Ragged Trousered Philanthropists

[Zom JFK]

What is being "taken away" in that scenario is the ladder others before them took on the way up.

We need to stop rationalizing reasons for kicking it away once we get to the roof...

You know La, Kev makes an excellent point. Didn't you express disgust awhile back that the senior guys "sold out junior fleet service" in the 95 contract? I replied to you that we got absolutley nothing for it and that I voted no. Well I would have voted no even if they offered us something substantial on the same principle that I apply here with city/state pensions. I will allways side with the working class. The rich and mega rich dont need any more help. They are doing better than any other time in US history. In spite of the "high cost" of employee salaries, medical, pensions, etc, etc.  

 

[Bob Owens]

From my experience new hires at AA do far MORE work for less anyway. And they do it for almost a decade. 
 
You can't have something taken away you never had Bob.

I believe we have a responsibility to those who come after us, whether they be our children or someone else's. Do you feel its OK to pollute the environment, despoil public lands and the animals on them and leave nothing for the next generation? Why not wipe out all the salmon, the bears, Bison, Elephants Tigers Whales, etc, so what if the next generation never gets to see these wonders of Gods creation, what they never had they never lost right? 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

You know La, Kev makes an excellent point. Didn't you express disgust awhile back that the senior guys "sold out junior fleet service" in the 95 contract? I replied to you that we got absolutley nothing for it and that I voted no. Well I would have voted no even if they offered us something substantial on the same principle that I apply here with city/state pensions. I will allways side with the working class. The rich and mega rich dont need any more help. They are doing better than any other time in US history. In spite of the "high cost" of employee salaries, medical, pensions, etc, etc.  

Junior Fleet was described to me as an introductory temporary position. Sort of like a training period. 
 
Had the company been more honest about what JFSC actually was I would have no hard feelings about it
 
In short I feel the position was misrepresented.
 
 
 
If I were a prospective new hire today and understood that under the hiring terms I would collect a 401k and not a pension I would not be upset. I understood the terms of my employment before I took the job.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

As measured in revenue produced our productivity per employee has more than doubled. IIRC in 2002 AA grossed around $18 billion, in 2014 the new AA grossed around $42 billion

Yeah, lower cost through bankruptcy, new fuel efficient aircraft with favorable loan terms, and lower fuel prices had nothing to do with that................
 

Correct, I didn't say it was, AA would be making profits even if our pay increased at the same rate as productivity, just not as much profits.  That my point, AA could be paying us a fair wage and still be profitable, they just choose not to, they don't even want to give us profit sharing.

No, you alluded that increased profits were due to increased production (employee output), which we both know, is not true.
 
American Airlines gives you what they are contractually obligated to give you.
 
Again fire your negotiator.
 

Because even in business the exchange should be fair. They expect us to give maximum effort for minimal pay. There is an ideal called ethics and quid pro quo that should be followed.

Should? We don't live in a world of should Bob. If we lived in a world of should we would not need a written contract. 
 
That is the difference between you and I. 
 
You believe they owe you because you are entitled to a certain level of compensation.
 
I believe they owe you what they agreed to in negotiations. American Airlines may have offered that garbage but the TWU accepted it on your behalf and the membership accepted it through their vote. All I am hearing you say is the TWU made a bad deal on your behalf and now you don't want to honor it.
 
You SHOULD honor your agreements Bob.
 

I think its worse than that, I think its corruption, and AA had a hand in it by essentially bribing out International with padded pensions and executive perks such as A-5 passes for them and their families. Again ethics, one who pays bribes and conspires to defraud someone else  is just as guilty as the one who accepts the bribe. 

You are telling me this after what happened in Tulsa? Bob I know the TWU is corrupt. Apparently it does not bother the membership enough to get rid the TWU.
 

Sad. Have you ever even been to any other country? I guess some people simply go through life in a black and white world of absolutes. If you think the Democrats are Socialist, or Communist then you really don't know what either of those words really means, either in a historic or theoretic sense.  Let me ask you something, how many jobs has Parker, or Horton created?

Worked great for Greece didn't it?
 
You are saying I don't know what those words mean? Bob I think YOU are the one that does not know what they mean. Taking money away from someone just because you deem they make too much and redistributing the wealth they have acquired is about as communist as it gets.
 
Tom Horton is not a business owner. He is a corporate UNION buster.  
 
As far as Parker....... who knows.
 
One thing is for sure, you and I have both benefited from "job creation" at American Airlines.
 

True, but that was even more the case throughout the last century, and for the period from Roosevelt till Reagan people in this country shared in the benefits of increased productivity that was mainly driven by technology, in fact people started working less where the 8 hour day replaced the 12 hour day and the workweek went from 6 to 5 days per week.  Can you think of anything else that was happening on this planet, not just here in the US, but across the world during that same period of time?

Henry Ford offering greater pay and benefits to assembly line workers would result in those changes. There is also the aspect of globalization. If that is not what you are fishing for you are going to have to be more specific. Those were busy years.
 
Henry Ford..... he is one of those job creators you despise that got tax breaks to help his business grow. How did that work out?
 

So I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that we have  Military Installations in 40 other countries and spend more on weapons than the rest of the world -combined? Do you know what its called when you have your military in someone else's country? Its called an occupation. You may claim we need all those bases and the expense of maintaining them for "Security" or "to protect our interests" but many of the countries we occupy are "Allies" and those "Allies" don't have military bases in the US. Why are we paying for bases in Australia, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain and England? If anything you should be pissed off that all those countries have Socialized Medicine, Socialized College Education, Sociailzed minimums as far as Holidays (Vacation) Sick time, maternity and Paternity leave, Labor Laws far more protective than we have and a Welfare system thats far more generous than ours because they aren't paying for all that military .. Plus all workers are allowed to strike and they don't have scams like Chapter 11 Reorganization, those workers have more Freedom and rights than we do!!!
 
I also don't suppose its because of all the tax breaks we give corporations? According to you its because we have too many entitlements. Too many old people that arent forced to eat cat food and too many kids in school?
 
The $600 cell phone isn't stopping them from buying a home or retiring. Its the $500/month they have to pay for medical insurance, and other everyday commodities including the extra taxes they have to pay so corporations don't have to pay their fair share and we can occupy 40 countries across the globe. A while back an old timer brought in his paycheck from the early 60s. He compared the $100/week he was earning then to the $1000 we were making at the time. He said that the house he bought for $20,000 would now cost $200,000 so its really no different, then I pointed out that out of that $100 check he cleared  $85, but out of his $1000 check he was only clearing around $650, so its not the same, its 20% less. Inflation driven tax bracket creep brought us into higher tax brackets forcing us to pay more in taxes so those at the top could pay less. In reality we lost buying power.
 
By the way I'm not a Democrat. In fact the only Party I ever registered as was Republican, back in 1980, and what a mistake that was. Then I grew up. 

What do military bases in another country have to do with American consumers spending excessive amounts of money on stupid crap?
 
NOTHING!!
 
We do have too many "entitlements" Bob. That is a nice little visual you set up but that is not the reality of the out of control socialism in this country.
 
Lost buying power..... oh please..... I can tell with all the TVs, PlayStations, tablets, computers, individual cars (as opposed to family cars), and jewelry I see people with today. Then there are the parents......... Yeah Bob I can see how the American consumer has lost buying power............ Tell another one. You may have lost buying power since the 90's but your standard of living has gone way up since the early 60's.
 
Bob the only growing you have done since 1980 is out.
 

The "Seniority lock" is more due to the fact that this is a 24/7 industry where the work we do is primarily done at night.   If I had to do it all over again I would not be in this industry and have made it clear to my kids to not follow me. 

What the hell does night shift have to do with "seniority lock" Bob? If anything that frees you up to go put in applications during the day time.
 

I believe we have a responsibility to those who come after us, whether they be our children or someone else's. Do you feel its OK to pollute the environment, despoil public lands and the animals on them and leave nothing for the next generation? Why not wipe out all the salmon, the bears, Bison, Elephants Tigers Whales, etc, so what if the next generation never gets to see these wonders of Gods creation, what they never had they never lost right? 

So according to you bringing retirement benefits in line with the private sector is comparable to despoiling the land and wiping out animal species?
 
Ridiculous arguments to illicit an emotional response have long been a weapon of the Democrat.
 
You want to come back down to Earth and present a debate that is a little less....... stupid?
 
 
 
 
 
We done here Bob or you want to go another round? 

 

[ChockJockey]

We often hear about the "3 legged-stool" touting a 401k, pension, and Social Security. I contend that there needs to be a 4th, and it needs to be one of real world financial education.

 
That's what I'm working towards; 401k, pension, SS, and some investments on the side.  I figure I still have 30 years until retirement age, but a lot can (will) happen between now and 2045.  401k's can tank, pensions can be slashed and dumped, SS can be abolished, and so on, not to mention the possibility of economic/environmental collapse, global war, rising sea levels, scurvy, and of course the impending arrival/return of any number of prophesized saviors/messiahs.  So I've started in earnest setting up a foundation for my retirement but I realize that like so many things in life it could easily be negated, so my expectations for return aren't very high.
 

@Bob-- I'm on the ramp, and in my previous station it was the senior FT guys that had "okay" cars while the junior PT people had nice ones. I think that's more of an age thing than a classification issue. They were almost w/o exception younger, and simply had a different set of priorities. It is what it is.

 
It doesn't help that we live in a market culture that values materialism and promotes debt and easy money.  Much of our consumer economy depends on enticement and getting people to spend money - especially money they don't have - on lifestyle or status or ego enhancements that have little or no practical value, so there is no small number of people/firms/industries that have a serious interest in people not getting a sound financial education, just as there are those whose profits rely on people being ignorant of nutrition, or lacking in scientific literacy, and so on.  A fool and his money, and all that...
 
As for the age thing, I think some people just have to learn their lessons the hard way; life happens to everybody sooner or later and before you know it Johnny is trading in his yellow Mustang for a used minivan and picking up OT to pay for diapers.  Luckily that's a bullet I've yet been able to dodge.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Couple that with stupid people spending 600 dollars on an I-Phone then complaining they are  broke.

Much of our consumer economy depends on enticement and getting people to spend money - especially money they don't have - on lifestyle or status or ego enhancements that have little or no practical value, 

Truth.
 
You seeing this Bob?

 

[Bob Owens]

Yeah, lower cost through bankruptcy, new fuel efficient aircraft with favorable loan terms, and lower fuel prices had nothing to do with that................
 
 

What do costs have to do with revenues? Fuel efficient aircraft, favorable loan terms and lower fuel prices all have to do with costs, I said AA doubled their revenues. 
 
 
 
 

I believe they owe you what they agreed to in negotiations. American Airlines may have offered that garbage but the TWU accepted it on your behalf and the membership accepted it through their vote. All I am hearing you say is the TWU made a bad deal on your behalf and now you don't want to honor it.
 
You SHOULD honor your agreements Bob.
 

 
Really? But you are OK with companies going into C-11 to not honor their agreements
 
 
 

Worked great for Greece didn't it?
 

 
Well the fact is they on average live two years longer than we do. So they must be doing something right. Are you saying that we are better off spending all that money on military occupations across the globe, which causes people in those countries to resent us than spending the money here at home? 
 

You are saying I don't know what those words mean? Bob I think YOU are the one that does not know what they mean. Taking money away from someone just because you deem they make too much and redistributing the wealth they have acquired is about as communist as it gets.
 

The fact is that Wealth redistribution is happening, only you are getting less and the rich are getting more. Even people like Warren Buffett admit that. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Henry Ford offering greater pay and benefits to assembly line workers would result in those changes. There is also the aspect of globalization. If that is not what you are fishing for you are going to have to be more specific. Those were busy years.
 

