Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
80 Billion For Iraq 3 Billion For US Airlines.  
User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2179 times:

3 billion for the US airlines ??? I wonder how much money Iraq airlines will get ??? The republican congress can't find much money to help the American people but there's lots of cash for Iraq....


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2165 times:

The airlines don't need any handouts.

Southwest, Air Tran & Jet Blue have continued to operate profitably in the same environment. No reason why the other carriers can't also.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2153 times:

Iraq don't need any handouts either !!!!


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2150 times:

Most the airlines aren't asking for another loan. As Bethune has said, we would just like some tax relief. About $52 of every $200 is taxes. The one that rankels the most is the unfunded mandate of TSA and Security that the government put on the carriers. The government, not the carriers, should pay for the TSA and other security. That's their function.

User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2138 times:

What a load of......

What trouble the airlines are in is of their own doing. They private businesses which have screwed up financially and operationally, and have failed to meet the changing marketplace. And they get $3 billion to get them out of the shit.

Iraq. $80 billion, of which ONLY $2.5 billion (from memory) will go to reconstruction of the country; after which the invading forces are responsible for destroying a percentage (as are the Iraqis of course), and this $2.5 billion will not be going to the Iraqi people, but to (most likely--99%) American companies in "juicy" government contracts (and inevitably, it is likely those companies will be somehow contacted to various government official - thru past or present dealings). A large proportion of the rest of that $80 billion is basically being given to defence companies (which are again private companies) to make and buy their weapons. Then there is the operational costs involved in making your war, which is the rest.

Who said that war isn't good for the economy?  Insane

So what exactly were you saying about Iraqi's getting handouts? If you want to bitch, that is your right, but please make sure that when you do bitch about it, that your "analogy" is at least correct.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2135 times:

Part of the airlines trouble is their own doing, Aviatsiya. No doubt, but 9/11 and a severe drop in business travel has compounded those shortcomings to an alarming degree.

And the figure Iraq is getting for reconstruction is $8 billion, not 80. That's the reconstruction amount, Avi, so your memory is incorrect on that account.


User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2128 times:

Analogy ??? I'll write this slower since you can't read so good, My tax dollars going to Iraq, not staying here... Is that clearer ??? Dah. Airline people out of work etc.etc. Republican politicians telling them"to bad its your own fault" and them spending 75-80 billion on Iraq.


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

Considering a lot of the money will go into rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure that the US (rightly or wrongly) destroyed, it seems pretty justified.


Coincidently, a whole lot of your tax dollars are going to Israel too.


User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

Alpha 1

I was basically spot on (a few billion out)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030402/80/dws8a.html

Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate approved Bush's $75 billion emergency request, plus more than $3 billion in aid for the airlines that have lost business during the war, bringing both packages to more than $78 billion in total.

But I was spot on in this regard

The bills provide about $2.5 billion toward reconstruction and relief for Iraq, but a number of lawmakers have said those costs likely will soar as the war unfolds. It also provides $250 million in food aid for Iraq.

DC10guy

Yes, what you wrote, was an analogy (in effect). $3 billion going to American airlines, keep American people in the job. A big proportion of $75 billion going to American defence companies, American oil companies, American construction companies, etc keep American people in the job.

I don't see what you are bitching about. Really.

But if you don't want to see your tax dollars going to Iraq, maybe you should make this clear to Bush and his government. After all, they're the ones who "started/instigated" the waste of "your" tax dollars.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Dc10guy, I have no problem with sending as much money as it takes to rebuild Iraq. The nation needs rebuilt because of Saddam, no doubt, but the U.S. must shoulder much of the responsibility-after all, it was two wars between the U.S. and Iraq that has caused much of the physical damage to the country.

We cannot make the mistake that so many of our detractors rightly make on here-too often, we fight and run, to leave the country on their own without a chance. That needs to change. If we're to take the responsibility to start the war, or to prosecute a war, it's our responibility to rebuild after we've won. We did that in Europe and Japan following WWII, and made lifelong allies in part because of it. We can do the same in Iraq, but we have to have long-term patience, and a long-term committment to the PEOPLE of that ravaged nation.

We can, and should do, no less.


User currently offlineKLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2098 times:

Also, it must be remembered that oil sold after the war will also fund the reconstruction.

-Clovis


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2083 times:

Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate approved Bush's $75 billion emergency request..

