NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:58:21 +0000, kontiki wrote:

I think that's largely true. People are more interestwed in who wins
American Idol than what is going on in the aerospace industry.

I suspect that this plays a large part. It's not so much that the heroes
matter (though to some people, I'm sure they do {8^). But the heroes
represent a consumption of the public mindset. Having an aviation hero
means that aviation is on the minds of people.

- Andrew

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

The cost of the US health system can be blamed on the ABA as much if not
more than the AMA.

They're both in the same racket along with the drug and insurance companies.

My employees' compensation and my profit are being eroded at a rate far in
excess of inflation by bloating health care costs. We're paying much more
every year but getting worse care and service in return.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Of course, no one is _forced_ to participate, even in the US. It's
only a condition of earning a wage in the US. ...


Wage earners are forced to participate. Wage earners are someone.



What would happen if only those who were bad drivers could purchase
automobile insurance? Do you think the premiums would be affordable
in such a case? If you're opposed to SSI, are you also opposed to
automobile, aircraft, life, and health insurance?


Social Security is not insurance.



That attitude is rather shortsighted, and totally out of place in
today's global society. If you fail to bring the less fortunate up,
you will not be happy with the consequences. Trust me.


Why should anyone trust you?



You don't live in isolation regardless of whether your home is
situated behind the walls of a gated community or not. As the world
population is predicted to double within the next fifty years, we're
all going to have to adjust our tribal biases in order to coexist in
the future.


I doubt you'll ever adjust your biases.



And where is your compassion for your fellow man? Are you so
contemptuous of humanity, that you would condemn millions of innocent
people to poverty just to save a few dollars? I hope not.


Absurd.



Social Security is not a charity; it is insurance. There is an
inescapable loss of human dignity that occurs to those who receive
charity. Social Security recipients can be proud of having worked
hard during their lives, and owe no debt of gratitude to anyone other
than the FDR administration.


Social Security is not an insurance policy, it is a ponzi scheme.



Educate yourself:


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...cial_security/
FDR believed that Social Security should be simple, guaranteed,
fair, earned, and available to all Americans. President Roosevelt
was adamant that Social Security was an insurance program to
provide basic needs in retirement.

Today, thanks in large part to Social Security, the number of
older Americans below the poverty line has dropped from almost 50
percent to only 8 percent.


So how much of that was done by social security, how much was done by
changing the definition of "older Americans", and how much was done by
lowering the poverty line?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

We are all on this planet together. The world population is expected
to double in less than fifty years. You're going to have to change
that mind-set if you expect us all to get along in the future.


No, if you expect us all to get along in the future you're going to have to
change your mindset.

"Jose" wrote in message
news

You are using the fallacy of "all things being equal". All things are not
equal. The doling out of money =causes= people to reach their hands out -
hands that might otherwise be contributing to society. This is especially
true for the doling out of money based on the recipient having made poor
choices. Guess what that encourages.


My gawd, what are you saying? Rewarding some behavior encourages more of
it?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I am not forced. Only the majority of US wage earners are compelled
to participate in the Social Security Insurance plan.


Good for you. How did you manage to avoid paying social security?



And, it is still the case that Social Security represents the only
source of retirement pension income for the vast majority of
Americans.


Yeah, it's a damned shame it was ever created.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

We are getting pretty far a field here, but I believe it's fair to
say, that Democrats' spending tends to benefit the people, and
Republican spending tends to benefit large corporations.


That's neither fair nor accurate. Democrats' spending tends to be for
things that don't work, waste huge amounts of money, and are generally not
supported by the Constitution. Off the top of my head I can't think of
anything that actually benefits the people.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I understand your concern. If the solution were simple, it would been
put into action long ago.


Actually, the solutions ARE pretty simple. They're not put into action
because doing so would not help those in power stay in power.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:38:43 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

I am thankful that our nation is not littered with impoverished
seniors who failed to provide for their years of unemployability.
Yes, but I do resent being the one to support them.
We are all on this planet together. The world
population is expected to double...

You are using the fallacy of "all things being equal".

I am? I fail to infer your meaning as it relates to this discussion.

All things are not equal.

It's difficult to argue with that statement.

The doling out of money =causes= people to reach their hands
out -

If true, that is an inescapable side effect. It's a spurious argument
tantamount to refusing to take a life saving medication that may cause
nausea.

hands that might otherwise be contributing to society.

What? Are you arguing that people shouldn't retire after thirty or
forth years of toil?

This is
especially true for the doling out of money based on the recipient
having made poor choices.

What is true? Are you saying, that those retired workers who have
paid into SSI should not receive a SSI check commensurate with the
amount they contributed during the time they worked and paid into SSI?
Or are you saying, that we, as a country, are not big enough to show
compassion toward those who were created with less than optimal
mentality and manual skill, even when it is in our collective best
interest?

Guess what that encourages.

What what encourages?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:50:57 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

If you were a rational person I would try discuss this further but
you aren't so I won't bother.

Are you able to cite a few of what you consider to be irrational
statements made by me in this message thread?

If not, I am forced to conclude, that you are just another unarmed man
in a battle of wits who resorts to personal attack when he has run out
of plausible arguments to support his views.