"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

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

"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!

"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" 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" 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

"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

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

Amen!

"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

"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.