What happened was the Cold War, which in reality started after the failed invasion of Russia by the US, England and France at the end of WWI. The war was cancelled due to Union resistance in Europe which threatened General Strikes and the fact that they probably would have succeeded gaining support from a war weary public.  It was called the war of Intervention and it was something never taught in schools here in the US. In the contest of ideologies Capitalism put on a soft face, workers saw increased living standards in exchange for Loyalty against Communism, as Communism failed Capitalism reverted back to it's natural demeanor. 
 
 

Henry Ford..... he is one of those job creators you despise that got tax breaks to help his business grow. How did that work out?
 

 
I never mentioned Henry Ford, what I have mentioned was the Railroads which were granted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate. Corporate Welfare has been around a long time. 
 
 

What do military bases in another country have to do with American consumers spending excessive amounts of money on stupid crap? NOTHING!!
 

 
Agreed, so why are you asking ? I pointed out that instead of our taxes going towards medical care, education and taking care of those who are elderly or less fortunate like they do in most of Western society, we spend billions occupying "friendly" and not so friendly counties across the world. Those billions could either be better spent at home or maybe you could pay lower taxes. 
 
Here, from a news source you likely trust;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/us-reportedly-footing-more-bill-for-overseas-bases-despite-cuts-to-military/
 
$7.9 billion just for Germany, thats around $527 per Household in the US to occupy Germany. And there are at least 39 other countries we occupy with US troops. 
 

We do have too many "entitlements" Bob. That is a nice little visual you set up but that is not the reality of the out of control socialism in this country.
 

 
What are they and which ones would you eliminate and how much would it save you? You just made a claim, now back it up with specifics and numbers. 
 
 

Lost buying power..... oh please..... I can tell with all the TVs, PlayStations, tablets, computers, individual cars (as opposed to family cars), and jewelry I see people with today. Then there are the parents......... Yeah Bob I can see how the American consumer has lost buying power............ Tell another one. You may have lost buying power since the 90's but your standard of living has gone way up since the early 60's
 

 
By what standard are you basing that claim? The fact is all the things you listed add nothing to personal wealth or longer lives or purchasing power. We have unhealthy foods being subsidized by government policy while healthy food becomes too expensive for many to afford due to lower real earnings, I already showed you an example as far as real estate. 
 

Bob the only growing you have done since 1980 is out.
 

Unfortunately true, due in part to my consumption of subsidized unhealthy food.
 
 

What the hell does night shift have to do with "seniority lock" Bob? If anything that frees you up to go put in applications during the day time.
 

If you were a Line mechanic you would know. 
 

So according to you bringing retirement benefits in line with the private sector is comparable to despoiling the land and wiping out animal species?
 

How about bringing our retirement benefits in line with some of the counties we spend billions occupying?  You made the statement that you cant lose something you never had, I stated my belief that we have an obligation to those who come after us. Funny how on the one hand you say all this stuff about getting what you negotiate but then attack workers who negotiate good pensions,  you advocate tearing down what they negotiated and at the same time praise and give those who you call "job Creators" a free pass, you are ok with a redistribution of wealth from other workers-taking away what they negotiated to provide you a lower tax rate, but against any sort of wealth redistribution from those who benefited from the loss of your pensions and other benefits. 

 

[Zom JFK]

The best trick the super rich ever pulled off in this country was convincing working people that they are the problem. Let's see how many still think think this way when they have us living in shanty towns again.

 

[FWAAA]

Here, from a news source you likely trust;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/us-reportedly-footing-more-bill-for-overseas-bases-despite-cuts-to-military/
 
$7.9 billion just for Germany, thats around $527 per Household in the US to occupy Germany. And there are at least 39 other countries we occupy with US troops.

 
Uhh, it's very important to keep decimal places where they belong. It's not $527 per household to occupy Germany, it's about $53 (assuming you use 150 million households). While reasonable people can disagree, I think it's worth $53 per household.

Total federal government spending is about $27,000 per household annually, and in that context, $53 to occupy Germany is ok with me. Stupid Bastards shouldn't have invaded Poland, France and bombed England and they shouldn't have killed 10 million people in their attempt to exterminate Jews and all their other "undesirables." And if it costs us $53 per household per year to remind them of their history, and to discourage anyone further genocidal tendencies there, it's money well spent. That's why even Commie-loving Democrats in Washington, DC, haven't seriously proposed leaving Germany.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

What do costs have to do with revenues? Fuel efficient aircraft, favorable loan terms and lower fuel prices all have to do with costs, I said AA doubled their revenues. 

Point taken.
 
I saw  what you said but I assumed what you actually meant was profit.
 
Some people don't understand what those terms mean. I will take note that you do.
 

Really? But you are OK with companies going into C-11 to not honor their agreements

Hell NO I am not okay with that.  
 
That being said TWU gave away the farm long before AA took bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was just a double dip.
 

Well the fact is they on average live two years longer than we do. So they must be doing something right. Are you saying that we are better off spending all that money on military occupations across the globe, which causes people in those countries to resent us than spending the money here at home? 

Let's see how long their average life span is when the other European nation's stop propping them up.
 
I am not a military strategist Bob. 
 
I know I rather support a powerful military than support a lazy bum.
 

The fact is that Wealth redistribution is happening, only you are getting less and the rich are getting more. Even people like Warren Buffett admit that. 

I find it funny when people complain about the rich getting richer when they voluntarily overpay for items just to follow the crowd or impress people.
 
I have a step brother that married a millionaire. He would show off his Apple laptop, his iPad and his iphone, brag about his Apple TV and his 100MB internet connection. When I pointed out my Android phone was just as capable (an HTC I got for $75) and I had built a PC that hit 4 times harder than his for half the price his reply was how Apple was priced to be "exclusive" to those that could afford it. Well now his dumb ass is broke and Apple has his money.
 
He redistributed his wealth on a voluntary basis. I see that everyday.
 
Stupid people don't have a right to whine about being broke when they spend their money on stupid things. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I never mentioned Henry Ford, what I have mentioned was the Railroads which were granted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate. Corporate Welfare has been around a long time. 

No you asked me a vague question and that was my attempt to provide you an answer. 
 
Don't throw the ball in my court and then come back with "I never mentioned".
 
Don't act like you don't play the rich Vs. poor angle either Bob.
 
You paint a picture of the wealthy victimizing the citizens of this country. I can tell you the only contact I have had with the wealthy is them paying me to do a job. Money from THEIR hand to MINE, not the other way around. I can tell you I have had far more stolen from me from a socialist government than I ever have a wealthy man.
 
Keep plugging your communist us vs them agenda though.
 

Agreed, so why are you asking ? I pointed out that instead of our taxes going towards medical care, education and taking care of those who are elderly or less fortunate like they do in most of Western society, we spend billions occupying "friendly" and not so friendly counties across the world. Those billions could either be better spent at home or maybe you could pay lower taxes. 
 
Here, from a news source you likely trust;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/us-reportedly-footing-more-bill-for-overseas-bases-despite-cuts-to-military/
 
$7.9 billion just for Germany, thats around $527 per Household in the US to occupy Germany. And there are at least 39 other countries we occupy with US troops. 

Again I rather support a powerful military than a lazy bum.
 

What are they and which ones would you eliminate and how much would it save you? You just made a claim, now back it up with specifics and numbers. 

Yeah Bob, people coasting through life cheating their peers are lining up to take a poll to admit they abuse the welfare system.
 
Now why don't you ask me a question less stupid.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqLrvwplCiY
 
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-02/local/me-46234_1_welfare-fraud
 
I can tell you in my city a drug dealer was on the news (after he got arrested) bragging about using as many as 4 "Obama phones" per day to conduct drug deals. 
 

By what standard are you basing that claim? The fact is all the things you listed add nothing to personal wealth or longer lives or purchasing power. We have unhealthy foods being subsidized by government policy while healthy food becomes too expensive for many to afford due to lower real earnings, I already showed you an example as far as real estate. 

.......................
 
Buying more services and items means you don't have more purchasing power?  ....................................................... OK Bob whatever you say.
 

If you were a Line mechanic you would know.

Know what? How to give a ridiculous answer to a specific question because you have nothing of any validity to say?
 

How about bringing our retirement benefits in line with some of the counties we spend billions occupying?  You made the statement that you cant lose something you never had, I stated my belief that we have an obligation to those who come after us. Funny how on the one hand you say all this stuff about getting what you negotiate but then attack workers who negotiate good pensions,  you advocate tearing down what they negotiated and at the same time praise and give those who you call "job Creators" a free pass, you are ok with a redistribution of wealth from other workers-taking away what they negotiated to provide you a lower tax rate, but against any sort of wealth redistribution from those who benefited from the loss of your pensions and other benefits. 
 

Bob the purpose of giving tax breaks to the wealthy is to spur investment in enterprise. The government can't force people to invest money but they can provide the opportunity.
 
I am never OK with stealing money from those that earn it to benefit someone else.
 
American Airlines did not take my pension, they froze it. When they froze it and I incurred loss of benefits I decided it was not worth the investment of my time to work there anymore. They did not take anything from me because I didn't allow them to. I left, on my own terms, and got a job I felt met my needs.
 
A lot of people will say I did not quit they eliminated my job..... To that I say I had bump options, I had an option to put in a transfer as well.  If I really wanted to I could be back to TULE right now as an aircraft cleaner.
 
The fact is after the bankruptcy I took a long hard look at my situation and my future prospects and decided to take control of my future instead of depending on a failure UNION to provide me one.
 
 
 
The UNION gives you a lot of benefits, I won't deny that but, it has its price. First off you can't really benefit from work ethic or skill. You can be the most competent hardest working person on the floor and you will make no more than the lazy fool playing dominoes all day.
 
Another price you pay is you are a victim of seniority entrapment in a heavily UNIONized industry.
 
In essence your trapped.... unless you want to start over like a day one employee with crappy days off and no holidays.
 
You say the wealthy have robbed you of pension and benefits but I could just as easily say the UNION has robbed you of a choice of employer (unless you want to start over in seniority) and to negotiate what you think is fair for YOU.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Uhh, it's very important to keep decimal places where they belong. It's not $527 per household to occupy Germany, it's about $53 (assuming you use 150 million households). While reasonable people can disagree, I think it's worth $53 per household.

Total federal government spending is about $27,000 per household annually, and in that context, $53 to occupy Germany is ok with me. Stupid Bastards shouldn't have invaded Poland, France and bombed England and they shouldn't have killed 10 million people in their attempt to exterminate Jews and all their other "undesirables." And if it costs us $53 per household per year to remind them of their history, and to discourage anyone further genocidal tendencies there, it's money well spent. That's why even Commie-loving Democrats in Washington, DC, haven't seriously proposed leaving Germany.

 
Ok my bad, used a lower figure for households but still screwed up with all the zeros.
 
How many Germans of today had anything to do with WWII? If past sins are taken into account what about the fact we were one of the last to do away with Slavery and our "guilt" in the the extermination of the indigenous peoples who were here before the Europeans? Don't you live in a State that occupies land taken from Mexico? What the Germans did to the Jews the English did to the Irish in Ireland. I believe the English also constructed the concentration camps long before the Nazi's, in South Africa. Oh, thats right, we occupy England as well so that makes spending $10 billion a year on foreign bases ok right? As far as discouraging genocide didn't do much to discourage Pol Pot in Cambodia, or the many in Africa or in Bosnia. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
You paint a picture of the wealthy victimizing the citizens of this country. I can tell you the only contact I have had with the wealthy is them paying me to do a job. Money from THEIR hand to MINE, not the other way around. I can tell you I have had far more stolen from me from a socialist government than I ever have a wealthy man.
 
 

Well I have to assume that you performed a service for the money he 'gave " you.  More than likely the money he gave you was less than the money he made from the service you provided. If not and your labor added less value than then you where paid then have cause to be grateful. I don't feel that way about the service and skills I provide. 
 

Keep plugging your communist us vs them agenda though.
 
 
I can tell you in my city a drug dealer was on the news (after he got arrested) bragging about using as many as 4 "Obama phones" per day to conduct drug deals. 
 

 
I can tell you that most Drug dealers consider themselves to be Capiltalists. I guess you figure that Warren Buffett is a Communist as well because he has commented on how there is an us vs them;
 
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”― Warren Buffett
 

Bob the purpose of giving tax breaks to the wealthy is to spur investment in enterprise. The government can't force people to invest money but they can provide the opportunity.
 

 
Ok, without the tax breaks tell me what would the Rich do with the money they don't spend? To say that people would would not continue to put money to work making money unless they paid less taxes than those who make money with their labor is absurd, it's a fallacy promoted by the wealthy and repeated so often that many, such as yourself  came to believe it. This fallacy is a twist on something that is true,  Tax incentives were a way to promote targeted investments, investments in things that would not otherwise attract investment because more money could be made elsewhere, such as savings bonds, not the whole concept of investment. People will invest regardless of the tax breaks and they did so before many of todays breaks were put in place. Like I said if they have billions, even millions in disposable Capital, if not invest it, what else would they do with it? 
 
 

I am never OK with stealing money from those that earn it to benefit someone else.
 

 
Obviously you are, you are OK with taking it away from people who work for the Government.
 

American Airlines did not take my pension, they froze it. When they froze it and I incurred loss of benefits I decided it was not worth the investment of my time to work there anymore. They did not take anything from me because I didn't allow them to. I left, on my own terms, and got a job I felt met my needs.
 

 
You got the refund of the Prefunding match? Did you buy the Supplemental medical? If so did you get any refund of those Premium? 
 
 
 

The UNION gives you a lot of benefits, I won't deny that but, it has its price. First off you can't really benefit from work ethic or skill. You can be the most competent hardest working person on the floor and you will make no more than the lazy fool playing dominoes all day.
 

 
Sounds like an issue with the way the company is managed to me. Just like wages, Unions can only enforce what they negotiate and nowhere in any contract at AA have I seen language that protects people playing Dominos while others work all day. 
 

Another price you pay is you are a victim of seniority entrapment in a heavily UNIONized industry.
 
In essence your trapped.... unless you want to start over like a day one employee with crappy days off and no holidays.
 

 
Thats the nature of the industry we chose, its no different at Delta which is Non-union. They are just as trapped as we are. 
 
 

What are they and which ones would you eliminate and how much would it save you? You just made a claim, now back it up with specifics and numbers. 
 

Calling this question "stupid" is infantile. Its a legitimate question, you said we have too many entitlements, well, how about some substance and not generalized proclaimations? What , other than Welfare, and the cheats that abuse it offends you? 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
Let's see how long their average life span is when the other European nation's stop propping them up.
 

Likely still longer than ours.
 
 

I know I rather support a powerful military than support a lazy bum.
 

 
Who says those are the only options? I"m against Welfare Fraud, but I'm also against Corporations using their money and power to impose laws upon us that continue to place us at an ever increasingly huge disadvantage. I'm against them being able to use that leverage to force wages so low that people working full time don't earn enough to pay for the basics and qualify for food stamps. Do you really think its right that employers can pay a wage so low that without aid from us through our taxes (food stamps) these people and their children would go to bed hungry? I'm against saddling the next generation with a huge amount of debt that they incur gaining skills that are required for gainful employment. I'm against people dying because they cant afford medical care. I'm against people being forced to work into old age. I'm against politicians who treat our elderly with disrespect and brand them as moochers. I'm against laws that enable companies to impose new contracts on workers by feigning financial distress. I'd rather see our tax dollars used for Education and infrastructure and yes for programs for those who need it and the government punish those who fraudulently take what they don't deserve.