First? How about Haliburton.

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No. They're citizens and should pay their fair share.

I agree completely. Speak first with George Soros, who sequesters his
billions in offshore numbered accounts in order to escape the punitive
taxation the rich suffer.

Here's the problem, Jon. If you tax the rich equitably, most pay their
taxes without protest. When you tax them punitively, they shelter their
earnings and end up paying very little. The rich didn't get that way by
being stupid--they got that way by being greedy and resourceful. Do you
honestly believe raising taxes on such people will produce more revenue?
Historically it has had the opposite effect. In fact, raising taxes for
all classes beyond a certain point will have exactly the opposite of the
desired effect of increasing revenue. I hope I don't have to explain that
to you.

Max

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Seahag" wrote

Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon



You'd better watch out, Seahag. Katy says women don't giggle. Next she'll be saying they
don't swoon either... Maybe if Katy doesn't giggle it means she's lost her sense of humor????
I bet you giggle.

Cheers,
Ellen


Nope...Haggie bellylaughs....

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
message
reenews.net...

"Seahag" wrote
Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon


You'd better watch out, Seahag. Katy says women don't
giggle. Next she'll be saying they
don't swoon either... Maybe if Katy doesn't giggle it
means she's lost her sense of humor????
I bet you giggle.

Check your spelling...of course women jiggle!

Seahag

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor?

There is a difference between protecting citizens from predators as opposed
to protecting them from themselves.

You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

Nice try, Pete, but that's no different than protecting folks form other
forms of financial or physical predation. Inadvertently choosing an
unqualified quack to provide medical care is radically different from
choosing to take recreational drugs.

Max

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sidney Greenstreet wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW


Great idea! Bad doctors would go out of business sooner. Medicine would
advance rapidly due to choice of therapy. Should do it for lawyers too.

I was working up to that. Come on, I'm trying to give Max enough rope
to hang himself.

Next time be sure you have a rope, and not just a piece of tattered twine,
Pete.

Max

"katy" wrote in message
...
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Seahag" wrote

Yeah, and they're both real manly men !

swoon



You'd better watch out, Seahag. Katy says women don't
giggle. Next she'll be saying they
don't swoon either... Maybe if Katy doesn't giggle it
means she's lost her sense of humor????
I bet you giggle.

Cheers,
Ellen
Nope...Haggie bellylaughs....

I do! You should have been there when I walked smack into
that glass door in Miami. There wasn't anything else to do
but guffaw!

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation
better than actual problem solving?

In my opinion, yes. Self-reliance and motivation generally lead to
problem solving. Government seldom does. To the contrary, virtually
every action of a government has unintended consequences. Problem
solved--another created.

Opinions don't make facts. And, bzzzt... virtually every action by an
individual has unintended consequences.

Perhaps, but such individual unintended consequences don't affect the entire
population of the country.

Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example.

They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million. Quite a
different set of dynamics. And our population continues to increase,
especially in the demographics of the working and non-working poor. If
you can provide the recipe for a health care system that equals that of
Norway but provides for a population 65 times larger without bankrupting
the country and killing the economy, I'm all ears.

Yes, the Norweigian one.

Have you given any thought as to how to pay for it? Remember that you won't
be providing care for 4.5 million, rather 300 million.

And while we're on the subject, IIRC you are over 50. Does it bother you
that Hillary's health care proposal denied a good many medical services to
people over 50, such as dialysis and heart valve replacement? Apparently
she deemed those over 50 to be expendable. And here's a flash for ya--the
Canadian and Norwegian health care systems ration health care similarly.
Where do you think Hillary got her basic concepts for federalized health
care?

Max

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example.


They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million. Quite a
different set of dynamics. And our population continues to increase,
especially in the demographics of the working and non-working poor. If
you can provide the recipe for a health care system that equals that of
Norway but provides for a population 65 times larger without bankrupting
the country and killing the economy, I'm all ears.

Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"?

It's an interesting concept. You might want to check it out.

Sheesh. Ever heard of diseconomies of scale?

It's an interesting concept. You might want to check it out.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million.


Walt wrote:
Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"?


Of course. Maxprop's vocabulary trumps yours!

Hmmm. That one hit a nerve, eh Douggie?

Max

"Walt" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
Walt wrote:
Maxprop wrote:
They have 4.5 million folks--we have nearly 300 million.


Sheesh. Ever heard the term "per capita"?

Of course. Maxprop's vocabulary trumps yours!

If you say so. Of course, there's using words, and then there's actually
knowing what they mean.

Anyway, using Maxy's logic, large companies would always go bankrupt
because they have so many employees to pay.

I could give a number of major airlines and GM as examples, but what the
hell. Knock yourselves out with your delusions. And for the record it has
nothing to do with pay, rather with federally-mandated benefits and
pensions. There is an over-center point after which even large companies
can no longer function profitably. (oooo, dirty word, that)

Say, you weren't counting on a GM or Delta pension, were you Walt?

Max