Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Future President and Corp. Aviation

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Tgaug6300

Tgaug6300

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
269
I think it is safe to say that most of us in our profession are Republican (to prove that just walk into any Pilot Lounge and Fox News will be on). My question is this. Which candidate do you think will help our industry, and which candidate will be more apt to hurt it?

We all know that McCain was a pilot, and Cindy is a pilot. The family operates corporate aircraft. So you would think they would be pro-aviation. Yet Mccain wanted to initiate User Fees for those of us that use the IFR system (even though we already pay our share with fuel taxes).

Any thoughts?
 
why do.........

republicans always assume everyone else is a repubican???????

I hate politics.
 
Niether one of them will be good for aviation.

McCain has sponsored alot of anti-aviation legislation including the National Parks Overflight Act, and the the Pilot Record Sharing Improvement Act which led to me being fired from a job.. Let me explain. Back when it first came out, employers interpreted the law that you couldn't let a guy fly for you until all his paperwork came back OK. That process took 30 days or more (previous employers had 30 days to respond). I worked for a dirtbag 135 outfit and wanted to leave. So I interviewed with another 135 outfit that had multiple bases. The interview went well, but they offered me a job at a base I didn't want to be based at (required a relocation). So I turned the job offer down. Unbeknownst to me, they sent the PRIA paperwork to my current employer so that they could get the 30 day ball rolling. I show up to work the following day and was fired by the chief pilot (who knew I had the interview - because I asked for, and got, a recommendation) because the paperwork came across the owner of the company's desk.

That's how seemingly innocuous laws screw real people. In retrospect losing that job was the best thing that ever happened to me, but it still cost me in excess of $25K. I quit AOPA back when they used to recommend voting for John McCain for Senate. It just so happened that I lived in Arizona at the time. He really is a sad choice for Republicans. Look at some of the other legislation that he has sponsored. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman. He was the one who killed the original Boeing Tanker deal. He is no friend to aviation.

Obama on the other hand might be even worse. If Al Gore gets installed as the secretary of the interior or head the EPA, we will probably all be charged with war crimes or crimes against the planet.

Me personally I'm voting for Sarah Palin because she is HOT:nuts: and I hope McCain strokes out or something and she becomes the first female President (that way Hillary would stroke out too)
 
Last edited:
I usually don't get too involved in the political debate. But since everyone (not in this thread) seems to just throw around accusations not backed up by facts, I figured I would do some research regarding the Democrats assertion that the reason we are in this situation today is because of the Republicans. Soooo, here it is. I have included links to back up the assertions.

What the Democrats who control Congress have really accomplished the past two years since taking control of the US Congress. Nothing!!

Before the democrats took control 2-years ago this is how the overall economy stood.

Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/27/business/fi-econ27

Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/19/markets/lundberg_gasprices/index.htm

The unemployment rate was 4.6%.
http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

Consumer confidence plummets.
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/ConsumerConfidence.cfm

The cost of regular gasoline soared to $4.11 a gallon;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25665179/

Unemployment is up to 5.7 (actually 5.8% as of today) ;
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); by the way the Democrats control the powerful Banking Committee and look what they have done to the Mortgage loan business.

In June 2008, the committee chairman, Christopher Dodd, was linked to troubled subprime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. Published reports revealed Dodd had received mortgages on favorable terms owing to being a "FOA"--a Friend Of embattled Countrywide head Angelo Mozilo


Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;

1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

Oil from 55 a barrel to 142 a barrel (McCain wants America to drill for more of its own oil, as a bridge and the Republicans proposed in June 08 to the democrats to stop blocking this, the Democrat led congress led by Pelosi, Obama and Hillary responded by going on a week long vacation on 6/27)

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

I will say I am not happy about how much our deficit has rose during this administration and it needs to be reigned in.

As far as who is better for us, I think we all need to realize that no one from either side really gives a rat's a$$ about our plights.

The Republicans lost their way over the past eight years. I think you will see McCain move more towards the middle during these next 59 days. That was one of the main reasons for selecting Palin, to solidify and get the backing of the base. Without the base he had absolutely zero chance of winning.

So go ahead and spin away on this one.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much right on.

My only hope is that John McCain gets elected and then becomes incapacitated.

OTOH if Obama gets elected, I think that he will be unable to get anything meaningful done and the country will continue down the path that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried started two years ago (see 54Fighting's post above). Obama does not have the experience or the chips to call in to get any significant legislation passed IMHO. An Obama Presidency would in most likelihood preclude the threat of Hillary ever running again (although that girl has some chutzpa). Is anyone on the Supreme Court on a death watch (maybe Ginsberg?). That could be an issue, but at worst we would maintain staus quo.

