What if socialists designed airplanes...

[SennaP1]

That's why its always "Washington National" and not ronald reagan.

 

[KCSO780]

YeOldeProp.......I agree 100%. One of the best posts I've seen here! I have been saying this for years. You want change, you'll need to change Congress first. Some of them have been serving Bullsh!t for 30 or 40 years while a member of the House or Senate and people keep voting for them.

 

[StopNTSing]

Yes it was just wonderful to be an American under Reagan just ask any air traffic controller.

I still feel sorry for those guys, but then, what part of "prohibited from strike by federal law" did they not understand? Their union over-reached, and got b*tch-slapped for it. We get ourselves into big trouble every time we choose to set aside our own laws. The Gipper actually had the cajones to enforce the law, despite the consequences.

 

[fischman]

and the worst part is that fellow airline pilots who consider themselves rational educated people actually voted for this.

Cant wait for some "stupid bush" comment like i hear from my mother in law daily

Read my signature. He earned it.

 

[JustaNumber]

YeOldeProp.......I agree 100%. One of the best posts I've seen here! I have been saying this for years. You want change, you'll need to change Congress first. Some of them have been serving Bullsh!t for 30 or 40 years while a member of the House or Senate and people keep voting for them.

Yours is also a great post. It's obvious that the system of immediately trying to get re-elected corrupts most of them in short order. How about this: term limits, ONE TERM MAX. Then we'll see who's on the people's side!

 

[TheInsider]

Ever wonder what things would be like if the current people trying to "redesign our country" were put in charge of redesigning airplanes? Here's how it might go:

Socialist: "It's not fair that Boeings get to hold more fuel than Bombardiers. Effective immediately, all Boeings will be limited to holding no more than 20,000 lbs of fuel."

Capitalist: "But then Boeings would have to fly shorter distances, or carry fewer people."

Socialist: "20,000 lbs of fuel is plenty. They don't need more to fly. They'll be just fine without the extra. In fact, all extra fuel that would have been put on Boeings will be put on the RJs, just to make it fair."

Capitalist: "But then the RJs will be wasteful and inefficient, if you just load them up with free fuel."

Socialist: "It's called shared sacrifice. We're all in this together."

I love this "change you can believe in." Definitely would work out better.

What?

 

[JustaNumber]

What?

It's called a metaphor. You can learn about those when you get an education. Don't worry, though. It's never too late to go back to school!

 

[BornAgainPagan]

One of the best times to be an American was under Reagans rule.

That American flag you have wrap around your head is blinding you.

 

[Mike man]

What if socialists designed airplanes...

Wouldn't a better question be "What if socialists ran the country..."

too late...they are taking over.

 

[Cobra]

Wouldn't a better question be "What if socialists ran the country..."

too late...they are taking over.

Yeah socialism for corporations. WTFU.

 

[Capt. Caucasian]

Yours is also a great post. It's obvious that the system of immediately trying to get re-elected corrupts most of them in short order. How about this: term limits, ONE TERM MAX. Then we'll see who's on the people's side!

I agree with that as well. The problem is that Congress would have to impose term limits on themselves and we all know how that would go.

Another stupid thing: Congress has like, what, 90% disapproval rating? But, when people are polled about their own Rep or Senators they say they are great and it is always the other ones that are bad. WTF! I am on the other side though as I think both my Rep and Senators are the worst there can be.

 

[Smarta$$]

Didn't the stock market decline for the first 18 months of Reagans presedency?

Did he not create a large national debt?

Did Bush's tax cuts ever actually create an economic boom? In retrospect, the economy grew from the housing bouble. It also collapsed. So it was all fake growth. Another trickle down failure.

But at least he was able to get all of our wages and benefits reduced. And he got rid of those pesky pension thingy's. I guess he was good for something.

Get real. He handed Obama an aircraft in a nose dive at 400 knots, 10k FPM descent, 10 feet off the ground, with the wings broken off, and then said to Barack "your controls".

And now it is the new presidents fault according to the radio retards.

 

[Cobra]

Didn't the stock market decline for the first 18 months of Reagans presedency?

Did he not create a large national debt?

Did Bush's tax cuts ever actually create an economic boom? In retrospect, the economy grew from the housing bouble. It also collapsed. So it was all fake growth. Another trickle down failure.

But at least he was able to get all of our wages and benefits reduced. And he got rid of those pesky pension thingy's. I guess he was good for something.

Get real. He handed Obama an aircraft in a nose dive at 400 knots, 10k FPM descent, 10 feet off the ground, with the wings broken off, and then said to Barack "your controls".

And now it is the new presidents fault according to the radio retards.

You've only scratched the surface with all the inconvenient truths. Too many types here are engrossed with watching faux news (fake, biased, covered-up) to acknowledge anything else.

The real radio retards are the radio retard's following.

 

[blzr]

Airline passengers pay over 30 percent of their ticket price to taxes.

Rich people pay on average 3 percent taxes when they fly from PBI to HPN. In their private aircraft.

FACT

If that's your idea of capitalism I'll take something else. The fact is this is not capitalism it is a regressive tax system. We need fairness. That is what OBAMA is bringing. It ain't perfect but it is a lot better than having the top one percent own 90 percent of this country. The Bush system we got now is unamerican.

I wany to see your #'s! Where did you get those "FACTS" ?? For a typical 2 hour trip in our CORP aircraft the operating cost is $2000/hr. The boss has to pay TAXES for his use (he ownes it) up to $1000/trip. You are a Dunbocrat nutjob if you actually believe the rich are not soaked to the bone in taxes!!

Also, Bernie Madoff was and is a huge liberal!

 

[blzr]

Didn't the stock market decline for the first 18 months of Reagans presedency?

Did he not create a large national debt?

Did Bush's tax cuts ever actually create an economic boom? In retrospect, the economy grew from the housing bouble. It also collapsed. So it was all fake growth. Another trickle down failure.

But at least he was able to get all of our wages and benefits reduced. And he got rid of those pesky pension thingy's. I guess he was good for something.

Get real. He handed Obama an aircraft in a nose dive at 400 knots, 10k FPM descent, 10 feet off the ground, with the wings broken off, and then said to Barack "your controls".

And now it is the new presidents fault according to the radio retards.

JEEEZUS!! Do you hear yourself? The housing buble is DIRECTLY connected to Barney Frank through Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Didn't soneone with the initials GWB and his staff fo to the Senate Housing Committee, chaired by Barney Frank, and say we were heading down the wrong road with subprime lending? And Chris Dodd and Barney told them to shove off and that everything was under control?

Anyway, Clinton is looked at as the MODEL for fiscal responsibility. The 90's were great! What about the Tech Bubble, 2 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, Embassy Bombings, and a Warship nearly lost.

Now, the CHINESE, that's right, the Communist, Socialist, Red Chinese are realizing something that Regan knew a long time ago. They are DOING AWAY WITH CAPITAL GAINS! That's right, no capital gains tax on any short ao long term investments. They are going to come out of this global recession because money will be flowing into their economy from everywhere! They will buy all our debt, and we will be screwed!

Yes, I blame Obama and his WAR ON THE RICH (if you consider anyone making more than $250K rich)

9000 earmarks was a good start for they guy who ran his campaign on doing away with earmarks.

Really, $780 Billion dollars that are "supposed" to create 3 million jobs in the next 2 years. You do the math!!

 

[Smarta$$]

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did not create the housing bubble. Your an idiot if you believe that.

Watch the CNBC documentary "House of Cards". Very good.

It was wallstreet greed that caused this mess.

Regardless of who caused the bubble (Wallstreet) it is still true that W never had a good economy with his tax cuts. It was a bubble, and the bubble burst.

Your controls.

 

[JustaNumber]

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did not create the housing bubble. Your an idiot if you believe that.

Your controls.

I love the phrase, "Your an idiot."
I wish it was "my controls."

Here is an excellent article actually armed with FACTS that I also referred to in another thread, by extremely well-respected economist and author Thomas Sowell. Can't we at least agree on the FACTS of what happened?

Upside Down Economics

By Thomas Sowell

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.

What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: "Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century."

That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed— and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bankers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well. But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.

Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.

 

[SkiFishFly]

I love the phrase, "Your an idiot."
I wish it was "my controls."

Here is an excellent article actually armed with FACTS that I also referred to in another thread, by extremely well-respected economist and author Thomas Sowell. Can't we at least agree on the FACTS of what happened?

Upside Down Economics

By Thomas Sowell

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.

What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: "Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century."

That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed— and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bankers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well. But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.

Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.

Great post/summary of how we got here. You won't get any libs to accept this though...

 

[FamilyGuy]

Airline passengers pay over 30 percent of their ticket price to taxes.

Rich people pay on average 3 percent taxes when they fly from PBI to HPN. In their private aircraft.

FACT

If that's your idea of capitalism I'll take something else. The fact is this is not capitalism it is a regressive tax system. We need fairness. That is what OBAMA is bringing. It ain't perfect but it is a lot better than having the top one percent own 90 percent of this country. The Bush system we got now is unamerican.

You need to check your facts. Individuals flying privately will pay far more in taxes than a commercial passenger.

Here's a summary of the taxes paid by commercial passengers:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-04-16-air-travel-taxes_N.htm

Here's a summary of the taxes paid by fractional owners:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpque...iR3g&refer=&r_n=sr228.110&item=&sel=TOC_44397&


Since the hourly costs of private flying are much higher than commercial, the 7.5% tax on amount paid for transportation is far higher than the tax a passenger pays on their airline ticket.

