sherpa

No I'm not saying it's a socialist system. It's supposed to be like an IRA as you and your employer contribute to it based on your income up to a certain level, and then when you decide to draw benefits, those benefits are based on your career earnings. All designed to prevent people who don't save from becoming indigent in their old age. The fact is that if the gov was held to the same accounting principles that corporations are, they'd be shut down and arrested in a minute. They do this with scores of tax revenue. Remember a couple months ago when the guy in the White House was whining about airline baggage fees and other expenses for air travelers? The single biggest charge on tickets by far is taxes, and they tax everything; fuel, cargo, route segments, arrival and departure taxes, with additional fees for international ops, frequent flyer fees and others. This was to fund the "Aviation Trust Fund," now called the "Airport and Airway Trust Fund," which handles facilities and operations among other things for the nation's airspace system. They show a balance, but that is nowhere near the amount of money they collect. Guess where that other money goes? Into the general fund. That's the way the system "works."

Are you new to this? These arguments have been made for decades. It is going broke because the money deposited from both employees and employers has been used in the general funding of the government, and not separated for investment, as was the original intent. It was designed as a safety net that everyone employed would contribute to in order to prevent them from being completely indigent in old age. No surprises and nothing new here,

It's an enforced IRA, as I mentioned earlier.

Come on. Social Security is paid into by workers and employers. It is hardly the gov giving people money for doing nothing. It is an enforced IRA, with no individual control.

Interesting example. Iran Contra, for all that was questionable, was definitely in our best interest, just as arming the Mujahideen was, though it ultimately led to Bin Laden and al quaeda.

It is especially important now, as we have allowed our border to be unenforced.

There are adjustments that could be made, and I'm not sure how much is done inside the borders. But......The inability of the FBI, internal, and CIA, external, to be able to coordinate is exactly what led to 9/11. The redesign of the intel universe in the US was absolutely necessary with a changing threat.

Absolutely crazy suggestion.

I am getting a whiff of a huge lawsuit.

i hope your meeting went well. Providing a history of Sects or Transportation, in no way, addresses the failure of this one. He is a fool who has wasted time and money doing stupid non productive woke crap. Everybody in the industry knows this. Typical Biden appointee who fills the gay box, but is useless to the American taxpayer and the industry he serves.

The man is reviled in the FAA and airline industry. Idiotic appointees who didn't survive basic Congressional hearings. But..To his credit, he did use taxpayer dollars to eliminate anything "male" in the vernacular of various agencies, so we have that. Total waste.

I'd rather make news than get news. In the OP, CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin is a tried and true NYC liberal. No issues with that, but I'm a Squawk Box watcher every day, from 6-7, then Today Show for ten minutes as the Mrs. joins me, then back to CNBC once Al Roker starts his weather histrionics or they do anything entertainment industry related, which I have zero interest in. First selection on the laptop every AM is google news, and I avoid known biased sites. No Fox. No MSNBC. No CNN. For accurate middle east and specifically day to day Navy operations, I watch Ward Carroll on Youtube. Extremely well informed, honest and not the usual knucklehead that you see on networks.

I square thing OK.

I think you're a lunatic who has no real understanding of any of this, so I'll refrain.

I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to convey, but that's another issue. Retirees, or people on fixed income might have a different view re inflation of the past couple years. I don't blame any politician for all of it, but they all share in the blame for crazy fiscal policy.

Ya. I'm "cooked."

So he did nothing regarding this view from 96-99, and nothing since 2022, until the barbaric, sub human attacks of Oct 7? Sure. Netanyahu agrees with 90% of the population of Israel, which is that Hamas need be eliminated. Not the civilian Panestinians.......Hamas, and he is correct.

It wasn't started by any president. It was started by a terrorist industry led by a lunatic, whom they were harboring, and who was exporting its murder. The regime was offered an option to give him and his training industry up, and they refused. We didn't "start" it.

This is exactly true, and I have pointed it out here, more than once. The Trump plan had an out, if noncompliance. It was not used.

The 2500 troops could have been used for any purpose. A proposal was submitted by JCS and SecDef to have such a contingent remain in order to support an orderly withdrawal. The President rejected that, and later denied, in spite of testimony from those two appointees, that such an option was presented. On a tactical note, rules of engagement are promulgated to operators from Washington. Specific weapons free decisions are made by individuals or on scene commanders, if time permits, based on the situation.

Couldn't disagree more. Complete blame deserves to be on the Biden Administration. Bagram could have been easily defended with 2500 US troops with their defenses, against the street thugs. Didn't happen, and that is on the Administration.

You are dead wrong. Of course he has operational control if he so chooses. See Operation Eagle Claw, the Carter thing, and Rolling Thunder, ( as well as other Viet Nam failures) as evidence.

It was not an operational failure, it was a strategic failure that was ordered from Washington. 2500 troops positioned at Bagram would have likely prevented the debacle. 2500 is not a small number in this context. Instead, the Washington decision resulted in the disastrous embarrassment.

I insulted no one. I am simply not going to respond to him, absent some compelling reason. It is that simple, and I'd be pleased to be banned if that is untenable.

I do OK, but thanks.