Yes, that's the WHOLE request. $62 billion if that is to pay for the war, Avi, not going to Iraq. $8 billion is going to reconstruction of Iraq.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20030404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_budget_45

If you read the article, you'll see my numbers are closer that what you're referring to.


User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

The figure I have quoted of $2.5 billion is totally accurate. Well sort. The exact amount is $2,483,300,000. Your link says it also.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:2:./temp/~c1082enMNj:e32978:

IRAQ RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)


For necessary expenses to carry out the purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for humanitarian assistance in and around Iraq and for rehabilitation and reconstruction in Iraq , $2,483,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004, including for the costs of: (1) water/sanitation infrastructure; (2) feeding and food distribution; (3) supporting relief efforts related to refugees, internally displaced persons, and vulnerable individuals; (4) humanitarian demining; (5) healthcare; (6) education; (7) electricity; (8) transportation; (9) telecommunications; (10) rule of law and governance; (11) economic and financial policy; and (12) agriculture: Provided, That these funds shall be apportioned only to the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Health and Human Services, as appropriate, for expenses to meet such costs: Provided further, That with respect to funds appropriated under this heading in this Act or proposed for appropriation in subsequent Acts, the responsibility for policy decisions and justifications for the use of such funds shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of State and this responsibility shall not be delegated: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading shall be used to fully reimburse accounts administered by the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development, not otherwise reimbursed from funds appropriated by this chapter, for obligations incurred for the purposes provided under this heading prior to enactment of this Act from funds appropriated for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs: Provided further, That the United States may accept from any person, foreign government, or international organization, and credit to this Fund, any contribution of money for such purposes: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading shall be available notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 10 of Public Law 91-672 and section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading that are made available for assistance for Iraq shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, except that notifications shall be transmitted at least 5 days in advance of the obligations of funds.


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2062 times:


The tax that the airlines are complaining are actually paid for by the consumer, and not the airlines. So they want the taxes lower so that the tickets will appear to be cheaper, $10 or $20 cheaper for a ticket will not encourage people to fly any more or any less.

With the creation of the TSA, airlines have been getting a free ride with paying less than their share of the security fees. Gov collections have fallen $400 million short. Kind of funny that the airlines have been complaining about the TSA since it was created.

What some of the major airlines do need assistance with is how to run a business....




NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Just out of interest, why do you expect the Government to bail out private industry?

If a company can't run itself then it shouldn't exist. The hard decisions are best for the economy.




ADG


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

If we avoid another 9/11 because we take out Saddam's WMD stockpile, then $80 billion is a bargain. Besides the incalculable loss of 3,000 lives, 9/11 cost the US economy about $1 trillion counting direct and indirect impacts.

We cannot on Iraq's oil to rebuild the country, we will be shouldering much of the bill:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-war-iraqdebt4apr04010421,1,3763271.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dworld%2Dmanual

Contrary to Aviatsiya's innuendo, this war is bad for the economy and was not fought to prime the pump. If what he said were actually true, unemployment would not be rising in the US.

I agree with Alpha1's reasoning. We need to turn Iraq into the Arab South Korea/Singapore.


User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

Well, I wouldn't expect our government to pay for the new Iraq at the expense of our own interests here at home. But I guess when you look at the REAL reason we will be paying for the "new Iraq" (private oil companies) and not our own airlines (no white house connections ???) I guess I can see why.


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Well, DC10guy, just think of it this way.

If your airline can make it through another month or two, it'll be able to buy really cheap Jet-A from all of those "private oil companies".

$3,000,000,000 will buy a buttload of Jet-A.


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1992 times:

The only reason Dc10guy has a problem with this is because it is a Republican President and a Republican Congress. If it was a DimoCrap controlled government, he would think this is a great idea.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

9/11 cost the US economy about $1 trillion counting direct and indirect impacts.

Can you explain to me where this figure came from?

We cannot on Iraq's oil to rebuild the country, we will be shouldering much of the bill:

Well you're doing the damage, why shouldn't you foot the bill?

Contrary to Aviatsiya's innuendo, this war is bad for the economy and was not fought to prime the pump. If what he said were actually true, unemployment would not be rising in the US.

Unemployment is merely one issue in economy.

I agree with Alpha1's reasoning. We need to turn Iraq into the Arab South Korea/Singapore.

"We" don't need to do anything in other countries, it's up to them to decide what they want to do. The most "WE" should ever do in a country is to remove the dictatorship and put in a valid and fair government and then step back and let "THEM" to as "THEY" see fit.




ADG


User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

Did I mention cheap Jet-A? It's all about the oil, remember.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

If it was a DimoCrap controlled government, he would think this is a great idea.

Conversely, B757300, if it were a Democrat, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs because you thought it was such a fucking dumb idea. And don't say you wouldn't, because you absolutely would.



User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Fair and balanced...Fox News and Alpha 1.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

ADG,

Your response predictably infused with naive and biting cynicism.

Saddam wrecked his own economy through 12 years of intransigence. Not the US. Prior to his reign, Iraq had a per capita GDP comparable to several European countires. The damage the US military causes will pale in comparison to Saddam's reign of hoarding cash for weapons and his own pocket. I suppose we 'damaged' Germany and it was not Hitler burning his cities as he realized that his 'cause' was lost.

Employment is directly correlated to economic growth. Thus if an economy shows sustained economic growth, employment will grow and vice versa. This is elementary economics. Your blithe dismissal of employment figures as 'one figure' is not a sound refutation of this very elementary economic reality.

$1 trillion dollars of lost economic output has been commonly circulated economic figure. Although there is reasonable dispute on how to separate the effects of the dot com bubble from 9/11.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/terrorism/2002/0115complex.htm

The bottom line is the allies cannot just walk away from Iraq after setting up polling stations for an election. Just like for Germany and Japan, the allies will need to guarantee Iraq's security and open their markets for Iraq's output besides just oil. In order for the allies mission to be a success, we will have to ensure the viability a stable and prosperous Iraq. If you noticed, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Singapore have been run by Japanese, Germans, Koreans, and Singaporeans since the end of the war.

Although many Gulf States have all the trappings of first-world wealth, they are in fact third world countries. The relevant measure is the level of human capital. In the Persian Gulf, countries squandered appalling amounts of money without improving their human capital. There is no real reason why Saudi Arabia or Bahrain could not be the world's financiers, arbitragers, software innovators, or anything else pursuant to the law of comparative advantage. We cannot leave Iraq as another oil pump but as a diversified economy.


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6292 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1959 times:

Don't get me going on airline welfare.

OK, you did. Screw the airlines. What happened to the free market concept? Is it so much a failed concept that they need to be bailed out every few years? Let AA, UA, CO, DL and US all go bankrupt. If they had a viable market they would not be in the straits they're in.

Protect the workers? Fine idea if it were real but it isn't. US Corporations screw the workers on a regular basis and have no qualms about doing so. When a CEO destroys the integrity of a company and bails with many millions of dollars, all blessed by the board of directors, I have no pity for the company.

Sure I'd hate to lose my job, I'd hate it a lot. But back to free market concepts. If there is a need for a business, it will be provided. If not, Bye!

I say it's about time that my government start to spend money on society and not corporations.

Oops, sorry. Forgot that money spent in Iraq will be for corporate greed. Halliburton and Bechtel to name two. I keep thinking that my government has a speck of reality left.

PS: Not a democrat/republican issue, there is not a bit of difference.

Rant over.



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
B.U.S.H. Wants Another 80 Billion For Iraq posted Mon Dec 27 2004 05:03:27 by Clickhappy
The End Of All US Illusions For Iraq: Civil War!? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 10:20:46 by Sabenapilot
US Army Recruiting Problems For Iraq. posted Sat Jul 23 2005 12:26:59 by Bofredrik
$82 Billion More For Iraq/Afghanistan Approved posted Wed May 11 2005 01:54:07 by AeroWesty
India Demands US Explanation For Iraq Kidnappings posted Sat May 8 2004 19:54:20 by B747-437B
US Wants To Spend $1billion Looking For Iraq WMD posted Thu Oct 2 2003 14:38:55 by Eg777er
Bush Seeks $87 Billion For Iraq posted Mon Sep 8 2003 16:11:57 by Matt D
NYT Confirms: Dems Have No Plan For Iraq posted Mon Nov 13 2006 16:22:44 by Cfalk
Unacceptable For Muslims To Target US Civilians? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:07:51 by Cedarjet
More Troops For Iraq? Bush Ignores. posted Fri Sep 29 2006 22:00:38 by ArtieFufkin