Sold out by IFR

[Mike Rapoport]

I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much better
rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.

Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them not to
send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the third
time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all pre-approved
credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa and
subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation that
ordinary people really care about.

Mike
MU-2

[Plumb Bob]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...

> time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
> credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
> is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
and
> subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
that
> ordinary people really care about.

Well, they are working on legistlation you and I care about: It's called
pork spending and running up the deficit to obscene levels.

I know we all care about that!!

[Mike Rapoport]

"Plumb Bob" > wrote in message
news:veaTb.156226$sv6.854729@attbi_s52...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
> > time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
> pre-approved
> > credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that
Congress
> > is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
> and
> > subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
> that
> > ordinary people really care about.
>
> Well, they are working on legistlation you and I care about: It's called
> pork spending and running up the deficit to obscene levels.
>
> I know we all care about that!!
>

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want! Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read (I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).

Mike
MU-2

[Jeff]

Ameritrade is the same way.
after using them, we got hundredss of spam (and still do) from stock places.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much better
> rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
> four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
> from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
> address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
> information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
> subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
>
> Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them not to
> send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the third
> time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all pre-approved
> credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
> is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa and
> subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation that
> ordinary people really care about.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[Jeff]

Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad now,
wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not hold
back since he would be on his last term.


Plumb Bob wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
> > time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
> pre-approved
> > credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
> > is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
> and
> > subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
> that
> > ordinary people really care about.
>
> Well, they are working on legistlation you and I care about: It's called
> pork spending and running up the deficit to obscene levels.
>
> I know we all care about that!!

[Bob Gardner]

That's known as cutting off your nose to spite your face. The value of what
you will miss far exceeds any perceived gain.

Bob Gardner

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
better
> rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
> four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
> from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
> address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
> information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
> subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
>
> Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them not
to
> send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the third
> time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
> credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
> is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
and
> subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
that
> ordinary people really care about.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[Newps]

Jeff wrote:
> Ameritrade is the same way.
> after using them, we got hundredss of spam (and still do) from stock places.

Really? I've had Ameritrade for myself since about 1996 and for my kids
college trusts since 1997. Never got any spam from financial
institutions of any kind.

[Javier Henderson]

"Mike Rapoport" > writes:

> I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much better
> rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
> four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
> from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
> address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
> information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
> subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.

May I suggest that you let them know why you won't buy their
products again, if you haven't already?

-jav

[Richard Hertz]

I just subscribed to the magazine after hearing raves about it. I am not
impressed with it.

- they declined to send me a prior month after I had ordered.
- their 2004 yearly compilation seems to suggest that people do some illegal
or questionable approached by not using procedure turns
- the quiz in the latest magazine had the localizer backcourse shaded
incorrectly
- not much of the content is what I expected given all the raves about the
magazine.

What is it about the magazine that people seem to find so wonderful?


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
better
> rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
> four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
> from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
> address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
> information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
> subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
>
> Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them not
to
> send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the third
> time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
> credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
> is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
and
> subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
that
> ordinary people really care about.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
> spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
it.
> Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read (I
> think it was by the CBO or GAO).
>

In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad
now,
> wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not
hold
> back since he would be on his last term.

And how is this different from the elections over the past 100-150 years?

This didn't just materialize in the past few years, or even the past
generation or so.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:dMbTb.198677$I06.2194088@attbi_s01...
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > Ameritrade is the same way.
> > after using them, we got hundredss of spam (and still do) from stock
places.
>
> Really? I've had Ameritrade for myself since about 1996 and for my kids
> college trusts since 1997. Never got any spam from financial
> institutions of any kind.

They checked your bank balance after paying all the stuff for your airplane
and got spooked by the $3.82 bank balance. :~)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
. net...
> I just subscribed to the magazine after hearing raves about it. I am not
> impressed with it.
>
> - they declined to send me a prior month after I had ordered.
> - their 2004 yearly compilation seems to suggest that people do some
illegal
> or questionable approached by not using procedure turns
> - the quiz in the latest magazine had the localizer backcourse shaded
> incorrectly
> - not much of the content is what I expected given all the raves about the
> magazine.
>
> What is it about the magazine that people seem to find so wonderful?
>

Well, it ain't the centerfold, or the swimsuit edition.

[Jay Honeck]

> May I suggest that you let them know why you won't buy their
> products again, if you haven't already?

Better leave out the part about the 4-year old subscribing, however...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[JFee]

I was upset about the same thing. Last year I joined for $24 and this year
they sent me renewal notice for $40!

So I crossed off the $40 on the renewal notice, wrote in $24 with a short
note that if they charged me the same rate I subscribed at, I would renew.

Sure enough, they sent me a bill for only $24, and I kept receiving the
magazine (though i hesitate to call it that.. more of a newsletter, I think)

-Jonathan

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
better
> rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
> four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
> from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
> address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
> information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
> subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
>
> Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them not
to
> send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the third
> time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
> credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
> is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
and
> subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
that
> ordinary people really care about.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[Haywood Jablome]

"JFee" > wrote in message
news:RLdTb.206424$na.338827@attbi_s04...
> I was upset about the same thing. Last year I joined for $24 and this
year
> they sent me renewal notice for $40!
>
> So I crossed off the $40 on the renewal notice, wrote in $24 with a short
> note that if they charged me the same rate I subscribed at, I would
renew.
>
> Sure enough, they sent me a bill for only $24, and I kept receiving the
> magazine (though i hesitate to call it that.. more of a newsletter, I
think)

The difference between me and you is that I could not be bothered to play
that game. So I let my subscription slide years ago. So now they get nothing
and I am spared of the bull****.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Haywood Jablome" > wrote in message
news:8ceTb.204377$xy6.1052049@attbi_s02...
>
> "JFee" > wrote in message
> news:RLdTb.206424$na.338827@attbi_s04...
> > I was upset about the same thing. Last year I joined for $24 and this
> year
> > they sent me renewal notice for $40!
> >
> > So I crossed off the $40 on the renewal notice, wrote in $24 with a
short
> > note that if they charged me the same rate I subscribed at, I would
> renew.
> >
> > Sure enough, they sent me a bill for only $24, and I kept receiving the
> > magazine (though i hesitate to call it that.. more of a newsletter, I
> think)
>
> The difference between me and you is that I could not be bothered to play
> that game. So I let my subscription slide years ago. So now they get
nothing
> and I am spared of the bull****.
>
In the "old days", companies used to "nickel and dime", you to death. Today,
it's $50 and $100 you to death.

Not a month goes by I don't find someone trying to slip and extra $10, $20,
$50...past us on a billing statement. Of course, the "error" is never in MY
favor. :~(

[Mike Rapoport]

I'm not sure exactly what gainI'll be missing. Every spring there are
articles in every aviation mag about flying when there is convective
weather. After flying a few years and being exposed to 100 such articles
admonishing us not to fly into a thunderstorm, what is gained be reading one
more? Anyway, it is my six year old who isn't going to subscribe

Mike
MU-2
..
"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:SrbTb.154911$Rc4.1224836@attbi_s54...
> That's known as cutting off your nose to spite your face. The value of
what
> you will miss far exceeds any perceived gain.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
> better
> > rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
> > four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a
solicitation
> > from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name
and
> > address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
> > information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
> > subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
> >
> > Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them
not
> to
> > send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the
third
> > time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
> pre-approved
> > credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that
Congress
> > is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
> and
> > subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
> that
> > ordinary people really care about.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
>
>

[Abafon Goula]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:32:36 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much better
>rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
>four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
>from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
>address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
>information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
>subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
>
Good for you.

>Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them not to
>send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the third
>time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all pre-approved
>credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
>is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa and
>subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation that
>ordinary people really care about.

There's a hint in your paragraph that I may be taking a little
personal, but maybe you should think of those companies that are
sending you their offerings and how much money they make and what
politicians their tied to.

>
>Mike
>MU-2
>

[Abafon Goula]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:54 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad now,
>wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not hold
>back since he would be on his last term.

Let's kick his dumb ass out! Might be nice to have a president that
has at least half a brain and not a puppet.

[Abafon Goula]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:58:25 GMT, "JFee" >
wrote:

>I was upset about the same thing. Last year I joined for $24 and this year
>they sent me renewal notice for $40!
>
>So I crossed off the $40 on the renewal notice, wrote in $24 with a short
>note that if they charged me the same rate I subscribed at, I would renew.
>
>Sure enough, they sent me a bill for only $24, and I kept receiving the
>magazine (though i hesitate to call it that.. more of a newsletter, I think)
>
That's funny! I decided to see if they improved a while back and
subscribed. True to form, they started sending me renewal notices
before I received my first issue. After the fourth notice, I told
them to cram it.


>"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>> I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
>better
>> rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
>> four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
>> from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
>> address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
>> information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
>> subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
>>
>> Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them not
>to
>> send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the third
>> time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
>pre-approved
>> credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that Congress
>> is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in Iowa
>and
>> subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
>that
>> ordinary people really care about.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>

[Haywood Jablome]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:JVgTb.81

> > The difference between me and you is that I could not be bothered to
play
> > that game. So I let my subscription slide years ago. So now they get
> nothing
> > and I am spared of the bull****.
> >
> In the "old days", companies used to "nickel and dime", you to death.
Today,
> it's $50 and $100 you to death.
>
> Not a month goes by I don't find someone trying to slip and extra $10,
$20,
> $50...past us on a billing statement. Of course, the "error" is never in
MY
> favor. :~(

I'm on a screw you diet.
The rules are simple:

1. If the price is fair, I will pay it. You do not waste my time with
negotiations.

2. If there is a problem with your product, I give you one chance to fix it.
If you cannot fix it satisfactorily and fast the first time, I will return
it for a refund.

