Linux-Advocacy Digest #638, Volume #28 Fri, 25 Aug 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Steve Mading)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:34:51 -0400
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm certainly for reforming the system. But starving it for cash
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > _not_ the way to do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's the only way to do it. You call it "starving it for cash"
> > > > > others
> > > > > call
> > > > > it reducing government waste. A businessman would be in prison if
> > > > > he
> > > > > mismanaged his finances as poorly as government does.
> > > >
> > > > If you starve it to death, millions of people who have been paying in
> > > > won't get anything out. That's straight-out theft.
> > >
> > > Actually, "theft" is a pretty good way to describe Social Security.
> > >
> > > The vast majority of the money you've paid in has been spent on
> > > previous
> > > benefits -- it's not being saved for your retirement.
> > >
> > > I thought even "tax and spend"ers knew that.
> >
> > This really has no meaning. The money you put in a bank isn't all
> > sitting there either, there's just and understanding that when you need
> > it, you can get it.
>
> True. But there's no guarantee that the money I've put into Social
> Security will ever be there for me.
>
> If my kids aren't willing to pay a Social Security tax, it won't be.
>
> >
> > > Even if I get what I've been promised, my lifetime return on investment
> > > will probably be negative or in the very low single digits. If I had
> > > been able to invest my Social Security "contribution" in any reasonable
> > > investment, I'd retire extremely wealthy -by almost any standards.
> > >
> > > That IS theft
> >
> > Social security is designed to ensure that we don't have retired people
> > starving in the streets, something that wasn't all that uncommon before
> > it was created.
>
> So it's a welfare program. That's the entire point.
>
> >
> > I always get the impression most conservatives wouldn't be conservative
> > if they understood history better.
>
> I get the impression that most tax and spenders wouldn't be tax and
> spenders if they understood logic or fairness.
Oh, they do. But what they understand even more is that htey have
IMMENSE power if they can grab all of the money out of people's
pockets, and then pretend to be "charitable" as they demand that
everyone jump through hoops just to get their own money back.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:46:00 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regardless, 5% of Americans paid 50% of the taxes last year and 60% of
> Americans paid 10% of the taxes.
Got a citation? I've seen stats like this repeatedly and was going to
mention this earlier in the thread but I didn't have a citation to back
it up. If you've got one, I'd like to stow it away for future reference.
> How about an honest, progressive income tax and *nothing else* (no
> property tax, no sales tax, no highway tax, no "sin" tax, etc.);
Don't forget my least favorite of all... payroll tax.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:42:10 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:45:45 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Craig Kelley wrote:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes) writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
> >> > >> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
> >> > >> people can avail themselves of, ...
> >> > >
> >> > >You make it sound so easy.
> >> > >
> >> > >If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
> >> > >in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
> >> >
> >> > I believe that a little research will reveal those lucky Americans who
> >> > have a net wealth of several tens of millions who paid no tax, none,
> >> > last year. How they did it I don't know; I am neither an accountant
> >> > nor an attorney. People who are in a position to know (Cokie Roberts
> >> > on ABC's "Sunday Morning" and Nina Totenberg on NPR) have said over
> >> > the years that there are such people (not a hell of a lot, under
> >> > a thousand), and I believe them.
> >> >
> >> > Try Nader's web site, or Google.
> >>
> >> Regardless, 5% of Americans paid 50% of the taxes last year and 60% of
> >> Americans paid 10% of the taxes.
> >>
> >> The very rich who pay no taxes are a rarity (although they should be
> >> dealt with).
> >>
> >> How about an honest, progressive income tax and *nothing else* (no
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Contradiction in terms.
>
> Nope.
>
> All that would be required is a flat rate and a
> really big standard deduction.
That's how the present system was constructed.
less than 1% of the US populace paid income taxes in 1914.
>
> Besides, there's nothing inherent in tax brackets that's
> dishonest... unfair mebbe, but not dishonest.
Yes, it is dishonest. It was implemented upon one premise, which
was shoved aside within a generation....i.e. a "bait and switch"
Like...when the car salesman gets you on the lot for a certain car
because of an advertised discount....and then gets you to buy into
the sale with other come-ons...but...*just* *before* he draws up
the contract...he "discovers" that the discount isn't available for
*that* particular configuration. By that time, most people are so
heavily invested in the emotional feeling of the purchase that they
sign anyways.
Thus...the ORIGINAL PREMISE for you even coming onto the doesn't
even exist.
This is such a powerful sales technique that it is illegal in every
single state of the Union....*EXCEPT* for when the government does it.
>
> Dishonest is the student loan interest deduction & a few other
> bits of smoke and mirrors that are either too restrictive to
> be meaninful to anyone but the very rich or very stupid.
That too.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>
> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> |||
> / | \
>
>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:43:08 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:00:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JS/PL wrote:
> >>
> >> "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
> >> > > > > spending it for them!? How absurd!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
> >> > > > healthy and educated.
> >> > >
> >> > > That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a 50 year old
> >> > > democratic slogan than anything. Not even worthy of argument except to
> >> say
> >> > > 95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the five out of
> >> 100
> >> > > poor that need a hand.
> >> >
> >> > Proof? For that matter, how many truly poor people do you know?
> >>
> >> I've met a lot of truly poor people in my life, and myself have been pleny
> >> broke and hungry. I never blamed anyone - especially "the rich" for my
> >> problems though, I blamed myself.
> >> If you are a poor adult, it is most generaly it is your own fault. I was
> >> broke and jobless in 1980 and figuring out who to blame when President Regan
> >> held up page after page of the help wanted ads on national television in
> >> response to a question on why so many people were out of work. And he was
> >> right.
> >
> >Ever notice how the democrats will claim that those are
> >"dead end burger-flipping jobs" and at the SAME TIME claim that
> >"nobody is qualified" for those same jobs.
> >
> >They can't have it both ways.
>
> Sure you can.
How many burger-flipping jobs are there that "nobody is qualified for"
???
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:50:58 -0400
In article <cofp5.293$v3.4018@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(david raoul derbes) wrote:
> >Statistically, the wealthy pay a far, far higher percentage of their
> >income in taxes than the poor. I can't believe anyone would even
> >question that fact.
>
> What percentage do the wealthiest pay in this country? According to my
> father-in-law, who used to work for H. & R. Block, 39.3%. Last year,
> my wife and I were in the 32% bracket, and believe me, we earn a
> hell of a lot less than most people we know; I'm a schoolteacher
> and my wife is an artist. We have investments. No one would call
> us wealthy.
Their tax rate is 25% greater than yours. That's a good bit higher,
don't you think?
And in some states--like here in New York--the same thing is true for
state income taxes.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:05:50 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So to put it bluntly if one is unlucky enough to be born into a family
> > that
> > cannot support them, then we simply discard them. Right?
>
> If you can't support kids, you shouldn't be having them.
> If you do have kids, then it is your obligation to support
> them, and YOUR shame if you don't.
>
> Don't be laying any guilt trip on *me* for refusing to pay
> for some DangerAsshole's slew of juvenile delinquent thugs.
Unfortunately society does have an interest in making sure that these
kids grow up to be productive citizens instead of criminals. Yes, it
would be better if the parents hadn't had the children, but once they're
born there's nothing you can do to make them go away, unless you want to
adopt certain Modest Proposals.
Either you pay teachers to teach them, or you pay for police and prisons
to hold them captive when they pull you into a dark alley and steal your
wallet at gunpoint. Some people have problems with spending money on
education but not on police and prisons, yet I think it's pretty clear
that some minimal level of spending on education will prevent the need
to spend a lot more on crime prevention later on.
And if these people are educated they will become more productive
members of society... they will be paying more taxes of their own
instead of consuming *your* tax dollars by sitting in a prison.
So from a practical point of view, maybe you object to public education,
but if we assume that it results in a lower tax burned for you overall,
would you really still object? Would you rather pay more taxes to
incarcerate people instead of paying less in taxes to educate them?
Maybe you dispute that education lowers taxes this much, but suppose
that it did. Would you still oppose public education funding, solely on
ideological grounds?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:10:03 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Courageous wrote:
> >
> > Re: welfare
> >
> > > The current system of welfare is completely useless.. it doesn't help
> > > anyone
> > > do to no incentive to actually go out and get a paying job.
> >
> > I suspect that you are behind the times. Furthermore, we're
> > arguing about peanuts. Why get all in a rile over peanuts
> > when there are issues where SERIOUS MONEY is at stake? Look
>
> As of 1995, Wealth-redistribution "entitlements" made up 45% of
> the budget, and was growing. ( The Republican congress may have
> derailed this trend, however :-)
The Republicans do it too, they just give the entitlements to different
people.
Look at George Bush going into Iowa and saying how he loves ethanol and
will fight to defend ethanol subsidies.
One of the reasons I voted for McCain was that he had the guts to go
into Iowa and say, "I will take away your ethanol subsidies."
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:12:04 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Courageous wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I suspect that you are behind the times. Furthermore, we're
> > > > > > > > arguing about peanuts. Why get all in a rile over peanuts
> > > > > > > > when there are issues where SERIOUS MONEY is at stake? Look
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As of 1995, Wealth-redistribution "entitlements" made up 45%
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the budget, and was growing. ( The Republican congress may
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > derailed this trend, however :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A bait and switch. When you're talking about Social Security,
> > > > > > make sure you say so. This isn't what the average person thinks
> > > > > > of when you say "welfare".
> > > > >
> > > > > Social Security is *NOT* a retirement plan. It *IS* welfare.
> > > > >
> > > > > All of these "I paid in for 45 years" arguments are bullshit.
> > > > > The senior citizens ****FAILED**** to keep tabs on what Congress
> > > > > was
> > > > > doing, and ****FAILED**** to investigate SS enough to recognize
> > > > > it for
> > > > > the Ponzi scheme that it is.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, that's not quite true.
> > > >
> > > > Once you're a senior citizen, you've already paid in most of what
> > > > you
> > > > can expect to pay during your lifetime. Therefore, if they're
> > > > paying
> > >
> > > So, big whoop de doo.
> > >
> > > How does the fact that they paid a bunch of con-men for
> > > several decades obligate *me* to fulfill the con-men's promises????
> > >
> > >
> > > > attention, they _would_ want benefits to increase. All that they
> > > > need to
> > > > do is set the benefits at a level that can be sustained for their
> > > > lifetime.
> > >
> > > Look, we had a couple generation of socialist "something-for-nothing"
> > > tooth-fairy believers. I AM *NOT* the fucking tooth fairy, and
> > > refuse to be gouged as if I were.
> > >
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > All I'm saying is that for _current_ senior citizens, support for
> > Social
> > Security makes financial sense.
>
> Why? They are the ones who created the mess in the first place.
Because the mess is paying them money, obviously. You think they want
the money to stop coming? Hell no.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:25:46 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > I'm certainly for reforming the system. But starving it for cash is
> > > _not_ the way to do that.
> >
> > It's the only way to do it. You call it "starving it for cash" others
> > call
> > it reducing government waste. A businessman would be in prison if he
> > mismanaged his finances as poorly as government does.
>
> If you starve it to death, millions of people who have been paying in
> won't get anything out. That's straight-out theft.
So is it theft for rich people who pay tons of money into the fund and
get less back (in absolute dollars) than other people, because their
incomes disqualify them from getting full social security benefits?
Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and I don't get
back all that money in the form of government services? If so, then we
have a society Robin Hood would be quite proud of.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: 26 Aug 2000 02:21:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This is just my personal opinion, but the P-51 with the 360 canopy was
: the best looking fighter of the war, probably due to the inline engine,
: followed by the Corsair.
I really like the look of the bent wing on the corsair. Sure, I
know that it was just a kluge to make the landing gear legs shorter
while still supporting a big propeller, but it still made it look
really sleek. By comparasin the P-51 doesn't look very interesting.
Sure, from the side the fuselage looks good, but the wings and tail
were rather boxy with lots of straight-edges and few curves.
As far as manueverability goes, the P-51 had very fast transition
rates (rolling from one attitude to another), which gave the pilot
the ability to change his mind quickly in a dogfight. This
statitistic is often not mentioned in fighter-plane comparasins,
and it's kind of important. How tight the plane turns once it's
in the right attitude is important, but if it takes too long to get
into that attitude you end up telegraphing your moves in an obvious
way. And being able to "wiggle" the plane is handy for lining up
your aim. Also important is the turn rate with full up elevator.
Sometimes the turn radius is measured without applying up elevator,
and that's not really the plane's minimum turn radius. Also, the
P-51 had a lot more lift than it needed for it's light weight, which
meant it could make those sharp turns and still get back up into
combat. After making an altitude-losing turn, the P-47 would
take longer to get back up to where it started again.
The reason the P-47 still did okay was sheer brute force. It could
take a real beating, and it had big guns. It didn't *have* to
dogfight very long. In one pass it could take out just about
anything.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:31:17 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yet I managed to get a scholarship and loans for Penn State, worked my
> way through school, got into graduate school at Cornell, progressed
> through several jobs of increasing responsibility and ended up as
> President of a small company where I'm making quite a lot of money
> (certainly far more than the level that Democrats consider wealthy,
> although I think their cutoff is way too low).
>
> So what part of the things you cited is impossible?
Yipes, I knew you had been at Cornell, but I didn't recall you having
been at Penn State (which is also where I got my undergrad degree, as
you may recall from my posting numerous articles here from a psu.edu
account).
Small world indeed.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:38:24 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sad
> >
> > Not when there's a $5,600,000,000,000 national debt. Using the money to
> > pay that down ends up saving taxpayer money in the long run. It would
>
> Which is why Bush allocates 25% of the surplus to paying down the
> national debt.
>
> Unlike the Democrats who will spend all of the surplus on "essential
> government programs".
And of course, neither party will take the correct solution. Everybody
(except Steve Forbes) seems to have a great deal of respect for Alan
Greenspan, and yet when Greenspan says the first priority use for the
surplus should be to pay down the debt, what happens? Bush talks about
tax cuts, and Gore talks about increasing health care spending.
They're both playing to the goals of their party faithful instead of the
interests of the nation as a whole.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:08:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Nope.
>
> All that would be required is a flat rate and a
> really big standard deduction.
>
> Besides, there's nothing inherent in tax brackets that's
> dishonest... unfair mebbe, but not dishonest.
>
> Dishonest is the student loan interest deduction & a few other
> bits of smoke and mirrors that are either too restrictive to
> be meaninful to anyone but the very rich or very stupid.
>
You might want to check the rules for the student loan deduction. IIRC,
the deduction phases out at less than $100 K in income. So the "very
rich" are exactly the ones who _can't_ use it.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