 

[75 Driver]

They are all flailing

Didn't the stock market .

Get real. He handed Obama an aircraft in a nose dive at 400 knots, 10k FPM descent, 10 feet off the ground, with the wings broken off, and then said to Barack "your controls".

And now it is the new presidents fault according to the radio retards.

The airplane is out of control and the driver that took over is flailing like a SOB the bad landing is imminent and we can only watch as he pushes when he should pull, pull when he should push, power up, power back, power up, power back then the big bang.

I am no Bush backer that is for sure. But I have to say that this marketing driven tactics that this administration is using instead of telling the truth and and making things better for the buisness environment will lead to more of a problem than we already had.

A leader would be nice instead of what we are getting with Nazi Pelosi running the country instead of the executive branch. :crying:

 

[Cobra]

The airplane is out of control and the driver that took over is flailing like a SOB the bad landing is imminent and we can only watch as he pushes when he should pull, pull when he should push, power up, power back, power up, power back then the big bang.

I am no Bush backer that is for sure. But I have to say that this marketing driven tactics that this administration is using instead of telling the truth and and making things better for the buisness environment will lead to more of a problem than we already had.

A leader would be nice instead of what we are getting with Nazi Pelosi running the country instead of the executive branch. :crying:

So, giving hundreds of billions of YOUR tax dollars to the business community isn't helping them? What's your definition of "marketing driven tactics"? I have know idea what it is your saying.

 

[JustaNumber]

So, giving hundreds of billions of YOUR tax dollars to the business community isn't helping them? What's your definition of "marketing driven tactics"? I have know idea what it is your saying.

"Giving" isn't the right word. "Taking" is more like it. What the government is doing is choosing who wins and who loses, while removing free market choice. So inefficient and corrupt failing banks will get propped up and smaller, more efficient, honest banks will fail. It will not end well, and the market is predicting as such!

When the government takes money from me and gives it to anyone else, not necessary for the functioning of basic government, it sure doesn't sound like it is following the basic principle of liberty, freedom, and a level playing field.

 

[Wanderlust]

Are you retarded? Do you not understand that the United States has a "socialized" military? Where do you think most aviation technology comes from?

 

[Tristar]

Was a Regan a King or has the GOP molded him into one recently?

No, Regan was the 66th Secratary of the Treasury from 1981-1985, and then White House Chief of Staff from 1985-1987 under Ronald Reagan.

I don't think the GOP has to mold Reagan (assuming that is who you're talking about) into anything - the last time I checked he carried 44 states in 1980, and 49 states in 1984. Heck, Bill Clinton couldn't even get half of the popular vote either time and all the liberals just love that moron.

 

[JustaNumber]

Are you retarded? Do you not understand that the United States has a "socialized" military? Where do you think most aviation technology comes from?

Beam me up, Scotty...

 

[dbrault17]

A leader would be nice instead of what we are getting with Nazi Pelosi running the country instead of the executive branch. :crying:

Ron Paul anyone?

 

[Wanderlust]

Beam me up, Scotty...

Sure, condescension always works when it becomes clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. You need to do some more research on your supply-sider "heroes". And hubris is not a valid argument, despite the sentiments of millions of faithful "dittoheads".

 

[Double Shot]

Sure, condescension always works when it becomes clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.


Pot meet kettle.

 

[Cobra]

I love the phrase, "Your an idiot."
I wish it was "my controls."

Here is an excellent article actually armed with FACTS that I also referred to in another thread, by extremely well-respected economist and author Thomas Sowell. Can't we at least agree on the FACTS of what happened?

Upside Down Economics

By Thomas Sowell

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.

What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: "Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century."

That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed— and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bankers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well. But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.

Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.

The irony is this: It's likely that you or someone in your family has or is now benefiting from the 1977 housing act that you scorn. If not directly indirectly.

 

[Cobra]

"Giving" isn't the right word. "Taking" is more like it. What the government is doing is choosing who wins and who loses, while removing free market choice. So inefficient and corrupt failing banks will get propped up and smaller, more efficient, honest banks will fail. It will not end well, and the market is predicting as such!

When the government takes money from me and gives it to anyone else, not necessary for the functioning of basic government, it sure doesn't sound like it is following the basic principle of liberty, freedom, and a level playing field.

Let's see you scorn the new president and congressional tactics as of late? Yet, I'm sure that nowhere in this thread you've mentioned the Bush, Paulson, nor Bernanke factor.

The BIGGEST trouble for these smaller solvent banks as of late isn't exclusive to the government. It's the larger propped-up banks that are buying up smaller banks spreading their toxic debt amongst these acquisitions.