt looked pretty good..."
                                      ^^^^^^^^^
    
     Then the last sentence starts out with.. "But, then I think he said.."
                                                         ^^^^^^^
    
    
    
     Very authoritative reference!!!!
    
    
    
    RE: .267
    
     Did he or did he not say what .266 referenced?? yes or no???
    

Note 30.260 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
>| you avoided the question earlier. so i ask it again. which signers of the 
>| contract have retracted their support for it?
>
>	Dole, Kerry, and some guy who's name escapes me right now who was on
    
    just which of the 10 "contracts" will Kerry and Dole vote against when
    the time comes? we'll assume that they will all come up for a vote
    within 3 months. i'll put my prediction online right now. everyone who
    signed the original contract (it's not really a binding contract from a
    legal standpoint in spite of all your raving insinuations) will vote
    for at least 8 of the 10 contracts. i've already stated that the
    signers agreed with the contracts as a whole and some individual may
    not agree 100% on some of the points. also, dole will vote yeah on ALL
    of them. so tell us, which will contracts have dole and kerry said they
    don't support. and don't bring up that orphanage crap again. that
    OPTION is one small part of many options of ONE of the contracts -
    which we proved yesterday. old news.
    
>>the Today show 2 days ago. 

    a real unbiased and worth news source i am sure. i laugh everytime i
    here that "get close, get informed" garbage advertising the nightly
    news. i send my comments to them regularly at [email protected].
    "today" is the same program that covered US and world news in 48
    seconds this AM and spent 28 minutes talking about 2 half-sisters who
    met while working together in K-mart. find another news source glen.
    this ones lacking even minute credibility.

    
    If Gingrich said more than two newborns are dumped in a dumpster
    each day in DC, then Gingrich lives in his own world.
    
    I'm giving Gingrich the benefit of the doubt.  I think the two noters
    here have hearing problems.  Anyone who would quote such a statistic
    without pausing to think has thinking problems.
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr. bill, maybe Newt is counting aborted fetuses.
    
    Then again, maybe these DC mothers are despairing over the continued
    presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba.

It was pointed out on the news that Newt has proposed about eight different
coordinated options to reduce the welfare dependency that often results
from teen mothers choosing the welfare route.

Orphanages are only part of the total package.

Job training, day care, and several other things to keep the women from
becoming welfare-dependent are also part of the plan.

/john

    But John, how do those other proposals differ from Administration
    policy?

    
|   But the opponents pretend he only proposed orphanages
    
    Wrong.  See 30.204.  Better yet, see
    
    http://www.bxb.dec.com/Riscee/people/wwlk/gop_contract.html
    
    Or, specifically, the fine print,
    
    http://www.bxb.dec.com/Riscee/people/wwlk/gop_contract_03.html
    
    								-mr. bill

Note 30.264 by USMVS::DAVIS 
    
>>    do you suppose the FF's all agreed with ALL aspects of the constitution
>>    before the signed it? this ain't a cute tidy little world of black and
>>    white glen.
>
>You mean some parts of the constitution can be ignored? Where's MadMike 
>when we need him?

    davis, you win the soapbox dolt of the week award. how you could
    interpret my statements about the FF's attitudes around the contents of
    the constitution BEFORE signing it to imply some aspects of it could be
    ignored is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond any logic i've ever seen.
    
    have another hit.

	Gene, if a builder signed a contract that was written up, would you be
satisfied that (s)he did 8 of the 10 things that were in the contract? 

	Now, as far as Today goes, they talked to the guy LIVE Gene. HE spoketh
the wordths. Please explain why we can't trust the guys own words?

Note 30.265 by TNPUBS::JONG 
    
    >Gene Haag, you say I'm paranoid over this orphanage thing, like it
    >never existed as an option, but here's an entry in the hot new Internet
    >newsgroup alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich that shows Newt is still eager
    >to Twist us.
    
    lt. gen. cookster is wrong this time. i watch that show myself and
    that's NOT was newt said about orphanages. getting pretty desperate
    ain't you?

    > RE: .248  Nice try to promote your liberal agenda, Doug.  Here is a
    > list of the wonk tanks that are targeted.
    
    thanks for the list; I see all three of the ones I mentioned on there.
    you've confirmed exactly what I said.  Gingrich is targetting his
    opposition's power bases.  Smart move.  When and if he gets his bills
    through the House, lets not forget he did it by cutting his opponents
    staff funding and policy bodies; I don't wanna hear any guff about
    'popular mandates' when he's just playing good institutional insider
    politics.
    
    DougO

    
    Newt also promises each bill will be sent to one, and only one,
    committee.
    
    This man promises to be the most powerful speaker in several generations.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    RE: .279
    
    Sorta will make up for the "power bases" the repubs had lo these many
    years....
    

           <<< Note 30.276 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


>    davis, you win the soapbox dolt of the week award. how you could
>    interpret my statements about the FF's attitudes around the contents of
>    the constitution BEFORE signing it to imply some aspects of it could be
>    ignored is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond any logic i've ever seen.
    
>    have another hit.

Ok. Correct me if I'm wrong:

Wordy: They signed a contract, knowing that they would only back eight of 
ten items. The rest they'd ignore. That's dishonest. They should work out a 
contract they can agree to abide by BEFORE they sign.

Haag: hey, do you think the founding fathers agreed with every item in the 
constitution?

Call me a dolt, but since you drew the parallel to the FF's, I figured you
meant to suggest that they, too, planned to ignore those articles they
didn't personally like. 

Tom

>Wordy: They signed a contract, knowing that they would only back eight of 
>ten items. The rest they'd ignore. That's dishonest. They should work out a 
>contract they can agree to abide by BEFORE they sign.

They signed a contract to bring 10 issues to the floor of the house, many of
which have been blocked by the dems over several years. This is a good thing
yes? 

They did not agree to support the issues, just give them the airing they deserve
and the people demand, then debate and vote. How is that dishonest?

Here are party leaders willing/encouraging debate on issues which they may not
themselves agree on. This is a refreshing departure from the last 20+ years
of dem control.

These notes are looking more and more like a which hunt :-(

A side note:

I wonder if Clintons budget will be DOA?

Doug.

Note 30.282 by USMVS::DAVIS 
    
>Ok. Correct me if I'm wrong:
>
>Wordy: They signed a contract, knowing that they would only back eight of 
>ten items. The rest they'd ignore. That's dishonest. They should work out a 

    WRONG! there is no "they" in the equation. i said its likely that many
    who signed didn't agree 100% with everything that's in it. the vast
    majority agree with the vast majority of the contract. hell, i thought
    you dimms would advocate some repub dissent if for no other reason than
    there would be more debate on the issues.

>Haag: hey, do you think the founding fathers agreed with every item in the 
>constitution?

    totally irrelevent. the constitution was passed a long time ago. the
    contracts haven't even been debated yet.

    i see NO WHERE in this contract that would lead me to believe newt or
    the feds are going to take babies away from their mothers. NOTHING!
    even in this here "fine print" mr. bill likes to hoot and hollar about.
    NOTHING people.
    
    
The Personal Responsibility Act (Welfare Reform)

Highlights:

The Personal Responsibility Act overhauls the American welfare
system to reduce government dependency, attack illegitimacy,
require welfare recipients to enter work programs and cap total
welfare spending. The bill's main thrust is to give states greater
control over the benefits programs, work programs, and Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments and
requirements. 

Under the bill, the structure for AFDC payments will drastically
change. Mothers under the age of 18 may no longer receive
AFDC payments for children born out of wedlock and mothers
who are ages 18, 19 and 20 can be prohibited by the states from
receiving AFDC payments and housing benefits. Mothers must also
establish paternity to as a condition for receiving AFDC payments,
except in cases of rape and incest. Also, in order to reduce the
amount of time families are on welfare, states must begin moving
welfare recipients into work programs if they have received welfare
for two years. States are given the option to drop families from
receiving AFDC benefits after they have received welfare for two
years if at least one year has been spent in a work program. To
further limit the length of time on AFDC, states must drop
families from the program after they have received a total of five
years of AFDC benefits. 

The bill allows states to design their own work programs and
determine who will be required to participate. Welfare recipients
must work an average of 35 hours a week or enroll in work
training programs. By the year 2001, 1.5 million AFDC recipients
will be required to work. 

The bill caps the spending growth of several major welfare
programs (AFDC, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and public
housing) and consolidates 10 nutrition programs, including food
stamps, WIC and the school lunch program, into one discretionary
block grant to states. 

Finally, the bill grants greater flexibility to states allowing them to
design their own work programs and determine who participates in
them and can choose to opt out of the current AFDC program
by converting their share of AFDC payments into fixed annual
block grants. 

Background:

In the mid-1960s President Lyndon Johnson launched a war on
poverty with the hope of creating a "Great Society." The federal
government was mobilized to fight poverty by creating a slew of
new federal programs and expanding existing ones, such as AFDC.
Established in 1935 under the Social Security Act, AFDC was
created to help widows care for their children. It now serves
divorced, deserted and never-married individuals and their children.
AFDC continues to be the major cash welfare program for
families. Federal funds pay at least 50 percent of each state's
benefits and administrative costs. In June 1994, enrollment reached
5,028,000 families, just below the record of 5,083,000 set in March
1994. Individual recipients numbered 14.2 million and unemployed
two-parent families totaled 362,000. Also, food stamp enrollment
in June 1994 was 27.4 million persons -- a record high.
Although almost half of the mothers who enter AFDC can be
expected to leave within 2 years, most return. Long- term users
often are young, never-married, and high school dropouts; and
most AFDC families begin with a birth to a teenager.. 

In the past few years, the federal governments and state
governments have tried to change and improve the welfare system.
The Clinton Administration campaigned to "end welfare as we
know it," though, to date, Congress has not held a vote on its
proposal. The administration proposal limits AFDC benefits to two
years, during which employment services would be provided to
recipients. Nearly 20 welfare reform bills have been introduced in
the 103d Congress, including three major proposals offered by
Republican members: 

The GOP Leadership Welfare Reform Bill (H.R. 3500) - After
two years on AFDC (or less at a state's option), welfare recipients
must work 35 hours per week in a private or public sector job. It
also requires mothers to establish paternity before receiving AFDC
benefits, denies AFDC benefits to parents under age 18, and
denies increased AFDC benefits for having additional children
while on welfare -- unless a state enact laws to exempt itself
from any of these requirements. 

The Real Welfare Reform Act (H.R. 4566) - This measure
prohibits AFDC, food stamps, and public housing to unmarried
mothers under age 21 (the age limit is raised to 25 in 1998);
requires paternity to be established as a condition for receiving
AFDC, food stamps and public housing; provides a $1,000
pro-marriage tax credit, requires 50 percent of AFDC recipients to
work by 1996; requires single able-bodied food stamp recipients to
work for benefits; and freezes the rate of growth in several
welfare programs at 3.5 percent per year. 

The Welfare and Teenage Pregnancy Reduction Act (H.R. 1293) -
This measure freezes AFDC at current funding levels and returns
the program to the states in the form of block grants, giving
states maximum discretion to design their own welfare-to-work
programs. The bill also prohibits AFDC benefits to parents under
age 18 and requires that paternity be established in order to
receive AFDC benefits. 

Provisions:

Reducing Illegitimacy

The bill is designed to diminish the number of teenage pregnancies
and illegitimate births. It prohibits AFDC payments and housing
benefits to mothers under age 18 who give birth to
out-of-wedlock children. The state has the option of extending
this prohibition to mothers ages 18, 19, and 20. The savings
generated from this provision to deny AFDC to minor mothers
(and to mothers age 18 to 20 if the state elects that option) is
returned to the states in the form of block grants to provide
services -- but not cash payments -- to help these young
mothers with illegitimate children. The state will use the funds for
programs to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to promote
adoption, to establish and operate orphanages, to establish and
operate residential group homes for unwed mothers, or for any
purpose the state deems appropriate. None of the funds may be
used for abortion services or abortion counseling. 

The bill also includes a number of other provisions to reduce
illegitimacy. While AFDC is prohibited to mothers ages 17 and
younger who have children out of wedlock, mothers age 18 who
give birth to illegitimate children must live at home in order to
receive aid -- unless the mother marries the biological father or
marries an individual who legally adopts the child. Mothers already
receiving AFDC will not receive an increase in benefits if
additional children are born out of wedlock. 

Finally, the bill requires mothers to establish paternity as a
condition for receiving AFDC. Exceptions are provided for cases of
rape and incest and if the state determines that efforts to
establish paternity would result in physical danger to the mother.
The bill requires states to establish paternity in 90 percent of
their cases. Also, states are encouraged to develop procedures in
public hospitals and clinics to determine paternity and establish
legal procedures that help pinpoint paternity in a reasonable time
period. 

Requiring Work

States are allowed to establish their own work training and
education programs to help recipients move from the welfare
program to paid employment as soon as possible. The training
programs require recipients to work for an average of 35 hours a
week or 30 hours per week plus five hours engaged in job search
activities. One parent in a two-parent family is required to work
32 hours a week plus eight hours of job searching. States may not
provide the work programs for more than two years to any
individual or family which receives welfare benefits. States have
the option of ending AFDC to families that have been on the
welfare rolls for two years, if at least one year was spent in a
work program. All states must terminate AFDC payments to
families who have received a total of five years of welfare
benefits -- regardless of whether or not the AFDC recipient has
participated in a jobs program. 

As long as states meet the participation requirements, the federal
government will not advise other parts of the program. States will
design their own work programs and determine who will be
required to participate in them. Part of the participation
requirement is requiring a certain number of recipients to
participate in the job program. Starting in 1996, 100,000 AFDC
recipients will be required to work; in 1997, 200,000 recipients will
be required; in 1998, 400,000 will be required; in 1999, 600,000
recipients will be required; in 2000, 900,000 will be required; and
by 2001, 1.5 million recipients will be required to work. 

Identified non-parents, usually men, who receive food stamp
benefits are required to work -- eight hours per week for those
benefits. 

Capping the Growth of Welfare Spending

The bill caps the spending growth of AFDC, SSI and numerous
public housing programs, and the mandatory work program
established under the bill. The cap equals the amount spent the
preceding year for these programs with an adjustment for inflation
plus growth in poverty population. The entitlement status of these
programs is ended. 

The bill also consolidates a number of nutrition programs into a
block grant to states, funded in the first year at 95 percent of
the aggregate amount of the individual programs. Programs
consolidated into the block grant include food stamps, the
supplemental feeding program for women, infants, and children
(WIC), and the school lunch and breakfast programs, among
others. Under the block grant, states will distribute food assistance
to economically disadvantaged individuals more freely. 

To further reduce welfare spending, welfare assistance (AFDC, SSI,
food stamps, housing and host of other public assistance) is denied
to non-citizens, except refugees over 75 years of age, those
lawfully admitted to the U.S., or those who have resided in the
U.S. for at least five years. Emergency medical assistance will
continue to be provided to non-citizens. 

State Flexibility

The bill allows states to create their own work programs and
determine who participates in them. States can also opt out of
the AFDC program and convert their AFDC payments into a
fixed annual block grant and have the option to provide new
residents AFDC benefits comparable to the level provided in the
state in which they previously resided. To help combat illiteracy,
states may reduce AFDC payments by up to $75 per month to
mothers under the age of 21 who have not completed high school
or earned their high school "equivalency". Payments may also be
reduced if a dependent child does not maintain minimum school
attendance. 

Other Provisions

State adoption agencies are encouraged to decrease the amount of
time a child must wait to be adopted (today, the average child
waits approximately 2.8 years). Specifically, the bill prohibits states
from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin
when placing children for adoption. 

Also, AFDC beneficiaries who the state identifies as addicted to
drugs or alcohol must enroll in an addiction treatment program
and participate in random drug testing in order to continue
receiving welfare benefits. 

Estimated Savings

The bill is estimated to result in net savings of approximately $40
billion over five years. The denial of welfare to non- citizens
saves about $22 billion, the cap on welfare spending saves about
$18 billion, the nutrition block grant saves about $11 billion, and
the requirement for paternity establishment saves about $2 billion.
The costs included in the bill are $9.9 billion for the work
program and approximately $2 billion for miscellaneous state
options. 


Creation Date: Friday, November 11, 1994
Last Modified: Friday, November 11, 1994 

-mr. bill 

    Anent .286: No, Gene, the mothers will be giving up their babies
    voluntarily, as a direct consequence on this change in policy:
    
Under the bill, the structure for AFDC payments will drastically
change. Mothers under the age of 18 may no longer receive
AFDC payments for children born out of wedlock and mothers
who are ages 18, 19 and 20 can be prohibited by the states from
receiving AFDC payments and housing benefits. Mothers must also
establish paternity to as a condition for receiving AFDC payments,
except in cases of rape and incest. Also, in order to reduce the
amount of time families are on welfare, states must begin moving
welfare recipients into work programs if they have received welfare
for two years. States are given the option to drop families from
receiving AFDC benefits after they have received welfare for two
years if at least one year has been spent in a work program. To
further limit the length of time on AFDC, states must drop
families from the program after they have received a total of five
years of AFDC benefits.
    
    By the way, your hollering about whether the Contract With America is
    or is not all talk and no action is a moot point.  Newt Gingrich has
    said that he intends to vote on *and pass* all 10 items in 100 days.
    Not bring up, not debate, not vote on -- PASS.
    
    He, like I, expects the Republicans to be judged on how well that goal
    is achieved.  As the GOP controls an absolute majority of the House and
    Senate, I expect no excuses.

    Most of what Newt proposes involves turning much of the decision-
    making back to individual states.  The points mentioned by Jong
    in .287 regarding no add'l funds for add'l children and subsidized
    housing has been passed into law here in Georgia; so it shouldn't
    come as much of a shock to those currently on welfare in this state.
    
    When these points were passed into law last year the state legislature
    made it clear that they were sending a message.  I watched a local
    news anchor interview a number of young woman (under age 20) who
    already had at least 2 children; all of them were quite candid in
    admitting they hadn't tried to prevent pregnancy because they KNEW
    they would get their own apartments etc.
    
    No one wants to see babies suffer, but the system today is BROKEN!!
    After following stories surrounding the deaths of 2 babies locally,
    one tortured by foster parents and the other starved and burned with
    an iron by her own mother; I have a hard time believing either of
    these babies would have been worse off in an orphanage!!! .(BTW, both
    babies are dead).
    
    

    Karen, perhaps you could tell us how the reforms are working in
    Georgia.  Are welfare rolls down?  Are welfare costs down?  Are you
    seeing fewer dumpster babies?  Do you have orphanages?  Or what?

    re -1
    
    precisely karen. that has to stop. wordy et al, haven't said a damn
    thing about how to fix this. only bitch to the high heavens that
    mothers are going to lose their babies. the idea is to discourage them
    from having babies when they shouldn't be havning them anyway. word'y
    statement alluding to "mothers turing in their babies" is at the root
    of the problem. these kids mostly regard a baby a some sort of tool to
    get them something for free. and if that's the way they feel then we've 
    got to discourage that attitude right now
    
      

    Now, Gene, you know that's how the game is played.  When President
    Clinton proposed a healthcare reform plan, you didn't have a damn thing
    to say about healthcare reform, you just bitched to the high heavens
    about the implementation.  (Others pretended there wasn't even a
    problem!)
    
    If you want to talk about welfare reform, we can talk about welfare
    reform.  (The Clinton platform pledged to "end welfare as we know it,"
    remember?)  But there is a plan on the table, and it must be dealt
    with.  I for one think it stinks.

Note 30.291 by TNPUBS::JONG 
    
    >If you want to talk about welfare reform, we can talk about welfare
    >reform.  (The Clinton platform pledged to "end welfare as we know it,"
    >remember?)  But there is a plan on the table, and it must be dealt
    >with. 
    
    not yet. but there soon will be. you really are sounding like sour
    grapes wordy. yes slick had a plan. some parts of it even sounded
    reasonable. however, overall i would have voted against it. he's had
    over two years to get his bill "on the table" as you say. that didn't
    happen. its mostly his fault for inept leadership and incorrect focus. 
    the repubs will really raise hell with this contract stuff. its
    existance is sheer political genius. it will also give a kick in the
    pants to some areas that need it. that's good. its long overdue. 
                                    

 >>   Now, Gene, you know that's how the game is played.  When President
 >>   Clinton proposed a healthcare reform plan, you didn't have a damn
 >>   thing to say about healthcare reform, you just bitched to the high heavens
 >>   about the implementation.  (Others pretended there wasn't even a problem!)
    
    Steve...Mistake #1 - It was done behind closed doors...it was done on a 
    partisan basis....it was loaded with riduculous regulations such as 
    doctor quotas....it was a budget buster according to the democrat run
    budget office.  It was undoable for this year.  As an ordinary citizen,
    I see this as prudent planning.
    Mistake #2 - to sell the public on the idea that socialized medicine
    will provide the best quality care in the world.  Steve, if you needed
    a heart transplant, would you go to a VA hospital?  Give it some
    thought.
    Mistake #3 on your part...you compare apples to oranges.  The majority
    of the US public is happy with their current healthcare.  The majority
    of the public is discontent with welfare.  What I thought might be good 
    would be for the government to start their own HMO for the self
    employed to participate in IF THEY choose to do so.  Don't make me give
    up what I have...I'm happy.  But make something available for the self 
    employed.  It would be a start.   I think alot of ideas were poo poo'd 
    because Hillary et al wanted to control 14% of the GNP.
    
    -Jack

                   <<< Note 30.287 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
                           -< Beating a dead sheep >-
    
  >  By the way, your hollering about whether the Contract With America is
  >  or is not all talk and no action is a moot point.  Newt Gingrich has
  >  said that he intends to vote on *and pass* all 10 items in 100 days.
  >  Not bring up, not debate, not vote on -- PASS.
   
   BS. Produce a quote from him saying so. In his speach to the 
   Heritage Foundation he stated that all would be brought to a vote 
   and that he expects that at least 8 of them would pass.

   daryll

    Gene, seriously, any time you accuse someone else of sour grapes I skip
    the rest of your reply.  I doubt I'm alone.  Do you know how silly you
    ("God damn his soul to hell" over and over again) of all people sound?
    
    Jack, I completely disagree with your characterizations.  If you don't
    want to see your proposals criticized, don't make any.
    
    Daryll, I already provided a source -- do try to keep up.
    Newt made the statement the day he was elected Speaker of the House;
    it was reported in the Globe.  Besides, I see little difference between
    your assertion and mine -- two items in ten -- compared to what was
    previously claimed, that he didn't pledge even to *vote* on *any* of
    them.  Frankly, you make my point about as well as I did!

Does the contract specifically state that these items will be:

A. Voted On
B. Brought to the floor for discussion
C. Passed

daryll

   re: Note 30.262

   >	  Dole states we must work WITH the dems, after Newt states no
   >compromise. Newt talks about the orphanage thang, and Dole says no. 
   >Everytime he opens his mouth, it seems Dole is saying the oppisite. 
   >Dole APPEARS to WANT to work with the administration, and Newt seems 
   >hell bent on NOT. 

     
    it seems you missed all of the "prince of darkness" news stories
    written and televised about dole while he was setting the modern
    filibuster record in the senate the past two years.  i don't 
    remember the exact number, but george mitchell certainly does -
    it used to be one of his favorite subjects.  may still be.  the
    source of all of the "prince" reports was the liberal media's
    outrage at dole for attempting to block just about all of their
    shining knight bill clinton's legislation.  newt couldn't help
    much in this endeavor, being outgunned by dems in the house. 
    oh, bob dole will be more than willing to work with bc on a balanced
    budget amendment, line item veto, etc., just like he did with nafta
    and gatt.  after that, he'll take off the gloves and battle bc
    all the way through to the '96 election, at which time he plans
    to move into the white house and send the slickster packing back
    to arkansas.  imo, of course. 8^)

    bill

    >>you really are sounding like sour grapes wordy.
    
    payback's a b*tch, ain't it Gene?  Steve is just reminding you how your
    side played the hard-nosed game with Clinton's proposals the last few
    years, and watching you complain about sour grapes is simply over-the-
    top.  You and your GOP heroes made this bed for yourselves the last two
    years.  Why should the democrats do anything other than oppose? 
    they've been shown that the american public rewards obstreperousness
    and making the majority party look ineffective.  Better get a big jar
    of vaseline; you, Newt, and Dole have got a long two years of payback
    in front of you.
    
    DougO

>    payback's a b*tch, ain't it Gene?  Steve is just reminding you how your
>    side played the hard-nosed game with Clinton's proposals the last few
>    years, 
    
    	Is that's all you have left now?  Payback?  Whatever floats
    	your boat, I guess.  So do you expect payback for the payback
    	if/when libs eventually gain control again?  Could you perhaps
    	conceive of the idea that hard-nosing Clinton might just be
    	payback for lib hard-nosing of Reagan/Bush?
    
    	When does it end?  What does complaining just for the sake of
    	payback really get us?
    
>    Why should the democrats do anything other than oppose? 
    
    	Maybe you can tell me.

    > Is that's all you have left now?  Payback?
    
    me?  I haven't given anyone payback.  I'm just telling you guys, as I
    have been for a month now, that there's payback comin' and you'd better
    get used to the idea; you've earned it, or at the least your heroes
    have.  Do you think your precious Contract with America is more than a
    sham?  Do you think your GOP is interested in really changing the
    status quo that sees government get bigger and individuals lose ever
    more control over aspects of their lives?  Are you saying you trust
    your politicians?  What boat did you just get into town on?  If the GOP
    with their wafer thin majorities think they can rule the Fed Gov now,
    without compromising with the Democrats, then they're in for rude
    awakenings.  And if they have to compromise, they'll get ittie-bittied
    to death.  Their grandiose dreams will go up in smoke.  Their leaders
    will give vent to their legendary rages and lose even more stature
    (Dole is seen as too mean-spirited ever to be president.)  and you...
    you dreamy conservative idealists, you... you'll be back, cynical as
    ever, spouting about those demmed opposition democrats being so
    spiteful as to deny you your programs, your big *chance* to prove how
    well your agenda will work....yeah, right.  I've heard it all before.
    The GOP rode in on a wave of resentment and loathing for ineffective
    government, and the same wave will wash them right back out in awhile.
    
    Get used to the idea, pal- the Dems have written your future in the
    sands of noncooperation and there ain't nothin' you can do about it.
    
    Of course, as the country goes down the tubes, I'll kick sand and spit
    at both sides, for playing destructively with my future and the future
    of my country.  
    
    > When does it end?  What does complaining just for the sake of
    > payback really get us?
    
    Complaining isn't for sake of payback.  My complaint is so I can gloat
    at y'all when your dreams turn to ashes in your mouths, caught up in
    the same game of little men weilding power irresponsibly as catches all
    of us at times.  Payback isn't my complaining; payback is my prediction.
    
    You mistake me, Joe.  While you people have bullied the Clintons with
    the foulest epithets and slurs you could concoct for the past few
    years, you weren't really originating them; you were merely repeating
    the mouthings of your leadership, Rush and Buchanan and all the other
    small-minded souls in the negative destructive branches of the GOP.
    Thus, I feel free to lump you in for my predictions of your coming
    doom.  It isn't really yours, except insofar as you have chosen to ally
    yourselves with it and accept its eventual fate.
    
    Me, on the other hand- I'm not spouting any liberal line, spoon fed
    from ignorant rabble rousing commentators.  Democrats aren't publicly
    saying that the GOP budgets will be DOA, that they'll play hardball and
    work to embarass the GOP as they have been embarassed themselves by the
    GOP; that they'll take the country on another round of endlessly futile
    spoiler politics.  They aren't admitting they're about the play the
    Republican's game, the one they've learned so well.  Its an ignoble
    role they're about to play, and they haven't figured out how to brag
    about it.  See the difference?  I'm willing to say it.  I'm willing to
    indict both sides.  
    
    I'll gloat at you while your heroes slog under the impossible demands
    of ruling in a spoiled game; but don't imagine I'll really enjoy the
    coming debacle.  We're all losers when the political dynamic has become
    to hamstring your opponent so badly that he loses for incompetence, in
    place of proposing and negotiating policies for the good of the
    republic.  The GOP has defined a new era, a new low in the politics of
    opposition; I'm sadly predicting that the democrats are certainly low
    enough to join them in the depths.  They'll all look like mud when next
    an election year rolls around.
    
    Don't say I didn't warn you.
    
    DougO

    
    >payback's a b*tch, ain't it Gene?  Steve is just reminding you how your
    >side played the hard-nosed game with Clinton's proposals the last few
    
    
    
    you and wordy are a real piece of work. slicks proposals died because
    america decided to kill them. payback? perhaps. but i'll tell you one
    thing. the contract is going to be enacted. whether you like it or not
    is immaterial. i suggest you turn the debate to what we do about it
    after it's been passed.
    
    bunch of damed sore losers. problem is, so is your president. we'll all
    pay for that.

RE: 30.301 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet."

> but i'll tell you one thing. the contract is going to be enacted. whether 
> you like it or not is immaterial. i suggest you turn the debate to what 
> we do about it after it's been passed.

Well,  eh,  maybe.  Debate in the Senate might just take a little longer
than 100 days,  and can't shut off debate and get a vote without getting
some Democratics to help,  Bet they don't care to.  What you think,  Gene?

Ah yes,  watch the Republicians plead with Mr Clinton not to veto the whole 
lot,  right?  There sure isn't anything close to enough Republicians to 
over-ride the veto,  now is there,  Gene?

Call him Slick a few more times,  @!$$ him off,  and see if that helps.

Welcome to GridLock,  part 13.

Hope this helps.


Phil

Clinton has just called all governors to a meeting at the White House
to discuss "the problem of welfare" for the taxpayers and for the people
who are trapped in it.

/john

RE: 30.286 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet."

> Mothers must also establish paternity to as a condition for receiving 
> AFDC payments,  except in cases of rape and incest. 

Bet the main result of this,  if it becomes law,  is to vastly increase the
number of reported rapes.


Phil

    Steve:
    
    You disagree with my characterizations?  You think the American public
    approved of what Ira Magaziner and Hillary did behind closed doors? 
    They almost got in trouble with the law over this.  You disagree that 
    most Americans are happy with their current health plan?  and thirdly, 
    you believe that socialized medicine offers the best healthcare we can
    get?  Hmmm, well, you must have your reasons.  I only parrot what I see
    on CSPAN and other media outlets over and over again...but hey, maybe
    you know something I don't know.
    
    DougO, you miss one important point.  Most of the public supported the 
    republican fillibusters.  If congress passes sweeping legislation to
    cut spending and the people are for it, Clinton is going to have an
    awful time justifying a veto!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 30.290 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| precisely karen. that has to stop. wordy et al, haven't said a damn thing 
| about how to fix this. only bitch to the high heavens that mothers are going 
| to lose their babies. 

	Gene Haag. I sometimes think you talk without thinking. Wasn't it with
you that I went into great lengths about what I thought should be done? That
stopping it at the beginning, and not after the fact was the way to go? And
then went into some other plans in this particular note with Joe & Jim? I
really think you should spend less time talking out of your butt and more time
thinking about what you say before you say it. I swear you just say whatever
comes to your mind to hear yourself.


Glen

| <<< Note 30.297 by GLDOA::SHOOK "head 'em up, move 'em out" >>>



| >	  Dole states we must work WITH the dems, after Newt states no
| >compromise. Newt talks about the orphanage thang, and Dole says no.
| >Everytime he opens his mouth, it seems Dole is saying the oppisite.
| >Dole APPEARS to WANT to work with the administration, and Newt seems
| >hell bent on NOT.


| it seems you missed all of the "prince of darkness" news stories written and 
| televised about dole while he was setting the modern filibuster record in the 
| senate the past two years.  

	No, I did NOT miss them. I left what I said above and you can clearly
see what words were highlighted. APPEARS is the key word.

| oh, bob dole will be more than willing to work with bc on a balanced budget 
| amendment, line item veto, etc., just like he did with nafta and gatt. after 
| that, he'll take off the gloves and battle bc all the way through to the '96 
| election, at which time he plans to move into the white house and send the 
| slickster packing back to arkansas.  

	Your guess is as good as mine on this. I DO agree with what you have
said, but I hope for us it doesn't turn out that way.


Glen

    Ya know, I can understand why people are on different sides of the
    fence on social issues and why they rah rah for their candidates.  
    But why somebody would support a candidate who is fiscally inept...but
    supports abortion, or gun rights, or gays in the military...is beyond
    me.  In other words, selling the farm because their candidate is a
    liberal or conservative (mostly pertains to liberals because they are
    the ones with a record of fiscal ineptness) no offense!
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 30.305 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

I know you weren't addressing me, but...
    
>    You disagree with my characterizations?  You think the American public
>    approved of what Ira Magaziner and Hillary did behind closed doors? 
>    They almost got in trouble with the law over this.  You disagree that 
>    most Americans are happy with their current health plan?  and thirdly, 
>    you believe that socialized medicine offers the best healthcare we can
>    get?  Hmmm, well, you must have your reasons.  I only parrot what I see

It's hard to know where to begin, you're so far off. First, the American 
public had no idea what HC did behind closed doors. Few know what the 
health care proposal really was, because as soon as they made it, it became 
a PR war between the whitehouse and the repubs/insurance industry. What we all 
know is that the Whitehouse lost - thanks in large part to the millions of 
dollars in advertising by the insurance industry designed to distort the 
plan and create fear of it. Your nonsense about "socialized medicine" shows 
how well it worked. The proposal had fed controls but it was based on 
private insurance.

Yeah, most Americans are happy with their current HC plans, but most also 
believe that insurance reform is necessary. That's not a contradiction 
because there are a LOT of folks who have reasonable insurance now but who 
know they could be without it at any time. But you don't mention that. 

TOm

re BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?"

>Well,  eh,  maybe.  Debate in the Senate might just take a little longer
>than 100 days,  and can't shut off debate and get a vote without getting
>some Democratics to help,  Bet they don't care to.  What you think,  Gene?

Is there a wager in here somewhere :-)

>Ah yes,  watch the Republicians plead with Mr Clinton not to veto the whole 
>lot,  right?  There sure isn't anything close to enough Republicians to 
>over-ride the veto,  now is there,  Gene?

Not likely. There are for more conservative democrats than there are
liberal republicans. Combined with an ununited democratic party currently
in a shambles, it will be easy to get democratic support.

Clinton knows this is a battle he can't win. He has already committed to signing
several of the entites in the contract if they land on his desk (Line item veto
is one of them).

You'll see some whinning, but it won't take 100 days to get all the issues
in the contract addressed.

Doug.

| <<< Note 30.308 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| Ya know, I can understand why people are on different sides of the fence on 
| social issues and why they rah rah for their candidates.

	You say that, but then go on to say....

| But why somebody would support a candidate who is fiscally inept...but 
| supports abortion, or gun rights, or gays in the military...is beyond me.  

	Sounds kind of like an oxymoron opinion of yours Jack. There are many
things that go into making up a candidate. Some of it is who else is running.
Maybe you forgot that? Now, you seem to be talkin about BC. IF you are, please
explain where he is fiscally inept. 

| In other words, selling the farm because their candidate is a liberal or 
| conservative (mostly pertains to liberals because they are the ones with a 
| record of fiscal ineptness) no offense!

	You never cease to amaze me Jack. Of course you're not being the least
bit biased you conservative you! :-)


Glen

RE: 30.310 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." 

> The sky has fallen for the dems ...

Not being a Demooocrrat,  I couldn't say.


> Not likely. There are for more conservative democrats than there are
> liberal republicans. Combined with an ununited democratic party currently
> in a shambles, it will be easy to get democratic support.

Ah yes,  but Mr Gingrich isn't into compromising.  Try this anywhere.  Tell
someone they must help you,  and you don't care what they think or what
they want.  See how well it works.  Add to this the fact that Mr Gingrich 
is trying to make major changes that will have major impacts (both positive 
and negative).  

Mr Dole has rather more sense.


> Clinton knows this is a battle he can't win. 

Mr Clinton knows how to fight this war,  pick the battle to fight carefully.  
Line item veto is a good thing for Mr Clinton:  it will aid him a lot,  so 
ask for it first.  Any real battle,  wait till the last second to voice any
objections,  and then make the objections both broadly general,  and some
nit level,  but sure to get broad support,  type points.  Like $10,000 in
bogus pork attached to a $20,000,000,000 bill.  Veto the whole thing based
on the pork.

Once he has the line item veto,  then veto line items asking for more
detail.  And more detail.

Welcome to deadlock,  part 13.


Phil

    > bunch of damed sore losers. problem is, so is your president. we'll
    > all pay for that.
    
    What goes around comes around, Gene.  You're just getting back what
    you've dished since Clinton was elected.  GOP played the spoiler game
    ever since; and they'll get it back.  Bought your vaseline yet?
    
    DougO

    Anent .306: Glen, you've hit the nail on the head.  I have written at
    some length how I think I would approach welfare reform.  Yet Gene 
    thinks I (for one) "haven't said a damn thing about how to
    fix" it.  Apparently he can't hear when he's shouting all the time.
    
    Personally, I don't see welfare reform as a critical problem affecting
    the majority of all Americans, the way, for instance, healthcare reform
    is.  I don't get worked into a frenzy by the -- what?  -- five percent
    or less of the budget devoted to welfare.  And I don't find the image
    of white women with children unsupported by the father something that
    moves me to demand punishment for the women and children.   Oh, well,
    President Clinton campaigned on it, the Republicans have it in their
    Contract, I'm all in favor of more efficient government service, so 
    I guess we must have welfare reform.
    
    First, let's ask ourselves this question: Why does welfare require
    morality tests for recipients?  We don't ask senior citizens if they
    used to moonshine; we don't offer tax incentives to small businessmen
    only if they are monogamous.  There is something implicit in this
    furious discussion that I just don't see. 

    Anent .308: Jack, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has
    demonstrated the most inept fiscal policy in American history.  Between
    Hoover's treatment of the stock-market crash and Reagan's voodoo
    economics, I don't trust them to run the economy any more.
    
    The soundest fiscal policy I've seen in the last twenty years is the
    Clinton administration's deficit-reduction act.  Blow away the smoke
    and mirrors and the bottom line speaks for itself.  In that area they
    have earned our trust.

    Anent .310: Doug, do you think President Clinton is caving in on the
    line-item veto?

    re: .314
    
    5% dedicated to welfare???  
    
    I think your figures are off.

Yesterday's paper had an AP article on the deficit reduction 
through short term, low interest borrowing. Since July, when 
interests rates started going up, the gains made in reducing the 
deficit have started to erode. It's estimated that if this 
continues, it'll cost the country more in the long run. Strange 
coincidence that Lloyd is jumping ship? It was his brainchild 
afterall.....

daryll

    Anent .317: Steve Leech, my figures are too high.
    
    My 1987 _World Almanac_ says AFDC payments, for all states combined,
    totaled $16 billion.

    Re: 30.318 - Related News Story .....
    
                        BENTSEN'S DEBT SHUFFLE MAY BACKFIRE
      Outgoing Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen's plan to save the nation
             money on debt financing may end up costing billions.
         
                              By David E. Kalish
                               Associated Press

                            Copied w/o Permission from
                          Lawrence Eagle Tribune 8-Dec-94

         
     NEW YORK (AP) -- Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, one of the Clinton
     administration's most respected policy-makers, is departing just as
     rising interest rates have revealed possible cracks in a centerpiece
     of his tenure.

     Eighteen months ago, Bentsen changed the Treasury Department's mixture
     of debt issuance, which the administration estimated would save $16.4
     billion over five years. At the time, private forecasters feared the
     figure was overly optimistic.

     Now several economists and financial analysts say that fear has been
     validated - and some suggest the plan may ultimately cost the
     government more.

     "The interest savings are not being realized anywhere dose to what
     they thought it might be," said Leif Olsen, president of L.H.O.
     Investments, a money-management firm in New Canaan, Conn. "They have
     pared back on the 30-year bond issues and they did it at exactly the
     wrong time."

     The Treasury contends it's too early to judge the plan, which
     essentially is a broad shift to shorter-term borrowing, arguing the
     benefits will come over time.

     In hindsight, though, Mr. Bentsen's debt-reshuffling designers may
     have been fooled by something they failed to foresee: a sharp rise in
     short-term interest rates.

     In May 1993, the Treasury cut the supply of 30-year bonds and other
     long-term IOUs it sells to finance the $4 trillion-plus national debt.
     Instead, it began selling more short-term debt, shifting borrowing to
     securities of maturities of three years or less.

     Since short-term interest rates historically are lower than long-term
     rates, the government hoped to slash financing costs.

     Initially, the new mixture seemed to work. Back then, rates on 30-year
     bonds, the longest Treasury maturity, were about 4 percentage points
     steeper than the 2.87 percent yield on the Treasury's shortest term
     maturity, the three-month bill.

     The government saved about $700 million at the plan's outset but those
     savings have rapidly eroded since February of this year, when interest
     rates reversed course and began rising for the first time in five
     years, triggered by a Federal Reserve move to curb inflation.
         
     Critics also say the Treasury missed an opportunity back then to lock
     in the lowest rates on 30-year bonds in 16 years - roughly akin to a
     homeowner opting for a low-rate adjustable mortgage instead of a
     30-year fixed mortgage.
         


                         [Side Bar by Terry Kole (AP)]
         
                 Could Bentsen's treasury bond plan go awry ?
         
         
     Economists say the Treasury debt shift orchestrated by out-going 
     Treasury  Secretary  Lloyd Bentsen  may become  an expensive
     miscalculation.
         
     What Bentsen did:

         May 1993: Treasury cuts supply of long-term debt and sells more
         short-term debt. The goal: slash billions of dollars from the cost
         of financing government debt, since short-term interest rates
         historically are lower than long-term rates.
         
     What happened this year:

         Feb. 1994: Interest Rates reverse five-year trend and begin steady
         rise, spurred by Federal Reserve's attempts to curb inflation. But 
         short-term rates rise twice as fast as long-term rates. 
         
         Dec. 1994: Bentsen resigns to return to private life. Savings from
         the debt shift are eroding because of the narrowing difference
         between short- and long-term interest rates.  If the trend
         continues, the plan may end up costing more, not less

                                       -30-
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
    

    Thank you for entering that article.  Nice try, Lloyd...
    
    A while back, someone else synthesized this story as: The Clinton
    administration achieved deficit reduction ENTIRELY THOUGH SHORT-TERM
    BORROWING.  Now that we see the proposed savings was $16.4 billion 
    over five years, or $3.3 billion per year.  Not exactly the stuff of
    apocalypse, is it?

Of course, you're right. The article paints a pretty picture.
How silly of me.

daryll

            <<< Note 30.318 by SALEM::DODA "Stop global whining" >>>
                -< He must be seeing the writing on the wall. >-

>Yesterday's paper had an AP article on the deficit reduction 
>through short term, low interest borrowing. Since July, when 

According to the full article in .320, the savings claimed by this strategy 
is $16 billion. So it accounts for only a small percentage of the deficit 
reduction.

                   <<< Note 30.321 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
                        -< The facts dispell the panic >-

   > A while back, someone else synthesized this story as: The Clinton
   > administration achieved deficit reduction ENTIRELY THOUGH SHORT-TERM
   > BORROWING. 

    If you're referring to my note. You're clueless. I did not 
    say that.

    daryll

                                                              
    As quickly as you can, name the Treasury Secretary under George Bush
    who did *exactly* the same thing.  For exactly the same reasons.
    
|    Critics also say the Treasury missed an opportunity back then to lock
|    in the lowest rates on 30-year bonds in 16 years - roughly akin to a
|    homeowner opting for a low-rate adjustable mortgage instead of a
|    30-year fixed mortgage.
    
    These very *same* critics were saying exactly the same thing about
    the Bush administration.  They always say "oh, oh, don't finance short,
    that's a gamble."  If we had followed the policy of these critics over
    the past six years, it would have cost the taxpapers *billions* and
    *billions* more than they complain about now.
    
    Bottom fishing.  Awful easy to do a year after the bottom.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Steve:
    
    What did you think of the Gramm/Rudman act?
    
    

.312> Ah yes,  but Mr Gingrich isn't into compromising.  
    
    	Agreed.  I sure hops that the posturing now is different from
    	the practice starting next month.

    re: 30.321
    
    A half point spread on interest rates was to generate $16.4 billion over
    5 years.  The drop in interest rates by 5-6% resulted in a savings in
    the projected cost of debt financing on the order of $140 billion. This
    was one of the two serious components of the deficit reduction.  The
    defense cuts were the other.  All other spending actually rose.
    
    The problem is that in 3-5 years as this debt matures, it will have to
    be refinanced at much higher rates, giving later administrations even
    more deficit/budget problems.
    
    /jim

>Ah yes,  but Mr Gingrich isn't into compromising.  Try this anywhere.  Tell
>someone they must help you,  and you don't care what they think or what
>they want.  See how well it works.  Add to this the fact that Mr Gingrich 
>is trying to make major changes that will have major impacts (both positive 
>and negative).  
>
>Mr Dole has rather more sense.

I think you'll find plenty of democrats that agree with a good deal of what
Newt proposes. The question is, will a divided party rally together to 'defeat
the repubs' or will they head the message from the elections and do what they
feel is right. I personally don't think there is enough solidarity in the 
dem party to offer much resistance. Bill Clinton is certainly in a position to
resist, and he likely will in some key areas. But the fact is that he supports
many of the items in the contract, by they haven't made it to his desk
because of the dems in congress. At least that much will get done.

There will be compromise, Newt does not stand as the lone republican.

>Mr Clinton knows how to fight this war,  pick the battle to fight carefully.  
>Line item veto is a good thing for Mr Clinton:  it will aid him a lot,  so 
>ask for it first.  Any real battle,  wait till the last second to voice any
>objections,  and then make the objections both broadly general,  and some
>nit level,  but sure to get broad support,  type points.  Like $10,000 in
>bogus pork attached to a $20,000,000,000 bill.  Veto the whole thing based
>on the pork.

Once he has the line item veto he will have no reason to 'veto the whole thing'.
How do you think the public would react to that? He has tried to manipulate
public opinion through lies and disinformation and got spanked rather harshly
for it. I think he might learn to tread a little more carefully his last 
two years.

>Once he has the line item veto,  then veto line items asking for more
>detail.  And more detail.

Again, this will be seen for what it is, and I don't think he is dumb enough to
use a power imprudently. He will however, use it as leverage, which is to be 
expected.


Doug.

>    Anent .310: Doug, do you think President Clinton is caving in on the
>    line-item veto?

No, I think that several issues in the contract of which the president is a
supporter, had a snowballs chance in hell of getting to his desk while the
dem leadership had control of the congress (Where the problem has been 
all along).

I don't see Bill caving in, I see him 'working with' the new congress.

Doug.

    	.300
    
>    Do you think your precious Contract with America is more than a
>    sham?  
    
    	Yes.  And I'm glad that it annoys the likes of you.
    
>    Do you think your GOP is interested in really changing the
>    status quo that sees government get bigger and individuals lose ever
>    more control over aspects of their lives?  
    
    	Yes.  Today I am.
    
>    Are you saying you trust your politicians?  
    
    	Why not?  At least I trust them enough to give them a chance to
    	prove their words.
    
>    If the GOP
>    with their wafer thin majorities think they can rule the Fed Gov now,
>    without compromising with the Democrats, then they're in for rude
>    awakenings.  
    
    	I agree with all of that but the "paper-thin" part.
    
>    And if they have to compromise, they'll get ittie-bittied
>    to death.  Their grandiose dreams will go up in smoke. 
    
    	And you say that with such zest!  Just like your childish
    	payback you are so eagerly awaiting.  All you have today is
    	"payback's a bitch".  Perhaps that's to compensate for the
    	bitch it must be being a loser.
    
>    The GOP rode in on a wave of resentment and loathing for ineffective
>    government, and the same wave will wash them right back out in awhile.
    
    	If they prove to be ineffective, is that a bad thing?
    
    	Come back in 2 years and let's see what happened.
    
>    Get used to the idea, pal- the Dems have written your future in the
>    sands of noncooperation and there ain't nothin' you can do about it.
    
    	As if *I* have any control over it!  Maybe that's your problem.
    	You think you have some control over all this as an individual.
    	Your problem is that you take it too personally.  Your lib
    	gods and goddesses lose, and you assume the mantle of LOSER
    	with them.  So now all you can do is stamp your feet and cry
    	and attack ME as if I place all my cards in this current
    	government.  
    
    	If these guys fail, I'll be standing right beside you in two
    	years voting them out.
    
>    Complaining isn't for sake of payback.  My complaint is so I can gloat
>    at y'all when your dreams turn to ashes in your mouths, 
    
    	You merely demonstrate my point.  You assume I'll take it as 
    	personally as you seem to be doing yourself now.  It must
    	be tough being you right now...
    
>    I'll gloat at you while your heroes slog under the impossible demands
>    of ruling in a spoiled game; 
    
    	You're welcome to -- if your spiteful and hate-filled dreams 
    	come to reality.  In the interim, you are stuck with the cloak
    	of LOSER that you have chosen to wear.

      re: .315
    
      on "sound" fiscal policy
    
      I've got a couple thoughts on this which lead me to believe
      the overall policy is unsound.
    
    1)The deficit is supposed to be going down, BUT the debt is going
      up.  Some people don't know the difference between the deficit
      and the debt.  Lets say in 1993 I spend $80.00 more than I earn
      and in 1994 I spend $50.00 more than I earn.  My deficit went 
      down $30.00, but the debt increased by from 80 to 130.
    
      In addition, most predictors I have read have said the deficit
      would go down for a few years and then would begin going way up
      again (don't know the underlying reasons) in ensuing years.  So,
      long term, I've not heard one prognosticator embrace this plan.
    
    2)The following is the biggest to me.
      There is a simple concept that the more money that is in the 
      private sector (all else being the same), the more revenue is
      generated because the economy is stimulated.  Very simple concept.
      If after taxes, I net a couple hundred dollars more than the year
      before, chances are I will spend ~200.00 more than the year before.
      And that expenditure will stimulate the economy.  If I am "Joe 
      average citizen", multiply that by a good 80 million or so and see
      what the ripple effects are.
    
      In reference to this, Ron Brown said what I consider to be the 
      absolute stupidest, most moronic economical thing I have ever in
      my life heard.  He was asked on the Today Show about the RATIO of
      spending cuts to tax increases this administration would use.  The
      tone of the question was essentially one of laying significance to
      the belief that Clinton's ratio was going DOWN (as in WAY DOWN).
      Ron Brown said, "I don't think the ratio matters..."  It was all 
      very clear.  Spending would go up and taxes would go way up (more
      than compensating for the spending _rise_, but not coming near to 
      compensating for the overall spending).
    
      UNBELIEVABLE.  If I was the president, Brown would have been axed
      on the spot.  But, I am sure Clinton agreed.
    
      When I heard Brown say that, I almost felt sick to my stomach.
    
      This administration essentially gave a philosophy of fiscal manage-
      ment that included a rather high spending cuts/tax increases ratio.
      
      It renegged and as far as I'm concerned, it demonstrated its own
      incompetence both fiscally and morally.  I have no use for an
      administration that sees no significance to that ratio.
    
      That is pure stupidity.
    
                                                    Tony
     

|   In addition, most predictors I have read have said the deficit would go
|   down for a few years and then would begin going way up again (don't
|   know the underlying reasons) in ensuing years.
    
    Health care.  Health care.   Health care.
    
    For the FY94, Penny/Kasich "Cutting Spending First" said that the budget
    deficit could be cut in half in four years without taxes only if you
    raised fees and fines and only if you reformed health care.
    
