Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 165
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I was replying to this, "But it does give you responsibility where lives, other than just your own, are at risk."
    Sorry, daThomas, a little touchy about people saying being a pilot is easy I am. (Did I just sound like yoda?)
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Sorry, daThomas, a little touchy about people saying being a pilot is easy I am. (Did I just sound like yoda?)
    Hell, I thought you were Yoda.

    No, I am aware that being a Pilot takes smarts.
  3. #143  
    The reason military pilots have to be so smart is so they can remember which of the 38 pockets in their flight suit they put their car keys.
  4. #144  
    DA, fighter planes "plug the tanker" frequently. In flight refueling is inherently dangerous not just to the fighter driver, but the crew of the tanker. Fighters fly very fast and in very close proximity to each other, one miscue and they're "swapping paint", usually with disastrous results. On an intercept, they merge with the target at over 1500 miles an hour closure. That leaves ZERO room for error. They fire missiles BVR, or "beyond visual range". This means the pilot must not just fly the plane, but he has to maintain situational awareness of the airspace around him, manage the weapon systems, radar, threat warning reciver, etc, maintain communication with his wingman and the AWACS AND fight. Modern types delivery ordnance to support ground troops...usually "danger close". In naval aviation, if the pilot screws up he can plow into the flight deck. There are many consequences beyond just the pilot getting killed in fighter aviation, even in peacetime training.

    The plane Bush flew, the F-102, was the third of the Century series of fighters and was known as a lieutenant killer. As much as you hate to admit it, maybe to the point that you'll say all fighter pilots are little more than trained monkeys, W flew that aircraft successfully, and that says a lot about his intelligence and physical ability. (Unless you have secret documents from Bill Burkett that says otherwise.)
  5. #145  
    Ahem. Moving back to the topic, Bush stated his case tonight for private accounts and means testing. OK, so what's the point of investing smart and working hard if you're just going to work your way out of your SS "benefit". (I quote benefit, because you're just reaching into someon else's wallet.)
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Ahem. Moving back to the topic, Bush stated his case tonight for private accounts and means testing. OK, so what's the point of investing smart and working hard if you're just going to work your way out of your SS "benefit". (I quote benefit, because you're just reaching into someon else's wallet.)
    For the final time. SS is not a retirement acct, it's a safety net. You are free to partake in many retirement investment options currently. If you would like to focus on shoring up SS then fine. Private accounts are off the table.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    For the final time. SS is not a retirement acct, it's a safety net. You are free to partake in many retirement investment options currently. If you would like to focus on shoring up SS then fine. Private accounts are off the table.
    So I can opt out? Live on the edge? Accept consequences of my actions and realize the benefits of risk? No? Then your safety net is nothing other than a government mandated redistribution of income. From my pocket to someome else's. "Shoring up" means taking more of someone else's money. Is that right? Do you really think that is right?

    I'll say it again. It took a Roosevelt picked and packed court to find this abomination "constitutional". That's why the libs are fighting to hard to maintain control of the judiciary.
  8. #148  
    The idea of people keeping their own money and taking care of themselves just drives you guys crazy! Why is that?
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    So I can opt out? Live on the edge? Accept consequences of my actions and realize the benefits of risk? No? Then your safety net is nothing other than a government mandated redistribution of income. From my pocket to someome else's. "Shoring up" means taking more of someone else's money. Is that right? Do you really think that is right?

    I'll say it again. It took a Roosevelt picked and packed court to find this abomination "constitutional". That's why the libs are fighting to hard to maintain control of the judiciary.
    Yes, SS is a forced safety net for everyone. A minimum amount of money to live on so your broke old *** doesn't become a burden on the state. What you do above and beyond this with your money is your biz.
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    The idea of people keeping their own money and taking care of themselves just drives you guys crazy! Why is that?
    I insist that you do, and so does the concept of SS. You have no choice but to be able to MINIMALLY take care of yourself in retirement.

    I want people to have as much of the money they earn as possible but do realize the infrastructure which allows you to earn your money has to be paid for by something. YES. CUT WASTE but responsibly.
  11. #151  
    If the govt doesn't 'make' people save $$ for retirement, then a large portion of people won't. (Chinese people save like 30% of their income, U.S. saves 3%?) I really believe that. (and I think that is the difference in policy between Dems and Reps).

    If you want to put money into a private acct, you can do that now with an IRA (or other option).

    I wouldn't be opposed to offering a private option for investing a portion in stocks IF it wouldn't take any additional money out of SS.

    If you allow private accounts and people don't save for retirement, you can't just ignore them...it becomes exponentially more expensive to deal with them when they are older and they don't have anything saved in retirement. My .02
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes, SS is a forced safety net for everyone. A minimum amount of money to live on so your broke old *** doesn't become a burden on the state. What you do above and beyond this with your money is your biz.
    So my salary is actually an allowance from the government?

    One of the reason people don't save as much as they should is because they think the government is doing it for them via social security. We are subsidizing bad behavior.

    And if the government can force me to save money in THEIR system (monopoly), when are they going to force me to go to the gym and quit eating burgers? After all, we don't want my old broke *** to be a burden on the state. Automobiles shouldn't be able to drive faster than 65 mph...speed kills and injures, creating burdens for the state. We must limit choices remove consequences for bad decisions so we can not be a burden on the state!

    Tell me, DA, when did you realize you love Big Brother?
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If the govt doesn't 'make' people save $$ for retirement, then a large portion of people won't. (Chinese people save like 30% of their income, U.S. saves 3%?) I really believe that. (and I think that is the difference in policy between Dems and Reps).

    If you want to put money into a private acct, you can do that now with an IRA (or other option).

    I wouldn't be opposed to offering a private option for investing a portion in stocks IF it wouldn't take any additional money out of SS.

    If you allow private accounts and people don't save for retirement, you can't just ignore them...it becomes exponentially more expensive to deal with them when they are older and they don't have anything saved in retirement. My .02
    T2, when were you in the Corps?

    I disagree with the "if people don't save for retirement, you can't just ignore them..." If we can educate children that Heather has Two Mommies and in latex we trust, we can tell them that they bear the responsibilty for their own financial well being when they decide to quit working. It will take generations to fix, but we need to start transitioning to a system based on individual responsiblity.

    I love it when Democrats scream we can't trust the stock market. Oh, no! We must trust professional politicians whose sole interest is to get reelected. And the best way to do that is to bring pork back to the district. And the SS "Trust Fund" is just sitting there!

    Social security is governmental theft. I can't deny that SS has helped some people, but let's not look past the fact that the help they received was taken, with the threat of force, from someone else.
  14. #154  
    1990-1994 11th Marines

    "If we can educate children that Heather has Two Mommies and in latex we trust, we can tell them that they bear the responsibilty for their own financial well being when they decide to quit working. It will take generations to fix, but we need to start transitioning to a system based on individual responsiblity." <-- I agree but like you said, it will take generations. I am not saying because it will take so long that we shouldnt start but...


    "Social security is governmental theft." <-- How so? You pay in, you get out (assuming you live long enough to get out.) Redistribution of wealth?, maybe for some who get more out than pay in (or vice versa) but what is the alternative?
  15. #155  
    I didnt even read all these posts until last night (couldnt sleep) and I avoid these threads because they are so (Dems suck and Reps rule and vice versa). I don't like to partake in those types of arguments because they arent very productive and I like to think I (as well as others) can respect both sides of the issue.
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    1990-1994 11th Marines

    Semper Fi! Were you a cannon cocker or a comm guy?

    "Social security is governmental theft." <-- How so? You pay in, you get out (assuming you live long enough to get out.) Redistribution of wealth?, maybe for some who get more out than pay in (or vice versa) but what is the alternative?
    The average SS recipient gets back everything he paid in within three years. The system is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and there are fewer and fewer Peters and more and more Pauls. We're not at the top of this pyramid scheme, but we can sure see it from here.
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Semper Fi! Were you a cannon cocker or a comm guy?
    FDC (fire directional controlman...computed firing data i.e. rotation of the earth, temp., wind, etc.) Worked with comm and survey guys all the time. It was some good times out at 29 palms during the DesFirex's.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    The average SS recipient gets back everything he paid in within three years.
    See, I didnt know that. (thats why I like this place ). Is it because people don't live long after they retire or that the amount paid into SS isnt that much for the avg person?
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I insist that you do, and so does the concept of SS. You have no choice but to be able to MINIMALLY take care of yourself in retirement.

    I want people to have as much of the money they earn as possible but do realize the infrastructure which allows you to earn your money has to be paid for by something. YES. CUT WASTE but responsibly.
    You INSIST that I do that!?! Who are you to INSIST I do anything? And you say that religious conservatives are trying to force an agenda. The irony is almost most too much to bear.
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    FDC (fire directional controlman...computed firing data i.e. rotation of the earth, temp., wind, etc.) Worked with comm and survey guys all the time. It was some good times out at 29 palms during the DesFirex's.



    See, I didnt know that. (thats why I like this place ). Is it because people don't live long after they retire or that the amount paid into SS isnt that much for the avg person?
    Roosevelt set the system up so that most people would die before becoming eligible for "benefits", i.e. someone else's money. When we started living longer, and paying more the pyramid was upset...fewer people are now supporting more recipients. Drawing at $1500/month or so, most people recoup their contributions in three years or so. So now they're 68, and they live to 80 or so....do the math, buddy!
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Drawing at $1500/month or so, most people recoup their contributions in three years or so. So now they're 68, and they live to 80 or so....do the math, buddy!
    Somebody should be looking into the investment choices made with the money. The amount the average guy puts in then matched by his employer compounded for 40 years should yeild a return large enough to supply 1500/month for 20yrs.
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions