Time to eat our peas

[Kramer]

What the hell does it's time to eat our peas mean? The American people don't need nor want lectures about eating peas or ripping off the band-aid when we didn't make the mess. It's Washington, the politicians, and the Democrat Party, in particular, that has created this mess. Not to mention the Democrat controlled House, Senate, & White house never passed a budget last year and now Obama comes out a blames everybody but himself and his party for the crises.

These people are insane. So what, a lousy $2 trillion or is it $4 trillion in cuts? Let me take a calculator to that. Oh wow, that's a whopping $400 billion a year over 10 years. BFD we are running $1.5 trillion in deficit spending each and every year! We need to cut $10 trillion to do any good! These stupid idiotic moron politician are worthless!

[Plane]

  If Washington were to confiscate all of the wealth of our wealthy it would be a fraction of the amount needed to clear the debt.

    Also if Washington were to confiscate all of the discresionary money of our wealthy and our large corporations , the most noticeable and immediate effect would be on employmment rates.

   The wealth producers and the wealth collectors of the USA are indeed a resorce to the country , but is this a resorce it is wise to exploit to destruction?

      It is as if we had an apple orchard and we were discussing not only the value of the apples we harvest but also the value of the firewood we would harvest right after the apples. It isn't hard to imagine that harvesting a little too much firewood might impact next years apple crop.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What the President means is that even if we do not want to make a deal and reach a compromise in order to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a financial catastrophe, we must do so.

It is pretty clear, and he is correct. Time to remove the loopholes from the tax code.

Depreciating plane in seven years rather than five will not prevent companies from buying aircraft. Seven years is the normal depreciation period for industrial equipment. Aircraft do not contribute as much to the manufacturer as do the robotic assembly machines and painting systems that are depreciated over seven years.

A new aircraft could easily save enough to make up for the two years longer depreciation on fuel economy alone, for example.

[Plane]

What the President means is that even if we do not want to make a deal and reach a compromise in order to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a financial catastrophe, we must do so.

It is pretty clear, and he is correct. Time to remove the loopholes from the tax code.

Depreciating plane in seven years rather than five will not prevent companies from buying aircraft. Seven years is the normal depreciation period for industrial equipment. Aircraft do not contribute as much to the manufacturer as do the robotic assembly machines and painting systems that are depreciated over seven years.

A new aircraft could easily save enough to make up for the two years longer depreciation on fuel economy alone, for example.

This could be the diffrence between buying ten Acft. and buying twelve, then hiring fifteen mechanics rather than twenty.

It could also be the diffrence between having a small profit ,or a small loss and maybe a higher ticket price or a lower one.

Each change has a follow on or even a multiplying effect , (Q)what is the opposite of "trickle down"?

                                                                                     (A) Drying up.

[Plane]

http://blog.aopa.org/flighttraining/?p=378

Perfect!
I was looking for factoids about how many jobs each aircraft needed in its operation , but Chip here has done the whole composition!

Thanks Chip , what a worksaver.

   

Parts per airplane
Any business that uses aircraft tends to deal in some sort of ratio, either consciously or unconsciously. For example, one statistic that often gets lost in the shuffle is the number of employees per airplane. When the airlines were living high on the hog prior to September 11, it was not unusual to see ratios of more than one hundred employees per airplane. That included pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, dispatchers, accountants, ticket agents, marketing people, etc., all the way down to the office cleaning staff. Some of those jobs are indirectly related to the size of the fleet (such as that office cleaning staff), while others are directly related.

In the last decade, the number of employees per airframe has dropped dramatically thanks to increases in efficiencies, contracting out some jobs, and eliminating others. Ticketing kiosks and at home check-in capabilities have almost eliminated the need for ticket agents, and reservationists have been reduced to a skeleton staff by the increasing use of websites to sell and book tickets. Airlines have also, for better or worse, outsourced much of their maintenance. Southwest, long the model for efficiency, has fewer than 70 per airplane, which is still substantially better than the competition.

Jobs on or handling the aircraft are driven entirely by the number of airplanes on the property. Most airlines, for example, staff airplanes with somewhere between nine and 10 pilots per “narrow body” airframe. This takes into account the typical schedule at the company, vacations, the average number of sick days used, training, reserve staffing complement, and whatever in-house fudge factor is thrown in for good measure. If the airframe is a “wide body,” such as a Boeing 767, Airbus A340, or Boeing 747 that flies long-haul or international flights, then the number of pilot jobs created climbs to an average of 14 per ship. A few airlines claim to staff based on projected block hours to be flown, but in the end, the people-to-airplane ratio is pretty accurate.

Similar ratios exist for other employee groups, such as flight attendants, dispatchers and crew schedulers. Corporate operators often use a similar concept, though it may not be as readily apparent until there are several aircraft on the property. However, the numbers may change depending on whether or not the pilot(s) operate more than one type of equipment. Likewise, pilots that also work as mechanics will reduce the ranks of employees. Flight schools too tend to have a rough correlation between employees and airplanes.

As the airlines begin to realign themselves to the changing economy, which includes new deliveries and retirements (both people and airplanes), it bears watching the fleet counts to see what their needs will be in the coming months and years. Because, remember, in the end, the numbers don’t lie.

–Chip Wright

[Kramer]

  If Washington were to confiscate all of the wealth of our wealthy it would be a fraction of the amount needed to clear the debt.

    Also if Washington were to confiscate all of the discresionary money of our wealthy and our large corporations , the most noticeable and immediate effect would be on employmment rates.

   The wealth producers and the wealth collectors of the USA are indeed a resorce to the country , but is this a resorce it is wise to exploit to destruction?

      It is as if we had an apple orchard and we were discussing not only the value of the apples we harvest but also the value of the firewood we would harvest right after the apples. It isn't hard to imagine that harvesting a little too much firewood might impact next years apple crop.

Either read or watch Dr Zhivago.

[Christians4LessGvt]

The Real Reason We Have A Budget Problem
That No One Has The Guts To Talk About

By John Hawkins

Do you want to know the real reason we have a budget problem in America? It's something that most politicians,
conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, don't have the courage to address because it would make so
many people angry. Happily, I'm not running for office; so I don't have to spoon feed anyone.

Are you ready?

The real reason we have a budget problem in America is because the middle class citizens in America aren't willing
to pay in taxes what their Social Security and Medicare benefits are worth or dramatically scale back the amount
of benefits they receive. Instead, what they want, is for someone else to pay for a large part of their Social Security
and Medicare benefits. Since the difference between what the middle class pays in and receives is too great to be
covered by the rich and politicians don't have the courage to tell them "no," the country is headed towards financial
oblivion.

If everyone in the middle class got no more out of Social Security and Medicare than they put into the programs,
it wouldn't entirely fix our spending problem, but we certainly wouldn't have a serious long-term debt issue.

You can get mad about it and you can deny it all you like, but over the over the long haul, the only way we're
going to be able to keep from going bankrupt is to find a way to even out the amount of money that middle
class citizens are paying into Social Security and Medicare with the amount of money they're taking out of the
program. One way or the other, that is going to happen, if only because we're going to go bankrupt if we
don't do it.

[e-mail]

[Kramer]

The Real Reason We Have A Budget Problem
That No One Has The Guts To Talk About

By John Hawkins

Do you want to know the real reason we have a budget problem in America? It's something that most politicians,
conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, don't have the courage to address because it would make so
many people angry. Happily, I'm not running for office; so I don't have to spoon feed anyone.

Are you ready?

The real reason we have a budget problem in America is because the middle class citizens in America aren't willing
to pay in taxes what their Social Security and Medicare benefits are worth or dramatically scale back the amount
of benefits they receive. Instead, what they want, is for someone else to pay for a large part of their Social Security
and Medicare benefits. Since the difference between what the middle class pays in and receives is too great to be
covered by the rich and politicians don't have the courage to tell them "no," the country is headed towards financial
oblivion.

If everyone in the middle class got no more out of Social Security and Medicare than they put into the programs,
it wouldn't entirely fix our spending problem, but we certainly wouldn't have a serious long-term debt issue.

You can get mad about it and you can deny it all you like, but over the over the long haul, the only way we're
going to be able to keep from going bankrupt is to find a way to even out the amount of money that middle
class citizens are paying into Social Security and Medicare with the amount of money they're taking out of the
program. One way or the other, that is going to happen, if only because we're going to go bankrupt if we
don't do it.

[e-mail]

That dovetails exactly into what I have been saying about the people that aren't paying enough tax, and getting the most benefits, are a big part pf the problem.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The middle class has not improved their income in a decade. The poor actually earn less than they did a decade ago.

Taxes should be paid by those who have benefited: the rich. They should pay MORE.

[Kramer]

The middle class has not improved their income in a decade. The poor actually earn less than they did a decade ago.

Taxes should be paid by those who have benefited: the rich. They should pay MORE.

you need to buy a calculator you idiot!

[Plane]

The middle class has not improved their income in a decade. The poor actually earn less than they did a decade ago.

Taxes should be paid by those who have benefited: the rich. They should pay MORE.

And you are prepared to put up with the resulting unemployment?

[Xavier_Onassis]

There will be little effect. It is pretty obvious by now that these people are not creating jobs now. The increases in the tax rate that have been proposed are something like 3% more in the top tax bracket.

The results on employment will be nil.

[kimba1]

hmm

taxing the rich seem to sound good,but I could of sworn those folks also took a hit. bernie m alone did quite abit of damage .I`m not saying the rich should be protected .but I got serious doubt they are a reliable  source to tap on.

note how many businesses are gone now. very few rich folks made money from it.most are losing monery when you see an empty space.  but one thing can be said one of the cause of these problem is those in charge were not smart enough to stop this situation

[Amianthus]

Depreciating plane in seven years rather than five will not prevent companies from buying aircraft. Seven years is the normal depreciation period for industrial equipment. Aircraft do not contribute as much to the manufacturer as do the robotic assembly machines and painting systems that are depreciated over seven years.

This didn't sound right (depreciating an aircraft this quickly) so I decided to look it up.

Customary depreciation of aircraft components consist of:

• The mechanical structure of an aircraft or Airframe - Cost depreciates based on an estimate of 25-years of useful-life expectancy, capitalized maintenance allowance for wear and tear over the period leading up to the next overhaul.
• Aircraft engines - Cost depreciates based on an estimate of 10-years of useful-life expectancy, capitalized maintenance allowance for wear and tear over the period leading up to the next overhaul.
• Aircraft spare parts - Cost depreciates based on an estimate of 10-years of useful-life expectancy.
• Undercarriage or landing gear - Cost depreciates based on an estimate of 7-years of useful-life expectancy, capitalized maintenance allowance for wear and tear over the period leading up to the next overhaul.

http://www.aviationattorneys.com/aircraft-depreciation-deductions.cfm

[Xavier_Onassis]

It seems that they do normally depreciate an aircraft over seven years normally, but since 1987, this has been shortened to five.

Planes wear out mostly based on use, not age. I imagine that the mileage on corporate jets varies rather a lot.

In any case, the dispute is over restoring the original 7 year depreciation schedule.