NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

That is how I understand it also. However no one is forcing anyone to
support themselves through earning a wage.


Right. People can avoid paying social security simply by not supporting
themselves through earning wages. Why do you suppose most people don't take
that option?



It's not easy, but I'm aware of them and working on changing. How
about you?


I don't have any.



Just for a moment try to imagine a nation where the poor old folks who
have given the toil of their youth to increasing the GNP (or whatever
its called these days) littering the pavement of your city so thick
that you can't walk down the sidewalk. Isn't that what you're
advocating?


No.



You tell me.


I asked you first.

Jose wrote:

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive


... and others may disagree on which ones are regressive and which ones
are not. So, I'm in favor of the light touch, but I'm not necessarily
in favor of no touch.

Jose

Too much of anything tends to negate ther benefits. Right now
we have far too much "government" in every aspect of our lives,
and I'm afraid it won't get any better. There are a lot of people
like Larry out there that believe in big government solutions.

Larry Dighera wrote:



Are you able to articulate them? How would you address the implicit
mandate in a Capitalistic system, that drives corporations to
continually seek cost reductions to the point of absurdity and


Damm Larry, why doesn't government ever try to do that? Unlike
government, corporations have to make a profit... ot they go
bankrupt. Government never has to balance the books, it just keeps
taxing and spending.

_dishonesty_ just to meet the competition's price and remain viable in

Oh, so any business that makes a profit or trims down to be
more successful is _dishonest_ ??? Maybe government should
try some dishonesty.... ooops... they already are and its still
not working.

the marketplace? Do you believe outsourcing US jobs is good for our
nation? Do you believe that forcing US corporations to move to other
countries in order to escape income tax liability on income earned in
the US is desirable? Let's see how simple you can make the solutions
of which you speak.


As stated, businesss have to be profitiable or they go OUT of
business. (sort of like Darwin's theory). It is good decisionmaking
to adjust your business (downsize, move manufacturing elsewhere)
to offset increased taxation by government in order to stay
competetive and keep the shareholders happy.

If govenment doesn't want businesses to move offshore they should
LOWER the tax burdens on corporations. As a socialist you do not
understand that concept.


They're not put into action
because doing so would not help those in power stay in power.


Are you also suggesting that the solution is to dismantle the US
government?

Lets just dismantle it back to the size specified by
the Constituion, and the founding fathers. That's all that
is needed.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Are you able to articulate them?


Sure. Cease rewarding "good" behavior.



How would you address the implicit
mandate in a Capitalistic system, that drives corporations to
continually seek cost reductions to the point of absurdity and
_dishonesty_ just to meet the competition's price and remain viable in
the marketplace?


Doesn't exist.



Do you believe outsourcing US jobs is good for our
nation?


Define "US job".



Do you believe that forcing US corporations to move to other
countries in order to escape income tax liability on income earned in
the US is desirable? Let's see how simple you can make the solutions
of which you speak.


Nope.



Are you also suggesting that the solution is to dismantle the US
government?


Just the parts that are not consistent with the Constitution.

Larry Dighera wrote:


You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
income from the US government?


Larry, your fixation with 'Haliburton' demonstrates
you can't think rationally.

In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?


If its functions were limited to those specified by the
Constitution it would be funded by various excises taxes
and that's it.

You seem to forget the fact the government functioned fine
without income tax for the first 150 years of its existance.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

Well, if your employer didn't have to double it, your salary might well be
higher by that amount.


And you'd be free to invest it in a better plan than social security.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

Europe is emancipating itself from the US,


Good. Let them pay for their defense themselves.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

Deal! If you stop building your anti missile project in Europe and stop
with industry spionage (done by your government) in Europe and stop
deploying nuclear weapons within Europe (where in some countries your are
not allowed to place them but you ignore it) [1].

Still a deal?


Absolutely!

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Maxwell writes:

Hardly, considering the amount they spend. You could have a very
active log book with the kind of money most people choose to spend on
electronics.

How much money do "most" people spend on electronics?


Good grief.


Bertie

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:00:30 +0200, Martin Hotze
wrote in :

your kids education won't improve. Your teachers are paid below
average. Why should they teach your kids above average?

While it might take some time for the quality of teachers to improve
in Iowa, it is reasonable to expect, that increasing the salary Iowa
pays teachers may cause fewer better-qualified teachers to overlook
Iowa as a choice for employment.

But the future generations of Iowa's (and our nation's) population
probably aren't worth attracting the best talent available to educate
them. There are probably far more worthy places for Iowa to spend its
revenue. :-(

The grasshopper-like shortsightedness of the Accountant-mentality
reveals a virtually criminal disregard for the future as is all too
often demonstrated by their almost universal obsession with the coming
quarter. Geology and Paleontology courses should be required subjects
for those students whose careers will involve policy making decisions,
so that they can begin to appreciate what can be accomplished given
adequate time.