Scotty's mistake
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Which prejudices are those? I'm glad you think I've "lost" the debate.

Sorry, Jon, but I have to agree with Pete. When you dismiss the remainder
of his argument as a rant and fail to respond to it categorically, it would
certainly appear you've lost.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

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.

If you'll re-read my post, I think you'll see that that is what I was
implying. Neither extreme is feasible or desirable, but somewhere in the
middle exists a workable solution. There is stiff opposition to nuke power,
but it is probably the most effective, cleanest, most environmentally-safe
alternative to fossil fuels today. Given that same technology to which you
refer, I don't think there's much risk involved.

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.

Californians want other states to pollute themselves while producing power
for Californians. But don't even think of hydroelectric plans, windmill
farms (they kill the birdies), or nuke plants in CA, nossir.



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.

They are conservative *because* they had to import the majority of their
energy. The USA has had energy to burn, so to speak. Now that we seem to
be increasingly more reliant on foreign oil, we've begun to feel what the
Japanese have always experienced. If we're smart we'll begin to use similar
conservation methodology as well.

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.

But as I pointed out in another post, the Soyuz program simply cannot do
many of the things that the shuttle program can. The expansion of the ISS
is virtually at a standstill while the shuttle program regroups. Some of
the larger parts simply cannot be taken aloft by Soyuz. There is a price to
be paid for utility.

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.

And I agree with most of your points, while taking issue with a few. The US
isn't the leader in producing goods, especially low-tech ones, that we used
to be. And we won't be ever again. But what concerns me most is that we'll
lose the advantage in the areas in which we are dominant unless we begin to
realize that the global competition is not waiting around for us to move.

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.

You might wish to avoid California, Pete. Those guys out there are rather,
um, pessimistic these days. Beautiful country, and lots of it, but dont
tell the locals. g

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.

I'm offended. Take it back. LA is LA, and it's like no other place on the
globe. Chicago is a garden spot by comparison, gorgeously situated on Lake
Michigan and offering cultural and ethnic benefits not seen anywhere else,
and NYC is a cultural center beyond reproach. LA is a cesspool with
primitive lifeforms incubating in every nook and cranny of the place.


Jon finds it easier to indulge in 'shoot the messenger' than address
the message. It's so much more comfortable that way. Saves thinking.

He's not the only one, sadly.


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.

It's really not that bad, Pete. The US still has a net GDP well above
almost every other country on the face. That's not borrowed money, despite
your perception of it.

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.

The war in Iraq is a drag on everything currently. So is the Katrina
aftermath. That's probably why most Americans are so down on the current
administration.


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......

So can we. I'm not sure where you got the idea we were running out of
money, but we aren't. We have proportionately more resources than you guys
do, and we get paid handsomely for them. And despite being toppled from the
pinnacle of the world's manufacturing heap, we still mfr. a great number of
goods and technology. We're far from hurting. Despite being burdened by a
consumptive war, we are still in very good shape. You've overgeneralized
out situation, and failed to realize that we're far from in trouble. Yet.


Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


The shuttle should be scuttled.

Not yet, but its replacement is in the works. Too bad the works are so
gummed up lately.


Max

Scotty's mistake
 

I think they should launch them when they get the replacements and leave
them in orbit. They could convert them to being part of the space station.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


The shuttle should be scuttled.

Not yet, but its replacement is in the works. Too bad the works are so
gummed up lately.


Max

Scotty's mistake
 

I responded to all of his arguments at least once each. Sorry to disappoint
you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Which prejudices are those? I'm glad you think I've "lost" the debate.

Sorry, Jon, but I have to agree with Pete. When you dismiss the remainder
of his argument as a rant and fail to respond to it categorically, it
would certainly appear you've lost.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

Maxprop wrote:
Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't recall
that provision in the Constitution.


Think for half a second.

The gov't takes money away from some people in taxes, or
reduces their wealth thru inflation by printing money.

