Quag

TL: Go back several pages and pick me if for no other reason than to make me feell better about the downvote. I suppose you could pick Mo-Ma but then i was a small small child and well it beats a shapeless form anyday yeah im pulling at the heartstings here, well trying to in any case

okay now the big one Social security: it isnt short ATM it will be short later. According to SSA site itself it is in trouble long term. Yeah ya can go on for a while and pretend nothing is wrong or you can adress the issue right now and make it less painful later on. I Think the latter option is the wiser one http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html http://www.ssa.gov/budget/ I honestly thought i would take more time on this but as i found the info on the SSA site i dont feel i need to continue looking for opposing points.

On investment taxes, corporations already pay tax on profits (well aside from GE) they use those profits to pay investors through dicedends or reinvest to make company gorw increasinf companies net worth. one of the reasons for lower investement taxes is that it really is taxing the same money 2X. As to Bill Maher he has made himself rich by bashing the rich, although he can be funny I really havent seen any real intelligent points from him he is more interested in making comedy that intelligent political discussion. yes end loopholes, but being a cynic i think most of them are there for politicians and their "friends" ie contributors can keep mor emoney so i doubt this will happen. umm i beleive i am in agreement with you here. cant really disagree with you here either. Wow we had pretty different results for the exercise but we really arent that far apart. i am finding this more interesting as it goes along.

HIDING

DAROO

DINTED if 1 than I is 2nd as DENTED =0

great pic Mo-Ma but just in case i upvoted your post I'm not sure if shapeless forms have feelings but if they do i hope the upvote helps BTW is one of those supposed to be you and if so which one, or are you the shapeless clouds in the background?

yes it would hurt. lets face it any cut/tax increasse will hurt. point is govt doesnt produce anything and is a drain on the economy, it is overstaffed escpecially in management this seems liek a great excuse to clean house and create a stonger country for ALL to live in not just those who manage to get a cozy govt job with lets face it overpaid and extra benefits compared wiuth the private sector. I said i wanted management to take the most cuts in this. liek i said global commitments. russia has 2 oceans but limited need and china has 1 to worry about. most of russias potential targets are within striking distance of land based planes same with china. the USA must maintain carriers in atlantic N/S/pacificN/S/medteranian/indian ocean. it takes time to move these resources around that may not be available when needed. Also I stress again in war you fight with what ya got not what will be built in 5 years. I said yes because ya need the cash but perhaps you are righht 8 carriers would do. here people go to emergency whenever they have a cold plugging up the system. I spent 12hrs at the hospital last year because i had a pulled muscle in my chest and couldnt breath, it was midnight when i went so no regular doctor available. i had to go to emergency. I told them what was wrong and that i needed muscle relaxant. but of course they ignored me (and i guess teh should as im not a doctor) but after they decided i wasnt having a heart attack (left side hurts cant breath they check that out quick) i sat alone forever in a small room with no way to contact wife and say im ok just waiting around. The govt doesnt ration health care per say but they pay only so many doctors so it is pretty much impossibel to get a family doctor if you dont have one already (i am lucky i got one) and after they see x number of patients/month they reduce the amount the doctors recieve to a point where most lose money if they keep seeing patients so many work only 3 weeks max/month. In the hospitals here you are lucky o get a room and not sit in a hallway for days as there is not enough staff to have beds open. dont ask me why a guy ion a hall requires less staff than in a room but that is what they say is the reason. So ill say it again if you get govt health care the only way to reduce costs is to reduce services. if they dont your costs will increase. I know it sounds like i am against our health care system but i am not i think everyone should have health care my problem is that we have and trust me you will have if you dont watch out more people woorking in offices pushing paper than providing health care. that is the problem with govt health care the beurocrats take over and they never ever ever cut the number of beaurocrats just the nurses and doctors who actually do the work. will take more time to deal with this later as it could be long. i didnt see any point in the video except he felt the rich do not have the right to be rich. i take that as an absurd statement. the article doesnt seem to state why it is ok to have estate taxes only that you need money. I still think it is double taxation and am against that, and no your folks GIVING you cash is not the same as income which you earn. FYI in canada there is no estate tax and we dont have any problems caused by thet lack of this source of income for the govt. will continue later as the man child next to me is whining to use the puter. motorcycle fixed and seems to be runnign smoothly, well aside from the glass on the tacho which i managed to smash while trying to repair other things.

