I guess we will just have to except that we look at it differently then.You and I have a different definition of "living within your means". To me living within my means is defined as I won't lose everything I have if I miss a couple of paychecks........
Exactly. You think you are deserving of privileges or special treatment.. They have a name for that, entitlement. You are text book.
So you took pay for work that you did not do. If your company took government grants and agreed to a no layoff clause then YES you were covered by the taxpayers.
Of course you don't. The taxpayers are paying you partial pay to sit at home on your ass.
You mean except the ones sitting on their ass at home getting partial pay right? Again, you don't need 100% of your employees to transport a fraction of the traffic.
If they are paying you partial pay to sit at home on your ass they are overstaffed.
I hope you don't. But I sure as hell don't want to subsidize your paycheck. I also don't want our nation to go even further in debt to cover payroll for people not working when there are other businesses hiring.
If they are giving away their shifts, turning down opportunities to earn, then why the hell should the public subsidize them?
Yes WE. Last I checked you lived in the United States. We, as a nation, have a lot of credit card debt.
Nothing funny about it. It is the absolute truth. You are asking people, most of who make far less than you do, to subsidize your income.
No matter how you spin it you cannot justify taxpayers funding an overstaffed airline when they have employees sitting at home drawing partial pay for doing absolutely nothing. You are so damned entitled you have actually fooled yourself into thinking this absurdity is reasonable.