TV Report: PILOTS ON FOOD STAMPS

[AV80R]

One thing we can all agree on... George Carlin knows what time it is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-KaGOYroxw

Wow, funny yes, but vulgar is probably an understatement...of course, I'm biased here...uke:

 

[highsky]

No, I'm just a pragmatist and a realist. I don't see any value in continuing to fight a war that we know we won't win. If I saw any indication from the Administration that they were planning on changing strategies and actually fighting the war to win it, then my opinion would be different. Instead, I see a President that refuses to admit that this has been a disaster. No one in the administration will admit that they've screwed up, so none of them will even entertain the idea of changing strategies. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by throwing more troops and more money at a failed strategy?

My friend, I've been fighting this war since 9/11. Up close and personal, the entire time. We are not losing. I've never met a GI who believes we are losing, and I've met thousands.

Have you ever worn your country's uniform? Didn't think so. What do YOU know about military strategy?

Sure, mistakes have been made in this war, as sure as mistakes have been made in ALL wars.

We have some of the best military minds ever to grace the earth working on this. They know what they are doing. Believe me.

Every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine, and indeed every American, will be much better off without your self-defeating commentary.

Check your sources.

 

[capt. megadeth]

Do you believe everybody on food stamps chooses to be? That's what you agreed with Newman about, right?

Lear70 and g159av8tor just told you otherwise.

I would say about 95% of people choose to be. That includes regional pilots. If they take a low paying regional job that qualifies them for food stamps, then, yes, they are choosing to be on food stamps. I don't really find anything wrong with that because it's temporary. Anyone else is also choosing to be on them and if they are not actively trying to change their situation to a better one, then, yes, they are choosing to be. The only people that I would say may be on food stamps but don't choose to be are elderly that just cannot work anymore and/or someone that is disabled (and I am not talking obese still walking around but on disability disabled, I am talking about really disabled disabled). Any other questions?

 

[HelloNewman]

I would say 95% of them choose to be.

It's true. Most people get nice n comfy on government handouts. They figure why try to make my own way when someone else will do it for me? Unfortunately there is no time limits set by the government. The goal should be to get people on their feet and off these programs ASAP not let them suck the system dry.

Also pilots that goto airlines knowing they will be on food stamps are part of that 95%. Luckily they are only on them for a year. Everyone always has a choice.

 

[jayme]

You guys are so full of crap, I can't believe it. 95%, eh? Where the hell did you get that? How many employed pilots do you guys know who actually use food stamps? I'll mail you my left nut if you know even one. (not really, just saying for dramatic purposes.)

Mega, you at least have a shred of credibility, but your 95% thing pisses me off. MAYBE 95% of the people you dealt with had a choice, MAYBE. How about the millions of others? Who the F are you to say that somebody you have never met who needs a helping hand, doesn't deserve it?

 

[capt. megadeth]

Mega, you at least have a shred of credibility, but your 95% thing pisses me off. MAYBE 95% of the people you dealt with had a choice, MAYBE. How about the millions of others? Who the F are you to say that somebody you have never met who needs a helping hand, doesn't deserve it?

Who the F am I to say that? Well, I am a taxpayer for one. That's where the money for the helping hand comes from...our taxes! If all of us that contribute to these people's food stamps stopped working tomorrow, where would they get their food stamps from? DAMN STRAIGHT I have a right to have an opinion about this! If you work and pay taxes, SO DO YOU! If you don't have a problem giving people some of your money, that's great. I have a problem with it, especially the ones that abuse it and I think there are many.

If you live in America, you have a choice. If you do have to be on food stamps, it should be for a short period. There are many gov't programs that are available to help you get out of that rut (ie. getting an education on their dime if you are on public aid is one thing that's available). If you end up on food stamps for your entire life or most of it, YES, it is your choice and, NO, you don't deserve it. Public assistance (whether food stamps or health insurance) should be a short term solution not a way of life. Unfortunately, for many, it's easier to get the check on the 1st then make an effort to better yourself. You are fooling yourself if you think people actually have no choice.

 

[JoeMerchant]

No, I'm just a pragmatist and a realist. I don't see any value in continuing to fight a war that we know we won't win. If I saw any indication from the Administration that they were planning on changing strategies and actually fighting the war to win it, then my opinion would be different. Instead, I see a President that refuses to admit that this has been a disaster. No one in the administration will admit that they've screwed up, so none of them will even entertain the idea of changing strategies. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by throwing more troops and more money at a failed strategy?

