|
Scotty's mistake
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. The US is not competitive in anything but military hardware and very high-tech goods and services these days. And that competitive edge is slipping daily. On the low-tech end, we lost our competitiveness decades ago. Much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, that's the fact, Jack. You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining the stuff. You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. Yup. Not for a very long time. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. Once again we've lost the edge in an area where we should be without peer, thanks mostly to avarice and a stubbornly sluggish government approval process. But this is nothing new--it's been this way for a long time. What's sad is that at least half the world's development of new pharmaceuticals occurs here, but many fail to reach production, thanks to the reasons in the first sentence of this paragraph. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4 years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such outfits as Airbus is brutal. As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing much better. The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point of immobility. Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less competitive. Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge? You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly. Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy or you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both. So is there a compromise somewhere in the middle? You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all of their oil. Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We do. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is doing it. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of our products or rely on any of our knowledge base. In fact, I suggest you not come here. You'll be disappointed. That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face, Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US (this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as forthright. Max |
Scotty's mistake
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?
Maxprop wrote: Democrats, generally. Or anybody with an impartial & accurate view of the matter. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their means. Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax. Possibly. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. You liberal Demcrat you! ... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage of their income in taxes. Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on a lesser proportion of their income, *and* they have greater representation in our government (how many poor people are there in Congress?), *and* they enjoy greater services & benefits from the gov't and from our socio-economic system generally, then it is only fair that they pay the greater portion of the burden in taxes. ... Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue. No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant. ... If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus. ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So the tax should be proportionally more, not just numerically. But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair. But what if the rich person doesn't buy a car at all, but instead forms a corporation to buy him a car tax-free? The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others. How can you tell when he's joking? His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement, forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare (includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course it's difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally* contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income taxes. By golly, you are a closet Bolshevik. DSK |
Scotty's mistake
Jonathan,
Go ahead and tax the rich. One small problem. The rich run the government. The rich write the laws. Who in the Senate is not a millionaire? The Clintons became multimillionaires by holding public office . Because of government's ability to tax corporations and wealth, corporations and rich people will always have strong interests in controlling the government. Business leaders become rich through stock options -creating shareholder value. Politicians become rich through graft, influence and corruption. So how do you propose to tax the rich? Amen! |
Scotty's mistake
"Mys Terry" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:02:31 GMT, "Bob Crantz" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Huh? This makes no sense. If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. The only people who will be helped by lowering taxes will be rich people and large corporations. Will lowering taxes hurt poor people and small companies? It invariably does. The reality is that taxes never EVER get lowered, they just get shifted around. It's the foundation upon which all other smoke and mirrors are built. So true. Amen! |
Scotty's mistake
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I think that's completely stupid at this point. Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace. Huh? This makes no sense. If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? PDW Ouch! |
Scotty's mistake
"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less competitive. Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge? You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly. Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy or you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both. So is there a compromise somewhere in the middle? Nuclear power! You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all of their oil. Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We do. Japan reallocates capital and resources to other countries. They are very competitive in manufacturing knowledge. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is doing it. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of our products or rely on any of our knowledge base. In fact, I suggest you not come here. You'll be disappointed. That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face, Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US (this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as forthright. Max Jonathan is being a good patriot! |
Scotty's mistake
"Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. The US is not competitive in anything but military hardware and very high-tech goods and services these days. And that competitive edge is slipping daily. On the low-tech end, we lost our competitiveness decades ago. Much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, that's the fact, Jack. You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining the stuff. Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil. More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go. You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. Yup. Not for a very long time. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering. The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US. The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft. The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle. It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged. The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of the US space industry not being able to deliver. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. Once again we've lost the edge in an area where we should be without peer, thanks mostly to avarice and a stubbornly sluggish government approval process. But this is nothing new--it's been this way for a long time. What's sad is that at least half the world's development of new pharmaceuticals occurs here, but many fail to reach production, thanks to the reasons in the first sentence of this paragraph. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4 years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such outfits as Airbus is brutal. Don't forget financial services and movie making. As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing much better. If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place? The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point of immobility. It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe! Amen! Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Mys Terry" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:21:19 GMT, "Bob Crantz" wrote: Jonathan, Go ahead and tax the rich. One small problem. The rich run the government. The rich write the laws. Who in the Senate is not a millionaire? The Clintons became multimillionaires by holding public office . Bill Clinton has publically stated in no uncertain terms that even though he's one of the people who would be affected by higher taxes on the wealthy, he still believes it is the right thing to do. Quite noble of the good man! No wonder he can command $200,000/hour for a speaking engagement! It must be his golden tongue and noble principles! Glory! |
