Maybe a reson to vote Dem.

[PCL_128]

So you quote an article from prior to 9/11/01 about high pilot salaries. I'm relatively certain he wouldn't say that now.

Wanna bet your career on that? McCain hates pilots with a passion. The anti-labor tactics of the past 8 years will pale in comparison to what McCain would bring to the country. If McCain gets elected, I'm thinking of going the whole international contract pilot route for my career. I just don't see us surviving as a profession in this country if McCain gets into office.

 

[PCL_128]

Oh, and that's not what Obama is going to do anyway, get ready for a tax increase. The Bush cuts expire in the next few years and there is no way Pelosi et al would ever pass up a free tax increase.

The Dems only want to let the tax cuts expire on the top brackets. Anyone making less than $250k a year will keep their current tax rates, and those making in the lower end will actually get more tax breaks. The tax increase fear-mongering from the right is unsubstantiated.

 

[WalterSobchak]

Obama has my vote.. nothing is going to change that.

Ditto that...

Something I've never understood is unionized pilots that are hardcore about voting Republican. It's kind of one of those ultimate contradictions.

 

[ashaman]

Nice play on the evil rich thing. Unfortunately the numbers don't really back up what you're saying. The evil tax-sheltering richest 1% pay 37% of the taxes. That percentage has gone up almost 12% in the last decade. Keep going back to them for more, that'll really help things out! As for the bottom brackets, the lowest 80% of income earners pay 26% of the taxes.

Why don't you tell the rest of the story? The richest 1% (really, the richest 10-20%) deserve to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. Even now they're grossly under-taxed because we don't tax their wealth--only their income. And they own a grossly disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth.

The Distribution of Wealth and Income

The distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income, especially when focussing on the bottom 60% of all households. The bottom 60% of households possess only 4% of the nation's wealth while it earns 26.8% of all income.





Can you think of any reason for the much greater inequality in wealth than in income?
What do we tax more in the US: wealth (assets) or income?
Think of all kinds of "income" taxes that exist -- federal, state, and (in some cases) local. Think of the very few kinds of assets that are taxed: property taxes, in some states taxes on the value of cars. If you own considerable assets do you have a reason to keep them in forms that will not be taxed?


Which is a Better Measure of Societal Inequality: Wealth or Income?


Looking at the distribution of wealth and looking at the distribution of income gives the researcher two quite different views of the amount of inequality in American society. Which economic measure -- wealth or income -- should be emphasized?

Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, make the case for wealth:
"Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and economic well-being. We need to examine trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume."​

Those who argue for the greater importance of income make the case that for wealth to actually have a significant impact on one's standard of living it has to be translated into higher income.



*For those interested in reading a very good study of wealth distribution in the US, please see Edward N. Wolff's "Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze," June, 2007.

 

[HA25]

... I beleive in talking but talking to Hamas and other terriost org. is not going to work at all. They want us dead plane and simple.

And this, Ladies and Gentleman is why the US and our foreign policy is broken.. here we have the typical American who doesn't seem to know the difference between Hamas and Al Queda for example.. to him, they're all just radical islamic rag heads that "want to kill us" to borrow from GW's playbook.. Nevermind that Hamas has never done anything against the US, and only has a bone to pick with Israel.. but God forbid we actually let Israel stand on their own Nuclear powered feet for once and resolve the mess their creation has made.. God forbid we actually ask them to withdraw from the illegal settlements that pepper what is supposed to be Palestine (even as recognized by the post-1967 borders).. God forbid we talk to "terrorists" Afterall, if Israel calls them Terrorists, they surely must be.. Right?

After all instability in the Middle East means at leas a $20-30/barrel risk premium for Exxon Mobil to tack on to their bottom line

Obama 2008!

(former Republican turned Independent for Obama)

 

[PCL_128]

I'm all for diplomacy with Hamas, but I also stand by Israel. Compromise is welcome, but telling the Israelis "hey, you're on your own now" isn't right. They are a great ally, and I'd like it to stay that way. But yes, we should be having diplomatic talks with Hamas along with just about everyone else. This whole Bush admin nonsense of "it gives them credibility if we talk to the terrahists" isn't getting us anywhere.

 

[WalterSobchak]

Just want to point out...

 

[HA25]

I'm all for diplomacy with Hamas, but I also stand by Israel. Compromise is welcome, but telling the Israelis "hey, you're on your own now" isn't right. They are a great ally, and I'd like it to stay that way. But yes, we should be having diplomatic talks with Hamas along with just about everyone else. This whole Bush admin nonsense of "it gives them credibility if we talk to the terrahists" isn't getting us anywhere.

We're allies with a lot of countries, but only Israel has carte blanche with what ever they decide to do, and with the way they treat the Palestinians .. When the South Africans did what they did, we didn't waste time ending it, but for what ever reason, we dare not tell Israel to make any compromises. Our unilateral support of everything they do is at at the root of why "They hate us"

 

[andyd]

A textbook example of insanity is to continue with the same reactions to an event and expect a different outcome. A vote for McCain is a vote for a continuation of the past 8 years of economic, social, energy and foreign policy.......AND expecting a better outcome: In my book that thinking is insane. A vote for McCain is insane.

Bush economic plan: ignore the problems, print more money and drop interest rates and destroy the dollar; McCain "we've done pretty good under the Bush economy"

We need to fix healthcare, immigration, get a realistic energy policy AND we need to have a foreign policy that includes diplomacy instead of fear mongering. How much you wanna bet that 1-2 weeks before the election the Bushies will raise the threat level?

We need a fresh face in DC., someone from OUTSIDE the beltway crowd who will resume politics as ususal, remaining polarizing and alienate the other side of the isle. Clinton is all but history and McCain is a continuation of past failed policies. Obama all the way.

And for those of you Rush/Beck republicans who think it's cute to indirectly refer to Obama as "curious george" you are all racist bigots...GROW UP! If if P!sses you off to be called out on this, then perhaps you need to look in the mirror and honestly ask yourself is this 2008 or 1958? There is ZERO room for this kind of racism.

Proud to be a registered Democrat.

 

[skypine69]

coonass,

i have some news for you my friend...you already pay for other peoples medical insurance. Someone has to pay for people with no insurance that walk into a hospital sick. They cant turn that person away, so who pays for it? You and I, in the form of higher premiums. Now, if everyone has basic insurance, it will actually be cheaper, because the person who did not have insurance before will go to doctor before they become life-threating ill. We will go from treating an advanced stage of illness that costs much more to being more preventative in our medical care. This will cost much less over the long run.....please rethink your aversion to a national health care system. It would have many flaws, but cost over the long run is not one of them, if done properly. However, our current system has many flaws as well, in addition to being expensive and inefficient!