Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Free trade
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WTJ" data-source="post: 1620430" data-attributes="member: 6661"><p>How is a percentage of a number variable? Because it is a 'progressive' (their word used in Newspeak context) tax and the business gross is variable? Again, this system penalizes productivity. While the costs may not be passed on in the current tax period, they would be in the next period projection, and will take increasingly longer to recover because of the 'progressiveness' of the taxes, adding more recovery costs, and so on. </p><p></p><p>The "People" are no longer the master. </p><p></p><p>The DoD does not need overly complex, expensive, and unreliable systems to defeat an enemy only a few generations from being archers and lancers. That was the argument during the Cold War that Ike warned us about. I deal with the FAA daily, and it is not what you may think it is. GPS was funded by DoD and had nothing to do with the FAA until recent development of WAAS, DGPS, and GPS-enabled precision approaches. Ground based NAVAIDs, as they currently exist, are going away due to the cost of replacing vacuum tube systems and maintenance. The Military-Industrial complex (Science and Technology) pushed the complexity of war fighting systems, but now, in great measure, Off-the-shelf systems are often more than competitive with the DoD procurement process at substantially lower costs, including adaptation. For reference see the COTS programs and the the newest COIN aircraft program. Compare the unit cost of each COIN platform to an F-22A or F-35 acquisition.</p><p></p><p>Providing war fighters with mission needs instead of supporting 'toys', ridding payment of 'entitlements' for votes, and stopping support of spurious third, second, and first-world governments, the UN, and NGOs would likely get us below 10%.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WTJ, post: 1620430, member: 6661"] How is a percentage of a number variable? Because it is a 'progressive' (their word used in Newspeak context) tax and the business gross is variable? Again, this system penalizes productivity. While the costs may not be passed on in the current tax period, they would be in the next period projection, and will take increasingly longer to recover because of the 'progressiveness' of the taxes, adding more recovery costs, and so on. The "People" are no longer the master. The DoD does not need overly complex, expensive, and unreliable systems to defeat an enemy only a few generations from being archers and lancers. That was the argument during the Cold War that Ike warned us about. I deal with the FAA daily, and it is not what you may think it is. GPS was funded by DoD and had nothing to do with the FAA until recent development of WAAS, DGPS, and GPS-enabled precision approaches. Ground based NAVAIDs, as they currently exist, are going away due to the cost of replacing vacuum tube systems and maintenance. The Military-Industrial complex (Science and Technology) pushed the complexity of war fighting systems, but now, in great measure, Off-the-shelf systems are often more than competitive with the DoD procurement process at substantially lower costs, including adaptation. For reference see the COTS programs and the the newest COIN aircraft program. Compare the unit cost of each COIN platform to an F-22A or F-35 acquisition. Providing war fighters with mission needs instead of supporting 'toys', ridding payment of 'entitlements' for votes, and stopping support of spurious third, second, and first-world governments, the UN, and NGOs would likely get us below 10%. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Free trade
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom