TweetYoure right, hardly anyone seems to care. Thats the scary part. You cant open a bank account now without a social security number, thanks to the patriot act. Now the government can monitor ever dollar you bank and all your purchases. I guess if you dont care, its no big deal.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Dzone

Youre right, hardly anyone seems to care. Thats the scary part. You cant open a bank account now without a social security number, thanks to the patriot act. Now the government can monitor ever dollar you bank and all your purchases. I guess if you dont care, its no big deal.

Yes, along with many other invasions of our privacy. People don't care because people don't know any better. We are not taught the importance of freedom and how easily it can be lost in schools so we have to learn on our own through reading and researching. Additionally, most people naively believe tyranny could never come to our land. Well, that's funny, I bet the Germans never expected it there either. We lose our liberties through silent and incremental encroachments, which almost always end up occurring during wars. How better a time to convince people to give up liberties than when in fear from being attacked. Yet what is sad is that we are not in danger of being attacked, with the exception of a terrorist attack every decade or so, but most of those cannot be stopped. You can't expect the government to be able to foil every single attack. However, attacks from real military we do not have to worry about.

The primary reason most are so gullible and passive is because they believe everything the government tells them. Even though we have seen time and time again that the government cannot be trusted, and that most of them are corrupt, still the people believe every word they say. We have a two party system for the most part, or at least for sure with regard to holding political office. One party, the Democrats, tends to support big government and respectfully admits doing so. Conversely, we have the Republican Party which claims to support a limited government, yet they really support big government just like the Democrats but refuse to admit it. There is a minority of Republican voters and a few politicians that do indeed support a limited government, but by far they are not the norm. It's as if Republicans forgot what limited government means.

I fear our liberties being lost because people don't seem to get it. They still support their party regardless of how many times the party lets them down. They don't seem to think that maybe the Party is the problem, and those in it need to be replaced. They don't realize that with a few exceptions there are no major differences between a Democrat and Republican President. And even more absurd is the fact that Republicans have outspent Democrats every time since FDR left office. So much for limited government. I bring up this fact often but I don't think anyone really considers how important it is for understanding that the party does not stand for limited government. And now they had the chance to put up a fight over the Patriot Act and failed to do so. Thus again I contend there is no major difference between the two. Nor has the Republican's control of the house done any good for the Party. Boehner is probably the worst Speaker of the House in my life time. The guy has no fight in him, nor does he appear to be concerned for our rights. He is the typical bought and paid for politician who talks a good game and never follows through.

The one question I have that I cannot figure out is why Republicans are so harsh on those of us who believe in limited government. Why is Ron Paul singled out so often when he is just trying to support what many of the founders supported, a limited government. Why do voters single out conservative Libertarians for similar reasons. Is it not a case of being hypocrites when you say you're for limited government but support the exact opposite and then criticize those who support it. I think the answer to my question might be that most Americans these days like things for free regardless of their status in life. Everybody has their own personal favorites when it comes to government funded programs. So when it comes to reducing the size of government it means a reduction in spending, which requires a reduction in government programs, which most Americans are never willing to accept. Nobody wants to see Medicare cut, or Social Security, or federal education, or firefighters, or teachers, or military, etc. Therefore, nobody agrees on what needs to be cut except that it has to be something they don't like, which some other voter does like. As a result, the politicians have to please as many voters as possible so they just don't cut anything and instead increase the amount of spending to make more people vote for them. This sort of system cannot work. Eventually we will go broke, regardless of Trip's understanding of the numbers. When you continue to fund the amount of social programs that our country does you end up broke. But we face two serious problems: 1. The loss of liberties at a steady pace until we are living as serfs; 2. A massive national debt and exploding annual deficits which will result in a bankrupt nation.

Tweetimho, it's more politics on a global/grander scale

imho, they have always been talking about this stuff, but once terror was struck as the theme, the majority votes one way, never reads details of bill, totally understands it

then the money gets distributed so it benefits the majority of congress's districts, now an incentive is always present

and then it continues because very limited blowback, and thus another govt program is set in motion

imho, we are in the phase of insiders using it to there advantage, and i'm not saying maliciously

i'm sure the airlines are all for it all, it makes there product safer with less and less liability, thus i'm sure they lobby for it

stuff like this makes me sad, at times, maybe i had childish believes, i just thought as a whole we were better than stuff like this

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

imho, it's more politics on a global/grander scale

imho, they have always been talking about this stuff, but once terror was struck as the theme, the majority votes one way, never reads details of bill, totally understands it

then the money gets distributed so it benefits the majority of congress's districts, now an incentive is always present

and then it continues because very limited blowback, and thus another govt program is set in motion

imho, we are in the phase of insiders using it to there advantage, and i'm not saying maliciously

i'm sure the airlines are all for it all, it makes there product safer with less and less liability, thus i'm sure they lobby for it

stuff like this makes me sad, at times, maybe i had childish believes, i just thought as a whole we were better than stuff like this

I doubt the airlines are for it because it costs them money to fund increased security. That's why they have to charge for bags and cut meals, etc.

Tweetjs, they charge for bag and cut meals because it is the free market at work

the combo is derugulation + investment capital + the internet + 9-11 + rising expense over a 30 year time frame

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

js, they charge for bag and cut meals because it is the free market at work

the combo is derugulation + investment capital + the internet + 9-11 + rising expense over a 30 year time frame

I understand that they can charge whatever they want Trip, that wasn't my point. In a competitive environment and during tough financial times for many people it is not in their best interest to have to raise prices and add new charges. Less people travel by air when prices increase. People think airline travel is up because planes are always full these days but that is not correct. The seats are full because they are flying less flights. Airline travel has increased the past couple years but is still down from 2008 pre-recession levels.

Why would you think they wanted to cut meals and charge for bags? And why do you say it is because of the free market? First of all we don't have a free market. A free market it one without government intervention. What we have is a heavily regulated form of capitalism. And the reason the airlines charge for bags and cut meals is because of government intervention, primarily security measures from post 9-11. The charges for bags and cut meals all occurred shortly after the attacks. I hope you realize we don't have a free market here Trip. That is a grave misconception by a lot of liberal Democrats who like to blame everything on the free market. Almost every bad episode in our market can be traced back to government intervention.

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

js, they charge for bag and cut meals because it is the free market at work

the combo is derugulation + investment capital + the internet + 9-11 + rising expense over a 30 year time frame

DUDE YOU ARE SO WRONG ABOUT THE AIRLINES,TRIP WHAT DO YOU DO IN LIFE DO YOU WORK. OR ARE YOU RETIRED AND STAY HOME 24-7 WHAT DO YOU DO

Tweetjs, u have too understand 30 years in the airlines business

fuzo, i'm not wrong

yes, i'm home 24-7 I take care of my mother with alzheimer because I will not put her in a home, i trade stocks, i do more research in a month than most do in a lifetime

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

js, u have too understand 30 years in the airlines business

fuzo, i'm not wrong

yes, i'm home 24-7 I take care of my mother with alzheimer because I will not put her in a home, i trade stocks, i do more research in a month than most do in a lifetime

You seem to think your never wrong but our country is broke but you dont think so

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

js, u have too understand 30 years in the airlines business

fuzo, i'm not wrong

yes, i'm home 24-7 I take care of my mother with alzheimer because I will not put her in a home, i trade stocks, i do more research in a month than most do in a lifetime

I do understand. I graduated from Embry-Riddle and work in aviation. Check the numbers if you think I'm wrong on airline travel being down from 2008. The Airline Deregulation act of 1978 was the greatest thing that happened to the airlines. This phased out the CAB's role of setting fares, routes, etc. After these changes took place is when more competition began to surface, which included "no frills" flying airlines. Americans who made average salaries were now more able to afford to travel. Southwest became a bigger player in the industry. But then came the Wright Amendment. This was pushed through Congress by large interest groups to restrict competition and limit the destinations for airlines to those surrounding Texas if departing from Love Field. Read up on that one if you're not already familiar with it. It is just one more obvious example of government intervention screwing up the market and making it harder on consumers. If government regulation was such a good thing then why is Amtrak so worthless. Amtrak hasn't made a profit since it was taken over by the government.

But why do you think airlines would want to cut meals when they know the passengers are complaining about it? And charging for bags is not a popular idea either. Southwest has capitalized from not charging for bags. It is one of the many reasons I travel Southwest almost exclusively. The problem here once again Trip is that you and I have different perceptions of how the private sector operates. It sounds like you may favor regulation, whereas I support deregulation. I believe the market works best without intervention from the government.

Tweet

Originally Posted by FUZO

You seem to think your never wrong but our country is broke but you dont think so

i'm rubber, you're glue......................

i am often wrong, and say so, when i do research and gather facts i am confident of my position unless data and accompanying life cycles of data and how they respond react leads me to understand my errors

when u r talking huge numbers, the mitigating factor is the rate of change of the rate of change

Tweet

Originally Posted by JsJs24

I do understand. I graduated from Embry-Riddle and work in aviation. Check the numbers if you think I'm wrong on airline travel being down from 2008. The Airline Deregulation act of 1978 was the greatest thing that happened to the airlines. This phased out the CAB's role of setting fares, routes, etc. After these changes took place is when more competition began to surface, which included "no frills" flying airlines. Americans who made average salaries were now more able to afford to travel. Southwest became a bigger player in the industry. But then came the Wright Amendment. This was pushed through Congress by large interest groups to restrict competition and limit the destinations for airlines to those surrounding Texas if departing from Love Field. Read up on that one if you're not already familiar with it. It is just one more obvious example of government intervention screwing up the market and making it harder on consumers. If government regulation was such a good thing then why is Amtrak so worthless. Amtrak hasn't made a profit since it was taken over by the government.

But why do you think airlines would want to cut meals when they know the passengers are complaining about it? And charging for bags is not a popular idea either. Southwest has capitalized from not charging for bags. It is one of the many reasons I travel Southwest almost exclusively. The problem here once again Trip is that you and I have different perceptions of how the private sector operates. It sounds like you may favor regulation, whereas I support deregulation. I believe the market works best without intervention from the government.

u day man, embry riddle is the best, crashed there one night when i was hitch hiking on the east coast

construction 20 years in dallas forth worth, read the papers everyday

see u think we have different perceptions of free market, i don't

dereg, lead to firing of air traffic controllers.............massive amounts of capital went into air line companies, volume of miles flown expanded rapidly, prices went down down down to the ring of fire

basically up too about 2005 u could fly round trip anywhere in us for about 250 bucks

now jet fuel goes parabolic, while all this is going on they are retiring planes in the air, i'm not 100% exact on the numbers, yet, i think we have about 60% of the number in the planes in operation as we did in 2000........

most flights now fly close to capacity, as opposed to after 9-11 when it dropped to as low as 60% capacity and took 7 years to get back over 80 and then the financial collapse hit

so from 85-2005 the masses were use to paying 250 a ticket, the first 15 years airlines made good money with jet fuel being low

2000 hits it all changes, masses still use to 250 and will not pay more, and or can't

airlines since 2005 have been essentially forced to make and post more consistent profits if they want access to capital

so they start adding on fee's and they track em and market accepts it, and they add em on cause it is profitable

swest doesn't promote fee's mainly because 80% of there travelers are probably statistically only travel for 3 days, are veteran travelers and thus they don't carry extra crap, have there own water and snacks etc.

TSA imho is good for there business, travelers are required to follow govt rules, not airline rules, are on time, safer, gives them more free time to charge for fee's, if it was always rush rush rush, staying on schedule would be more important

do we have different perception on how private sector operates, i don't know, i'm just confident on both the global aspects, the financial aspects, and the detailed aspects on how things work or i lose money, my own, not others

regulation, without it u have chaos, so regulation needs to be chosen and why

if u r in airline bizz, u know six sigma, which ain't cheap yet on large large volumes it's a money maker, it'd be nice have it for laws somehow

imho, we have so many laws few no what they are and why and thus certain people abuse it for profit, like ron paul, less laws, but good ones that are enforced for the right reasons

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

u day man, embry riddle is the best, crashed there one night when i was hitch hiking on the east coast

construction 20 years in dallas forth worth, read the papers everyday

see u think we have different perceptions of free market, i don't

dereg, lead to firing of air traffic controllers.............massive amounts of capital went into air line companies, volume of miles flown expanded rapidly, prices went down down down to the ring of fire

basically up too about 2005 u could fly round trip anywhere in us for about 250 bucks

now jet fuel goes parabolic, while all this is going on they are retiring planes in the air, i'm not 100% exact on the numbers, yet, i think we have about 60% of the number in the planes in operation as we did in 2000........

most flights now fly close to capacity, as opposed to after 9-11 when it dropped to as low as 60% capacity and took 7 years to get back over 80 and then the financial collapse hit

so from 85-2005 the masses were use to paying 250 a ticket, the first 15 years airlines made good money with jet fuel being low

2000 hits it all changes, masses still use to 250 and will not pay more, and or can't

How did you crash there? Do you mean slept at the Daytona Beach campus? Or literally crashed there...lol.

As I said, there are less planes now which makes it seem as if people are traveling more because the planes are full. Yet they are only full because there are less flights.

Regulations are what cause prices to go up. You said yourself when 2000 hit airfare went up, but really it was after 9-11-2001. Once the security measures were put in place prices had to go up. Yes the fuel prices caused this too but Southwest was not affected because they bought futures in fuel when it was low.

The TSA is the worst thing the airlines have had happen to them. I could go on all day about the TSA but let's just leave it at that. But what really ticks me off about the TSA is how they trample on our 4th Amendment rights. It's hard to believe you support Ron Paul, or maybe you don't, because he is no fan of the TSA or any other government agency that affects the private sector.

Yes some regulation is okay, but most of the time it gets out of hand and hampers the market. Surely you can realize that the federal government doesn't understand how to be efficient in anything they do, nor do they understand how businesses operated. Read up on the CAB if you haven't already to see how bad it was for the airlines when they set airfares, routes, etc. If an airline wanted to operate a new route it often took years for approval or disapproval. Absolutely ridiculous.

In regard to the Air Traffic Controllers that were fired by Reagan. Well, they deserved it. The law stated that federal union employees are not allowed to protest. Reagan gave them ample warning and they called his bluff. Good riddance.

Whether we view the market the same or not I am not sure, but we obviously have different opinions on how it should operate. I am not a fan of intervention. I believe the businesses are better left alone, and for consumers to be able to choose who they want to do business with. We are witnessing the end of the almost free market as we know it. We have a corporatist President, which is just as bad as a socialist. The large businesses are becoming the rulers of the world with the government and bureaucrats driving them. And how do the businesses get so big? Because lobbyists pay off politicians to push through legislation for them to make it impossible for small businesses to survive. That's the end result of regulation. Regulations are typically created specifically for businesses, but only for those large enough to afford the campaign donations for the dirty politicians.