Sustainable Development (environmental, population, economic, resources wars, ext.)

I disagree with that though. What people choose to do with their money is everyone's concern. It makes a difference whether someone goes to Home Depot for some fumy gas-powered leaf blower or rakes their leaves by hand and plows the unspent money into their child's college fund. Economic decisions made by individuals have social consequences that affect everyone.

The unregulated pursuit of personal utility (which, as behaviorial economics has proved, is rarely done efficiently) will kill off the species.

I find that Smuggler is making a circular argument about the need for personal jets. Naturally, if the rich are the only people with money for consumption, the only things that will be produced will be consumables for the rich. But there's no particular reason that we need to configure society that way.

 

What I really want above all else is to build a world where humans can sustain themselves indefinitely. This is not my overarching goal, but it's a critical component of it. I value biodiversity and maintaining the natural world with as little impact by humans as possible.

I recognize such a goal can't be accomplished unless there is an economic, social, or environmental motivation. To us, the world is ours to do with as we please. If there's oil under that nature preserve, why not drill it?

Most people I argue with tend to make the case that resources are there and they're ours if we want them. From my perspective, we are taxing the world's supplies of both renewable and non-renewable resources for very little gain. My concern is that 'most' Americans aren't aware of where their goods come from. They also don't recognize how much more it costs to maintain their single-family-detached home. If it costs more to maintain than they pay in taxes, then you can't call that a sustainable life style. Money and capitalism distort how we can measure whether something's sustainable or not.

Why does that matter? Because if we are dependent on resources, such as oil in the Middle East, they can be taken away from us. China's demand for oil is growing, so there'll be a point when they're going to start fighting with the US for the same oil reserves. My belief is that the US should focus more of its attention on finding easier ways to REDUCE our dependence on any one resource. If we learn to live with less, that's a permanent gain.

And I don't like the idea that Americans think they can just use electric hybrids and that will solve all the problems. Although I would encourage more fuel efficient vehicles, they alone are not going to solve the root problem... which is needless overconsumption. Nor would wind solve our energy crisis. The most important thing we can do to solve our energy crisis is actually to increase population density. The overall good that would do is allow for people to not have to travel as far to reach their destinations, lower the maintenance costs to utilities, allow for mass transit, and improve certain social problems we face.

From this, I could see a world where we (all 6 billion people) can live without fighting each other for limited resources. But it requires the US and other developed countries to recognize their overconsumption. And they have to be willing to make significant lifestyle changes. They don't have to, but it would be highly unlikely their children would be living so well as their parents.

 

Well said.

And adding to Jabbadabbadoo's excellent posts: social instability plus an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor brought about the French Revolution. Or as former Vice President Hubert Humphrey said, "The gap between the rich and the poor is the greatest threat to world peace that we have." I see absolutely no benefit to allowing a handful of people to control most or all of the wealth in the country--no benefit, that is, except to those handful of people; I find it amusing to hear them screeching "Mine mine mine don't take what's mine!" like my 2-year-old not wanting to share his toys. (Not speaking of anyone on this board, that's a general statement.)

I have no problem with the wealthy "evading taxes" by investing all profits above a certain amount back into their businesses. As I mentioned in an earlier post, that allows the economy to grow. Cutting taxes on the upper 1 percent so that they can play "Mine mine mine!" and take another round-the-world vacation doesn't grow the economy, except maybe in the tourism industry, and that amount of growth is temporary and negligible compared to the growth that comes from investing in a business.

 

True. And who gave them their wealth?

Apparently, my 2010 philosophy is that we, the people, have put ourselves in this situation. Corporations grow because they make money from the masses. Why is Walmart a super-sized corporation? Because people shop there. Why is fossil-fuel-based transportation not evolving? Because people are still buying gas guzzlers. Why does Rupert Murdock own the news media? because we watch his companies' broadcasts, read his companies' papers, and listen to his companies' radio.

What would happen if we just stopped?

 

And most of the wealth that goes into the pockets of the upper 1% of income earners actually doesn't make any sense at all. If a corporation does well, it would do much better for itself to reward those who earned the profit in the first place. The CEO does play a part in all that, but he (or the board members) should only get a fraction of what they normally receive. If they wish to avoid having to pay 50% of that money to taxes, then it would make more sense to award higher salaries to its workers.

