Can Someone Shed More Light Here?

[densoo]

That's the best you got? Really? Do you know how much of President Obama's taxpayer "stimulus" money went overseas? Or to companies run by his donor cronies that are now bankrupt and out of business, that produced exactly nothing? Bain Capital, while not infallible, has a proven record of investing private capital and saving dozens of private compainies, and saving literally tens of thousands of private sector American jobs.

And why is it you think that raising taxes on everyone, including small businesses, and slapping on more regulations and layers of government bureauocracy is going to keep companies from outsourcing? It sounds more like incentive to outsource. The government cannot force a private company to not outsource any more than it can dictate how much it pays its officers. Those are the two main problems you guys keep harping on, right? How is raising taxes on individuals and small businesses (not to mention spending taxpayer money like it's going out of style) going to address those issues? That's an honest question, Densoo. Or Dicko, or anyone else, for that matter. How does that help? What is, or for that matter can, President Obama do to fix those particular "ills"? I'll tell you one thing--the way to fix problems with capitalism is NOT to slap socialism on top of it. But that seems to be the current administration's solution to just about everything.

Bubba

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

No, you're a misguided idealogue with, as I suspected, no answers to legitimate questions.

Have a nice day.

Bubba

 

[PCL_128]

I guess being a good liberal, you 'believe' that all of us Americans should just give all of our money to the government to dole back out to us (and others) as they see fit to do so, or rather if they see fit.

No, that would be communism. The inability of the right to discern the difference is part of the problem with you claiming that right-wingers aren't all radicals. There used to be common-sense Republicans out there who didn't disbelieve scientific facts and sign idiotic pledges put in front of them by trolls like Grover Norquist. There used to be Republicans who could have policy debates without calling everyone to the left of them communists or socialists. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find such Republicans.

You really don't believe that someone can go along with liberal social causes, but not with liberal economic ideas?

As offensive as right-wing social causes are, it's the economic causes that I find most offensive.

Really? You know, PCL, I have often disagreed with you, but it seems like you used to at least try to be reasonable and civil. I suppose those days are over.

I think I am being civil. I disagree with you. Strongly. Doesn't make me "uncivil."

 

[waveflyer]

I've got plenty of answers- Im just done seriously debating with pilots on politics when they tend not to care about rational arguments.
I'll throw in my two cents- but that's all it is- respond or don't- no obligation-
I do love that you paint me as an ideologue but not yourself- I'd imagine both are baseless- I too have voted republican when I found fiscally conservative, socially liberal pols.
What we saw in the 2000's are those people kicked out of the Rep party with purity tests and hailing rush limbaugh. (ie: John McCain's sad demise of the once respected maverick, selling his soul to be relevant in an increasingly partisan country.)
And I would argue that you would not vehemently defend Romney if you were not an ideologue - conservatives don't like him- R's tried out every possibly viable candidate for the role-
Begging for it to be anyone but Romney-

You can really vote for that-?

Sorry- the white house is D until 2024 at least, bc Hillary will be next with none of the experience issues Obama has.

Btw, We may not work for herb, but we do work for someone who fought like hell through the recession to not furlough and not get paycuts through-
How many airline ceo's did that? I'm proud of that.

 

[waveflyer]

Well said PCL

 

[SWA Bubba]

No, that would be communism. The inability of the right to discern the difference is part of the problem with you claiming that right-wingers aren't all radicals. There used to be common-sense Republicans out there who didn't disbelieve scientific facts and sign idiotic pledges put in front of them by trolls like Grover Norquist. There used to be Republicans who could have policy debates without calling everyone to the left of them communists or socialists. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find such Republicans.

Not only did you miss the sarcasm, but you actually missed the part where I SAID it was sarcasm. I was using sarcasm to point out that what you said is the same thing--equating everyone who votes for a specific party to the most extreme end of that particular political spectrum. It's just as stupid a comparision to make for either the left or the right.


As offensive as right-wing social causes are, it's the economic causes that I find most offensive.

