"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.



Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the wealth
of the already obscenely wealthy.

There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest
polluter.

Again, this makes no sense. Just because another country has a bad record
does not mean we can just igore the situation.


Ever read the Kyoto Treaty? China is exempt, yet pollutes the most. The
Kyoto Treaty increases regulation on US business, giving China a greater
economic advantage and incentive to pollute more.


Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of
the war in Iraq.

A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps
even the war in Iraq.

Who says? You?

I say so because I can read and understand the Constitution.

Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional?

Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When was
it declared?


Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a
clue.

I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great job
of looking out for their best interests.

Not with poll number of 34%. Even their right wingnut buddies in Congress
are running for cover.

What has poll numbers to do with getting rich off of favors and funneled
government contracts? Have you checked Halliburton stock lately? Defense
contractor stocks? The poll numbers can be 0%, he's a lame duck anyway.

"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.

Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the wealth
of the already obscenely wealthy.

There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest
polluter.

Again, this makes no sense. Just because another country has a bad record
does not mean we can just igore the situation.


Ever read the Kyoto Treaty? China is exempt, yet pollutes the most. The
Kyoto Treaty increases regulation on US business, giving China a greater
economic advantage and incentive to pollute more.

What's your point? The Kyoto agreement was flawed.

Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of
the war in Iraq.

A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps
even the war in Iraq.

Who says? You?

I say so because I can read and understand the Constitution.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, yours is not the final word.

Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional?

Depends on the wording of the law I would imagine.

Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When
was it declared?

What does this have to do with lowering taxes?

Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a
clue.

I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great job
of looking out for their best interests.

Not with poll number of 34%. Even their right wingnut buddies in Congress
are running for cover.

What has poll numbers to do with getting rich off of favors and funneled
government contracts? Have you checked Halliburton stock lately? Defense
contractor stocks? The poll numbers can be 0%, he's a lame duck anyway.

Again, you're not making much sense.

"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?



Lowering taxes and decreasing regs at this point will serve no purpose
except ruining what's left of the environment and increasing the
wealth of the already obscenely wealthy.

There's plenty left of the environment. China is the world's largest
polluter.

Again, this makes no sense. Just because another country has a bad
record does not mean we can just igore the situation.


Ever read the Kyoto Treaty? China is exempt, yet pollutes the most. The
Kyoto Treaty increases regulation on US business, giving China a greater
economic advantage and incentive to pollute more.

What's your point? The Kyoto agreement was flawed.

The point of diminishing returns. Why should the US take extraordinary
measures to decrease net world pollution by 1% when China, by taking much
lesser measures can reduce net world pollution by 5%?


Many valuable and effective programs have been cut, all in the name of
the war in Iraq.

A good number of the government programs are unconstitutional, perhaps
even the war in Iraq.

Who says? You?

I say so because I can read and understand the Constitution.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, yours is not the final word.

Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional?

Depends on the wording of the law I would imagine.

No, it depends on the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Is abortion
interstate commerce?


Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When
was it declared?

What does this have to do with lowering taxes?

Ever wonder what pays for a war?



Of course, that idiot and his buddies in the White House don't have a
clue.

I think they have a clue and are quite smart. They are doing a great
job of looking out for their best interests.

Not with poll number of 34%. Even their right wingnut buddies in
Congress are running for cover.

What has poll numbers to do with getting rich off of favors and funneled
government contracts? Have you checked Halliburton stock lately? Defense
contractor stocks? The poll numbers can be 0%, he's a lame duck anyway.

Again, you're not making much sense.

There's many thing to some people that don't make sense. That is not
sufficient to make it untrue.

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

"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?

Of course not, but the poor already pay minimally, and small companies have
other expenses that are a much greater problem.. e.g., medical insurance.


What's your point? The Kyoto agreement was flawed.

The point of diminishing returns. Why should the US take extraordinary
measures to decrease net world pollution by 1% when China, by taking much
lesser measures can reduce net world pollution by 5%?

Huh? What does population have to do with the Kyoto Accords, which you cited
as your example?

Do you think outlawing abortion at the Federal level is Constitutional?

Depends on the wording of the law I would imagine.

No, it depends on the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Is abortion
interstate commerce?

You asked me what I thought. I told you. I'm not a constitutional scholar
and neither are you.

Congress only has the power to declare war. We are at war in Iraq. When
was it declared?

What does this have to do with lowering taxes?

Ever wonder what pays for a war?

Young men and women with their lives.

Again, you're not making much sense.

There's many thing to some people that don't make sense. That is not
sufficient to make it untrue.

Again, you're not making any sense. I'm amazed. Usually, you can sustain an
argument a bit better.

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!

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!

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

"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

"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

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