4 years of impotence in the WH would take the wind out of many liberals' sails. Especially since they have built Obama up as their Messiah (SPOILER ALERT -think back to when you found out Santa Clause wasn't real). Maybe then they will see that Gov't cannot do anything for you, you must do it for yourself. TANSTAAFL
 
Last edited:
54, hate to burst your bubble, but the housing mess was already in play long before the democrats took control (and barely just) of Congress in 2006. The beginnings started when the Bush Administration relaxed the banking rules back in 2003 and Alan Greenspan sat by quietly and just rode the current political winds instead of airing his concerns about subprime lending. We know how the rest of the story played out over the past 5 years.

re: high fuel prices. This has more to do with oil demand from China and India and market speculators than Congress. (Remember how Enron was able to control energy market pricing in California?) I do put some blame on Congressional legislators and presidents over the past 30 years for failing to form a coherent energy policy. We're still very much in need of one, BTW. And, no, the secret meetings between Bush/Cheney and the oil companies back in 2001 do not count as forming an energy policy.
 
AeroBoy said:
54, hate to burst your bubble, but the housing mess was already in play long before the democrats took control (and barely just) of Congress in 2006. The beginnings started when the Bush Administration relaxed the banking rules back in 2003 and Alan Greenspan sat by quietly and just rode the current political winds instead of airing his concerns about subprime lending. We know how the rest of the story played out over the past 5 years.

re: high fuel prices. This has more to do with oil demand from China and India and market speculators than Congress. (Remember how Enron was able to control energy market pricing in California?) I do put some blame on Congressional legislators and presidents over the past 30 years for failing to form a coherent energy policy. We're still very much in need of one, BTW. And, no, the secret meetings between Bush/Cheney and the oil companies back in 2001 do not count as forming an energy policy.
Click to expand...


No you are not bursting my bubble. I just pointed out some interesting facts that were backed up. I appreciate your insight and respect your views.

Obama/Biden are trying to run on a change platform. Change for the sake of change is not a platform. The Democrats have controlled both the House and Senate and have had 1.5 years to try and offer something of substance. They have done nothing. You can't have it both ways, trying to tell the public, "it's not our fault, it's all theirs."

Regardless of who is eating up the supply of oil, we have not done a single thing in this country to remove our dependence on foreign oil. Imagine what we could do with the $700 billion dollars that has left our country.

As I noted above, the Republicans somehow lost their way over the past eight years. Listening to McCain last night, I think you are going to see the John McCain of 2000. I think he is going to become more of that moderate Republican we were used to seeing, but he needed to shore up the base at the convention. As evident from some of his suggestions, where there were applause lines, no one on the floor really applauded and you could sense the uncomfortable feeling.
:beer:
 
Last edited:
With McCain we can probably expect to see some minor cost increases in some areas with a form of user fees, however, compared to the overall budget of operating corporate aircraft I believe it will not be all that significant.

Obama on the other hand is a different story. If, and a big if here, he is allowed by Congress to imposes the high increases of tax rates on companies and corporations we could very well see some drastic cut backs in corporate flight departments.

What needs to be remembered is that the President, no matter who is President, cannot change taxation, up or down, only Congress can do that. The same hold true with user fees, again only Congress has that power.

Personal guess, as long as the economy stays stable we will not see much in the way of change.
 
Plain and simple for me. I fly for a wealthy individual. When Oboma jacks all of our taxes through the roof and those of the small business's he owns, I may be in trouble.

NObama No way!
 
400A said:
When Oboma jacks all of our taxes through the roof ...
Click to expand...

Why do you guys ALWAYS repeat this? Does saying it over and over again make it true?

Do you earn more than about $260,000 a year? If so, congratulations, you're doing well. You're also making more than 95% percent of the people in this country. Those 95% will receive a tax CUT under Obama's plan. Here is but one article explaining it.

In addition, if McCain's ideas were enacted, the U.S. would lose $3.7 trillion in revenue between the years of 2009 and 2018, while Obama's plan means a loss of $2.7 trillion during the same years.

Also, a recent GAO report showed that during the years 1998-2005 about 66% of U.S. corporations paid ZERO income tax for at least one of those years, even when they were showing profits. Is that fair to you, or are you uninterested?

