There goes your job ....

[johnsonrod]

Bush helped the fractional business BIG TIME

You can say what you will about Bush - he did ruin my political party with his stupidity and heavy spending - but he was pro-business and he significantly helped the aerospace sector by providing lower taxes and things like accelerated depreciation on business aircraft (a huge boon for the fractionals and the manufacturers). Bush was a complete idiot in general but he was helpful to the fractional/corporate operators and we should remember that. Yeah, I still think his heavy spending and bloated governement over the last 8 years was DISGRACEFUL and anti-Republican. It makes little sense.

Regardless, I highly doubt Obama will EVER contribute to our job security in this business despite his pro-union stance. So many aviators voted for Obama and now they have to live with it. Reminds me of the old saying: "You made your bed and now you have to sleep in it..."

Just remember this one point going forward: OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST. If you are not happy with that and the endless bailouts using your tax money, vote Republican in 2012. Simple as that.

 

[RNObased]

If cap-and-trade and this health care crap pass we will all be out of jobs before long. It won't matter which fractional you work for. These policies Obama is proposing will have huge negative financial effects on the type of people and companies that use us.

Have you noticed how Obama is in a hurry to get all this crap done. Is that because if it was 2010, and the mid-term elections were on the horizon it would be hard to carry his agenda forward.

 

[gunfyter]

Ask yourself this:

Why have customers left private aviation?


Answer: Because they can't afford to fly on Private Jets. Not because service is improved at the airlines.


Do you think reducing their take-home income by 5.4% is going to improve this situation or hurt the situation?

This new policy will decrease jobs for us!

 

[BoilerUP]

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders—what would you tell him to do?”

 

[jetwash]

Ask yourself this:

Why have customers left private aviation?


Answer: Because they can't afford to fly on Private Jets. Not because service is improved at the airlines.


Do you think reducing their take-home income by 5.4% is going to improve this situation or hurt the situation?

This new policy will decrease jobs for us!

Being a typical American I don't care about anyone else except myself. I am greedy and make my decisions on what is in my own best interest at that time.

I find it really amusing how people on this site have empathy for multi millionaires not being able to afford to fly to their vacation homes in Aspen but could care less about the poor who are struggling to provide health care to their families.

I will let you in on a secret, you are closer to being poor and without heath insurance then you are to be earning a million dollars a year and paying the 5.4% tax.

A co-worker of mine who was a neo conservative, anti-big government, anti socialized medicine pilot was furloughed recently. Having a sick child and being left to pay for COBRA insurance he was left to decide to pay for his kid's heath insurance or pay his mortgage. Lucky for him Obama cut the cost of COBRA for him from $1200 a month to $400 a month. His whole view of socialized medicine, big government and conservatism has now changed. I have empathy for him and his family.

By the way, do you think any of those millionaire passengers were worried about him and his family?

 

[DUATS]

10th Amendment

Its against the Constitution for the United States to run health care. See the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which says:

"... the United States will NOT run a national health care system, or anything thing else not specifically delegated to the United States. All Powers not specifically delegated to the United States are reserved to the States, and to the People...."
​

!

Actual Wording of the 10th Amendment, U.S. Constituion:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Gunfyter:
If the side of conservitivism and common sense is to prevail, we must ensure that we are accurate in what we say. Otherwise we just sound like Sotomayor!!!

I do agree that taking another 5% from our owners/customers is not going to help get the 1,000+ fractional pilots currently not flying for the Big 4 back in the air.

 

[BoilerUP]

Being a typical American I don't care about anyone else except myself. I am greedy and make my decisions on what is in my own best interest at that time.

In much the same way, being a typical American I EXPECT and DEMAND the government to take care of MY problems when I need it. After all, I'm ENTITLED to it.

By the way, do you think any of those millionaire passengers were worried about him and his family?

No - why should they?

I understand the issues when one loses a job - my mother was let go from her company of 29 years last November, less than 7 hours after the election was called for Obama. She carried the health insurance for her and my father, and the reduced COBRA has been a great benefit for them.

Additionally, my wife is Type I diabetic and we've had to jump through all the pre-existing condition hoops with coverage before when carriers have attempted to (wrongly) deny coverage. Believe me, I'm acutely aware how important health care is and how expensive it can be to obtain on your own.

But my mom, dad, wife and I are not owed health care. Health care is a benefit of employment, not an intrinsic right of life or US citizenship. While the need for health care reform is obvious, we can't have true health care reform in the United States simply by creating another massive government agency - you MUST have tort reform. Without it, we're just throwing more money down a hole that will come out of the pockets of you, me, and everybody who employs anybody.

I (we) all get a paycheck in exchange for our services rendered - beyond that, nobody owes us anything.

 

[gunfyter]

Actual Wording of the 10th Amendment, U.S. Constituion:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Gunfyter:
If the side of conservitivism and common sense is to prevail, we must ensure that we are accurate in what we say. Otherwise we just sound like Sotomayor!!!

I do agree that taking another 5% from our owners/customers is not going to help get the 1,000+ fractional pilots currently not flying for the Big 4 back in the air.

That was my translation for the Constitutionally impaired....

 

[Trash8Mofo]

Tax cuts for the rich = MORE and bigger airplanes and MORE jobs for pilots!

I respectfully disagree. Less tax revenue from the rich means somebody else would have to shoulder the load. Namely, You and I, and the rest of the middle class. If you recall, RTS said that during his interview with CNBC: the owner's leisure travel has not dropped much, it is the business travel that dropped because of the recession.

While the housing and financial sector started this recession, but it is primarily sustained because of less spending from the middle class. If the middle class has to continue to shoulder the extra loads in tax obligations that the rich is avoiding, than the middle class' spending will continue to be depressed. So it'd prolong this recession and the fractional (business traveler's) recovery and future growth.

 

[GerryG]

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent, congressional sources said.
The tax rate is higher than the 3 percent surtax lawmakers had been discussing earlier and would be imposed on those making more than $1 million a year, the sources said.
(Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by Sandra Maler)

​

Now your passengers can't afford a private jet anymore....

Do they email you the talking points, or do you just watch a lot of Fox (RNC apparatchik) News? I hope you were not this worried about the wealthy folks bottom lines back in 05 and 07 when you were looking for wages increases. I know I'm not.

So screw the uninsured as long as I gets mine. Is that it? Never mind that they are a drain on the overall health care system (everyone knows the best care can be found at your local E.R.) and we end up paying for the inefficiency of it all it in the end. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/233530/july-14-2009/the-word---guns--credit--and-corn

 

[johnsonrod]

Do they email you the talking points, or do you just watch a lot of Fox (RNC apparatchik) News? I hope you were not this worried about the wealthy folks bottom lines back in 05 and 07 when you were looking for wages increases. I know I'm not.

So screw the uninsured as long as I gets mine. Is that it? Never mind that they are a drain on the overall health care system (everyone knows the best care can be found at your local E.R.) and we end up paying for the inefficiency of it all it in the end. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/233530/july-14-2009/the-word---guns--credit--and-corn

Thanks Stalin for your comments. Say hello to Karl Marx for me. Think of it this way, the wealthy Americans drive production for everyone else if they spend more - it's like a domino effect. If the wealthy reduce their buying, everyone gets hit.

What everyone seems to forget is that tax REVENUES under Bush were the absolute highest in history after the tax cuts - revenues that could have been used to fund many social programs. People had more discretionary income and they spent it. Too bad Bush squandered it with war-related spending (2 wars!) and expanding the Fed government (anti-Republican). Bush totally blew it and he has ruined the Republican party for now.

Lowering taxes helps everyone via increased personal spending. Higher taxes provides a disincentive to work hard and it causes wealthy people to look for ways to avoid taxes via tax attorneys, etc. Look at what is happening in high-tax California - there is an exodus of wealthy people and small business owners who can't afford the taxes and California health-care related costs. High taxes don't work because business owners choose to avoid adding people (who are otherwise unemployed and not generating tax revenue) and they look to global outsourcing and adding technology instead. Higher taxes will hurt our employment rates even more - THANKS OBAMA (SOCIALIST)!!!!!!!! I guess you get what you pay for...

 

[AeroBoy]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.

--------------------------------------------

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.


The professor then said, "OK,
we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".


All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.


After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.


As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.


When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering,
blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.


All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.


Could not be any simpler than that.

I call Shenanigans on this one. Source please. Sounds like a made up story from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

 

[gunfyter]

The electrical engineer in me says ...

The economy is like an electronic circuit. You add IMPEDANCE and you slow down current flow (or currency flow).

Wasteful government spending on health care (which is against the COTUS) ... is like parasite drag on an airplane ... it produces no lift to the economy ... while tax cuts for the rich ignite the economy....

Which is worse for general aviation...

This horrible tax increase on our customers... or the puny charges of proposed User fees or $25 or so for an approach? Which affects our pax more?

 

[ned plimpton]

Why is the solution for so many of you ALWAYS more and more government control? Seriously..... where does this instinct come from? Seems to me that it may come from the same place that compels many of you to label anyone who disagrees with you on this issue as some callous and greedy hate-monger that just doesn't care about "poor" people.

Can you even realize how frustrating that is? That YOU who believe in this illogical solution are claiming to be the sympathetic and noble righteous humanitarians?!?!

Seems to me that YOU are the "greedy" ones. The ones who want to stick your hands in anothers wallet and force them to finance a program that history has proven will lead to shortages and rationing and less innovation and lower quality etc etc etc not to mention further economic destruction in a RECESSION of all times!?!?!?! Who is being "greedy" here????

Is it not possible for you to see the role that government has already played in creating the very problems with healthcare they are now trying to fix? Are you not willing to even entertain the idea that government over-regulation in medicine is a major cause of the high prices, and lack of coverage, and disfunctional bureaucracy?

Wait... nevermind.....

 

[RP170]

Why is the solution for so many of you ALWAYS more and more government control? Seriously..... where does this instinct come from? Seems to me that it may come from the same place that compels many of you to label anyone who disagrees with you on this issue as some callous and greedy hate-monger that just doesn't care about "poor" people.

Can you even realize how frustrating that is? That YOU who believe in this illogical solution are claiming to be the sympathetic and noble righteous humanitarians?!?!

Seems to me that YOU are the "greedy" ones. The ones who want to stick your hands in anothers wallet and force them to finance a program that history has proven will lead to shortages and rationing and less innovation and lower quality etc etc etc not to mention further economic destruction in a RECESSION of all times!?!?!?! Who is being "greedy" here????

Is it not possible for you to see the role that government has already played in creating the very problems with healthcare they are now trying to fix? Are you not willing to even entertain the idea that government over-regulation in medicine is a major cause of the high prices, and lack of coverage, and disfunctional bureaucracy?

Wait... nevermind.....

Awesome. Very well said. The most rediculous part of this is that they are wanting to spend trillions more in a RECESSION! Have we not already spent enough!? Fix the damn economy first before worrying about this other crap!

 

[Sky Captain]

I am starting to agree with some of the arguments against healthcare reform. No one is ENTITLED to healthcare. As Gunfyter says, it would be better if everyone could afford it.

But costs continue to go up in healthcare during good times and in bad times. Median household incomes, unfortunately, have not nor will it ever keep up with healthcare increases. So the only way for any of us to keep coverage will be our willingness to accept decreases in coverage.

Along with decreases in coverage, we will need to accept higher premiums and copays. Its just that way it is.

I also believe we should see a reduction in Veteran benefits regarding VA hospitals and care. We cannot continue to support all sectors of our population regarding healthcare including retired military. Full payments should be paid if physically disabled due to military action or only if putting in 30 years or more of active service.

I just don't see how we can continue to afford funding a large, big government entitlement program without decreasing benefits just like the private sector is doing. And benefits should be limited to only those who put in a full time career. This will maximize the benefit to those who put in the most time and actually earn the full benefit. Those who put in the minimal amount of time or do reserve duty can earn wages to cover their healthcare in the private sector. Or work for a company which provides healthcare.

We have to get fiscally conservative again. We need to keep the government out of the equation while making cuts in programs that pay out entitlements to those who haven't earned it or put in enough time for the benefit.

I was expecting to have company paid healthcare retirement benefits after 30 years at my current company but that went away a couple years ago. Just the sign of the times and we ALL need to take cuts. Especially from any government program.

 

[gunfyter]

Sky,

I am not against reforming health care ... just don't want the government to run it or the taxpayer to fund it ....

1. As far as no one able to afford it ... I see ads all day long on TV that for the price of a pack of cigarettes a day ... you can have real health insurance .... I think most of the people without health care are smokers so I don't wanna hear they cant afford health insurance.

$10 bucks a day for a family. I looked at these plans and they are all most people need.

2. Drug companies: They are ripping us off with the help of government.

• NEW! The Generic Drug Rip Off
• Redefining Healthcare: Towards a Shift in the Medical Paradigm

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

If we change to Universial Health Care, it will be hello to some jobs that we are losing now, as our crappy (about #34 worldwide, even though we spend the most money) health care system makes us less competitive worldwide.

Toyota was recently deciding between Tucson and Ontario for a new plant. They went with Ontario, because individuals pay more taxes in Ontario than in Tucson. Since Canada has Universal Health Care, Toyota wouldn't have to pay health care costs for their employees.

I realize that changing our Health Care system is scary, because change is scary, but if we improve our Heath Care System, it will be better than the old one. Our system has a LOT of room for improvement.

cliff
NBO

 

[ned plimpton]

I realize that changing our Health Care system is scary, because change is scary, but if we improve our Heath Care System, it will be better than the old one.
NBO

Wow......... Thanks.

 

[400pilot]

The economic and tax revenue pies

There are many things about economics and mathematics that most people don't know about, don't understand, or are capable of understanding but don't want to believe because it doesn't jive with political beliefs. The economic and revenue(tax revenue) pies are perfect examples of this.

First of all, one needs to understand that the economic and tax revenue pies are not fixed in size. Each can grow and shrink. Another important issue is their relationship with each other. All things being equal, the revenue pie is directly proportional to the economic pie. Growing the economic pie will automatically increase the size of the tax pie. However, simply increasing the tax pie (raising taxes) will not increase the size of the economic pie. This is because it robs the pie of the stuff it needs to grow, which is of course money, and gives it to the federal government. It is not that simple either because you have to consider the economic growth as a result of government spending (ie govt jobs, defense spending, etc). However, they never give as much as they take.

I respectfully disagree. Less tax revenue from the rich means somebody else would have to shoulder the load. Namely, You and I, and the rest of the middle class.

That is inaccurate. This argument makes assumptions and avoids basic economic facts. First, this argument assumes that the tax pie is fixed. This is not accurate. 2nd, for this argument to be valid, when taxes are cut on one individual or "class' of taxpayers, they then must be raised on a second individual, or "class" of tax payers. This is not what happens. Tax cuts for the rich do not raise taxes on or increase the tax burden on the middle class in any way. Now, one can certainly argue that in this scenario, more of a percentage of the federal taxes are paid by the middle class. However, it is all smoke and mirrors. This higher percentage DOES NOT translate into a higher amount that is paid and therefore is not an increased burden on any individual and therefore any "class" of people.

Democrats have been successful in using the argument that the Bush tax cuts have "Shifted the tax burden to the middle class." This a BS argument created by democrats to pray on the economic ignorance of the population. It is a BS argument for 2 reasons, the first of which I stated above. The 2nd reason its BS is because the Bush tax cuts actually resulted in "the rich" paying a higher percentage of the federal tax burden. This happened because everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut and it shrunk the overall size of the tax pie, initially. The tax pie actually grew tremendously following the tax cuts because of the resulting increase in the economic pie.

While the housing and financial sector started this recession, but it is primarily sustained because of less spending from the middle class.

Naturally...

If the middle class has to continue to shoulder the extra loads in tax obligations that the rich is avoiding, than the middle class' spending will continue to be depressed.

So by this logic, only by increase taxes on the rich will you have more money to spend? You and I are not shouldering anything. Our taxes have not increased. No one in the middle or poor class has had any tax increases. This argument is completely illogical for the reasons stated above. As evidence, following is the federal tax burden on a family of four making $70k in 1998 and 2007. This is one example but they all play out the same.

1998;
Taxable Income: $52,100
Federal Tax: $8,290
Payroll Taxes: $5,355
Total Fed Tax: $13,645 (19.5%)

2007;
Taxable Income: $45,700
Federal Tax: $4,073
Payroll Taxes: $5,355
Total Fed Tax: $9,428 (13.5%)

Where is it that this typical family has less money as a result of those tax cuts on the rich? Where is the extra load that this family is shouldering, holding them down?