NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

Bob Fry wrote:

But the US is not really part of the industrialized world, are we.

What do other industrialized countries have? Health care systems,
modern infrastructure, actual working hours that don't keep you away
from home for 12 hours a day. The US has a very costly fragmented
health care system for some, aging infrastructure (we quit building
anything decades ago), and long work hours...just like 3rd world
countries.


Yep, our health care system is so bad that it is where those from countries
with socialized healthcare systems who have the money and a real problem
flock to.

On Apr 26, 11:17 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 18:57:24 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote
in .com:

Until we, as a people, come to grips with this
completely out of control, tax-consuming, inefficient monster of a
government bureacracy that we've created, we will find our freedoms
and our income ever more diminished.

Consider $3-billion a week in Iraq for five years, or much longer
depending..., and the money-sink of a blundering Department of
Homeland Security. It is those useless expenditures that are
consuming the wealth of our nation.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing --

If you fail to see the GOP's madness, you are blind.

The Republicans have been particularly egregious in their borrow and
spend approach, but history shows that the Democrats aren't much
better.

The stereotype of Democrats is that when they control the purse
strings they tend to increase spending. The stereotype of Republicans
is that they tend to hold spending down. The truth is that in years
when one party controls both the Congress and the White House,
spending tends to go up. That is true for Democrats, but it is just
as true for Republicans. The best way to get spending to decrease (or
at least not increase as much) is to have one party control Congress
and the other party control the White House.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've discovered that the harder you work the more he's got his hand
in my pants taking more of my hard earned efforts to come up with a
few extra bucks for flying.

Amen, brother. Until we, as a people, come to grips with this
completely out of control, tax-consuming, inefficient monster of a
government bureacracy that we've created, we will find our freedoms
and our income ever more diminished.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing -- this is a We the People
thing -- and we've GOT to do something about it, soon.

Nearly 2/3rds of "We the People" are getting goodies (middle class welfare,
AKA "Entitlements") from Uncle Sugar.

Just how are you going to wean them from the tit? Ask them nicely?

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:


If you can't get past partisan politics to see the individuals who cause
the
problem, you're part of the problem yourself.

Excellently stated...

Ironic, isn't it, that NOW they're individuals; when they line up at the
trough, they're part of a "special group".

The "natural rights theory" espouses that you neither gain, not lose, rights
regardless of which group(s) you affiliate with or classification you belong
too.

You don't gain rights being, for example, a woman, nor do you lose rights
(to the fruits of your legal labor) by becoming rich.


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:26:03 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:


Unlike the examples I mentioned, Social Security and Medicare benefit
the people of this country directly, and do not _needlessly_ squander
our nation's treasure for the benefit of large corporations like
Bechtel and Halliburton.


The Constitution does not anywhere authorize the taking of taxpayer
money to be given away in welfare and social programs.

I am not taxed for Social Security. I contribute into it. Can you
imagine our nation with tens of millions of homeless seniors who
lacked the foresight to save for their old age? Providing for the
welfare of those who have made a lifelong contribution to our nation's
prosperity through their decades of hard work, and are no longer
employable, is a necessity, just as is public health.

It does in fact authorize an Army for the defense of the country.

I hope you're not attempting to imply that Bush's Iraq war was a
matter of national defense. That is laughable.

You can argue that the war in Iraq is stupid,

Actually, I can argue that the Bush's vendetta against Sadam was
illegal, and perpetrated under false pretenses, and his GOP inspired
arrogant disregard for the Constitution is grounds for impeachment far
more grievous than Clinton's philandering.

but the expenditure of money on defense (i.e. the military) is Constituional.

To mention Bush and the Constitution in the same context is to reveal
your lack of understanding of how Karl Rove orchestrated Bush's
reelection, or blind naiveté.

You[r] apparent consistant disdain for corporations illustrates
your displile for free enterprise

(Merriam-Webster left the word 'displile' out of their Collegiate
Dictionary. Perhaps you'd be good enough to provide a definition for
it.)

I have no disdain for free enterprise. Indeed, I have run been the
beneficiary of the fruits of free enterprise as long as I can
remember.

It is the overwhelming political influence wielded by LARGE
corporations, that are able to buy the governmental policies and
programs they desire with the obscene profits (Exxon Mobile ...) from
their monopolies to the detriment of the people of our fair nation,
and then circumvent paying income tax by moving to Dubai like
Halliburton, that I find offensive. Haven't you been paying attention
to the blatant corruption occurring in our country? You remember,
DeLay, Abromoff, Lay, Keeting, Cunningham, Agnew, Boeing, Libby, ...
Kleptocracy is rampant.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...off-bush_x.htm

and your bias toward big government.... be [sic] we already know that.

I don't favor big government, but I do challenge privatization efforts
that result in a loss of accountability and transparency for
inherently governmental functions. Don't be fooled; you wouldn't like
to live in a nation that failed to restrain the voracious avarice of
unscrupulous, soulless, faceless, corporations.

This country was founded on the principle of limited government.
For the first 150 years of its existance we had politicians
that understood that concept. To wit, the founding fathers were
all mostly businessmen of some sort or another. The trend today
is that politicians seldome have real world experience in busines.

Oh, our congressional representatives seem to have plenty of
experience taking corporate lobby bribes that attempt to place the
interest of the corporations above those of the people, like senator
Rick Santorum's bill to deprive the people of our nation of the
National Weather Service information created with their tax dollars,
so that AccuWeather could sell it to them.

Far too many of the[m] have never really held a job outside of
government... and too many are simply one in a long line
od political figures... ever inbreeding their government ideas.

Whose fault is it that 90% of incumbents are reelected?


I'm happy to see that you don't challenge my original statement:

Unlike the examples I mentioned, Social Security and Medicare
benefit the people of this country directly, and do not
_needlessly_ squander our nation's treasure for the benefit of
large corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:41:15 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


If the people of this country believed that to be true they wouldn't have to
be forced to participate in them.

Regardless of what the people believe, they are the beneficiaries, not
large corporations.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I am not taxed for Social Security. I contribute into it.


Do you choose to contribute, or are you forced?

Yep, our health care system is so bad that it is where those from countries
with socialized healthcare systems who have the money and a real problem
flock to.

The US health care system is indeed very bad especially in terms of
cost. Its ironic that a major reason for this is the absence of a free
market in the medical sector. The American Medical Association
undermines the free market with a death grip on who gets to practice
medicine in the country and that grip is so strong that even the
celebrated Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman (a major
critic of the AMA) could do nothing to loosen it.

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 26, 11:17 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 18:57:24 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote
in .com:

Until we, as a people, come to grips with this
completely out of control, tax-consuming, inefficient monster of a
government bureacracy that we've created, we will find our freedoms
and our income ever more diminished.

Consider $3-billion a week in Iraq for five years, or much longer
depending..., and the money-sink of a blundering Department of
Homeland Security. It is those useless expenditures that are
consuming the wealth of our nation.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing --

If you fail to see the GOP's madness, you are blind.

The Republicans have been particularly egregious in their borrow and
spend approach, but history shows that the Democrats aren't much
better.

Seen the Dem's latest proposals? Hooooboy!!

Larry Dighera wrote:


I am not taxed for Social Security. I contribute into it.

I don't recal ever being offered an option NIT to participate
Larry. If it could I would drop it in a minute and manage it
myself. If it is such a great retirement program why is everyone
forced to participate?

If you are that concerned about all the poor idiots out there
who are too lazy or stupid to manage their life (let alone their
retirement) there are _thousands_ of charities that you can
contribute to. Larry They are run generally much more efficiently
than the government "charities" and have much less fraud.