3. If I have to wait more than 10 minutes maximum to talk to your tech
support on the phone then I will take my business elsewhere.

4. I do not stand and wait in any queue for more than 4 minutes. After which
time I leave the goods exactly where they are and walk out of the store
(losers on welfare have an excuse to wait in line)

5. If you have me between a rock and a hard place - tardy contractors are an
example - I will harrass you by telephone at your home and/or business at
least 4 times a day until you make good.

Try it. It works.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
> Pork
> > spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
> it.
> > Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read
(I
> > think it was by the CBO or GAO).
> >
>
> In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
> spending was pork/waste.
>
> But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
> probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
> NEIGHBOR wants.
>
> "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
> O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.
>
>


I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"JFee" > wrote in message
news:RLdTb.206424$na.338827@attbi_s04...
> I was upset about the same thing. Last year I joined for $24 and this
year
> they sent me renewal notice for $40!
>
> So I crossed off the $40 on the renewal notice, wrote in $24 with a short
> note that if they charged me the same rate I subscribed at, I would
renew.
>
> Sure enough, they sent me a bill for only $24, and I kept receiving the
> magazine (though i hesitate to call it that.. more of a newsletter, I
think)
>
> -Jonathan

Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices to
different customers.

"Every man deserves a square deal" Theodore Roosevelt

Mike
MU-2

[Rosspilot]

>Jeff wrote:
>> Ameritrade is the same way.
>> after using them, we got hundredss of spam (and still do) from stock
>places.
>
>Really? I've had Ameritrade for myself since about 1996 and for my kids
>college trusts since 1997. Never got any spam from financial
>institutions of any kind.
>

Same here. No problem w/ Ameritrade.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Mike Rapoport]

Why?

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:gydTb.203997$xy6.1049254@attbi_s02...
> > May I suggest that you let them know why you won't buy their
> > products again, if you haven't already?
>
> Better leave out the part about the 4-year old subscribing, however...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Abafon Goula" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:54 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad
now,
> >wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not
hold
> >back since he would be on his last term.
>
> Let's kick his dumb ass out! Might be nice to have a president that
> has at least half a brain and not a puppet.

And which one from the past 150 years or more, would fit that description?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
> > Pork
> > > spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
> > it.
> > > Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
> (I
> > > think it was by the CBO or GAO).
> > >
> >
> > In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
> > spending was pork/waste.
> >
> > But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
> > probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
> your
> > NEIGHBOR wants.
> >
> > "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
> > O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.
> >
> >
>
>
> I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
> pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
> defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
> research ect.

See, even that last couple are outside the vail of the Constitution.
EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY has some pet project the want the feds to
perform outside their assigned duties.

You want Parks and R&D. Someone else wants health care. Another wants cheap
gas.

That's where it goes haywire.


>The state governments should stick to state issues, state
> highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
> locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
> benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
> it.

Why should TAXPAYERS in ANY locale pay for a private companies
infrastructure?


> All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
> to pay for.
>
> I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.


You mentioned two above.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices to
> different customers.

It's called volume discount.

> "Every man deserves a square deal" Theodore Roosevelt

Speaking of government costs out of control, there's the guy who started
much of it (the American Empire).

[Mike Rapoport]

"Abafon Goula" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:54 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad
now,
> >wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not
hold
> >back since he would be on his last term.
>
> Let's kick his dumb ass out! Might be nice to have a president that
> has at least half a brain and not a puppet.
>

Unfortunately there will only be a few choices and Teddy Roosevelt is not
running this year. A major problem is that the candidates in the election
had to win the primaries. It is difficult to win the Democratic primary
without being a big government, tax and spend, bleeding heart. It is
difficult to win the Republican primary without being a big government,
borrow and spend, friend of big polluting business and the religious right.
Looks like, no matter who wins, we will have a big government with Santa
Claus at its head. Of course the real Santa Clause brought presents to
everybody and government Santa Clauses favor their constituencies.
Basically each generation is trying to steal from the next. The retired try
to steal from the working by demanding medical and retirement benefits
vastly greater than any taxes that they paid to fund them. The working in
turn try to steal from future generations by running a deficit in good times
and bad. The future generations have had nobody since TR to advance their
cause.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues and as
such should be funded at the National level. An artifical rain forest in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
> > > Pork
> > > > spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
> contain
> > > it.
> > > > Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
> read
> > (I
> > > > think it was by the CBO or GAO).
> > > >
> > >
> > > In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
> > > spending was pork/waste.
> > >
> > > But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
> (you
> > > probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
> > your
> > > NEIGHBOR wants.
> > >
> > > "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
> P.J.
> > > O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
> > pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
> > defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
> > research ect.
>
> See, even that last couple are outside the vail of the Constitution.
> EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY has some pet project the want the feds to
> perform outside their assigned duties.
>
> You want Parks and R&D. Someone else wants health care. Another wants
cheap
> gas.
>
> That's where it goes haywire.
>
>
> >The state governments should stick to state issues, state
> > highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
> > locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
> > benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
> > it.
>
> Why should TAXPAYERS in ANY locale pay for a private companies
> infrastructure?
>
>
> > All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
> > to pay for.
> >
> > I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.
>
>
> You mentioned two above.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt

Mike
MU-2

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Abafon Goula" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:54 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
> >
> > >Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad
> now,
> > >wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to
not
> hold
> > >back since he would be on his last term.
> >
> > Let's kick his dumb ass out! Might be nice to have a president that
> > has at least half a brain and not a puppet.
>
> And which one from the past 150 years or more, would fit that description?
>
>
>

[Haywood Jablome]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues and
as
> such should be funded at the National level. An artifical rain forest in
> Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Here is another national issue that needs some funding: Our sick dependance
on foreign oil that funds the very terrorists that seek to destroy us. And
I'm not talking about some wacky unworkable idea for hydrogen fuel in 20 or
30 years.

Where is the backbone of real leadership? No. Our so-called leaders wish to
spend us into oblivion instead.

[Richard Hertz]

Sounds similar to my policy(ies). Some companies lost a good customer,
and some have really impressed me.


"Haywood Jablome" > wrote in message
news:k6hTb.207931$na.340391@attbi_s04...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:JVgTb.81
>
> > > The difference between me and you is that I could not be bothered to
> play
> > > that game. So I let my subscription slide years ago. So now they get
> > nothing
> > > and I am spared of the bull****.
> > >
> > In the "old days", companies used to "nickel and dime", you to death.
> Today,
> > it's $50 and $100 you to death.
> >
> > Not a month goes by I don't find someone trying to slip and extra $10,
> $20,
> > $50...past us on a billing statement. Of course, the "error" is never in
> MY
> > favor. :~(
>
> I'm on a screw you diet.
> The rules are simple:
>
> 1. If the price is fair, I will pay it. You do not waste my time with
> negotiations.
>
> 2. If there is a problem with your product, I give you one chance to fix
it.
> If you cannot fix it satisfactorily and fast the first time, I will return
> it for a refund.
>
> 3. If I have to wait more than 10 minutes maximum to talk to your tech
> support on the phone then I will take my business elsewhere.
>
> 4. I do not stand and wait in any queue for more than 4 minutes. After
which
> time I leave the goods exactly where they are and walk out of the store
> (losers on welfare have an excuse to wait in line)
>
> 5. If you have me between a rock and a hard place - tardy contractors are
an
> example - I will harrass you by telephone at your home and/or business at
> least 4 times a day until you make good.
>
> Try it. It works.
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
'> I'm not sure exactly what gainI'll be missing. Every spring there
are
> articles in every aviation mag about flying when there is convective
> weather. After flying a few years and being exposed to 100 such
articles
> admonishing us not to fly into a thunderstorm, what is gained be
reading one
> more?

I dunno, Mike - I think IFR is a cut above most of that stuff. I'm sure
I've found more real-world, useful stuff there than in the other mags.
It's funny, too.

Belvoir's subscription dept. irritates me, too, but not enough to dump
IFR.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[AaronK]

I had a similar problem with Flying Magazine. My wife got me a subscription
over the web. After it ran out, they started calling us on the phone to
try to get us to renew. We told them over and over to put our number on
their do not call list, threatened them, whatever, but the calls kept coming
in. I sent a letter to Flying Magazine and got a letter of apology, but
they claimed they couldn't do much about it because it was a separate
marketing company or whatever. Needless to say, I stopped the subscription.

I really liked IFR magazine originally. Seems like they had some good info
that filled in the cracks other magazines left. I still go back and re-read
some of the old issues. But after a few years, it seems to be getting
somewhat redundant. I was always dismayed at how much it cost. They need a
few more advertisers to bring the cost down.

.... Aaron

"Abafon Goula" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:58:25 GMT, "JFee" >
> wrote:
>
> >I was upset about the same thing. Last year I joined for $24 and this
year
> >they sent me renewal notice for $40!
> >
> >So I crossed off the $40 on the renewal notice, wrote in $24 with a short
> >note that if they charged me the same rate I subscribed at, I would
renew.
> >
> >Sure enough, they sent me a bill for only $24, and I kept receiving the
> >magazine (though i hesitate to call it that.. more of a newsletter, I
think)
> >
> That's funny! I decided to see if they improved a while back and
> subscribed. True to form, they started sending me renewal notices
> before I received my first issue. After the fourth notice, I told
> them to cram it.
>
>
> >"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >> I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
> >better
> >> rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this,
my
> >> four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a
solicitation
> >> from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name
and
> >> address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
> >> information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will
never
> >> subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
> >>
> >> Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them
not
> >to
> >> send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the
third
> >> time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
> >pre-approved
> >> credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that
Congress
> >> is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in
Iowa
> >and
> >> subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for legislation
> >that
> >> ordinary people really care about.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >> MU-2
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt


You could not have named two that did more to let the "cat outta the bag".
Well, no, they weren't puppets, but they sure liked to pull the strings.

It's a quetion who money was worse, J. Davis' Confederate money, or
Lincoln's "Greenbacks". Lincoln started us on the road to the overarching
state, and Teddy gave us the start (and a goodly trip down the road) to the
Military-Industrial Complex.


>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Abafon Goula" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:54 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting
bad
> > now,
> > > >wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to
> not
> > hold
> > > >back since he would be on his last term.
> > >
> > > Let's kick his dumb ass out! Might be nice to have a president that
> > > has at least half a brain and not a puppet.
> >
> > And which one from the past 150 years or more, would fit that
description?
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues and
as
> such should be funded at the National level.

And neither are government issues...state of federal.


>An artifical rain forest in
> Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Quite! That would be one for Disneyland.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Haywood Jablome" > wrote in message
news:zYhTb.75843$U%5.411352@attbi_s03...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
> as
> > such should be funded at the National level. An artifical rain forest
in
> > Iowa is clearly not a National issue
>
> Here is another national issue that needs some funding: Our sick
dependance
> on foreign oil that funds the very terrorists that seek to destroy us. And
> I'm not talking about some wacky unworkable idea for hydrogen fuel in 20
or
> 30 years.
>
> Where is the backbone of real leadership? No. Our so-called leaders wish
to
> spend us into oblivion instead.


Probably the idiot that gave us the Department of Energy.

[John D. Koop]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> > Where is the backbone of real leadership? No. Our so-called leaders wish
> to
> > spend us into oblivion instead.
>
> Probably the idiot that gave us the Department of Energy.

The Department of Energy is about as useful as a Department of Peace.

[Greg Esres]

<<What is it about the magazine that people seem to find so
wonderful?>>

Dunno. Some people like the writing style, but it really gets on my
nerves.

[John Harlow]

>>> Ameritrade is the same way.
>>> after using them, we got hundredss of spam (and still do) from
>>> stock places.
>>
>> Really? I've had Ameritrade for myself since about 1996 and for my
>> kids college trusts since 1997. Never got any spam from financial
>> institutions of any kind.
>>
>
> Same here. No problem w/ Ameritrade.

Nor here.

[John Harlow]

> In the "old days", companies used to "nickel and dime", you to death.
> Today, it's $50 and $100 you to death.

Boy, ain't that the truth. I was signing a full-price contract on an
expensive (to me) house - really pushing my comfort level, and right when I
was about to put pen to paper, my real estate agent shoved a pathetic $180
"buyer's agent fee" under my nose.
Although the amount was in the noise level, the gall of the thing damn near
killed the whole deal. .

[John Harlow]

>> Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices
>> to different customers.
>
> It's called volume discount.

Exactly. The louder you yell, the cheaper you can get it.

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
| I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
better
| rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
| four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a solicitation
| from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name and
| address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
| information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
| subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.

Many magazines offer discounts to attract first time subscribers, just as
landlords offer discounts on the first six months lease, restaurants offer
two for one specials, etc. It is not an attempt to cheat you.

In sending your son an ad for another magazine, they were no more dishonest
than you representing yourself as your own son. I figure you're about even.
Maybe they should send you a letter saying they never want you as a customer
again. :-)

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

Mike
MU-2



"Haywood Jablome" > wrote in message
news:zYhTb.75843$U%5.411352@attbi_s03...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
> as
> > such should be funded at the National level. An artifical rain forest
in
> > Iowa is clearly not a National issue
>
> Here is another national issue that needs some funding: Our sick
dependance
> on foreign oil that funds the very terrorists that seek to destroy us. And
> I'm not talking about some wacky unworkable idea for hydrogen fuel in 20
or
> 30 years.
>
> Where is the backbone of real leadership? No. Our so-called leaders wish
to
> spend us into oblivion instead.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
but lets not.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
> as
> > such should be funded at the National level.
>
> And neither are government issues...state of federal.
>
>
> >An artifical rain forest in
> > Iowa is clearly not a National issue
>
> Quite! That would be one for Disneyland.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices to
> > different customers.
>
> It's called volume discount.

The poster was purchasing one subscription. I agree that volume discounts
are perfectly fair as long as the same deal is offered to everyone.


>
> > "Every man deserves a square deal" Theodore Roosevelt
>
> Speaking of government costs out of control, there's the guy who started
> much of it (the American Empire).
>

The real problem started when the government started distributing money to
individuals, cities and states.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> | I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
> better
> | rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this, my
> | four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a
solicitation
> | from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name
and
> | address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want my
> | information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will never
> | subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
>
> Many magazines offer discounts to attract first time subscribers, just as
> landlords offer discounts on the first six months lease, restaurants offer
> two for one specials, etc. It is not an attempt to cheat you.
>
> In sending your son an ad for another magazine, they were no more
dishonest
> than you representing yourself as your own son. I figure you're about
even.
> Maybe they should send you a letter saying they never want you as a
customer
> again. :-)
>


To be clear, I didn't represent myself as my son.

Mike
MU-2

[Pixel Dent]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
> but lets not.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

The preamble, like the AIM, is non-regulatory ;-)

[Dude]

Ya, and replace him with an even bigger one?

The Liberals are after our wallets, and the Conservatives want to control
your bedroom. I am betting that the Conservatives will succeed less than
the Liberals.

Besides, so long as I have a gun, you can't get into my bedroom. Only the
Liberals want our guns, so they must have more nefarious plans.




"Abafon Goula" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:54 -0800, Jeff > wrote:
>
> >Well the elections are comming up, if you think things are getting bad
now,
> >wait untill GW gets re-elected (if he does), then he has no reason to not
hold
> >back since he would be on his last term.
>
> Let's kick his dumb ass out! Might be nice to have a president that
> has at least half a brain and not a puppet.
>

[Dude]

Excellent point, if you dislike discriminatory pricing schemes, the best
thing you can do is point out how they really don't work.

If they don't understand you, ask them when they last bought a full fare
business ticket on a hub and spoke airline.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Why?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:gydTb.203997$xy6.1049254@attbi_s02...
> > > May I suggest that you let them know why you won't buy their
> > > products again, if you haven't already?
> >
> > Better leave out the part about the 4-year old subscribing, however...
> >
> > ;-)
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> >
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:dMbTb.198677$I06.2194088@attbi_s01...
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > Ameritrade is the same way.
> > after using them, we got hundredss of spam (and still do) from stock
places.
>
> Really? I've had Ameritrade for myself since about 1996 and for my kids
> college trusts since 1997. Never got any spam from financial
> institutions of any kind.

I have to agree with Newps.
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt
>
>
> You could not have named two that did more to let the "cat outta the bag".
> Well, no, they weren't puppets, but they sure liked to pull the strings.
>
> It's a quetion who money was worse, J. Davis' Confederate money, or
> Lincoln's "Greenbacks". Lincoln started us on the road to the overarching
> state, and Teddy gave us the start (and a goodly trip down the road) to
the
> Military-Industrial Complex.

And a segregated military.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Pixel Dent" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> > We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common
welfare"
> > but lets not.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
>
> The preamble, like the AIM, is non-regulatory ;-)

Exactly right. The Preamble is a statement of _purpose_ (why a government
exists), not a statement of _powers_.

If it designated powers, then Section 8 is contradicted and merely fluff.

Ignorant About the American Constitution?
by Walter Williams (December 10, 2003)

Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3393

The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay, Alexander
Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the 13 states to ratify the
Constitution. In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison
wrote:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal
Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign
commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be
connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the
objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,
liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement,
and prosperity of the State."

If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers
of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the
states are few and defined, we'd describe today's America. Was Madison just
plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before making our
judgment, let's examine statements of other possibly misinformed Americans.

In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of
Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither
the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and
humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In
1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally
ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public
charity," adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the
letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory
upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland
was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of congressional
spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His
often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in
the Constitution."

Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they
can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders
and previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional
authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant? I
don't believe in long-run ignorance or stupidity, so I reread the
Constitution, looking to see whether an amendment had been passed
authorizing Congress to spend money on bailouts for airlines, prescription
drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of similar items in today's
federal budget. I found no such amendment.

Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might
interpret as a blank check authorization -- the "general welfare clause."
Then I investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general
welfare clause." In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said,

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but
only those specifically enumerated."

The Constitution's father, James Madison said:

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded
them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To
take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not
contemplated by its creators."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is precisely the notion of the preambe giving unlimited powers that got
us into the mess that Mike finds offensive. Yet how many become
extraoridinarily evasive when faced with these points from the very people
that wrote the Constitution in the first place?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
> but lets not.
>

There's nothing to debate. The notion of the Preamble granting Carte Blanche
is probably the most blatent myth of the modern era.

