"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

"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

"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

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

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

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

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.

"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

"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

"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