"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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less
competitive.

Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge?


You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then
I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly.

Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy or
you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both. So
is there a compromise somewhere in the middle?


You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all
of their oil.

Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We do.

You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is
doing it.

You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.
So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of our
products or rely on any of our knowledge base. In fact, I suggest you not
come here. You'll be disappointed.

That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face,
Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US
(this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as
forthright.

Max

Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?


Maxprop wrote:
Democrats, generally.


Or anybody with an impartial & accurate view of the matter.


No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.


True, but the rich have to pay less in proportion to their
means.


Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax.


Possibly.


How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?


An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the opportunity
to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the impoverished and
working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of their meager income
in taxes.

You liberal Demcrat you!


... However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater
percentage of their income in taxes.

Why not? If they can live a far more luxurious lifestyle on
a lesser proportion of their income, *and* they have greater
representation in our government (how many poor people are
there in Congress?), *and* they enjoy greater services &
benefits from the gov't and from our socio-economic system
generally, then it is only fair that they pay the greater
portion of the burden in taxes.



... Once again a federal sales tax would
solve this issue.

No it wouldn't, unless it was exhorbitant.

... If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental, he'll
pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford Focus.

ANd he'll use up more public resources when he drives it. So
the tax should be proportionally more, not just numerically.

But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair.


But what if the rich person doesn't buy a car at all, but
instead forms a corporation to buy him a car tax-free?


The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!


Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought to
Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest; that
he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than others.

How can you tell when he's joking?


His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget than the
rich, but that simply isn't true. Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and
other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement,
forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal
contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare
(includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison. Of course it's
difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally*
contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income
taxes.


By golly, you are a closet Bolshevik.

DSK

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!

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:02:31 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:


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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace.

Huh? This makes no sense.

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive. The only people who will be helped by
lowering
taxes will be rich people and large corporations.

Will lowering taxes hurt poor people and small companies?



It invariably does. The reality is that taxes never EVER get lowered, they
just
get shifted around. It's the foundation upon which all other smoke and
mirrors
are built.



So true.

Amen!

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


I think that's completely stupid at this point.

Only if you want to become less competitive in the world marketplace.

Huh? This makes no sense.

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.

So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

PDW

Ouch!

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less
competitive.

Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge?


You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then
I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly.

Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy
or you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both.
So is there a compromise somewhere in the middle?


Nuclear power!



You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all
of their oil.

Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We
do.


Japan reallocates capital and resources to other countries. They are very
competitive in manufacturing knowledge.


You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is
doing it.

You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.
So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of
our products or rely on any of our knowledge base. In fact, I suggest you
not come here. You'll be disappointed.

That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face,
Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US
(this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as
forthright.

Max

Jonathan is being a good patriot!

"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

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:21:19 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:

Jonathan,

Go ahead and tax the rich.

One small problem.

The rich run the government.

The rich write the laws.

Who in the Senate is not a millionaire?

The Clintons became multimillionaires by holding public office .


Bill Clinton has publically stated in no uncertain terms that even
though he's one of the people who would be affected by higher taxes on
the wealthy, he still believes it is the right thing to do.


Quite noble of the good man!

No wonder he can command $200,000/hour for a speaking engagement!

It must be his golden tongue and noble principles!

Glory!

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

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...
Who says the rich have to pay taxes at a higher rate?

Democrats, generally.

No where else in society do the rich have to pay more for things like
cars, bread, etc. The cost is the same for everyone for the same product.

Right, which makes a federal sales tax more equitable than an income tax.

How come you want to deny the poor their chance to pay the same?

An odd question. Most people, poor or otherwise, would love the
opportunity to pay less in taxes. But to continue the discussion, the
impoverished and working poor probably should pay a lesser proportion of
their meager income in taxes. There could be exemptions or reductions in
a federal sales tax for the poor.

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

Need more revenue? Increase cigarette taxes!

In general it;s the poor that smoke, are fat, gamble, live in motels, eat
fast food. Yet those are the things everyone screams for higher taxation!

The poor even receive higher returns on their social security!

Tax the poor!

Then tax seniors!

We need more "class" envy!


However the rich should not pay a proportionately greater
percentage of their income in taxes. Once again a federal sales tax would
solve this issue. If a rich dude wishes to buy a Bentley Continental,
he'll pay more in sales tax than a dude of modest means purchasing a Ford
Focus. But if they both buy Ford Focuses, they pay the same. That's fair.

The poor should pay more in taxes. They consume more government services
and individually contribute less to society. The poor should pay their
fair share too!

Quintessential Rush Limbaugh--right from his book, "The Way Things Ought
to Be." You might also have noticed that this proclamation was in jest;
that he really didn't advocate taxing the poor proportionately more than
others. His point was that the poor consume more of the federal budget
than the rich, but that simply isn't true.

You mean to say Social security and medicare go to the rich?

Corporate welfare, roads, bridges, and
other infrastructure built to accommodate big business, tax abatement,
forgiven federal grants and loans to businesses, inflated/bloated federal
contracts to big business, and so on ad nauseum, make individual welfare
(includes Medicare and Medicaid) seem small by comparison

Not true:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html

Check Table S-11.


.. Of course it's
difficult to assess the final cost of such things because they *generally*
contribute to increased production, more jobs, and those jobs pay income
taxes.

Then, of course, you have defunct retirement plans, such as GMs, which
will dig even deeper into the federal coffers.

Go easy on the poor, Bob. I'm unaware of any of them who would not rather
be wealthy.


Let others sing of gold and gear, the joy of being rich;
But oh, the days when I was poor, a vagrant in a ditch!
When every dawn was like a gem, so radiant and rare,
And I had but a single coat, and not a single care;
When I would feast right royally on bacon, bread and beer,
And dig into a stack of hay and doze like any peer;
When I would wash beside a brook my solitary shirt,
And though it dried upon my back I never took a hurt;
When I went romping down the road contemptuous of care,
And slapped Adventure on the back -- by Gad! we were a pair;
When, though my pockets lacked a coin, and though my coat was old,
The largess of the stars was mine, and all the sunset gold;
When time was only made for fools, and free as air was I,
And hard I hit and hard I lived beneath the open sky;
When all the roads were one to me, and each had its allure . . .
Ye Gods! these were the happy days, the days when I was poor.

II

Or else, again, old pal of mine, do you recall the times
You struggled with your storyettes, I wrestled with my rhymes;
Oh, we were happy, were we not? -- we used to live so "high"
(A little bit of broken roof between us and the sky);
Upon the forge of art we toiled with hammer and with tongs;
You told me all your rippling yarns, I sang to you my songs.
Our hats were frayed, our jackets patched, our boots were down at heel,
But oh, the happy men were we, although we lacked a meal.
And if I sold a bit of rhyme, or if you placed a tale,
What feasts we had of tenderloins and apple-tarts and ale!
And yet how often we would dine as cheerful as you please,
Beside our little friendly fire on coffee, bread and cheese.
We lived upon the ragged edge, and grub was never sure,
But oh, these were the happy days, the days when we were poor.

III

Alas! old man, we're wealthy now, it's sad beyond a doubt;
We cannot dodge prosperity, success has found us out.
Your eye is very dull and drear, my brow is creased with care,
We realize how hard it is to be a millionaire.
The burden's heavy on our backs -- you're thinking of your rents,
I'm worrying if I'll invest in five or six per cents.
We've limousines, and marble halls, and flunkeys by the score,
We play the part . . . but say, old chap, oh, isn't it a bore?
We work like slaves, we eat too much, we put on evening dress;
We've everything a man can want, I think . . . but happiness.
Come, let us sneak away, old chum; forget that we are rich,
And earn an honest appetite, and scratch an honest itch.
Let's be two jolly garreteers, up seven flights of stairs,
And wear old clothes and just pretend we aren't millionaires;
And wonder how we'll pay the rent, and scribble ream on ream,
And sup on sausages and tea, and laugh and loaf and dream.

And when we're tired of that, my friend, oh, you will come with me;
And we will seek the sunlit roads that lie beside the sea.
We'll know the joy the gipsy knows, the freedom nothing mars,
The golden treasure-gates of dawn, the mintage of the stars.
We'll smoke our pipes and watch the pot, and feed the crackling fire,
And sing like two old jolly boys, and dance to heart's desire;
We'll climb the hill and ford the brook and camp upon the moor . . .
Old chap, let's haste, I'm mad to taste the Joy of Being Poor.