Run In With Mr. Edwards

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
(C Kingsbury) wrote:


Meanwhile the
notion of a luxury tax, tried under Bush I, was so thoroughly
discredited by experience that it likely won't be heard from for
another generation. It devastated the boatbuilding industry so badly
even the big lefties had to admit it was a dumb idea.


really? Somehow I missed the big lefties admitting that. Do you
have a source for that? I'm not challenging you, I'd just like
to see it.

There was a 10% surcharge on cars over $30K, airplanes over $100K and
boats over some number I don't recall right now. The boating industry
was hit the hardest because there are lots of small boat builders who
build high end boats. These people were effectively shut down as orders
dried up. What the lefties failed to realize was that these purchases
were nearly 100% discretionary. As such sales dried up completely for
the boats and thousands were left out of work and hundrreds of small
companies went bankrupt. Virtually no tax money was collected. You'll
never see a stick it top the rich surcharge like that again.

Malcolm Teas wrote:

He let Mueller airport in Austin close without comment.
Since then there's a lack of a good GA airport in central TX.

That was the last one, there's no place to land in central Texas anymore?

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Malcolm Teas wrote:

He let Mueller airport in Austin close without comment.
Since then there's a lack of a good GA airport in central TX.

That was the last one, there's no place to land in central Texas anymore?

No convenient place if you live in Austin. For a city the size of Austin to
not have a GA airport is ridiculous. I've landed at Bergstrom a number of
times as a transient, but hanger space is virtually impossible there. I
used to hanger at San Marcos - but there was no good reason to close
Mueller, especially after Dell bought and closed Austin Executive.

Michael

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.

Jim

Sophocles was acquitted of insanity with this argument because of the beauty
of his tragedies. Are you sure you want to use what YOU wrote as a defense?

Jay Honeck wrote:

Well, I'm hoping to see Richard Campagna
(http://www.badnarik.org/campagna_bio.php) in Iowa one of these days. He
and his running mate, Michael Badnarik, are starting to look like the only
viable alternatives for my vote.

Well, if you've found a candidate that you can actually vote *for*, instead of simply
casting a vote *against* someone else, I think you should vote for him. For one
thing, if everyone continues to follow a policy of "voting for your favorite 3rd
party here is just wasting your vote", the status of the smaller parties will never
improve.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
As you well know, your country has a (for an established democracy
unusual, one might add) history of attacks on elected presidents or
candidates put up for election. Thus, this kind of protection might make
sense.

2nd amendment. That's the justification that's given for people to
bear arms. If they don't like the political machine then they can do
something about it.

:-P

Paul

Newps wrote:

What the lefties failed to realize was that these purchases
were nearly 100% discretionary. As such sales dried up completely for
the boats and thousands were left out of work and hundrreds of small
companies went bankrupt. Virtually no tax money was collected.

Beechcraft took their cancelled aircraft orders and pointed out that the income taxes
from the workers that would have built those planes totalled more than Beech paid in
luxury taxes. That helped.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
As you well know, your country has a (for an established democracy
unusual, one might add) history of attacks on elected presidents or
candidates put up for election. Thus, this kind of protection might make
sense.

2nd amendment. That's the justification that's given for people to
bear arms. If they don't like the political machine then they can do
something about it.

From http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#2
3. What was the intent of the Second Amendment?

The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government
powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments
as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try
to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for.
Senator William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry; "Last Monday, a string of
amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected
personal liberty." (p. 76).

"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use
them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress,
and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of
Rights)

Paul

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
You might re-read this...constants don't change at all; that's why we
call
them constants.


Depends on how good a programmer you are!!

....where the constants aren't and the variables don't.

Paul

Your points are well taken but if AOPA and other lobbying groups hope to
limit product liability any further for GA, a democrat, in general, and a
"trial" lawyer, in particular, are not likely to be proponents of product
liability reform. As for Mueller Airport, I'm not sure that Bush could have
or should have had a role in preventing its closure, for whatever reason it
closed. I'm not so sure that restraint on TFRs is practiced with GA in mind,
as
opposed to heavy/commercial.





"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om...
"H.P." wrote in message
m...
How in heavens name would a GA pilot vote for Edwards, a personal injury
lawyer who's inclined to sue General Aviation out of existence? He's
already attempted to sue Obstetricians into oblivion so that pregnant
moms
sometimes have to fly to the nearest available OB\GYN willing to
deliver
their babies! And can you tell me that John F'n Ketchup won't regulate
or
tax GA to death?

Do you have grounds for this? Or is a just a rant? It's fine with me
if you want to rant, I just want to distinguish it, that's all.

I've been following multiple news sources and here's what I've seen on
the candidates and GA: Nothing on Edwards feelings for GA one way or
the other. But, might have missed something.

Kerry's an active GA pilot and would be expected to have some
understanding of the issues facing GA. Neither Kerry or Edwards has
asked for TFRs when campaigning, that might mean they're GA-friendly.

Bush is an inactive pilot and in TX showed no interest one way or the
other in GA. He let Mueller airport in Austin close without comment.
Since then there's a lack of a good GA airport in central TX.

Cheney's not a pilot and doesn't seem to have a concern about GA
either way from what I see. Both he and Bush have those fun TFRs
following them around the country. And both apparently support the
Wash. DC ADIZ.

From the scant evidence I see KE may be a little more in favor of GA
than BC are. But, frankly GA isn't showing up on either party's
radar.

-Malcolm Teas