In article ,
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:


Fine, Jim, you go on believing that the government is solvent. The next
couple of decades are going to be _real_ bad.


The next couple of decades may well be bad but
it won't have anything to do with the
govt being insolvent.

It is the private sector that borrowed way too much money.

From 1998-2008 the US private sector borrowed $25 trillion.
The total GDP for that same period was about $100 trillion.
The private sector borrowed and spent 25% of GDP for 10 years.
And what did we get from this - not much.
GDP only increased by $4 trillion. So for every $6 dollars that
the private sector borrowed there was only $1 in increased
productivity. So where did the rest of the money go? It
went into inflating financial assets ( that's what people call
capital gains).

So now we have the private markets paralyzed by enormous
private sector debt balanced against grossly over-inflated
capital assets. In other words, the recipe for a depression.

The only thing preventing the depression is the $1+ trillion
per year that the federal govt is spending more than it taxes.

When Congress tries to balance the budget the depression
will commence in full.

And during this depression the solvency of the federal govt
will not be an issue, but the solvency of millions of US
businesses and households will become a huge issue.

And after all the businesses and households go under where does the
government get the money to pay off its debt?

Jim Yanik wrote:

In the context of the owner being part of a citizen's militia, in the
context of having access to said gun (musket) during times of civil
defence against an foreign invader.


WRONG. there's NO language in the 2nd that requires one to be in a
militia to have the RKBA. NONE whatsoever.
ALL the 2nd says about militias is that they are "necessary to a free
state",nothing more.

It CLEARLY states the "right of the PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms,not
"of a militia".

Let's clear this up: In 1791 the definition of "militia" was every
able-bodied man and boy capable of defending the state. The difference
between "militia" and "citizen" was minimal ("militia" did not include
women, children, or slaves) and did NOT demand adherence to a military
regimen.

Likewise, the word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment was not close to today's
common meaning. Today, one usually thinks of "regulated" as "following
regulations," but in 1791 there were NO regulations to speak of. Back then,
the common use of "regulated" meant a mechanical device that works as
intended. We see vestiges of this definition in statements such as "a
well-regulated timepiece."


semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's
modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of
firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo
similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use
AT THAT TIME. Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of
full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for
civilian militia use.

In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon
that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the
2nd Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and
AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines"
also would be protected.



Fortunately, SCOTUS has eradicated that tortured definition. The 2nd
Amendment NOW means any weapon a person might use for self-defense (Heller)
and extended that definition to the entire country (McDonald).

"J. Clarke" wrote:


And after all the businesses and households go under where does the
government get the money to pay off its debt?

The government hasn't paid off its debt in 200 years and
isn't going to. And why would you want it to.

Federal debt is going to continue to grow (with or without a
depression) until the private sector is no longer
drowning in debt. Just as it did in the last big depression.

http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/u...hael-Clark.png

The best you can hope for is that the total US debt grows
at a rate that is less than GDP. And that has been the
case for the last 4 years. That is as good as it gets.

http://www.comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Jim Yanik wrote:

In the context of the owner being part of a citizen's militia, in the
context of having access to said gun (musket) during times of civil
defence against an foreign invader.


WRONG. there's NO language in the 2nd that requires one to be in a
militia to have the RKBA. NONE whatsoever.
ALL the 2nd says about militias is that they are "necessary to a free
state",nothing more.

It CLEARLY states the "right of the PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms,not
"of a militia".

Let's clear this up: In 1791 the definition of "militia" was every
able-bodied man and boy capable of defending the state. The difference
between "militia" and "citizen" was minimal ("militia" did not include
women, children, or slaves) and did NOT demand adherence to a military
regimen.

Likewise, the word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment was not close to
today's common meaning. Today, one usually thinks of "regulated" as
"following regulations," but in 1791 there were NO regulations to speak
of. Back then, the common use of "regulated" meant a mechanical device
that works as intended. We see vestiges of this definition in statements
such as "a well-regulated timepiece."


semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's
modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of
firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo
similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use
AT THAT TIME. Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of
full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for
civilian militia use.

In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon
that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the
2nd Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and
AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines"
also would be protected.



Fortunately, SCOTUS has eradicated that tortured definition. The 2nd
Amendment NOW means any weapon a person might use for self-defense
(Heller) and extended that definition to the entire country (McDonald).


I don't remember where SCOTUS declared that arms in the 2nd, mean ONLY
sporting and self-defense weapons
I my read is that they did NOT eliminate the implication that ordinary
military arms are NOT protected.
Io believe the intent of the 2nd t have people somewhat qualified in the use
of military arms still stands as written.
But feel free to correct me...

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:43:38 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 8/9/2012 9:39 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:19:28 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun?

Felons can apply to have their rights restored. They have to follow
the state procedures. In my state prisoners now have to be advised of
this fact upon release or at the parole hearing.

Yes, they can apply, but those rights have to be restored to the
satisfaction of the BATFE, which will not fund a process for doing so.


David,

Thanks for posting this. I was not aware of this "under the radar gun
control". By not funding the process for Relief from Disabilities the
government is infringing on the 2nd Amendment. This ought to be
challenged in court. Sneaky *******s.

I suppose a person could apply for a Presidential pardon to get around
this funding problem.

BATFE:

"Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted
felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or
receiving firearms. The GCA provides the Attorney General with the
authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney
General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner
dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be
contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this
authority to ATF.

Since October 1992, however, ATF’s annual appropriation has prohibited
the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for
relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As
long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the
Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms
disabilities submitted by individuals.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g), 922(n) and 925(c)]
--

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:05:53 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/9/2012 10:59 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:19:28 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun?

Felons can apply to have their rights restored. They have to follow
the state procedures. In my state prisoners now have to be advised of
this fact upon release or at the parole hearing.
--

I don't have a problem for non-violent felons being armed
I have no need to fear someone sent to jail for not paying his taxes
On the other hand, people convicted of violent crimes should not be going
through a revolving door system of justice so that they can come out and
commit more violent crimes



Agree. A person doing six months for "harassing a bear" or a person
"stealing government property" (fish from research pond) are no
threat. (both cases were felonies).


I've noticed that the government would make all activities a felony in
order to take away the rights of the people. O_o

TDD

.... and members of the "Teat" party (begging at the foot of the King
for crumbs and handouts).

Not to be confused with the Tea party (throwing the tea in the water)
--

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:12:44 -0400, "
wrote:

nice try to prevent replies,by directing followups to
alt.bull****;

The left's dishonesty shows through again.

Alt.bull**** is the only place where your stuff should be posted.

The left's stupidity shows through again.

