THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 24 Jul 2010 06:45 On Jul 23, 10:33 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us. > > >they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right? > > Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to > their particular level of poverty. > > >they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV, > >computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. and they > >live longer. > > Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your > options don't include anything expensive. heh heh... I yield to your superior perspective!
From: Larry G on 24 Jul 2010 06:46 On Jul 23, 10:34 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:16:57 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >do you think we should do what the other countries do and help the > >NUKES get built? > > Nope. > > We should make American industry richer by nuking the income taxes. income taxes do not stop NUKES... but idealogical blather is clearly harmful to clear thinking.
From: Larry G on 24 Jul 2010 06:47 On Jul 23, 10:37 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >they already essentially don't tax them > > US corporate income tax is 35%, the state taxes take about another > 4.5% on average, and that makes them 2nd highest in the world only a > few tenths of a percent behind Japan. When the Bush tax cuts expire > the 1st of next year, the 35% goes to 39%, and we will be the highest. > That's when the real depression will set in. > > >and they subsidize their > >insurance costs by capping their liability at 10 billion... that's the > >opposite of taxing them - that's taxing us to give to them - to the > >investors. > > I'd just as soon take a risk as doing without nukes. We _can't_ do > without nukes in the long run. Just take some risk and have done with > it. Build the D things. all I'm trying to understand is if you think the govt and taxpayer should subsidize them "socialistically"? do you think the govt should use tax money to do what is right for society or not?
From: Dave Head on 24 Jul 2010 06:49 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:46:25 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >income taxes do not stop NUKES... but idealogical blather is clearly >harmful to clear thinking. The income taxes stop most everything economic in this country - its ultimately what this recession is about. Repeal them, watch the economic boom.
From: Larry G on 24 Jul 2010 06:51
On Jul 23, 11:19 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > In article <k3kk46dnmh23kimivej7hln45ium28k...(a)4ax.com>, > Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > ><gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us. > > >>they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right? > > >Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to > >their particular level of poverty. > > >>they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV, > >>computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. and they > >>live longer. > > >Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your > >options don't include anything expensive. > > There's one well-known and well-studied way to greatly increase > lifespan. It's called a restricted calorie diet. And I mean really > restricted, on the edge of starvation. And I'm sure you feel every > second of that increased lifespan.... I don't think any of the folks in the rest of the industrialized countries are on the "edge of starvation" guy. They actually have fatties also. |