NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

But the nation wouldn't be guaranteed that you wouldn't become a
bourdon in your years of retirement, if your choice of retirement plan
turned out the way it did for Enron employees.

They are only a burden (on taxpayers) because politicians have
made it a policy to hand out money to everybody.

Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?

it's not an either-or situation...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Larry Dighera wrote:



Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?


Again Larry, if you were to be intellectually honest you would find
that 'homeless' people are largely that way because of decisions
they have (or have not) made. It is not my responsibility to comphensate
others for their failure to be responsible. For some reason you
do... and so does socialistic governments. THIS is where we differ.

For example, if I, as a respinsible parent were confronted by my
child wanting to quit school, I would let them do it only if they
signed a legal document that stated they could make no claim
against me for future benefits. They voluntarily decided to
SQUANDER a free education for themsleves and I do not feel
responsible for the consequences of their actions.

This is never required of welfare recipients in this country...
but it should. Most of the ones I see drive a car (albeit an old
gas guzzler [which we subsidize]) and have a cell phone and several
children, more than likely cable or satellite TV etc. etc. They
are NOT poor.

People who live on the street CHOOSE that life Larry. How can you
argue that they can not find work when ILLEGALS who can't even speak
english risk their lives to cross a border to come here work?

I'm sorry, but your bleeding heart liberal-socialist ideas do NOT
work and do NOT hold water. They are not rationally justifiable.

-----
"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."

-Voltaire (1764)

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:38:04 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:


Wouldn't you characterize streets awash in homeless retirees a burden
on society?

it's not an either-or situation...

What is your rationale for that statement? That's not the way FDR saw
it.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:38:38 GMT, (Scott) wrote in
4633e4c3.1621141764@localhost:


I have no choice but to fund the current generation's SSI checks.


Sure you have. Just find a source of income that is not wages.

He could sell crack... that seems to work pretty well.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:


Why isn't profit motive sufficient encouragement to produce things?

Because it lacks long-range vision, and encourages sleaze and planned
obsolescence rather than durable, high quality products.

Oh, I see. If it isn;t something that "government' envisions as
a 'good" thing then it lacks long range vision.


I am at a loss to understand why you insist on bringing government
into the discussion. You were talking about PROFIT MOTIVE, not
government.


In the absence of government mandating the taking of money from
people who work and giving it to people who do not, what other
entity would we be discussing?

You think Hillary or someone like that *really* cares about people, or that her
"long range thinkin" is about anything other than getting elected?


I have very little esteem for today's Congressional representatives.
And I have no clue how that is germane to the subject of PROFIT
MOTIVE.


You say that as if 'profit motive' were a HORRIBLE thing. You would
still be using candles and crapping in a hole in the ground if it
were not for profit motive Larry. Businesses that make profits
benfit _all_ that work for or invest in that business.


You have just factually illustrated your irrational thinking.


Or you have just demonstrated your inability to comprehend the written
word. :-)

Irrationality is difficult to comprehend Larry.


I rest my case.


For some unknown reason, we seem to be talking past each other.


I know the reason.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:42:39 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :


Larry Dighera wrote:


You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
income from the US government?


Larry, your fixation with 'Haliburton' demonstrates
you can't think rationally.


It's a valid question that illustrates what you are advocating.

You're dismissal of it in a thinly valid personal attack demonstrates
very clearly, that you are unable to respond to it without admitting
that it is your reasoning that is faulty, and emotionally based on
subjective self-interest.


The reason is that I do not want to engage in a tit-for-tat
regurgitation of government scandal Vs. private scandal. I
would FAR rather deal with a private scandal than a government
scandal because it make me less cynical of why money is taken
from my paycheck every two weeks.


In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?


If its functions were limited to those specified by the
Constitution it would be funded by various excises [sic] taxes
and that's it.



What amount of excise tax, expressed as a percentage of sale price,
would have to be charged to fund the military, NAS, maintain the
nation's infrastructure (roads, courts, national parks, ...)?

This has all been detailed by people far mor learned than I. Don't
be juvenile and make me research the information that will result
in a proper rersponse to that basic question.

If producers were paying such an excise tax on the raw materials they
used in the production of their products, could they be competitive in
foreign markets?

BINGO you nailed it... except it is called income tax and other
types of taxes that are being paid now that cause companies to seek
foreigh shores to try and remain competative.


If such an excise tax as you advocate meant that there would be no
escaping the payment of taxes by any person or entity, I would
consider supporting it. But if you're going tell me you advocate
certain exclusions, it betray's your hidden agenda.


Well now you are beginning to see the light... the fact is that
despite your desires, corporations do net really pay taxes. They
pass it along to customers in higher prices... or they lay people off.
Pretty underhanded way for the government to increasae taxes on people
don't ya think? But it works if you can control the economic
education of society.


You seem to forget the fact the government functioned fine
without income tax for the first 150 years of its existance.


I'm not advocating any increases in any taxes. Where'd you get that
idea?


But how do you feel on increases in government spending? Because
like it or not they have been happening at an alarming rate.

And let me stipulate that I am not partisam about this... BOTH
paries (all politicians) have been intoxicated by the drug of
being able to take money from people at the threat of prison
time in order to further their goals to remain in power.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:42:34 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

He could sell crack... that seems to work pretty well.

Ah, the voice of experience... :-)

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:42:34 GMT, in rec.aviation.piloting, kontiki
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:38:38 GMT, (Scott) wrote in
4633e4c3.1621141764@localhost:

I have no choice but to fund the current generation's SSI checks.

Sure you have. Just find a source of income that is not wages.

He could sell crack... that seems to work pretty well.

If you'd ever seen my crack, you'd understand why nobody's buying....

-Scott

Maxwell writes:

Apparently you are just not old enough to simply look around yourself to
answer that question junior.

I have, and I don't see any indication that people are spending large sums of
money on electronics. Most people have a standard complement of electronic
gadgets, but their total cost still isn't very significant.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:18:11 -0500, "Maxwell"
wrote in :

But the problem is, the fed has let the SS system get well behind the curve.
If they don't "tax us today", the system supposedly funded by today's
receipents long ago, would colapse. So in reality, money invested by today's
receipents long ago, has been spent by the fed, the people that were
supposed to be insuring their furture.

The way I understand it, Congress has used the money generated by SSI
payments to fund other federal spending. And now government is faced
with the issue of a shortfall in funding SSI recipients as a result of
the "baby-boom" bulge in the retirement aged population.