Another troll from Home Guy. He still uses Netscape Navigator and is
a member of the "teat" party.
--

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:11:20 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:07:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:38:01 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:02:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:38:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:41:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:29:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:22:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:28:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Because it makes the dummy feel good.

Ok, then let everyone have AK-47s, etc... with no qualifications and
can be bought with credit cards or food stamps. I bet you'd love for
me to say something along that line. I don't think so.

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. You're *way* past ignorance;
this stuff has all been explained to you many times now.


No, your just full of BS ...

No, asshole, it *has* all been explained to you before and you're too damned
dense to understand.

you can't stand someone wanting to account for the purchase of guns.

It's none of your damned business.

You take that to mean I don't want
you to buy a gun and I keep telling you I want accountability so I
know who bought a gun.

Why do you want to know? What good does that do? I already have to
demonstrate that I am legally allowed to buy a gun. This has already been
explained to you but you're too damned dense to understand.

I don't want to stop people from buying guns

You're a liar.

but that doesn't mean I want ANYONE to have a gun neither.

Not ANYONE can buy a gun, legally, moron. This has already been explained to
you but you're too damned dense to understand.


Yeah and I've explained myself to the level that even a moron like you
should understand.

Well, that sentence makes as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


Why did it go above your head too?

Why can't you write a simple English sentence?


Sorry, I forgot about your IQ .

My IQ. You're the idiot who can't even write a simple English sentence. What
a moron.


Get reading lessons then if I write above your comprehension. I don't
see anyone who disagreed with me say that.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:21:51 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:11:20 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:07:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:38:01 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:02:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:38:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:41:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:29:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:22:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:28:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Because it makes the dummy feel good.

Ok, then let everyone have AK-47s, etc... with no qualifications and
can be bought with credit cards or food stamps. I bet you'd love for
me to say something along that line. I don't think so.

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. You're *way* past ignorance;
this stuff has all been explained to you many times now.


No, your just full of BS ...

No, asshole, it *has* all been explained to you before and you're too damned
dense to understand.

you can't stand someone wanting to account for the purchase of guns.

It's none of your damned business.

You take that to mean I don't want
you to buy a gun and I keep telling you I want accountability so I
know who bought a gun.

Why do you want to know? What good does that do? I already have to
demonstrate that I am legally allowed to buy a gun. This has already been
explained to you but you're too damned dense to understand.

I don't want to stop people from buying guns

You're a liar.

but that doesn't mean I want ANYONE to have a gun neither.

Not ANYONE can buy a gun, legally, moron. This has already been explained to
you but you're too damned dense to understand.


Yeah and I've explained myself to the level that even a moron like you
should understand.

Well, that sentence makes as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


Why did it go above your head too?

Why can't you write a simple English sentence?


Sorry, I forgot about your IQ .

My IQ. You're the idiot who can't even write a simple English sentence. What
a moron.


Get reading lessons then if I write above your comprehension.

You can't write a simple English sentence. It's not possible for you to write
above my comprehension.

I don't see anyone who disagreed with me say that.

Your logic skills are on par with your writing skills. You lefties are that
stupid.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:07:44 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:12:44 -0400, "
wrote:

nice try to prevent replies,by directing followups to
alt.bull****;

The left's dishonesty shows through again.

Alt.bull**** is the only place where your stuff should be posted.

The left's stupidity shows through again.

Another troll from Home Guy.

Of course but my point still stands; it does show the dishonesty of leftists.

He still uses Netscape Navigator and is a member of the "teat" party.

He's a Canuckistani. What would you expect?

There is also the less frequently heard argument, that the "right of
the people to keep and bear arms" must not be infringed BECAUSE the state
must maintain a militia. In other words, the people must be guaranteed the
right to arms so that they will be able to defend themselves if the state
uses the militia in an oppressive or abusive manner. This argument actually
is defensible when considered in the time and context of its original writing.


--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:18:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

There is also the less frequently heard argument, that the "right of
the people to keep and bear arms" must not be infringed BECAUSE the state
must maintain a militia. In other words, the people must be guaranteed the
right to arms so that they will be able to defend themselves if the state
uses the militia in an oppressive or abusive manner. This argument actually
is defensible when considered in the time and context of its original writing.

Nevada has a 2nd Amendment in the state constitution. I get protected
from all sides. Abe Lincoln wanted to get elected back in the day.

We are the Battle Born State.
--

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:


And after all the businesses and households go under where does the
government get the money to pay off its debt?

The government hasn't paid off its debt in 200 years and
isn't going to. And why would you want it to.

Federal debt is going to continue to grow (with or without a
depression) until the private sector is no longer
drowning in debt. Just as it did in the last big depression.

http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/u...hael-Clark.png

The best you can hope for is that the total US debt grows
at a rate that is less than GDP. And that has been the
case for the last 4 years. That is as good as it gets.

http://www.comstockfunds.com/files/NLPP00000/530.pdf

You are clearly one of those who must have the last word, so I'll grant
it to you.

plonk

On 8/10/2012 8:27 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:



I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a business
must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and equipment used
in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd. O_o

Ad valorem is just latin for property tax. I would suspect that most
states with property taxes have some sort of tax on this type of things.
Some even on inventory.


It's done around here to businesses and it's silly because the owner
paid sales tax on the items when purchased. I think there is something
inherently unfair about paying tax on something you already paid tax on
and be taxed over and over again on the same item. It's conceivable that
if you owned a tool or piece of gear long enough, the total tax you pay
could exceed the purchase price of the item. O_o

TDD

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:26:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:21:51 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:11:20 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:07:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:38:01 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:02:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:38:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:41:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:29:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:22:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:28:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Because it makes the dummy feel good.

Ok, then let everyone have AK-47s, etc... with no qualifications and
can be bought with credit cards or food stamps. I bet you'd love for
me to say something along that line. I don't think so.

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. You're *way* past ignorance;
this stuff has all been explained to you many times now.


No, your just full of BS ...

No, asshole, it *has* all been explained to you before and you're too damned
dense to understand.

you can't stand someone wanting to account for the purchase of guns.

It's none of your damned business.

You take that to mean I don't want
you to buy a gun and I keep telling you I want accountability so I
know who bought a gun.

Why do you want to know? What good does that do? I already have to
demonstrate that I am legally allowed to buy a gun. This has already been
explained to you but you're too damned dense to understand.

I don't want to stop people from buying guns

You're a liar.

but that doesn't mean I want ANYONE to have a gun neither.

Not ANYONE can buy a gun, legally, moron. This has already been explained to
you but you're too damned dense to understand.


Yeah and I've explained myself to the level that even a moron like you
should understand.

Well, that sentence makes as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


Why did it go above your head too?

Why can't you write a simple English sentence?


Sorry, I forgot about your IQ .

My IQ. You're the idiot who can't even write a simple English sentence. What
a moron.


Get reading lessons then if I write above your comprehension.

You can't write a simple English sentence. It's not possible for you to write
above my comprehension.

I don't see anyone who disagreed with me say that.

Your logic skills are on par with your writing skills. You lefties are that
stupid.


LOL

On 8/10/2012 7:16 AM, jim wrote:


The Daring Dufas wrote:

So if you trade firewood for eggs, what is
the tax you would pay?


The IRS has guns, they can fabricate an amount and demand it.

And the courts can and do tell the IRS to get lost.


But not after you are financially ruined by legal fees. O_o

TDD

On 8/10/2012 10:59 AM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:05:53 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/9/2012 10:59 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:19:28 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun?

Felons can apply to have their rights restored. They have to follow
the state procedures. In my state prisoners now have to be advised of
this fact upon release or at the parole hearing.
--

I don't have a problem for non-violent felons being armed
I have no need to fear someone sent to jail for not paying his taxes
On the other hand, people convicted of violent crimes should not be going
through a revolving door system of justice so that they can come out and
commit more violent crimes



Agree. A person doing six months for "harassing a bear" or a person
"stealing government property" (fish from research pond) are no
threat. (both cases were felonies).


I've noticed that the government would make all activities a felony in
order to take away the rights of the people. O_o

TDD

... and members of the "Teat" party (begging at the foot of the King
for crumbs and handouts).

Not to be confused with the Tea party (throwing the tea in the water)


I suppose you could also call them "Troughers", feeding at the public
trough. Reminds me of the old SNL skit where folks ate out of a trough
at a restaurant serving pasta. ^_^

TDD

On 8/8/2012 6:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Hell, require gang members to go to police target ranges and receive
marksmanship training so they won't hit innocent bystanders when they
decide to shoot each other. ^_^


Or just give them cheap guns that explode, and kill the user?


Too many people would line up for free guns, heck, they'll line up for
free anything. ^_^

TDD

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:27:41 -0400, the renowned Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:



I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a business
must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and equipment used
in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd. O_o

Ad valorem is just latin for property tax.

It's Latin for "according to value". You can have an ad valorem tax on
gasoline (say 15% tax on the wholesale price) or a fixed volume-based
tax (say 30 cents a gallon).

I would suspect that most
states with property taxes have some sort of tax on this type of things.
Some even on inventory.

It's a particularly stupid and short-sighted way to tax businesses. I
know it happens in CA (for equipment) and TX (for cars).

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:31:46 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/10/2012 8:27 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:



I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a business
must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and equipment used
in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd. O_o

Ad valorem is just latin for property tax. I would suspect that most
states with property taxes have some sort of tax on this type of things.
Some even on inventory.


It's done around here to businesses and it's silly because the owner
paid sales tax on the items when purchased. I think there is something
inherently unfair about paying tax on something you already paid tax on
and be taxed over and over again on the same item. It's conceivable that
if you owned a tool or piece of gear long enough, the total tax you pay
could exceed the purchase price of the item. O_o

Even worse than the ad velorem tax is the gross receipts tax. It's a real job
killer. All taxes are, but the GRT is the worst.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:31:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:26:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:21:51 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:11:20 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:07:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:38:01 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:02:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:38:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:41:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:29:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:22:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:28:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Because it makes the dummy feel good.

Ok, then let everyone have AK-47s, etc... with no qualifications and
can be bought with credit cards or food stamps. I bet you'd love for
me to say something along that line. I don't think so.

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. You're *way* past ignorance;
this stuff has all been explained to you many times now.


No, your just full of BS ...

No, asshole, it *has* all been explained to you before and you're too damned
dense to understand.

you can't stand someone wanting to account for the purchase of guns.

It's none of your damned business.

You take that to mean I don't want
you to buy a gun and I keep telling you I want accountability so I
know who bought a gun.

Why do you want to know? What good does that do? I already have to
demonstrate that I am legally allowed to buy a gun. This has already been
explained to you but you're too damned dense to understand.

I don't want to stop people from buying guns

You're a liar.

but that doesn't mean I want ANYONE to have a gun neither.

Not ANYONE can buy a gun, legally, moron. This has already been explained to
you but you're too damned dense to understand.


Yeah and I've explained myself to the level that even a moron like you
should understand.

Well, that sentence makes as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


Why did it go above your head too?

Why can't you write a simple English sentence?


Sorry, I forgot about your IQ .

My IQ. You're the idiot who can't even write a simple English sentence. What
a moron.


Get reading lessons then if I write above your comprehension.

You can't write a simple English sentence. It's not possible for you to write
above my comprehension.

I don't see anyone who disagreed with me say that.

Your logic skills are on par with your writing skills. You lefties are that
stupid.


LOL

It's good that you can laugh at yourself. Everyone else is.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:18:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

There is also the less frequently heard argument, that the "right of
the people to keep and bear arms" must not be infringed BECAUSE the state
must maintain a militia. In other words, the people must be guaranteed the
right to arms so that they will be able to defend themselves if the state
uses the militia in an oppressive or abusive manner. This argument actually
is defensible when considered in the time and context of its original writing.

That is wrong. It's not the state that maintains the militia, rather the
PEOPLE. That's the whole point of the thing.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:38:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...
...

I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a
business must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and
equipment used
in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd.
O_o

TDD

http://www.justanswer.com/finance/0w...-us-state.html

The inventory tax punishes utilities for stockpiling spares for
disasters.


Which brought "just in time" manufacturing and all the ****ing
bull**** that comes with that.

A machine shop makes 1000 widgets for company A every 6 months.

So when their machines were slow..they would crank out another 1000,
just to have on hand for the next order. Machines break, things speed
up..Company B decides to order 3000 Rumiflusters about the time
Company A is ready for their next order..etc.
Everybody was happy. Prices went up much slower...if the cost of steel
went up overnight...the Widgets up on the shelf were made with the old
cheap steel and Company A would have some warning when they wanted
their next 1000. Everybody was happy.

Then the ****tards in government decided that having those 1000
widgets tucked away in a box up on a shelf, is a company asset..and
taxed the **** out of it. It COST the machine shop money...in material
costs, labor costs, machine costs..and the cost of keeping it up on
the self.

So the companies threw out literally millions of dollars of those
Widgets..right into the trash can. Because tossing them..was cheaper
than paying the taxes on them. And when Company A wanted widgets..they
had better order ahead of time..because Company B was going to be
placing an order. And if they didnt know Company C was going to be
ordering 10000 Blivets..and locked down the machines for 4
weeks...yawn..**** happens.