Henry Ford was renowned for hating labor unions, yet he paid his workers VERY handsomely. The reasons why he did it may range from promoting the workers from wanting to unionize. But I think he did it so that he could actually have consumers with money in their pockets. Think of it like his workers also being able to serve as Ford's customers. If he, JP Morgan, Vandervilt, and Carnegie had their factories operating like sweat shops and poor salaries, they'd have lots and lots of products with no customer base. How could anyone afford a car unless they got decent wages?

That's why it makes more sense to spread the wealth over a majority of people. CEO's would make less, but they would be sure to have a firm customer base indefinitely. Their actions do give them huge profits, but even if their corporations tank, they've already made so much money that they'll live easy for the rest of their lives. Look at GE's board members from two decades ago... they made huge profits and passed the burden of their long-term problems on to their predecessors. If they were held accountable for the long-term stability of their companies, board members would have reason to not be so greedy. I would love to see some of their salaries confiscated because of their activities which lead their companies to bankruptcy. It would only be fair... they made the decisions after all. They should face the consequences. Not the workers.

 

Are you actually asking why we use money instead of bartering? Or is it a rhetorical question used to prove a point?

 

I'd like to know if people actually know that the US dollar is not in itself the value, but simply a unit of measurement. Many people get so obsessed with earning money that they forget what to spend it on.

I guess it was to prove a point, but I just want people to realize that one dollar is literally nothing more than a unit of measurement of value... it is not of any value if no one will use it. Those who seek it to no end detract from others the opportunity to earn a living. When a CEO earns 1000x more than one in the lower 50% of income earners, that person is detracting from those 1000x people. Odds are that all those people would gladly work for a modest salary, but can't because some pig is just trying to add another '0' to the end of a long list of numbers somewhere. There is only so many lobster dinners a person can consume. Only so many 'around the world' trips they can take. A person can comfortably live with a million dollars a year... any more just detracts from what others can do to earn a living.

 

The thing for most people to remember is that middle class quality of life from the mid 90s forward was almost entirely purchased on credit, the debt overhang of which has now become a massive drag on further U.S. economic growth potential.

The rich tried to have it both ways in the 90s and 2000s. They wanted a regressive tax structure so they could pocket more of the nation's wealth on the one hand, yet they also wanted to make that money by selling consumer goods and services (and, of course, houses) to the middle class. The solution: cheap and easy to obtain credit to the masses.

Ultimately, Smuggler is right of course. The rich don't need the middle class. All they need is plenty of poor to make their goods and services and provide them with services. Indeed, they can outsource the making of stuff to the developing world. So all they really need is an army of poor to carry their luggage to their private jets (anyone remember "Coming to America"? Best line ever: "wipers!"). We're now transforming our economy to create that army of poor to serve the ultra rich. One rich man and a thousand indutrial peasants. Call it the new feudalism.

The collapse of the bad consumer and secured mortgage debt is the process by which the U.S. will rid itself of the middle class once and for all to achieve the Smuggler dream of a utopian feudal American future. And to address the thread topic. That society can be made to be sustainable. An industrialized feudal caste society might be the easiest way to create a sustainable future.

 

Or bourgeoisie. I wonder where the next Bastille will be located. Wall Street maybe? I'm still LMAO at the scene from Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" in which he puts crime scene tape around Wall Street. It didn't help that Obama's chief financial advisors are Clinton relics and Wall Street shills, but that might be another topic.

In answer to Cheveyo's question, I do boycott Wal-Mart. But I live in a metropolitan area that has a million people, so I can boycott Wal-Mart. I have other places to shop, quite a few of them in fact. What about these rural communities in which Wal-Mart is virtually (or literally) the only place to shop, because it came in and drove out all the mom and pop businesses?

As far as Murdoch, I don't watch Fox News, I don't even have cable, and I certainly don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. I also drive a Prius, no gas guzzler here. Many people are doing just as you suggested--stopping. One big problem is that these corporate oligarchs fund campaigns for our representatives in Congress, who are then afraid to **** them off. It's a vicious circle as I see it. The average American doesn't have much real representation in government anymore.

 

The problem is that the welfare state is unsustainable in and of itself. Sooner or later, your promises exceed what the richest 1% alone can pay for. To pay for the health-care bill, they already are targeting union workers and the middle class with tax hikes (by way of the tax on "Cadillac" health plans). And what could cause greater social instability than when the money for the government handouts runs out?

It's not a matter of being selfish. It's more a case of the fact that the present welfare state the United States has is unsustainable, and needs to be scrapped. Thigns will get tot hat point. It will happen one of two ways: A responsible disengagement, in which the transition to a better means of addressing poverty is made as seamless as possible; or when enough taxpayers get fed up with the social spending that they decide to just pull the plug and screw the consequences.

The more you compare those who oppose higher taxes for increased welfare spending to two-year-olds who don't want to share, the more likely that they will elect for the latter form of scrapping the welfare state. Is what we have in South Central LA social stability? How about the collapsing urban areas of Detroit? Is that social stability? What about gang violence in the inner cities? Does that count as social stability?

We are nearing the 45th anniversary of the Great Society, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing, except a quagmire that has cost the country trillions, and a huge debt that my great-grandchildren will have to pay off.

And the reason we should keep going for it is "social stability" - in other words, if they don't get their handouts, they will riot. That sounds like a shakedown to me. "Wonderful business you got here... shame if anything happened to it..."

In other words, you are paying off a bunch of mobsters with somebody else's money. I find that pathetic, cowardly, and contemptible.

 

The Great Society was working fine until the Reagan era began and the unions were systematically and illegally destroyed, the tax structure became increasingly regressive, Clinton bought into the dismantling of the welfare state and monetary policy became a plaything of the super-rich.

It's not that we can't afford the welfare state, but that we can't afford it while also supporting a parasite class of ultra-rich.

 

*directing question towards Americans*

Think your vote counts? Yeah, so long as a slight majority of the 700,000 people in your voting district vote the same way.

This is another issue that I wanted to address at some point. Because we have so few representatives (435), they each represent over 700,000 people per voting district. What's worse is that they focus their efforts towards only winning a slight majority of the people and ignore the rest. If you are a democrat and the district you live in is about 59% Republican... you might as well not bother to vote. It'll be the same either way.

Because of the winner-takes all system, we truly are not a republic anymore.

 

Wow JS, you really missed the point. You're not even on the same map.

 

Absolutely this is where it all began. Reagan was the worst president we had when it came to destroying the economy. The Bushes and Clinton just complimented on Reagan's mistakes.

That would actually be a good thing. If the top 1% alone can't pay for it all, that means you've got a redistribution of wealth. Then it could go from the top 1% to the top 5% of income earners... who stand to benefit from an unsustainable welfare system. Once the top 1% can't support it anymore, it means the lower 99% are doing much better than before.

 

I'm sorry, but this is another bait-and-switch. What does any of that have to do with the purpose of government, which is what I specifically was speaking about (and you specifically asked me about).

Actually, I have. Go back and reread my posts. I repeatedly identified my source for my numbers (my brother's link from his post). You haven't provided any citations to support your actual claims.

Have you actually read that review that you linked to? It reads as much a piece of propaganda as anything they complain about. You might try a more balanced review. Salon called it "a populist screed", which based on the first three chapters (which is what I've read so far this morning courtesy of Google Books) is a fairly accurate assessment.

If that book is your only source, then you should really rethink a lot of your claims. If possible, it's far better to look to the original source data to base your position, rather than merely rely on someone else's claims about that data. It is especially important when you are dealing with a source like that book, that has such a clear bias.

How are they getting cheated? They don't have anywhere near the tax burden that the rich do in proportion to income.

For example, look to page 24 of Perfectly Legal. Johnson gives a chart (by income level) of the average home mortgage writeoff. on the previous page, he complains about how the mortgage interest deduction disproportionately helps the wealthy saying: "In 2000, for each dollar of tax saved by home owners earning $30,000 to $40,000, the mortgage interest deduction lopped $50 on average off the tax bills of those making $200,000 or more. At the extreme, those making more than $200,000 saved $29,000 in federal income taxes for each dollar of tax savings going to the poorest Americans, those making less than $10,000."

Let's analyze that for a moment using current tax tables, using a worst-case scenario (single filing status). For someone with an AGI of $10k, they would owe $1082.50 in taxes. That unless you are going to start offering them refundable tax credits (which are unrelated to deductions), then the maximum tax reduction they can have is $1082.50! On the other hand, for someone with an income above $200,000, there is a far l

 

I'm sorry, but even if the tax system is "increasingly regressive", it's still extremely "progressive" as it is.

The top 5% in 2007 consisted of people earning more than $160,041 (AGI). Their average tax rate was 20.53%. They earned 37.44% of the total AGI reported to the IRS, and yet they paid 60.63% of all the taxes. That is the very definition of a progressive tax system. A regressive system would have the numbers reversed, with the top 5% earning 60.63% of the AGI and only paying 37.44% of the taxes.

By describing the tax system as "increasingly regressive", you are misrepresenting it, by making it seem like it is a regressive system. It is not.

Kimball Kinnison

 

One of the biggest reasons we are in debt is due to war. We are not in debt due to our health care system, because Medicare and Medicaid are the only government-run health care systems. Those systems aren't doing so well, but they certainly are not bankrupting the economy.

According to this link, an article which ran in 2003 right after the Iraq War began, we were spending $5 billion per month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sixty billion per year. Sixty billion times six years equals $360 billion, which would pay for lifetime health care for many, many people.

We could argue the constitutionality here: the government is charged with national security, it is not charged with providing health care to the American people. I actually agree about that. However, we did not need to go to Iraq to maintain national security, nor could we afford to do so. It is certainly debatable whether we need to be in Afghanistan. IMO what we should be doing is officially declaring war on Al Qaida and then treating terrorists discovered in this country as POWs or spies. But that's another topic.

My other point is this: while it may be unconstitutional for the government to establish a national single payer system, it is also unconstitutional for the government to forbid states from establishing their own single payer systems. Dennis Kucinich wanted a provision in the health care bill which would allow individual states to opt into single payer; he was shot down. Seems like a violation of the 10th amendment there.

On the deficit, we had a surplus when Clinton left office, and look how much happened in nine years. We can blame Obama for adding to it, but this debt is not entirely Obama's doing, it is not the fault of a Democratic administration at all, and it is not the fault of government-run health care.

On CEO compensation: I fully support giving them a limited amount of cash salary and then an unlimited boatload of stock options. With stock options, they have incentive to ensure that the company succeeds. And heck, give them a humongous bonus if the company succeeds. But the guy in the mail room should get a bonus that is a percentage of his income as well.

Why is it my business? Because it is in the best interest of the entire country to ensure that the government does not enact policies that concentrate most of the wealth in the hands of a few people or corporations. See: the economic collapse of 2008, in which companies that were "too big to fail" had to be bailed out by the government. If the banks had been broken up into smaller ones years ago, we could have saved a lot of taxpayer money in bailouts. (FTR, I don't approve of the bailouts Obama has done either. We don't need capitalistic success and socialized failure. If a company is going to be allowed a deregulated climb to the top, it should also be allowed an unassisted fall on its butt.)

 

No, it's a genuine question. I don't know how you expect everyone to pursue the American dream if there are no restrictions placed upon how much the super wealthy can earn. It's not unfair to say someone who earns a billion a year will have to pay 50% of his earnings for taxes. If he doesn't like it, then by all means he should just sit back and enjoy life. It's better for him. It's better for the US if the super wealthy decide to take it easy once they decide it's not worth acquiring more money.

Because when they do, it detracts from what the rest of the 99% of income earners can work for. When you award a bonus to a CEO, that's money that doesn't go into the pockets of the corporation's workers. Or that's another price drop consumers don't get. I would think you'd rather see workers get a higher wage than a CEO be awarded another huge bonus... you know who decides should get those bonuses?

Answer: the board members award their own bonuses.

I've already gone through your figures and rejected them. The very same argument was made at the beginning of 'Perfectly Legal' Read it, or at the minimal, read the review from the site I posted earlier.

"The Conscience of a Liberal" By Paul Krugman.

Many of the details from "Perfectly Legal" and from my studies at the University of Whitewater coincide. Obviously I don't make a convincing case without sources people can actually go to, so I won't defend myself in that regard. I lack sources.

I would advise you to try reading a few books from cover to cover on the subject. Don't take useless bits of info from some proverbial pez dispenser and make a judgment from them. Odds are that your info is right, but only when evaluating the details you've selected out of a much greater context. I will admit I don't know all the details about economics, but I've taken classes which introduced me to concepts I wouldn't have understood otherwise.

Granted, I didn't do well in these classes; which is why I'm not calling myself an expert. But I can go through a book and cross reference the sources to determine whether the author knows what he's saying. You can make almost any kind of argument about economics... one of my professors said it was probably THE most difficult degree to earn. It's not simple. It's not psychological, as some people might suggest. And you can't just go off the statistics to make an absolute statement.

And no, you should not go off what someone else says. I do trust Krugman because I've read other works by him. He's probably addressed the broadest context of problems and possib

 

Fact: the tax system has become increasingly regressive in the last quarter century. I am not misrepresenting anything. It is, in my view, too regressive. Not progressive enough, and I've given adequate reasons for why I believe it.