I was downvoted cue the violins people.. When I was a small small child before i became a larger child i had a dream. it was about dragons and green flowers and some strange moon people, but that isnt the point. the point is if i had been down graded as that starry eyed small small dreaming child it would have hurt my feelings. and hurting peoples feeling is bad. so please dont down vote me any more think of that small small starry eyed dreaming child who might possibly have been saddened. oh yeah i guess it isnt nive to downvote MoMa either but im not sure if they were ever a small small child.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum is a great movie starring Zero Mostel, Phil Silvers and Buster Keaton. It is the story of Pseudolus, a slave who wishes to buy his freedom. He tries to arrange a deal between the son of his master and a slave dealer for a beautiful slave girl that the young master has fallen in love with. Hilarious hijinks ensue as Pseudolus tries to keep his master from finding out, please his masters son and win his freedom. I highly reccomend this film and give it 4 stars. Watch it and you will not be displeased. -Quag unpaid, untrained untallented movie critic.

Gvg: Yeah I agree it is a good exercise. Though the choices are necessarily limited. Lets face it the solutions are infinite. I am assuming the are limiting themselves to propositions already made by either side. Lets face it without this you and I could never have as good a discussion on the issue as we would both be talking in much much vaguer terms. OK I’ll try and respond to your post only where we differ or to clarify some of my points. Where we agree no comment is necessary Foreign aid: your link didn’t work but I’ll just point out it is 50% cut not 100% I will just hope they cut the $ that goes directly into some corrupt persons Swiss bank account. Still as you guys are on the precipice you need to start to help yourselves before you can do too much to help others. And yeah the China thing sucks but i think they have finally ended it (after huge public outrage), either that or buried it. 10% workforce cut: private companies do this all the time. Govt is massively over staffed. This is true in the USA and Canada. Especially management, where i hope most cuts would come (though being a cynic i doubt it) as an example when we privatized ATC here we went from 7 to 3 levels of management or a ratio of 1 manager per 3-4 workers to 1 manager per 10-12. as managers make more than regular staff savings is even better Also yes you need people to work but govt work does not produce anything and is mostly a drain on the economy, though much work is necessary to allow private companies to be able to do their work. Eg infrastructure, regulatory bodies, IRS(no taxes no govt) etc. Other cuts : yes vague but i needed the $ for the exercise perhaps if more detailed I would be against it. Cut aid to states: well back in the 90's when we had our deficit crunch this is what the feds did. The provinces complained but mostly they managed to get along without the money. Basically any level of govt will spend any cash it can get. That is one of the reasons you are in this mess. Reduce nukes: yeah i agree getting rid of all of them would not be a good idea ATM. Reduce navy air force fleets: The USA is the only country with global commitments (the Brits are a shadow of what they used to be, hong-kong is gone etc) you are attached by land to only 2 neighbours Canada/Mexico, neither of which there is much chance of physical force being required in. Russia is basically on the same continent and very close to most potential hot spots, china also but less so and they are expanding rapidly! Again build up takes time and gettign caught with pants down is bad. Look at Falklands war. Britain was in the process of decommissioning their fixed wing carriers. Decision was reversed and ships were hurriedly put back in operation. If they had kept up navy war would have been shorter and probably cost less in lives and $ (yes war want long but shorter is always better) Argentina might even have decided not to invade thus avoiding war. Still having said all this i reduced as again i needed the $$$. cancel/delay programs: agree with you 100% but it said cancel/delay only some so I will assume they will get rid of the molecular destabilization ray programs and not the valid/reasonable/feasible ones. Medical malpractice: just a note you guys are the most litigious society in history i don’t think just medical malpractice but a whole overhaul of your civil justice system is in order. Medicare age 68: disagree with the age 30 but it should be fazed in IE those 60 go to 66 those 55 to 68 or something like that, 30 is too far off. Medicare growth: DO NOT expect costs to decrease because of universal health care, that will only happen if health care is severely degraded. Now i am in favour of universal health care, we have it here in Canada. It has its limits and you need to allow a private health care on the side. We technically do not allow private health care( for stuff covered under public) but we actually do allow it. Yes the 6 month wait for cancer diagnostics exist here. Sometimes is faster sometimes is slower but usually if you are afraid you can get it done privately. Often the private is covered by health care and if not your private insurance usually covers it. YES we have private insurance as well here. Not everything is covered. Example my knee brace (after my rugby injury, torn ACL/MCL) was not covered. Drugs arent usually covered, dentist are not (except young children and then not for everything) its all rather complex. Another example My daughter needs 4 teeth removes, the dentist could not do it as she refused to open her mouth. She referred us to either another dentist who has more anaesthetic options or the hospital. The hospital was free the dentist covered mostly by my health insurance (90% i believe). Hospital would be 4-8 month wait dentist i could see right away. I chose dentist we visited, he explained the options (oral anaesthetic or go through the hospital for general anaesthetic. As it was rather obvious that there was little chance we would be able to get here to drink the anaesthetic I chose the hospital. Now because of the way the system works she is having the teeth removed this Friday (about 1 month after we were referred to him) instead of November at best if we went directly to the hospital. I know the system is crazy but that is how it works. I will reiterate anyone who says health care costs will shrink under universal health care is lying through their teeth! Reduce SS benefits: actually i have no problem with rich collecting unemployment insurance. They paid into the INSURANCE system it should be there if they lose their jobs. Food stamps for rich is silly and SS well if your rich you have means to plan for retirement, if you don't then i have no sympathy for you. I would like someone who pays into SS to get money back as i think it is fair but the system at least here in Canada is untenable (and from what I understand in the USA as well)so what ya gonna do reduce everyone or only those that don't actually require the money? Estate taxes: Bill Maher is a comedian. He doesn’t give a reason why estate taxes are justified only that rich people shouldn't complain that they are rich. Honestly those that accumulated the estate paid the taxes as they did so. Thus i believe it is just taxing money that has already been taxed. I don’t care if your estate is 10$ or 10 billion$ the taxes were already paid and to tax it is just a money grab by the govt. BTW look at the Kennedys when Ethel died they went through the estate process in Florida not Massachusetts to avoid estate taxes you don’t think other mega rich people wont do runarounds like this as well? Investment taxes: I went for this, remember I don’t like taxes in general but accept them as necessary. I am sorry however, I do not accept the argument that the rich are rich and should pay because they are rich. That seems like class warfare to me. Taxes should be fair and justifiable for all, they shouldn’t be based on Bill Maher's silly sketches on complaining that the rich are rich. Still ya need $ so taxes go up. Bush tax rates: as already discussed in another thread, I don’t think taxes should ever be over 50% Payroll tax: here in Canada the payroll tax is a tax on a company based on their total payroll. An insane tax that reduces a companies desire to hire extra personnel. Like I said seems to mean something completely different in the USA Millionaires tax: As i understood it it was just an extra tax on those making over 1kk or in other words another way of increasing the tax rate on income over 1kk without calling it that. If I am wrong in this assessment i could change my mind. But again ya need $$$. reduce mortgage deductions: OK not sure 100% how it works in the USA but as i understand it you can deduct a percentage the interest you pay on a mortgage from your income tax. This is a measure to try and help people purchase their own homes. Again if I am wrong on this and it works completely differently than in Canada I could change my mind. National sales tax: yup legalize and tax the vices I'm with you on that. Carbon tax: the idea is that if you make things that create CO2 more expensive people will use them less. The truth is it only slows the CO2 emissions by the amount that it slows the economy. The big difference you must remember between the USA and Europe( and even more so Canada and Europe) is size. Europe is tiny and everything is close in comparison. If gas gets too expensive transport of people/goods gets insane compared to the relative closeness of Europe. Bank tax: Ok here are a few things we had you guys didn't (as i understand it). Mortgages were a max 35 years (now dropped to 30). No interest only mortgages, min 5% deposit was lowest amount (needed to qualify), next level was 10% again needed to qualify (note requirements are very strict vis a vis USA. Regular is 20% down-payment. You have 0% of getting a mortgage if you have no job. Many jobs automatically make it harder and discount you from 5% or 10% down-payments (these are jobs where the income is not stable, ie varies from week/week month/month. For example a waiter(i was one for a while is how i know) they will accept your salary but will only accept a % of what you declare as your income from tips as this can vary wildly and drastically depending on season/economy and other factors. There are much more I am sure but I only have had to deal with these regulations in my life. I am not a banking expert just know that all reports without exception claim our regulations were the reason our banks didn’t fail. Oh yeah one more thing as to personal banks (not investment) We have far far fewer banks than you guys (even when your 10X population is taken in account). But the vast majority of our banks are on a national scale not small local or provincial banks As to too big to fail I agree with you if they are too big to fail they are too big to exist. Now i gotta go fix my motorcycle

Dawh: pretty much agree with most of what you said. on the downgrade debt is 100% GDP and deficit accounts for 40% of budget. these were not adressed by the debt ceiling deal so problems still exist (yeah yeah a few trillion over 10 years but trust me the deal wont last. anything over 4 years is just dreaming) earmarks are used as campaign slush fund so even if they dont help deficit/budget they should go. On the extreme right/left, i get 2 radio stations here from the US. one is right wing one is left wing. they are both pretty extreme at times, though often they are fairly moderate even with their different stances. I liek to listen when they talk on the same issue and switch back and forth to see the opposite spins they give. however this is just 2 samplings so i'll defer to you on the power each side wields in the us political landscape.

oh yeah ill try and explain my choices: foreign aid: read last post earmarks : seems like a no brainer you guys have been trying to get rid of them forever farm subsidies: well wast so keen on this but everyoen shoudl learn the real cost of food i guess 5% govt paycut: if liek canada most are overpaid, and that is what happens to people in real world when company is in trouble 10% worforce cut: you could probably cut more, ive worked in govt its increadibly over staffed escpecially management. 250k contractors: come on you like us have way way to many and im guessing liek here contracts tend to go to "friends" of politicians. other cuts: not sure what this is exactly but i needed for the 30 year cut aid to states: they gotta cut waste as well sorry but as a country you are broke and so are your states giving money liek this leads them to act innefeciantly. reduce nuclear arsenal : no like nukes! reduce troops: ya still have a kick A$$ army reduce navy/air force fleets: actually tried to avoid this as if needed buildup takes way to long but needed for 30 year cancel/delay weapons: ya got no $$ ya gotta be frugal noncombat compensation: seems cruel and hartless so i no touch reducing troop levels: seemed obvious medical malpractice: cant believe it would save so little, but it needs be done yesterday! medicare age to 68: sorry retirement age is gonna increase as well, no way around it medicare to 70: lets not go too fast here! tax break for employer health: yeah make it harder for company funded programs no thank you! cap medicare growth: seems this will just reduce service not force efficiencies(well that is what always has happened) so im against this one social security to 68: gotta happen we are living longer and using a system based on much shorter life expectancies. SS70: lets not go too fast yet reduce SS benefits for rich: its gonna happen anyways so just admit it! tighten eligibility for disability: really didnt want ot do this but needed more cuts and you keep hearing those stores about person X who abuses system (i personally know some) Alternate accounting: yeah i avoided this as accounting trickery always seems liek a bad idea Estate taxes: Avoided all of these as the money earned was already taxed it is just a money grab on grieving families. also the richest of the rich would transfer money out of USA to avoid paying anyway. Investment taxes: didnt liek this one either as it slows investment but needed the cash and i am against estate taxes so raise had to come somewhere. bush tax rates: picked the lesser of 2 evils ya need more income but dont liek hitting the middle class so over 250k you pay more payroll tax: was confused payroll tax here in canada means somethign else apparently, so i picked it without understanding what it was (again needed more $$) millionaires tax: think that without loopholes there shoudl be no need but there was for this exercise so i added it eliminate loopholes: picked the one with higher taxes as again ya need $$$$$ reduce mortgage reductions: yeah your economy fell apart with the collapse of the real estate market i think this is a no go zone ATM. national sales tax: well not 100% against but you must realize it will exlode your underground economy liek it has here in canada resultin in much less $$ than projectiosn show so i said no thanx carbon tax: this is a ridicoulous tax that gives the appearance of helping the environment without doing anythign but inceasing the cost of everything. please people do stuff that actually helps, not just shuffle money around! bank tax: seems like a lets tax anyone we think is rich tax but seems to me will decourage investments by banks. a better approach would be to look at our canadian regulations as we were barely affected by your banking disaster. only banks that invested in the USA got slightly singed as our system avoided lending to people who had no $ to pay. well that is a very very quick explanation of my thinking on this exercise, i didnt actually try and keep the cuts and taxes to be roughly equal but it turned out that way.

Well the way i see it you guys are so far in debt you need to recieve foreign aid not give it. Also if your foreign aid is as messed up as ours is it wouldnt be such a bad idea to target it better. FYI for some strange reason we give foreign aid to China. yes a downgrade could technically be avoided, but i really doubt that it will be. It isnt just tea party people who want to cut with no revenue increases there are EXTREME left wing nutjob democrats who want only to increase taxes. Mix the 2 together and you get problems. »From what i can tell the debt ceiling deal did nothing to decrease spending or really increase taxes (aside from letting bush rates expire) i mean seriously cuts over 10 years, does anyone believe that any of that plan will exist after the next elections? I would be willing to bet that the plan will be compeltely ignored by both sides before the election. The way I see it is you guys just increased your debt ceiling with no real plan on how to deal with the deficit or the debt. that is why I believe the downgrade is inevitable. If there was some actual immediate concrete stuff in there perhaps the downgrade could be avoided but as it is....

Interesting that link, my only question is how did the deficit get cut from 1.5 trillion today to 400 billion by 2015? I'm no expert on the US budget but seems to me if nothing gets done between now and 2015 the deficit will likely grow not shrink. However I'm trying to use the calculator. gotta admit the 2015 deficit wasnt to hard but getting rid of the 2030 was difficult. here is my solution (no im not super pleased with it but what can ya do) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zztsq1qj Also I'm pretty sure they havent included the inevetable cost of servicing the US debt that will come when the US gets its credit rating downgraded. I cant see how that can be avoided at this point, with over 100% debt/GDP ratio.

It's not that I'm crazy.... It's just that the rest of the world has impossibly high standards on sanity.

well I dont have time to reply to my own thread im going on vacation but the deficit debt thing is easy Deficit is the $ spent every year above and beyond what the govt takes in. Ie say govt makes 100k a year but spends 150k. the terms used would be 100k revenues 150k budget 50k deficit. the debt is the total amount owed. so add up all past deficits and surpluses (assuming surplus goes to pay debt) and you get debt. Us budget is somethign like 3.4 trillion, deficit about 1.5trillion, debt is about 14 trillion. ie the debt will grow by 1.5 trillion and be 15.5 trillion next year. The foreign domestic thing has nothing to do with it.

Basically what do you people think should be done about the Debt/Deficit problems facing the USA toady?

I was gonna ignore UTF but this one is too funny. According to UTF's non existant NAP the USA was justified as they were replying to force with force. IE Japan attacked the US and the US responded with force. Now how is that immoral according to UTF's NAP? I highlited the red where you seriously screwed up on your history lessons. the idea that the USA could have done nothing while i suppose is true would have resulted in Japan winning the war with all the negative consequences for the USA and its citizens. Seriously why is the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima so much worse than the other things that happned in the war? Did it cause more deaths than any other attack? nope, was it the first and only instance of civilians being killed? nope. the only novel thing about them was that they were accomplished in each case by 1 plane dropping 1 bomb. would it have been ok if it were 1000 planes dropping 10000 bombs? BTW UTF as i Know you are seriously deficient in history, FYI Japan was on a war of expansion while the USA and Britain were fighting wars of self defence, in Asia at least, Britain went to war with germany to defend poland, Germany declared war on the USA after pearl harbour. The USA didnt even annexe japan after the war. Only Russia who joined at the very very end did that (some small islands to the north), but then they were expansionist. Yup there are lots of people they just dont own as many as most govts. If you understood basic buisness practices you would realize that without govt regualtion there is nothign stopping DRO's and private security firms (aka MAfia) from gettign together and making exclusive geographical regions to reduce competition between them, lower overhead and increase profits. This is fairly obvious and happens over and over even with regulation but at least with regulation the govt can make sure the consumer doesnt get screwed. under your system there is no checks or balances. corruption will become widespread. In fact you also claim DRO and private security fiorms would be seperate. WHY? what is to stop the owner of a dro from buying a security firm or vice versa. Again it seems liek increadibly smart buisness practice add that to geographical monopolies arranged between the DROs and security firms you end up with the owner fo the DRO/Mafia not being above the law but actually being the law. Of cousre all is moot as DROs would be ignored by all. I only see 3 options for someone going to a DRO and for both sides (or more) they all have to fit 1 of 3 or you wont get them all to the table and the DRo loses its very tenous legitamacy. 1. You are not sure if you are right and accept what you consider an impartial view 2. you are 100% certain of being right and are 100% certain you will win 3. You are 100% certain you can bribe the DRO. if you do not fall into 1 of 3 categories you are a moron to even talk to a DRO. again they only work for non criminal disputes. If you rape my daughter and we are in your system i would not spend any money on a dro or private security firm, a bullet only costs a dime. I guess that doesnt follow your NAP but i dont give a crap about your NAP if you rape my daughter. In present system i trust the justice system to do its best and would not risk depriving my daughter of her father to end her rapists life. Ill say it again UTF you seem to be backwards on every single one of your assumptions/assertions. Honsetly I cant believe I still reply to this thread but the last posts were so far off the mark of reality i couldnt resist.

Truman was fairly well infromed as he was already VP when he took over, though the scope was pretty much impossible fro anyone to comprehend BEFORE the bombs were dropped. Ive never heard anyone but extreme anti nuclear people say that japan would surrender without the Allies (yes mor ethan just hte USA fought the Japanese) needing an invasion of mainland Japan. Yes the exploding of the bomb in the sea was a possible alternative but then as it was the japanese high command refused to believe the fisrt bomb was the result of 1 bomb so Im not sure. I Will agree it is kinda Grey but to state that it was EVIL for the USA to use any and all means possible to win a war that started with a sneak attack on the USA (and Britain, you guys werent alone ya know) is kinda nuts.

GVG the NAP like the logic to his arguements exists only in UTF's mind. He continues to spout BS and pretend black is white, up is down. Sorry I will not bother with this anymore as UTF is so far down the rabbit hole he will pobably never find his way back. If you want to start a thread on what govt should do about debt/deficit that could be interresting to discuss. though Im not american what happens to you guys has an imprtant impact on us up here, so it kinda does concern me.

When I lost my car keys I was wandering around looking like a lost puppy, thats when I met her, the woman of my dreams. Who knew losing something small but irritating could lead to finding somethign big and wonderful!

well tie betwen miki and Anon but ill give it to Miki, Last words of a pilot before crashing into the atlantic: Point your toes were going in deep.

UTF i keep saying the same thing because you keep saying you are forced to pay taxes. You are not forced you choose. You admit you can move then say but you are forced to pay taxes. there is a logicial inconsitency in this . either you are forced to pay taxes or you are not. if you can leave the municipality you are not forced to pay taxes. if you are not forced to pay taxes, taxes are not theft. you admit you can leave a municipality therefore you admit taxes are not theft. game over! your entire premise is gone kaput blown away! I have held the point consitently that the CHOICE to buy within a municpality is the reason you are obliged to pay taxes. and no I am not saying they are renting. But as you obviously have never bought any actual real estate you seem to be unclear on how it works. You own a condo but pay condo fees, you rent an apartment you pay rent. The 2 are not the same thing. I purposly used condos instead of appartments because, once again I underestimated your lack of comprehension of basic concepts and thought you would see the difference without it having to be pointed out to you. I know it is a subtle difference and you dont do subtle but thats ok you just have to agree that you can choose not to buy inside the municpality and thus avoid property tax. when you admit this you admit tax is not theft. You do realize that the first quote there came from you and has nothing to do with anything I have said only your insane ramblings? Now think about this 1 quote from you 1 quote from me how does this prove a logical inconsitency? I mean aside from your obvious problems in telling the difference from reality and what you think/want reality to be? Seriously are you that far gone you cant even tell the difference between my arguements and the ones you want me to make so they fit in with your skewed world view? GVG i do not call taxes rent, That comes from UTF, I state merely that the rules are set out before you buy the land, there are many clauses, responsabilities, obligations you agree to when you buy land. To then state that nope I dont like this or that clause anymore because i think it is immoral and wrong AFTER you have bought the land is ridiculous. I believe waaaayyyy back when several of us asked by what right UTF claims his land is his, this is a good explanation you give in your post, though it involved govts, so I dont think UTF would accept it as he doesnt accept govts.

BTW there is a true quote from a pilot that i was thinking of when i wrote this ill share with all after words