Romney mocked for comment about jet windows

[ydoaPs]

I've always wondered if proponents of a flat tax rate have really thought about it - the poorest 45% of the US population have 0.2% of the financial wealth. Even if you taxed half the country to bankruptcy, you'd be still extremely unlikely to generate enough revenue to maintain the US as a developed nation - given how much tax generated subsidies go into providing reliable electricity, sewerage treatment, clean drinking water, etc.

 

No, apparently we're supposed to have a flat tax sum. That is, we take a certain amount from everyone. What to do with the people on minimum wage? Let's throw them in jail, I guess; those tax dodgers! How are we supposed to pay the bills? Who knows?

[Phi for All]

What to do with the people on minimum wage? Let's throw them in jail, I guess; those tax dodgers!

As long as more prisons are privatized, and the private prisons are allowed to give the prisoners subsidized drugs to keep them docile, and the US citizens pay per head for prisoners to be kept in these facilities, I think Mitt would approve.

[iNow]

There are far too many falsehoods in the posts from right-leaning participants to take each on in the time I have. However, I would like to share that a disproportionate share of tax expenditures do flow to the wealthier members of our society.

 

Again, I know it's important not to let facts get in the way of a good narrative, but here you go:

 

 

 

 

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-you-should-care-about-tax-expenditures-really/2011/09/01/gIQAEr2quJ_blog.html

[Phi for All]

I've always wondered if proponents of a flat tax rate have really thought about it - the poorest 45% of the US population have 0.2% of the financial wealth. Even if you taxed half the country to bankruptcy, you'd be still extremely unlikely to generate enough revenue to maintain the US as a developed nation - given how much tax generated subsidies go into providing reliable electricity, sewerage treatment, clean drinking water, etc.

It's especially important to have a progressive tax rate in light of the corporate personhood movement. Corporations are extremely necessary as an instrument for building commerce, but we can't allow them to enjoy the benefits of the general citizenry while simultaneously having the privilege to do business as an artificial entity and the freedom from general partnership liability. We all have to take the good with the bad, but this current crop of Republicans wants just the good, and they don't care who they take the extra good from or who gets all their bad.

 

This is simply a matter of businesspeople stacking the deck in their favor simply because they have the money to influence the way the laws get written. To say someone deserves to screw other people because they're wealthy is ludicrous. And to even think they got where they are without anyone's help is irresponsible and ungrateful in the extreme. To quote chilled_flourine, "This is a huge problem, admittedly, but we aren't doing anything to resolve it."

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps it is. But what if one of your young children was standing next to you in the airport when you were asked this question? Would that still be your response? If it was, one might expect the child to attract the attention of the interviewer and to supply the valid answer.

I never said it would be my answer.

[swansont]

That's why you would put a small latch on the bottom. A window that swung inwards would be very hard to open, and it would give the people inside less space to escape any hypothetical danger. The doors swing out on emergency exits in school buses. There has to be a reason they chose to make them swing out.

A window that's a square foot in area, or 144 square inches, has a pressure across it of , say 10 psi. That's a force of 1440 lbs. With the mechanical advantage of 2, that's "only" a force of 720 lbs that your "small" latch has to hold. Plus a safety margin. If you open it at altitude, it's going to be quite violent.

 

Buses don't have these issues of differential pressure and the possibility of hypoxia and hypothermia if you open a window. Besides, a plane has emergency exits in addition to the main door. There's typically one one each side (over the wings) and an exit in the rear. Like a bus does.

[Greg H.]

That's why you would put a small latch on the bottom. A window that swung inwards would be very hard to open, and it would give the people inside less space to escape any hypothetical danger. The doors swing out on emergency exits in school buses. There has to be a reason they chose to make them swing out.

 

The reason they swing out is pretty simple, and it's also the same reason that emergency doors on buildings are usually mandated by code to open outwards - if they swung in, people would get crushed against them trying to get them open by the panicky mob behind them in an emergency. By having them swing outwards, no one gets trapped against the door.

 

That's neither here nor there when it comes to not having opening windows on aircraft. The idea is to have as few things that open into the pressure done as possible, because if any of those seals spring a leak, the whole plane has to be grounded and the leak found and fixed. Four doors is a lot easier to maintain than four doors and 40+ windows.

[Phi for All]

The reason they swing out is pretty simple, and it's also the same reason that emergency doors on buildings are usually mandated by code to open outwards - if they swung in, people would get crushed against them trying to get them open by the panicky mob behind them in an emergency. By having them swing outwards, no one gets trapped against the door.

 

That's neither here nor there when it comes to not having opening windows on aircraft. The idea is to have as few things that open into the pressure done as possible, because if any of those seals spring a leak, the whole plane has to be grounded and the leak found and fixed. Four doors is a lot easier to maintain than four doors and 40+ windows.

The sad(der) part is, in order to mittigate the damage done to Romney's campaign, some Republican congressperson will probably tack a rider on a bill to call for a feasibility study on sliding windows aboard aircraft and screen doors on submarines.

[uncool]

Honestly, the entire discussion about this really seems to me to be a distraction from any issue that matters. I don't like Romney as a candidate at all - I generally support Obama - and yet I think that this is so mindlessly trivial an issue that it's really not worth discussing. Two reasons:

 

1) There's the large chance it was an off-the-cuff joke. We know that Mitt Romney is crap at telling jokes and sounding like he means it; that's how it sounds to me.

 

2) Assuming it isn't a joke, what policy issue does this illuminate? In what way does it affect anything of importance? Does anyone think that Romney, if he were to become President, would push for airplane rolling window legislation? The closest to a reason that I've seen for discussing this is because it demonstrates Romney's ignorance; I'm not even sure it does that.

=Uncool-

[Phi for All]

1) There's the large chance it was an off-the-cuff joke. We know that Mitt Romney is crap at telling jokes and sounding like he means it; that's how it sounds to me.

I know there's an awful lot of people out there quoting Mitt and cutting off the remark after "So it's very dangerous..." and adding the ellipses to imply he might be joking. Here's the full quote:

"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no — and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she's safe and sound."

It's very doubtful anyone would make a joke, and then go right into the bit about your wife choking and the pilot having enough oxygen to safely land the plane. But don't believe me, watch the actual video of him saying this. HE'S NOT JOKING.

 

2) Assuming it isn't a joke, what policy issue does this illuminate? In what way does it affect anything of importance? Does anyone think that Romney, if he were to become President, would push for airplane rolling window legislation? The closest to a reason that I've seen for discussing this is because it demonstrates Romney's ignorance; I'm not even sure it does that.

I think it's more evidence that Mitt can't really relate to the majority of the people he wants to represent and lead. Anyone who's flown commercially has listened to the cabin pressurization/oxygen masks will fall from the ceiling speech multiple times. If he doesn't realize how much more dangerous it would be to have opening windows on an aircraft, can I trust him to realize how devastating his tax plan will be for the country, or how tipping the scales even more in the favor of businesses that are already sitting on record amounts of cash will harm public confidence and fuel more unemployment?

[uncool]

I know there's an awful lot of people out there quoting Mitt and cutting off the remark after "So it's very dangerous..." and adding the ellipses to imply he might be joking. Here's the full quote:

 

It's very doubtful anyone would make a joke, and then go right into the bit about your wife choking and the pilot having enough oxygen to safely land the plane. But don't believe me, watch the actual video of him saying this. HE'S NOT JOKING.

Do you have a link to the full video? The videos I've found all cut off at that point, and it still seems like it's a good chance of being a joke.

I think it's more evidence that Mitt can't really relate to the majority of the people he wants to represent and lead. Anyone who's flown commercially has listened to the cabin pressurization/oxygen masks will fall from the ceiling speech multiple times. If he doesn't realize how much more dangerous it would be to have opening windows on an aircraft, can I trust him to realize how devastating his tax plan will be for the country, or how tipping the scales even more in the favor of businesses that are already sitting on record amounts of cash will harm public confidence and fuel more unemployment?

I haven't seen any discussion along those lines - the entire line of discussion has been mocking Romney, with very little discussion about the oxygen masks thing and no discussion about how that affects his credibility.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

Honestly, the entire discussion about this really seems to me to be a distraction from any issue that matters. I don't like Romney as a candidate at all - I generally support Obama - and yet I think that this is so mindlessly trivial an issue that it's really not worth discussing. Two reasons:

 

1) There's the large chance it was an off-the-cuff joke. We know that Mitt Romney is crap at telling jokes and sounding like he means it; that's how it sounds to me.

 

2) Assuming it isn't a joke, what policy issue does this illuminate? In what way does it affect anything of importance? Does anyone think that Romney, if he were to become President, would push for airplane rolling window legislation? The closest to a reason that I've seen for discussing this is because it demonstrates Romney's ignorance; I'm not even sure it does that.

=Uncool-

It has wider implications of a scientific illiterate making policy decisions. If he can't even assess the basics, he won't be able to judge anything about science policy, which means he's more likely to just rubber-stamp his advisors. If science isn't important to him, his advisors won't make recommendations based on science anyway.

[chilled_fluorine]

So, according to your logic, slaves are the biggest bastards, because they pay no tax (no income, no tax). And the millionaires are the nicest people, because they pay the most tax.

 

Weird logic.

 

It may be off topic a little bit, but did you know that most European countries have a progressive tax system? Higher income means you pay more tax. Our highest percentage is nearly 50%, and some propose to lift it to 60%. So, multi-millionaires will pay over half their income in tax.

 

Why is that good? Because they're rich enough as it is.

 

This is yet another thing that I really don't understand about Republicans. Some of the republican voters are quite poor, yet they defend the regressive tax system as if it's beneficial to them.

Slaves are not bastards! Slaves are people who were taken advantage of, sold by their own people. I don't think you fully understand what I meant. I agree with you about the poor republicans, it is certainly not always in their best interest. But I won't refuse any support for my political views. Our ideas about politics are just about as different as they can get, unless one of us becomes a communist. There will be no swaying either of us to the other's views. I suggest we just do what Americans have always done (or are supposed to do), accept each others ideas and respect each other as Americans. Can we get back on topic? About the windows?

 

Since you refuse to use the quote system correctly, this is the only part of your post I can respond to properly. I do want to say though that progressive taxation makes sure that those who profit most from our infrastructure pay the most for it. How many of the 47% do you think use airports? Does the guy who works three jobs to keep his family fed plan a lot of road trips, considering he gets around on the bus?

 

American workers don't work hard? Wow, that's a fairly elitist, heavily biased and incredibly naive statement. We have an extremely robust cost of living, it costs us a lot to buy products here, as opposed to what they pay for the basics in Hong Kong. I understand the benefits of arbitrage when applied to labor costs, but I'm talking about demanding US tax breaks so corporations can create US jobs to help the US economy and then using that revenue held back from public funds to create foreign jobs. Do you thinks that's good business for the US? Do you see why our economy is in trouble due to this withholding tax revenue and profoundly unhelpful efforts to help themselves instead of the American workers that helped them build those businesses?

 

 

Wow, that sounds just like it came from someone's dad. Have you been in the workforce long?

I'm glad you said almost.

 

I have no problem with employing foreign workers. Again, that's not what this is about. I'm talking about tax revenue that was supposed to go towards helping US employment that went overseas instead, to help US corporations make more than half their profits overseas while enjoying tax breaks and charter exemptions they could only get from the US government, which is paid for in the majority, last time I checked, by US citizens, all of them.

 

I have been in the workforce for quite a while, and have worked hard all my life. Many Americans work very hard, but some don't. The thing is, Chinese people are raised to work even harder, and for much less money. I agree, it's stupid to give businesses our taxes to spend overseas.

[Phi for All]

Do you have a link to the full video? The videos I've found all cut off at that point, and it still seems like it's a good chance of being a joke.

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/09/romney-airplane-windows-not-opening-a-real-problem.html

 

I haven't seen any discussion along those lines - the entire line of discussion has been mocking Romney, with very little discussion about the oxygen masks thing and no discussion about how that affects his credibility.

Well, if you'd respond to my points, that would be the beginning of the discussion you've been missing.

 

 

Our ideas about politics are just about as different as they can get, unless one of us becomes a communist. There will be no swaying either of us to the other's views. I suggest we just do what Americans have always done (or are supposed to do), accept each others ideas and respect each other as Americans.

Yeah, CaptainPanic, why can't we just drop the whole political discussion thing, pretend it makes no difference and respect each other as Americans? Why? Why?!

[chilled_fluorine]

A window that's a square foot in area, or 144 square inches, has a pressure across it of , say 10 psi. That's a force of 1440 lbs. With the mechanical advantage of 2, that's "only" a force of 720 lbs that your "small" latch has to hold. Plus a safety margin. If you open it at altitude, it's going to be quite violent.

 

Buses don't have these issues of differential pressure and the possibility of hypoxia and hypothermia if you open a window. Besides, a plane has emergency exits in addition to the main door. There's typically one one each side (over the wings) and an exit in the rear. Like a bus does.

 

Again, they should only open at a safe pressure level, and when the plane isn't in flight.

 

http://www.politico....al-problem.html

 

 

Well, if you'd respond to my points, that would be the beginning of the discussion you've been missing.

 

 

 

Yeah, CaptainPanic, why can't we just drop the whole political discussion thing, pretend it makes no difference and respect each other as Americans? Why? Why?!

 

Don't be mean phi.

 

It's especially important to have a progressive tax rate in light of the corporate personhood movement. Corporations are extremely necessary as an instrument for building commerce, but we can't allow them to enjoy the benefits of the general citizenry while simultaneously having the privilege to do business as an artificial entity and the freedom from general partnership liability. We all have to take the good with the bad, but this current crop of Republicans wants just the good, and they don't care who they take the extra good from or who gets all their bad.

 

This is simply a matter of businesspeople stacking the deck in their favor simply because they have the money to influence the way the laws get written. To say someone deserves to screw other people because they're wealthy is ludicrous. And to even think they got where they are without anyone's help is irresponsible and ungrateful in the extreme. To quote chilled_flourine, "This is a huge problem, admittedly, but we aren't doing anything to resolve it."

That's the first time I've been quoted on this forum... And it wasn't even meaningful. I'll give you a plus one.

[A Tripolation]

I have been in the workforce for quite a while, and have worked hard all my life. Many Americans work very hard, but some don't. The thing is, Chinese people are raised to work even harder,

 

My father used to work 120 hours a week on the family farm so that it wouldn't go under. He turned down an electrical engineering job offer from IBM because of his sense of duty to his family.

 

I doubt you've ever done true, backbreaking physical labor like the kind I was raised around. So do not preach to people about what true labor is. You do not know. And yes, I do know that for certain. I can tell by the arrogance of your posts and how dismissive you are of the plight of the less fortunate. You are cold and elitist.

If people were paid for the amount of work they actually did, my family would be worth billions of dollars thanks to my father. We are not. We are still technically classified at the "below poverty" level for a family of five.

 

Your posts reek of a complete misunderstanding of life and what low-income work actually is. Quite frankly, it's nauseating.

Edited September 27, 2012 by A Tripolation

[iNow]

Your posts reek of a complete misunderstanding of life and what low-income work actually is.

Said another way, he votes republican.

[Phi for All]

Many Americans work very hard, but some don't.

I will flat out guarantee it's the same way in China.

 

The thing is, Chinese people are raised to work even harder, and for much less money.

As I mentioned before, the Chinese cost of living is much less, so they need less money to live. Consumer prices in the US are over 42% higher than in China. Rent for comparable housing is over 52% higher in the US. Restaurant prices are over 85% higher in the US. Source: http://www.numbeo.co...2=United+States

 

And it's a fairy tale that Chinese people all work hard. Lazy is a human trait, and you'll find it all over the world.

 

I agree, it's stupid to give businesses our taxes to spend overseas.

Romney wants to give corporations even bigger tax breaks. And they're already sitting on record amounts of cash, and have the highest paid C-level executives of all time. Aren't they doing well enough that maybe they can pay the same rates they were back when the US was super prosperous? Businesses need consumers to be able to afford their products, after all.

 

Again, they should only open at a safe pressure level, and when the plane isn't in flight.

They already have a bunch of doors that will do that, and would be more efficient at ventilation, and provide better security than so many windows being openable.

 

Don't be mean phi.

I was shooting for ironic. CaptainPanic is from Niederlande.

 

That's the first time I've been quoted on this forum... And it wasn't even meaningful. I'll give you a plus one.

It WAS meaningful to me. That IS the real problem, we aren't doing enough to learn where we're wrong, where we're being inefficient, where we could do better. And I like that you can recognize when public funds should go to the public welfare. I was born an Eisenhower Republican and I hate how the party has let itself be so degraded by extremist conservatives.

[swansont]

Again, they should only open at a safe pressure level, and when the plane isn't in flight.

How do you ensure that, and at what cost? Why would you need to open the windows, anyway?

[rigney]

How do you ensure that, and at what cost? Why would you need to open the windows, anyway?

To make planes safer, sturdier and more leak proof, there should be no windows in the main fuselage at all. Hang modern flat screen TVs, 18" x 18"s or even 24" x 24"s to replace the windows. Two panoramic cameras, left and right to give you a view and it's problem solved. And price as apposed to safety, think about it. Don't want to watch the world rush by? Instead of drawing the shade, just turn the TV off. Edited September 27, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

To make planes safer, sturdier and more leak proof, there should be no windows in the main fuselage at all. Hang modern flat screen TVs, 18" x 18"s or even 24" x 24"s to replace the windows. Two panoramic cameras, left and right to give you a view and it's problem solved. And price as apposed to safety, think about it. Don't want to watch the world rush by? Instead of drawing the shade, just turn the TV off.

If Romney would have said this (what you just said), I would not have thought it worth starting a thread. That makes perfect sense. Maybe you should become his spokesman, so he doesn't make such an ass of himself.

[Phi for All]

To make planes safer, sturdier and more leak proof, there should be no windows in the main fuselage at all. Hang modern flat screen TVs, 18" x 18"s or even 24" x 24"s to replace the windows. Two panoramic cameras, left and right to give you a view and it's problem solved. And price as apposed to safety, think about it. Don't want to watch the world rush by? Instead of drawing the shade, just turn the TV off.

I've always wondered why they put windows on planes. Kids are the only ones I see that are fascinated for more than a few minutes, and I would think there'd be more concerns about freaking out the acrophobes and the panic flyers. I'm sure they've done studies but I wonder if it isn't just an antique holdover from the early days of commercial flight.

 

I want to fly on AirRigney. Perhaps you could arrange for several different views besides the outside cameras. Driving Route 66 in a convertible, sailboating off the coast of Maui, riverboat down the Mississippi....

[rigney]

I've always wondered why they put windows on planes. Kids are the only ones I see that are fascinated for more than a few minutes, and I would think there'd be more concerns about freaking out the acrophobes and the panic flyers. I'm sure they've done studies but I wonder if it isn't just an antique holdover from the early days of commercial flight.

 

I want to fly on AirRigney. Perhaps you could arrange for several different views besides the outside cameras. Driving Route 66 in a convertible, sailboating off the coast of Maui, riverboat down the Mississippi....

Maybe for starters, or???

Edited September 27, 2012 by rigney

[mississippichem]

I've always wondered why they put windows on planes. Kids are the only ones I see that are fascinated for more than a few minutes, and I would think there'd be more concerns about freaking out the acrophobes and the panic flyers. I'm sure they've done studies but I wonder if it isn't just an antique holdover from the early days of commercial flight.

 

The only exciting view I've ever seen from a plane window was a nice flyover of southern Greenland on a flight from Washington D.C. to Amsterdam.

 

I'd much rather focus my retinal receptors on the drink waitresses!

[ydoaPs]

Why would you need to open the windows, anyway?

 

So you can get stuck trying to crawl out, obviously. That and killing everyone inside by asphyxiation.