Non aviation subject. This is well put!

[FL000]

Inapplicable analogy.......one's subjective responsibility to contribute to society is hardly analagous to your cute story.

We have no (zip, zilch, zero) "subjective responsibility" to give money and handouts to those who don't work, but can. People who give money to the non-working are hardly contributing to society. Those who work hard, earn money, pay taxes, create jobs and spur the economy certainly do. Those who leech and walk around with their hands out contribute nothing.

There are those who absolutely need help, but throwing money their way is not always the best solution. Volunteer and mentoring programs exist in most cities if you feel compelled to help someone out. You know the one about giving a man a fish versus TEACHING him to fish.

The analogy is right on the money...so to speak.

 

[Rizer]

Just curious Timebuilder- What do you mean by legally descriminated against in hiring? Age?

 

[Timebuilder]

I am surprised that you ask, but I am willing to answer.

United undertook a program where a disproportionately large amount of individuals where hired because of special status accorded to them on the basis of race and gender. It was always my opinion, along with that of Martin Luther King jr., incidentally, that a person should compete with others for employment based on their ability.

Now, when they are in trouble, they will ask for money from a government where a very large amount of tax money is being generated by those people who were not accorded this special status with respect to hiring.

Is is doubly ironic that the mechanics are intransigent on the issue of givebacks. If they fail to cooperate, they may have no job at all. The labor groups must do their utmost to rescue their carrier from financial ruin.

I hold no grudge against the employees of United. I encourage them to do what is necessary to keep their jobs. Don't let the terrorists win.

I don't like the idea of a government bailout, but in realistic terms, the costs may be much higher if we don't help carriers like United.

 

[pipers]

That is one of the stupidest analogies that I have ever read. It amazes me how ignorant people are as to the United States welfare system. How anyone can liken a partying college student to the under privileged members of our society is beyond me. Do you guys honestly believe that people enjoy living on welfare? The truth is the giant corporations of America (including those that most of us are aspiring to work for) have received FAR more government "hand outs" than any social welfare recipient ever has. Our government, in the form of corporate welfare, has taken billions of dollars from hard working lower and middle class families and given these "hand out" to the likes of Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and even United. How members of our society can look down upon lower income welfare recipients while ignoring the giant, wealthy recipient is crazy and ignorant. I'm not entirely against "corporate welfare" mind you (I think that it can aid in economic growth in some situations), but it bothers me to no end when people think that every thing in our society is even and just and that we should rid ourselves of the welfare program. Finally, getting back to the analogy, I would gladly part with some points on my hard earned GPA if it meant helping those less fortunate then me.

 

[pipers]

I don't like the idea of a government bailout, but in realistic terms, the costs may be much higher if we don't help carriers like United. [/B]

The cost may be much higher if we don't help the underprivileged members of our society. (So its alright to help out United, but not a lower income single mother of three?)

 

[FL000]

Timebuilder,

We are arguing with people whose cohorts believe that Gore is President, OJ is innocent, and Clinton was a lynching victim. I think we are wasting our time.

I don't know about you, but I'm outa here. I have to go count some dangling chads, search for the real killers and finish my thesis, "Ken Starr: The Devil vs. St. Clinton".

 

[Timebuilder]

It's okay to help United when the underprivileged mother of three works there as a ticket agent. When she prefers smoking crack to having a job, that's a problem. This is the analogy to the partying college girl. Just like a welfare recipient, she won't work unless she has to, and she becomes an expert at working the system to get what she wants, such as the line of guys who are willing to buy her a meal at a moment's notice.

There are some who are UNABLE, and that's what charities are for. The UNWILLING deserve the bed they have made, and they need to lie in it until it becomes SO uncomfortable that they become motivated to change. When poverty was a dead end street, and carried a teriffic stigma, people fought tooth and nail to avoid being poor. Now we have made it acceptable, and in some cases even fashionable, to be poor.

All of the companies you mentioned (hand picked to be hot-buttons, I might add) had employees that were helped by the tax breaks and other "corporate welfare" that you mentioned. The bad actors, the people who made false and misleading statements should be tied to an anthill.

For some reason, people like to see corporations as some evil man, a la George Bailey's rival banker in It's a Wonderful Life.

Actually, corporations are owned by regular people. Stimulating and augmenting business, within limits, benefits people. A million dollars in so-called "corporate welfare" can help provide usefull jobs for thousands over several years. A million dollars in welfare payments benefits far fewer people for only one year.

 

[KingAirer]

I think this is why we try to keep politics out of the cockpit, can you imagine this in the air? Yikes

 

[Wolf King]

These arguments have gone on since well before any of us were born, and will for some time I am sure. But... I take some solace in the knowledge that flawed liberal viewpoints are becoming exposed and are nearing the end of their lifespan. Just look to the recent mid term election results to see the result of Americans fed up with Democrats off in la la land.

I could go on forever, but will spare myself the effort. I say within 10 years this argument will be moot, as the ineffectiveness of the current EOE/welfare state becomes so exposed (by all races and both sexes) that it will no longer exist. 9/11 was a horrible event, but one which marks the reversal of the pendulum back towards some political sanity in this country.

 

[pipers]

I think this is why we try to keep politics out of the cockpit, can you imagine this in the air? Yikes

Good point. I've never discussed politics in the cockpit and don't intend too. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anyone and the truth is that while we may have politics differences, we're all here becuase we love to fly. We some times forget that this is an aviation website and not a political one. Let's get back to aviation.