Scotty's mistake
"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? Democrats, generally. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in a federal sales tax for the poor. But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes, booze taxes, lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all adds up! Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes! In general it;s the poor that smoke, are fat, gamble, live in motels, eat fast food. Yet those are the things everyone screams for higher taxation! The poor even receive higher returns on their social security! Tax the poor! Then tax seniors! We need more "class" envy! However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage of their income in taxes. Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue. If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus. But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair. The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others. His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the rich, but that simply isn't true. You mean to say Social security and medicare go to the rich? Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement, forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare (includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison Not true: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html Check Table S-11. .. Of course it's difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally* contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income taxes. Then, of course, you have defunct retirement plans, such as GMs, which will dig even deeper into the federal coffers. Go easy on the poor, Bob. I'm unaware of any of them who would not rather be wealthy. Let others sing of gold and gear, the joy of being rich; But oh, the days when I was poor, a vagrant in a ditch! When every dawn was like a gem, so radiant and rare, And I had but a single coat, and not a single care; When I would feast right royally on bacon, bread and beer, And dig into a stack of hay and doze like any peer; When I would wash beside a brook my solitary shirt, And though it dried upon my back I never took a hurt; When I went romping down the road contemptuous of care, And slapped Adventure on the back -- by Gad! we were a pair; When, though my pockets lacked a coin, and though my coat was old, The largess of the stars was mine, and all the sunset gold; When time was only made for fools, and free as air was I, And hard I hit and hard I lived beneath the open sky; When all the roads were one to me, and each had its allure . . . Ye Gods! these were the happy days, the days when I was poor. II Or else, again, old pal of mine, do you recall the times You struggled with your storyettes, I wrestled with my rhymes; Oh, we were happy, were we not? -- we used to live so "high" (A little bit of broken roof between us and the sky); Upon the forge of art we toiled with hammer and with tongs; You told me all your rippling yarns, I sang to you my songs. Our hats were frayed, our jackets patched, our boots were down at heel, But oh, the happy men were we, although we lacked a meal. And if I sold a bit of rhyme, or if you placed a tale, What feasts we had of tenderloins and apple-tarts and ale! And yet how often we would dine as cheerful as you please, Beside our little friendly fire on coffee, bread and cheese. We lived upon the ragged edge, and grub was never sure, But oh, these were the happy days, the days when we were poor. III Alas! old man, we're wealthy now, it's sad beyond a doubt; We cannot dodge prosperity, success has found us out. Your eye is very dull and drear, my brow is creased with care, We realize how hard it is to be a millionaire. The burden's heavy on our backs -- you're thinking of your rents, I'm worrying if I'll invest in five or six per cents. We've limousines, and marble halls, and flunkeys by the score, We play the part . . . but say, old chap, oh, isn't it a bore? We work like slaves, we eat too much, we put on evening dress; We've everything a man can want, I think . . . but happiness. Come, let us sneak away, old chum; forget that we are rich, And earn an honest appetite, and scratch an honest itch. Let's be two jolly garreteers, up seven flights of stairs, And wear old clothes and just pretend we aren't millionaires; And wonder how we'll pay the rent, and scribble ream on ream, And sup on sausages and tea, and laugh and loaf and dream. And when we're tired of that, my friend, oh, you will come with me; And we will seek the sunlit roads that lie beside the sea. We'll know the joy the gipsy knows, the freedom nothing mars, The golden treasure-gates of dawn, the mintage of the stars. We'll smoke our pipes and watch the pot, and feed the crackling fire, And sing like two old jolly boys, and dance to heart's desire; We'll climb the hill and ford the brook and camp upon the moor . . . Old chap, let's haste, I'm mad to taste the Joy of Being Poor. |
Scotty's mistake
"Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is 10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the '******* rich'? As for closing loopholes, really Jon, have you no knowledge of history, or is this yet another manifestation of your determination to see the world as you wish it was, rather than as it is? Show me *one* place or country where closing loopholes etc has achieved what you want. At most you get get richer middle class accountants, an increased tax burden on the few people who can't find a way around the new rules, more complex enforcement procedures and at last resort a flight of capital and emigration of the rich. In short, it doesn't work. It never has worked. Absent a worldwide agreement on tax regimes and treatments, it never will work. It is a waste of time. Show me one country where your policy has been successfully implemented. AFAIK there isn't one. OTOH Ireland has gotten a lot more wealthy by reducing its tax rates. So has the USA, or at least the revenues to the IRS have increased following tax cuts. Richer is a relative term here, considering that we always tend to spend considerably more than we accrue. A federal sales tax is the only equitable method of taxing individuals. Compensations would have to be made for the poor, but at least everyone else has the option of paying more or less tax by virtue of his/her buying habits. And no one is taxed at a higher rate than any other, the poor notwithstanding. Max I see only two solutions. Everyone pays the same fee for government, it would not be percentage based. The other solution is a feedback system, where for every dollar in income tax one pays, one would get one vote. People who are taxed more would vote for reduced taxes and have the means to achieve it. Corporations would also be allowed to vote. Amen! |
Scotty's mistake
"Mys Terry" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:38:43 GMT, "Bob Crantz" wrote: "Mys Terry" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:21:19 GMT, "Bob Crantz" wrote: Jonathan, Go ahead and tax the rich. One small problem. The rich run the government. The rich write the laws. Who in the Senate is not a millionaire? The Clintons became multimillionaires by holding public office . Bill Clinton has publically stated in no uncertain terms that even though he's one of the people who would be affected by higher taxes on the wealthy, he still believes it is the right thing to do. Quite noble of the good man! No wonder he can command $200,000/hour for a speaking engagement! It must be his golden tongue and noble principles! Glory! Envy does not become you. But sarcasm fits quite well! Blessed! |
Scotty's mistake
Even Clinton called for more taxes for himself. That's how.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Jonathan, Go ahead and tax the rich. One small problem. The rich run the government. The rich write the laws. Who in the Senate is not a millionaire? The Clintons became multimillionaires by holding public office . Because of government's ability to tax corporations and wealth, corporations and rich people will always have strong interests in controlling the government. Business leaders become rich through stock options -creating shareholder value. Politicians become rich through graft, influence and corruption. So how do you propose to tax the rich? Amen! |
Scotty's mistake
Big corporate farmers want even more money.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less competitive. Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge? You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly. Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy or you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both. So is there a compromise somewhere in the middle? You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all of their oil. Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We do. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is doing it. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of our products or rely on any of our knowledge base. In fact, I suggest you not come here. You'll be disappointed. That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face, Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US (this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as forthright. Max |
Scotty's mistake
According to the governor of Montana, coal would be the most efficient means
of solving the US thirst for foreign oil. Check it out. http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in the world marketplace for labor and products. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. The US is not competitive in anything but military hardware and very high-tech goods and services these days. And that competitive edge is slipping daily. On the low-tech end, we lost our competitiveness decades ago. Much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, that's the fact, Jack. You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining the stuff. Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil. More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go. You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. Yup. Not for a very long time. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering. The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US. The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft. The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle. It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged. The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of the US space industry not being able to deliver. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. Once again we've lost the edge in an area where we should be without peer, thanks mostly to avarice and a stubbornly sluggish government approval process. But this is nothing new--it's been this way for a long time. What's sad is that at least half the world's development of new pharmaceuticals occurs here, but many fail to reach production, thanks to the reasons in the first sentence of this paragraph. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4 years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such outfits as Airbus is brutal. Don't forget financial services and movie making. As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing much better. If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place? The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point of immobility. It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe! Amen! Max |
Scotty's mistake
I guess that makes Bill Clinton a republican.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? A lot of them say it themselves. Only Democrats, Jon. And then they were referring to *other* rich people, not themselves. You know, like Republicans. :-) No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. They certainly do! They buy the best. I haven't seen too many billionaires driving 1962 Chevys. Are you kidding? Didn't you see the Jackson-Barrett auto auction on TV? I believe a '62 Chevy went for over $100K. Not too many poor can own those babies. Now, talk about 1984 Honda Accords and Ford Taruses and you're getting closer, but your point is still not valid. Most of the "poor folk" coming to my office are driving newer sport utes and such. Their kids have X-Box, Play Station, and such, and they all have computers with high-speed Internet, HD TVs, and DVD players. The point is, for the same car, rich and poor pay the same. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? ?? The poor should pay more in taxes. The consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! You should pay more. You require more mental health services. A federal sales tax is far and away the most equitable tax, especially if some compromise is made for the truly poor in the form of sales tax reduction. Buy more, contribute more tax, spend less, contribute less. Obviously the rich spend more than the poor, so they would contribute more to the fed coffers, but their contributions would not be mandatory nor confiscatory, as they are now. Max |
Scotty's mistake
"DSK" wrote in message ... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? Maxprop wrote: Democrats, generally. Or anybody with an impartial & accurate view of the matter. . . . like Democrats. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their means. Of course. Are you one of those who favors redistribution of wealth? Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax. Possibly. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. You liberal Demcrat you! That did sound dangerously close, didn't it. ... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage of their income in taxes. Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on a lesser proportion of their income, Which is why I'm advocating a federal sales tax. The rich buy more expensive things, therefore pay greater dollar amounts of sales taxes. *and* they have greater representation in our government (how many poor people are there in Congress?), This is disingenuous. Must a legislator be poor to be an advocate for the poor? Of course not. *and* they enjoy greater services & benefits from the gov't and from our socio-economic system generally, Do they? I pay a lot of income tax to the federal and state governments annually, but have yet to see anything resembling "greater services & benefits from the government" so far. The poor have access to the same infrastructure that I do. They have access to the same government services I do. But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied, such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc. Perhaps I enjoy greater benefits from our socio-economic system than they, but that's the way free enterprise works--you work harder, earn more, and live better. So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of greater benefits and services than the poor. then it is only fair that they pay the greater portion of the burden in taxes. I disagree--see above. But a federal sales tax would nicely achieve what you advocate, right or wrong. ... Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue. No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant. Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?" ... If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus. ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So the tax should be proportionally more, not just numerically. That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public resources? He burns more gas, but that is hardly a public resource. And he drives on the same roads and bridges as the guy with the Ford. Conversely he pays higher insurance premiums for the luxury car, burn more fuel, and go through tires more rapidly, as well as spend far more on maintenance. All those things help fuel the economy, keep people working, and generate tax revenue. But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair. But what if the rich person doesn't buy a car at all, but instead forms a corporation to buy him a car tax-free? His corporation still pays sales tax. Or have you come up with a loophole to the nonexistent federal sales tax already? The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others. How can you tell when he's joking? Um, because he said he was in so many words? His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement, forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare (includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course it's difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally* contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income taxes. By golly, you are a closet Bolshevik. Nope. Just a latent communist. g Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? Democrats, generally. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in a federal sales tax for the poor. But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes, booze taxes, lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all adds up! Those are purely discretionary purchases. And the taxes levied on such items, services, and winnings or losses are generally not well-thought out before they become law. For example, some states have levied even larger taxes on cigarettes, ostensibly with the intent of curbing some of the appetite for tobacco. But those same states also claim the increased tax revenues from cigarettes will help fill the state coffers. Ya can't have it both ways--either the taxes discourage smoking or they increase revenues, but not both. Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes! See above. I have a better idea--increase taxation on foodstuffs. And how about clothing, shoes, and health and beauty supplies? And gasoline. Hit all the necessities. In general it;s the poor that smoke, are fat, gamble, live in motels, eat fast food. Yet those are the things everyone screams for higher taxation! Doesn't make much sense, does it? The poor even receive higher returns on their social security! Tax the poor! Then tax seniors! We need more "class" envy! Why not kill the poor and the elderly. That would solve a lot of problems. And we could confiscate their property as tax revenue. Ever see the movie "Soylent Green?" How about "Logan's Run?" However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage of their income in taxes. Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue. If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus. But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair. The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their fair share too! Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others. His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the rich, but that simply isn't true. You mean to say Social security and medicare go to the rich? Yup. Just like it goes to the poor. You should know that. Think of it this way: when Bill Gates is 65, he'll collect his SS that same as you and me. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement, forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare (includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison Not true: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html Check Table S-11. Do you think such things as corporate welfare, infrastructure benefitting big business, tax abatement, and bloated federal contracts to businesses get listed as such by the OMB? . Of course it's difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally* contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income taxes. Then, of course, you have defunct retirement plans, such as GMs, which will dig even deeper into the federal coffers. Go easy on the poor, Bob. I'm unaware of any of them who would not rather be wealthy. Let others sing of gold and gear, the joy of being rich; snip Old chap, let's haste, I'm mad to taste the Joy of Being Poor. Let me help: I'll take your house, your boat, and your cars, for starters. g Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... So has the USA, or at least the revenues to the IRS have increased following tax cuts. Richer is a relative term here, considering that we always tend to spend considerably more than we accrue. A federal sales tax is the only equitable method of taxing individuals. Compensations would have to be made for the poor, but at least everyone else has the option of paying more or less tax by virtue of his/her buying habits. And no one is taxed at a higher rate than any other, the poor notwithstanding. I see only two solutions. Everyone pays the same fee for government, it would not be percentage based. Humans will be colonizing Pluto before that happens. The other solution is a feedback system, where for every dollar in income tax one pays, one would get one vote. People who are taxed more would vote for reduced taxes and have the means to achieve it. Corporations would also be allowed to vote. Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob? Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining the stuff. Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil. But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you think oil prices are high now . . . More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go. It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem of spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem. Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering. The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US. Does that automatically make us non-competitive? The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft. The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle. Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death toll for the Russian space program over the years? It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged. The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of the US space industry not being able to deliver. That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly that system works. Let the private sector run the space program and watch it flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too. That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4 years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such outfits as Airbus is brutal. Don't forget financial services How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders? and movie making. Yeah, that's really important. As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing much better. If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place? I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in it, if it's so fashionable. The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point of immobility. It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe! Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are still able.) Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... So has the USA, or at least the revenues to the IRS have increased following tax cuts. Richer is a relative term here, considering that we always tend to spend considerably more than we accrue. A federal sales tax is the only equitable method of taxing individuals. Compensations would have to be made for the poor, but at least everyone else has the option of paying more or less tax by virtue of his/her buying habits. And no one is taxed at a higher rate than any other, the poor notwithstanding. I see only two solutions. Everyone pays the same fee for government, it would not be percentage based. Humans will be colonizing Pluto before that happens. The other solution is a feedback system, where for every dollar in income tax one pays, one would get one vote. People who are taxed more would vote for reduced taxes and have the means to achieve it. Corporations would also be allowed to vote. Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob? With grapefruit juice! Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Mys Terry" wrote in message ... Bill Clinton has publically stated in no uncertain terms that even though he's one of the people who would be affected by higher taxes on the wealthy, he still believes it is the right thing to do. He also publicly stated, "I didn't inhale, heh, heh," and "I didn't have sex with that woman." Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining the stuff. Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil. But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you think oil prices are high now . . . Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources. More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go. It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem of spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem. It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came from. Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering. The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US. Does that automatically make us non-competitive? In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes. The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft. The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle. Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death toll for the Russian space program over the years? Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities Soyuz: 4 fatalities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the astronauts getting to the space station today? It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged. The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of the US space industry not being able to deliver. That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly that system works. Let the private sector run the space program and watch it flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too. It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding: http://www.spacex.com/ That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4 years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such outfits as Airbus is brutal. Don't forget financial services How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders? and movie making. Yeah, that's really important. Tremendously so. As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing much better. If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place? I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in it, if it's so fashionable. It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US. The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point of immobility. It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe! Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are still able.) http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876 Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams. Max |
