If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"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". |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CAAC in China had approved below 116kg aircraft sold in China without airworthiness cetificate | Luo Zheng | Home Built | 0 | June 27th 04 03:50 AM |
Donald Campbell Bluebird helmet sold | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 1 | May 3rd 04 05:11 PM |
Japanese firm sold Libya uranium conversion plant | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 2 | March 17th 04 03:47 PM |
Sold out by IFR | Mike Rapoport | Instrument Flight Rules | 129 | February 9th 04 10:47 PM |
SOLD Becker ATC-4401-175 and SigmaTek ARC EA-401A Servoed Encoding Alt | Juan E Jimenez | Home Built | 0 | August 11th 03 05:03 AM |