There is so much information out there available about this...just Google it. Why do people keep believing that everyone's taxes will go up under Obama? It isn't true.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...20080611_220050.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5
 
Last edited:
And bite the hand that feeds you. What good is a tax break when your company can no longer afford to keep your position? I'm not talking about large billion dollar corporations; I'm talking the small to medium sized business owner. Obama refuses to address what the impact will be on this segment, which happens to be our largest growing segment of business.

It is these tax breaks that allows business to expand, add employees and try to remain competitive, emphasizing the word try. Any increase on corporate taxes is going to come out of us the worker, whether it is reduced benefits or increase in cost of goods purchased or loss of jobs.

Make no mistake, it will be passed on to us, we are not getting anything free.

All Obama is doing is playing a shell game. Then you still have to address all his big government spending programs. Where is that money going to come from?

 
54fighting said:
Regardless of who is eating up the supply of oil, we have not done a single thing in this country to remove our dependence on foreign oil. Imagine what we could do with the $700 billion dollars that has left our country.

I think he is going to become more of that moderate Republican we were used to seeing, but he needed to shore up the base at the convention. :beer:
Click to expand...
Ashton Kutcher, come out! Where are you, because I know we are being punked by 54fighting.

54, please; Imagine what we could do with the 1 TRILLION dollars we have wasted on Iraq. Has that crossed your mind? What are we even doing in Iraq? Don't give me some line about getting rid of a horrible dictator; there are MANY leaders out there worse than Hitler, much less Saddam, and we have let them go on with business as usual. Bob Mugabee in Zimbobwe (sp?) is one example.

What makes you think McCain is going to do as you say? Do you remember a compassionate conservative running for office in Y2k? I do, and look at where he has gotten us. Tell both sides of the story, not just the slant and spin.
 
con-pilot said:
Obama on the other hand is a different story. If, and a big if here, he is allowed by Congress to imposes the high increases of tax rates on companies and corporations we could very well see some drastic cut backs in corporate flight departments.

What needs to be remembered is that the President, no matter who is President, cannot change taxation, up or down, only Congress can do that. The same hold true with user fees, again only Congress has that power.

Personal guess, as long as the economy stays stable we will not see much in the way of change.
Click to expand...
NO, NO, NO. Congress does nothing more than make reccomendations to the president. If the president approves of the request (whether or not it is initiated by the White House), then he signs the bill and it becomes law. Checks and Balances, Mr. Civics. You say the president does not control taxation?
Read my Lips, No New taxes. Are you old enough to remember that? It's a promise George H.W. Bush made in 1988 to voters who went on to elect him. Guess what, Because of the trickle down effect of Reaganomics, he was forced to raise taxes (Congress Ok'd it and he signed the tax bill into law), thus opening the door for those same voters to elect his A$$ right our of office and let Bill Clinton in. Wasn't his fault; the Reagan Admin did not let him know how bad the deficit (budget) was, so he made somewhat of a blind promise he otherwise would not have made had Reagan been honest with him, his own VP!

Good thing that happened. Congress does not have near the power you say. Please reasearch your statements before you get on here essentially lying and misleading people who might not keep up with the stuff as well as you and I do.
 
con-pilot said:
Personal guess, as long as the economy stays stable we will not see much in the way of change.
Click to expand...
Oh yea, the economy is Tip Top! There are from Today's News Wire.

U.S. unemployment rate hits a five-year high
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26558445/

U.S. Economy Remains Weak, Fed Finds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/09/03/AR2008090301939.html?nav=rss_business

U.S. takeover set for mortgage giants
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080906/ap_on_bi_ge/mortgage_giants_crisis
 
400A said:
Plain and simple for me. I fly for a wealthy individual. When Oboma jacks all of our taxes through the roof and those of the small business's he owns, I may be in trouble.

NObama No way!
Click to expand...
I am getting so sick and tired of these lies. People really can't be this stupid. Uninformed and simple people make themselves look as foolish as they are. I am not some Obama fan, but don't lie about what he has proposed.

Obama plan is as follows: He is not going to RENEW the tax breaks GW gave the weathisest 5% of Americans. If you call that 'jacking all of our taxes through the roof', then you need to pick up a newspaper and turn off faux news. You need to make $260K for you to even notice this happeneing. 400A, how the hell have you missed this fact? How? How on earth could you miss that fact? You don't make 260k; I know you dont. Why do you keep telling these lies? I am sick of it and I am not going to bite my lip anymore when you get on here speaking on subjects that clearly exceed the scope of your knowledge. Why do you do that?

While we all got 300 dollar checks, the richest 5% of americans got tax breaks. When you look at their Net pay, then give them a reduction of tax liability on that Net pay, with the dollar amounts the richest 5% make, the reduction percentage of that Net pay makes for one hell of a Gross takehome pay.

Had you actually read or listened to the facts, you would know you personally will not be affected by that tax cut expiring; for that matter, neither of us will. Let be honest here, neither of us or anyone we know except the people we fly for, will even notice the tax cuts not being renewed.

What that means is that they'll (the rich) go back to paying the same tax rates they paid when they were making money hand over fist when Bill Clinton was in office.

I fly a G450 in your same situation; flying for a wealthy individual. I know I make more money than you, fly more expensive equipment than you, have higher operating costs than you (direct and indirect), and have a larger annual budget than you, and our organization is not the least bit worried; if yours is, then they simply cannot afford the upgrade they just made from a "Hawker 400XP" to a 750. I suspect your organization does not share your same views on the economics of jet ops in an Obama presidency. If so, I guess a low time 750 is going on the market if he is elected and you and the other crew will be made available to industry?
 
Last edited:
HawkerFO, not spinning anything just asked a pretty relevant question. I didn't make anything personal out of my posts but you seem to have an issue with it because I have an alternative view of yours.

Because we have different views and do not support Obama we are uneducated on the subject. Instead of answering what is the true impact on small businesses here in the US will be, you go off about the war which I never even brought up and you have no clue what my opinion is on it! Nor do you have any clue as to my current or past association with the military.

So I am assuming you find that it is perfectly fine to send 700 billion dollars to foreign countries when we can be doing something here to set up a "bridge" to get off foreign dependence since you refused to answer it.

I have been to both candidates sites and have been trying to digest all of the "look what I will do for you, just elect me" information. All I am looking for is some healthy debate. As I told Aero Boy in an earlier post, I respect his view even though we disagree and he didn't need to make a smart a$$ remark to start off his reply to me.

And in following your advice, “Tell both sides of the story, not just the slant and spin.” you may have wanted to include this little snippet as well that was just released at the end of August, it would have lended much more credit to your fair and balanced reporting.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5971450.html

Am I excited about this, no not really. I don’t think we are anywhere out of the woods and we have a lot of hard work in front of us. But it was growth.

Also, here are the average unemployment rates for the last 4 presidents. For current Bush and Clinton I used 7 years since Bush is only in his 7th year right now.

5.19 Bush
5.38 Clinton
6.3 Bush 1
7.83 Reagan

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp
 
Just like Obama, Hawker F/O always reverts to personal attacks and name calling to get his point across. Because he yells and screams he is sure to be smarter than me.

Inheritance Taxes? (will hit me in the next 10 years)

Capital Gains Taxes? (will hit me in the next 10 years)

In my opinion, if someone is going to be in charge of the military, he needs to be at least remotely familiar with the military. Doing drugs in Law school did not qualify him for this in my opinion. You are welcome to your own and I will not yell and scream and tell you how wrong you are.


OK Hawker F/O, take another hit, and go to yelling and screaming again.
 
Last edited:
54fighting said:
So I am assuming you find that it is perfectly fine to send 700 billion dollars to foreign countries when we can be doing something here to set up a "bridge" to get off foreign dependence since you refused to answer it.
Click to expand...
54, this is exactly my point. You keep bringing up this 700 Billion, but then when I bring up the 1 Trillion we have spent in Iraq, you simply choose to ignore it. 1 Trillion is well over 10 times the 700 Billion you keep talking about. If you are so passionate about the 700B, how can you just ignore the 1Trillion? Why are you not appalled about the wasted 1 Trillion?
 
Ok, so you agree that $700B is fine to go to other governments. I don't agree with that at all.
You need to get off your war cry, it is what it is, but I supose that is what your platform reverts to when they do not wan't address questions that they either have no valid plan or are uncomfortable answering.

No, I do not like having to fund this war as a civilian or as a former military officer. But you know what, we are in it. I am not going to support cutting off funding for my fellow soldiers who I have served with. This is what your candidate and democrats wanted to do. God, he couldn't even admit he was wrong to Bill O'Reilly when pressed about the surge. There were other battles to be fought rather than going back in a second time, but I will not turn my back on our Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen.

But make no mistake I want us out of there as quickly as possible.

So there you have my opinion on it, now you don't have to assume what it is.
 
Last edited:

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom