Lucky...

Aside from the fact that it is a RW rag, rendering it useless as data or anything scientific must be objective, random and of a large sample size, the questions are either opinion-based or theory. Trickle down theory is still prevalent, even tho no one has ever posted 1 major federal tax cut that has led to prosperity for most. Hoover tried it, 2 1/2 years later he signed the largest-ever tax increase; from 25% to 63% as he basically admitted 'tax cuts my friends' is bullshit. Reagan treid it, cut the top marginal brkt from 70% to 28% over 6 years and the debt tripled while tax receipts didn't keep up with outlays. Clinton increased taxes from 31% to 40% top brkt and receipts went several-fold of outlays. Only a moron thinks tax cuts lead to prosperity. Someone post 1 occurrence, then post several. Even if there was one occurrence, that doesn't prove a trend but an occurrence. I can post several times where increased taxes lead to debt payment and properity for the masses. I can post where tax cuts and deregulation have led to disaster, teh Great Repiblican Depression is 1, the Great Republican recession is another. Theory is fun to banter about, application is real. I'm doing major engine mods to my little shitbox car, all kinds of people are offerring theories from 'it will blow up' to 'you need to do X Y Z or it wont work, but the truth is that I won't know until I get it going and ram it. They have data to show their % of who they find right or wrong, but no data or any kind of support to establish their theories of economics. This article is just propaganda. Lucky there is no point in talking to you because you have your mind made up. but only an idiot would think that raising taxes is good for business. and you seem to forget that Reagan inherited an economy with interest rates above 20%. and Clinton stole social security money to balance his budget. So you're out of intelligent retort an you must reply by calling names? I see. Reagan inherited int rates above 20%: Yes and so therefore he should bolster the military, chop taxes from 70% to 29% top brkt, contract the money supply and anything else he can think of? That's like building a storm shelter for 20 mph winds. What you won't realize / admit is: - The debt was stable @900B, no one had thought of deficit spending in peacetime to fight a sluggish economy - The USSR was not out to get us - Unemployment was 7.5% and fairly stable, it had grown 1% in the previous year. This is not a horrible economy needing an emergency rescue, this is a slow economy needing some kind of action, but to chop taxes and spend crazy is not the answer either. >>>>>>>>>>> Lucky there is no point in talking to you because you have your mind made up. That's the point, genius, show me data. I've posted gobs of it and I will again. Don't worry about convicing me, convice the crowd with your tax cut data. >>>>>>>>>>>> but only an idiot would think that raising taxes is good for business. Firstly, those are your words, not mine. This is what I wrote here: Trickle down theory is still prevalent, even tho no one has ever posted 1 major federal tax cut that has led to prosperity for most. OK, let's look at tax increases and how business did at these times. - Tax cuts under Coolidge / Harding 73% to 25% top brkt: Businesses did wel at first, then they took a major shit as we entered the GD. - Tax increase under Hoover, handed to FDR who raised them more 24% to 63%, then eventually to 94% in 1944: Businesses were devastated, then after the huge tax increase they flourished, GDP went crazy. The war created a huge tax need and in 1040 the war effort businesses did amazingly well. - The immediate tax cuts post-WWII led to several small recessions, businesses didn't do well. - Truman raised taxes and Eisenhower maintained them at 91% thru teh 1950's: The debt fell 2 or 3 years and if it grew it basically teeter-tottered. This era was great for businesses and the country as a whole. Really the last time the debt fell by design, it fell for a nano second in 1969 with VN surplusses. - Here we go with the FR tax cuts 70% to 28%: I think it's fair to say that businesses fairly immediately did well, but it wasn't sustained. Not to mention the debt trippling which makes this data insignificant; you can't count data in a period where the government triples its debt in order to fatten up corporations, as well as tweaking labor laws to benefit business as reliable data. That would be like me going and buying a new Camaro SS and other toys on credit and trying to convince people I must be doing well. - Clinton tax increases 31% to 40%: Across the board tax hike for all. Business thrived more than ever before during a massive sustained period. Need we say more, thriving business, deficit to surplus, balanced budget all during fairly heavy tax increase. - GWB tax cuts 40% to 35%: Pure hell, disaster for business and for people. See, you think businesses and people are disconnected; truth is, as one does, so do the others. There may have been spurts of positive success with all the stolen house money, but this was the era of the worst economic times in 80 years. CONCLUSION: I think we can say businesses do well with sharp tax cuts, at least for the short time. Then it flips and they get hammered huge along with everyone else. It's a very immediate gratification effect. Look at the Clinton era, businesses didn't do better under other presidents, other times and he raised taxes 9% after GHWB's 3%, so 12 years of tax increases, with a small cut in 97 created a foundation of wealth for people and for businesses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States So empirically tell me how businesses do well and can sustain success under tax cuts. The country, as a whole, suffers under tax cuts, altho businesses *may* do well for a short while a sthe free tax influx seems attractive.

Yes, but knowing that well, he prefers coitus interuptus.

Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept. I'm guessing you don't have children? Nope, but if I did I would want to ensure they have basic HC. Do you have kids? If so, aren't you worried about corporate America and their HMO death panels? HMO's have shown tehy will deny as much as they can, so we need to have controls to say the least. Yea, we have to leave what we have. I don't like the new HC law, it isn't comprehensive. In the past when we raise taxes, the top brkt at the very least 40%, preferably > 50%, we have done well debt-wise. When the top brkt has been low, 25% heading into the Great Depression, 28% under Reagan's massive trippling of teh debt, 35% under GWB's mess, we see massive debt accrual, so you must be advocating tax increases, I know I am. Which?

HUH? Every one of them? So you covered each case then? I see. Now, even if we go with your hypothetical, ignoring lapses in employment, etc, your utopian world, what of teh coverage? I know plenty of people who can only affford catastrophe insurance, that is, they have max deductables of 10k per year. I checked Blue Cross and to have a plan with a descent deductable I would pay 500-600 per month. If I were to quit anything fun, any extras, keep driving a shit car, etc then I could scrape that together while having no life, but that's ok with you and then you will say the Chinese government is fucked for the wages the Chineese people make. It's really the same, point is we can gamble, they can't. If I paid the 500-600/mo, I would have no life. That is barely 1 part of the equation. How much premium cost/co-pays, deductables, etc.... It becomes an issue of priority and when teh car is broken and they can't get to work, the AC is out and they must decide 110 degrees and HC or 80 degrees and no HC, that's what happens. Not everyone has life fall into place for them w/o hiccups. Right, corporations are here for greedy profit, making decisions based upon + or -, fuck people. People who have injuries are just about getting their helth back to where it was. Now, your typical silly comparisons would make sense if you were referring to a girl who wanted to get breast augmentation surgery so she could work at Hooters and make profit, that's a ridiculous entitlement kind of scheme. Simply having use of your bodily functions is not greed, well, if you are a Republican elitist I can see how it is perceived that way. HERE HERE, see em in teh streets injured and destitute, spit an additional time for me, bro. Taht worthless fucking piece of shit deserves to be beat down. IF YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY THINK, "HUMANITARIAN" WHEN THEY THINK OF EITHER PARALLEL VERSION OF CONSERVATISM (republican or libertarian), NOW YOU GET IT. I say we just push em to the edge of the landing area, hose the blood off the grass and bill them for the time spent. What fucking nerve they have to try to enjoy life before feeding your illustrious corporations 500 month for the right to do so. At least we agree on something. See if you can stay on topic and relevant here, counselor; tell me a direct pathway from your pocket to the medical costs of skydivers w/o insurance. Show me how w/o these that costs your taxes would go down. Don't worry, as it is now they can be pursued forever by collection agencies and guess what? THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BUY HC INS FOR THAT MUCH LONGER. Congratulations, your system of holdingg them accountable has ensured they will be a liability for that much longer. No, HC is prohibitive now. Yes, it's rationing via no availability for 1 in 6; that's rationing in your system that you want to ignore. More HMO rationing is seen in movies like The Rainmaker, where an insured individual was refused HC and died during littigation. Then it will be more expensive and cover everyone, teh sky won't fall and even tho you hate to see it, lowlife dregs who don't deserve to breathe will or may have a shot at getting HC; what an ugly scenario. Yes, change the business model so that we can be humanistic about HC. You want business b4 people, I want the other way around. I have said plenty of the availability. Cost, don't give a shit. When I'm fixing an aircraft we don't decide if we can fix it, we fix it at all costs as it relates to public safety; get it? I want HC at all or any costs to be extended to all Americans, you want businesses to profit and teh gov to stay out even if millions go w/o HC coverage. Better check your notes, counselor. It's not that deep, they simply can't afford it. Poor people don't make conventional business decisions, they make decisions based upon immediacy. Both sides have put this in terms of inclusion vs exclusion, regardless of their rhetoric. The right couldn't give a shit less about sufferring, the left couldn't give a shit less about rich people paying taxes. Then explain how, after the last 30 years that most of debt accrual has occurred under Republicans. Really, why the same tired, "Dems want to spend us out of house/home" when it has been the irresponsibility of Republicans? Also, show me a major federal tax cut that has releievd the debt and increased the overall economy. Your banter is just greed under the guise of betterment for everyone. That makes no sense. I want more social spending and you want less spending / taxes since you are made; fuck eevryone else.

Great point, I agree. We match teh world $ for $ in basic military ops, not counting Iraq/AFG. We spend 8 times that of #2 China, yet we still consider thema nd Communism a threat. The largest threat we have os the Republican Military Industrial Complex.

Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept. I'm guessing you don't have children? What does that have to do with anything? I have children. On the whole I'd rather my (and their) taxes went to helping Americans than to killing brown people half a world away. But that's just me. It's also funny how Republicans have suddenly got religion about the deficit and debt, while they hardly uttered a word of criticism when Reagan and the Bushes were racking then up. Yea, the tea baggers were but a whisper until Obama took office. Now they chide him for having to deal with their president's mess inherited over.

Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept. I'm guessing you don't have children? Nope, but if I did I would want to ensure they have basic HC. Do you have kids? If so, aren't you worried about corporate America and their HMO death panels?

And they will be shortly Keep dreamin, the replacements are the ones who made this shit fugly.....there needs to be more time elapsed to make memories faint.

Any time you oppress peopel via insanely low wages, you can do anything better.

With China there's quite a bit more correlation between corporations and gov, so I think there is a tie. Isn't capitalism more about competition, not one company follwing the other? WHat you refer to as one company follwoing the other sounds more like Socialism. With those wages, sounds like total Communism, which is why China the country does so well, China the people not so much. However, price and wage fixes by the government and/or corporations sounds like Communism or Capitalism, the two have many fiscal similarities.

Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept. Maybe but, one thing we do now know for sure. Drs payments under the HC bill and medicare are going to see big cuts. 3 out of 5 Hospitals will drop Medicare (because of hospital payments are to be cut as well) coverage and fewer Drs will result in what? Better cheaper HC? But hey, lets just keep blaming Bush!!! The non thinkers will believe it Not to worry, it is all part of the plan. Instead of being able to actually choose whether they can drop medicare, the hospitals and doctors will simply have that choice taken away from them. No problem you see, as long as you are all in with the government controlling every aspect of health care. Come on now, you knew that was going to be part of the deal. As opposed to private coprporation controlling HC for their profit? I'll take the gov, at least they canbe voted out.

Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept. Again, your guess, but even if right, newer docs out of med school / internship will be attracted to these jobs and the more experienced docs will go into private practice and cater to wealthy clients. So what do we have? People get the HC they can afford, what a great American concept; no one is deprived, the rich get their high-end coverage. Sounds like win-win to me, can you ague that? No one blames GWb for HC, it has been a mess for decades, nice distraction tho. We can blame GWB for plenty, the debt mess, the mortgage mess, massive climbing deficit and unemployment, etc. But let's keep this thread about HC.

Your taxes won't increase any or anything measureable. We've been a debtor natior before we were officially a nation, Andrew Jackson dropped it almost 0, but we've been passing the debt along before we were te United States of America; quiot acting as if us payng for our predecessor's mess and passing it on to our successors was a new concept.

You don't know, so qualify your guesses at just that. While you're at it, tell us how you really care about people's health and availability to HC. Not that your position would be different if you weren't injured and getting lifetime HC, which you truely do deserve, but to hear a person who will never have any lack of HC complaining about others, incl vets like me, trying to get comprehensive HC at a reasonable cost comes off as a little elitist. It's just bizzare to hear ANY AMERICAN talking about HC as a business decision.

Of all the provisions in the weak HC Law, the preexisting allowance is the only real relevant, sweeping element. It could create a backdoor to single payer, as if it becomes no longer profitable for corps to be in the HC business, the gov would have to take over if the ins co's dropped it and ran. Most of the rest of the HC law is just parsley.

Didn't you get the memo - it's another excuse to slam Obama. And a lame one at that. When The Patriot Act, Habeus Corpus and all the other deprivations were done underGWB, that was fine per the connies, now that the pres wants to ensure better personal health for all, the wheels are coming off.

I see you as the one bitching, I like teh political direcction, you are pissed as hell; it is your world going to fuck, in your perception.

If it's campaing for liberty, it must be legit . So to go along with being forced to purchase health insurance, the administration plans to develop a national "public health strategy". Does this sound Orwellian enough to anyone else? (Silly that Orwell thought we would be allowed to smoke in the future) Next thing ya know they'll strike Habeus Corpus..... wait, that's been donje by the campaing dfor liberty party. Getting a baseline for public health is nit a big deal. So, tell me, without 'forced' HC, a person will just get sicker and sicker, then become a burden on society. Now, I realize you would just open teh gabage can and dispose, but since we care for these people at taxpayer's expense, why not have people buy ins so they can share teh cost with cost controls on hospitals?

What you posted is not data, but interpretation from a RW maggotted site, so let's keep that real. That is WSJ's interpretation / opinion, not fact per se. The reason for the 10.8% in 82-83 was due mostly because the fed chairman, with the blessing of Reagan, contracted the money supply to try to kill stagflation. This, of course caused a lot of sufferring at the lower end of the food chain, something that Reagan cares not about. Reagan didn't commit stimulus for the poor and MC, he catered to the rich and let them decide when the poor and MC could prosper. There is some truth to your cut-n-paste; cater to the rich, give them gvo $$ via massive tax cuts and they will, at their own time, decide to benefit teh economy. This is corporatist fascism where the gov gives control to the corporations via huge tax cuts. But to say that Reaganomics worked you would have to look at all the massive spending, which blew up pretty much the moment Reagan took office. I WOULD ATTRIBUTE ANY FISCAL INCREASE IN ACTIVITY TO ALL OF TEH MASSIVE SPENDING UNDER "SMALLER GOVERNMENT" REAGAN. But of course maggotted WSJ won't factor that in. If you spend enough money it will give teh illusion of wealth and prosperity, the trick is have higher receipts while not spending all of that gov money, as did Clinton. REAGAN'S TAX RECEIPTS DIDN'T = HIS OUTLAYS, RENDERING WSJ'S INTERPRETATION IMPOTENT. GWB's tax receipts were a fraction of his outlays after his tax cuts, SO I'M STILL WAITING FOR A TAX CUT THAT LED TO PROSPERITY. The only way you can make tax cuts maybe look like they lead to prosperity is if you take things in very abstract microcosmic samples. Step back and look at the lovely Reagan years: - Inherited a sluggish economy and high inflation - Inherited a stable debt picture that was very manageable - Cut taxes from 70% to 28% top brkt in 6 years while he blew up spending - tripling the debt - Receipts didn't = outlays, meaning he was a fiscal failure This is the macro picture, if you want to pretend gross gov spending, which led to artificial success that never was, considering receipts didn't match outlays, was success, well, as FR would say, there ya go again. If you wanna see success as a model, look at the CLinton years. Spending increased 20% TOTAl over 8 years, matching inflation and population growth, receipts shit thru the roof. The 12 years of straight 250B/yr debt increase turned horizonatal with a 236B surplus. I guess you call that failure tho. I'll be patiently awaiting your next cut-n-pasty

Free beer = an attitude of entitlement. I know plenty of hard RWers who would take teh free beer and not make some silly political-economic statement of it. I don't drink, what kind of silly political assessment would you make of that if Iwere there?

Are you an A&P? I'm all about airframe, can do engine work on recips, but turbines I'm weak on. I know a little P&W PT-6, and I know some basics on 733, A320's etc, we pull em all the time, but the internals are not my forte. See, we build / fix airplanes, the powerplant guys just hang parts on em Laser welding: Is this for alum skin panles or composite of some sort? Scarebus are throwaways anyway. Hell, we part out / tear down scarebus's at 15 - 20 years of age all the time. We even parted out a newer 340 recently. The spars are life-limited and cannot be bumpe like Boeing / Douglas, so they're throw away.

http://chestofbooks.com/crafts/metal/Sheet-And-Plate-Metal-Work/Autogenous-Welding.html So what? Is it the end of the earth if 6061 cannot be welded autogenously? Just use TIG. Are you trying to impress with $100 words/processes? For starters, very little is welded on acft airframes anyway, it's mostly riveted. Then even if it requires welding, so use Tig or another process; why is it even worth mentioning that autogenous welding is not an option? 6061 is the most weldable acft aluminum, a fact I knew 20-30 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6061_aluminium_alloy Can't even see why it's worth mentioning that 6061 cannot be welded autognously. As for 6061-T4, 6061-T6511 is more often used in acft as it's harder, 6061 isn't as hard an alloy as 7075-T6 and fittings, which are pretty much all that is welded in acft, need to be hard. I've yet to see a skin welded on an acft airframes. Very few parts are welded and it's basically just fittings. Even that, most fittings are machined if possible, as with stringer bathtub fittings, etc. Welding 2 sheets, never seen it on acft, big or small. Tell me where on acft that that would be done; be specific. You're thinking trailer, trying to correlate the two stuctures. If a trailer structurally fails, you lose your load. If an acft struturally fails, people die. Think about it and how silly welding 2 skins together would be on acft, skins are located on the tube of the acft (airline), the tube must expand / contract with pressurization, so that would be catastrophic to have 2 sheets welded at the ends. Tell me, how would they join 2 sheets of they did, on acft skins. How would they mill areas of the skin if they wanted high and low points (what process)? How do they design acft skins so that if there is a rip, it doesn't extend? Remember, this isn't a trailer, you can't transpose that logic over.

That's 1/2 the equation; what size lines? You said the weight of a Focus (2500lbs-ish) the size of a 50 cent piece (about 2 inches??). So if ag equip ran 1500 psi in 1/4" lines, the well is not >. And that was Bill's point, which I thought of at the very start of this thread; good intentions can = a pain in the ass. Ever been in a situation where people who don't have a clue try to help? It really works in reverse and makes a situation worse, as it takes up time and creates confusion / kills focus. Now there is really no problem with that here, no one that matters is perusing the internet forums looking for ideas. Perhaps this is a room full of engineers.....just a guess. If ya don't understand the most rudamentary aspects of this matter, geology, physics, oceanography, hydraulics, etc then it's like trying to get 1st graders to do calculus. I answered all your questions correctly, you looked for ridiculous semantics to find fault. ***As for acft sheetmetal I am an expert, I've done it directly for 15-20 years, acft period since I was 17 and actually have been around acft since I was basically born. Am I a metalurgist, stuctural engineer, etc? No, but at teh same time, as many time sin engineering, the engineers consult the mechs and come to an agreement as to how it will be done, teh mechs do it and the engineers draw it up to look like the part. Explain why they might do that at times, esp during repairs, rather than draw it up and then have the mech complete the repair. Of course you refused to answer any more questions after you failed to know what 'swell-n-draw' was in regard to riveting. I'm very knowledgeable, but no expert, never claimed to be. I just post the data that you and yours run from. No one has ever shown me a major fed tax cut thta has worked. The best anyone has done was to submit the Clinton cap gains cut from 28% to 20%, an obsure reference anyway, but even still, tax receipts were going up like crazy before that, tailed off a bit right after that. So you tell me, show me a cut since you think tax cuts help the masses and the gov to operate more effficiently. That would have to be a political strategist and/or historian; I have never proclaimed to be an expert at either. What I find funny is that you claim to be an engineer, yet you don't brag up what you design, produce or anything else. I've sent pics to a member of the Wing X tips I've installed, a tricky SOB when installed in conjuction with Sportsman cuffs, but you ha to know that, Mr Sheetmaetal engineer and expert. Experience has shown me that in design I want an engineer, in application I want a tech who has performed X task. So tell me, what do you design, what is your pride-n-joy accomplishment? Or is it just about criticizing others w/o an accomplishment of your own? Counter-rotating props: What I told you was that it aids in stopping P-factor, which is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-rotating_propellers The advantage of such designs is that counter-rotating propellers balance the effects of torque and p-factor, eliminating the problem of the critical engine. So where is that incorrect? Weldable aluminum: 6061 T-6. Anything canbe welded if you're good enough, but 6061-T6 is the most desireable and most commonly welded aluminim in practice, it has the most reliable record. MD-80 (and probably others) door (bag pit and entry) theshold plates are a bonded stainless and aluminum (not sure which alloy). They most likely do this for corossion prevention on the bottom side and stainless durablility on the top side as it will be taking abuse. Our welder tried welding that bastard up and it went haywire; we was unable to do it. Unfortunately you weren't there to help him . Tell me what you do, I've told all what I do.

"Bewteen 2 pillows" (movive reference)

Many much higher. Most airline acft hyd systems are 3k psi on 1/4" lines, the B-1B is twice that. Point taken, it's very high. Which systems operate at less pressure than the well? A toilet? I don't know constriction equip, but I would guess it's 3k-ish too. ***It's not an easy job and I don't envy those whose responsibility it is to come up with an answer. Fortunately they have certain people on internet clubs to keep these engineers in-line with new ideas.