I don't agree with everything here, but the paving jobs are first-rate, especially compared to Massachusetts roads. My neighbors are working and retired construction workers and contractors who know this stuff well. I try to learn enough about public works to ask informed, relevant and necessary questions at hearings and town meetings.
We get the government we deserve.
I grew up in a warmer area where they used to spray hot tar on an old road, then back a dump truck with a spreader to cover it in gravel. Then another truck followed with workers who swept up any excess gravel to use on the next section. When we would have a hot August day, the tar would bubble up between the gravel and stick to tires, or your shoes. Here in Florida they do half assed repairs, because the roads don't freeze. They dibble hot tar over cracks, and do lousy patches. On highway that was repaired needed repairs a month later, because the damaged roadbed wasn't repaired and lots of big trucks ran it, day & night.
US spending on armaments in 1911-1912 was around $2 per capita per YEAR. Adjusted for inflation, that's less than $50/year per capita.
Now it's more like $1,000 per capita just for procurements and R&D- twenty times as much. Total military is at least $2,000 per capita.
The 1913 (just before WWI) income tax was kind of an introductory special for the permanent income tax (prior to 1913 it had only been temporary, and had not been imposed even temporarily since the Civil War, so it was a gentle shock from paying absolutely NO income tax for two generations). Of course the special quickly ended, and by 1917 it was up to 67% for the top rate and 21 brackets.
Damn, my lowest-bidder driveway is better than that. They laid down and rolled 8" of crushed aggregate, a base of 3" of recycled pavement (rap) and a 3" top coat of new asphalt.
It was one of Obama's 'shovel ready' jobs. Do it cheap, and do it over to keep the union boys happy. My asphalt driveway needs repair, but it's almost 50 years old.
That is why it's so ironic that after Communism fell Russia reverted directly to the 19th century robber-baron capitalism that Marx protested, as though they had blinded themselves to its subsequent maturation.
jsw
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in news:k3avbp$9qp$1@dont- email.me:
Fortunately or unfortunately, that is true.
True, but it shouldn't be difficult to achieve in peacetime. Indeed it should be pretty easy. Of course, you may not be able to have or fund everything under the sun, but that which government is required to do should be easy to fund and stay within your revenue. War time is why I said 'generally'.
Or it could mean that the economy is booming. Bank the surplus against a economic slow down, and it if continues then it may be time to start slowly lowering the tax rate. If the amount we bank gets too much....simply issue a lump sum refund.
Yep, we have had asphalt compounds that will provide 40 years or more with near zero maintenance, but it's used less than 1% of the time.
Why? it's 1/2 again more expensive, and it's not covered by the federal matching money. Which means if the state wants to use it they have to pick up the full price. Of course, this stuff lowers road costs over the long term....but you wouldn't need as many people repairing our roads and we can't have that.
Hawke wrote in news:k3d8u1$fdf$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
The Chinese would love that.
You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.
It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or not.
You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write clearly.
=20 Dan
And they would press even more aggressively their expansionist policies in the South China Sea. It would be a repeat of what Japan did before WWII.
And then everyone around the planet would whine about why the US was not taking care of it.
George Plimpton wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Hawke has made this statement before and I laid out in actual values how my flat tax plan with one deduction that everyone gets worked and proved him wrong. He simply waits for awhile and then comes back with the same statement.
So?
They whine when we do, they whine when we don't.
Just remember that those privately-owned guns we were morally obligated to send to Defend a British Home weren't returned afterwards, most were dumped in the ocean.
From Wikipedia
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
Hmm that seems to be exactly what George is saying. So it is more like Wiki saying Hawke is wrong.
Dan
You are playing with the meaning of words and (probably) listening to left-wing deviants.
Every dictionary of English defines "regressive", but now in a frantic effort to justify an unfair tax system you want to change the meaning of the word.
Rather like the group deciding that "Hawke" is a synonym for "ignoramus" and insisting that is the true meaning of the word.
I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change when one earns a lot more money.
One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a regressive tax is.
Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate , by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much is earned.
=20 Dan
Taxes, or standard of living?
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in news:k3hles$1nt$1@dont- email.me:
One begets the other.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required