The Costa Citationair

[*#$% Headwinds]

Gret, thanks for making my point. Your source is a shill for a right wing anti-union think tank. His opinion means nothing to me. Have a nice day.

 

[gret]

"The problem with closed minded people, is that their mouth is always open."

-Unknown

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

Ahh. I validated your source and I'm closed minded? The mans job is to slander unions. Come to me with a reputable source, not propaganda. I will listen all day and twice on Sunday.

 

[Praetorian]

How is what I wrote out of context? I didn't offer any commentary other than Praetorian made up the 93 percent of all income number, and then I quoted the text that specifically refuted his claim. It doesn't matter what he may have "heard" from unreliable extremest left wing talking heads. They either don't know what their talking about, or more likely, are purposely lying in an effort rile up the sheep. The actual data from the IRS is 17 percent. If he would have said 20 percent, I wouldn't have called him on it, but 93 percent is a ridiculous and a intentionally misleading inaccuracy.

You don't like my numbers so you attack the source? Matt Taibbi his hardly a left wing extremest, he has however been famously critical of the administrations fiscal policies.

At any rate, if you don't like that source, how about the CBO...

"... income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19 percent, just under 40% for the next 60 percent, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. As a result of that uneven income growth, the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined …"

 

[gret]

Teamsters good enough for you? Even they thought the bakers leadership were off their rockers...-

"On Friday, Nov. 9, the BCTGM began to strike at some Hostess production facilities without notice to the Teamsters despite assurances they would not proceed with job actions without contacting the Teamsters Union. This unannounced action put Teamster members in the difficult position of facing picket lines without knowing their right to honor such a line without being disciplined.

As is our longstanding tradition, Teamster members by and large are honoring Bakery Worker picket lines when encountered and complying with their contractual obligations when not encountering picket lines. The BCTGM leaders are putting Teamster members in a horrible position – asking them to support a strike that will put them out of a job when they haven’t even asked all their members to go on strike.

That strike is now on the verge of forcing the company to liquidate – it is difficult for Teamster members to believe that is what the BCTGM Hostess members ultimately wanted to accomplish when they went out on strike. We may never know unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote. Teamster members would understand that the will of the BCTGM Hostess membership was truly heard if that was the case."

Teamsters release on November 15, 2012

​

http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-bakery-workers-should-hold-secret-ballot-vote-hostess

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

See? I will agree that BCTGM chose badly. However IMO, the writing on the wall says that even if they had agreed to more concessions, it would simply have been delaying the inevitable liquidation. They had already saved the company once in 2004 with $115M in concessions that the company failed to capitalize. Then the private equity group multiplied Hostess' debt, while executives received massive (80% or more) raises right up until 2011. The Bakery workers action may have accelerated the inevitable, but they didn't bankrupt the company.

 

[Praetorian]

And here is another great piece by "extreme left" Tiabbi, partisans beware...

"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."

Read this conservatives, I think you will actually enjoy...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

 

[OHGOON]

Can't stand the guy. I just feel uncertain about the economy. How about you? We just have different views on how to bring certainty back around. I think less government and allowing people keep more of what they make will stimulate the economy. Let the people chose winners and losers. You think bigger government and letting politicians redistribute the taxes as they see fit as the way. It's a difference in philosophy.

You make this sound as if it's a zero sum game when it's not. It's not a difference in philosophy as it's a conversation about reality vs ideological phantasy and or mythology.

You might not personally like Hannity but you are spouting the same "tinkle on" nonsense he does so gleefully every night. The country has tried the "feed the rich and we will all be better off" routine since Ronnie's administration. It failed!

If it was so good for us to have less taxes, less regulation and more money in everyone's pocket as you claim, then why are we in the mess we are in?? (Please don't start with Obama's deficit spending, because he inherited the biggest sh!t sandwich ever before he was even sworn into office and then had to contend with the party of "NO" at every turn.) Besides, no Republican gave two wits about the deficit or shrinking the government (TSA, the largest one time expansion of Federal Workers under W.) when they were in total control of the government.

