JJ wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:



You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year?

I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those
little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have
more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen.

Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the
U.N. in line with our policies. Some of it puts military officers from
third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those
officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works.
Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study. If we build a
needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United
States is generated. A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned
itself from U.S. aid and thanked us.

Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the
government's responsibility?

Dave K8MN

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light
rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities,
but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means
we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time
to
come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems
to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in
the EU
would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a
headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a
higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have
never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention
the
prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to
work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices
impossible for
the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant
energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in
perpetuity. The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have
EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be
subjugated
to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a
totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America
stands for,
and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since
most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must
be
different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply
because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social
and
economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited
to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for
individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's
forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would
encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all
the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more
vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a
good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems
that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride
mass transit.


I tired mass transit when I first started working downtown. Nothing
convenient, friendly, safe, or good about it at all. It was scarey because
of the drivers, inconvenient because I had to work my schedule around
theirs, unfriendly people getting on and off knocking others with their
asses or briefcases, and I'll never do it again.

Kim W5TIT

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:




You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim.
I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of
the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year?

I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those
little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have
more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen.



At least the kids and our elderly.

Kim W5TIT

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
JJ wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:



You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much,
Jim. I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much
of the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year?

I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those
little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have
more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen.

Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the
U.N. in line with our policies.


Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when it's
someone else's. There's other ways to win friends and influence people--and
ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances in the longrun.


Some of it puts military officers from
third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives those
officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system works.


Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other
homelands and train enemies to the US. We don't need someone learning "our"
way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves.


Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study.


So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through many
different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here.


If we build a
needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United
States is generated.


Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and let
them build their own damned dam.



A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned
itself from U.S. aid and thanked us.


'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they should be
or are.


Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the
government's responsibility?

Dave K8MN


Uh, because *we live* in this country? So, you disagree with programs that
improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and elderly with
healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending welfare for the
capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and more, while our
government is off in other lands playing Godfather?! Figures, Dave.

The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying for
the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world. It's time
the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get pushed out of the
nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time soon.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
JJ wrote:

Kim W5TIT wrote:



You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much,
Jim. I am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I
wonder how much of the Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax
dollars, get spent away from our country. Then, how much foreign
debt is "forgiven" each year?

I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those
little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have
more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen.

Foreign aid goes a long way toward having those countries vote in the
U.N. in line with our policies.


Yeah, money always has been very easy to throw around, 'specially when
it's someone else's. There's other ways to win friends and influence
people--and ways that would mean a lot more and build better alliances
in the longrun.


Some of it puts military officers from
third world countries through *our* military academies. It gives
those officers a chance to live in the U.S. and see how our system
works.


Yeah, so they can go and influence a bunch of rebels in their or other
homelands and train enemies to the US. We don't need someone learning
"our" way of doing things...let them figure it out for themselves.


Some of the aid brings scholars to the U.S. to study.


So they can go back to their land, grow a company, and somehow through
many different ways, we end up losing jobs and capital over here.


If we build a
needed flood control dam in Sierra Leone, good will toward the United
States is generated.


Give them a very, very low interest loan with a good down payment and
let them build their own damned dam.



A decade or so back, Botswana actually weaned
itself from U.S. aid and thanked us.


'Sbout damned time...although I doubt they're as "weaned" as they
should be or are.


Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the
government's responsibility?

Dave K8MN


Uh, because *we live* in this country? So, you disagree with programs
that improve our infrastructure that is pitiful, helps our kids and
elderly with healthcare and even education, begins an effort to ending
welfare for the capable, improves health conditions nationwide--and
more, while our government is off in other lands playing Godfather?!
Figures, Dave.

The people of this country who are being taxed to the hilt are paying
for the backbone of crap in this country and the rest of the world.
It's time the rest of the world and the nitwits in this country get
pushed out of the nest. But, of course that ain't happenin' any time
soon.

Kim W5TIT




FWIW I agree 100% with you, Kim. Paying for health care and mass transit
would be far more worthwhile than most of the things the government does
with tax revenue. Their priorities are completely backwards.

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce.

We can't fix the wide open spaces, but we *can* do something about
suburban sprawl.

The transportation situations in the USA and Europe are the way they
are today because of choices made by *people*. Where and how to live,
work and vacation/recreate, what sort of house and car to buy, what
politicians to elect, etc. etc.

This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come.

And the time to start changing that is now. Doesn't mean we have to
give up our cars, just that we can develop and implement alternatives.

Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU would cost far more than they are spending.

Most transit systems in the USA struggle to continue operations. A lot
of that is due to factors like precarious funding.

Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era.

You have to be kidding!

The USA had extensive mass transit long before WW1. Much of it was
*removed* and *destroyed* after WW2 in the USA. In EU, much of it was
*destroyed* in WW2 and rebuilt afterwards.

It's all about choices.

They also have a higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the
prohibitive cost).

The USA used to be like that, in many places. I grew up in suburban
Philadelphia, and most families had only one car. And we kids did not
*need* auto transportation to do everything a kid usually does.
School, sports, church, running errands for Mom and Dad, visiting
friends, the library, etc. - none of that required auto transport.
Most of it didn't even require a bike.

And for some pocket change, we could go almost anywhere in the city or
surrounding suburbs.

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for
the average person to afford.

Only if we insist on driving inefficient cars as much as we do now.

Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity.

That can and must be changed. It makes us too vulnerable. It's a
national security issue.

The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated
to the EU.

These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands
for, and must be treated as such.

That's pure bull****, Larry. Pure unadulterated bull****. There's no
other word for it.

It's not about liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats.
It's about sound engineering and planning for the future.

How much "freedom" is there in being at the economic mercy of foreign
governments deciding to reduce the production of oil, or jack up its
price artificially, as was done twice in the 1970s?

How much "treason" is there in saying that the USA should be as
self-reliant as possible so that we don't have to do business with
(and line the pockets of) anyone who doesn't support our principles of
freedom?

How "wacko" is it to realize that clean air and water aren't luxuries
but necessities - and that they cost less than the health problems
resulting from pollution?

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be
different.

Of course!

I'm *not* saying we must give up our cars. Just reduce our dependence
on them, and increase their efficiency. It *can* be done, if we choose
to do it.

We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply
because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and
economic contributions.

Not true at all.

The key is *efficiency*.

Consider this:

Half a century ago, the New York Central's 20th Century Limited ran a
consistent 16 hour schedule from New York to Chicago. That's 961 miles
in 960 minutes, including engine change at Harmon, at least ten
station stops, bridges, curves, grades, etc. On jointed rail and
wooden ties with steam and first-generation diesel locomotives. 16
hours downtown to downtown, and the service was dependable and
comfortable.

That sort of travel was largely replaced by air travel, which only
takes about a two-hour flight. However, it takes at least an hour to
get to and from the airport, and with security you need to be at the
airport two hours before flight time, so the *real* travel time is
more like six hours, downtown to downtown.

The French TGV trains run at close to 200 mph in revenue service. (You
don't want to know how fast they have gone in tests). That sort of
technology could cut the NYC-Chicago time down to about six hours if
station stops were limited - and it's safer, pollutes less, and is
much more efficient than air travel or private autos. And it's less
affected by weather. Imagine the country linked by such a highspeed
system, with local transit to complete the journey.

And that's just one example of existing technology. Don't you think
Americans could improve on that?

The only problem is making the *choice* to do it.

I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

Nor does it need to!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


The 800 pound budget gorillas are defense spending, Medicare and
Social Security.

Social Security is pretty much self-funded, and in fact has been tapped from
time to time for deficits in the general fund.

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
But, if it meant a) one tax for all--no tax breaks for any, at about
10-14%
per person and entity, b) taxing even religious institutions--anything
outside of actual *church* and parish properties, c) cutting the fat from
the equation, both in terms of programs and personnel; and there was still
a
need for higher taxes, I'd be willing to pay my *fair* share.

Kim W5TIT



The average person is already paying nearly half their income in taxes if
you include all taxes plus the ones you pay indirectly. This is hardly
reasonable nor would it be reasonable for anyone to pay even more.

Where did your 50% number for the average person come from? Since
revenues from all levels of government, as well as the nation's gross
income, are well known, the average of all taxes isn't a difficult
number to compute with some precision.

In fact the Tax Foundation (which should be called the Anti-Tax Foundation,
their interests would never lead them to underestimate this number) does
exactly this to calculate their "Tax Freedom Day", seen at

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

Tax freedom day this year was April 19, meaning the average total tax burden
was 30%. Note that the tax burden for the median wage earner was probably
somewhat less than this since higher tax rates on corporate income and the
wealthy tend to skew the average higher (see the "Q&A about critiques..."
link on the same page).

I hence can't see how you concluded that the average American's total tax
burden is anywhere near 50% of their income. I also recently saw (but have
since lost) a table which showed comparative tax burdens for 36 industrialized
nations. Only the northern-most European countries have total tax burdens
in the 50% ballpark, while US taxes in 2003 were 35th on the list, with only
Mexico lower (in 2000, Japan and Korea were also lower). Not that this
suggests the US is in any way under-taxed; if you add in the additional 12%
of income spent on private medical care you end up within a few percent,
plus or minus, of the tax burdens in Canada and (south-)Western European
countries which fund medical care via taxes.

I don't know how you define what is "reasonable" for someone to pay, and
I certainly wish I paid less tax rather than more, but it is the case that
you get about what you pay for. For an example of an industrialized country
with significantly lower taxes one can look to, say, China, and observe that
to get this tax rate one would also need to live with China-like
infrastructure and services. This isn't a tradeoff I'd recommend, personally.

Dennis Ferguson

JJ wrote:
Kim W5TIT wrote:
You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year?

I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those
little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have
more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen.

You would lose that wager big time. The total US foreign aid budget
for 2001 (the last year I can find) was $15 billion, half of which went
to Isreal and some of its Arab neighbors. The total spending on health
care in the US in 2001 was $1.4 trillion, about 100 times the amount.

I don't know where the myth that the US spends a huge amount on foreign
aid came from. As a fraction of GDP the US foreign aid budget is the
stingiest among developed countries, and the money is usually spent on
things which advance some US foreign policy interest. It is way, way
cheaper than sending the military somewhere to advance some US foreign
policy interest.

Dennis Ferguson

Dave Heil wrote:


Why would paying for your doctor visits and your medications be the
government's responsibility?

Dave K8MN

Do you pay for all your doctor visits and medications, or does some
insurance pay for a good portion of it? I suppose when you are eligible
for Medicare you are going to refuse it, after all,it should not be the
governments responsibility to pay for your medical, Right?