Hey, I agree that some right-wing social causes are offensive; I've already said that. However, this is a capitalistic country. Are there problems? Sure, but changing to more and more socialist policies isn't the answer (here you may notice that I didn't say that President Obama is a socialist, but rather that he's implementing socialist economic policies). You guys keep harping on the evils of capitalism and CEOs taking too much money. Okay, what has the administration done about it? Three-and-a-half years of the Obama adminstration, and so far all we've got is: MORE taxes, MORE unemployment, MORE crushing debt, and MORE government control. How is that helping your described problem?! CEOs still can take whatever they can get away with. Until the government actually nationalizes these companies (uh, THAT would be pure socialism), they can't stop that. So you'll forgive me, and hopefully not call me a radical, if I disagree, and say that President Obama's economic course is the wrong one, in my opinion. The administration seems hell-bent on turning our country into Europe, because THATs worked out so well economically. (BTW, that's more sarcasm--I don't want you to miss it this time).


I think I am being civil. I disagree with you. Strongly. Doesn't make me "uncivil."

Certainly one can disagree with someone civilly. However you essentially said that all pilots who vote for conservative candidates are exacly as radical as the far right end of the spectrum. Hence my sarcasm in equating the left the same way. That's not especially civil in my mind. They disagree with you so they must be radical wackos, right? Do you really not get that you implied that the first time? Then you pretty much said the exact same thing again above, in response to my sarcasm: that they can't tell the difference between communism, socialism, and liberalism, because they're all [right wing] radicals. Do you really not even listen to what you say? If I don't vote for who you want me to, I'm a radical? That doesn't sound too civil to me.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

I've got plenty of answers- Im just done seriously debating with pilots on politics when they tend not to care about rational arguments.

Actually, I've yet to see anyone on this forum offer answers on how to stop outsourcing and exorbitant CEO compensation. Those seem to be the chief complaints of the liberals these days, and nothing the Obama administration has done has even BEGUN to address this. And I'd argue that some of his tax policies are actually an incentive for companies TO outsource.

I'll throw in my two cents- but that's all it is- respond or don't- no obligation-
I do love that you paint me as an ideologue but not yourself- I'd imagine both are baseless- I too have voted republican when I found fiscally conservative, socially liberal pols.

To be fair, I didn't call you specifically an idealogue, because you actually usually try to explain your positions and have backing material. I was referring to the people who blindly say 'vote Democratic' JUST because we're in a union. And be careful admitting you've voted Republican, so you don't have PCL lumping you in with the rest of us "right-wing radical nutjobs."

What we saw in the 2000's are those people kicked out of the Rep party with purity tests and hailing rush limbaugh. (ie: John McCain's sad demise of the once respected maverick, selling his soul to be relevant in an increasingly partisan country.)

It's the same on both sides of the aisle, Wave. More and more partisanship and appeal to the far ends to get the nomination. And yes, I agree with you that it sucks. Here's a coupla' examples for you from the left: 1. Joe Lieberman, lost his primary because he wasn't blindly toeing the liberal line; he wasn't FAR enough left. He is a moderate, something sorely needed on both sides. He ran as an independent and won, clearly because the people of CT wanted something other than the good party man the Democrats put up. 2. The Affordable Health Care Act, i.e. Obama-care. All the Democrats voted for it, despite the fact that nobody actually read the damn thing, because that was the party line. That's not good or responsible government.

As far as McCain goes, he too is a moderate, and I suspect that a lot of what he said during the primary was what he felt he had to, to actually GET the support of the far right, in order to BE in the election. Had he been elected, I suspect his true, more moderate stances would have prevailed. I guess we'll never know for sure.

And I would argue that you would not vehemently defend Romney if you were not an ideologue - conservatives don't like him- R's tried out every possibly viable candidate for the role-
Begging for it to be anyone but Romney-

I've never "vehemently" defended Romney, but you have always seemed to defend Obama. So who's the idealogue here? I only made one post concerning Romney to defend against an insult directed at me. And did you ever wonder WHY a lot of Republicans don't like Romney? It's because he's not conservative ENOUGH. In my opinion, that part is a good thing. Like I've always maintained--we need politicians on both sides to be closer to the center. That's where the real people live. I should think that you'd appreciate that.