In other words, conservatives talk a lot about smaller government and less spending, but when actually in power their actions never seem to back up what they are selling to the public. The only reason their sales pitch is effective is that most right wing disciples seem to willfully ignore facts in favor of "Happy Thoughts" about a bygone era that when examined up close actually never existed in the first place. Mythology pure!

Cue up "America the Beautiful" and begin furiously waving little American flags conveniently made in China for so much less...

I.M.H.O of course.

 

[Sparse]

I guess warren buffet will do,it next. Funny how they support Obama but they like republican policy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/12/02/is-costcos-jim-senegal-a-hypocrite/

 

[OHGOON]

Ahh. I validated your source and I'm closed minded? The mans job is to slander unions. Come to me with a reputable source, not propaganda. I will listen all day and twice on Sunday.

The problem seems to be gret's inability to distinguish between propaganda and honest reporting.

I.M.H.O.

 

[OHGOON]

I guess warren buffet will do,it next. Funny how they support Obama but they like republican policy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/12/02/is-costcos-jim-senegal-a-hypocrite/

Wait, wait, you identified an executive manager who does one thing when he says another... How shocking!

How about the Koch brothers, why do they get a free pass from you?

http://theweek.com/article/index/206405/the-billionaire-koch-brothers-tea-party-puppetmasters

Buffet however is definitely the wrong example to compare this lying sack of excrement to. He has been consistent throughout that he has no problems with paying more and has called on the other 1%ters to do the same. So I don't think he will be hopping on this anytime soon because he cares more about his reputation and word than he does in saving a few mill on his tax return.

I.M.H.O

 

[gret]

The problem seems to be gret's inability to distinguish between propaganda and honest reporting.

I.M.H.O.

Oh...I can tell the difference and also recognize that both sides have points in their favor that are positive.

Personally, I am just more comfortable making choices and decisions for myself, rather than giving the authority to others. If others like the latter, that's OK with me...just don't say it is better and that all of us have to conform to your views.

When we generalize...we are normally wrong. Mgmt isn't always bad and unions aren't always good...it depends on their leadership skills.

There isn't an answer to all the previous posts that are going to satisfy everyone...time to move on as this is becoming rather boorish.

 

[Praetorian]

I guess warren buffet will do,it next. Funny how they support Obama but they like republican policy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/12/02/is-costcos-jim-senegal-a-hypocrite/

I hope you read the article you linked, because it makes my point about the kind of privilege the system has bestowed upon the wealthy:

"I hate to point out that I don’t think it is really that big a deal to the low six figure plodders (like we fractional pilots) who get the brief time in the sunlit lands over a quarter million in AGI. You really have to have quite a bit in invest-able assets outside retirement accounts for the new tax on investment income to sting an awful lot."

 

[Mungusaurus]

Can some moderator please change the subject title of this thread as it has NOTHING to do with CitationAir!

 

[X-rated]

You don't like my numbers so you attack the source? Matt Taibbi his hardly a left wing extremest, he has however been famously critical of the administrations fiscal policies.

At any rate, if you don't like that source, how about the CBO...

"... income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19 percent, just under 40% for the next 60 percent, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. As a result of that uneven income growth, the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined …"

WTF are you talking about? I only commented on one thing and one thing only. You said the top 1 percent of American earners accounted for 93 percent of all US income. That is categorically untrue and is an outrageous distortion of reality. It's so ridiculous, I find it impossible to take you seriously. You are either completely out of your depth, or are just a liar.

We now live in a country where, income inequality has soared to the highest level since the Great Depression, with the top one percent taking 93 percent of the income earned last year. A pure plutocracy.

The Reality:

"The income thresholds are for the amount of AGI on a return, not per taxpayer.

That means a single filer who made $343,927 or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. A married couple with two kids and combined earnings of $343,927 or more also was among the top earners in the country. The 2009 figures are the latest the IRS has tallied. Filing of returns for tax year 2010 didn't officially close until Oct. 17.

The 1.4 million Americans in the IRS' top taxpayer category in 2009 reported nearly 17 percent of all the country's taxable income. From those filers, the IRS collected $318 billion or almost 37 percent of all the individual taxes paid in 2009."

 

[OHGOON]

Oh...I can tell the difference and also recognize that both sides have points in their favor that are positive.

Personally, I am just more comfortable making choices and decisions for myself, rather than giving the authority to others. If others like the latter, that's OK with me...just don't say it is better and that all of us have to conform to your views.

When we generalize...we are normally wrong. Mgmt isn't always bad and unions aren't always good...it depends on their leadership skills.

There isn't an answer to all the previous posts that are going to satisfy everyone...time to move on as this is becoming rather boorish.

Now this is your first post in this thread that I can wholeheartedly support. I am shocked, but I actually agree with all of it!

Calm, fair and reasoned.

Thank you, well done.
:beer:

 

[gret]

Now this is your first post in this thread that I can wholeheartedly support. I am shocked, but I actually agree with all of it!

Calm, fair and reasoned.

Thank you, well done.
:beer:

Damn it! I'm always fair and calm! Why can't people see that?

 

[Praetorian]

WTF are you talking about? I only commented on one thing and one thing only. You said the top 1 percent of American earners accounted for 93 percent of all US income. That is categorically untrue and is an outrageous distortion of reality. It's so ridiculous, I find it impossible to take you seriously. You are either completely out of your depth, or are just a liar.

I gave the source of the 93% number and you began bleating about it being from right wing extremists. I then went on to refute that assertion and gave you a similar separate reference to income inequality from the CBO. Try to follow along.

Given the marshmallow filled bubble, from within which your clouded view of reality seems to emanate I couldn't care less what you think of me.

 

[Praetorian]

Oh, and here is another separate reference to the 93% number. Maybe Bloomberg news is lying too?

"The recovery that officially began in mid-2009 hasn’t arrived in most Americans’ paychecks. In 2010, the top 1 percent of U.S. families captured as much as 93 percent of the nation’s income growth, according to a March paper by Emmanuel Saez, a University of California at Berkeley economist who studied Internal Revenue Service data."

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...f-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

 

[X-rated]

Oh, and here is another separate reference to the 93% number. Maybe Bloomberg news is lying too?

"The recovery that officially began in mid-2009 hasn’t arrived in most Americans’ paychecks. In 2010, the top 1 percent of U.S. families captured as much as 93 percent of the nation’s income growth, according to a March paper by Emmanuel Saez, a University of California at Berkeley economist who studied Internal Revenue Service data."

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...f-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

Do you really not understand the difference between income growth rate and total income? What you said was "taking 93 percent of the income earned last year". You didn't say 93 percent of the income growth! Ahh, but it's a minor mistake. You only missed by about 76 percent of every earned dollar in the worlds largest economy. Wow...

 

[gret]

X-rated is spot on....no matter which side you are on.

Wow...this has become really embarrassing.

Good MNF tonight.

 

[Praetorian]

Do you really not understand the difference between income growth rate and total income? What you said was "taking 93 percent of the income earned last year". You didn't say 93 percent of the income growth! Ahh, but it's a minor mistake. You only missed by about 76 percent of every earned dollar in the worlds largest economy. Wow...

Well, you got me there. The word 'growth' should have been included in my original statement on this issue. I promise to be more careful in the future.

I wonder if you think that it's ok for the top 1 percent of U.S. families to have captured as much as 93 percent of the nation’s income growth in 2010?

I think I managed to get it right that time.

 

[gret]

Context and perspective-


"That’s why, in the community where economics and politics intersect, a new Saez paper is hot news. And his latest, which set Twitter abuzz this week, is a humdinger. Saez has come up with a killer fact: In the 2010 recovery, 93 percent of the gains were captured by the top 1 percent. That’s because top incomes grew 11.6 percent in 2010, while the incomes of the 99 percent increased only 0.2 percent."[/B]

"But Saez shows that while the financial crisis hurt those at the top more than anyone else — income of the 1 percent plummeted 36.3 percent between 2007 and 2009, compared with an overall average fall of 17.4 percent — their recovery has been spectacular, while everyone else has languished."

​

http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2012/03/08/the-1-percent-recovery/

First a little background about the researchers (they're both French hippies )-

Emmanuel Saez is a French economist and Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley (therefore a radical agitator). His work, done with Thomas Piketty (another French left leaning professor at the Paris School of Economics), includes tracking the incomes of the poor, middle class and rich around the world. Their work shows that top earners in the United States have taken an increasingly larger share of overall income over the last three decades, with almost as much inequality as before the Great Depression. He recommends much higher taxes on the rich, up to 70% or 90%.

Both researchers are viewed as a couple of nuts by real economist from what I read.
​

Now to the facts...93% sounds immense, until you study the numbers further. A link to the actual study is included in the link above. The 1% in the study are not the wealthiest people, it is based on the income reported by individuals on their Federal income tax returns.

The 1% experienced an income gain of 11.6% (how much is due to the 84% gain from the DJIA from the low in 2009 to the recovery thru the end of 2010?) while the 99% only increased .2%. They did not include the rise in retirement accounts from 2009 to 2010 in the income of the 99% as they excluded all non taxable benefits and social security payments in their computations.

The fact that they did not include unemployment compensation...means the salaries lost due to layoffs have not been adjusted to reflect the offset from unemployment payments. How much did this impact the 99% is not known.

I'm guilty as anyone, but using headline numbers provided by a couple of French left leaning hippies is a dangerous sport.

 

[gret]

As an addendum to the above, and to bring tears to the eyes of the thread readers-

The income of the so called 1% reflects taxable earnings of pass thru entities (i.e. partnerships, LLC's, and Subchapter S corporations). This income isn't necessarily received by the taxpayers as most of the earnings are left in the business for capital expenditures and other growth activities that provide most of the jobs in the US.​

 

[X-rated]

Well, you got me there. The word 'growth' should have been included in my original statement on this issue. I promise to be more careful in the future.

I wonder if you think that it's ok for the top 1 percent of U.S. families to have captured as much as 93 percent of the nation’s income growth in 2010?

I think I managed to get it right that time.

Hey man, you don't know what my politics are. I'm extremely moderate, and I don't think it's ok. I've never gotten involved in a political debate on the internet before because it's completely pointless. I pretty much limited my involvement in this one to trying to correct one grossly inaccurate statement. You certainly didn't make it easy. I think we all know what happened now, and we'll give you the benefit of the doubt about what you intended to say.

Please carry on, and excuse me while I return to my Marshmallow Bubble.

 

[OHGOON]

Do you really not understand the difference between income growth rate and total income? What you said was "taking 93 percent of the income earned last year". You didn't say 93 percent of the income growth! Ahh, but it's a minor mistake. You only missed by about 76 percent of every earned dollar in the worlds largest economy. Wow...

x-rated,

public math is always fraught with danger.

Let me help you understand the overall point. We live in a world controlled by the rich and their corporations. However you slice it, there is without a doubt a massive wealth concentration going on at the very top.

The original argument began when some here claimed the USA is turning toward socialism. (even communism was mentioned). No matter how you spin or cook the numbers, it is obvious to any unbiased observer that the USA is anything but a socialistic society. The redistribution of wealth which is such a breathlessly favorite topic inside of the Republican bubble, is actually happening, but only from the 99% towards the 1%. Exactly the opposite than their hysterical claims.

 

[OHGOON]

As an addendum to the above, and to bring tears to the eyes of the thread readers-

The income of the so called 1% reflects taxable earnings of pass thru entities (i.e. partnerships, LLC's, and Subchapter S corporations). This income isn't necessarily received by the taxpayers as most of the earnings are left in the business for capital expenditures and other growth activities that provide most of the jobs in the US.​

That didn't last long. You were doing so well, what happened?

Ignoring for a minute your amusing prejudices against the French, academics in general and UCB professors specifically, and lastly "hippies" what ever those are these days; I have to call total BS on your last quote or statement. You really want us to believe that the rich leave "most" of their earnings in their businesses in order to expand them for the rest of us? How magnanimous of them, I feel so cared for suddenly...That is the best laugh I've had all day.

Let's take the magic underwear wearing android for a minute, just as one random example mind you. Did he leave most of his earnings in Bane Capital or whatever that bloodsucking firm of his is called? (too tired & uninterested to look it up properly, sorry) If this was true, then where are those millions (billions?) of his in the Cayman Islands accounts, and elsewhere, coming from?

At some point conservatives have got to come back to earth and realize that all that fancy bubble talk is just a bunch of hot air designed to obfuscate the fact that you too are at the receiving end of a massive economic screw job.

You can stamp your feet all you want, there is just no getting around the fact that the idea of the "job creators" is fiction. It just doesn't happen that way.

BTW, who or what exactly is a "real" economist and why is a Prof. from Berkeley automatically a "radical agitator"?

Who said...

When we generalize...we are normally wrong.

???

 

[gret]

A little sense of humor goes a long ways.

We simply aren't as smart as we think we are...and issues we face everyday aren't as big of deal as we make them out to be.

 

[X-rated]

x-rated,

public math is always fraught with danger.

Let me help you understand the overall point. We live in a world controlled by the rich and their corporations. However you slice it, there is without a doubt a massive wealth concentration going on at the very top.

OHGOON, He actually had the math right. It was that one pesky little conceptual detail that completely changed the magnitude and scope of what he was asserting.

But ah... thanks for helping me understand the overall point.:erm:

Sorry. As much as I'm tempted, you're not dragging me into this any further.

I hope you all get to turn off your computers and go out and fly an airplane today. As many have already noted, this thread hijacking is completely embarrassing. Please accept my apologies for my participation.

 

[OHGOON]

OHGOON, He actually had the math right. It was that one pesky little conceptual detail that completely changed the magnitude and scope of what he was asserting.

But ah... thanks for helping me understand the overall point.:erm:

Sorry. As much as I'm tempted, you're not dragging me into this any further.

I hope you all get to turn off your computers and go out and fly an airplane today. As many have already noted, this thread hijacking is completely embarrassing. Please accept my apologies for my participation.

You're welcome, glad to help.

No apologies necessary. I think we all recognize when one becomes too unsure of one's position to continue further. Who cares if this thread became about something else than mindless union bashing, happens all the time on this board; so??

The national election has demonstrated without a doubt (except maybe inside the minority Repub. bubble) that the political pendulum is firmly swinging back towards the center and away from all that right wing claptrap. (I know, I know, some of the red states are now trying to secede. I say, let em go. They will form a new Union of Dummies that will provide new cheap illegal labor with native language skills for the rest of us, sort of Mexico light. My apologies to Mexicans.) Oops, I digress again..

Ok then, if we must pretend to adhere to the orthodoxy of only posting about what the first guy who happened to uke: into his computer brought up;

Let's talk about why there are still people unwilling to support their Union at CitationAir, when it is now clear as day that it's actually run by volunteer fellow pilots and not any "Costa" (I think what was meant was Cosa, Costa means Coast as in Ocean:erm who are busting their a$$es everyday to make CA all it can possibly be. What else do the naysayer's want? Why the childish non participation? Why the adherence to willful misinformation despite all evidence to the contrary?

It's never going backwards, get over it already and realize it's in your best interest now to be involved! It would be so much more effective if all pilots got off of their lazy-boys and actually helped out. Solidarity is what is needed but sadly some pilots are still displaying that they, for the most part, are "dumber than a box of rocks" by actually making life more difficult for those that are stepping up by throwing said rocks at them whenever they can.

Stop fighting a battle that has already been won! Get involved so that we can help our less than talented management save our company from themselves. Many don't want to leave for a new job or can't afford to. If everyone in that category is not doing everything they can to support their Union than they have no one to blame but themselves should the day ever come that it all begins to fall apart.

The olden days ended completely when SO got fired and BS is now playing nice in China... Time to wake up and realize it's a totally new ballgame.
In other words, this time it's actually about reality and not "philosophical differences".

You can't eat mythology!

How's that for yanking the Titanic back on course the last minute XXX?? Better?

Almost forgot:
I.M.H.O.