How ironic..... that's exactly the excuse ALPA is using for changing positions on age 60, but you don't agree in that situation...

 

[HelloNewman]

There should be a time limit for those on welfare and food stamps. If people do not progress then boot their asses to the streets!

 

[dime line]

$19.25/hr and my September line award has 77.35 hours of credit on it a$$hole. You do the math.

Your complaining why.....You work there

 

[hammer2]

Sad that this former NWA pilot couldn't get his facts straight before he discredited himself on CNBC. He 1st said that starting regional FO pay is $16 - $20 per hour when in fact a more accurate range is $22-$25 per hour for starting pay. He then went on to say that you can only earn 80 hours per month?? WTF?? I think 95 + would be a more accurate credit projection for most regional contracts. Most 2nd year regional FO's are making more than 2nd Year school teachers, Financial Advisors, Police Officers, Retail Managers, ect. ect.... In fact... average 2nd year regional FO pay out pays the average pay for a college graduate entry level job. Look ahead a few years for Regional Captain pay and you are way above average median income.

OK, let's play your numbers. The highly paid Stupid Stan is making 25.00 per hr. He flies 1000 hrs a year, that 25000 per year. Smells like food stamps to me.

 

[PCL_128]

How ironic..... that's exactly the excuse ALPA is using for changing positions on age 60, but you don't agree in that situation...

Actually, I do agree with ALPA in that situation. ALPA's analysis of the age-60 situation is correct: it is going to change, no matter what we do. My argument was always that the leadership apparently didn't convince the membership of that, because the members demanded that the policy remain as-is. Since I firmly believe that the leadership should follow the will of the majority (even if the majority is demanding a bad course of action), I disagreed with changing the policy at this time. This is in the same vein as the concessionary contracts of the past few years. I (and DW for that matter) didn't exactly like those contracts, but the pilots voted for them and got exactly what they wanted. Stupid decision? I think so, but the majority should rule.

Applying this principal to this case, the American public in an overwhelming majority no longer supports this war. It's time for the country's leaders to listen to the citizens.

 

[SplitBar]

OK, let's play your numbers. The highly paid Stupid Stan is making 25.00 per hr. He flies 1000 hrs a year, that 25000 per year. Smells like food stamps to me.

If you actually fly (block) 1000 in a year you are going to credit way over 1000 hours of pay. I usually fly around 800 hours per year and average over 100 hours credit per month.

Also, an income of $25,000 doesn't qualify you for food stamps unless you have 5 people in your household. The vast majority of regional new hires are single young adults and a single adult who makes $12K per year does not qualify for food stamps. A married couple, both earning minimum wage, does not qualify for food stamps, not even if they have 2 kids.

 

[JT8D]

My argument was always that the leadership apparently didn't convince the membership of that, because the members demanded that the policy remain as-is. .

WHOA WHOA WHOA there!

The leadership is not supposed to "convince" it's members of ANYTHING.

The ELECTED leadership is SUPPOSED to lobby accordingly to the expressed interests of the majority.

National didn't do that...

 

[highsky]

Applying this principal to this case, the American public in an overwhelming majority no longer supports this war. It's time for the country's leaders to listen to the citizens.

Sometimes what's right isn't popular. If you want a president who makes policy according to popular polls, vote for Hillary, because that's exactly how her husband governed.

Only 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolution; 1/3 were indifferent; 1/3 supported the British Crown. Should George Washington have listened to the citizens and surrendered?

 

[PCL_128]

WHOA WHOA WHOA there!

The leadership is not supposed to "convince" it's members of ANYTHING.

The ELECTED leadership is SUPPOSED to lobby accordingly to the expressed interests of the majority.

National didn't do that...

The membership usually doesn't have access to the same information that the leadership does. When was the last time you talked directly with Senators on Capital Hill? When did you last sit down to have lunch and discuss the issues with the Speaker of the House? The ALPA leadership is able to do these things frequently, and because of that they have a lot more information that the average Joe. Through these contacts, ALPA determined that there was no way to stop this change in the Age-60 rule. It's coming, period. So, ALPA should educate the members about this issue to let them know the reality of the situation. Only after the membership has been informed are they able to make a rational decision and provide direction to the leadership. Simply taking polls to determine what the members want without first educating them is useless.

 

[PCL_128]

Sometimes what's right isn't popular.