The gov't then spends money, and obviously some it finds
it's way back into the same pockets but not all of it.

Therefor, wealth has been redistributed.




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.


Do you think that Congress is ever going to willingly
*simplify* the tax code? That would be diminishing it's own
power.

If a Federal sales tax is enacted, it will be cumbersome at
best. And the sales tax is historically shown to have a
downward effect on demand out of proportion to it's numeric
value.



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.


Yep, that's why Clinton (and Al Gore, and a Republican
Congress) managed it.



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.


If you're already rich, why rob poor people?

Talk sense.

And "exploiting" poor people isn't against the law. Shucks,
it's impossible to hire anybody at the minimum wage as it is.



LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off. Most
of the poor that I meet don't work at all.


Right.

I guess all the people who work in Wal-Mart (and almost
every other retail establishment) are all comfortably middle
class & above.


The SEC is a double-edged sword for the wealthy.

Yep, makes it much harder to steal from other rich people
(which of course is where the money is).

... 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.


You might have a hard time... of course, you're brainwashed
to think that guvmint is givin' away yore hard-earned money
to all them lazy welfare people. But it ain't so. Most
federal entitlement programs benefit people at or above
median income, according to the OMB.

Of course, once the Bush-Cheney administration finishes the
job of firing all the honest auditors & replacing capable
career administrators with rollover lackeys, we won't have
that problem.



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.

Maybe for some of them

I think you have a very mistaken idea about these programs
you're complaining about.

You probably have too high an income to qualify for college
tuition assistance, although there are always grant & loans
out there. You might not be able to get food stamps in your
county (but you probably could in some). But AFAIK you can
(if you wanted) walk into emergency rooms or county clinics
and get free health care (if you wait in line), get housing
assistance, job placement assistance, etc etc. They don't
even ask what your income is.




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.


Oh, you went to college, and benefited from the knowledge
accrued over many generations of our civilization? I though
you singelhandedly invented absolutely everything you have &
use, made all discoveries yourself, etc etc.

In other words, you have benefitted greatly from our
socio-economic system. Of course, you worked for those
benefits and paid for them. OTOH what if nobody had been
willing to loan you the money in the first place?

You should sing along to this:
http://www.austinlizards.com/songs/t...nt_mothers.mp3
http://www.austinlizards.com/teenage...t_mothers.html



....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.


No you haven't thought about it, at all. You've reacted with
thoughtless indignation, misinformation, bigotry, and making
bigmouth about how you walked ten miles to school uphill
both ways in the snow. Barefoot.

I've heard it before, it didn't impress me then.

DSK

Scotty's mistake
 

What we need to do is legalize drugs, and tax them


"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.

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
 

"Bob Crantz" wrote


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.


We do that now, Bob. I was contacted just last week to haul
some old ''rod containers'' out to Utah, where they bury
them.
My buddy took a reactor head out there last Summer. They
bury the stuff in the desert.

Scotty

Scotty's mistake
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes,
booze taxes,
lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all
adds up!


Rich folks don't drink or smoke?



Ya can't have it
both ways--either the taxes discourage smoking or they
increase revenues,
but not both.

Why not?




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.


And why shouldn't he, he pays into it, the same as you and
me?

Scotty

Scotty's mistake
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Which prejudices are those? I'm glad you think I've "lost" the debate.

Sorry, Jon, but I have to agree with Pete. When you dismiss the
remainder of his argument as a rant and fail to respond to it
categorically, it would certainly appear you've lost.

I responded to all of his arguments at least once each. Sorry to disappoint
you.

Debates go back and forth. They are seldom concluded with one response
each. That would be tantamount to the Cheney approach, when the second
response is essentially '**** you and the horse you rode in on.'

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


The shuttle should be scuttled.

Not yet, but its replacement is in the works. Too bad the works are so
gummed up lately.