>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
> and
> > as
> > > such should be funded at the National level.
> >
> > And neither are government issues...state of federal.
> >
> >
> > >An artifical rain forest in
> > > Iowa is clearly not a National issue
> >
> > Quite! That would be one for Disneyland.
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices
to
> > > different customers.
> >
> > It's called volume discount.
>
> The poster was purchasing one subscription. I agree that volume discounts
> are perfectly fair as long as the same deal is offered to everyone.
>
>
> >
> > > "Every man deserves a square deal" Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > Speaking of government costs out of control, there's the guy who started
> > much of it (the American Empire).
> >
>
> The real problem started when the government started distributing money to
> individuals, cities and states.
>
It goes back way before that. Do you think that transition of power just
came down the road one day...with no precedent? You might be dismayed to
find your hero, Lincoln, began the process.

http://www.lneilsmith.com/abelenin.html

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/real_lincoln.htm

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/americas_first_bolshevik.htm

Teddy Roosevelt just continued the trend with the American empire. It was
the only logical conclusion.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > | I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
> > better
> > | rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this,
my
> > | four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a
> solicitation
> > | from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name
> and
> > | address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want
my
> > | information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will
never
> > | subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
> >
> > Many magazines offer discounts to attract first time subscribers, just
as
> > landlords offer discounts on the first six months lease, restaurants
offer
> > two for one specials, etc. It is not an attempt to cheat you.
> >
> > In sending your son an ad for another magazine, they were no more
> dishonest
> > than you representing yourself as your own son. I figure you're about
> even.
> > Maybe they should send you a letter saying they never want you as a
> customer
> > again. :-)
> >
>
>
> To be clear, I didn't represent myself as my son.
>
You couldn't! In that case, you couldn't reach the rudder pedals.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> >
> > You could not have named two that did more to let the "cat outta the
bag".
> > Well, no, they weren't puppets, but they sure liked to pull the strings.
> >
> > It's a quetion who money was worse, J. Davis' Confederate money, or
> > Lincoln's "Greenbacks". Lincoln started us on the road to the
overarching
> > state, and Teddy gave us the start (and a goodly trip down the road) to
> the
> > Military-Industrial Complex.
>
> And a segregated military.

The military was segregated long before Teddy's time.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
> people don't want to do it. In round figures:
>
> We import about a third of our Petroleum
> Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
>
> It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination of
> fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > > Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > >
> > > You could not have named two that did more to let the "cat outta the
> bag".
> > > Well, no, they weren't puppets, but they sure liked to pull the
strings.
> > >
> > > It's a quetion who money was worse, J. Davis' Confederate money, or
> > > Lincoln's "Greenbacks". Lincoln started us on the road to the
> overarching
> > > state, and Teddy gave us the start (and a goodly trip down the road)
to
> > the
> > > Military-Industrial Complex.
> >
> > And a segregated military.
>
> The military was segregated long before Teddy's time.

Nope.

A segregated military was TR's response to Blacks refusing to do a human
wave attack on Spanish machine guns in Cuba.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > > Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You could not have named two that did more to let the "cat outta the
> > bag".
> > > > Well, no, they weren't puppets, but they sure liked to pull the
> strings.
> > > >
> > > > It's a quetion who money was worse, J. Davis' Confederate money, or
> > > > Lincoln's "Greenbacks". Lincoln started us on the road to the
> > overarching
> > > > state, and Teddy gave us the start (and a goodly trip down the road)
> to
> > > the
> > > > Military-Industrial Complex.
> > >
> > > And a segregated military.
> >
> > The military was segregated long before Teddy's time.
>
> Nope.
>
> A segregated military was TR's response to Blacks refusing to do a human
> wave attack on Spanish machine guns in Cuba.
>
You might want to check the records during the Mexican War, the Indian Wars,
the War of Northern Aggression...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > > nk.net...
> > > > > > Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You could not have named two that did more to let the "cat outta
the
> > > bag".
> > > > > Well, no, they weren't puppets, but they sure liked to pull the
> > strings.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a quetion who money was worse, J. Davis' Confederate money,
or
> > > > > Lincoln's "Greenbacks". Lincoln started us on the road to the
> > > overarching
> > > > > state, and Teddy gave us the start (and a goodly trip down the
road)
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > Military-Industrial Complex.
> > > >
> > > > And a segregated military.
> > >
> > > The military was segregated long before Teddy's time.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > A segregated military was TR's response to Blacks refusing to do a human
> > wave attack on Spanish machine guns in Cuba.
> >
> You might want to check the records during the Mexican War, the Indian
Wars,
> the War of Northern Aggression...

Tarvers, Black and White, are the enforcers of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Segregation of the US military was a product of Secretary of War Roosevelt.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
| ink.net...
| >
| > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > >
| > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
| > > k.net...
| > > | I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
| > > better
| > > | rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing
this,
| my
| > > | four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a
| > solicitation
| > > | from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my)
name
| > and
| > > | address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want
| my
| > > | information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will
| never
| > > | subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
| > >
| > > Many magazines offer discounts to attract first time subscribers, just
| as
| > > landlords offer discounts on the first six months lease, restaurants
| offer
| > > two for one specials, etc. It is not an attempt to cheat you.
| > >
| > > In sending your son an ad for another magazine, they were no more
| > dishonest
| > > than you representing yourself as your own son. I figure you're about
| > even.
| > > Maybe they should send you a letter saying they never want you as a
| > customer
| > > again. :-)
| > >
| >
| >
| > To be clear, I didn't represent myself as my son.
| >
| You couldn't! In that case, you couldn't reach the rudder pedals.

Nah, we'll just give him a cushion. From now on, he is Mike Rapoport "The
Small." :-)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > A segregated military was TR's response to Blacks refusing to do a
human
> > > wave attack on Spanish machine guns in Cuba.
> > >
> > You might want to check the records during the Mexican War, the Indian
> Wars,
> > the War of Northern Aggression...
>
> Tarvers, Black and White, are the enforcers of the Thirteenth Amendment.
>
> Segregation of the US military was a product of Secretary of War
Roosevelt.

Refresh my memory - When was TR Secretary of War? I remember that FDR was
Secretary of the Navy.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > A segregated military was TR's response to Blacks refusing to do a
> human
> > > > wave attack on Spanish machine guns in Cuba.
> > > >
> > > You might want to check the records during the Mexican War, the Indian
> > Wars,
> > > the War of Northern Aggression...
> >
> > Tarvers, Black and White, are the enforcers of the Thirteenth Amendment.
> >
> > Segregation of the US military was a product of Secretary of War
> Roosevelt.
>
> Refresh my memory - When was TR Secretary of War? I remember that FDR was
> Secretary of the Navy.

1898.

Rosenfeldt is no relation to Roosevelt, the name change was a ploitical
decision.

[Gig Giacona]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
> > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> >
> > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> >
> > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
of
> > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
>
> The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning
> and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
> mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
>

Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be
reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is
had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my wife
how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.

Gig Giacona

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
> > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > >
> > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > >
> > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
> of
> > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> >
> > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
> > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
> > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> >
>
> Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be
> reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is
> had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
> took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my
wife
> how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.

And she said, "so what"?

[Gig Giacona]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
but
> > > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > > >
> > > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > > >
> > > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
combination
> > of
> > > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> > >
> > > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
> planning
> > > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
and
> > > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> > >
> >
> > Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could
be
> > reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that
is
> > had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
> > took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my
> wife
> > how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.
>
> And she said, "so what"?
>
>

Actually it usually ends the argument because when what starts the argument
is her saying she didn't have time to do something or other. I show her
where the time went and Poof. I'm off the hook for whatever and I go back to
working on the plane.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
> but
> > > > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > > > >
> > > > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > > > >
> > > > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
> combination
> > > of
> > > > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> > > >
> > > > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
> > planning
> > > > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
> and
> > > > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could
> be
> > > reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument
that
> is
> > > had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why
it
> > > took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show
my
> > wife
> > > how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.
> >
> > And she said, "so what"?
> >
> >
>
> Actually it usually ends the argument because when what starts the
argument
> is her saying she didn't have time to do something or other. I show her
> where the time went and Poof. I'm off the hook for whatever and I go back
to
> working on the plane.

Whatever works.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
> > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > >
> > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > >
> > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
> of
> > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> >
> > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
> > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
> > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> >
>
> Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be
> reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is
> had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
> took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my
wife
> how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.
>

Well, we can FORCE them, ya know.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty
easy
> > but
> > > > > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > > > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
> > combination
> > > > of
> > > > > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
> > > planning
> > > > > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving
SUV's
> > and
> > > > > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms
could
> > be
> > > > reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument
> that
> > is
> > > > had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask
why
> it
> > > > took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show
> my
> > > wife
> > > > how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.
> > >
> > > And she said, "so what"?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Actually it usually ends the argument because when what starts the
> argument
> > is her saying she didn't have time to do something or other. I show her
> > where the time went and Poof. I'm off the hook for whatever and I go
back
> to
> > working on the plane.
>
> Whatever works.
>
If it works, let me know -- I've been try for nearly 25 years to get my wife
to combine trips.

[tscottme]

I subscribe to Aviation Week & Space Technology, every other year.
Their best rate for current subscribers is about $98 per year. If you
wait, they will offer you a "come back to us" rate of $58.

--

Scott
--------
The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic
extremism. Their targets, which will now confront the full force of
l'état, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim head scarves in French public
schools.
Wall Street Journal
Mike Rapoport > wrote in message
k.net...
> I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
better
> rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this,
my
> four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a
solicitation
> from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name
and
> address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want
my
> information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will
never
> subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.
>
> Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them
not to
> send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the
third
> time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
> credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that
Congress
> is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in
Iowa and
> subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for
legislation that
> ordinary people really care about.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> I can show my wife how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.

I'll bet that makes you real popular.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[smackey]

Let's face it... the problem is: those WEEKLY envelopes from Belvoir
Pulbl to renew the subscription I already have with them for that
magazine for the next year or so. Since I already subscibe to IFR and
IFR REFRESHER, and Aviation Safety (and/or Consumer), I get at least
one per week (or more). ARRGGHH!!!!!

[Jeff]

I never received anything from any stock places untill a few weeks after signing
up with them. Now get the crap all the time.

Newps wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
> > Ameritrade is the same way.
> > after using them, we got hundredss of spam (and still do) from stock places.
>
> Really? I've had Ameritrade for myself since about 1996 and for my kids
> college trusts since 1997. Never got any spam from financial
> institutions of any kind.