Who is to determine what is "right?" If an informed majority determines that a certain course of action is "right," then what qualifies a single man to make a different decision? How does he know that something is "right" when the rest of America disagrees with him?

If you want a president who makes policy according to popular polls, vote for Hillary, because that's exactly how her husband governed.

Using polls to determine all actions isn't possible, since it's not possible for the general public to be suitably informed on so many issues. However, in the case of the war, the public has had several years to observe this situation and come to an informed opinion. Over time, the public has looked at the situation in Iraq and determined that continuing to fight is not a viable option. Bush is providing no new information to sway this opinion. He merely continues the same rhetoric that the public has summarily rejected (ie. fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, etc...). If the Administration has no new information or strategy to offer that might sway the opinion of the citizens, then the will of the majority should prevail.

 

[JT8D]

Who is to determine what is "right?" If an informed majority determines that a certain course of action is "right," then what qualifies a single man to make a different decision? .

Just how does this eloquent explanation not apply to the age 65 situation?

Thank You PCL...You are a Peach!

 

[PCL_128]

Just how does this eloquent explanation not apply to the age 65 situation?

It does! The problem is that the leadership (Prater especially) has not even attempted to educate the membership before getting their informed opinion and taking action. The education "campaign" before the polling was nothing more than a BRP website that contained virtually no information, and a short video from Prater. If the Association had undertaken a full communications drive to inform the membership of why a change to policy would be wise, then I think the membership would make the right decision. If the membership still decided to keep current policy, then their direction should be adhered to, even if the guy at the top disagreed with it.

I think you and I agree about this more than we disagree.

 

[highsky]

Who is to determine what is "right?" If an informed majority determines that a certain course of action is "right," then what qualifies a single man to make a different decision?

Because he is our President, and according to our Constitution, he gets to call the shots.

How does he know that something is "right" when the rest of America disagrees with him?

Because he has the big picture and a vision for the future. He has a panel of expert advisers AND a military of about 2.5 million professionals in arms led by competent generals who understand more about the mission and the consequences of its failure than you or I will ever know.

The rest of America disagrees with him? The rest of America against one guy? Do you really need to exaggerate in order to make yourself believe your own non-sense?

Tens of millions support our President, troops, and our national security strategy.

Over time, the public has looked at the situation in Iraq and determined that continuing to fight is not a viable option.

I'll tell you what: I'll take the opinion of our National Security Council and our military leaders over the naive opinion of my know-it-all next door neighbor and Bill Mahr anyday.

Look, apparently, nothing I say will convince you to see things differently. I'm not surprised. That's usually the case with liberals. You insist on digging in your heals, if for no other reason, than just to spite Republicans/Libertarians and your country.

Honestly, I don't know how you people sleep at night.

Do the troops and your country a huge favor, and just try to keep the pie-hole shut with the self-defeating remarks about how this is all a failure. The ONLY people you are aiding is our enemies. They get a huge hard-on every time someone like you pontifiactes publicly. That is their strategy for victory, which you obviously haven't figured out, and will never understand. It's the same propaganda campaign that yielded the results of Vietnam and Somalia. They are students of American history. Perhaps you should be too: Send an unending supply of video clips of carnage, threats, and GI body bags to the biased American media who gladly broadcasts it to the world, and pretty soon you have a nation of doves whose stomach has been turned to the point that they put enough pressure on the ELECTED politicians to surrender. Remember the November 2006 election?

You may as well be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them in Iraq with a megaphone shouting at the troops that we're all losers and need to surrender. It has the EXACT same effect.

Remove your head from your rectum and join the home team. We need you.

That's all I have to say on the subject to you. If you don't understand by now, you never will. I've determined that insanity equals spending countless hours of my life on flightinfo.com debating dimwits who will never get it.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Actually, I do agree with ALPA in that situation. ALPA's analysis of the age-60 situation is correct: it is going to change, no matter what we do. My argument was always that the leadership apparently didn't convince the membership of that, because the members demanded that the policy remain as-is. Since I firmly believe that the leadership should follow the will of the majority (even if the majority is demanding a bad course of action), I disagreed with changing the policy at this time. This is in the same vein as the concessionary contracts of the past few years. I (and DW for that matter) didn't exactly like those contracts, but the pilots voted for them and got exactly what they wanted. Stupid decision? I think so, but the majority should rule.