I think they should launch them when they get the replacements and leave
them in orbit. They could convert them to being part of the space station.

You seem to have forgotten what it was like when Skylab ultimately
re-entered. Ask any Aussie. Each shuttle is nearly as massive as the ISS
itself.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

I have a 'sales tax exempt number', will that also work on
your new Fed. sales tax.

Scotty

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"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 adm
inistering 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
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

The shuttle should be scuttled.

Not yet, but its replacement is in the works. Too bad
the works are so
gummed up lately.

I think they should launch them when they get the
replacements and leave
them in orbit. They could convert them to being part of
the space station.

You seem to have forgotten what it was like when Skylab
ultimately
re-entered. Ask any Aussie. Each shuttle is nearly as
massive as the ISS
itself.

Put it up on cinder blocks, in back of the shuttle hangar.

Amen!

Scotty's mistake
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
Why should any function of government redistribute wealth? I don't
recall that provision in the Constitution.


Think for half a second.

The gov't takes money away from some people in taxes, or reduces their
wealth thru inflation by printing money.

The gov't then spends money, and obviously some it finds it's way back
into the same pockets but not all of it.

Therefor, wealth has been redistributed.

Once again I'll ask you to show me where in the Constitution any of that is
provided for. Income tax, a temporary measure at the time it was incepted,
is not a provision of that document, nor is the spending that ultimately
finds its way back into some pockets. Only the creation of currency is a
provision of the Constitution, but the inflation that results is an
undesirable side-effect, not the purpose of the process.

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.


Do you think that Congress is ever going to willingly *simplify* the tax
code? That would be diminishing it's own power.

Nope. I don't think it will ever happen in your lifetime or mine. It's a
lofty goal, however.


If a Federal sales tax is enacted, it will be cumbersome at best. And the
sales tax is historically shown to have a downward effect on demand out of
proportion to it's numeric value.

Initially, yes, but that effect is mitigated with time. Consumer spending
recovers nicely in every case. A recent example was the institution of a
citywide sales tax in Chicago. Everyone protested, except the Mayor and his
lackeys, but ultimately the buying habits of Chicagoans resumed to
higher-than-before levels. People won't simply do without the goods they
want. They'll bitch, moan, and whine, but they'll buy.


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.


If you're already rich, why rob poor people?

Avarice, greed, the desire for greater wealth? Take you pick. Drug dealers
are robbing the poor daily, and leaving them with a monkey-on-the-back
legacy to boot. The daily receipts of those dealers make my income seem
modest by comparison.

Talk sense.

I am. Think about what you're saying for a moment.

And "exploiting" poor people isn't against the law. Shucks, it's
impossible to hire anybody at the minimum wage as it is.

Oh? Have you conveniently eliminated undocumented aliens from this
discussion? Do you think Mexican immigrants--the illegal variety--work for
minimum wage by law??? Or don't you consider them "poor?" Do you fail to
see that this sort of exploitation is actually illegal?

LOL. The wealthy generally get that way by working their butts off.
Most of the poor that I meet don't work at all.


Right.

I guess all the people who work in Wal-Mart (and almost every other retail
establishment) are all comfortably middle class & above.

Most are, actually. They tend to be retireds or a spouse providing a second
income for the family. Obviously some are working poor and find the
prospect of getting higher-paying employment a major roadblock, but most are
not. You watch to much Network TV.


... 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.


You might have a hard time... of course, you're brainwashed to think that
guvmint is givin' away yore hard-earned money to all them lazy welfare
people. But it ain't so. Most federal entitlement programs benefit people
at or above median income, according to the OMB.

That makes about as much sense as curling irons for the bald.

Of course, once the Bush-Cheney administration finishes the job of firing
all the honest auditors & replacing capable career administrators with
rollover lackeys, we won't have that problem.

And you honestly believe that the Clinton administration didn't do likewise?
How about the travel bureau scandal? Politics is politics, Doug. There
ain't no good guy/bad guy in Washington.

Wrong. I don't qualify for those benefits.

Maybe for some of them

Doubtful, not that I've ever applied for any, at least not since I've been
out of college and working full time.

I think you have a very mistaken idea about these programs you're
complaining about.

I don't claim to be an expert on federal entitlement programs, but I do know
that a substantial part of the US budget goes to them. And while they may
not comprise the sheer dollar amounts of corporate welfare and other such
expenditures/revenue losses, they aren't insignificant. You've tried to
paint a one-sided picture here, and it just isn't so.


You probably have too high an income to qualify for college tuition
assistance, although there are always grant & loans out there.

They must be paid back. And they charge interest. They are hardly gummint
give-aways.

You might not be able to get food stamps in your county (but you probably
could in some).

If that's the case in NC, you folks have some serious problems down thay-uh.

But AFAIK you can (if you wanted) walk into emergency rooms or county
clinics and get free health care (if you wait in line), get housing
assistance, job placement assistance, etc etc. They don't even ask what
your income is.

LOL. I'm moving to NC right now! I couldn't get any of those things here,
even if I paid off some mid-level bureaucrats.

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.


Oh, you went to college, and benefited from the knowledge accrued over
many generations of our civilization? I though you singelhandedly invented
absolutely everything you have & use, made all discoveries yourself, etc
etc.

Now, why don't you talk sense. This is a ludicrous conversation at this
point.

In other words, you have benefitted greatly from our socio-economic
system. Of course, you worked for those benefits and paid for them. OTOH
what if nobody had been willing to loan you the money in the first place?

I was poor--I had no problems obtaining loans. And I worked my way through
college, both during the summers and during the school year.

....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.


No you haven't thought about it, at all. You've reacted with thoughtless
indignation, misinformation, bigotry, and making bigmouth about how you
walked ten miles to school uphill both ways in the snow. Barefoot.

Nice ad hominems, Doug. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist, especially
when you are losing the debate big time.

I've heard it before, it didn't impress me then.

You have mastered the arts of obfuscation, distortion, and redirection--all
worthwhile debating techniques. You also get angry and attack your debater
when your arguments fail, which should be beneath you. That's okay,
actually--I'm growing accustomed to it.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
What we need to do is legalize drugs, and tax them

That's a start. What we should do is put the cartels out of business by
producing those same drugs and selling them for less.

Oh, wait--the US hasn't been too adept at producing anything for less these
days, has it?

Never mind.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...


We do that now, Bob. I was contacted just last week to haul
some old ''rod containers'' out to Utah, where they bury
them.

That is certainly a "glowing" benefit to your resume, eh?

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"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.


Rocket engines are not their only business. What operational rocket does the
US have compared tot he Russian Proton?

Why is the US using Russian engines?



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.

The black US space program is quite remarkable. Check out "Blackstar".



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.

The shuttle does move more gear and people. The Shuttle's big flaw was
building the engines into the airframe.




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.


Advanced tactical laser to fly soon.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ystems/atl.htm


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
 

I think government should tax people and then just burn the money rather
than spend it.

Amen!

Scotty's mistake
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes,
booze taxes,
lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all
adds up!


Rich folks don't drink or smoke?

That's not my statement, Scoot. Pete, I think, said that.

Ya can't have it
both ways--either the taxes discourage smoking or they
increase revenues,
but not both.

Why not?

Think about it.

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.


And why shouldn't he, he pays into it, the same as you and
me?

No reason--I was just countering a point made by someone else. And that
*is* my quote, by the way.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:BQNPf.122940$4l5.106735@dukeread05...

"Bob Crantz" wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote:
Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob?

With grapefruit juice!

Tsk, tsk, Bob. Read the label...

You caught that one. Good job.

Scotty's mistake
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes,
booze taxes,
lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all
adds up!


Rich folks don't drink or smoke?

Statistically less than po folks.


