Non aviation subject. This is well put!

[172driver]

Taxes: actually, the top five percent of Americans pay the vast majority of the taxes the government receives! It floors me when I hear Tom Daschle complain about tax breaks for the rich, when they are only getting back a portion of what THEY have paid IN! When they get money back, jobs are created by investment of that money, carrying your retirement investments higher along with the market rise. When there is a "middle class" or "targeted" tax cut from a democrat, a few washing machines are purchased, and the economy stays where it is. Remember what happened when Reagan cut taxes across the board? The amount of tax money received by the government INCREASED.


Oh really? Why did we run a multi-billion dollar deficit then? I think Reagan showed very well that 'supply-side' does not work. The rich, who had their taxes cut, didn't invest or spend their surplus to help the masses. They saved it. Those who invested may have helped the retirement plans of the middle class but what about the lower to lower-middle class who could've used that little bit of extra money just to feed their families each month?

I know...pilots couldn't care less about them. Pilots have worked so hard for their position in life, blah, blah. Why is it then that most of the pilots I see (I work with hundreds of them) come from upper to upper middle class backgrounds? Most of us had a stable childhood, money for college, transportation, work ethic, lots of love and support, etc. Yeah, we had to work hard but at least we were provided with the tools to do so.

It is hard for many of us to relate to the kids who grew up with booze, crack, and daily abuse. These are the people who you propose taking welfare away from. Easy to blame their situation on the parents but what should we do for these kids? Should they 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' as you guys keep spouting? Think the corporate tax breaks are helping out their retirement plans? Think the corporations they might have a chance to work for will pay them a wage they can live on? Should we let them starve to death? I don't like the welfare system either but what are the alternatives for those unprepared by their parents to survive in this world?

 

[Purple Haze]

ShawnC,

...President Hillary...

Not 2004, but 2008 or 12. Where else is there to go?

 

[ShawnC]

ShawnC,

...President Hillary...

Not 2004, but 2008 or 12. Where else is there to go?

I know more than a couple that after the collapse of Pan Am went to South America. Myself as a computer programmer can make money anywhere, and am a pretty fast learner when it comes to languages.

 

[ShawnC]

Oh really? Why did we run a multi-billion dollar deficit then? I think Reagan showed very well that 'supply-side' does not work. The rich, who had their taxes cut, didn't invest or spend their surplus to help the masses. They saved it. Those who invested may have helped the retirement plans of the middle class but what about the lower to lower-middle class who could've used that little bit of extra money just to feed their families each month?

I told myself I was going to stay out of this, but I got dragged in my incorrect facts.

Well the reason that you didn't see if during Reagan's Presedency was because while Reagan was President he had to get it though a Democratics, you had controll. They wouldn't let him pass an immediate tax cut nor make the cuts come fast they forced on him a phased plan that took years to take effect.

So when the prime amounts of his tax cut came into to effect it was during the late stages of the Bush Sr, and early Clinton which helped create the Tech Boom of the 90's.

Clinton and Greenspan together killed it by raising the taxes and sharply rasing the intrest rates, making not as profitable to barrow money, and having less money avialable to be invested.

 

[DIRT]

172Driver

ShawnC you are absolutely correct. The US economy is so large that any changes take years to come to fruition, and by the time the economy really picked up Slick Willy rec'd all the credit meanwhile all he was doing was trying to do was bag all the interns (of course I don't fault him for that he just could have been a bit more selective but then again anything is better than Hillary).

172Driver you sound like a socialist. In a capitalist society in order for there to be haves there has to be have nots and if you don't have a marketable skill you are going to be a have not. I agree not all people have the same opportunity and it is our responsibility to help these people but I think for the most part we as a society do try and help these people but welfare and programs like it should be a stepping stone not a way of life like it is for some people.

 

[bulldog]

Aviation

Any of you boys seen an aviation website around here. Just hoping we can talk about something aviation related.

bulldog

 

[Timebuilder]

Oh really? Why did we run a multi-billion dollar deficit then? I think Reagan showed very well that 'supply-side' does not work. The rich, who had their taxes cut, didn't invest or spend their surplus to help the masses. They saved it. Those who invested may have helped the retirement plans of the middle class but what about the lower to lower-middle class who could've used that little bit of extra money just to feed their families each month?

In reality, 172, you are raising a VERY important point. Not only was there a recalcitrant democrat congress who finally bowed to public pressure on the tax cut issue, and the lag time discussed above for economic changes to come into full bloom, but the deficit spending had a very real cause. Some of it was justifed, as Carter had left our military hung out to dry, without the funding necessary to keep the services vital and up to date. Reagan helped to start to rebuild our military to the point where they were subsequently ready to fight the persian gulf war. There was a lot of other congressional spending that was far out of control, and the deficit ballooned. Some republicans went along, but the passage of those spending bills was firmly laid on the doorstep of the democrat controlled congress.

Thanks for asking about that. The reason for the large deficit is often ignored by the critics of the Reagan tax cuts.

I think Reagan showed very well that 'supply-side' does not work. The rich, who had their taxes cut, didn't invest or spend their surplus to help the masses. They saved it. Those who invested may have helped the retirement plans of the middle class but what about the lower to lower-middle class who could've used that little bit of extra money just to feed their families each month?

Actually, supply side DOES work. No matter what the largest taxpayers in our society do with their money (let's stress their money) the outcome is good for the middle class. If they save, that money is invested by banks. Businesses grow and employ more workers. New businesses are started, and people from welfare to work programs are hired and empowered. If they invest directly, stocks go up. If they spend their money, goods and services are sold to them. Maybe my company puts on another airplane, and two more crews are hired. Do you see? Money not taxed out of existance is free to be passed around our entire society, bringing security and stability wherever it goes!

If families had received only the "little bit of money" that you speak about, and it is spent, is it enough to open a new supermarket that employs 50 people who had been out of work? Or, on the other hand, does that "little bit" get spent on a few lottery tickets, or a night in Atlantic City? You have to remember that chestnut about the difference between giving a man a fish, and teaching him how to fish. When the top five percent of taxpayers get a tax reduction, a whole lot of people learn how to fish.

It is hard for many of us to relate to the kids who grew up with booze, crack, and daily abuse. These are the people who you propose taking welfare away from. Easy to blame their situation on the parents but what should we do for these kids? Should they 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' as you guys keep spouting? Think the corporate tax breaks are helping out their retirement plans? Think the corporations they might have a chance to work for will pay them a wage they can live on? Should we let them starve to death? I don't like the welfare system either but what are the alternatives for those unprepared by their parents to survive in this world?

Bring it on, my friend. You remind me of myself when I was a liberal. Let's take a look.

It is hard for many of us to relate to the kids who grew up with booze, crack, and daily abuse. These are the people who you propose taking welfare away from. Easy to blame their situation on the parents but what should we do for these kids?

Some of these problems are cultural. This means that members of these communities have to better police themselves against these domestic cancers. If solutions came from outside these communities, the first card played by the self-appointed "leaders" is the race card. They say that "the white man wants us under his thumb". Folks need to take back their communities, and not allow the open air drug markets, the gangs, the criminal lifestyle. Glorifying "gangstas" and bad attitudes is a symptom. Read what Walter Wiliams has to say about this. He grew up in the Richard Allen Homes in Philadelphia. I myself lived in some of Philly's most poor neighborhoods, so I have a personal insight into this. The problem with the kids is this: they are growing up idolizing dope dealers and murderers. One big problem, especially in the black communitiy, is the idea that if you live a clean, repectable, law-abiding life, study hard, and go on to college (based on your meritorious work) you are widely seen as "acting white" and are seen as an outcast, a pariah. This accusation suggests that to do the obverse is to be "acting black". A number of black writers have worked on this subject, if you doubt the perspective of a white man.

Think the corporate tax breaks are helping out their retirement plans?

I think that corporate tax breaks free up investment money and charitable giving to foundations that are working to help people escape these horrible conditions. A large part of this is the coming reality of "faith based initiatives" which will make better use of government money than the old "welfare" system. There is a large Christian component in the black community, and they stand ready to do an admirable job.

Should we let them starve to death? I don't like the welfare system either but what are the alternatives for those unprepared by their parents to survive in this world?

No. I don't think anyone is starving to death. There is a great deal of inertia to be overcome as we try and help these communities to slow and then reverse their moral decay. We quite effectively removed any sense of right and wrong from the classrooms where these children attend school, and now we wonder why they will shoot another child for a pair of sneakers. Almost every minority who is successful for some skill not related to music or athletics is a person who was raised by people of faith, and got where he or she is today by hard work. Or, as their detractors would say in their old neighborhoods today, they are successful because they acted white. That is racism of the worst kind, to sabotage the children who could become decent citizens.

The only satisfying movement to bring about this cultural change must come from within the poorest communities, and be assisted by the rest of us. Government checks on the first Monday will only slow the healing.

I hope that this helps you to have a better understanding.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Re: 172Driver

172Driver you sound like a socialist. In a capitalist society in order for there to be haves there has to be have nots and if you don't have a marketable skill you are going to be a have not. I agree not all people have the same opportunity and it is our responsibility to help these people but I think for the most part we as a society do try and help these people but welfare and programs like it should be a stepping stone not a way of life like it is for some people.

Dirt, I disagree that for capitalism to exist there must be haves and havenots in the traditional sense. While there will always be some who have less than others, that is a far cry from being a "havenot". Consider that most of the people in America who would be clasified as "havenots" by our more liberal bretheren have air conditioning, a microwave, a color TV (or two), a CD player, a refridgerator....

The point is made, I think, that compared to other nations or even to history, the "poor" in America don't go without in most cases - they simply have less than others. Add to this the fact that OPPORTUNITY is available to anyone who will avail themselves of it.

No one is forced to do without just so that some can have more than others.

 

[414Flyer]

It amazes me that Republicans have been railing against welfare forever but it took a Democratic President (Clinton) to actually reform the welfare system. Anyone remember workfare, not welfare. Ah...a selective memory is a wonderful thing.

You might check your own selective memory. Clinton would love for you to think it was his idea.

It was started by the 1994 Republicans in Congress.

Clinton refused to sign it for a while, until his pollsters told him it would be a political disaster not to.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Holy cow. Do you guys realize that in this thread, you've created a perfect metaphor for this nation's political system? Everyone's hollaring and pointing fingers...and nothing's changing.

One thing's for certain: our leaders should have spent more time trying to figure out what Al Queda was up to than they did on analyzing stains on Monica Lewinsky's clothing.