[Jeff]

Why does that bother you ?
Its a sales technique, we start high, when someone does not buy, we lower it,
then lower it some more. After 6 months to a year, we try to sell them again.
Works great.
No such thing as a fair deal. Companies who sell to individuals and to
businesses will double and triple the price when it comes to selling to
business's. I wont even get into that evil empire called Visa/Mastercard.
Merchants just do what they can to survive.


>
>
> Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices to
> different customers.
>
> "Every man deserves a square deal" Theodore Roosevelt
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[Jeff]

Not always, depends on the size of the business. Small businesses do not
have the latitude that larger / international places have.


John Harlow wrote:

> >> Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices
> >> to different customers.
> >
> > It's called volume discount.
>
> Exactly. The louder you yell, the cheaper you can get it.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
> > Pork
> > > spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
> > it.
> > > Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read
> (I
> > > think it was by the CBO or GAO).
> > >
> >
> > In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
> > spending was pork/waste.
> >
> > But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
> > probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
> your
> > NEIGHBOR wants.
> >
> > "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
> > O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.
> >
> >
>
> I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
> pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
> defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
> research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
> highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
> locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
> benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
> it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
> to pay for.
>
> I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in
California.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
> > > Pork
> > > > spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
> > > it.
> > > > Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
> > (I
> > > > think it was by the CBO or GAO).
> > > >
> > >
> > > In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
> > > spending was pork/waste.
> > >
> > > But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
> > > probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
> > your
> > > NEIGHBOR wants.
> > >
> > > "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
> > > O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
> > pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
> > defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
> > research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
> > highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
> > locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
> > benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
> > it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't
have
> > to pay for.
> >
> > I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
> These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
> border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
> refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
> the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
> California.


No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle
Joe.

[Ray Andraka]

Sounds like a formula for marital bliss

Gig Giacona wrote:

> Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be
> reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is
> had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
> took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my wife
> how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.
>
> Gig Giacona

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
> > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> >
> > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> >
> > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
of
> > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
>
> The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning
> and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
> mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
>
>

My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday to
get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are living
great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you would
see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles, better
trip planning.

The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is actually
a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat tax
credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic cost
and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is
about it.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't want to be the one subsidizing someone else's better deal. Since I
am not going to get on the phone to negotiate a lower magazine subscripiton
price, I just won't subscribe.

Mike
MU-2


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Why does that bother you ?
> Its a sales technique, we start high, when someone does not buy, we lower
it,
> then lower it some more. After 6 months to a year, we try to sell them
again.
> Works great.
> No such thing as a fair deal. Companies who sell to individuals and to
> businesses will double and triple the price when it comes to selling to
> business's. I wont even get into that evil empire called Visa/Mastercard.
> Merchants just do what they can to survive.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices to
> > different customers.
> >
> > "Every man deserves a square deal" Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
> > > Pork
> > > > spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
> > > it.
> > > > Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
> > (I
> > > > think it was by the CBO or GAO).
> > > >
> > >
> > > In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
> > > spending was pork/waste.
> > >
> > > But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
> > > probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
> > your
> > > NEIGHBOR wants.
> > >
> > > "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
> > > O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
> > pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
> > defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
> > research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
> > highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
> > locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
> > benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
> > it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't
have
> > to pay for.
> >
> > I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
> These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
> border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
> refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
> the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
> California.
>

Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
the illegal immigration.

Mike
MU-2

[Gig Giacona]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty
> easy
> > > but
> > > > > > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > > > > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
> > > combination
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for
trip
> > > > planning
> > > > > > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving
> SUV's
> > > and
> > > > > > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms
> could
> > > be
> > > > > reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument
> > that
> > > is
> > > > > had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask
> why
> > it
> > > > > took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can
show
> > my
> > > > wife
> > > > > how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.
> > > >
> > > > And she said, "so what"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually it usually ends the argument because when what starts the
> > argument
> > > is her saying she didn't have time to do something or other. I show
her
> > > where the time went and Poof. I'm off the hook for whatever and I go
> back
> > to
> > > working on the plane.
> >
> > Whatever works.
> >
> If it works, let me know -- I've been try for nearly 25 years to get my
wife
> to combine trips.
>

It only works if she is in the "how do you expect me to get all this done"
mode.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
> > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > >
> > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > >
> > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
> of
> > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> >
> > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
> > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
> > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> >
> >
>
> My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday to
> get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
> improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
living
> great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
> common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you would
> see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
better
> trip planning.
>
> The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
> a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
tax
> credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
> and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is
> about it.

What about the price of food?

[Wdtabor]

In article . net>, "Mike
Rapoport" > writes:

>
>The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is actually
>a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat tax
>credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic cost
>and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
>casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is
>about it.

How about the loss of the freedom to live where we choose, based on the REAL
costs of that choice?

Some of us do value intangibles like freedom.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Rosspilot]

>
>Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
>and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
>the illegal immigration.

Where I live, Americans simply will NOT do the kinds of labor intensive work
(restaurant kitchen, landscape and gardening, garbage collection and
processing, domestic cleaning, etc) that are demanded by us. We need that
labor done, and NO Americans (even hungry ones) will do it.

If you do find a rare one that does you the favor of "taking the job", he won't
show up every day, he won't be on time, he will take unfair advantage of "sick
time", and will utilize the courts to challenge every decision made by his
employer.

We've brought this on ourselves.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Mike Rapoport]

What freedom is lost?. You can do exactly as you are doing now and your
cost of doing so will be the same.

Mike
MU-2


"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>, "Mike
> Rapoport" > writes:
>
> >
> >The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
> >a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
tax
> >credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
> >and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> >casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is
> >about it.
>
> How about the loss of the freedom to live where we choose, based on the
REAL
> costs of that choice?
>
> Some of us do value intangibles like freedom.
>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> What freedom is lost?. You can do exactly as you are doing now and your
> cost of doing so will be the same.

Uh .... no it's not. If the cost of gas goes up to $4 a gallon, my cost of doing
what I usually do goes up significantly. If part of that $4 is taxes, and if I can
deduct those taxes on my income tax, then I will reduce my income taxes by about
30% of the amount I spent in fuel taxes, but that still won't be anywhere close
to being the same.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Mike Rapoport]

Uh...yes it is. Read the post, I said tax credits.

Mike
MU-2

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > What freedom is lost?. You can do exactly as you are doing now and your
> > cost of doing so will be the same.
>
> Uh .... no it's not. If the cost of gas goes up to $4 a gallon, my cost of
doing
> what I usually do goes up significantly. If part of that $4 is taxes, and
if I can
> deduct those taxes on my income tax, then I will reduce my income taxes by
about
> 30% of the amount I spent in fuel taxes, but that still won't be anywhere
close
> to being the same.
>
> George Patterson
> Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is
curable
> either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the
circumstances
> under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but
more
> often to the physician than to the patient.

[[email protected]]

>
> >
> > These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
> other
> > border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
> government
> > refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
> responsible foe
> > the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
> Joe in
> > California.
>
> No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as
> legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
> idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle
> Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor. The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
> want!
> > > > Pork
> > > > > spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
> contain
> > > > it.
> > > > > Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
> read
> > > (I
> > > > > think it was by the CBO or GAO).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
> > > > spending was pork/waste.
> > > >
> > > > But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
> (you
> > > > probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
> > > your
> > > > NEIGHBOR wants.
> > > >
> > > > "What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
> P.J.
> > > > O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
> to
> > > pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
> > > defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
> > > research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
> > > highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
> > > locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
> to
> > > benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
> for
> > > it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't
> have
> > > to pay for.
> > >
> > > I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> >
> > These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
> other
> > border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
> government
> > refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
> responsible foe
> > the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
> Joe in
> > California.
> >
>
> Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
> and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
> the illegal immigration.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

Bull**** back pal. If the feds had done their job in the first place, we
wouldn't be agruing about what California has, or has not, done.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> >
> > >
> > > These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
> > other
> > > border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
> > government
> > > refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
> > responsible foe
> > > the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
> > Joe in
> > > California.
> >
> > No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits
as
> > legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
> > idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
Uncle
> > Joe.
>
> Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
> majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
> went into effect.
>
> Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
> to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
> consequences.

It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
illeagl's medical bills and schooling.
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily,
and
> > > other
> > > > border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
> > > government
> > > > refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
> > > responsible foe
> > > > the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
> Uncle
> > > Joe in
> > > > California.
> > >
> > > No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same
benefits
> as
> > > legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember
the
> > > idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
> Uncle
> > > Joe.
> >
> > Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
> The
> > majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
> before it
> > went into effect.
> >
> > Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
> failed
> > to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
> > consequences.
>
> It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
> illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

Nonsense. It is the California legislature that enacted many laws to
provide free just about everything for illegal aliens. If California was
not so desirable for the wet backs there would not be the tremendous influx
of border jumpers. California deserves everything it gets including Arnold.
Why don't we hear about other border states having the problems California
is having?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily,
> and
> > > > other
> > > > > border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
> > > > government
> > > > > refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
> > > > responsible foe
> > > > > the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
> > Uncle
> > > > Joe in
> > > > > California.
> > > >
> > > > No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same
> benefits
> > as
> > > > legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember
> the
> > > > idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter
than
> > Uncle
> > > > Joe.
> > >
> > > Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former
governor.
> > The
> > > majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
> > before it
> > > went into effect.
> > >
> > > Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government
has
> > failed
> > > to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
> > > consequences.
> >
> > It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
> > illeagl's medical bills and schooling.
>
> Nonsense. It is the California legislature that enacted many laws to
> provide free just about everything for illegal aliens.

The People of California passed Prop 187 to stop the hemorraging and the
Ninth Circuit struck it down.

> If California was
> not so desirable for the wet backs there would not be the tremendous
influx
> of border jumpers. California deserves everything it gets including
Arnold.
> Why don't we hear about other border states having the problems California
> is having?

Arizona has a worse problem.

[Dave Stadt]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social
services
> >and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most
of
> >the illegal immigration.
>
> Where I live, Americans simply will NOT do the kinds of labor intensive
work
> (restaurant kitchen, landscape and gardening, garbage collection and
> processing, domestic cleaning, etc) that are demanded by us. We need that
> labor done, and NO Americans (even hungry ones) will do it.

Of course they won't. Get rid of the idiotic welfare program and they will
be lined up 100 deep to take those jobs.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
> > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > >
> > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > >
> > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
> of
> > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> >
> > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
> > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
> > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> >
> >
>
> My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday to
> get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
> improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
living
> great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
> common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you would
> see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
better
> trip planning.
>
> The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
> a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
tax
> credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
> and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is
> about it.

So, because people don't do what YOU want, you feel it's okay/imperative to
FORCE them to abide by your whims?

There's a name for that.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
> >
>
> Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
> and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
> the illegal immigration.

But social services are a part of _your_ "General Welfare" clause, and
providing them to all are part of the "Equal Protection" clause. (See the
implications?)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If it works, let me know -- I've been trying for nearly 25 years to get
my
> wife
> > to combine trips.
> >
>
> It only works if she is in the "how do you expect me to get all this done"
> mode.
>
She pays no attention to MY expectations; OTOH, I must abide by _hers_ or
sleep on the couch.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
but
> > > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > > >
> > > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > > >
> > > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
combination
> > of
> > > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> > >
> > > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
> planning
> > > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
and
> > > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
to
> > get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
> > improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
> living
> > great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
> > common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
would
> > see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
> better
> > trip planning.
> >
> > The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
> actually
> > a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
> tax
> > credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
> cost
> > and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> > casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
is
> > about it.
>
> What about the price of food?
>
It's amazing how people of an authoritarian bent can never see beyond the
first result.

[Tom Sixkiller]

> wrote in message
...
> >
> > >
> > > These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
> > other
> > > border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
> > government
> > > refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
> > responsible foe
> > > the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
> > Joe in
> > > California.
> >
> > No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits
as
> > legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
> > idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
Uncle
> > Joe.
>
> Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
> majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
> went into effect.

And they voters that dumped Davis (in regards to the states deficit) also
passed new spending measures of $4 billion (??).

>
> Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
> to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
> consequences.

The unintended consequences began with the welfare state (nationally and
federally).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
> The
> > majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
> before it
> > went into effect.
> >
> > Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
> failed
> > to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
> > consequences.
>
> It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
> illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

Yup!! That's FEDERAL law.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily,
> and
> > > > other
> > > > > border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
> > > > government
> > > > > refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
> > > > responsible foe
> > > > > the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
> > Uncle
> > > > Joe in
> > > > > California.
> > > >
> > > > No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same
> benefits
> > as
> > > > legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember
> the
> > > > idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter
than
> > Uncle
> > > > Joe.
> > >
> > > Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former
governor.
> > The
> > > majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
> > before it
> > > went into effect.
> > >
> > > Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government
has
> > failed
> > > to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
> > > consequences.
> >
> > It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
> > illeagl's medical bills and schooling.
>
> Nonsense. It is the California legislature that enacted many laws to
> provide free just about everything for illegal aliens. If California was
> not so desirable for the wet backs there would not be the tremendous
influx
> of border jumpers. California deserves everything it gets including
Arnold.
> Why don't we hear about other border states having the problems California
> is having?

The other states have the same problems, but Kalifornia is in the worst
straights due to it's fiscal irresponsibility. The requirements to spend for
illegal's is part of FEDERAL law.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
but
> > > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > > >
> > > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > > >
> > > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
combination
> > of
> > > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> > >
> > > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
> planning
> > > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
and
> > > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
to
> > get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
> > improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
> living
> > great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
> > common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
would
> > see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
> better
> > trip planning.
> >
> > The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
> actually
> > a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
> tax
> > credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
> cost
> > and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> > casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
is
> > about it.
>
> So, because people don't do what YOU want, you feel it's okay/imperative
to
> FORCE them to abide by your whims?
>
> There's a name for that.
>
>

You seem to miss the point. If you are taxed for something and given a
credit equal to the amount of the tax, nobody is *forced* to do anything.
Rather it is an opportunity to be better off by using less of the taxed
commodity.

Mike
MU-2

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> Uh...yes it is.

If that's the case, there's no incentive to use less gas, though there's lots of
new reasons to use oil company credit cards to pay for it.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Wdtabor]

In article . net>, "Mike
Rapoport" > writes:

>
>You seem to miss the point. If you are taxed for something and given a
>credit equal to the amount of the tax, nobody is *forced* to do anything.
>Rather it is an opportunity to be better off by using less of the taxed
>commodity.
>

In other words, to be punished for not making the choices YOU think best.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > > Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
> but
> > > > > people don't want to do it. In round figures:
> > > > >
> > > > > We import about a third of our Petroleum
> > > > > Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation
> > > > >
> > > > > It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
> combination
> > > of
> > > > > fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.
> > > >
> > > > The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
> > planning
> > > > and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
> and
> > > > mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
> to
> > > get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
> > > improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
> > living
> > > great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour
being
> > > common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
> would
> > > see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
> > better
> > > trip planning.
> > >
> > > The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
> > actually
> > > a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an
equivenenat
> > tax
> > > credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
> > cost
> > > and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> > > casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
> is
> > > about it.
> >
> > So, because people don't do what YOU want, you feel it's okay/imperative
> to
> > FORCE them to abide by your whims?
> >
> > There's a name for that.
> >
> >
>
> You seem to miss the point. If you are taxed for something and given a
> credit equal to the amount of the tax, nobody is *forced* to do anything.
> Rather it is an opportunity to be better off by using less of the taxed
> commodity.

So...if the credit is equal to the tax, it's then a "wash" and the only
increase will be in the bureaucracy that tracks both sides.

I'll bet you one thing; the tax will go in place, but the credit won't, or
it will sunset (but not the tax),

Remember that "prices are measures" . When you try to manipulate them, up or
down, you're interfering with a market...that is, people making free
choices.

I would think that with the track record that government and the bureaucracy
has garnered over the past 100+ years, that no one in their right mind would
concoct such manipulative schemes.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[Bob]

I highly recommend IFR magazine, and I'll keep reading it even if they
pass my name and address to Amex or TSA.

[John]

> My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday to
> get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
> improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are living
> great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
> common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you would
> see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles, better
> trip planning.
>
> The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is actually
> a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat tax
> credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic cost
> and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is
> about it.
>
> Mike
> MU-2



Mike - I don't agree with your statement that there are no economic
costs. The government bureacracy to administer a $4 dollar fuel tax
and process a $4 income tax credit would be enormous.

Also, I presume you would be in favor of refunding your $4 fuel tax to
lower income people who don't pay income tax or pay it at low marginal
rates? If not, then you are really looking at an additional tax on
middle/lower income people at $4 per gallon. If you are interested
in refunding the tax irrespective of taxable income, then you haven't
really caused anyone to change their driving habits - you've just
created a new government department to collect money and refund it to
the same people.

I like a lot of your ideas on this newsgroup. This one, though,
doesn't seem to be as practical as many of your other ones. John

[John]

> >
>
> Unfortunately there will only be a few choices and Teddy Roosevelt is not
> running this year. A major problem is that the candidates in the election
> had to win the primaries. It is difficult to win the Democratic primary
> without being a big government, tax and spend, bleeding heart. It is
> difficult to win the Republican primary without being a big government,
> borrow and spend, friend of big polluting business and the religious right.
> Looks like, no matter who wins, we will have a big government with Santa
> Claus at its head. Of course the real Santa Clause brought presents to
> everybody and government Santa Clauses favor their constituencies.
> Basically each generation is trying to steal from the next. The retired try
> to steal from the working by demanding medical and retirement benefits
> vastly greater than any taxes that they paid to fund them. The working in
> turn try to steal from future generations by running a deficit in good times
> and bad. The future generations have had nobody since TR to advance their
> cause.
>
> Mike
> MU-2



The concept of future generations being penalized as a result of a
federal government deficit has always appeared a bit one-sided to me.

Future generations get the benefits of costs incurred by previous
generations - including tangible benefits in the form of roads built,
national parks, functional government institutions created to help
maintain a stable society, as well as considerable intangible benefits
such as freedom and the benefits of wars won in the past (whose costs
were undeniable and borne by previous generations). If future
generations get the benefits of the hard work of previous generations
(in the form of a better standard of living and more perfect society),
should they not absorb at least part of the cost?

It is beyond me how to equitably allocate the costs among generations
(i.e. - determine what level of deficit a future generation should be
required to assume), but it does seem fair that future generations
should pay at least some of the cost of instititions and assets built
for their benefit. John.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> > My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
to
> > get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
> > improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
living
> > great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
> > common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
would
> > see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
better
> > trip planning.
> >
> > The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
> > a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
tax
> > credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
> > and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> > casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
is
> > about it.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
>
>
> Mike - I don't agree with your statement that there are no economic
> costs. The government bureacracy to administer a $4 dollar fuel tax
> and process a $4 income tax credit would be enormous.
>
> Also, I presume you would be in favor of refunding your $4 fuel tax to
> lower income people who don't pay income tax or pay it at low marginal
> rates? If not, then you are really looking at an additional tax on
> middle/lower income people at $4 per gallon. If you are interested
> in refunding the tax irrespective of taxable income, then you haven't
> really caused anyone to change their driving habits - you've just
> created a new government department to collect money and refund it to
> the same people.

Less 25% for administrative costs.

Food stamps delive 22 cents on the dollar in benifits to the end user.