That's not my statement, Scoot. Pete, I think, said that.

Ya can't have it
both ways--either the taxes discourage smoking or they
increase revenues,
but not both.

Why not?

Think about it.

The Laffer Curve says you can have both.


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.


And why shouldn't he, he pays into it, the same as you and
me?

No reason--I was just countering a point made by someone else. And that
*is* my quote, by the way.


Medicare and medicaid do go to the rich. What does it pay for? The sick
person is just an intermediary.

Bill gates won't collect social security as you and I do. It's taxed.






Max

Scotty's mistake
 

Do you drive out on I-70?

I'll buy you a sandwich. Do you know where Rip Griffin is?

Amen!



"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Bob Crantz" wrote


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.


We do that now, Bob. I was contacted just last week to haul
some old ''rod containers'' out to Utah, where they bury
them.
My buddy took a reactor head out there last Summer. They
bury the stuff in the desert.

Scotty

Scotty's mistake
 

I'm not saying it would be easy, but it seems to me that's a lot of
space-ready stuff costing billions to just throw out.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


The shuttle should be scuttled.

Not yet, but its replacement is in the works. Too bad the works are so
gummed up lately.

I think they should launch them when they get the replacements and leave
them in orbit. They could convert them to being part of the space station.

You seem to have forgotten what it was like when Skylab ultimately
re-entered. Ask any Aussie. Each shuttle is nearly as massive as the ISS
itself.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

You told me to respond to his arguments. I said I did. It's up to him to
come back with something beyond a rant if he wants the debate to continue.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Which prejudices are those? I'm glad you think I've "lost" the debate.

Sorry, Jon, but I have to agree with Pete. When you dismiss the
remainder of his argument as a rant and fail to respond to it
categorically, it would certainly appear you've lost.

I responded to all of his arguments at least once each. Sorry to
disappoint you.

Debates go back and forth. They are seldom concluded with one response
each. That would be tantamount to the Cheney approach, when the second
response is essentially '**** you and the horse you rode in on.'

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

We would import the drugs of course. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
What we need to do is legalize drugs, and tax them

That's a start. What we should do is put the cartels out of business by
producing those same drugs and selling them for less.

Oh, wait--the US hasn't been too adept at producing anything for less
these days, has it?

Never mind.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

Rocket engines are not their only business. What operational rocket does
the US have compared tot he Russian Proton?

Dunno. Haven't researched it that thoroughly.

Why is the US using Russian engines?

Cheap?


The shuttle does move more gear and people. The Shuttle's big flaw was
building the engines into the airframe.

I wasn't aware of that. Why is that so?

Advanced tactical laser to fly soon.

What's the power source these days? Nuke?

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...


Put it up on cinder blocks, in back of the shuttle hangar.

A better alternative, to be sure.


Amen!

Is Bob Crantz your sock puppet? Was that a slip?

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I'm not saying it would be easy, but it seems to me that's a lot of
space-ready stuff costing billions to just throw out.

The US space program throws out billions of dollars of "junk" every decade,
not to mention how much other "junk" gets left on the moon and mars, or just
orbits the Earth until the orbits decay sufficiently to allow it to re-enter
and burn up. Or crash down on Australia.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
I have a 'sales tax exempt number', will that also work on
your new Fed. sales tax.

Huh-uh. In fact I'm proposing that those of you who've been sales tax
exempt should have an additional 5% tacked on just to make up for all the
sales tax you didn't pay before.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
I think government should tax people and then just burn the money rather
than spend it.

I was under the impression that that is what it does now.

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:BQNPf.122940$4l5.106735@dukeread05...

"Bob Crantz" wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote:
Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob?

With grapefruit juice!

Tsk, tsk, Bob. Read the label...

You caught that one. Good job.

Obviously you and LP have used Xanax. For those of us who haven't, mind
filling us in?

Max

Scotty's mistake
 

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

Rich folks don't drink or smoke?

Statistically less than po folks.


Well, what exactly is the cut off point for being ''po
folk'' vs ''rich folk''?

I may need to catch up on my drinking.

Scotty

Scotty's mistake
 

I would if I were going. I turned it down. Too far for me.

BTW, last month I was offered a job to Denver. I thought
about it, was going to ask you how close you were. But the
'ol Lady said I couldn't go.

Scotty


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
ink.net...
Do you drive out on I-70?

I'll buy you a sandwich. Do you know where Rip Griffin is?

Amen!



"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Bob Crantz" wrote


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.


We do that now, Bob. I was contacted just last week to
haul
some old ''rod containers'' out to Utah, where they bury
them.
My buddy took a reactor head out there last Summer. They
bury the stuff in the desert.

Scotty

Scotty's mistake
 

"Maxprop" wrote in

Is Bob Crantz your sock puppet? Was that a slip?


My slip is showing? blush

SV

Scotty's mistake
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
I have a 'sales tax exempt number', will that also work
on
your new Fed. sales tax.

Huh-uh. In fact I'm proposing that those of you who've
been sales tax
exempt should have an additional 5% tacked on just to make
up for all the
sales tax you didn't pay before.

What about churches and other non=profit groups?

Scotty

Scotty's mistake
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

Rocket engines are not their only business. What operational rocket does
the US have compared tot he Russian Proton?

Dunno. Haven't researched it that thoroughly.

Why is the US using Russian engines?

Cheap?


The shuttle does move more gear and people. The Shuttle's big flaw was
building the engines into the airframe.

I wasn't aware of that. Why is that so?


Replacing them is a lot of work, adds to shuttle weight, fuel pipe from tank
to shuttle is a weak point, shuttle must lift tank of fuel on it's airframe,
fuel leaks in spacecraft.

Soviet version of shuttle did not have engines in craft.



Advanced tactical laser to fly soon.

What's the power source these days? Nuke?

Chemical and electric. Good for 100 shots before reloading, can fit in V-22.



Max

Scotty's mistake
 

If you ever come out or are passing through let me know. I can get to Denver
no problem.

Amen!

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
I would if I were going. I turned it down. Too far for me.

BTW, last month I was offered a job to Denver. I thought
about it, was going to ask you how close you were. But the
'ol Lady said I couldn't go.

Scotty


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
ink.net...
Do you drive out on I-70?

I'll buy you a sandwich. Do you know where Rip Griffin is?

Amen!



"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Bob Crantz" wrote


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.


We do that now, Bob. I was contacted just last week to
haul
some old ''rod containers'' out to Utah, where they bury
them.
My buddy took a reactor head out there last Summer. They
bury the stuff in the desert.

Scotty

Scotty's mistake
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

Rich folks don't drink or smoke?

Statistically less than po folks.


Well, what exactly is the cut off point for being ''po
folk'' vs ''rich folk''?

I may need to catch up on my drinking.

Scotty



That's a good question.

Scotty's mistake
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:BQNPf.122940$4l5.106735@dukeread05...

"Bob Crantz" wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote:
Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob?

With grapefruit juice!

Tsk, tsk, Bob. Read the label...

You caught that one. Good job.

Obviously you and LP have used Xanax. For those of us who haven't, mind
filling us in?

Max
I have never used Xanax or any drug for mental disorders. I want to
experience my disorders full blown!

He

http://www.fhma.com/grapefruit.htm

Eye opener isn't it?

Amen!

Scotty's mistake
 

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes,
booze taxes,
lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all
adds up!


Rich folks don't drink or smoke?

That's not my statement, Scoot. Pete, I think, said that.

No, not me. I agree with you on that one.

BTW, Australia introduced a GST at 10% a few years ago. So far, and I
emphasise so far, it seems to be working relatively well. Foodstuffs
are exempt but pretty well nothing else.

PDW