All because the ****tards in government decided that unsold items were
"assets" to be taxed.

Gunner

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:00:54 -0400, "
wrote:


The govt has no difficulty getting loans.

That's why the Fed has had to buy T-bills.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/educa...a4bcf887a.html


Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools

Posted: Monday, August 6, 2012 6:00 am | Updated: 12:39 pm, Thu Aug 9,
2012.

by Will Carless



Last year the Poway Unified School District made a deal: It borrowed
$105 million from investors to fund a final push in its decade-long
effort to revamp aging schools.

In many ways, the deal was unspectacular. Some of the money was used
to pay off previous debts from delayed and over-budget construction
projects. The rest went towards finishing upgrades that Poway
taxpayers had been promised as far back as 2002. To a casual observer,
it was just another school bond.

But Poway Unified’s deal was far from normal.

In 2008, voters had given the district permission to borrow more money
to finish its modernization, and they had received a big promise from
the elected school board in return: No tax increases.

Without increasing taxes, the district couldn’t afford to borrow money
in the conventional way. So, instead of borrowing from investors over
20 or 30 years and paying the debt down each year, like a mortgage,
the district got creative.

With advice from an Orange County financial consultant, the district
borrowed the money over 40 years in a controversial loan called a
capital appreciation bond. The key point for the district: It won’t
make any payments on the debt for 20 years.

And that means the district’s debt will keep getting bigger and bigger
as interest on the loan piles up.

The bottom line: For borrowing $105 million in 2011, taxpayers will
end up paying investors more than $981 million by 2051, or almost 10
times what the district borrowed. That’s wildly more expensive than a
typical school bond, in which a district pays back two or maybe three
times what it borrowed.

As well as being expensive, capital appreciation bonds work by tapping
future growth in property values to pay today’s debts, a concept
considered by many in the school bond business to be both risky and
inequitable. In 1994, the state of Michigan banned school districts
from issuing bonds like this, deeming them too toxic to taxpayers.

Nevertheless, California’s ever-strapped districts have increasingly
looked to capital appreciation bonds to raise money for improvements
without increasing taxes on current residents. Across the state,
districts have borrowed billions this way, using exotic financing to
shift the burden for paying for today’s school construction to future
generations of Californians.

Poway Unified, a district more accustomed to praise for its fiscal
austerity, has found itself at the center of the debate over these
bonds. For a year now, it’s come under fire from taxpayer groups and
concerned elected officials around the state, for whom Poway’s bond
has reached legendary status.

"This is way worse than loan sharking," said Michael Turnipseed,
executive director of the Kern County Taxpayers Association in central
California, which has lobbied the state Legislature to tighten laws on
school district borrowing. "And Poway is the poster child. What they
have done is absolutely insane."

Officials at the district and two members of the school board who
approved it acknowledge that the deal is expensive. But they say
Poway’s overall construction program has been a roaring success and a
boon to local students and homeowners alike.

District taxpayers should have understood that borrowing money over a
longer period of time, without raising taxes, would be pricey, the
officials said. And, they said, they’ve stuck to their word.

"We could have authorized more taxes, it would just have been breaking
the promises we made to the community," said school board member Todd
Gutschow.

But last year’s bond doesn’t just affect the taxpayers who voted on
it. It also saddles their children and grandchildren with hundreds of
millions of dollars in debt, and raises the risk that property taxes
could spike once the district finally starts making payments on its
loan.

In short: In order to keep its promises to current residents, the
district entered into a deal that places a billion-dollar burden on
future residents. Last year’s deal, in the words of County Treasurer
and Tax Collector Dan McAllister, "is a perfect example of how
something that’s done today can adversely affect the next generation
and the generation after that."

A Hard Sell

In 2008, Poway Unified’s school modernization plans were way off
schedule.

Construction costs had spiraled upwards, fueled by the region’s real
estate boom. This, combined with other construction delays and cost
overruns, meant the district needed more money to complete its
ambitious renovation program.

Voters had agreed back in 2002 to allow the district to borrow $198
million to bring state-of-the art facilities to 24 schools. But by
2008, the district was asking for $179 million more to finish the job.

Traditionally, school districts in California fund renovation programs
by borrowing money from investors and paying back those loans with
small increases in local property taxes.

That’s what Poway Unified’s first bond did in 2002. With California’s
economy starting to warm up from the boom-and-bust of the late-1990s,
voters approved the district bumping local property taxes up by $55
for every $100,000 of home value. That revenue was then tapped to pay
off the district’s construction loans.

By 2008, however, the economy was in trouble. The real estate market
had already been tanking for a couple of years. Stocks were sliding
downwards and unemployment was on the rise.

It was a tough time to sell a tax increase to voters.

But with some Poway Unified residents still waiting for the
renovations they had been promised back in 2002, the district decided
to approach voters once more.

"We knew the voters wanted these projects, and we knew they wanted
them sooner rather than later," said Poway Superintendent John
Collins.

This time, Poway Unified didn’t try to push a tax increase. Instead,
it came up with a different way to pay for its new bond program,
Proposition C.

Rather than increasing the tax rate, the district asked voters if
they’d be willing to extend the life of the existing property taxes
for an estimated additional 11 to 14 years.

That passed muster. Despite some vocal opposition, on Feb. 5, 2008,
district residents voted 63.9 percent in favor of Poway Unified
borrowing another $179 million.

But the bond’s supporters hadn’t made clear to the public just how
they planned to borrow money without raising taxes, or how much that
would end up costing taxpayers.

In 2008, there wasn’t enough money coming in from the district’s $55
property tax levy to pay for all the new borrowing it wanted to do.
All the cash being generated by the existing taxes was eaten up paying
off old loans that had already been used for upgrading schools.

The district’s plan, then, was to borrow money against the future tax
revenues it would receive by extending the life of the taxes. In other
words, it would get the money now, but wouldn’t start paying it back
for a long time.

Borrowing money in this way is possible for school districts, but it’s
much more expensive than paying a loan back year-by-year.

Last year, the district put together its deal to borrow $105 million,
without paying anything towards the debt for 20 years.

In two decades’ time, taxpayers will start paying about $50 million a
year towards the loan. They’ll make those payments for the next 20
years or so.

It’s a bit like a massive version of one of those exotic loans that
got homeowners into so much trouble.

With one key difference: For the next 20 years, Poway Unified isn’t
even paying the interest.

‘
Poway officials say it’s important to look at the big picture.

Yes, last year’s bond is expensive, they say, but it’s just one part
of a larger $540 million campaign that has totally revamped 24 local
schools. They said the district has been an effective steward of the
taxpayers’ money, and that the school board has the support of
taxpayers, who understand the cost and implications of the latest
deal.

But a voter reading the ballot statement for Proposition C in 2008
would have learned nothing about the overall cost of the deal the
district was setting itself up for.

The full 2,200 word statement makes no mention of capital appreciation
bonds, and says little about how the borrowing would be paid back. The
ballot arguments against the bond don’t mention the unusually high
costs involved in borrowing money that won’t begin to be paid back for
20 years.

The bond also had considerable cachet, thanks to a coveted endorsement
from the San Diego County Taxpayers Association. Indeed, association
President Lani Lutar’s name was first on a list of five local
dignitaries named on the ballot as supporting the bond.

Lutar said had she known the full implications of the bond, she would
not have recommended the association support it.

The taxpayers association recently started studying capital
appreciation bonds to fully understand their impact. Its main case
study: Poway Unified.

Last month, the association changed its criteria for endorsing school
bonds. In the future, it will ask districts how, exactly, they will
finance their bonds. If a district plans on using expensive long-term
capital appreciation bonds like Poway’s, it won’t get the
association’s backing.

"Poway should have been more forthright with us," Lutar said. "Had we
known then what we know now, we would probably have taken a different
path."

Poway’s bond has received negative attention from elsewhere, too.

County Tax Collector McAllister said his office met with the district
last year to raise concerns about the deal.

He said his staff was worried both about the sheer cost of the bond
and the idea of placing such a large burden on future taxpayers. And,
because the deal depends on property taxes steadily increasing in
order to pencil out, McAllister said his staff warned Poway Unified
against making the deal.

"We suggested it might be something they want to rethink," McAllister
said.

In the wake of Poway’s deal last year, Los Angeles County Treasurer
and Tax Collector Mark Saladino wrote an open letter to school finance
officials in California warning against the use of long-term capital
appreciation bonds for the same reasons.

Glenn Byers, Los Angeles’ assistant treasurer and tax collector, said
districts like Poway have been dishonest by issuing bonds without
laying out the consequences and costs of the loans for taxpayers.

"If they ever told the truth, they would never get these approved by
the voters," Byers said.

On The Hook

Apart from its overall cost, there’s another reason why Poway’s
massive capital appreciation bond should matter to taxpayers.

In 20 years, the school district will be on the hook for its first
payment towards last year’s loan. That payment will be a little more
than $30 million, $24 million of which is interest.

The following year, the payment will balloon to almost $47 million.
And, for the next 18 years after that, until 2051, district taxpayers
will have to pay about $50 million every year towards the debt —
essentially paying off their initial loan every two years for the next
two decades.

The district and its advisors assumed that Poway Unified would have
enough coming in from the existing taxes by 2033 to pay those bills.
But that's far from certain.

Right now, the district receives about $11 million a year from
homeowners towards paying off its bonds.

So, to be able to afford its debt payments 20 years from now, the
total assessed value of property within the taxed area would have to
quadruple.

That’s possible. In the last 10 years, the total value of property in
the school district almost doubled. But if the last decade has shown
municipal governments anything, it’s that relying on consistent growth
in tax revenues is a risky business.

If the district’s projections don’t come true, homeowners will see
their taxes spike to make up the difference.

And there’s no chance of the district refinancing the deal. The loan
contains a provision strictly barring the district from refinancing
its debt.

The district told taxpayers back in 2008 that it probably wouldn’t
have to raise taxes to meet its payments. But it’s fully within its
legal rights to do so.

McAllister, whose office is tasked with making sure local school
districts pay their bond debts, said his office could be compelled to
raise property tax rates to ensure the district can make its payments
on the bond.

Of course, many of the residents who voted on Proposition C will be
long gone by then. They’ll be dead, or living somewhere else.

But whoever’s left living in the taxed area will have to pick up the
tab for the money the district borrowed last year, and for the $877
million in interest the district will have accumulated by then.

Will Carless is an investigative reporter at Voice of San Diego
currently focused on local education. You can reach him at
or 619.550.5670.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:43:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/10/2012 7:28 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/8/2012 6:28 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

The craftsmanship built into a lot of the old gear would be hard to
duplicate today with the corporate pencil pushers involved but IC
chips and surface mount components of commercial and military grade
quality and construction makes for some very reliable gear. ^_^


My hobby was restoring old test equipment, and the occasional high
end radio. My last job was building $80,000 telemetry receivers.


Cool, you know of what I speak. ^_^


At least one of the early units was in constant use over 30 years by
NASA, and had never been serviced. That was in 2000. It may still be
in use, but I no longer work there to find out.


I repaired a bunch of old Tektronix TDR's that had the cute little chart
recorder modules in them. 1502 and 1503's as I recall. ^_^



Tektronix equipment was built to be repaired. Until the bean
counters took over. Then it was module swaps, and short term support
before they are considered scrap. I'd love to have a 2465 series scope,
but there are several high failure rate parts that are only availible
form a donor unit. Kind of like putting old, bald tires on a car an
hoping for another 100 miles.


Have you ever seen any of the Sony/Tektronix equipment? Oddball,
Japanese built things like the 324 scope?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/180743378012


You can't even buy a power cord for them.

That is indeed correct. So I made the power cord for mine, by making
the electrical connections, then filling the power port with RTV after
waxing the inside so it wouldnt stick. I dont unplug it much..Im
afraid to do so...shrug..but..it works ok.

I was not aware that the Japs had anything to do with it. But now that
you mention it..its not surprising.

Ive got at least 4 Tek scops, and a couple others...

BK 2160
Beckman 9020
Hitachi v-525 (my old faithful)
Tek 422
Tek 324 (with battery section which is dead..works fine on 110vts
Tek 2465 (still learning this one...4 channels..)
Tek 213..Its around here somewhere..I cant find it...damned thing is
way too small...or did I leave it somewhere in the last 4 yrs.... sigh

Anybody need any scopes? I think..I have too many...


Gunner

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:39:57 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:50:35 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:07:46 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:20:30 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Better accounting and hopefully more responsibility.

Giggle.

I already have accountability of my guns and take responsibility. What
I read from you is that the government should control your life,
because you cannot make simple decisions for yourself and you trust
the government more than yourself.

DAGS missing guns from the FBI, DEA, INS, ATF and other agencies. Guns
grew legs and walked right out of the agencies. Where is their
"accounting" and "responsibility"? What about Fast and Furious guns
that are missing?

You cannot legislate "responsibility" or morality. Is there anything
you think that should not be controlled by the government?


Don't go there or we will have another 1000 message thread. I do
think guns need to be controlled at least for accounting purposes. I
just don't want anyone to have a gun. You may be a responsible person
with a gun but not all are and as I said, I realize no law is going to
perfect what I want but if it saves any lives, it is worth it to me.


So in essence, you want to infringe on the right to have a gun. A
right that shall not be infringed. What is the next right you want to
take away?

Personally I don't see what's wrong with having better records of
those that buy a gun and perhaps requiring a annual license. Why do
you not complain about owning a car because it requires by law,
insurance, a driver's license to drive, registration and inspection
which is more than I want for a gun? Of course there are law
breakers that drive cars too but overall, it's a decent system for car
ownership / responsibility for owning a car.

Goal post moved. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I can opt-out
of driving. Leave my guns alone.


Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if you
have the money, you may buy either. Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

What accountability is there with automobiles? You dont even need to
register them

Gunner

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:13:38 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:06:46 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:39:57 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:50:35 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:07:46 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:20:30 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Better accounting and hopefully more responsibility.

Giggle.

I already have accountability of my guns and take responsibility. What
I read from you is that the government should control your life,
because you cannot make simple decisions for yourself and you trust
the government more than yourself.

DAGS missing guns from the FBI, DEA, INS, ATF and other agencies. Guns
grew legs and walked right out of the agencies. Where is their
"accounting" and "responsibility"? What about Fast and Furious guns
that are missing?

You cannot legislate "responsibility" or morality. Is there anything
you think that should not be controlled by the government?


Don't go there or we will have another 1000 message thread. I do
think guns need to be controlled at least for accounting purposes. I
just don't want anyone to have a gun. You may be a responsible person
with a gun but not all are and as I said, I realize no law is going to
perfect what I want but if it saves any lives, it is worth it to me.


So in essence, you want to infringe on the right to have a gun. A
right that shall not be infringed. What is the next right you want to
take away?

Personally I don't see what's wrong with having better records of
those that buy a gun and perhaps requiring a annual license. Why do
you not complain about owning a car because it requires by law,
insurance, a driver's license to drive, registration and inspection
which is more than I want for a gun? Of course there are law
breakers that drive cars too but overall, it's a decent system for car
ownership / responsibility for owning a car.

Goal post moved. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I can opt-out
of driving. Leave my guns alone.


Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if you
have the money, you may buy either. Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

Accountability? Moron, you don't know what you're talking about. You *are*
checked against a database when you buy a gun to see if you're (not) allowed
to posses a gun. You are *NOT* checked against any database when you buy a
car. Any fool can buy a car. No license required, either.


Gosh you really are a Moron too. Think a little, I promise it won't
hurt you.

See Dougie dodge the fact.

Gunner

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:19:28 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:47:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


Don't go there or we will have another 1000 message thread. I do
think guns need to be controlled at least for accounting purposes. I
just don't want anyone to have a gun. You may be a responsible person
with a gun but not all are and as I said, I realize no law is going to
perfect what I want but if it saves any lives, it is worth it to me.

You are assuming that saving lives trumps everything else. Trust me, there
are many people that need killing.

As for saving lives, there's a category of interest called "Defensive Gun
Use." On this, you need not trust me. Simple investigation will show that
guns save considerably more lives than the deaths caused by them.


That's assuming the guns are in responsible hands I imagine. What if
they are not? Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun? I know illegal guns are available but I
just talking about the legal ones.




Personally I don't see what's wrong with having better records of
those that buy a gun and perhaps requiring a annual license. Why do
you not complain about owning a car because it requires by law,
insurance, a driver's license to drive, registration and inspection
which is more than I want for a gun? Of course there are law
breakers that drive cars too but overall, it's a decent system for car
ownership / responsibility for owning a car.

#1: If the government knows who has guns, they know where to go to
confiscate them. Both the states of New York and California have done
exactly that.

#2: No matter how much you try to equate guns and cars, the fundamental fact
remains that ownership of guns is protected by the Constitution and cars are
not. If you want to put significant restrictions on guns, you'll have to
amend the Constitution; good luck with that.


Then the laws are not correct as they are written. Is it possible
that our founding fathers couldn't account for every situation when
writing our constitution????

Then its time to either take it up with them..or call for a
Constitutional Convention....isnt it?

Gunner

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:19:28 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun?

Felons can apply to have their rights restored. They have to follow
the state procedures. In my state prisoners now have to be advised of
this fact upon release or at the parole hearing.
--

I don't have a problem for non-violent felons being armed
I have no need to fear someone sent to jail for not paying his taxes
On the other hand, people convicted of violent crimes should not be going
through a revolving door system of justice so that they can come out and
commit more violent crimes


So you consider a battered wife who ultimately killed her abusive
husband a violent felon?

Gunner

On 11/08/12 15:57, gunnerasch wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:38:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

The inventory tax punishes utilities for stockpiling spares for
disasters.


Which brought "just in time" manufacturing and all the ****ing
bull**** that comes with that.

Typical gumbie gross ignorance. This stock tax is easily avoided by
moving to a location that doesn't impose it.

JIT makes sense as it keeps a companies cash liquid and not tied up in
stock that may or may not be sold today, tomorrow, next year, etc. The
company is effectively loosing the interest they would get by having the
cash in the bank, or they are paying interst on the overdraft that took
to produce it.

All because the ****tards in government decided that unsold items were
"assets" to be taxed.

Move.

gunnerasch on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:57:00 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:38:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote:
I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a
business must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and
equipment used in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd.
O_o

TDD

http://www.justanswer.com/finance/0w...-us-state.html

The inventory tax punishes utilities for stockpiling spares for
disasters.


Which brought "just in time" manufacturing and all the ****ing
bull**** that comes with that.

A machine shop makes 1000 widgets for company A every 6 months.

So when their machines were slow..they would crank out another 1000,
just to have on hand for the next order. Machines break, things speed
up..Company B decides to order 3000 Rumiflusters about the time
Company A is ready for their next order..etc.
Everybody was happy. Prices went up much slower...if the cost of steel
went up overnight...the Widgets up on the shelf were made with the old
cheap steel and Company A would have some warning when they wanted
their next 1000. Everybody was happy.

Then the ****tards in government decided that having those 1000
widgets tucked away in a box up on a shelf, is a company asset..and
taxed the **** out of it. It COST the machine shop money...in material
costs, labor costs, machine costs..and the cost of keeping it up on
the self.

So the companies threw out literally millions of dollars of those
Widgets..right into the trash can. Because tossing them..was cheaper
than paying the taxes on them. And when Company A wanted widgets..they
had better order ahead of time..because Company B was going to be
placing an order. And if they didnt know Company C was going to be
ordering 10000 Blivets..and locked down the machines for 4
weeks...yawn..**** happens.

All because the ****tards in government decided that unsold items were
"assets" to be taxed.

There are other reasons to go with "just in time" production. But
having to pay taxes on inventory or storage facilities, makes for a
good reason / excuse to switch.
I'm over on the side which says you make only enough to fill a
"set". Until there is demand, you don't make "more". Yeah, the work
gets done at the rate of the slowest operation, but you also don't
have the client decide they need to make changes - and there you are
with your materials tied up in what is now obsolete scrap.

tschus
pyotr

For some reason, I am recalling story of the two guys who go into
business. One guy is making the widgets, the other is trying to sell
them. The salesman is out on the road, calls back now and then to
tell the guy running the machine "Everything looks good, things are
coming along, got a lot of interest..." blah blah. Mean while, the
guy back home is selling the scrap to buy more material, tens of
thousands of the widgets are piling up all over the place.
Finally, the salesman decides, it is no good. He can't keep
leading his partner on, he's going to have to bite the bullet, and
admit that there haven't been any sales, it is all for naught. But
just as he's about to, the phone rings. It is a customer
"I want to buy some of those widgets."
How many did you have in mind?
"A hundred and twenty five thousand."
Good, good, I'll call and see how soon we could ramp up
production.


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
Friends help you move, good friends help you move bodies. Really good
friends help remove bodies, bloodstains any hot cars, then collect the IDs,
weapons and useful stuff." _After the Dragon's Egg_, the unbegun novel.

On 8/11/2012 12:57 AM, gunnerasch wrote:

Which brought "just in time" manufacturing and all the ****ing
bull**** that comes with that.

A machine shop makes 1000 widgets for company A every 6 months.

So when their machines were slow..they would crank out another 1000,
just to have on hand for the next order. Machines break, things speed
up..Company B decides to order 3000 Rumiflusters about the time
Company A is ready for their next order..etc.
Everybody was happy. Prices went up much slower...if the cost of steel
went up overnight...the Widgets up on the shelf were made with the old
cheap steel and Company A would have some warning when they wanted
their next 1000. Everybody was happy.

Then the ****tards in government decided that having those 1000
widgets tucked away in a box up on a shelf, is a company asset..and
taxed the **** out of it. It COST the machine shop money...in material
costs, labor costs, machine costs..and the cost of keeping it up on
the self.

So the companies threw out literally millions of dollars of those
Widgets..right into the trash can. Because tossing them..was cheaper
than paying the taxes on them. And when Company A wanted widgets..they
had better order ahead of time..because Company B was going to be
placing an order. And if they didnt know Company C was going to be
ordering 10000 Blivets..and locked down the machines for 4
weeks...yawn..**** happens.

All because the ****tards in government decided that unsold items were
"assets" to be taxed.

Gunner

This has also affected book publishing. At one time, a publisher of a
slow but steady selling book might run off a bunch to keep on hand for
future sales. Now excess books are pulped and if a book is out of print,
its likely to stay that way.

David

On 8/11/2012 1:48 AM, terryc wrote:
On 11/08/12 15:57, gunnerasch wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:38:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

The inventory tax punishes utilities for stockpiling spares for
disasters.


Which brought "just in time" manufacturing and all the ****ing
bull**** that comes with that.

Typical gumbie gross ignorance. This stock tax is easily avoided by
moving to a location that doesn't impose it.

Yes, every company can pick up and move every time a bad law is passed.
My company is moving soon about 8 miles to a larger building. We could
do it in a month of no production, not meet contracts and **** off all
our customers. Or we can take 4 to 6 months and move one or two LASERs
at a time.

JIT makes sense as it keeps a companies cash liquid and not tied up in
stock that may or may not be sold today, tomorrow, next year, etc. The
company is effectively loosing the interest they would get by having the
cash in the bank, or they are paying interst on the overdraft that took
to produce it.

JIT usually means that the warehousing cost is just passed onto the
supplier and each part becomes more expensive.

One of the many parts we supply to a large mining equipment manufacturer
is a 1" x 3" 11ga mild steel shim. Many cheaper ways to make it, we cut
them on a LASER because that's what they want. They use maybe 20-30 a
year. They order them 1 or 2 or 3 at a time. For only slightly more,
they could get 100 and use them as they need them, but that's not JIT,
is it? We don't cut 100 at a time, we just throw a few them in a corner
of a sheet of 11ga when programming other larger parts.

Sometimes we have several orders for other parts with delivery dates a
week (sometimes only a day) apart. We cut all of them at the same time,
but they DO NOT want them delivered at the same time, they want them
shipped separately for tracking purposes. That makes everything more
expensive than it needs to be.


All because the ****tards in government decided that unsold items were
"assets" to be taxed.

Move.

And when the new location passes similar abusive legislation, just move
again.

And again.

And again.

Don't get out there in reality much, do you?

David

"gunnerasch" wrote in message
...

Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools
...
The bottom line: For borrowing $105 million in 2011, taxpayers will
end up paying investors more than $981 million by 2051, or almost 10
times what the district borrowed. That's wildly more expensive than
a
typical school bond, in which a district pays back two or maybe
three
times what it borrowed....

Zero Coupon municipal bonds:
http://www.investinginbonds.com/lear...=8&subcatid=54
The buyer hopes the interest rate will exceed cumulative inflation
losses, and the issuer won't default.

"terryc" wrote in message
...
On 11/08/12 15:57, gunnerasch wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:38:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

The inventory tax punishes utilities for stockpiling spares for
disasters.


Which brought "just in time" manufacturing and all the ****ing
bull**** that comes with that.

Typical gumbie gross ignorance. This stock tax is easily avoided by
moving to a location that doesn't impose it.

JIT makes sense as it keeps a companies cash liquid and not tied up
in stock that may or may not be sold today, tomorrow, next year,
etc. The company is effectively loosing the interest they would get
by having the cash in the bank, or they are paying interst on the
overdraft that took to produce it.

All because the ****tards in government decided that unsold items
were
"assets" to be taxed.

Move.

They should. The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to have
electricity.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:59:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:31:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:26:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:21:51 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:11:20 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:07:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:38:01 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:02:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:38:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:41:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:29:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:22:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:28:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Because it makes the dummy feel good.

Ok, then let everyone have AK-47s, etc... with no qualifications and
can be bought with credit cards or food stamps. I bet you'd love for
me to say something along that line. I don't think so.

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. You're *way* past ignorance;
this stuff has all been explained to you many times now.


No, your just full of BS ...

No, asshole, it *has* all been explained to you before and you're too damned
dense to understand.

you can't stand someone wanting to account for the purchase of guns.

It's none of your damned business.

You take that to mean I don't want
you to buy a gun and I keep telling you I want accountability so I
know who bought a gun.

Why do you want to know? What good does that do? I already have to
demonstrate that I am legally allowed to buy a gun. This has already been
explained to you but you're too damned dense to understand.

I don't want to stop people from buying guns

You're a liar.

but that doesn't mean I want ANYONE to have a gun neither.

Not ANYONE can buy a gun, legally, moron. This has already been explained to
you but you're too damned dense to understand.


Yeah and I've explained myself to the level that even a moron like you
should understand.

Well, that sentence makes as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


Why did it go above your head too?

Why can't you write a simple English sentence?


Sorry, I forgot about your IQ .

My IQ. You're the idiot who can't even write a simple English sentence. What
a moron.


Get reading lessons then if I write above your comprehension.

You can't write a simple English sentence. It's not possible for you to write
above my comprehension.

I don't see anyone who disagreed with me say that.

Your logic skills are on par with your writing skills. You lefties are that
stupid.


LOL

It's good that you can laugh at yourself. Everyone else is.


Sorry I went above your head again in the IQ dept. It was directed at
you but I can't expect you to understand that. My apologies for not
explaining ahead of time.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:42:38 -0700, gunnerasch
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:13:38 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:06:46 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:39:57 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:50:35 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:07:46 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:20:30 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Better accounting and hopefully more responsibility.

Giggle.

I already have accountability of my guns and take responsibility. What
I read from you is that the government should control your life,
because you cannot make simple decisions for yourself and you trust
the government more than yourself.

DAGS missing guns from the FBI, DEA, INS, ATF and other agencies. Guns
grew legs and walked right out of the agencies. Where is their
"accounting" and "responsibility"? What about Fast and Furious guns
that are missing?

You cannot legislate "responsibility" or morality. Is there anything
you think that should not be controlled by the government?


Don't go there or we will have another 1000 message thread. I do
think guns need to be controlled at least for accounting purposes. I
just don't want anyone to have a gun. You may be a responsible person
with a gun but not all are and as I said, I realize no law is going to
perfect what I want but if it saves any lives, it is worth it to me.


So in essence, you want to infringe on the right to have a gun. A
right that shall not be infringed. What is the next right you want to
take away?

Personally I don't see what's wrong with having better records of
those that buy a gun and perhaps requiring a annual license. Why do
you not complain about owning a car because it requires by law,
insurance, a driver's license to drive, registration and inspection
which is more than I want for a gun? Of course there are law
breakers that drive cars too but overall, it's a decent system for car
ownership / responsibility for owning a car.

Goal post moved. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I can opt-out
of driving. Leave my guns alone.


Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if you
have the money, you may buy either. Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

Accountability? Moron, you don't know what you're talking about. You *are*
checked against a database when you buy a gun to see if you're (not) allowed
to posses a gun. You are *NOT* checked against any database when you buy a
car. Any fool can buy a car. No license required, either.


Gosh you really are a Moron too. Think a little, I promise it won't
hurt you.

See Dougie dodge the fact.

Gunner


LOL (at you)

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:


It's done around here to businesses and it's silly because the owner
paid sales tax on the items when purchased. I think there is something
inherently unfair about paying tax on something you already paid tax on
and be taxed over and over again on the same item. It's conceivable that
if you owned a tool or piece of gear long enough, the total tax you pay
could exceed the purchase price of the item. O_o

TDD

As do I, although in at least some states (Indiana for instance) you
don't pay sales taxes on things you use in the regular course of
business.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:48:34 +1000, terryc
wrote:

On 11/08/12 15:57, gunnerasch wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:38:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

The inventory tax punishes utilities for stockpiling spares for
disasters.


Which brought "just in time" manufacturing and all the ****ing
bull**** that comes with that.

Typical gumbie gross ignorance. This stock tax is easily avoided by
moving to a location that doesn't impose it.

JIT makes sense as it keeps a companies cash liquid and not tied up in
stock that may or may not be sold today, tomorrow, next year, etc. The
company is effectively loosing the interest they would get by having the
cash in the bank, or they are paying interst on the overdraft that took
to produce it.

All because the ****tards in government decided that unsold items were
"assets" to be taxed.

Move.

Far far easier said than done.
So which nation would you suggest one move American manufacturing to?

Humm?

This breaking in a new computer is not a lot of fun, trying to
remember who to put in the kill file and who to keep out. Obvious
however in your case.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 06:46:16 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:42:38 -0700, gunnerasch
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:13:38 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:06:46 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:39:57 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:50:35 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:07:46 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:20:30 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Better accounting and hopefully more responsibility.

Giggle.

I already have accountability of my guns and take responsibility. What
I read from you is that the government should control your life,
because you cannot make simple decisions for yourself and you trust
the government more than yourself.

DAGS missing guns from the FBI, DEA, INS, ATF and other agencies. Guns
grew legs and walked right out of the agencies. Where is their
"accounting" and "responsibility"? What about Fast and Furious guns
that are missing?

You cannot legislate "responsibility" or morality. Is there anything
you think that should not be controlled by the government?


Don't go there or we will have another 1000 message thread. I do
think guns need to be controlled at least for accounting purposes. I
just don't want anyone to have a gun. You may be a responsible person
with a gun but not all are and as I said, I realize no law is going to
perfect what I want but if it saves any lives, it is worth it to me.


So in essence, you want to infringe on the right to have a gun. A
right that shall not be infringed. What is the next right you want to
take away?

Personally I don't see what's wrong with having better records of
those that buy a gun and perhaps requiring a annual license. Why do
you not complain about owning a car because it requires by law,
insurance, a driver's license to drive, registration and inspection
which is more than I want for a gun? Of course there are law
breakers that drive cars too but overall, it's a decent system for car
ownership / responsibility for owning a car.

Goal post moved. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I can opt-out
of driving. Leave my guns alone.


Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if you
have the money, you may buy either. Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

Accountability? Moron, you don't know what you're talking about. You *are*
checked against a database when you buy a gun to see if you're (not) allowed
to posses a gun. You are *NOT* checked against any database when you buy a
car. Any fool can buy a car. No license required, either.


Gosh you really are a Moron too. Think a little, I promise it won't
hurt you.

See Dougie dodge the fact.

Gunner


LOL (at you)

See Dougie once again not realize that all the readers with a brain,
are laughing at him.

Its actually quite pitiful to watch him blovate out such buffoonery
and then watching him strut around the vile puddle he just
created..thinking it a work of art.

My dog pukes up such puddles now and then when he finds something dead
and eats it.

Gunner

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

- Jeff Cooper