Scotty's mistake
No... really? Wow, now that's inciteful.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining the stuff. Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil. But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you think oil prices are high now . . . Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources. More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go. It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem of spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem. It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came from. Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering. The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US. Does that automatically make us non-competitive? In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes. The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft. The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle. Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death toll for the Russian space program over the years? Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities Soyuz: 4 fatalities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the astronauts getting to the space station today? It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged. The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of the US space industry not being able to deliver. That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly that system works. Let the private sector run the space program and watch it flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too. It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding: http://www.spacex.com/ That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4 years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such outfits as Airbus is brutal. Don't forget financial services How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders? and movie making. Yeah, that's really important. Tremendously so. As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing much better. If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place? I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in it, if it's so fashionable. It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US. The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point of immobility. It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe! Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are still able.) http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876 Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams. Max |
Scotty's mistake
In article , Capt. JG
wrote: People do it all the time w.r.t. sex. That's common knowledge. He started his rant with riiiiight and then proceeded to call me a left wing radical or some such. Sure sounded like a rant to me. OK, next time I'll just say 'ostrich'. PDW |
Scotty's mistake
In article . net, Bob
Crantz wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? Democrats, generally. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in a federal sales tax for the poor. But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes, booze taxes, lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all adds up! Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes! Doesn't work. Been done here. You reach the point of diminishing returns, not because people stop smoking but because the difference between production cost & sale price with tax added is so enormous that it's an invitation to create a black market. PDW |
Scotty's mistake
In article , Capt. JG
wrote: Yes, we know. "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is 10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the '******* rich'? According to you. Got it. Happy to. We've closed the loophole that said it was ok to lie about a blow job in sworn testimony. For the rest of your "argument," we'll have to leave it at that. Ranting doesn't make it true, but you're very good at it. IOW, don't bother you with difficult questions that challenge your dearly held prejudices and ask you to think. OK. You've lost this debate and some more of your credibility. PDW As for closing loopholes, really Jon, have you no knowledge of history, or is this yet another manifestation of your determination to see the world as you wish it was, rather than as it is? Show me *one* place or country where closing loopholes etc has achieved what you want. At most you get get richer middle class accountants, an increased tax burden on the few people who can't find a way around the new rules, more complex enforcement procedures and at last resort a flight of capital and emigration of the rich. In short, it doesn't work. It never has worked. Absent a worldwide agreement on tax regimes and treatments, it never will work. It is a waste of time. Show me one country where your policy has been successfully implemented. AFAIK there isn't one. OTOH Ireland has gotten a lot more wealthy by reducing its tax rates. PDW In article , Capt. JG wrote: The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much as the rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed. |
Scotty's mistake
You can say whatever you want, but you have yet to impress me with your
knowledge of the issues. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: People do it all the time w.r.t. sex. That's common knowledge. He started his rant with riiiiight and then proceeded to call me a left wing radical or some such. Sure sounded like a rant to me. OK, next time I'll just say 'ostrich'. PDW |
Scotty's mistake
Which prejudices are those? I'm glad you think I've "lost" the debate.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , Capt. JG wrote: Yes, we know. "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. I agree with Bob. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? I don't mean in absolute dollar terms, in percentage terms. If the tax rate is 10% for those 'deserving poor', why should it be higher for the '******* rich'? According to you. Got it. Happy to. We've closed the loophole that said it was ok to lie about a blow job in sworn testimony. For the rest of your "argument," we'll have to leave it at that. Ranting doesn't make it true, but you're very good at it. IOW, don't bother you with difficult questions that challenge your dearly held prejudices and ask you to think. OK. You've lost this debate and some more of your credibility. PDW As for closing loopholes, really Jon, have you no knowledge of history, or is this yet another manifestation of your determination to see the world as you wish it was, rather than as it is? Show me *one* place or country where closing loopholes etc has achieved what you want. At most you get get richer middle class accountants, an increased tax burden on the few people who can't find a way around the new rules, more complex enforcement procedures and at last resort a flight of capital and emigration of the rich. In short, it doesn't work. It never has worked. Absent a worldwide agreement on tax regimes and treatments, it never will work. It is a waste of time. Show me one country where your policy has been successfully implemented. AFAIK there isn't one. OTOH Ireland has gotten a lot more wealthy by reducing its tax rates. PDW In article , Capt. JG wrote: The real world is that the rich are disportionally not taxed as much as the rest. Their taxes need to be raised and the loopholes closed. |
Scotty's mistake
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. We're already competitive. Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out. Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less competitive. Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge? Jon can't connect the dots. You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be importing oil & gas. Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly. Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy or you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both. So is there a compromise somewhere in the middle? I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive (ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible solution, given current technology. Jon seems a typical Californian. He wants the power for 21C life but doesn't want to generate it, and *still* wants to complain about environmental degradation. You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc. Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all of their oil. Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We do. I regard Japan as competitive in energy because they use it more efficiently in the production of manufactured goods, which they can sell abroad to willing customers, and therefore pay for their energy imports. You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic organisation **** away resources & money. Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is doing it. So what? It doesn't alter the facts. BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so what? Gotta look at the end result. You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology. So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection? I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of our products or rely on any of our knowledge base. What Jon doesn't seem to get is, I'll use 'best of breed' regardless of origin. I use an Apple Mac laptop. I use Sun Microsystems servers. If forced I use Microsoft s/ware but low end servers run Linux. Those products are competitive in quality & price. I have a lot of old US made machinery. It's still better than some of the brand new Chinese made stuff. Today I bought a new power drill. I bought an AEG Fixtec drill. These things are great, got no idea where it's made but it isn't China. But, that's about it. Not my problem if you can't produce stuff I want to buy and it's got zilch to do with country of origin. Most manufactured stuff is imported to Australia so I have no axe to grind one way or the other. I just call it as I see it. In fact, I suggest you not come here. You'll be disappointed. Sorry, Jon. I thought that AZ, NM and the bits of Colorado I got to see were great. Nice people, wonderful scenery. Had a ball. One of these days I'm going to Alaska. That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face, Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US (this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as forthright. Actually I'm not anti-US at all. Sometimes exasperated, sometimes admiring, sometimes anti a particular bit of policy/stupidity, but not anti-US. I lived over there for a while and I fit in right fine in AZ. As a NM friend of mine said, tho, I'd rather be drowned in **** than live in LA. Probably applies to New York, Chicago etc as well. I just don't like big cities. Jon finds it easier to indulge in 'shoot the messenger' than address the message. It's so much more comfortable that way. Saves thinking. The USA is *becoming* a **** poor place. I don't like this personally and I don't like it strategically but there's nothing I can do except point out the unpalatable facts. You guys simply *cannot* keep up your current rate of consumption of imports while paying for them with money borrowed from o/s unless the lenders keep seeing value for money. You've got the technology, the infrastructure, the skill base and the depth of capital to do wonderful things, and you're not doing anything except indulge in wars over pride or oil. It's frustrating and annoying. Meanwhile, California's electricity demand rises, and their generation capacity doesn't. http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/news/ca...ty_crisis.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...uentevents.htm l Ah well, we're gonna make a lot of money exporting LNG to whoever has the money to pay for it, and before long we'll make a lot of money exporting uranium too. We already make lots from exporting coal and iron ore. Energy & resource poor, we're not. Pity we can't manage to build efficient manufacturing but hey, as long as we can afford to pay for our imports...... PDW |
Scotty's mistake
10 points
"Mys Terry" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:20:55 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Mys Terry" wrote in message . .. Bill Clinton has publically stated in no uncertain terms that even though he's one of the people who would be affected by higher taxes on the wealthy, he still believes it is the right thing to do. He also publicly stated, "I didn't inhale, heh, heh," and "I didn't have sex with that woman." Max Is that like, "Mission Accomplished"? |
Scotty's mistake
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article . net, Bob Crantz wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? Democrats, generally. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in a federal sales tax for the poor. But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes, booze taxes, lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all adds up! Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes! Doesn't work. Been done here. You reach the point of diminishing returns, not because people stop smoking but because the difference between production cost & sale price with tax added is so enormous that it's an invitation to create a black market. PDW Very good observation. The black market is the alternative to over regulation. "We've increased taxes and revenues are falling!" "Quick! increase taxes faster than revenues fall!" Amen! |
Scotty's mistake
No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their means. Maxprop wrote: Of course. Are you one of those who favors redistribution of wealth? Not really, but any function of government is going to redistribute wealth in one fashion or another. I would rather see a "redistribution" *from* those with $1/4 mill & higher incomes than *to* them. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. You liberal Demcrat you! That did sound dangerously close, didn't it. Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense. ... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater percentage of their income in taxes. Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on a lesser proportion of their income, Which is why I'm advocating a federal sales tax. The rich buy more expensive things, therefore pay greater dollar amounts of sales taxes. Hmm, that didn't work for boats. Remember the "Luxury Yacht" tax? I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet another Federally mandated administrative burden on all business and would also supress aggregate demand. You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what happened to slashing Federal spending??? *and* they enjoy greater services & benefits from the gov't and from our socio-economic system generally, Do they? I pay a lot of income tax to the federal and state governments annually, but have yet to see anything resembling "greater services & benefits from the government" so far. Well, let's see... first of all, the police & the courts keep poor people from stealing all your nice stuff, so that's a *huge* benefit to you that actually punishes the poor. ... The poor have access to the same infrastructure that I do. Right. The poor pay the same gas tax, but don't ride in as nice a car. The poor can visit the same parks if they can get the time off work. The poor breathe the same air, except that usually polluting factories & power plants are located closer to their neighborhoods than to yours. Etc etc etc. If being wealthy were such a bad deal, people wouldn't be so eager to make more money. ... They have access to the same government services I do. That's true, the SEC protects the investments of the poor just as much as they do yours (and mine)! ...But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied, such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc. You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't feel like waiting in line & filling out all the forms & suffering the condescension & hassle of minor bureaucrats that one must go thru to get those benefits. Perhaps I enjoy greater benefits from our socio-economic system than they, but that's the way free enterprise works--you work harder, earn more, and live better. Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods, with nothing but rocks & sticks, and built your business & home up from there? ... So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of greater benefits and services than the poor. That's because you haven't thought about it very long or very hard. Although to give you credit, you're further advanced than I thought in some ways. then it is only fair that they pay the greater portion of the burden in taxes. I disagree--see above. But a federal sales tax would nicely achieve what you advocate, right or wrong. Along with stifling business & hurting the economy. ... Once again a federal sales tax would solve this issue. No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant. Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?" Well, let's put it this way... how much of the US economy is gov't expenditures, something like 22% right? So that means that to finance the gov't we'd need at least an 22% sales tax... do you consider that exorbitant? ... If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus. ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So the tax should be proportionally more, not just numerically. That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public resources? Occupies more road space & pollutes more air. ... Conversely he pays higher insurance premiums for the luxury car, burn more fuel, and go through tires more rapidly, as well as spend far more on maintenance. All those things help fuel the economy, keep people working, and generate tax revenue. OTOH it does not generate any real wealth. His corporation still pays sales tax. ??? No How can you tell when he's joking? Um, because he said he was in so many words? Like the time he said that 'Freedom of speech means that I can command those who disgree with me to shut up.' DSK |
Scotty's mistake
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. .. Jon can't connect the dots. Which dots are those? The Republican lackey dots? I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive (ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible solution, given current technology. I think you're confused. I'm all for coal. Try this. It's better than nuclear (pronounce it nucular like your hero). http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp I regard Japan as competitive in energy because they use it more efficiently in the production of manufactured goods, which they can sell abroad to willing customers, and therefore pay for their energy imports. Does that include them throwing away all their nearly new crap when they're done with it? BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so what? Gotta look at the end result. The shuttle should be scuttled. What Jon doesn't seem to get is, I'll use 'best of breed' regardless of origin. I use an Apple Mac laptop. I use Sun Microsystems servers. If forced I use Microsoft s/ware but low end servers run Linux. Those products are competitive in quality & price. Now that Peter has totally lost this argument, he's referring to me in the third person. :-) I have a lot of old US made machinery. It's still better than some of the brand new Chinese made stuff. Today I bought a new power drill. I bought an AEG Fixtec drill. These things are great, got no idea where it's made but it isn't China. Wow, you bought a power drill. Well, ok then. In fact, I suggest you not come here. You'll be disappointed. Sorry, Jon. I thought that AZ, NM and the bits of Colorado I got to see were great. Nice people, wonderful scenery. Had a ball. One of these days I'm going to Alaska. For gods sake don't come to California. You'll be sorely disappointed! Actually I'm not anti-US at all. Sometimes exasperated, sometimes admiring, sometimes anti a particular bit of policy/stupidity, but not anti-US. I lived over there for a while and I fit in right fine in AZ. As a NM friend of mine said, tho, I'd rather be drowned in **** than live in LA. Probably applies to New York, Chicago etc as well. I just don't like big cities. You fit in in Arizona. Well, I guess that just about says it all. Next time try a state with a population greater than 23. Jon finds it easier to indulge in 'shoot the messenger' than address the message. It's so much more comfortable that way. Saves thinking. Still waiting for you to prove your point (not the one on the top of your head). The USA is *becoming* a **** poor place. I don't like this personally and I don't like it strategically but there's nothing I can do except point out the unpalatable facts. You guys simply *cannot* keep up your current rate of consumption of imports while paying for them with money borrowed from o/s unless the lenders keep seeing value for money. You've got the technology, the infrastructure, the skill base and the depth of capital to do wonderful things, and you're not doing anything except indulge in wars over pride or oil. It's frustrating and annoying. Yes, except that it's still the best damn country in the world. Good luck. Meanwhile, California's electricity demand rises, and their generation capacity doesn't. Talk to Arnold. I didn't vote for him. |
Scotty's mistake
"Capt. JG" wrote: Now that Peter has totally lost this argument, he's referring to me in the third person. :-) Peter lost this argument? Bwaahahahahaaa! Jon Boy, you are delusional. Remind the nurse it's time for your meds. At least Peter was nice enough to refer to you as a person, better than you get from 90% of the posters here in a.s.a. LP |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote: "Maxprop" wrote: Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob? With grapefruit juice! Tsk, tsk, Bob. Read the label... LP |
Scotty's mistake
"DSK" wrote in message ... No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their means. Maxprop wrote: Of course. Are you one of those who favors redistribution of wealth? Not really, but any function of government is going to redistribute wealth in one fashion or another. I would rather see a "redistribution" *from* those with $1/4 mill & higher incomes than *to* them. Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't recall that provision in the Constitution. That did sound dangerously close, didn't it. Actually it sounded like dangerously common sense. Which proves we so-called Neocons are not without heart or conscience, as you've implied heretofore. Which is why I'm advocating a federal sales tax. The rich buy more expensive things, therefore pay greater dollar amounts of sales taxes. Hmm, that didn't work for boats. Remember the "Luxury Yacht" tax? Hardly a fair comparison. That tax was exclusively aimed at the wealthy. A federal sales tax, which would replace the current income tax, would not have the same ultimate effect as that ill-conceived luxury tax. I am against a Federal sales tax as it would impose yet another Federally mandated administrative burden on all business and would also supress aggregate demand. Do you think the current income tax laws do not impose a federally-mandated administrative burden on businesses? My guess is that administering a federal sales tax would be a snap compared with wading through the ponderous tax codes that exist today. You claimed at one point to be a conservative, what happened to slashing Federal spending??? That should *always* be on the table. Sadly it almost never is. And when it is, it's lipservice, not substance. Do they? I pay a lot of income tax to the federal and state governments annually, but have yet to see anything resembling "greater services & benefits from the government" so far. Well, let's see... first of all, the police & the courts keep poor people from stealing all your nice stuff, so that's a *huge* benefit to you that actually punishes the poor. Those same police and courts don't protect the poor from rich people exploiting them, robbing them blind, and such? I wasn't aware our legal system only worked in one direction. ... The poor have access to the same infrastructure that I do. Right. The poor pay the same gas tax, but don't ride in as nice a car. I fail to see what difference that makes. They drive on the same roads. I've had some absolutely horrible junkers in the past, and frankly smooth roads meant more to me than to the guy in the new S-Class Mercedes. The poor can visit the same parks if they can get the time off work. LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off. Most of the poor that I meet don't work at all. The poor breathe the same air, except that usually polluting factories & power plants are located closer to their neighborhoods than to yours. That's generally true, and unfortunate. Clean air should be for everyone, but it ain't. Visit Gary, IN, sometime for a graphic demonstration of this. Etc etc etc. If being wealthy were such a bad deal, people wouldn't be so eager to make more money. Who said being wealthy was a bad deal? Not I. ... They have access to the same government services I do. That's true, the SEC protects the investments of the poor just as much as they do yours (and mine)! The SEC is a double-edged sword for the wealthy. But that's not the point--if you wish to give examples of services that generally benefit the rich, I'll be happy to produce as many or more that benefit only the poor, and typically at the expense of the rich and middle classes. ...But *they* have access to benefits and services of which I am denied, such as Medicaid, welfare, WIC, educational grants to the poor, etc. You're not denied those benefits at all, you just don't feel like waiting in line & filling out all the forms & suffering the condescension & hassle of minor bureaucrats that one must go thru to get those benefits. Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits. My income is above the limits of those programs. Or were you advocating I lie to obtain such benefits? Perhaps I enjoy greater benefits from our socio-economic system than they, but that's the way free enterprise works--you work harder, earn more, and live better. Uh huh. So you started out by yourself, in the woods, with nothing but rocks & sticks, and built your business & home up from there? Pretty damned close, actually. I literally had nothing when I graduated from college. Oh, except for mountains of student loans, all of which I paid back. ... So far you haven't convinced me that I am the recipient of greater benefits and services than the poor. That's because you haven't thought about it very long or very hard. Although to give you credit, you're further advanced than I thought in some ways. Don't blow smoke up my ass. I've thought about it at length, and I'm still unable to find and substance to your claim that I benefit more than the poor from governmental spending. I disagree--see above. But a federal sales tax would nicely achieve what you advocate, right or wrong. Along with stifling business & hurting the economy. Do you think that income taxes don't stifle business and hurt the economy? Remember when the marginal tax rate at the top end was over 70%? You may be too young, but I remember it well. And I also remember people telling me that it was advantageous to them to work less, make less, and retain more. Few spouses worked in those days, in order to lower the marginal tax rates which took a bigger bite out of a family's income than the additional work created. And we haven't even begun to discuss the effect that less disposable income (from over taxation) has on the economy. Why? And what are you considering "exhorbitant?" Well, let's put it this way... how much of the US economy is gov't expenditures, something like 22% right? So that means that to finance the gov't we'd need at least an 22% sales tax... do you consider that exorbitant? Absolutely. But what you are failing to take into account is the boon to the economy that eliminating the federal income tax would have. People would have more to spend, boosting the economy, creating jobs, giving people more discretionary income for buying things that they want. So it wouldn't be necessary to tax at the 22% rate. Something more like 12-15% is considered reasonable by some of the proponents of a federal sales tax. That's bull**** and you know it. How does he use up more public resources? Occupies more road space Really now. You can't believe this is significant. The Bently is 20' long while the Focus is 16'. Insignificant to the utilization of roadways. & pollutes more air. Perhaps, but once again insignificantly. What is more significant are the smog-belching cars that the poor are often forced to drive. They pollute far more, or at the very least average out against the wealthy's big utes and sedans. ... Conversely he pays higher insurance premiums for the luxury car, burn more fuel, and go through tires more rapidly, as well as spend far more on maintenance. All those things help fuel the economy, keep people working, and generate tax revenue. OTOH it does not generate any real wealth. Tell that to the oil companies, who've recorded record profits over the past decade or so when big, consumptive vehicles became popular. And tell that to the companies that have created a mega industry in aftermarket tires for performance and larger vehicles. Not to mention that the insurance company stocks in my mutual funds are performing about as well as any other facet of those funds. His corporation still pays sales tax. ??? No Of course it does. If the company buys a new car for him, it pays sales tax. Or have you already written in an exclusion clause to the non-existent federal sales tax for corporations to buy their executives nice cars?? We're not dealing with a federal income tax any longer, if the fed. sales tax takes effect. Um, because he said he was in so many words? Like the time he said that 'Freedom of speech means that I can command those who disgree with me to shut up.' He was absolutely serious then, and he was right. And those he commands to "shut up" can tell him to go **** himself. That's free speech. Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources. Right. That is probably the only thing that will create that drive. Example: The British Smart Car was slated to be sold here as of last year, but the company has since reconsidered and delayed bringing it to the US. Reason? Oil prices are still too low. They won't sell well until the price of a gallon of gas eclipses $4 or so. It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came from. The problem with that is that when it was in the ground originally, it was disseminated and relatively harmless. After enrichment and condensation, it becomes a hazard to health, and an enticement for terrorists to dig up for producing dirty bombs. Does that automatically make us non-competitive? In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes. Aerojet General is still producing rocket engines and making money, last I checked. Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death toll for the Russian space program over the years? Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities Soyuz: 4 fatalities Compare the Russian space program history with that of the US space program history. Different story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the astronauts getting to the space station today? Soyuz, obviously, but it's no safer than the shuttle. Soyuz is far less complex, and as a side benefit it's less costly to implement. The Shuttle program is far more complex, but it can carry a greater number of people and far, far more material and equipment. The shuttle's downtime is hurting the ISS program badly, despite the Soyuz program keeping the food, supplies, and people coming and going. If the ISS program were dependent upon only Soyuz for its existence, it wouldn't exist. Without the shuttle the ISS would never have been proposed or begun. Apples and oranges. It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding: http://www.spacex.com/ Nothing wrong with that. and movie making. Yeah, that's really important. Tremendously so. In the overall scheme of things, it isn't even on the radar screen. But it does comprise a single digit segment of the GDP. I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in it, if it's so fashionable. It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US. I wonder how I can get started in popular uprisings? Probably some advertising, some development of better molotov cocktails, etc. and a few spots on cable news. It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe! Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are still able.) http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876 Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams. Military lasers have been under development for decades, but the original problem remains: how to get enough power to them to make them powerful enough to be effective. A conundrum. As for pulsed microwaves, there's nothing quite like a monstrous microwave oven aimed at the enemy to fry their insurgency plans, eh? Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Mys Terry" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:20:55 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Mys Terry" wrote in message . .. Bill Clinton has publically stated in no uncertain terms that even though he's one of the people who would be affected by higher taxes on the wealthy, he still believes it is the right thing to do. He also publicly stated, "I didn't inhale, heh, heh," and "I didn't have sex with that woman." Max Is that like, "Mission Accomplished"? So, we are in agreement that both are bald-faced liars? Max |
Scotty's mistake
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message k.net... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article . net, Bob Crantz wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Bob Crantz" wrote in message nk.net... Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate? Democrats, generally. No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product. Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax. How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same? An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in a federal sales tax for the poor. But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes, booze taxes, lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all adds up! Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes! Doesn't work. Been done here. You reach the point of diminishing returns, not because people stop smoking but because the difference between production cost & sale price with tax added is so enormous that it's an invitation to create a black market. PDW Very good observation. The black market is the alternative to over regulation. "We've increased taxes and revenues are falling!" "Quick! increase taxes faster than revenues fall!" Some legislators were once asked if they'd support the concept of a 100% marginal tax rate. They said they'd think about it, but it sounded okay. Max |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com