NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:42:39 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

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.

It's a valid question that illustrates what you are advocating.

You're dismissal of it in a thinly valid personal attack demonstrates
very clearly, that you are unable to respond to it without admitting
that it is your reasoning that is faulty, and emotionally based on
subjective self-interest.


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 [sic] taxes
and that's it.


What amount of excise tax, expressed as a percentage of sale price,
would have to be charged to fund the military, NAS, maintain the
nation's infrastructure (roads, courts, national parks, ...)?

If producers were paying such an excise tax on the raw materials they
used in the production of their products, could they be competitive in
foreign markets?

If such an excise tax as you advocate meant that there would be no
escaping the payment of taxes by any person or entity, I would
consider supporting it. But if you're going tell me you advocate
certain exclusions, it betray's your hidden agenda.

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

I'm not advocating any increases in any taxes. Where'd you get that
idea?

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:43:49 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Jose" wrote in message
t...

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.


But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
turned out the way it did for Enron employees.

Larry Dighera wrote:


But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
turned out the way it did for Enron employees.


They are only a burden (on taxpayers) because politicians have
made it a policy to hand out money to everybody.

Social Security is a huge problem Larry, it is not a good program.
It hasn't worked... its a pyramid scheme full of fraud and destined
for failure withouth continual bailouts from hard working Americans.

If it were a private business it would have gone broke years ago
and far fewer people would be hurt in the long run.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:03:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
t:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.


It doesn't.


What does?

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:40:04 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.

Oh, I see. If it isn;t something that "government' envisions as
a 'good" thing then it lacks long range vision.

I am at a loss to understand why you insist on bringing government
into the discussion. You were talking about PROFIT MOTIVE, not
government.

You think Hillary or someone like that *really* cares about people, or that her
"long range thinkin" is about anything other than getting elected?

I have very little esteem for today's Congressional representatives.
And I have no clue how that is germane to the subject of PROFIT
MOTIVE.

You have just factually illustrated your irrational thinking.

Or you have just demonstrated your inability to comprehend the written
word. :-)

I rest my case.

For some unknown reason, we seem to be talking past each other.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:42:42 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:


That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the
lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency.

And that, my friend, is exactly how it is supposed to work. MArxism
see things totally differently... the way you do in fact.

Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to understand my point of view at
all. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:49:51 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :

bourdon == burden

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:57:10 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:


But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
turned out the way it did for Enron employees.


They are only a burden (on taxpayers) because politicians have
made it a policy to hand out money to everybody.


Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:57:10 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :


They are only a burden (on taxpayers) because politicians have
made it a policy to hand out money to everybody.


Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?


Many companies today allow there workers to opt out of health care, and
receive the dollars saved, by furnishing some type of certification of
insurance elsewhere. Usually a working spouse with family benefits.

I see no reason why anyone that can supply adiquate investment information
on their tax return, should not be allowed to receive a refund of all SS and
FICA monies, or simply avoid the deduction to begin with. Yes, these
investments would have to "insured or qualified" by the FDIC or some such
entity, but it's very workable. There would be dozens, if not hundreds of
investment opportunities tailored to suit with in weeks.

But the problem is, the fed has let the SS system get well behind the curve.
If they don't "tax us today", the system supposedly funded by today's
receipents long ago, would colapse. So in reality, money invested by today's
receipents long ago, has been spent by the fed, the people that were
supposed to be insuring their furture. And the only way they can keep their
promise, is to tax us today.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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?


Apparently you are just not old enough to simply look around yourself to
answer that question junior. In the last 20 years, nothing has changed our
buying habits more than electronics. And it has nothing to do with "bang for
the buck" as you like to suggest. It's just trends. Everyone is always
looking for something new and different.