You can really vote for that-?

Actually, I'm essentially just voting against Obama. Did you read my opinions above about the least harm? That's my theory here. And he'll actually do less social harm the GW Bush, not being quite as religiously influenced, or nearly as far to the right.

Sorry- the white house is D until 2024 at least, bc Hillary will be next with none of the experience issues Obama has.

Btw, We may not work for herb, but we do work for someone who fought like hell through the recession to not furlough and not get paycuts through-
How many airline ceo's did that? I'm proud of that.

I agree with you here--that's why SWA is the only airline I applied to. But the reason is not because they necessarily agree with either party's platform. While Gary is not Herb, I believe that neither would appreciate the (in my opinion!) irresponsible way the President has handled the country's finances. It's not how THEY operate.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

I think it's easy to ignore economic realities- that if we hadnt had the stimulus we'd be in far worse shape. Remember, W got the ball rolling- the people who really know money on the macro level convinced everyone- did anybody like it? No. But it was necessary. Do you honestly think McCain wouldn't have implemented the stimulus?

But I bet fox and rush would have a different slant on it.

Bottom line is we disagree on what is the least harm- democrats are not going to allow the 'starve the beast' strategy of the W admin to work. Not until we tax the hell out of every profiteer during that time.

And it comes down to taxes- do you resent your taxes?
From day 1 on this planet, you've had the security of america to grow up in- from military force, to free education, amazing freedom from corruption compared to the rest of the world, to economic and physical infrastructure-

none of which is actually free.

The stage is set for anyone who wants financial succes to go and achieve it.

The only part of the deal is that if you make more you pay more-

So to me, when pilots making $250k bitch about taxes- it's incredibly ungrateful and short sighted- we have the lowest tax rates of our lifetime right now- and it's still too much and source of anger for most people. What does that say about the complainer?

None of us make our money in a void. The quicker you accept that the better- the rest of the macro issues you don't like will make more sense.

 

[NEDude]

Some facts to consider when deciding Republican vs Democrat (sources - Congressional Budget Office, Department of the Treasury and Department of Labor):

In the last 52 years only one recession began under a Democratic President, six have begun under Republicans. The shortest and mildest recession in the last 52 years was six months and it was the one that began under a Democrat. Republicans average nearly one recession per Presidential term, and the average length per recession is over 12 months in length. Republicans are four times as likely to oversee the start of a recession as a Democrat is.

As for Job creation - Democrats average job creation at a rate of 2.3%, Republicans average job creation at a rate of 1.25%, about half the rate of Democrats. When it comes to Federal Jobs - the big government Democrats have added a whopping 6.4 million jobs, while small government Republicans have added a paltry 7.1 million jobs (sarcasm intended).

Every single Republican administration has set record levels for spending and deficit, EVERY SINGLE ONE!! Not true for the Democrats.

Republicans talk a great game, but their record is pretty poor when compared to their claims.

So I ask all you Republicans out there - why do you think Republican Presidents do a better job at managing the economy? In fact the economy typically has fared FAR worse under Republicans than it has under Democrats. Why do you think a Republican President will reduce spending and deficits? They NEVER have in modern history. At least Democrats have a history of reducing deficits. Why do you think Republicans will shrink the size and scope of the federal government? They do not, they grow it at the same rate as Democrats. So please tell me what is it about Republican practices that lead you all to believe what you do. I am not asking to report what they say on Fox news, I want to know what is it about their actions that make you believe what you do.

 

[yellowfever]

Government fiscal responsibility at its finest:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7405640n

 

[thepotato232]

Bottom line. The deficit under Obama has been increased MORE than during all of the other presidents terms COMBINED. You just can't teach stupid.

I know I'm going to come across as an irredeemable liberal pinko for saying this, but there isn't a [citation needed] tag on the internet big enough for this statement.