[Ray Andraka]

That's fine, but how do future generations benefit from the ever increasing
welfare handouts?

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Dennis O'Connor]

John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls the
oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
denny


"John" > wrote in message
om...
but it does seem fair that future generations
> should pay at least some of the cost of instititions and assets built
> for their benefit. John.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> That's fine, but how do future generations benefit from the ever
increasing
> welfare handouts?

Genocide of the old.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> That's fine, but how do future generations benefit from the ever
increasing
> welfare handouts?

(ie, wealth redistribution...class to class and generation to generation)
>
Quite so, considering that these "costs" are something like 60% of the US
budget and thus the major reason that deficits occur.

--
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[John]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
> John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls the
> oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
> denny
>
>

I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into
debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither
party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger
problems in the future. The key is moderation and balance - some
debt passed long to future generations is justified and representative
of investments made on theior behalf; selfishness in current spending
with the bills to be paid by others is wrong, though. The key is
balance, which I will up to economists and scholars far smarter than
me. John.

[Peter]

John wrote:

> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
>
>>John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls the
>>oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
>>denny
>>
> I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into
> debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither
> party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger
> problems in the future.

Neither party may be sufficiently focused on it, but there's been a
substantial difference between Republican and Democratic administrations in
this regard. Since WWII, Republican presidents have been in office for 31
years and during their terms the national debt has increased an average of
9.1% per year; Democrats have been in office 27 years and the debt has
grown at a much smaller 3.7% per years during their terms. There's a huge
difference between a growth rate of under 4% compared to over 9%.

Just looking at more recent administrations, the debt grew about 14% per
year under Ford, slowed to 9%/yr under Carter before rising back to 14%/yr
under Reagan and 12%/yr under Bush Sr. Under Clinton's administration the
debt growth steadily slowed with the average being 4%/yr and only 0.3% his
last year. Bush Jr.'s administration has reversed that trend and pushed the
rate of growth of the debt back up to 7% per year. In Clinton's last year
in office the debt grew by $18 billion, in 2003 the debt grew by about $460
billion.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter" > wrote in message
news:6_YUb.234289$I06.2628540@attbi_s01...
> John wrote:
>
> > "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >>John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls
the
> >>oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
> >>denny
> >>
> > I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into
> > debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither
> > party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger
> > problems in the future.
>
> Neither party may be sufficiently focused on it, but there's been a
> substantial difference between Republican and Democratic administrations
in
> this regard. Since WWII, Republican presidents have been in office for 31
> years and during their terms the national debt has increased an average of
> 9.1% per year; Democrats have been in office 27 years and the debt has
> grown at a much smaller 3.7% per years during their terms. There's a huge
> difference between a growth rate of under 4% compared to over 9%.

Since WW2, the CONGRESS (the spending authority), Democrats have held the
CONGRESS for 32 years and the Republicans for 18 years. During that time the
enactment of NON-DISCRETIONARY spending has been 88% from Democratic
CONGRESSES, and 12% under Republican. During that same time the GROWTH
factor has been 6.7% under Dems, and 2.1 (until the past two years) under
Republicans.

The DEFICIT took it's biggest LEAP under the democrats and their baseline
budget process during the Nixon years (so they could maintain control of the
purse strings).

Every Dem administration since 1900 left a mess in it's wake that compounded
and INSTITUTIONALIZED the spending and deficits.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
>...
> > John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls
the
> > oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
> > denny
> >
> >
>
> I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into
> debt or live beyond their means.

And in your previous post you said it was good to carry deficts to following
generations that benefit from currect spending...as if they won't have their
challenges and battles to fight.


>t is disappointing that neither
> party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger
> problems in the future. The key is moderation and balance - some
> debt passed long to future generations is justified and representative
> of investments made on theior behalf; selfishness in current spending
> with the bills to be paid by others is wrong, though. The key is
> balance, which I will up to economists and scholars far smarter than
> me. John.

Spending and taxation is POWER, the prime mover of human activity.

Not love, nor, lust, not wealth...POWER.

[Peter]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "Peter" > wrote in message
> news:6_YUb.234289$I06.2628540@attbi_s01...
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>>>>John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls
>
> the
>
>>>>oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
>>>>denny
>>>>
>>>
>>>I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into
>>>debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither
>>>party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger
>>>problems in the future.
>>
>>Neither party may be sufficiently focused on it, but there's been a
>>substantial difference between Republican and Democratic administrations
>
> in
>
>>this regard. Since WWII, Republican presidents have been in office for 31
>>years and during their terms the national debt has increased an average of
>>9.1% per year; Democrats have been in office 27 years and the debt has
>>grown at a much smaller 3.7% per year during their terms. There's a huge
>>difference between a growth rate of under 4% compared to over 9%.
>
> The DEFICIT took it's biggest LEAP under the democrats and their baseline
> budget process during the Nixon years (so they could maintain control of the
> purse strings).

Factually totally untrue. Under Nixon the growth of the national debt
averaged only 5% - true, this was an increase over Johnson's average of 3%,
but it was very small compared to later Republican administrations.
Reagan's average of 14% per year over eight years was the greatest
contribution. And while Reagan kept publicly supporting a balanced budget
amendment, the budgets he submitted to Congress contained huge and
increasing deficits.
Yes, Congress passes appropriations bills, but the reality during recent
history has been that the budget submitted by the president shapes the
debate and the final totals are seldom far from those sent over from the
executive branch although there are frequently considerable changes in
individual projects and departments. During Reagan's terms (when the debt
growth rate was highest), Congress passed appropriations bills that were
very slightly smaller overall (by about $29B over 8 years) than had been
requested in the president's budget proposals although the actual spending
was higher due to economic conditions not being as good as forecast by the
administration.

Both major parties love to increase spending, albeit in slightly different
directions. But the impact on the deficit has been greatest under
Republican administrations.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter" > wrote in message
news:Co%Ub.109492$U%5.567596@attbi_s03...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> > news:6_YUb.234289$I06.2628540@attbi_s01...
> >
> >>John wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> >
> > >...
> >
> >>>>John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party
controls
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to
relection...
> >>>>denny
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into
> >>>debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither
> >>>party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger
> >>>problems in the future.
> >>
> >>Neither party may be sufficiently focused on it, but there's been a
> >>substantial difference between Republican and Democratic administrations
> >
> > in
> >
> >>this regard. Since WWII, Republican presidents have been in office for
31
> >>years and during their terms the national debt has increased an average
of
> >>9.1% per year; Democrats have been in office 27 years and the debt has
> >>grown at a much smaller 3.7% per year during their terms. There's a
huge
> >>difference between a growth rate of under 4% compared to over 9%.
> >
> > The DEFICIT took it's biggest LEAP under the democrats and their
baseline
> > budget process during the Nixon years (so they could maintain control of
the
> > purse strings).
>
> Factually totally untrue. Under Nixon the growth of the national debt
> averaged only 5% - true, this was an increase over Johnson's average of
3%,
> but it was very small compared to later Republican administrations.
> Reagan's average of 14% per year over eight years was the greatest
> contribution.

Take a look at program by program spending under Reagan (six of eight yers
under Democratic Congress, especially where "Reagan cuts" led to such
"misery". Recall where the Dem's said they would cut spending 2-1 for tax
increases...the tax inscreases came, but he speninding custs didn't.


>And while Reagan kept publicly supporting a balanced budget
> amendment, the budgets he submitted to Congress contained huge and
> increasing deficits.

The one's Reagan proposed were close to balanced, but CONGRESS used the
rising economy in later years to go on a spending binge...just like the
90's...$30 billion for :midnight basketball"...

> Yes, Congress passes appropriations bills, but the reality during recent
> history has been that the budget submitted by the president shapes the
> debate

The presidents proposal us typically a very small fraction fo total
spending.

>and the final totals are seldom far from those sent over from the
> executive branch although there are frequently considerable changes in
> individual projects and departments. During Reagan's terms (when the debt
> growth rate was highest), Congress passed appropriations bills that were
> very slightly smaller overall (by about $29B over 8 years) than had been
> requested in the president's budget proposals although the actual spending
> was higher due to economic conditions not being as good as forecast by the
> administration.
>
> Both major parties love to increase spending, albeit in slightly different
> directions.

True enough...each has their pet projects, but for the most part Republican
spending is _sorta_ tied to functions granted by the Consitution (defense).
By and large, "Compassionate Conservativeism" had it's genesis under Nixon.

>But the impact on the deficit has been greatest under
> Republican administrations.

Let's see: FDR's fiasco, Johnson's "Great Society", Carter's complete FUBAR,
Clintons' FCC running the telecom's into the ground and kicking off the
market burst from 1998 (Greenspan was much to blame, but Clinton's tax hike
made it damn difficult to recoup losses) and the start of the collapse in
early 2000.

As said earlier, Republicans are NOT the answer, but the vast majority of
spending is now redistribution of wealth and much of it by Repub's in on
programs the Dems; created and made permanent.

BTW: Reagan's defense buildup peaked at 29% of the budget, which was 22% of
GNP), but in 1959, defense was 50% of the budget which was 10% of GNP (5%
for defense).

Today, the military budget is 19% of the budget ($480B of $2.4T), and HHS
redistribution is 60% of the budget.

IOW, you could give every family in poverty something like $60,000.

Dept of Agriculture has more employees than Immigration and something like
ten times as many as the Border Patrol...

It's truly a sick situation...but every dime is spent by people ELECTED by
your friends and neighbors.


--
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".



Spending has seldom, if ever, been tied to revenue, especially since
baseline budgeting.

[Bob Noel]

In article <Co%Ub.109492$U%5.567596@attbi_s03>,
wrote:

> Yes, Congress passes appropriations bills,

I'm happy to see that you realize that. but of course, you go on
to ignore it.


>but the reality during recent
> history has been that the budget submitted by the president shapes the
> debate and the final totals are seldom far from those sent over from the
> executive branch although there are frequently considerable changes in
> individual projects and departments.

WHAT?! during the Reagan years, the democracts would gleefully proclaim
that the President's submission was DOA. They would claim he was
cutting the budget for certain line items when in fact his submission
had increases for those items (but not as much as they wanted).

During the Reagan administration, Congress appropriated $1.29 (iirc)
for every new dollar of tax revenue.

[snip]
> Both major parties love to increase spending, albeit in slightly
> different
> directions. But the impact on the deficit has been greatest under
> Republican administrations.

when something occurs during an administration, it is important
to understand the cause.

--
Bob Noel

[Peter]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article <Co%Ub.109492$U%5.567596@attbi_s03>,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, Congress passes appropriations bills,
>
>
> I'm happy to see that you realize that. but of course, you go on
> to ignore it.
>
>>but the reality during recent
>>history has been that the budget submitted by the president shapes the
>>debate and the final totals are seldom far from those sent over from the
>>executive branch although there are frequently considerable changes in
>>individual projects and departments.
>
>
> WHAT?! during the Reagan years, the democracts would gleefully proclaim
> that the President's submission was DOA. They would claim he was
> cutting the budget for certain line items when in fact his submission
> had increases for those items (but not as much as they wanted).
>
> During the Reagan administration, Congress appropriated $1.29 (iirc)
> for every new dollar of tax revenue.

Which was still slightly *less* overall than Reagan had asked them to
appropriate (as was pointed out in the part you snipped), just not for
exactly the same programs.
>
>>Both major parties love to increase spending, albeit in slightly
>>different
>>directions. But the impact on the deficit has been greatest under
>>Republican administrations.
>
>
> when something occurs during an administration, it is important
> to understand the cause.

And when there is consistently the same trend in one Republican
administration after another it's important to recognize the correlation.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...

> Not love, nor, lust, not wealth...POWER.

And what drives women to lust and love?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Not love, nor, lust, not wealth...POWER.
>
> And what drives women to lust and love?
>

That's something your father should have taught you! :~)

[Bob Noel]

In article <Hp7Vb.111641$U%5.573581@attbi_s03>,
wrote:

> And when there is consistently the same trend in one Republican
> administration after another it's important to recognize the correlation.

correlation <> cause/effect

--
Bob Noel

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:


>> And what drives women to lust and love?
>>
>
> That's something your father should have taught you! :~)

Yes? My wife explained it to me.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > And what drives women to lust and love?
>
> That's something your father should have taught you! :~)

Maybe, but *my* father didn't want me to know that sort of thing. He was somewhat
of a Puritan. I had to figure out what little I know about it by empirical
experiment. Might even have been more fun that way.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > > And what drives women to lust and love?
> >
> > That's something your father should have taught you! :~)
>
> Maybe, but *my* father didn't want me to know that sort of thing. He was
somewhat
> of a Puritan. I had to figure out what little I know about it by empirical
> experiment. Might even have been more fun that way.
>

Especially the redundant theory verification.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Hp7Vb.111641$U%5.573581@attbi_s03>,
> wrote:
>
> > And when there is consistently the same trend in one Republican
> > administration after another it's important to recognize the
correlation.
>
> correlation <> cause/effect
>

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm (The Logical Fallacies Index)

As well, saying something happened during an administration BECAUSE of an
administration violates several laws of logic, specifically:

* Coincidental Correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc )
* Hasty Generalization


To say tax increases reduced the deficit (beyond the very short term)
violates:
* Irrelevant Conclusion ( ignoratio elenchi )
* Too broad of a definition (does not address dynamic factors).
* False Dilemma (does not address spending, particularly spending cuts as a
possibility)

And on and on...

--
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[me]

It is unbelievable how every post that starts out about airplanes, aircraft
or flying ENDS up being a political discussion or a history lesson. This
newsgroup as well as the other rec.aviation.* newsgroups have become boring,
redundant, off topic garbage. To Bad for us..





"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > > Nope.
> > > > >
> > > > > A segregated military was TR's response to Blacks refusing to do a
> > human
> > > > > wave attack on Spanish machine guns in Cuba.
> > > > >
> > > > You might want to check the records during the Mexican War, the
Indian
> > > Wars,
> > > > the War of Northern Aggression...
> > >
> > > Tarvers, Black and White, are the enforcers of the Thirteenth
Amendment.
> > >
> > > Segregation of the US military was a product of Secretary of War
> > Roosevelt.
> >
> > Refresh my memory - When was TR Secretary of War? I remember that FDR
was
> > Secretary of the Navy.
>
> 1898.
>
> Rosenfeldt is no relation to Roosevelt, the name change was a ploitical
> decision.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"me" > wrote in message
...
> It is unbelievable how every post that starts out about airplanes,
aircraft
> or flying ENDS up being a political discussion or a history lesson. This
> newsgroup as well as the other rec.aviation.* newsgroups have become
boring,
> redundant, off topic garbage. To Bad for us..
>

Do you think politics doesn't have adverse affects on aviation?

Skip the thread or change the channel...it's not rocket science.

[Mike Rapoport]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> > My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
to
> > get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
> > improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
living
> > great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
> > common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
would
> > see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
better
> > trip planning.
> >
> > The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
> > a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
tax
> > credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
> > and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
> > casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
is
> > about it.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
>
>
> Mike - I don't agree with your statement that there are no economic
> costs. The government bureacracy to administer a $4 dollar fuel tax
> and process a $4 income tax credit would be enormous.
>
> Also, I presume you would be in favor of refunding your $4 fuel tax to
> lower income people who don't pay income tax or pay it at low marginal
> rates? If not, then you are really looking at an additional tax on
> middle/lower income people at $4 per gallon. If you are interested
> in refunding the tax irrespective of taxable income, then you haven't
> really caused anyone to change their driving habits - you've just
> created a new government department to collect money and refund it to
> the same people.
>
> I like a lot of your ideas on this newsgroup. This one, though,
> doesn't seem to be as practical as many of your other ones. John

The topic started out as a way to end our dependence on imported oil. The
whole gas tax idea is simply a way to provide an incentive to conserve. My
only point is that it would be relatively easy to end our dependence on
imported oil if we really wanted to do it. Collecting such a tax would be
fairly easy since there is already a federal tax on gasoline, only the
amount would be changed. I agree that the refunding portion would be
problematic.

Mike
MU-2

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

> > I like a lot of your ideas on this newsgroup. This one, though,
> > doesn't seem to be as practical as many of your other ones. John
>
> The topic started out as a way to end our dependence on imported oil. The
> whole gas tax idea is simply a way to provide an incentive to conserve.
My
> only point is that it would be relatively easy to end our dependence on
> imported oil if we really wanted to do it. Collecting such a tax would be
> fairly easy since there is already a federal tax on gasoline, only the
> amount would be changed. I agree that the refunding portion would be
> problematic.

What you suggest was tried in '93, but North Easterners are not about to
have their fuel oil taxed. The economic impact is basicly a cash transfer
from everone else into New England.

[Mike Rapoport]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately there will only be a few choices and Teddy Roosevelt is
not
> > running this year. A major problem is that the candidates in the
election
> > had to win the primaries. It is difficult to win the Democratic primary
> > without being a big government, tax and spend, bleeding heart. It is
> > difficult to win the Republican primary without being a big government,
> > borrow and spend, friend of big polluting business and the religious
right.
> > Looks like, no matter who wins, we will have a big government with Santa
> > Claus at its head. Of course the real Santa Clause brought presents to
> > everybody and government Santa Clauses favor their constituencies.
> > Basically each generation is trying to steal from the next. The retired
try
> > to steal from the working by demanding medical and retirement benefits
> > vastly greater than any taxes that they paid to fund them. The working
in
> > turn try to steal from future generations by running a deficit in good
times
> > and bad. The future generations have had nobody since TR to advance
their
> > cause.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
>
>
> The concept of future generations being penalized as a result of a
> federal government deficit has always appeared a bit one-sided to me.
>
> Future generations get the benefits of costs incurred by previous
> generations - including tangible benefits in the form of roads built,
> national parks, functional government institutions created to help
> maintain a stable society, as well as considerable intangible benefits
> such as freedom and the benefits of wars won in the past (whose costs
> were undeniable and borne by previous generations). If future
> generations get the benefits of the hard work of previous generations
> (in the form of a better standard of living and more perfect society),
> should they not absorb at least part of the cost?
>
> It is beyond me how to equitably allocate the costs among generations
> (i.e. - determine what level of deficit a future generation should be
> required to assume), but it does seem fair that future generations
> should pay at least some of the cost of instititions and assets built
> for their benefit. John.

Much (all?) of the increase on governemnt spending is not going to purchase
any long term useful assets. It is extending entitlements such as medicare,
social security and also pork spending in general.

Mike
MU-2

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> The topic started out as a way to end our dependence on imported oil. The
> whole gas tax idea is simply a way to provide an incentive to conserve.

A better and much more efficient way would be to encourge PRODUCTION. What's
more, encouragement to conserve has many pitfalls when under a bureaucratic
blanket.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

> My
> only point is that it would be relatively easy to end our dependence on
> imported oil if we really wanted to do it.

It would be if the MARKET made that determination, rather than bureaucrats
and politicians and their cronies.

> Collecting such a tax would be
> fairly easy since there is already a federal tax on gasoline, only the
> amount would be changed. I agree that the refunding portion would be
> problematic.

That's the problem: Collection is easy, the subsequent portions ALWAYS bogs
down. A good example is the state lotteries -- after a year or two the funds
mainly go into the general fund where the looting commences.