A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sold out by IFR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old February 7th 04, 11:52 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 8th 04, 12:55 AM
me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 8th 04, 06:41 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 9th 04, 07:47 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 9th 04, 07:49 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 9th 04, 07:54 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 9th 04, 11:47 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:47 PM
Sold out by IFR Mike Rapoport Instrument Flight Rules 129 February 9th 04 11:47 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.