NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

On 4/26/2007 9:35 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

If you can't get past partisan politics

What does this have to do with aviation?

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.

I, of course, expect my children's education to improve
commensurately...

troll...

Eh?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The problem with income is we don't know if they include every income
that is different than the others or if they put them into brackets.

That only matters when figuring out the mode. For the median, if the
brackets are properly weighted it will work out just fine.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

So you think that failing to care for the nation's poor is appropriate
for a government, and it makes the nation stronger.

No, I think that taking care of the nation's poor creates unmotivated
people, in many ways. This makes the nation weaker. Welfare is a
disaster. I do agree that SS is not quite the same as welfare. It is
however getting dangerously close.

But what do you think would be
the consequences of failing to care for the poor?

Those poor would suffer. Those on the edge of poor would not be
motivated to become poor (so they could get free money).

Do you think it would be cheaper to police
the desperate souls who are driven to crime
because they are hungry?

That's not what drives (most) crime. So yes.

I give up. I hope you get a chance to live in the world you desire.

You paint a very simplistic picture. I don't think the picture is so
simple - there are =huge= unintended consequences to seemingly well
meaning government policies.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 4/27/2007 3:32 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

Maxwell writes:

Besides, you are either to ignorant or to impatient to accept the fact, that
in every state - you can buy a $60k home, live in it for 10 years, and
usually trade up with your equity, and have a $100k to $120k home for the
same monthly payment.

That's exactly the sort of practice that has made home ownership inaccessible
for so many people today. It's all a matter of greed.

That's how supply and demand works, chump.

But ... what does this have to do with aviation?
--
dgs

On 4/28/2007 12:53 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

Governments should help the poor become rich, rather than simply hand them
money in custodial care.

Whatever. What does this have to do with aviation?
--
dgs

On 4/28/2007 10:57 AM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

For decades, there has been a general increase in fear in the population,
driven principally by news media, and by government collusion with those
media. People are more fearful of everything nowadays than they have ever
been in the past (in U.S. history), and the trend is accelerating.

Whatever. What does this have to do with aviation?

You claim to come here to discuss aviation. Why do you lie so much?
--
dgs

"kontiki" wrote in message
...

Very true Jose. I was simply evaluating the social engineering
that _I_ feel is societally regressive (i.e like income taxes
and other government programs). I think some tax credits _are_
a good idea because they encourage people or businesses to
produce things (generally).


So some tax credits are good. Which ones? Do you suppose other people
might have a different idea about which tax breaks are good and which are
bad? Do you suppose this might explain in part why there are hordes of
lobbyists trying to influence Congress?

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



But to your point, If I were a strict Constitutionalist (which
I am not really) I would oppose all of that stuff. Some positive
social engineering can be good but too much of it (which is
really where we are no I believe) is a very bad thing.


So when should the federal government adhere to the Constitution and when
should it not?

Jose wrote:
So you think that failing to care for the nation's poor is appropriate
for a government, and it makes the nation stronger.


No, I think that taking care of the nation's poor creates unmotivated
people, in many ways. This makes the nation weaker. Welfare is a
disaster. I do agree that SS is not quite the same as welfare. It is
however getting dangerously close.


This is what socialism does to people. Remember the Soviet Union
collapsing under its own weight? Oh yeah, Cuba is a real economic
powerhouse too. Europe is a mere shadow of its former self and
now we in the United States and following right along.

But what do you think would be
the consequences of failing to care for the poor?


Those poor would suffer. Those on the edge of poor would not be
motivated to become poor (so they could get free money).


Its called Darwin's theory... and it has worked every where it is
tried. In the first 150 years of this nations history it is what
bread a strong, hearty stock of people that built a country from
nothing to be a world power in just a few generations. Good
decision making and hard work = success.

Now that we subsidize supidity and poor decision making, we are
are breeding a large population of losers, expecting government
to bail them out if they break a hangnail.

Do you think it would be cheaper to police
the desperate souls who are driven to crime
because they are hungry?


That's not what drives (most) crime. So yes.

I give up. I hope you get a chance to live in the world you desire.


You paint a very simplistic picture. I don't think the picture is so
simple - there are =huge= unintended consequences to seemingly well
meaning government policies.

Jose

Socialists see a utopia that will never come to pass because they
cannot see beyond a simplistic picture that refuses to hold people
responsible for their own actions (or in-actions).