    Good luck, GOP.  No health care reform, massive increases in defense
    spending, massive tax cuts, and a balanced budget in five years.
    
    								-mr. bill

      re: .333
    
      I mean this tongue in cheek because I actually believe in
      sloooow transitions as fast ones would be too shocking.
    
      Let the federal government be financed to protect our borders
      militarily, to oversee roads, highways, etc., and to have
      a judicial system.
    
      Let the government get out of EVERYTHING ELSE.  No welfare, no
      entitlements, no health crap, nothing.
    
      Its not their job to help people.  Its yours and mine.  They can't
      do it.  We can.
    
                                                 Tony

RE: 30.329 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name."

> I think you'll find plenty of democrats that agree with a good deal of what
> Newt proposes. 

I think you'll find plenty of Republicans that don't care for a good deal
of what Mr Gingrich proposes.  Like Government run prayer in schools,  for
example.


Phil

    Anent .324: Daryll, if I was referring to your reply, I would have used
    your name.  I was referring to someone else, who knows who he is.

    Anent .326: Jack, I thought Gramm/Rudman was a fraud.
    Thanks for strengthening my case.

    Anent .328: Jim, those figures contradict both the article we just saw
    and the figures from the Clinton deficit-reduction act itself.  
    Besides, you ignore the tax increase, which increased revenues, which
    also reduced the deficit.
    
    What is your source?

oh, sorry.

    ]Like Government run prayer in schools
    
     Only morons think that the government allowing public schools to have
    a moment of silence is the same as the government writing a prayer and
    insisting that all skulekids recite it daily (and punishing those that
    don't.)

    .340
    
    give em an inch and they will take a mile.  that is thw way of
    governments.

>I think you'll find plenty of Republicans that don't care for a good deal
>of what Mr Gingrich proposes.

Perhaps, but a party united is a party that can work together to find the
common ground.


>Like Government run prayer in schools,  for example.

This is a very telling statement ... 


Doug.

    re: .319
    
    You should have said AFDC payments, then.  "Welfare" has a much broader
    connotation with most people, especially me (you should know that by
    now  8^) ).
    
    Add in other bennies for our welfare folk, and you get a MUCH higher
    number.
    
    -steve

    
    This is true - it depends what you count.  Medicaid ?  Food stamps ?
    
    The poor get 13% of the budget altogether.  But AFDC is not much of
    the total.
    
      bb

    >>    Are you saying you trust your politicians?  
    >
    >	Why not? 
    
    [no response necessary.]
    
    >    Come back in 2 years and let's see what happened.
    
    You'd like that, wouldn't you?  No, I'll gadfly about in the loyal
    opposition, using the needle to remind you *jab* every time *jab* the
    Newt-n-Bob show throws a rod.  Its going to be a delightful two years,
    if only to give you all back what you've dished out for the first half
    of this administration.  Every time Gene screams out 'sore losers' or
    'sour grappes' it makes the job sweeter.
    
    DougO

    
    Ah yes.. the revenge motive....
    

    What's your excuse, Andy?

    
    Hey, fair is fair - revenge in politics is SOP.  However, they're
    jumping the gun a bit.  Maybe the losers are practicing, like a
    dragsters revving their engines.  But they have nothing to whine
    about yet, except for a bunch of talk, so they appear silly.
    
    But they'll get the hang of it.  Really effective mean-spiritedness
    is a sublety they'll have to learn.  Now they get the chance.
    
      bb

    > But they have nothing to whine
    >    about yet, except for a bunch of talk,
    
    Newt and his pack shooting down all the caucuses is nothing?
    
    But see, we have better memories anyway.  The GOP yappers in here
    didn't take a break between Clinton's election and his inaugural;
    no, he was pot-shotted without letup.  Many of us remarked that it
    seemed like the election campaigns were still in progress, the GOP
    partisans were being such sore lowers.  Well, now its payback time.
    
    DougO

    Jong,
    
    Law just implemented in '94; haven't seen any data to suggest that
    teen pregnancy is down, but a few months ago local newspaper indicated
    the costs were down on housing.  A teen mother will NOT be refused
    assistance if she becomes pregnant, but she MUST live at home with
    her custodial parent in order to collect.  I believe additional funds
    are cut off if pregnancies go above 3.
    
    Anyhow, the law was sponsored by Governor Zell Miller(D) and passed into
    law by Georgia State Legislature (Democratic majority).  Anyway you
    look at it, these folks figured they were implementing the wishes of
    the folks living in Georgia!
    
    Obviously it's going to take awhile to get historical data; but ya
    have to start somewhere.
    

    
    RE: .347
    
    > What's your excuse, Andy?
    
     For what?
    

    >Well, now its payback time.
    
     Excellent! And if you guys are really successful, then your team will
    regain control, and our team and throw rocks. And if we're really
    successful, our team will regain control and your team can throw rocks.
    And if you're really successful...
    
     Meanwhile, the descent continues unabated. Sometimes I wonder if that
    isn't what your team wants.

    After you, DOctah...

    Exactly. "You started it." "Nuh uh." "Did too." Did not" ...

           <<< Note 30.352 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "prepayah to suffah" >>>

>     Meanwhile, the descent continues unabated. Sometimes I wonder if that
>    isn't what your team wants.

Or your team.

    	Now it's your turn.

    Doctah,
    
    After living through the '80's I don't know nor do I care which group
    is in power.  they are both out to get me.  
    
    the dem's take my money for the poor, the republicrats steal it for the
    rich.  
    
    the dem's want to steal my guns, the repubs to steal my privacy.
    
    The dems like some useless fluff courses in "life sciences" the repub's
    like kids forced to pray to a god they don't believe in and teach
    courses that dare kids to turn their parents in.
    
    should be a fun couple of years
    

              <<< Note 30.341 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>
                        -< just give the repubs time. >-

>    give em an inch and they will take a mile.  that is thw way of
>    governments.

Yumpin' yimminy, Dick. First, we actually COMMUNICATE. Then we find 
ourselves on the same side of an issue! This worries me (and probably 
worries you even more).

Ah, but we do differ in our reasons...I don't worry so much about big ol' 
DC as I do little tyrannical communities. The trojan horse "Moment of 
silence" is no more than a gate crasher from which will spill local 
communities eager to foist their majority religion on all kids in the 
public schools. The feds would never define a prayer, it would be political 
suicide in a country as diverse as this.

I repeat: WHY???????? Who needs this prayer time?

Did you ever read "Love among the ruins" by percy walker? I can't remember 
when it was written - in the early 70s, I think. It's set in the unnamed 
future, when the right's claim to fame was to have enacted a constitutional
amendment to require prayer in school, and the left's claim to fame was
to get "IN God we Trust" removed from our currency. And what was
left was a souless society of political extremes. Sounds mighty familiar. 

              <<< Note 30.357 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

>    	Now it's your turn.

Ok. I'll stop. Now its your turn.

    
    I'll stop if Wordy does...
    

    Anent .354: I'm serious, Doctah.  *Clean up your act first*, then work
    on "the other side."  (I am not speaking directly and personally to
    you, but to "your side.)
    
    There is no way for someone to make peace by getting the antagonist to
    stop first.  One must set the example.

    > Meanwhile, the descent continues unabated. Sometimes I wonder if that
    > isn't what your team wants.
    
    C'mon Doc, we both know this problem and we've discussed it before.
    You admitted you'd be throwing rocks, too.  See my .300 wherein I'm
    perfectly willing to kick sand and utter a curse on both their houses.
    
    It is nice, every once in awhile, to see some acknowledgement that we
    all realize that the political game is lose-lose.  It would be even
    better if we could stop playing the game that the national gameplayers
    feed us in the media.  If y'all didn't sound so much like Rush and Newt
    were spoon-feeding you it'd take a lot of the fun out of jabbing you
    when they take their ineviatable future pratfalls.  Of course, the
    acknowledgement I'm seeing you grudgingly give now would have been just
    as valid had you been able to deliver it during the cacophony of the
    Clinton election, but I suppose that's asking too much of you.  Just as
    you are asking too much of us not to gloat at all during the payback.
    And the wheel spins and we all get more disgusted.
    
    See you in the mudpits.
    
    DougO

    
    My offer was perfectly serious, but knowing Wordy and his ego, he'll
    think it would be like sacrificing a pawn (me) for a knight... or even
    king (him)...
    
     See? I can keep it on a personal vs. a political level anytime!!!
    

    Do not assume that Congress will just degrade into another round of
    rock throwing. The tide has changed, and changed dramatically. The
    expectation of Newt and Dole is that they will kick ass and leave
    _no prisoners_. Many of us on the right are _not_ satisfied to
    turn the tables on the status quo. We are not handing the rocks
    over to you so you can throw them back at us. We will be throwing
    increasingly _bigger_ rocks until the spectre of liberalism and
    the Democratic party is not only out of power, but utterly vanquished.
    
    There will be _no_ peace.
    
    -b

    yeah, well, gloating at you when yer heroes and yer take no prisoners
    attitudes get it in the shorts will be a pleasure.  Clinton's still got
    the veto, and the democrats have just had two years of the ugliest
    spoiler politics as a primer.  You go right ahead expecting that Newt
    will clean house.  watching your political education is gonna be fun.
    
    DougO

    See, Doctah? 8^(

    I do not live for the approval of the Doctor, anymore than I live for
    yours.
    
    As for Clinton and his veto, it is obvious that Clinton's political
    collapse is in full swing. If he likes being in the WH at all, he
    will bend over _fast_. It won't keep him there, mind you, but that's
    not about to stop him from trying.
    
    -b

RE: 30.340 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "prepayah to suffah"

PH> Like Government run prayer in schools
    
> Only morons 

Why,  thank you Mark.  It's not often that we disagree,  but I was of the
opinion that you could keep disagreement polite.  


> think that the government allowing public schools to have a moment of 
> silence is the same as the government writing a prayer and insisting that 
> all skulekids recite it daily (and punishing those that don't.)

Of course not.  Please do note that Mr Gingrich has proposed changing the
Constitution of the United States of America to allow a government written 
prayer in schools.  Note as well,  that the phrase "moment of silence" is
sometimes used to replace the unPC phrase "moment of prayer",  when it is
beyond clear that prayer is what is being mandated.

How far do you think the government should go in mandating prayer?


Phil

    >and the democrats have just had two years of the ugliest spoiler politics 
    >as a primer.
    
    The republicans having learned well the lessons of 1986-1988... Of
    course then it was probably seen as "great spoiler politics..."

	Anyone see the Christmas story that Murphy Brown read to her kid last
night? The part that stuck out was:

	and thoughts of school prayer, danced in their heads.... :-)

   It's fun to wade through the Internet Gingrich topic, which is very
   active (and completely unmoderated -- ugh!)  The 'Box spawned a couple
   of the combattants:  Peter R. Cook, who argues a position and in a
   manner consistent with his thoughtful 'Box persona (no logic deeper than
   that which can be inscribed on fortune-cookie paper 8^), and Michael
   Zarlenga, a staunch anti-Bush voice in 1992, whose hatred for Bill
   Clinton he calls both "logical and visceral" 8^)
   
   I can hardly wait to check it out again and see how the conservatives
   there argue it's not hypocrisy that Newt's dropping term limits 8^)

>   I can hardly wait to check it out again and see how the conservatives
>   there argue it's not hypocrisy that Newt's dropping term limits 8^)
    
    	I wholly believe that it would be a mistake for the repubs to
    	dump term limits.
    
    	I also see it as a mistake for them to push for a constitutional
    	amendment to institute a specific school prayer.

    
    heah, heah.
    
    a rush of hubris seemingly renders them forgetful.

    
    
    
    Okay Steve, meanwhile, why don't you explain Gephardt and the dems new
    middle class tax cut. :')  You've got to admit, it is rather humorous 
    watching the dims trying to act like repubs.
    
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    Just a reminder, the middle class tax cut was a clinton campaign issue. 
    However he didn't find a way to pay for it at the time and wound up
    working on other issues.  Now the repubs picked up on it, and so far,
    haven't said anything about how they plan to pay for it and keep the
    deficit going down.  
    
    Reduce taxes, Increase defense spending and balance the budget....
    
    
    Hmm, where did we hear this before?
    
    meg

    
    
    Come on Meg.  Don't you find the timing of this somewhat suspect?  The
    dims are trying to undermine the new congress by beating them to the
    punch.  When's the last time you heard Gephardt talk of cutting taxes?  
    Also, Clinton renigged on his tax cut shortly after entering office.   
    
    
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    didn't say it was right, but how often do you see the repubs really
    championing the middle class?  (Unless of course you consider those
    with incomes from 100-200K middle class.)
    
    meg

    
    The two parties are now battling it out to see who can bid up interest
    rates the highest.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    Meg,
    
    Is it the governments job to champion any class?  Not in my eyes.  The
    less government the better.  Out of the two parties that we have, the
    repubs are closer to this ideology than the dims.  
    
    Mike  

   I disagree, mr. bill.  If President Clinton can find the cuts to pay for
   his tax break, it won't push up interest rates.  
   
   In fact, this is a good political move (if obviously timed) for several
   reasons.  First, he keeps a significant campaign pledge (I would expect
   to see even more tax relief than the one I saw this year).  Second, if
   he sets a visible example of how tax breaks are actually painful because
   of the cuts necessary to pay for them, he'll create a more visible
   campaign issue: how will the Republicans pay for their cuts?  Finally,
   if he makes the (relatively) easy cuts, he'll leave the (even more)
   painful cuts for the Republicans to propose.

    I love watching democrats twist themselves into pretzels to justify the
    actions of their "leaders." Of course, I find it terribly amusing that
    when their democratic leaders act like republicans, they get
    enthusiastic support from their ostensible liberal supporters. It
    couldn't just be NIH. Nah.

   Doctah, did candidate Clinton pledge a middle-class tax cut or not?
   Is he preparing a middle-class tax cut or not?  I think you know the
   answers to those questions.
   
   I, for one, am fully mindful of the historical context -- the Republican
   victories, the "pander bear" charge by Paul Tsongas, the whole thing.
   
   And what makes you think this has "enthusiastic support"?
   Are you blocking, Doctah, or did you choose to ignore my twice using the
   word "painful" in regard to the tax cuts?
   
   Further, I meant to add (but forgot to write) that the only
   *responsible* way to cut taxes is to find a way to pay for them.
   The Republicans, trapped in Reagan-worship, are still talking voodoo
   economics, cutting taxes and praying that revenues will rise to cover
   their red rear ends.  Didn't happen in the eighties nationally; didn't
   happen in Massachusetts recently; but maybe this time it will...!

>                   <<< Note 30.383 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>                        -< To whom are you referring? >-
>
>   Doctah, did candidate Clinton pledge a middle-class tax cut or not?
>   Is he preparing a middle-class tax cut or not?  I think you know the
>   answers to those questions.

With that logic and Bill Clinton covered for any proposal from any of many
differing views or political party! Or - is THAT why he said so many of the 
conflicting things he said during his campaign?  Because he knew socialism
would fail and he'd have to give in or ......

Bruce

   I don't follow, Bruce.  Could you rephrase that in English, please?

    GASP!!!! the minneapolis paper has an editorial this AM that
    compliments newt on his efforts to consolodate committee's.

>                   <<< Note 30.385 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>                                   -< Huh? >-
>
>   I don't follow, Bruce.  Could you rephrase that in English, please?


He's said so many things that he's bound to agree with someone at one time
or another.  He's covered his bases by the bredth of his lies.

Bruce

    >Doctah, did candidate Clinton pledge a middle-class tax cut or not?
    
     Candidate Clinton pledge a middle class tax cut; President Elect
    Clinton continued to talk of the middle class tax cut. As the
    inauguration drew nearer, the back pedaling began. During his state of
    the onion address, it became the tax increase. After his party took
    huge losses in both houses of congress, he suddenly "remembers" his
    pledge? Ho ho! This is clearly the chameleon looking forward two years
    and wanting to keep his office. That you "somehow" fail to see this is
    as predictable as it is pitiful. Too much pablum makes you blind, but
    then you should know that by now.
    
       >Further, I meant to add (but forgot to write) that the only
       >*responsible* way to cut taxes is to find a way to pay for them.
    
     Apparently you missed the fact that tax rates can be lowered while
    total revenues increase. This was amply shown during the 80s. What did
    not happen was that spending did not slow. It increased faster than the
    revenues. None of which controverts the fact that lower tax rates can
    lead to higher revenues.
    
    
     Keep twisting, though, Steve. You remind me of an oak leaf in the
    wind.

           <<< Note 30.388 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "prepayah to suffah" >>>

Clinton was always more centrist than anyone here would like to admit. He 
did want a middleclass tax cut, but he didn't have the nads to fight an 
entrenched dem congress for the cuts necessary to fund it. Now he's got a 
slice-and-dice minded congress and paying for it shouldn't be a problem.

There's no flopping in the wind going on here. Just because those of us to 
the left of you don't fit your demonized image of all things left as pure 
spendthrift social engineers (commies in disguise) lusting after every 
hard-earned or inherited dollar we can get our hands on, don't think we've 
changed our tune. You're just seeing a breakdown of the propoganda of the 
right.

   Anent .388 (Doctah):
   
   >> Apparently you missed the fact that tax rates can be lowered while
   >> total revenues increase.
   
   Apparently I did.  What country and when was that?  And what is the
   first differential of the tax rate/revenue equation?  You absolutely
   must know the maximum point, and which side of the Laffer Curve you lie
   on, before you game the nation's solvency.
   
   Apparently you are unfamiliar with the work of David Stockman, who found
   he could not make the Reagan budgets work unless he ignored leading
   ones.  Those budgets used the supply-side "rosy scenarios" of tax cuts
   stimulating the economy.  That, of course, did not happen.
   
   You might also look at the Bush budgets, which also employed the
   fraudulent "rosy scenario" supply-side theory.  As mr. bill has
   documented, spending in the Bush administration was *under* projections,
   yet the projected balanced budget (hah!) never happened, because
   revenues came in so much more under projections.
   
   Sorry, you can't fool us twice (three times, for MA residents)
   with that stuff.

      On Clinton the Chameleon...
      Count me as one who sees Clinton this way.  I saw his chameleon
      'ways' back when he found out that Tsongas was his main adversary.
      Super Tuesday was coming up and Florida was a big prize.  Tsongas
      was (is) fiscally to the right of most Dem's so what does Clinton
      do???
    
      Its CHAMELEON time!!  Ahhh, the moderate is suddenly an old-time
      Democrat!  Its entitlements and welfare time!  Time to distance
      himself from Tsongas and why not sell your integrity to do so?
      There's a lot of old folks down Florida way and they'll just 
      love your sudden tune!
    
      What a shameless crock.  And all the while Tsongas maintains his
      integrity - and gets buried.
    
      Thats when I really began to dislike Clinton the politician.
    
    
      On Line Item Veto...
      Does it have a chance?
    
    
      On Politics As Usual...
      Anybody hear where the capital gains tax cut in the Mass. bill
      was located?  It appeared as one or two sentences in a two para-
      graph section titled "Tax cuts for the Poor."
    
      I don't know why I mentioned it here.  I am so disgusted with
      our government.
    
      Almost makes me think that the only hope is to nuke it and start
      from scratch.
    
                                                   Tony

	Tony, if you would only tell us how you really feel....

   Tony, I have no argument with your points.  That's not a nice side of
   the Prez.

    .394
    
    Shock - horror!!!

    > Apparently I did.  What country and when was that?
    
     Here's a little exercise you can perform. What year did the Reagan tax
    reduction take effect? What was the revenue total that year? Now look
    at the next few years' revenue figures. Do you notice anything about
    the relative magnitudes of those numbers? I thank you.

   Anent .396( the Doctah):
   
   >> Here's a little exercise you can perform. What year did the Reagan tax
   >> reduction take effect? What was the revenue total that year? Now look
   >> at the next few years' revenue figures. Do you notice anything about
   >> the relative magnitudes of those numbers? I thank you.
   
   The Reagan tax reduction took effect in 1981.  Let's look at the figures
   (taken from the _World Almanac and Book of Facts_, 1984 and 1994
   editions).  As the friend said to Milton Berle, you only have to take
   out enough to win.  Here's a small portion of my "Reaganomics FAQ":
   
WHAT WERE THE DATA FOR GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, NET FEDERAL RECEIPTS,
YEARLY DEFICIT, AND TOTAL DEBT SINCE 1960?  
[Scott Marison, 9/27/94]

Here is the requested data, taken from US Treasury data 
(quoted in the _World Almanac_).  All figures are in billions of dollars,
not adjusted for inflation.  Data gaps are due to lack of access to data
on my part.

		NET FEDERAL	YEARLY 		TOTAL 		
YEAR PRESIDENT	RECEIPTS	DEFICIT		DEBT		GNP
==== =========	==========	=======		=====		===

1988 Reagan	 908.2		155.2		2602.3		
1987 Reagan	 854.1		149.7		2350.3		4526.7
1986 Reagan	 769.1		221.1		2125.3		4240.3
1985 Reagan	 734.1		212.2		1823.1		
1984 Reagan	 666.5		185.3		1572.3		
1983 Reagan	 600.6		207.8		1377.2		
1982 Reagan	 617.8		127.9		1142.0		
1981 Reagan	 599.3		 78.9		 997.9		
1980 Carter	 517.1		 73.8		 907.7		2732.0
   .
   .
   .
1964 Johnson	 112.6		  5.9				
1963 Kennedy	 106.6		  4.8				
1962 Kennedy	 106.8		  7.1				
1961 Kennedy	  97.7		  3.3				
   
WHAT WAS THE DEFICIT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE GNP DURING THIS PERIOD? 
[Peter Cook, 9/27/94]

Except during recessions, the GNP rises every year, while the
deficit fluctuates, so this is a meaningless question.  A more
revealing ratio is the public debt as a percentage of GNP.
Here are both:

YEAR	ADMINISTRATION	DEFICIT/GNP	DEBT/GNP
====	==============	==========	========
1992	Bush		4.9%		68.2%
1991	Bush		4.7%		64.4%
1990	Bush		4.0%		60.2%

1987	Reagan		3.3%		51.9%
1986	Reagan		5.2%		50.1%

1980	Carter		2.7%		33.2%

1975	Ford		2.7%		33.4%

1970	Nixon		0.1%		36.4%

1960	Eisenhower	N/A (surplus)	55.1%
   
PRESIDENT REAGAN LOWERED TAX RATES.  AFTER HE DID SO, DIDN'T HE
GET MORE REVENUE FROM TAXES?
[Scott Marison, 18.4160, 9/27/94]

No.  Between 1982 and 1983 tax revenues declined.

Note also that candidate Ronald Reagan cited President Kennedy's
tax cut as a good idea, but in 1963 federal revenues also declined.

                         The Democrats New Clothes

   The Democrats seem to think that they can rejuvenate themselves by 
   declaring a new agenda.  They have been pretty consistently mouthing 
   a more conservative message.  What they don't get is that their message 
   has no credibility.  The peoples lack of trust in Clinton is a matter of 
   record.   Words will never change that, and it may already be too late 
   for him.  The Democrats have had control of Congress for most of the
   voters memory and now they are the party of change?  There is a growing
   group of voters that are paying ever increasing attention to what their
   elected representatives are saying and doing.  These news Democrats will
   get away with their deceit  of the voters  with a tax cut payoff for a 
   little while.  But most thinking people will come to realize that the 
   group that wants to offer us even more money than the Republicans, were 
   telling us not long ago  that the Republicans smaller tax cut in their
   Contract With America would wreck the budget.  This message was pounded 
   home relentlessly by our unbiased media, who I am sure will now point 
   this out.  And now they want to offer us even more to gain our support 
   back to the Democratic party.  

   In my opinion what the people want is credibility,  not words.  I
   believe that after the media hype they will see through this farce. 
   The people will not see a newly clothed Bill Clinton and Democrats but
   will see them standing naked.  And next to them with the wind whistling
   up their butts will be our disgraceful media circus.
   

    >No.  Between 1982 and 1983 tax revenues declined.
    
     Too funny. It goes up one year, then goes down, then goes up, up,
    up...
    
     And you say that revenues don't increase. Forget it. You are not worth
    my time.

   You ask a direct question, I answer it with facts, and now you say I'm
   not worth your time.  Your problem is, I invested more time in the
   answer than you did in the question.  (Well, maybe that's a problem for
   me...)
   
   Not only did the revenues decline in those periods, but even the meager
   increases (at least in the Reagan years) were far less than predicted by
   the supply-siders.  *Supply-side doesn't work.*
   
   I'm so sorry the facts prove you wrong.  Maybe you should use your time
   better.

    Steve:
    
    You're forgetting part of the picture...that being the democrat
    congress spent the country into oblivion.  If we're going to play the
    blame game, remember, the pendulum definitely swings both ways.
    
    The problem with the 80's was that government grew at a phenominal
    rate.  George Bush poured more money into social programs than Reagan
    by far.  I do believe the priv. sector as far as job creation and revenue
    generation overshadows the federal government on a wide scale.  To say 
    otherwise would be a fallacy.  Therefore, it makes sense that the
    necessary thing to do is to stimulate profitability in the private
    sector.  Even Clinton recognized this when he passed NAFTA, hoping to
    pass GATT, and Recommended Japan to drop it's personal tax rate.  
    
    Steve, if I do my taxes and owe the gov't $1500.00, I would rather keep
    that 1500 and buy new furniture with it.  This stimulates business,
    creates better jobs by far, strengthens the GDP, and I get new
    furniture.  Doing it your way, I still have the old furniture, Jordan's
    furniture may consider downsizing, and the government spends 1500 on a 
    test in Shaboygan Wisconsin to determine why cow's fart as long as they 
    do.  Which scenario strikes you as more prudent?
    
    -Jack

   Jack, the question on the table was simply on the revenue side.
   My excerpt from my FAQ addresses only that.  If you want to get into the
   spending side of the eighties, we could talk about how the Reagan
   budgets (and don't try to divert attention by calling the Congressional
   budgets) lavished more money on the Department of Defense than even they
   *asked for*.  The military buildup matched the deficit explosion.
   
   Of course, you could choose to argue that the military buildup bought us
   something, perhaps such as the collapse of the Soviet Empire.  But then
   your argument in .401 would be contradicted.  In your scenario you have
   $1500 worth of furniture, but your visitors would be quartered Red Army
   soldiers 8^)

RE: 30.401 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

> You're forgetting part of the picture...that being the democrat congress 
> spent the country into oblivion.  

The Congress is now Republican.  We shall see if the spending habits
change,  other than the exact districts that get pork.  I tend to doubt it.


Phil

>The Congress is now Republican.  We shall see if the spending habits
>change,  other than the exact districts that get pork.  I tend to doubt it.

    	Things better change, or not only will the people who voted against
    	the current congress be angry, but many of those who voted for
    	them.

    Steve, what about 82, 84, 85? Hmmm? Or don't you think that those
    numbers are higher than the preceeding years'? Moron. Why do I bother
    when you are simply going to spin, spin, spin in the very face of the
    facts?
    
     3 years out of the four the revenues increased, in one year they
    declined. And you say that "revenues decline after a tax cut." Who are
    you trying to kid? The only one you can convince with such malarkey is
    yourself. Of course, if your hero raised taxes and revenues declined
    three years out of four, you'd be claiming that tax increases make
    revenues increase, too. Partisan charlatan.

    
    Newt will limit himself to an 8 year term as Speakah according
    to the Great One.

	God came down just to tell us that!!?? :-)

No, 'twas Jackie Gleason.

   Anent .405: Mark, I don't see why you're getting insulting.  You asked a
   specific question and I gave you a specific answer.  The facts do not
   support your contention; instead, they show:
   
   	1) After the Reagan tax cut, revenues declined the next year.
   
   	2) Revenue increases in other years were often noticeably miniscule.
   
   	3) When Kennedy cut taxes, revenues declined one year as well.
   
   Don't forget, the supply-side window closed in 1986, when Bob Dole and
   company rewrote the tax code to redress the crisis.  Also, bear in mind
   that the supply-side prediction was not just that revenues wouldn't be
   impacted, but that they would be significantly enhanced.  Do you see a
   spurt in receipts?
   
   Revenues declined after the tax cut.  From that fact, I assert that
   revenues declined after the tax cut.  You call that malarky; I call it
   pre-logical thinking.
   
   Perhaps you think declining revenue one year in four is a pretty good
   average; I assure you, from the thirty years of data I have gathered,
   it's not.  Declining revenues is quite unusual.
   
   Oh, I see why you're getting insulting: the facts didn't support you, 
   so all you have left is to call me a moron.

     The fact of the matter is that any non monotonic function can be shown
    to buck the overall tendency if the sample points are appropriately
    picked. That a minor hiccup occurred in a single instance does not
    redefine the general proclivity. I say your interpretation of the facts
    is faulty, and is based on partisan "reasoning." If you think that's
    insulting, well, hey, if the shoe fits.

 .410  coulda been that "Moron." comment 

    Steve:
    
    There is another element to this.  Most individuals don't want
    government to have any more control of the money supply than they
    already have.  Even if they handle it more effective, which they don't, 
    relinquishing another part of the GNP to the likes of a liberal
    congress and executive branch would lack prudence!!
    
    -Jack

   I answered the question you posed as you posed it.  Ask a more
   sophisticated question, nicely, and you'll get a more sophisticated
   answer.
   
   Here's one for you: To my knowledge, in the last thirty years, there
   have been three year-to-year declines in federal revenue collection:
   under Reagan, Kennedy, and Nixon.  Can you associate these declines with
   a fiscal policy, or are they tied to economic events?
   
   Here's another: Is revenue collected year-to-year the best metric for
   determining the efficacy of supply-side policy, or is there a better
   one -- say, revenue collected as a percentage of GNP/GDP?

How the Gingrinch Stole Congress
-------------------------------- by Lenore Skenazy

Every Rep down in Congress liked Clinton somewhat,
Except for the Gingrinch, who simply did NOT.

He hated Bill Clinton!  He hated his wife!
He vowed to torment them the rest of his life!

The Ging hated anyone left of the Huns,
He hated the wusses who didn't like guns.
He hated the teachers who wouldn't lead prayers.
He hated the people who'd tax millionaires!
He hated "McGoverniks" whining 'bout rights,
Like equal protection for gays and nonwhites.

He hated the folks who said "Nicotine kills"
And vowed he would pass more pro-Nicotine bills.
He hated the folks who said "Women need choice"
And he vowed to give middle-aged males more voice.
But he hated the people on Welfare much more;
He hated the way they were POOR POOR POOR!

He hated the way the had no jobs at all!
This struck him as heaploads of GALL GALL GALL!
They also lacked training and day care.  So what?
The Gingrinch announced he'd come up with a plot:
"Get off of Welfare!  Get off today!
Or we will take all of your children AWAY!"

Now, no one knew what made the Ging such a meanie:
It could be because he was built like a weenie.
It could be because he had Donahue hair,
Or maybe because not much lurked under there.
But probably what most explained the man's life
Was the fact he abandoned his children and wife.

Yes, 'way down in Georgia, his wife lay near dead
Sicked with cancer, in hospital bed.
He crept in to see her (they let him, of course)
And whispered, quite sweetly, "I want a divorce!"
He whipped out his pencel with something like zeal
And got down to work on his alimony deal!
And while she was whimp'ring he said, "By the way,
I'm leaving for somebody younger - Hooray!"

The Gingrinch's heart shrank two sizes that night.
And that could be what makes him so Christian Right.

Now, the night before Congress the Ging hatched his plans:
From now on he'd speak for, quote, "Normal Americans."
Tax-slashers!  that's what those "normal" folks love!
He'd take to the skies and dismantle the gov!

He jumped out of bed and he summoned his pet:
A doberman pinscher who once killed a vet.
George was his name (as in Wallace, not Bush);
"Boy!" said the Gingrinch, "We're gonna whip tush!"

They flew to a soup kitchen, filled with sad "bums,"
Snatched up the kettle and stole all the crumbs.
They flew to a basketball game late at night
And shooed the kids out, to the dealers' delight.

They unplugged mass transit and cried "Buy a car!"
Then chopped down a forest and chomped a cigar.
What bliss!  What fun! What downright glee!
What joy! What yucks! What great TV!

The next day the Gingrinch sat high above view
And looked down on Congress (as many folks do).
He wanted to relish the joy and the cheer
Of folks waking up to their first tax-free year.

He waited and waited and waited some more;
He waited to hear them cry "Newt!  Take the floor!"
He waited for kudos and champaigne free-flowing,
He waited for trumpets on high to start blowing.
But instead of rejoicing and hoopla, etcet.
He heard a strange runmble that made his palms sweat.

The people weren't happy, not happy at all!
They ringed 'round the Statehouse!  They filled up the hall!
They groused and they grumbled and cried, "We're real mad!"
We want all those costly old programs we had!
Give back our givebacks!  Give back our pork!
Give back the stuff you walked off with, you dork!"

And the Gingrinch sat simply quite stunned at the sight
Of Normal Americans, not left and not right.

They wanted clean air and they wanted green trees.
They wanted full coverage for medical fees.
They wanted nice schools and streets safe to play,
They wanted it all - they just didn't want to pay!

And when the truth hit him, the Ging grinned a grin
He laughed and he laughed till tears ran down his chin.
The Clintons climbed up to the Dome, laughing too.
"Hee hee hee," Bill and Hill laughed, "Hoo hoo hoo!"
They laughed with the cheer that comes from within,
They laughed with the knowledge: You just cannot win.

The Gingrinch and Clintons now shared the same plight:
Whatever they'd do, they could not do it right.
"Folks hate you," said Bill, "once you land in D.C.
But I've got a plan:  Let us bond, you and me.
We'll work as a team, yes!  That's my advice!
We'll listen and nod and make NICE NICE NICE!"
The Prez put his hand out, they hugged on the ledge....

And then that old Gingrinch pushed Bill off the edge.

                   Simply wonnaful.  Tnx for typing it in!

    
    Newt is performing valuable service by being a lightning rod
    whilst more moderate GOP forces and Libertarians operate
    quietly in the shadows to eliminate the welfare state.

    re ;415
    
    rubbish. those that believe that kind of garbage haven't a clue about
    what's going on in DC or what mainstream america is demanding.

    Newt wants to stop funding Sesame Street and barney, as they are
    liberally slanted.  
    
    Gee if teaching children that people are people regardless of color,
    religious affiliation, country of origin, and age is liberal, then I
    guess i am one.
    
    meg

    .419
    
    You are kidding me right?  Since when does our government fund tv
    programs?  
    
    

    Since public funds are contibuted to public stations on which these
    programs are aired.  
    
    Brian

    Re: Public Television.
    
    I don't like shows that portray white males as evil and bad.
    
    I also don't like childrens television shows that have guests who act 
    like they wear underwear over their heads and want to be called Uncle
    Ralph.  I'm not at liberty to name the show because of the sentence 
    I must fulfill from the Boxtrial.  See header!
    
    -Jack

    This really fries my potatoes.. the government shouldn't be funding
    anything on TV.. man talk about feed the public and control what we
    want you see and hear!!!
    
    I'm sorry if I'm incredibly naive.. but ..
    
    Signed,
    Naive

    The more I hear all the liberals (the media especially) whining about 
    Newt, the more I like the man.  I haven't even heard his speeches on 
    welfare (other than a minute or two on C-SPAN), but from all the backlash 
    I'm reading in here, I may just send him a letter telling him to keep up 
    the good work.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 30.422 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| I don't like shows that portray white males as evil and bad.

	I hadn't known any did.

| I also don't like childrens television shows that have guests who act like 
| they wear underwear over their heads and want to be called Uncle Ralph.  

	If they act like they ear underwear over their head, there might be
another reason they are called Uncle Ralph! It might have something to do with
the porcelin throne....


Glen

    	re .419
    
    	Of course you realize that you have reported that tidbit with
    	a very dishonest twist to it.
    
    	They want to look at nixing funding for public broadcasting in
    	general because a disproportionate amount of that funding ends
    	up being used for politically-slanted broadcasts.  Barney and
    	Big Bird merely become collateral damage.
    
    	That's a far cry from:
    
    >    Newt wants to stop funding Sesame Street and barney, as they are
    >    liberally slanted.

    Joe,
    
    Newt specifically spelled out Barney, Sesamie Street, and NPR as being
    liberally biased.  Ben watenburg's show, also funded by CPB was not
    named.
    
    nancy, I don't know about you, but I consider SS and a few other
    children's programs as far more enriching than any of the children's
    programming on commercial TV.  (BTW my membership to my local affiliate
    is paid up)  
    
    meg

   Is there any question that PBS childrens' shows and CTW shows are better
   for our kids than commercial TV?
   
   	PBS			Commercial
   Sesame Street	Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
   
   'nuff said.

	Steve, TMNT informs the kiddies of a lot of important things. Like
being a turtle is pure hell.

    And pizza is good and violence is good and living in a sewer is good
    and commercialism is good.

    Steve:
    
    Remember my string...Dead White Males?  I still stand by that.
    
    Children's programming on PBS is tainted toward all the elements that
    are bad in society.  You got the diversity crowd...not teaching the
    value of diversity...but the continuation of victimization and
    get-even-withem-isms.  You got the goals 2000 crowd, giving a watered
    down version of facts so as to dummy up the generation and hence the
    democrat party will finally take control.  You got FFA (Future Feminist
    of America) on Barney and friends.  The list goes on.  And Rogers...
    what a beaut he is!!!  
    
    Drop PBS before it is too late!!!
    
    -Jack

    Ah yes, e famous Dead White Males string.  How could we ever forget
    such a classic.

   Jack, I thought you gave up on that when I pointedout that the conductor
   on "Shining Time Station" (*not* a US-produced show, by the way) is a
   white male -- first Ringo Starr, then George Carlin.

   Anent .410 (the Doctah) and .414 (me):
   
   When I posed a more complex question, silence fell.  Perhaps I should
   attempt to answer it myself.
   
   >> To my knowledge, in the last thirty years, there have been three
   >> year-to-year declines in federal revenue collection: under Reagan,
   >> Kennedy, and Nixon.  Can you associate these declines with a fiscal
   >> policy, or are they tied to economic events?
   
   I am missing five years of revenue data between 1960 and 1994 (including
   1994 and 1993).  Other than (perhaps) in those years, there have been
   only three year-to-year revenue declines:  1983 (Reagan), 1971 (Nixon),
   and 1963 (Kennedy).  Now, the _World Almanac_ tells us that federal
   revenues were off by *half* during 1931-1935, the era of the Great
   Depression; I don't know exactly what that entailed, but it's reasonable
   to assume that the economic downturn had something to do with it.
   Perhaps revenues declined in 1983 because of the Reagan recession?
   
   But note that in the last 35 years revenues went up during the Bush
   recession, the Carter recession, and the Ford recession; if there were
   other recessions, I've forgotten about them, but if there were, revenues 
   went up despite them.
   
   So if it's not recession, then what about those years might have caused
   the problem?  Well, in two of those three periods there was a federal
   tax-cutting policy; in the third, we were under national wage and price
   controls.  I don't see a precise match to the timing; it's very hard to
   tie such a gross roll-up to individual changes.  But I am suspicious.
   
   >> Here's another: Is revenue collected year-to-year the best metric for
   >> determining the efficacy of supply-side policy, or is there a better one
   >> -- say, revenue collected as a percentage of GNP/GDP?
   
   Supply-side theory predicted that revenues would not only
   increase, but increase faster than anticipated (the so-called dynamic
   loading; "Rosy Scenario" or "voodoo economics" to some).  Remember, in
   the greatest-peacetime-economic-expansion-in-history eighties, there's
   no way to claim the economy just didn't grow as fast as expected.
   The reality is clearly different; the decade's burgeoning budget 
   deficits came not from overspending but from lagging revenues.
   
   It's no surprise to conventional economists that federal revenues as a
   percentage of GNP/GDP fell during the supply-side era.  It rose from
   17.7% to 20.2% from 1976 through 1981 [Boston Globe, 2/14/94], then
   dropped to 18% in 1984.  These are significant changes when the
   denominator -- the GDP -- is so large.  Also, the mix of revenues has
   changed, moving noticeably from income taxes to payroll taxes such as
   FICA and Medicare.
   
   But overall, it's much more accurate to stick with static loading and
   say when taxe rates were cut, revenues declined, and when they were
   increased, revenues went back up.  This is preisely what is happening in
   Massachusetts, for example, where Governor Dukakis put through a tax
   hike and Governor Weld put through a tax cut.  The receipts match the
   simple and intuitive model, not the supply-side model.

    	Well Meg, I've never seen that from him.  Doesn't mean that
    	it didn't happen, I guess, but I still have my doubts.  Do
    	you have a quote?  Or did you hear it from someone who heard
    	it from someone...
    
    	And if he really did name shows, did he just name those three?
    	And did he list the kiddie shows first as you did, implying that
    	these were the worst offenders?
    
    	I still think you are unfairly portraying Gingrich's statement.

    Joe,
    
    the Gazzette Telegraph on saturday had the quote.  don't know the page
    number, but I bet it is in the main section.  We had quite a
    conversation about it when the Bronco's gang in the house gave up on
    the game.
    
    meg

    	More Meg-facts, I guess.  The Gazette Telegraph ran the article
    	about this on Sunday.  Nothing in Saturday's paper.  So I can
    	only wonder about how a lib-fest "conversation" on Saturday
    	would taint what you thought you read in the real article the 
    	next day...  I also have to wonder about what you actually *did*
    	read before the Saturday Bronco game.
    
    	And the Sunday article had absolutely zero direct quotes from
    	Gingrich.

    Joe,
    
    We start out our saturday's with two newpapers and a healthy dose of
    NPR, the Gazzette is the one I remember.  
    
    I seriously doubt anyone but someone right of Hitler would wind up
    calling the Bronco's day group "liberal".  While I feel that liberal is
    not a dirty word, there are quite a few that enjoy listening to Rush
    (poor misguided souls)  
    
    
    meg

	Meg, did you get the impression that Joe was calling you a liar? I know
I did. 


Glen

	Is there more than one edition of the paper? 

    Glenn,
    
    As far as I know the local rag has only one issue.  it is amazing to me
    that they even mentioned this, as they are very pro-Newt.
    
    Joe doesn't like it when I pull things up that offend him.  He prefers
    to think that I make up facts instead.
    
    meg

	Hey, he does that with me too meg. Do you think he does it with others?

Note 30.441 by CSC32::M_EVANS
    
    >As far as I know the local rag has only one issue.  it is amazing to me
    >that they even mentioned this, as they are very pro-Newt.
    
    well, if you want an EXTREMELY anti repub and anything even remotely
    conservative, subscribe to the minneapolis star tribune. you would then
    get to read daily about newt's dictatorial thrusts and the total lack
    of social conscience the repubs have. they also like to print pictures
    of rush with a pointy tail carrying a pitchfork.

    	re .439
    
    	Your impression is correct.  And I've held that opinion on this
    	particular report of the issue since I read .419.  I still hold
    	that opinion, and my reasons for that opinion are in .437.  There
    	was no such article on Saturday as was claimed, and the article
    	that most closely fit the claim had no direct (or even implied
    	quotes for that matter) to support what was said in .419.

	.441
        
>    Joe doesn't like it when I pull things up that offend him.  He prefers
>    to think that I make up facts instead.
    
    	Joe doesn't like it when you MAKE UP things that I find offensive.
    	You *DID* make up what you reported in .419, (or at least severely
    	twisted what was REALLY reported), and you have then tried to
    	support your, uh, "error", with more such "errors".
    
    	Your attempts at derision cannot hide what has been documented
    	here.
    
>    it is amazing to me
>    that they even mentioned this, as they are very pro-Newt.
    
    	They didn't "mention" what you made up and reported here.

| <<< Note 30.444 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>


| Your impression is correct.  


	Then you had better hope she ain't the retaliation kind.

>     <<< Note 30.446 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>
>
>| <<< Note 30.444 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>
>
>
>| Your impression is correct.  
>
>
>	Then you had better hope she ain't the retaliation kind.

Why?

    
    Perhaps Meg can dig out the paper and post the article for us
    noncoloradians to see for ourselves.

    
    "retaliatory" kind
    
      YVW...
    

| <<< Note 30.449 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>



| YVW...

	You're Very Wonderful????

    You're very whimsical!!(sp?)

    
    News this AM of security precautions due to death threats to Newt.
    Probably nothing.  Why are assassins so politically clueless ?  The
    usual result is the passage of the entire poltical agenda of the
    victim.  If Clinton had been wounded by a gunman, for example, the
    healthcare bill might have passed.  The entire stalled Kennedy
    agenda went through under LBJ.  An actual assassination of Newt
    would result in the easy passage of the Contract with America.
    Why can't these nutcases see this ?  Land of the free, home of
    the nitwits.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 30.451 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| You're very whimsical!!(sp?)

	Is that a music version of whim???

>                      <<< Note 30.452 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
>                           -< On the radio today... >-
>
>    
>    News this AM of security precautions due to death threats to Newt.
>    Probably nothing.  Why are assassins so politically clueless ?  The
>    usual result is the passage of the entire poltical agenda of the
>    victim.  If Clinton had been wounded by a gunman, for example, the
>    healthcare bill might have passed.  The entire stalled Kennedy
>    agenda went through under LBJ.  An actual assassination of Newt
>    would result in the easy passage of the Contract with America.
>    Why can't these nutcases see this ?  Land of the free, home of
>    the nitwits.
>    
>      bb

Please elaborate on the "passage of the Contract with America."  Is it
a bill?  What, precisely, will be "passed"?

Bruce

    
    It's a long list of items covering first 100 days of Congress if
    the voters elected GOP majorities.  First day is 8 measures, about
    40 votes depending on the parliamentary tactics used by minority
    (Democrats).  There are 10 major acts of Congress, including both
    bills and constitutional amendments.  They have Newt-ish grandiose
    titles which are not my style - I prefer unobtrusive measures.
    Like "The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act".  Details are still
    being negotiated among Republicans in the House.
    
    The Senate did NOT sign the Contract and are not bound by it.  But
    they have a similar deal called "Seven More in '94", a pledge they
    made if they got the 7 Senators they needed for control.  Since they
    got 9, they should follow it.  Obviously, House-Senate may compromise
    where different, also minority concerns and White House may cause
    modification due to fillibuster or veto.  But if they are defeated
    by these tactics, the voters will not think it is their fault, and
    this may be bad for Democrats in 1996.
    
      bb

In other words - NOTHING.  The contract only promised that they would
bring these things up for open debate.  That's what the contract says.
Read it - please!  It's not the evil you've been told to believe it was.
It's in note 77 on this conference.

Bruce

    
     The House will pass this stuff.  They don't have the votes in the
    Senate - you need 60.  If they had them, they'd pass them.
    
      Of course, Clinton can veto, forcing 2/3, which they also don't
    have.  But it sure isn't looking like he will.  He will try to
    compromise instead.  In that, he may succeed.  If he stonewalls,
    he's a plucked chicken.
    
      bb

>     The House will pass this stuff.  They don't have the votes in the
>    Senate - you need 60.  If they had them, they'd pass them.
 
     There are far more conservative democrats than liberal republicans.
     With a divided democratic party, and many dems distancing themselves
     from Clinton, you will see many dem Senators support most of the
     contract. Clinton has already indicated he will sign many of the proposals
     in the contract. The Senate shouldn't be much of a problem.

   
>      Of course, Clinton can veto, forcing 2/3, which they also don't
>    have.  But it sure isn't looking like he will.  He will try to
>    compromise instead.  In that, he may succeed.  If he stonewalls,
>    he's a plucked chicken.
 
Clinton knows this, which is why he will be selecting his battles 
very carefully.
   
      Doug.

    .454
    
    > What exactly will be passed ?
    
    Gas.

    Newt, who accuses others of sleeze and profiting from their
    governmental service has accepted an advance of 4.5 million dollars to
    write one book and edit another.  Interesting that the publishing
    company has been trying to break into broadcasting in this country and
    that there is a bill before congress to allow foreign corporations to
    by us broadcasting interests.
    
    

    A Newt said Meg, "I can't help it if conservative books sell better
    than liberal books". :-)  
    
    

 Even the NY Times found nothing amiss in Mr. Gingrich's book deal, though
 they questioned the wisdom in the amount of money he was advanced.




Jim

    	The NYT is not the legal system, but at least it is "man enough"
    	not to succumb to partisan whining.

    
    Ran into a copy of "The Republican Contract With America" in the
    bookstore this week.  All profits to go to the Republican National
    Committee, which is said to be a non-partisan non-political group.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 30.464 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>            -< One of those big type narrow margin "bargains".... >-
>
>    
>    Ran into a copy of "The Republican Contract With America" in the
>    bookstore this week.  All profits to go to the Republican National
>    Committee, which is said to be a non-partisan non-political group.
>    
>    								-mr. bill


Said by whom?

Bruce

|Said by whom?
    
    Said by them.
    
    								-mr. bill

    While catching up on some unread notes, I will comment on some of the
    things posted here.
    
    PBS:
    I have no problem with eliminating GOVERNMENT funding of anything on
    television.  If that means the end of PBS, so be it.  How many people
    are really going to miss it.  The more popular shows (such as Seseme
    Street and Barney) will most likely be picked up by another television
    station.
    
    Book contract:
    If there is nothing legally or ethically wrong with what he did, prove
    it.
    
    ME

       <<< Note 30.467 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!" >>>

>    PBS:
>    I have no problem with eliminating GOVERNMENT funding of anything on
>    television.

	We agree.

>  If that means the end of PBS, so be it. 

	Not much chance of this. Only 20% of PBS's budget relies on
	tax money. At worst you'll just see 20% less programming.

>    Book contract:
>    If there is nothing legally or ethically wrong with what he did, prove
>    it.
 
	Does the phrase "presumption of innocence" mean anything to you?

Jim

    RE: presumption on innocense(sp?)
    
    I believe in it, which is why I asked for proof.
    
    ME

       <<< Note 30.469 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!" >>>

    
>    I believe in it, which is why I asked for proof.
 
	If that was your intent, your sentence structure needs work. The
	way it reads now it asks Newt to prove that he did nothing wrong.

Jim

    Sorry that about. :-)
    
    ME

    local paper here did full 4 page article on newt and contract in todays
    edition. they soundly crtisized every point. they also made a big stink
    about how slick should stick to his guns and fight for his principles
    (i really had a chuckle over that one). then they went on to interview
    a "typical" family that supports newts less government less taxes
    positions.
    
    the family's husband was laid off 6 months ago. the wife works as a
    receptionist. they have 5 kids aged 8-17. a couple of things they wrote
    really pissed me off. the paper asked the couple how they could justify
    a tax cut now that would lead to higher deficets that their children
    would have to pay off? the couple responded that they felt government
    was way to fat and that cuts could be made there to offset a tax cut.
    the paper repsonded with "the question was obviously above their 
    comprehension". what arrogant bastards.
    
    the family also stressed personal responsibility and a disdain for the
    "everyone is a victim" mentality. the said that while they were
    suffering hard times now, they didn't want welfare or food stamp
    assitance from the government. the husband stated that his severance
    will run out soon and he'll work at a lessor paying job to get by if
    necessary. he mentioned lots of positions in the service sector that
    didn't pay well, but were preferable to government handouts. the paper
    responded with "why are you making yourself a victim of class by
    refusing government assistance?" what arrogant bastards. the article
    goes on and on.
    
    if this country is to remain free we MUST keep people like ruling
    liberal powerbrokers here OUT of power until they are all dried up and
    gone. with the soviet union in disarray they represent the next
    greatest threat to our society and country's freedom.

    Gene, that family paid part of their tax money into an unemployment and
    benefits fund.  Now that they need it, if they choose to let it go,
    well, they *are* stupid.

    you don't seem to be comprehending well wordy. or perhaps i didn't
    explain it properly.
    
    the family can make just about the same amount of money through
    government assistance, or by working at lessor paying jobs. they chose
    to work and were publically critisized for it. the paper insinuated
    that they should accept government assistance while continuing to
    pursue a new career. insinuating its would be easier that way rather
    than working for it. and, as you've stated, they "earned" the right to
    NOT work for it. its not what they want.
    
    keep in mind that the media here is openly in support of those on
    goverment assitance that complain that a job they could have "down at
    the mall" only pays $8/hour. doing nothing will get them that much in
    state and federal assistance. 
    
    you really ought to think about this when you go to the voting booth in
    coming years.

    It would still be a better deal for all concerned if they took the
    assistance, re-skilled, and got a good job in some other field, if it
    came to that.

    Gingrich has decided to forgo the 4.5 million dollar advance rather
    than allow the republican agenda to be sidetracked by all the tongue
    wagging over it. Perhaps Fearless Leader could learn a lesson from
    this.

    Didn`t he (Newt) take part of the money for a book to be written later?

>                   <<< Note 30.476 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>                            -< Perhaps you didn't >-
>
>    It would still be a better deal for all concerned if they took the
>    assistance, re-skilled, and got a good job in some other field, if it
>    came to that.

Bruce

    re .477- oh, well-spun!  From over here, it looks like Newt got caught
    with his hand deep in the cookie jar and somehow managed to drop all
    the cookies back in the jar.  "See?  Nothing goin' on here."  But of
    course he's just 'not allowing the agenda to be sidetracked by
    tonguewagging'...ha ha ha ha ha!  
    
    DougO

Scuse me folks.

As a nephew of a (now deceased) fairly prolific author I would say

Advances on books are very common.
He will earn the same after the books are printed, as the advances are based
on expected royalties.
It is not unusual for publishers to provide advances on several books at once
knowing that authors do overlapping research or may get bogged down in one 
area so move on to another for a short while.

So what are y'all gonna do if;
He finishes the books ontime despite his heavy schedule?
they sell like hotcakes and his royalties come in in the $4-6mil figures?

Amos

  >  DougO

  >>>  From over here, it looks like Newt got caught
  >>>  with his hand deep in the cookie jar and somehow managed to drop all
  >>>  the cookies back in the jar. "See?  Nothing goin' on here."
 
  What crap!

  If you watched his press conference on the subject he clearly
  stated his reasons which are consistent with everything else he has said.
  That is one of the reasons he will be so successful. His message is always
  consistent.

  Wish I could say that about our current president, even on a day to day basis.

  Often politics and personal issues collide when in office. Newts priority is
  to his country, and so, his personal business will have to take a back seat
  to it. I don't see any other members of congress returning their advances ...

  >>>'not allowing the agenda to be sidetracked by tonguewagging'

  This much is true, which illustrates my point.


  Doug.

    y'all are a hoot.  lions over democratic imporprieties, lambs over
    newt.  do any of you think that 4.5 Mil is maybe just a tad agressive
    speculative royalties for one of Newt's books?  Have any of his other
    books earned him anywhere near that?  I'm sure not, or such would have
    been trotted out to defend this one.  On the shady side of the deal,
    book publishers have special interests in legislation, especially tax-
    implications of unsold stock which must under current law be
    remaindered and which they'd dearly like changed.  Oh, no, your Newt
    couldn't possibly be considering unrelated changes in the tax laws,
    could he?  
    
    When I was in the AF the regulations didn't just say avoid impropriety,
    they said avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.  Accepting such a
    huge advance had that appearance; he knew it, and he backed it down. 
    Y'all wanna lend his fig leaf some legitimacy that's your lookout, but
    you lay yourselves open to charges of tolerating the same old
    Washington sleaze.  See you in the mud pits.
    
    DougO

DougO,

Like the press, you've already tried and convicted the man before he has
taken a position  ....

I'll judge him on the actions he has taken, not the ones he has yet to take ...


Doug.

If DougO is such an insightful and intuitive expert on the way big businesses
run, how come he's just working for DEC?

Altruism?

Note 30.483 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    >y'all are a hoot.  lions over democratic imporprieties, lambs over
    >newt.  do any of you think that 4.5 Mil is maybe just a tad agressive
    
    rubbish. advances on a book isn't anything like rape, sexual
    misconduct, cheating the futures markets, etc. etc. crawl back under
    that rock and think a bit dougo.

    a rock?  Maybe y'all should reflect that there has been ONE advance in
    the history of American book publishing that was larger, and it went to
    a politician who had just retired (Reagan, $7M), not one who had just
    ascended into the most powerful seat in the House.  Other than that,
    $4.5 is the LARGEST EVER.  Any budding authors in here?  Pay attention
    to how many copies under a standard royalty arrangement would have to
    be sold for Newt to make $4.5M:
    
    > The industry standard is for an author to receive a 10 percent royalty
    > on each of the first 5,000 hard- cover copies sold, 12.5 percent for
    > the next 5,000 and 15 percent on all books sold thereafter, according
    > to Hamilton Cane of Simon & Schuster publishing in New York. A
    > HarperCollins spokesman refused to comment on the terms. 
    >
    > Tony Blankley, a spokesman for Gingrich, said that, while the contract
    > has not been finalized, the royalties will be normal, customary and
    > definitely less than 15 percent. At 15 percent, Gingrich would have to
    > sell 1 million copies of his book at $30 each to make $4.5 million. 
    
    A million copies at $30 each, get that, boyz-n-girlz?  Anybody have
    print runs on Newt's other books?  Hint for the clueless: its a mighty
    rare book that breaks 100K copies, much less beats it by an order of
    magnitude IN HARDCOVER.
    
    Rupert Murdoch is not a publisher given much to altruism.  He knew 
    he'd get back this generous "advance" one way or another; if not in
    book-publishing legislation, then in communications legislation.
    
    Go on, Haag, Fyfe, Levesque, keep defending him, I'll keep entering
    more facts for people to think about regarding the ethics of this book
    deal.  Newt had more sense than you do, he knew it wasn't defensible.
    
    DougO

    >Go on, Haag, Fyfe, Levesque, keep defending him, I'll keep entering
    >more facts for people to think about regarding the ethics of this book
    >deal.  Newt had more sense than you do, he knew it wasn't defensible.
    
    just great. then you will be rambling and blathering along akin to the
    mules defense of the shroud of turrin. even the hard core liberal dimms
    have pretty much dropped this issue.

    	I thought lots of books become million sellers.
    
    	How many did Rush Limbaugh sell?

    
    Not in hardcover.  A million paperbacks happens to quite a few.  But
    often not in one year.
    
      bb

>    	How many did Rush Limbaugh sell?

he sold well over 2 million copies of both his books in hardcover...
(thats 4.5 to 5 million total)

Ever think because of his success that other conservative books are
expecting to do as well? (or better)

I'm really sick of all this unethical crap some people are saying about
his deal... I didn't see anything wrong (heck, I don't like clinton, but
if he did this, I wouldn't think anything of it either...)

Gawd... and you clinton-supportors claimed us rabid right wingers were
crazy over whitewater!!!

/Scott

   > a rock?  Maybe y'all should reflect that there has been ONE advance in
   > the history of American book publishing that was larger, and it went to
   > a politician who had just retired (Reagan, $7M), not one who had just
   > ascended into the most powerful seat in the House.  Other than that,
   > $4.5 is the LARGEST EVER.  Any budding authors in here?  Pay attention
   
   Given the recent boom in conservative literature, including Reagan and Rush
   and others, and given the recent election results and the current mood of
   the American public, I do not find it at all an improper investment for
   two books from one of the top leaders in conservatism who knows how to 
   articulate clearly. The buying public is ripe for such books. Rush's two
   books together sold over 5 million copies ...

   > Rupert Murdoch is not a publisher given much to altruism.  He knew 
   > he'd get back this generous "advance" one way or another; if not in
   > book-publishing legislation, then in communications legislation.
    
   Is this an example of one of your 'facts'?

   > Go on, Haag, Fyfe, Levesque, keep defending him, I'll keep entering
   > more facts for people to think about regarding the ethics of this book
   > deal.  Newt had more sense than you do, he knew it wasn't defensible.
 
   Facts? ya right. Opinion maybe ...

   Like Newt said, he couldn't help if conservative books are selling well
   these days or that there is more interest in his book than in Folly's.

   Until such time as a FACT which acurately displays some form of corruption
   on Newts part is established, I'll support him.

   Meanwhile you can keep parroting the Minority Party Whip (who is making 
   a pathetic attempt to discredit Newt).

   Doug.   
   

    re: Note 30.483 by SX4GTO::OLSON

    > do any of you think that 4.5 Mil is maybe just a tad agressive
    > speculative royalties for one of Newt's books? 

    Jealous?  I don't GAS how much money eye-of-newt makes on his books.
    Give him 15 million for all I care.   
    
    > On the shady side of the deal, book publishers have special interests
    > in legislation, especially tax-implications of unsold stock which must
    > under current law be
    
    HYPOCRITE.  EVERYONE has something they want from elected officials.
    I wrote to all my guys today looking for something (confirmation of
    an interpretation, or seeing how they would spin what I was
    asking).  Almost all lobbyist want favors.  GIVE ME A BREAK.  Almost
    every politician would sell their momma for a dollar.  This is the
    "Business as usual" yer man BillC was gonna fix.  While skeptical of
    Newt, I'll see if he puts his money where his mouth is.  We'll see what
    happens... before we fly off the handle.
    
    MadMike

    madMike,
    
    If he really felt that what he was doing wasn't wrong, then why back
    down?  Newt pulled a standard clinton waffle here, as far as I am
    concerned.  I wonder how much maple sugar he will wind up dripping on
    himself before the next hundred days are out?
    
    meg

This note has more replies then the Clinton note... why? 

Liberals have gone even more bonkers over Newt then any conservatives have
gone over Clinton...

You guys crack me up... Newt doing a Clinton waffle on his book deal? Um.
He's still doing the books, just not getting paid up front. big deal.
Newt's the speaker, so deal with it instead of all this whining about
the book deal... admit it, conservatives are gaining in popularity, and
books by conservatives are selling like hot cakes... Just fess up to the
fact that your liberal ideals are going down the toilet now that 
America is awakening from her slumber. Clinton has provided the slap in
the face that America needed...

/Scott

    
    RE: .495
    
    >...standard clinton waffle
    
     So you admit that he's the master at it and has every right to carry
    his name???

>  <<< Note 30.497 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
>
>    
>    RE: .495
>    
>    >...standard clinton waffle
>    
>     So you admit that he's the master at it and has every right to carry
>    his name???


What's your point?

    >Jealous?  I don't GAS how much money eye-of-newt makes on his books.
    
    How much he makes on his books, I don't mind either.  How much he makes
    selling the favors he can do people based on the powers of his office,
    as this appears to have been, bothers *some* of us.  Obviously not you
    business-as-usual types.  Newt's not the first to try and he won't be the
    last, and oh-we-should-drop-it-because-he-did-and-no-quid-pro-quo-was-ever
    -proven, is that what you lot are trying to say?  Funny how such
    appeals were ignored about troopergate and foster's suicide.  So, now
    we know the price for favors from the Speaker of the House.  $4.5M. 
    Any of you got any favorite legislation needs a push?
    
    PAYBACK time.  Ain't it fun being the party in power when your every
    move gets scrutinized?  Get used to it boyz, the fun is just beginning.
    
    DougO

    >Any of you got any favorite legislation needs a push?
    
    Making whining a capital offense maybe...
    
    -b

    Two years too late, he says.
    
    DougO

    	Still stuck on that PAYBACK trash, huh?  We would have thought
    	a nice holiday and a new year's resolution would have fixed
    	that up, but I suppose that was a mistake.

    Y'all had two years of whining since the last election, and more
    than that of filibustering and otherwise shutting down the will of
    the majority party.  Your long ride on the rail is just beginning,
    Joe, and as I've said several times, I'm going to relish EVERY
    MINUTE.  Your hero Newt don't look so fine with his hand out for
    the second-largest advance in the history of book publishing, does
    he?  Oh, this is the ethical Republican party, is it?  Ah, this is
    the new Congress, those who wrote the Contract With America, and
    its to be no more business-as-usual, right?  Rigggggght.  Newt
    snatched his fingers back from the burning coal *this* time, but
    we can smell the singe, the smoke rising from the scorched hubris
    of those who relish the center stage, all the while imagining that
    getting caught couldn't happen to them.  That spotlight'll burn ya,
    Newt, if you don't watch your step.  And oh how you look like a
    cockroach scurrying in the glare.
    
    DougO

    You keep thinking that now that we have our foot on your neck we're
    going to let you up so you can create trouble. Think again hombre.
    We're an ornery bunch of SOBs and we have no use for olive branches
    or middle of the road compromise. We will rest when liberalism as
    a force in American politics is but a bitter memory...
    
    Just because pinkos don't know how to fight, even when in a crowd,
    doesn't mean we don't know how...
    
    -b

    	Most of the "payback" that you see is only in your own mind,
    	Doug.  You're like the crazy man, walking down the street,
    	talking and muttering to himself and the demons in his head,
    	laughing at the jokes the voices tell him.
    
    	Most people scurry out of his way and choose to walk on the 
    	other side of the street.  Many feel pity for him.
    
    	I guess as long as you don't become a threat to others, you'll
    	get left alone...

DougO,

It's not whining!  The current TEMPORARY RESIDENT of the White House tried
to take our freedoms away!  You (editorial) want "whining" - just try to take
it away again!  You'll lose and lose big time! 

Actually, the conservative "tune" hasn't changed!  We have been showing
socialists lies for what they are for years now.  Some called in whining
but it was just trying to get the truth out.  Now, we're STILL trying to
get the truth out and y'all are STILL lying through your collective teeth.
The only difference is who has the power.

Bruce

    Y'all don't wanna talk about Newt anymore, just say I'm whining
    and assume I'm crazy and outta touch?  You can hope - but this is
    just a taste, I promise you, of what it'll be like after the press
    has had just two months under the new regime.  Demos have been in
    shock and GOP has been riding euphoria...but the honeymoon Clinton
    never got will be back to haunt you in spades.  Count on it.  You
    say its about CHARACTER, huh?  Newt's got character, all right-
    Murdoch bids $4.5M, who else is bidding for Speaker Newt's time
    and attention?  He'll cover it better next time, and maybe the
    press'll trip one of his cronies instead...but don't you fools see
    the writing on the wall?  Don't you recognize sleaze when it rears
    up and backhands you in the face?  Incoming speaker gets $4.5M
    cash and its nothing???  Yeah, Bruce, we *know* your tune hasn't
    changed - you're defending the dance called by sleazemeisters, same
    as it ever was...
    
    DougO

    	Who is assuming?

    Just a TASTE!  Payback will be so sweet.  If I'm crazy, Joe, get
    used to nightmares.
    
    DougO

    	You've been reading too many vampire novels.

>    If he really felt that what he was doing wasn't wrong, then why back
>    down?  Newt pulled a standard clinton waffle here, as far as I am
>    concerned.  I wonder how much maple sugar he will wind up dripping on
>    himself before the next hundred days are out?
>    
>    meg

Meg, if you had seen his press conference it would have been pretty clear why
he chose to change the deal from an advance to a percentage of the sales.
It wasn't a waffle, it just wasn't as important as the work he is looking forward
to this next 100 days and he did not want anything to detract from that.

He made mention of how the press tries to tear down every politician that finds 
the lime light and that he wants the light on the accomplishments of the 104'th
congress, not him. 

How many politicians do you know that would postpone $4.5m for the sake of 
the nation? Since money IS politics, you won't find to many.

Doug.

    Oh man... you sound more and more like a wounded pup as you get more
    and more wound up... it's kinda funny, really. You ought to watch
    yourself though, you're gonna blow a gasket that way.
    
    Maybe while you're taking that deep deep breath you so badly need you
    should think for a moment that the Newt deal was actually for two
    books, so your math is off.
    
    Further, the Democratic party is now in a lose-lose situation. If you
    piss and moan and cause gridlock, you're in a lot worse situation than
    the Repubs were a few years ago. And if you cling to your party's
    ideals, you're in even worse trouble. The Republicans managed a palace
    coup rather quietly. You _think_ the spotlight is on them now, but
    guess again. The spotlight is _still_ on you because your boy is in the
    White House and he's the main reason you're no longer in control of the
    Capitol. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better... so you
    might as well suck it in and show a little backbone...
    
    -b

    
    maybe it's time to point out that al gore's royalties for "earth in the
    balance" are in the neighborhood of 700 grand so far, and will be over
    a million before it's over.  while the media's pounding newt, algore's
    raking in the loot.  
    
    bill

    <- let 'em write... who GAS. I don't particularly like the salamander
       but he's a US citizen and has every right to conduct his personal
       affairs the way he wishes. 
    
       Besides, payback arguments are weak and vaporous positions.
    
       Scrutinze his work. There's nothing to make issue of here.
    
       I gets really disgusting to see this crap continue.
    
       Chip

RE: 30.514 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C

> Scrutinze his work. There's nothing to make issue of here.  I gets 
> really disgusting to see this crap continue.

So just how do we end this sort of crap?

I'd really like to know.


Phil

    -.1 me too, I'd like to know. It'll never happen. Venegeance,
     payback, vendetta, whatever you wanna call it, is a political
     pastime.
    
     Chip

    How to end this sort of crap:
    
    We uh...um....er....um.
    
    Could you repeat the question?
    
    ME

    Malox?

     Today is a historic day. Republicans get the first crack at fixing
    government in 40+ years. I really didn't think I'd see such a day in my
    lifetime.
    
     And as for the incessant shrill bleatings of the left coast boxer who
    normally uses his head, I am both disappointed and amused. He's feeling
    the heat, boys, knowing his team deserved this day in spades. But now
    the republicans have to deliver. Doug expects the democrats to go into
    a prevent defense. I think he overestimates the will of the dems. Not
    that we haven't seen that before.
    
     So keep bellyaching, Doug. Meanwhile the rest of us will be watching
    what Newt, etc actually do. It was interesting seeing some professors
    from the Kennedy school of government yesterday on TV saying that if
    the dems think that Newt is going to fizzle because he's all firebrand
    that they are going to be in for a shocker. (Both worked with him in
    congress, so they know what he's capable of.)
    
     All I've got to say is that the next 3 months oughtta be real
    interesting.

	Maybe Newt will apologize to Hillary for calling her a bitch? Well, I
guess first he would have to address that he said it...... but according to his
mother...... 

>	Maybe Newt will apologize to Hillary for calling her a bitch? Well, I
>guess first he would have to address that he said it...... but according to his
>mother...... 

oh give me a BREAK!!! Why should he apologize? HE NEVER CALLED HER A BITCH TO
HER!!! Did you ever call anyone a bitch (but not to their face?) Should you
apologize for it? Come on... it's just one more attempt at bringing Newt down
by the liberal press... I mean, before the election, I could count on one hand
the number of negative stories about Newt. Now, starting the day after
election, I could not even attempt to keep track of the number of attacks...

Connie Chung told her mother it was off the record... What did Connie ask
then? Perhaps "Tell me, off the record, did you son ever say anything 
like 'She's a bitch'? Lot's of people in washignton think so..." And then 
she goes "yes" and now Newt has to apologize???

if he said to her face or at a press conference that she was a bitch, that 
would be one thing... but as it stands he doesn't owe her an apology AT ALL.
If he does, then a bunch of us 'boxers owe her an apology too... ;-)

/scott

    Some of us don't like either party.  Small predicition, the Rupub
    congress will wind up being every bit as useless and currupt as the Dem
    congress.  While "new blood" has been brought in, you can hardly call
    most of these people "outsiders" to politics and Washington DC.  
    
    The first purchase offer for Newt is only the start.  
    
    meg

    was a REAL sleezy thing that wench connie chung did with newts mother.
    how far will the liberal press stoop? and then that idiot bryant
    gumball tried to bring it up on the today show while interviewing newt.
    the media is sleezy pond scum. you can't trust them with anything.

    
    meg,
    
    you're wrong, very wrong.  the bills brought to vote today and probably
    passed will be the most meaningful legislation we've seen in many
    years.  all of this in one day!  the future is even brighter.
    
    jeff

    
    I've heard conversations by boxers at parties and bashes about other
    boxers.... Not all of them complimentary....
    
     Should they all apologize????

    
    I'm sorry if I ever said anything uncomplimentary about another boxer,
    no matter how true it was.

     <<< Note 30.520 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>

>	Maybe Newt will apologize to Hillary for calling her a bitch? Well, I
>guess first he would have to address that he said it...... but according to his
>mother...... 


	I would only expect an apology if HE had made the comment
	to a media type. As I said, private comments need no "official"
	apology.

Jim

>    I'm sorry if I ever said anything uncomplimentary about another boxer,
>    no matter how true it was.

Why are you sorry if it's true??? Don't you have any guts to speak the
truth??? Sometimes the truth hurts, but it doesn't mean you should be sorry
you said it...

/scott

    
    
    
    But, it is also one persons opinion which does not constitute truth.
    
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 30.521 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>


| oh give me a BREAK!!! Why should he apologize? HE NEVER CALLED HER A BITCH TO
| HER!!! 

	It doesn't matter Scott. If it gets back to her, he should apologize.
Have you ever gotten upset when you heard someone had trashed you? By your
logic above we should be able to say anything about anyone as long as we never
say it to their faces. Kind of stupid, don't ya think?

| Did you ever call anyone a bitch (but not to their face?) Should you apologize
| for it? 

	I have on more than one occassion. If he won't say it to her face, why
say it at all? What is preventing him from saying it to her face?

| Come on... it's just one more attempt at bringing Newt down by the liberal 
| press... 

	Wrong again Scott. He is in the spotlight. He has put himself in the
spotlight. Those in the spotlight are grilled big time. Look at sports figures.
They say something and get wacked all the time. Marge Schoght (sp?) made some
pretty racial statements NOT to the press, but she was held accountable for
them. So ya kind of lost this one Scott.

| I mean, before the election, I could count on one hand the number of negative 
| stories about Newt. 

	He hadn't put himself in the spotlight. Now he is there. Remember when
Clinton first ran? All the negative stories that came out because of the
Flowers woman? He even went on 60 minutes to talk about it. Tell me we would
have heard any of it to the level we did if he wasn't running for President. 

| Connie Chung told her mother it was off the record... What did Connie ask
| then? Perhaps "Tell me, off the record, did you son ever say anything 
| like 'She's a bitch'? Lot's of people in washignton think so..." And then 
| she goes "yes" and now Newt has to apologize???

	His mother said that she couldn't repeat what Newt said about Hillary.
Connie said, and with a smile I might add, whisper it in my ear. I don't recall
her ever saying that anything was off the record.

| if he said to her face or at a press conference that she was a bitch, that
| would be one thing... but as it stands he doesn't owe her an apology AT ALL.

	Then I guess ole Marge should not have been in any trouble for her
racial comments, right?



Glen

    
    
    And they say conservatives are grasping at straws with WWG....
    

>    But, it is also one persons opinion which does not constitute truth.

oh give me a break... it can be truth... if I think person X is a jerk, 
it can very well be true... Afterall, some things are self evident...

Anyways, if you think person X is a jerk, then he is, for you... thus it's
true.

/scott

    ]What is preventing him from saying it to her face?
    
     Tact and manners, two things with which you are apparently completely
    unfamiliar.

    
    If I say something unkind about someone, and they hear about it, I've
    no doubt hurt their feelings, and that's not a nice thing to do, no
    matter how true I might feel my statement to be.
    
    People in the public eye have, and are entitled to have, feelings just
    like the rest of us.

    
    
    No problem....
    
    I'll apologize to Hilarry for calling her... whatever, if others will
    apologize to Mr. Gingrich for calling him "Eye of Newt"...
    
    
      Deal?
    

>     <<< Note 30.530 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>

>	It doesn't matter Scott. If it gets back to her, he should apologize.
>Have you ever gotten upset when you heard someone had trashed you? By your
>logic above we should be able to say anything about anyone as long as we never
>say it to their faces. Kind of stupid, don't ya think?

No, it's not stupid... But since you think it is, why not start by
apologizing to all the people you've called names here in this notes file.
(make sure to be totally honest and let them know what you said about 'em)

>	Wrong again Scott. He is in the spotlight. He has put himself in the
>spotlight. Those in the spotlight are grilled big time. Look at sports figures.
>They say something and get wacked all the time. Marge Schoght (sp?) made some
>pretty racial statements NOT to the press, but she was held accountable for
>them. So ya kind of lost this one Scott.

give me a break... Take Clinton. the press was forced into the Flowers stuff.
They didn't try to make a big deal out of it once he became the dem candidate 
for sure, then character didn't matter and the press let us know that. 

Then after he messed up in office big time, they were critical and then
all of a sudden felt sorry for him... and tried to make us feel sorry for
him too since "he's doing the best he can"... "trying hard"... etc.

No democrate has gotten the treatment that Newt has gotten since the election.
it's is so obvious, it's not even funny (it was for a while, but not anymore,
since the attacks on Newt are getting more and more vicious with time)

>	His mother said that she couldn't repeat what Newt said about Hillary.
>Connie said, and with a smile I might add, whisper it in my ear. I don't recall
>her ever saying that anything was off the record.

Before she said "I can't repeat it" what did Connie ask... do you know?
I'm just curious how the topic of Hillary and what Newt thinks of her came
up...

/scott


| if he said to her face or at a press conference that she was a bitch, that
| would be one thing... but as it stands he doesn't owe her an apology AT ALL.

	Then I guess ole Marge should not have been in any trouble for her
racial comments, right?



Glen

    I guess it works like this... If you feel that way and mean it,
    say it and stand by it. If you don't (or don't have the steel)
    just keep your mouth shut.
    
    Chip

    > Today is a historic day. Republicans get the first crack at fixing
    > government in 40+ years. I really didn't think I'd see such a day 
    > in my lifetime.
    
    Agree on all counts.  They get their first real chance.  And I am
    actually quite pleased to say that the reforms they speak of, if
    enacted, will be truly impressive and will earn them plaudits from me.
    Getting Congress subjected to laws on sexual harassment?  Completely
    unprecedented, and about time, and a big change, and long needed.
    
    > And as for the incessant shrill bleatings of the left coast boxer who
    > normally uses his head, I am both disappointed and amused. He's feeling
    > the heat, boys, knowing his team deserved this day in spades. But now
    > the republicans have to deliver. Doug expects the democrats to go into
    > a prevent defense. I think he overestimates the will of the dems. Not
    > that we haven't seen that before.
    
    Not so fast, Mark.  The heat is coming out precisely because Newt
    stepped over the line of propriety, and you boys need the reminder that
    the glare of the klieg lights will burn his butt just as easily as it
    burned Rosty and Coelho and Wright and O'Neil and a dozen other dirty
    pols of the last decade.  *You* are amused?  *I* am amused, that after
    'bleating' about the character of the president for so long you are all
    so willing to forgive Newt a cash payment the day he steps into office.
    Algore's made 700K on a book that's been on the market for 2.5 years,
    that qualifies as a bestseller; Newt's past books haven't done anything
    like it, and the appearance stinks.  But onwards.  "his team"?  Perhaps
    you forget, Mark, that I've been highly critical of demo shenanigans in
    the past just as much as of republicans.  I consider the whole bunch of
    them corrupt.  I *do* expect the dems to play the partisan gridlock
    game with relish; after all, the GOP have set themselves up as the new
    regime, celebrating shrilly for two months and making all kinds of
    promises; of course the dems will try to seize that opportunity to trip
    them up, wrong-foot them; after all, its what the republicans have
    shown them how to do.  
    
    > So keep bellyaching, Doug. Meanwhile the rest of us will be watching
    > what Newt, etc actually do.
    
    Just like you watched what he did last week, eh?  And will you
    soft-peddle his future ethical breaches like you do this one?
    Yeah, sure you'll be 'watching', but don't forget; so will I.
    Sure, Newt is capable; but whether he's of different stuff than
    the other denizens of that cesspit, that's what I'll be watching
    to see.  So far, it doesn't look much like it.
    
    DougO

>    People in the public eye have, and are entitled to have, feelings just
>    like the rest of us.

sure they do... and I doubt Hillary would really care what Newt thinks of
her, but if she does, and feels hurt by it... so what? That's life, folks.

/scott

>    I guess it works like this... If you feel that way and mean it,
>    say it and stand by it. If you don't (or don't have the steel)
>    just keep your mouth shut.

but he didn't say it publicly - it was a private statement... so are you
saying that if he really feels this way he now needs to say publicly
"she's a bitch"???

give me a break!

/scott

    
    I don't think it's a very christian attitude to say "so what" when
    you've hurt someone's feelings.  YMMV.

>No, it's not stupid... But since you think it is, why not start by
>apologizing to all the people you've called names here in this notes file.
>(make sure to be totally honest and let them know what you said about 'em)

Glen to clarify the above... I don't mean to say you call lots of people
names here in this notes file, rather I meant to say:

"Start a topic in this notes file where you can apologize to all the people in
your life whom you've called names..."

/scott

(just fixing my poor sentence structure...)

    look people, just what do you think slick and the witch call newt
    whilst alone at night? mr. gingrich? prolly something a whole lot worse
    than bastard.

>    I don't think it's a very christian attitude to say "so what" when
>    you've hurt someone's feelings.  YMMV.

If I've said something that I believe is true, and it hurts someone's 
feelings, I can't help it... if it's the truth and I have to say it, 
then I'll say it.. It's impossible to live life without upsetting some
people along the way...

/scott

>    look people, just what do you think slick and the witch call newt
>    whilst alone at night? mr. gingrich? prolly something a whole lot worse
>    than bastard.

that's exactly my point... and they don't need to apologize about it either.

I think we'd do our country good if our leaders were more like Taiwans...
you know - name calling, fist fights, etc...  ;-)

/scott

    
    RE: .544
    
    Your Mileage May Vary
    
    YVW...
    
    :)
    

>    YVW...

Your Very Welcome???

    
    That's "you're".
    
    HTH.

    
    I agree with apologizing among us.  But the Clintons, Gingrich, Dole,
    etc are public figures.  The rules are very different.  You shed
    your privacy before you take federal office.  If you don't like it,
    don't run.  The current total openness is painful for them, but it
    is a strong medicine containing a cure for a worse disease, which
    is remoteness from the people.  Spotlights on all these people
    should be very bright indeed.
    
      bb

    
    RE: .548
    
    
    Mia Coopla...
    

>>I think we'd do our country good if our leaders were more like Taiwans...
>>you know - name calling, fist fights, etc...  ;-)


    I wonder how far off this really is??? It would do this country no good to
  open the floodgates even though the gates are weakening.

    The 'Box is a mirror of what is happening on the national scene.

    Reading the 'Box is more fun when there is intelligent conversation. When
  the yelling, ganging up, and namecalling starts, well, lets just say it be-
  comes boring. 


	- Bob

RE: 30.543 by HAAG::HAAG

> look people, just what do you think slick and the witch call newt whilst 
> alone at night? mr. gingrich? prolly something a whole lot worse than 
> bastard.

Yep,  probably Gene is correct on this one.  They have something really 
terrible to call Mr Gingrich,  something like "the best damn thing that 
happened to the Democratic Party since Herbert C. Hoover."


Phil

    ]Reading the 'Box is more fun when there is intelligent conversation.
    ]When the yelling, ganging up, and namecalling starts, well, lets just say
    ]it becomes boring.
     
     Hear, hear.

    It doesn't have to be like Taiwan, but I'd be all for a few more
    creative epithets ala British Parliament.
    
    -b

	Personally, I would've loved Newt's reaction to be something like:
	"My dear old mother, what a character.  She says the darndest
	things."  (chuckle,chuckle)  End of story.  Move on.  Be done with
	it.

	Connie Chung should be the one getting the arrows, for coyly getting
	an elderly woman to say something that doesn't bear repeating for
	the world.

	

    
    Does the Chungster have an e-mail address we can send something to?
    Sorta, maybe... tell her what we think of her??
    
    Oooooops! How unkind of me!! That wouldn't be to her face, and I can't
    really do that now... can I??
    

    look again scott... it ain't private anymore. maybe it was an
    exercise in discretion that's since gone south.
    
    to avoid it? a coward.
    
    to address it? deny it or confirm it with qualification. it's not
    necessary to repeat it publicly. that'd show a lack of class.
    
    hope this helps
    
    chip

	All we can do is collectively call our mothers, tell
	them we think Connie Chung is a bitch, and then make
	arrangements for someone to interview them.

	That should do it.

    This is an Olympic caliber straw-grabbing contest.  It's funny to
    watch, even if it is rather pathetic.
    
    If Newt screws up in any real way, I'll be the first one to jump on his
    case.  At least have the decency to wait until (if) he really does
    something wrong before comdemning the man. 
    
    -steve

    >At least have the decency to wait until
    
    an echo?  gosh, where have I heard this before?
    
    And at least we had precedent; most presidents get a honeymoon.
    Clinton never did.
    
    DougO

    The media is DYING for an opportunity to report something negative on
    Newt, however contrived it may be.

	Or is it the people who are DYING to hear any dirt.......??

    > The media is DYING for an opportunity to report something negative on
    > Newt, however contrived it may be.
    
    I repeat: the spotlight is a bitch.  Lets see how long before they wilt
    in the glare.  They SOUGHT this; now they have it.
    
    DougO

>>    The media is DYING for an opportunity to report something negative on
>>    Newt, however contrived it may be.

	you could have stopped after "negative".

    I've seen dirt but I've never heard dirt before. Is there noisy dirt?

	It gets awfull noisy when it hits the fan		$*)

    That's not dirt.

    Well, it is dirty isn't it?  
    
    

    Well it might have some dirt in it but it isn't dirt. Like, you wouldn't
    drive on road made of that.

RE: 30.559 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum"

> At least have the decency to wait until (if) he really does something 
> wrong before comdemning the man.

Like you did with Mr Clinton,  right?


Phil

    Oh, like the salamander hasn't shoved his foot down his throat
    already (a few times)... 
    
    Chip