If the gap between rich and poor were narrowed, and we had fewer rich people, then the problem posed by your alarm over the rich man's tax burden would be solved. What the nation needs is fewer ultra-rich. The goal for the society should be a robust middle class earning a livable wage with affordable healthcare and the ability to get those who merit it a college education and provide appropriate vocational training to everyone. Our society is absolutely deplorable at developing competent craftspeople: decent cabinetmakers and electricians and the like. Western Europe does much better with that on the whole.

I don't think you can make a case for the necessary failure of the welfare state based on the fact that the last quarter century has been a battle over dismantling it won by the dismantlers. Health care reform and Bush's prescription drug program have been the only countertrends to this process in 30 years.

 

War on Terror (using your figures): $60 billion per year.
Medicare fraud in a given year: $60 billion according to the Washington Post.

That is from Medicare alone. Congress has also failed to enact efficiencies recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services that would save another $9 billion a year.

Those two social spending items ALONE top the cost of the war on terror according to the source that you have cited - there's even an extra 15%. Your whining about the war has no basis in fact, and we have been fighting that war for far less than we have been blowing money on the Great Society.

The military has not been bankrupting us, and it actually does the task set before it. Outside of government, the normal response to something not accomplishing the mission is either a wholesale house cleaning or shutting it down. Yet liberals prefer to screw over the troops to pay for more social spending - in essence doubling down on 45 years of failure.

 

A trillion dollars is nothing to bark at, but it's still an enormous sum of money that had been stolen from the US economy. And that doesn't go to explain the murders of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians because of our noble war to 'spread democracy.'

You are right that much more is wasted through sources we hardly consider. Even the trade deficit doesn't compare to the Medicare debt. The US isn't 'just' 11 Trillion in the hole, it's more like 65 trillion in all. Although the trade deficit is significant, Americans have to wake up to the reality that the situation is much worse than that.

 

It might be a genuine question, but that has nothing to do with what the topic was. It's a bait-and-switch in that the quote you responded to involved the purpose of government, and you switched to a completely different topic. If you can't or don't want to answer, then just say so.

I asked this once before, and I will ask it of you again, and please don't dodge this time: How are you defining fair? What criteria and process do you use to determine whether a tax rate is "fair" or not?

Until you answer that, you have no room to say what is or is not "fair" in this discussion, because you provide no support to indicate whether it actually is as you claim it is.

And the owners of the company choose the board members. If the owners have a problem with how much the board pays itself, then they are free to fire the board. I don't see how what anyone else is paid in private industry is any of your business.

You rejected my figures on what basis? They are the raw data, reported upon by the link that my brother gave, but available directly from the IRS here.

Do you deny that the top 1% of 2007 income tax filers paid 40.42% of the total income taxes for that year? Do you deny that they earned 22.83% of the total AGI for that year? If so, then present your contradictory source with corrected data for how much they actually earned and paid. You can't just reject those figures because you don't like them.

I presented you with my source for the raw data. If you are going to reject that source, then you need to present another source and demonstrate why it's a more authoritative source. If you are going to reject my analysis, then you need to demonstrate the logical flaws in my analysis. So far, you've done neither.

No, you don't make a convincing case when you throw around accusations and specific numbers without backing them up. If you lack sources, then how are we supposed to tell if your claims are actually true?

And if you want to just consider things without sources, then this thread becomes nothing more than you dictating what viewpoints can be expressed. Without sourced, verifiable facts, w

 

The problems listed in your source regarding Medicare are not the government's fault. How is it the government's fault if people are stealing from Medicare? That's analogous to blaming the victim of a burglary for not having a security system. If someone were to successfully file a series of false claims with Aetna, would you blame Aetna? Or would you blame the thief for defrauding an "upstanding" company?

Medical equipment companies and computer-savvy individuals are stealing from Medicare and that's the government's fault?

I'm also not sure how it's "screwing over the troops" to not want to put them in harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary to do so--as in, in war with a country or entity that has actually attacked us. I'm 100 percent in favor of giving our troops the equipment they need to perform any mission they are sent on. However, I am also 100 percent in favor of only putting their lives in danger to defend the country. Sending young men and women overseas to a country that has not threatened us, therefore making that country hostile to us and causing those young men and women to get blown up by roadside bombs, simply because we are Big Bad America and we feel like flexing our muscles, is disgusting.

Since Al Qaida attacked us, I support any mission to bring down Al Qaida. But Al Qaida is in Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan. We are not in any of those places. We a

 

You're the one who the question was directed at. You make a case that having a huge rift between the upper 1% and everyone else doesn't detract from their ability to pursue happiness. I will say here and now that is wrong. You didn't present a compelling case because you claim that progressive taxes shouldn't be imposed because it detracts from the US economy. No consumers means no jobs.

If you don't believe me, read back over the other posts by Jabbadabbado, Anakin_Girl, and JediSmuggler. If you don't think I'm right, then I clearly haven't made a convincing case. I do think that these three brought up some compelling points you may want to consider.

Okay. Is it in the best interests of the majority of the US population for the upper 1% to get the same tax rates as the rest of the citizens of the US? Would reducing their taxes benefit the US economy?

The answer to both those questions under the current circumstances is no.

Another question I would ask is whether losing progressive taxes has benefited the US since the Reagan administration? I believe this to also be no, as the US has begun a trend of improving lifestyles by purchasing them off credit. As Jabba brought up earlier, the destruction of unions has created an ever-increasing rift between the haves and the have-nots. This rift between the top 1% and everyone below them is only going to get wider unless progressive taxes are reinstated. Other acts are needed, but this one act taken by the Reagan administration was the single-most destructive act upon the US economy since the Great Depression.

Yeah? Did you know that we can elect our presidents, yet we couldn't get rid of Bush when his approval rating fell below 25%? We had to put up with him LONG after he was given a second term. And even after the democrats took control of Congress, they still refused to bring up charges for his part in the Iraq war. They didn't because the procedure to impeach and remove him from office just would have caused too much chaos within the US that they decided it was best just to let him finish his presidency. It's about that difficult to replace a board member from a corporation.

You make it sound so simple, but the problem is not so much as firing the board as it is to replace them. It's not a symbiotic relationship, but you can't just fire someone if you can't find a replacement. That doesn't mean they're necessary, but board members aren't hired because they're the 'best person for the job.' All I will say is that the salaries of board members (in spite of taxes) has increased roughly seven times that of the average worker in the same corporation. And those workers are the ones who make the money... not the board members. They do deserve a bonus for good work, but certainly shouldn't get bonuses just for existing... let alone screwing their companies. If a company does well, the employees... all the employees should get the bonuses.

I need to do some more research on this, but I'll get back with a decent answer.

 

How do you know that did you talk with them? Did you ask the owners why the appointed them to where they are at? Do you have any idea of how much work it is just to run a company? Do you have any idea of the fact that the CEO's when they say they are taking time off are really going some places to keep working and or talk with other CEO's to get more busniess for there company. T

Because they are not the ones working 365 days a year just to keep the company going. They are not the ones who have to go to other companys and get on there hands and kness asking for more busniess. They are not the ones who have to hear from a costmer about how someone in there company messed up a product. The VP of the company I work there she starts a 4 am and does not leave until 5 pm and she is there almost 7 days a week. You try doing that.

Then all the worked have to take less money. Other wise you can pay the costs of the company ie Lighting, bills costmers, and so on.
You lower the price of the product you have to cut peoples pay. Other wise you won't have the money to keep the company going.

People come to the company I work for not based on price but becasue we do a really good job. It can be as cheap as you want to go if you do a bad job people are not going to come back.

Because it's not the governments money. You also are not looking at the fact that with in those contracts they are only asking for a set number of planes. If I own let says Frontier Airlines and I ask Boeing to make 10 737s and the make 20 and ship me all 20 I'm only paying them for the ten because that's all I aksed for. Let's look at it this way. Let's say I want three new windows put in my house. So we get three people to put them in. Then you say well I'm going to put three more people to work and put in six windows. I'm not paying you for the other three windows. In fact I'm going to sue you at that point becuse you ruined my house and I never aksed for six windows.

I work for a coating company when someone ships us a 600 pcs job they are paying us to do work on those 600 pcs. But if we find that they shipped us 50 more pieces with that job unless we say something they are only going to pay us for the 600 pcs. In other words we don't make any money on those 50 pcs. Why is that because they are only paying us to do work on 600 not 650.

If we have to rework any of product that we have coated that money out of are pocket. They people we do work for do not have to pay us for that. Why? Because it was are mistake and we have to fix it with are own money. The company I work for also cleans aircraft parts. For many different airlines and aircraft. So please don't get into this. I have seen how it all works first hand.


The Declaration of Independence posted: