yes the thread has drifted a bit, but amplifying on jungles's comment and the conclusion of the book review, it lead's back to the premise of alpa's mission, and this board's "...about pilots and our futures.."

"..Americans today don’t believe they can influence... They could if they organized...

Extrapolating, if you want influence for "..pilots and our futures.." support your organization- ALPA.

Yes. It is amazing that the same group that whines about how those at the top, whether over 60, etc., are the "I've got mine" crowd, yet do the exact same thing when it comes to our country.

Why are you protecting people like those in this article?

Plenty of "tea party" people are actually on government assistance.

"In America the housing subsidy to the richest fifth (through mortgage-interest relief) is four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest fifth."

I support my Union.....

Enjoy your "influence" gentlemen.

Your infatuation with the Economist as a right wing newspaper is incredible. It is center right on economics and far left on social issues to include environmental issues. More importantly it is european. Their interest and the interest of the average American do not overlap. As a matter of fact their interest and out interest can and do conflict.

What you wont see in the Economist in their call for a balanced approach is we spend 25% of our GDP and we collect about 18% in taxes. When slick willie was forced to balance the budget in 1996 we spent 20% of our GDP and collected about 19%. You can tax the rich at 100% and you will not get tax receipt up to 25%. Barrack has borrowed 6 trillion from our grandkids in the last 4 years and gdp has increased by less than a trillion do the math.

Nice New York Times hit on the Tea Party. Much like the hit on Paul Ryan for trying to get his share of spending for his district. If the money is available should you take it? Or should you not get your district or your kids their fare shair of government goodies because you think we are spending ourselves to our doom?

I never said that the Economist was "right wing". What is incredible to me is that what has become the American Puritan party wants a regressive tax structure, and wants to cut spending on everything except the military. Some of the most government supported cities in the country are very politically "right wing", (COS comes to mind), and cutting is fine until it impacts THEIR corner. Government spending is tricky, as the money does flow back into the economy, so cutting it can have very negative consequences for the economy, to an even greater extent than raising taxes does. Witness Reagan's tax and spending structure, which is nothing like many seem to want to "remember" it.

Most of us support our unions without buying into a lot of idealogical claptrap.

Believe whatever you like, but the politicos of any stripe are not going to be your salvation in any event.

For the vast majority collective bargaining is the goal, we don't operate under a false pretense of saving the world.

Let me see at 49 I have not used any of these yet and SS probably will be broke before I am eligible, so how am I getting a positive return?

SS? ... Scott Stratton?