Applying this principal to this case, the American public in an overwhelming majority no longer supports this war. It's time for the country's leaders to listen to the citizens.

So majority should always rule? Is pure Democracy always right? Should ALPA fight age 60 even if it is enevitable that it is going to change?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Who is to determine what is "right?" If an informed majority determines that a certain course of action is "right," then what qualifies a single man to make a different decision? How does he know that something is "right" when the rest of America disagrees with him?



Using polls to determine all actions isn't possible, since it's not possible for the general public to be suitably informed on so many issues. However, in the case of the war, the public has had several years to observe this situation and come to an informed opinion. Over time, the public has looked at the situation in Iraq and determined that continuing to fight is not a viable option. Bush is providing no new information to sway this opinion. He merely continues the same rhetoric that the public has summarily rejected (ie. fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, etc...). If the Administration has no new information or strategy to offer that might sway the opinion of the citizens, then the will of the majority should prevail.

The majority of Americans and the majority of ALPA members are not "informed" on most of these issues...

 

[PCL_128]

That's usually the case with liberals.

Liberal? I voted for Bush. Twice. I may not be as far-right as some folks, but I'm no liberal. For the first few years I supported Bush and this war, but you have to know when to call it quits. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but don't call me a liberal. Them's fightin' words.

 

[PCL_128]

So majority should always rule? Is pure Democracy always right?

A pure democracy doesn't work because it is too inefficient. Elected leaders have to be in place to run the government, but yes, they should be following the direction of their constituents to the best of their ability.

Should ALPA fight age 60 even if it is enevitable that it is going to change?

If the membership still demands, after a full education campaign, that the Association continue to fight the change, then yes. Do I think that it would be a smart move? Of course not. But it's not the job of the leadership to tell the membership that they can't have what they want.

 

[highsky]

Liberal? I voted for Bush. Twice. I may not be as far-right as some folks, but I'm no liberal. For the first few years I supported Bush and this war, but you have to know when to call it quits. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but don't call me a liberal. Them's fightin' words.

OK.

So, you're not a total buffoon. Just stay the course man. Now is no time for marital discourse. We're facing the apocalyptical conflict of our lifetimes.

Enough said.

 

[AV80R]

...don't call me a liberal. Them's fightin' words.

I think 'progressive' is a little more en vogue nowadays?

 

[AV80R]

Who the F am I to say that? Well, I am a taxpayer for one. That's where the money for the helping hand comes from...our taxes! If all of us that contribute to these people's food stamps stopped working tomorrow, where would they get their food stamps from? DAMN STRAIGHT I have a right to have an opinion about this! If you work and pay taxes, SO DO YOU! If you don't have a problem giving people some of your money, that's great. I have a problem with it, especially the ones that abuse it and I think there are many.

If you live in America, you have a choice. If you do have to be on food stamps, it should be for a short period. There are many gov't programs that are available to help you get out of that rut (ie. getting an education on their dime if you are on public aid is one thing that's available). If you end up on food stamps for your entire life or most of it, YES, it is your choice and, NO, you don't deserve it. Public assistance (whether food stamps or health insurance) should be a short term solution not a way of life. Unfortunately, for many, it's easier to get the check on the 1st then make an effort to better yourself. You are fooling yourself if you think people actually have no choice.

Mega - couldn't agree with you more! I'm s fed up with this creeping entitlement mentality we see here. As someone born and raised in Europe I can clearly see this Europ'isation in the way many Americans think, especially the ones leaning to the left. Food stamps should be very temporary and anyone who stays on them for years is abusing the system, very simple.

Heck, next thing you know we’ll be debating if should let people who are “feeling” burned out retire early (without any penalties of course!) Kid you not; this is the latest crazy idea the neo-communists came up with in Europe. They’ll only need to raise taxes a few percent to pay for it of course! uke:
Of course, I do think our burned out captains should be allowed to leave early! :beer:
Want food stamps? Pick up trash on our highways first and then we’ll consider it…

 

[paid4training]

So you like flying 95 hrs a month?

1) You obviously don't have a family.
2) You will never be able to sustain 95 hrs permantly. It will catch up with you. Especially once you go int'l.


So it appears the NW guy is right. 80 hours is the norm[/QUOTE

yea its like volunteering 160 hours a month but only getting paid for 80.

 

[capt. megadeth]

Want food stamps? Pick up trash on our highways first and then we’ll consider it…

Amen bro! A-friggin-men!