 

[NEDude]

More data-

From 1948 to 2009-

GDP growth under Democrats - 4.01%
GDP growth under Republicans - 2.75%

 

[PCL_128]

Not only did you miss the sarcasm, but you actually missed the part where I SAID it was sarcasm.

Sorry.

I was using sarcasm to point out that what you said is the same thing--equating everyone who votes for a specific party to the most extreme end of that particular political spectrum. It's just as stupid a comparision to make for either the left or the right.

Understood, but that's not what I said. What I said was "not that I've seen." And that's a true statement. Being a pilot at a southern airline, I spend almost every trip flying with a Republican. There is the occasional fellow liberal, but it really is pretty rare. And I can't even remember the last time I flew with a Republican who didn't fit the "radical" label. They all think that things like privatizing social security and medicare, eliminating the EPA and DOE, implementing a flat tax, etc. are the right policies. Sorry, but that's far-right. There's no "moderation" in those proposals.

Sure, but changing to more and more socialist policies isn't the answer (here you may notice that I didn't say that President Obama is a socialist, but rather that he's implementing socialist economic policies).

That's a distinction without a difference. And frankly, it's just false. The President has yet to implement (or even propose) a single socialist policy. As someone who actually is a socialist (democratic socialist), I wish he would. But that's not his style. The right paints him as a socialist, but he's the furthest thing from.

You guys keep harping on the evils of capitalism and CEOs taking too much money. Okay, what has the administration done about it? Three-and-a-half years of the Obama adminstration, and so far all we've got is: MORE taxes, MORE unemployment, MORE crushing debt, and MORE government control.

First, I don't think it's the government's place to regulate CEO compensation. So I don't expect the President to do anything about it. I don't really know any liberals who think that the government should regulate such a thing, in fact.

But as for your claims, the "more taxes" one is especially crazy. Our tax burden is lower today than it was under President Reagan. You're repeating Fox Noise claims with no data to back it up. Never repeat something on Fox without fact checking it first.

More unemployment? This recession started under the previous president, need I remind you? Virtually every economist agrees that President Obama's efforts have helped to prevent the recession from getting worse. Yes, unemployment is still quite high by our historical standards, but compared to what other western nations are dealing with through this economic crisis, we're doing relatively well. If anything, the stimulus wasn't big enough, which is what most economists were insisting at the time.

More debt? Yep, you're right on that one. But that's an inevitability when trying to stave off a depression. And let's not forget that a huge portion of that debt is a result of two unnecessary wars that weren't started by this President. He deserves some criticism for refusing to pull out of Afghanistan, but at least he went halfway and got us the hell out of Iraq.

And finally, more government control? In what way? I would love to see some more government involvement in many things, but this President certainly hasn't done it.

I hate to break it to you, but President Obama is a moderate. Those of us on the left are just as unhappy with him as those of you on the right, just for different reasons.

Until the government actually nationalizes these companies (uh, THAT would be pure socialism)

Oh, so you do know what socialism really is! Excellent. Maybe you'll stop using it to refer to this President's policies, then.

If I don't vote for who you want me to, I'm a radical?

No, as I said, there used to be reasonable Republicans. I'm sure some still exist, but it's hard to find them. Since you insist on referring to President Obama's policies as "socialist," then it doesn't appear that you're one of them, either.

 

[BoilerUP]

Only on Flightinfo does this thread remain on the Majors board, while others FAR less politically-tilted get moved to other forums...

 

[BoilerUP]

More data-

From 1948 to 2009-

GDP growth under Democrats - 4.01%
GDP growth under Republicans - 2.75%

You live in Europe now, you care about American politics why again?

 

[scoreboardII]

bubba,
Is swa a better place to work bc Herb's a democrat?

I love when swa pilots enjoy a company that espouses caring about people, sharing profits, and creating a hard working living company instead of paycuts and disproportionate bonuses take those ethics for granted.
There are a lot of republicans you could have chosen to work for.
Why did you choose Herb's 'socialist' agenda to dedicate your career to?

Way off base, SWA is as capitalistic as they come, ZERO entitlement beyond what is contractually specified. The LUV and goodwill is a nice touch, but doesn't run the business, greed does.

 

[scoreboardII]

Well said PCL

I suppose you want my gun next?

 

[scoreboardII]

You're still gonna vote for a guy - that's been shown in a US court to have engaged in illegal union busting activities. Firing pilots in order to sell a company.

You're still gonna vote for him aren't you ? Bubba.

Yes I will, because the alternative is the distruction of this country.

 

[jonjuan]

Yes I will, because the alternative is the distruction of this country.

Yep-the lesser of two evils. The in incumbent will truly F up this country for a long long time if he's left in charge. Think unemployment is high now? Wait 4 years. And yes, it will have a dramatic effect of who can buy plane tickets.

 

[waveflyer]

Way off base, SWA is as capitalistic as they come, ZERO entitlement beyond what is contractually specified. The LUV and goodwill is a nice touch, but doesn't run the business, greed does.

The problem then is that you equate democrat with socialist. (Fox stuck on repeat)
I'm as capitalist as they come- but R's don't represent capitalism- they represent oligopoly, good ole boy, & generational wealth entitlement-

If you read Adam smith beyond the free hand you'll find that a requisite of capitalism is some wealth redistribution- but I'm sure you knew that.

Which, to you, represents more of the American dream Barack Obama and bill Clinton or W Bush and Mitt Romney? I'm curious.

 

[waveflyer]

I suppose you want my gun next?

Only if I get to keep my sig.

But nice stereotype

 

[waveflyer]

Yes I will, because the alternative is the distruction of this country.

We're you the 9:30 caller on hannity today?

If we survived bush, I'm sure we'll survive who we elect next

 

[SWA Bubba]

Only if I get to keep my sig.

But nice stereotype

Not just a stereotype. Attorney General Holder is already on record as saying that he believes that the 2nd amendment does NOT mean that individuals should be able to own guns. He believes (and there's anecdotal evidence, but to my knowledge, nothing publically stated, that President Obama agrees) that individuals should not be allowed to own guns.

Nice choice on the Sig, though. What do you have? It's hard to order one these days; everyone's buying them in the runup to the election.

BTW, I'm on vacation, so this is costing me (money AND drinking time), so I'll see you guys next week.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

To Siberia with you and your political thread!

 

[waveflyer]

Bubba- I wish I could say I have a 556, but it's a 226- nice gun though- it's my second sig- had a 220 I picked up from a friend when he upgraded to a beretta.

 

[waveflyer]

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney both have softened their positions on gun restrictions over the years. As they expressed shock and sorrow over the bloodshed at a Colorado movie theater, neither suggested that tougher gun control could make a difference, a notion that has faded from political debate.

Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as Massachusetts governor. But as the presumptive Republican nominee, he now bills himself as the candidate who will protect gun owners' rights.

Obama called for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons during his 2008 presidential campaign. But since his election, he hasn't sought to get that done or pushed other gun control proposals, either.

Neither man is likely to raise gun control as a campaign issue – beyond Romney's insistence that an Obama presidency is bad for gun owners. Both say they'll protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms. A look at the evolution of the candidates' positions and where they stand on guns:

OBAMA

1997-2004: As an Illinois state senator, Obama supports banning all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms, including a failed effort to limit handgun purchases to one per month.

2005: In the U.S. Senate, Obama votes against protecting firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits over misuse of their products by others. The bill is signed into law by President George W. Bush.

2008: During his first presidential campaign, Obama supports a return to the federal ban on assault weapons, which began during the Clinton administration and expired under Bush. He also endorses requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows. The National Rifle Association attacks him as an anti-gun zealot – a stand the group continues to take today.

April 2008: Obama is criticized for elitism after sounding dismissive of gun owners in a talk to campaign donors. He said voters in struggling small towns in Middle America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" to explain their frustrations.


September 2008: Obama seeks to reassure gun owners: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." Nonetheless, gun sales go up when Obama wins, apparently because of fear that new restrictions are imminent under his administration.

2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges and another that lets people carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains.

2010: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a grade of "F" for failing to push even the gun restrictions he supported while campaigning.

2011: Obama says the shooting that severely wounded then-Rep. Gabriel Giffords, D-Ariz., and killed six people should lead to "a new discussion of how we can keep America safe for all our people." He calls for "sound and effective steps" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including strengthening background checks on gun buyers. But he's short on specifics, and the Obama administration hasn't proposed any new gun initiatives since then.

March 2012: Obama calls the fatal shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida "a tragedy," saying Americans should do some soul-searching and "examine the laws" to figure out why it happened. He hasn't called for any legal changes in response to the case, which mostly brought attention to some states' "stand your ground" laws making it easier for a shooter to claim self-defense. Indeed, most gun regulations are imposed by states. The primary federal law is the Brady law requiring background checks on firearms purchasers.

July 20: Obama says he's heartbroken by the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre and calls for Americans to unite in prayer for the victims: "If there's anything to take away from this tragedy it's the reminder that life is very fragile, our time here is limited and it is precious."

Asked whether the mass shooting should prompt a new review of gun laws, White House spokesman Jay Carney declines to comment beyond reiterating Obama's existing stance in support of "common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights of Americans, while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing law do not get them."

___

ROMNEY

1994: In his unsuccessful challenge to liberal Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Romney sounds moderate on guns, supporting an assault weapons ban and insisting, "I don't line up with the NRA."

2002: Running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney says he supports and will protect the state's "tough gun laws." The NRA gives his Democratic opponent a higher rating on gun-rights issues and makes no endorsement in the race.

2003: As governor, Romney upsets gun owners by signing a law that quadruples the state's gun-licensing fee – from $25 to $100 – as part of a widespread effort to eliminate the budget deficit.

2004: Romney signs a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. He mollifies many gun rights advocates by coupling it with looser rules on gun licenses and an extension of the duration of licenses, reducing the effect of the earlier fee increase.

2005: Declares May 7 as "Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts.

2006: As he prepares for his first presidential run, Romney becomes a lifetime NRA member.

2007: While campaigning, Romney declares he sometimes hunts "small varmints" – a comment ridiculed by some as an awkward attempt to pander to pro-gun voters.

2008: In a Republican primary debate, Romney says he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it came to his desk as president, but he opposes any new gun legislation.

2011: Making his second presidential bid, Romney's campaigns on a promise to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

2012: Romney tells gun owners that Obama wants to erode their rights. "We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners," Romney told the National Rifle Association's annual convention. "President Obama has not. I will."

 

[pilotyip]

Pilots who vote republican are f u c k i n g morons. We are labor.

yes you make up .0003 percentage (assuming 150K major airline union members) of the US voter population, the candidates will not chase those voters. Growth in the airline job market depends upon consumers of airline tickets having jobs. The present administration is a failure in this area.

 

[waveflyer]

yes you make up .0003 percentage (assuming 150K major airline union members) of the US voter population, the candidates will not chase those voters. Growth in the airline job market depends upon consumers of airline tickets having jobs. The present administration is a failure in this area.

Name a republican administration where airline pilots did well

From what I can see, pilots and our companies are doing a lot better under Obama than they did under W. or does the Reagan line only apply to Carter?

 

[pilotyip]

Name a republican administration where airline pilots did well

From what I can see, pilots and our companies are doing a lot better under Obama than they did under W. or does the Reagan line only apply to Carter?

Eisenhower, great growth in airline industry, introduce jets, pay goes up, and age 60 retirement. Nixon, majors have record hiring boom, no college degree required, guys hired then never furloughed. Reagan, hiring boom anyone hired in 1983-84 never furloughed made major Captain in 5 years, been Captain ever since. It is clear the GOP destroyed our industry, but them Dem's did wonders. How about a Democratic President, Mr Cater gave us de-reg. Dem controlled congress gave age 65 in 2007. And airline growth under BO, what else can one say. Yea them Dem's have done wonders for our industry.

BTW Again back to .0003 of the US population, it does not motivate any politician to pursue the airline pilot votes. Besides compared to most Americans airline pilots are well paid.