Wall Street airline selloff

[SWA Bubba]

Yay, just what we need at southwest: more ideological- highly paid union workers of the extreme right wing type who will defend their socialistic seniority to the death, while having delusions of grandeur that they are the 1% everyone's mad at



It's comical during airline good times- very sad during financial distress when we actually need to support our unions the most

What in the world has this the first thing to do with what Ty Webb said about Obama being as inept as Carter? Uh..... I'm gonna' say not the first damn thing. They are completely unrelated. But, it's just another chance for you to push your ideological supposition that anyone who takes part in a union must be a loyal Democrat, or else they're stupid. Is that it? Do you really believe this?

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

No, it's not that simple bubba- there are dozens upon dozens of objective reasons to vote democrat- esp for job support

 

[SWA Bubba]

No, it's not that simple bubba- there are dozens upon dozens of objective reasons to vote democrat- esp for job support

"Objective"? Really?

Suppose you name a few of those "dozens and dozens" of reasons that are actually objective, instead of just your opinion (uh, that would make it "subjective"). If you're going to say that Democrats protect our jobs better, I'll say that I disagree. Not only do I disagree that it's objective, but I also disagree that any Democrat (especially this president) actually give a crap about airline pilots or their jobs.

BTW, the biggest threat to our jobs in recent years is this NAI threat of outsourcing, and that is being fought with bipartisan support. It is not just a "democrat thing."

And the only thing that I can think of that President Obama said concerning me in particular and my job since he's been in charge, is that I need to pay more taxes than I already did, and that he would see to it. And, by God, he did see to it. Now I pay considerably more taxes than I did before, thanks to Democrats. Not sure I call that "supporting" me. Do you think any Democrat would change anything in our airline world of bargaining between employees who make six figures and their managements? Is President Obama going to talk to Gary and get him off his "flattish" stance? Do you think any Democratic president would actually allow any major airline to strike if section six came down to it? You're living in an idealistic dream world if you do.

And like I said, this has jack crap to do with the President's ineptitude and what Ty Webb said. It wouldn't matter whether he was the best Democrat ever, or the worst Democrat ever. Regardless, I don't want or need his particular brand of "help."

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

Sounds like the arrogance of someone who's lived under the financial stability of SWA for most their career

Good luck bubba

Republicans do not support you- I've lived it

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

"Objective"? Really?

Suppose you name a few of those "dozens and dozens" of reasons that are actually objective, instead of just your opinion (uh, that would make it "subjective"). If you're going to say that Democrats protect our jobs better, I'll say that I disagree. Not only do I disagree that it's objective, but I also disagree that any Democrat (especially this president) actually give a crap about airline pilots or their jobs.

BTW, the biggest threat to our jobs in recent years is this NAI threat of outsourcing, and that is being fought with bipartisan support. It is not just a "democrat thing."

And the only thing that I can think of that President Obama said concerning me in particular and my job since he's been in charge, is that I need to pay more taxes than I already did, and that he would see to it. And, by God, he did see to it. Now I pay considerably more taxes than I did before, thanks to Democrats. Not sure I call that "supporting" me. Do you think any Democrat would change anything in our airline world of bargaining between employees who make six figures and their managements? Is President Obama going to talk to Gary and get him off his "flattish" stance? Do you think any Democratic president would actually allow any major airline to strike if section six came down to it? You're living in an idealistic dream world if you do.

And like I said, this has jack crap to do with the President's ineptitude and what Ty Webb said. It wouldn't matter whether he was the best Democrat ever, or the worst Democrat ever. Regardless, I don't want or need his particular brand of "help."

Bubba

Why did taxes go up? Because you make more money Bubba....the effective tax rate didn't change. Obamacare doesn't count either, you are on a cadillac plan. The only thing that has changed was Obama let the. Bush TEMPORARY payroll tax cuts expire...which was a good thing since Jorge and the Chaneman dug 'Merica a Military-Industrial complex deficit hole which needed to be repaid.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Why did taxes go up? Because you make more money Bubba....the effective tax rate didn't change. Obamacare doesn't count either, you are on a cadillac plan. The only thing that has changed was Obama let the. Bush TEMPORARY payroll tax cuts expire...which was a good thing since Jorge and the Chaneman dug 'Merica a Military-Industrial complex deficit hole which needed to be repaid.

Not true, Bill. Do you even look at your own taxes?

The payroll tax cuts you were speaking of were from FICA withholding, and separate from federal income tax. And actually, I believe they were a two-or three-year thing that President Obama did, not Bush. But regardless, I was speaking purely about federal income tax, not FICA or Medicare withholding. It has gone up in several meaningful ways, without additional earnings. And I don't know why you say Obamacare doesn't count--embedded in that massive legislation was a number of tax increases completely unrelated to health care. For example, interest income is now taxed at a rate 3.8% higher than ordinary income for your given marginal tax rate. They call it a "surcharge." Same with long-term capital gains: a 3.8% increase above the existing rate for your tax bracket. Plus there's more deductions that have been more limited or removed for people who make the money we do (essentially the same as last year). So yes, Bill, the effective tax rate HAS increased considerably. Seems like a real disincentive for anyone to save or invest.

The fact that I have a "Cadillac" health plan will affect me starting this year, as in more "imputed income" that I'll have to pay taxes on. That wasn't included in last year's due. That'll be even more tax on the same money next year.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

I'll let bill answer the tax issue- bc I agree with him and don't need to be redundant- and I promise you I pay a hell of a lot more than you.
But let's look at the country's financial reality-Do you resent your taxes going up given the debt?
Do you think that debt will magically disappear without your taxes going up?

 

[SWA Bubba]

I'll let bill answer the tax issue- bc I agree with him and don't need to be redundant- and I promise you I pay a hell of a lot more than you.

Well, Bill was wrong about taxes (saying that effective tax rate is not going up when in fact, it has and is), so I'm not sure what else he wants to add. You keep telling me how much money your business makes, so that you pay more taxes than me. Okay,.... so what? I agree that if you make more, then you should pay more. But just because you don't have a problem with the Democrats' tax policies doesn't mean squat to those of us who do. Are you really saying that because you're happy with it, that everyone else should be?

But let's look at the country's financial reality-Do you resent your taxes going up given the debt?
Do you think that debt will magically disappear without your taxes going up?

You're mixing issues here, but yes, in general, I resent my taxes going up, given the debt. But that's mainly because of why the debt is going up. I resent being forced to pay more taxes to repay the irresponsible and excessive spending by this administration, especially in the entitlements area. Twenty-five years ago, less than 30% of Americans received entitlements from the federal government. Today, that number is over 49.1% and climbing. Why is that Wave? Could it be the left promises this money to secure votes? When will that end, and how long do you suppose that steady increase is sustainable?

And no, I don't think the debt will magically disappear, regardless of my tax burden. It will only disappear when the federal government stops promising and spending so friggin' much money. And no matter how much I and others are taxed, the debt will never disappear with the type of administration we have now. As they see more tax income, they invariably spend more. Never mind that they're still spending much more than they're taking in.

I also resent my tax burden increasing, while half of all working Americans pay exactly zero federal income tax, or even get money back from the IRS after paying nothing. Essentially, my taxes are increased to subsidize their lives, all in the name of garnering their votes for liberal politicians. If you really want to talk "fairness," then everybody should pay something.

And I'm not sure how it always happens, but once again you've turned a thread with an unrelated comment about the President's ability (or lack thereof, according to Ty Webb) into something completely different--a forum for your generalized left-wing talking points. You're always long on sound bites, but short on specifics.

Bubba

P.S. I realize you probably won't read all this, because you've already explained your short attention span, but I figured I'd give it a shot.

 

[wms]

A thread hijacking? On FI.com?

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Uh-oh....SNAP....

Bubba used the word "entitlements"! The catch phrase of the False news channel around 8pm.

Social security is not an entitlement.
Corn subsidies to farmers...isn't that entitlements
Oil research subsidies to companies printing cash in the basement...is that an entitlement?
Defense spending for yesterday's war like another aircraft carrier....is that a Lockheed entitlement?

Welfare is a problem but not as bad as the Old fat white men want us to believe.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Uh-oh....SNAP....

Bubba used the word "entitlements"! The catch phrase of the False news channel around 8pm.

Social security is not an entitlement.
Corn subsidies to farmers...isn't that entitlements
Oil research subsidies to companies printing cash in the basement...is that an entitlement?
Defense spending for yesterday's war like another aircraft carrier....is that a Lockheed entitlement?

Welfare is a problem but not as bad as the Old fat white men want us to believe.

Now you're starting to act like Wave--just deflecting! And it's you whose using "catch-phrases" and talking points, just like Wave. Long on rhetoric, and short on actual, real-world examples. But to answer your "accusations" that I'm just parroting anybody:

-- Corn subsidies to farmers.... Who says I'm for that? I'm not, especially the whole ethanol group. It's a waste, because it takes more energy to bring corn to produce the energy added when you put ethanol in gas, than it would to use just all gas. Stupid special interests, because it makes people think it's more "green," when in fact, it is less.

-- Oil research subsidies.... Again, I'm not for it (they certainly don't need the money), but I would point out that one single year's subsidies to President Obama's personal friends and contributors' solar programs equals 50 friggin' years of the subsidies given to oil companies. Oh yeah, and by the way, those companies are all now bankrupt and gone, produced nothing, and represent a return on investment of exactly zero. Great investment by our president, but it was a nice bennie to his friends.

-- Defense spending.... It's not up to me, so I suppose I'll defer to the people who know the best--the military. Both parties force them to buy weapons that they say they don't need (pork for their district), and I'm all for fixing that. For that matter, pork in general.

None of those are "entitlements," in that they're not going to individuals. Social Security, on the other hand, IS an entitlement. Not sure why you say it isn't. People are obviously getting more out of it than they put into it; otherwise it would be making money. In fact, since employers match every contribution made by workers, they're taking out more than twice what they put in. The biggest problem here is fake disability. It's so easy to do, it's creating an incentive to not work, and just claim a disability. More and more every year. How long will that last?

I'm not sure why you think it isn't a problem Bill, since as of this year 49.1% of individuals get some personal entitlement from the government. And that percentage rises every year. Eventually, there won't be enough money to pay all that, no matter how much you tax the "rich" people (including yourself)!

You should do a little research before you spout off next time, Bill. You know?

Bubba

 

[redflyer65]

Why is it that we hear about Social Security and Medicaid becoming insolvent, but not food stamps and welfare?

I love the liberal talking points of 'oil industry subsides'. As though they are different that other businesses. They aren't. They operate under the same rules of all other businesses that get tax breaks, but for some reason they get singled out.

Bill,

The big difference between Social Security and Welfare is this...the first group paid into a fund, the second didn't. But yet all we hear about is how Social Security is bankrupt. Why is that?

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Inflation...plain and simple

 

[maru657]

Welfare? Entitlements? Your entire career is based on entitlement. An airline career is rarely a private sector position. Feel free to continue supporting labor busting politicians but the reason you or any other major can never strike again is that no one respects a picket line construed of republicans. I mean, that's why the wingnuts and teabaggers can't do comedy, they can't understand the concept of hypocrisy.

 

[Crash Pad]

Looks like the airline selloff has ended.

Did it end because of entitlements or oil subsidies? The 100 troops we sent to save Iraq? Dick Cheney article? Corn subsidies? Inflation? Obama, Bush, Clinton?

 

[SWA Bubba]

Welfare? Entitlements? Your entire career is based on entitlement. An airline career is rarely a private sector position. Feel free to continue supporting labor busting politicians but the reason you or any other major can never strike again is that no one respects a picket line construed of republicans. I mean, that's why the wingnuts and teabaggers can't do comedy, they can't understand the concept of hypocrisy.

Thanks for your contribution, Maru.

As usual, you said.... absolutely nothing. At least, nothing that anyone understands.

Bubba

 

[sstearns2]

What? We pull out of Iraq and the bad guys come flooding back in. Say it isn't so. Never saw that one coming.

We pulled our US troops out and sent our arab army in. This is part of the plan.

Scott

 

[waveflyer]

Well, Bill was wrong about taxes (saying that effective tax rate is not going up when in fact, it has and is), so I'm not sure what else he wants to add. You keep telling me how much money your business makes, so that you pay more taxes than me. Okay,.... so what? I agree that if you make more, then you should pay more. But just because you don't have a problem with the Democrats' tax policies doesn't mean squat to those of us who do. Are you really saying that because you're happy with it, that everyone else should be?

You're mixing issues here, but yes, in general, I resent my taxes going up, given the debt. But that's mainly because of why the debt is going up. I resent being forced to pay more taxes to repay the irresponsible and excessive spending by this administration, especially in the entitlements area. Twenty-five years ago, less than 30% of Americans received entitlements from the federal government. Today, that number is over 49.1% and climbing. Why is that Wave? Could it be the left promises this money to secure votes? When will that end, and how long do you suppose that steady increase is sustainable?

And no, I don't think the debt will magically disappear, regardless of my tax burden. It will only disappear when the federal government stops promising and spending so friggin' much money. And no matter how much I and others are taxed, the debt will never disappear with the type of administration we have now. As they see more tax income, they invariably spend more. Never mind that they're still spending much more than they're taking in.

I also resent my tax burden increasing, while half of all working Americans pay exactly zero federal income tax, or even get money back from the IRS after paying nothing. Essentially, my taxes are increased to subsidize their lives, all in the name of garnering their votes for liberal politicians. If you really want to talk "fairness," then everybody should pay something.

And I'm not sure how it always happens, but once again you've turned a thread with an unrelated comment about the President's ability (or lack thereof, according to Ty Webb) into something completely different--a forum for your generalized left-wing talking points. You're always long on sound bites, but short on specifics.

Bubba

P.S. I realize you probably won't read all this, because you've already explained your short attention span, but I figured I'd give it a shot.

I just fall asleep about halfway through your posts- if you would actually add some content, you know- say something different instead of taking three paragraphs to say what you could in one-

Plus I got bored when a guy says "this" administration is responsible for the debt.

Obama all by himself?
Ideological much?

And it doesn't matter- do we pay our debts or not? Do we pass along a crushing tax burden to our children, or take responsibility for our own partisanship, our own decisions, realize that both parties don't appreciate the other side's massive debts and PAY IT!

Your own lifestyle is inflated given the current situation- you and hundreds of millions of others-

To blame Obama for trying to get more revenue in isn't a critique, it just shows your irresponsibility on the issue.

No new taxes is the most dangerous idea to have made it to the forefront of American politics, especially given your protection of the super rich over your own burden. Love how some of our tax loops have been closed, but the very wealthy have held into theirs
That's some good logic there-

Don't worry though bubba, you'll pay more taxes, but it'll trickle down to you.

(Btw- my income has varied wildly, but I continue to pay roughly the same effective tax rate- sounds like you just don't have a good tax man)

 

[SWA Bubba]

I just fall asleep about halfway through your posts- if you would actually add some content, you know- say something different instead of taking three paragraphs to say what you could in one-

Plus I got bored when a guy says "this" administration is responsible for the debt.

Obama all by himself?
Ideological much?

And it doesn't matter- do we pay our debts or not? Do we pass along a crushing tax burden to our children, or take responsibility for our own partisanship, our own decisions, realize that both parties don't appreciate the other side's massive debts and PAY IT!

Your own lifestyle is inflated given the current situation- you and hundreds of millions of others-

To blame Obama for trying to get more revenue in isn't a critique, it just shows your irresponsibility on the issue.

No new taxes is the most dangerous idea to have made it to the forefront of American politics, especially given your protection of the super rich over your own burden. Love how some of our tax loops have been closed, but the very wealthy have held into theirs
That's some good logic there-

Don't worry though bubba, you'll pay more taxes, but it'll trickle down to you.

(Btw- my income has varied wildly, but I continue to pay roughly the same effective tax rate- sounds like you just don't have a good tax man)

Well, thanks for actually reading something, but if you're not going to address what I actually said, instead of going off on your personal talking points, then perhaps you should start a new thread.

-- I never said that "this administration is responsible for our debt." Never said that Obama was responsible "all by himself." But I suppose that by framing it that way, you get to make your ideological stand. We had a large and stupid debt already when he took office, but his administration DID triple it, and so far shows no sign of letting up. That was my point--he's not helping at all; he's making it far worse.

-- I also never said that it shouldn't be paid through citizens' taxes. Obviously it should and must. I was saying that this President's taxation policies aren't fair, and what he's done won't make any difference, since he spends more than even the increased taxation can bring in. I would be happy to help pay down our debt, if that's what increased taxes would actually do. We need to rein in our spending, because there's absolutely no level of taxation whatsoever that can cover this spending and buy down our debt.

-- And the other thing was the inherent unfairness in our tax scheme. The fact that half of our workers pay zero taxes (and some get rebates on top of not paying) is not fair. It's especially galling when Democrats buy votes to stay in power by using my taxes to subsidize this, and then tell me that I'm not paying enough. It's easy to get someone to vote for you, when you promise to give them some of someone else's money.

-- Finally, with decreased deductions and higher marginal tax rates, plus added-on "surcharge" tax rates, and other increased taxes hidden in Obamacare, there's no way you can stay at the same effective tax rate without cheating. And if you HAVE stayed at the same effective tax rate, then you're cheating the government, and not doing "your part" to help, according to the President.

Anyway, how about addressing what I actually said, instead of just giving your soapbox speech again about why the Democrats are the best. You might also address how the percentage of Americans receiving entitlements from the federal government has risen from 30% to 50% in the last twenty years, and is still climbing, and how you think that could possibly be sustainable.

Or not.

Bubba

 

[redflyer65]

Back on topic,

I haven't sold any of my airline stocks. A small blip on the radar as far as I'm concerned.

Here's what I hold....LUV, DAL, AAL, ALK, and SAVE. The are all up and I think there's more upside to go.