This is a military slant because that's where I have most of my experiences going against the grain and just doing what I believed to be right.
I was on the test schedule and the aircraft I was assigned to had been undergoing tests off and on for about 2 weeks to troubleshoot trim issue. It had been flown the day prior by another FCP and maintenance had made a few adjustments so I was supposed to take it out and see if it the trim was fixed. BTW, FCP is a designation you receive after you're signed off to do test flights on aircraft that are undergoing maintenance iot fix a known or unknown maintenance issue.
I went through the start up procedures I believed that I was feeling excessive movement in the cyclic when the collective was moved. A little association was generally felt but it seemed a bit more "to me". After doing some additional trouble shooting I called QA and a senior (the most respected in QA) person from maintenance came out. He felt the controls and went threw the same procedure that I was doing. Basically his opinion was that it was just normal movement and he reiterated that the aircraft was "just flown yesterday" by another FCP. He said "It's good to go sir, lets test this baby up"... The CO (Commanding Officer) of my squadron really wanted this aircraft tested to "full mission capable" as well so we could improve our lacking maintanence stats. The other crewmembers on my aircraft thought it wasn't a big deal and we should go fly. I chose to stop the flight and went in to write up my issues with the aircraft. I got a lot of grief (in a somewhat joking manner). As in why couldn't you fly that thing, so-and-so just flew it yesterday. Maybe we should have just had so-and-so on the test schedule today... "Whatever". That was my basic answer.
Two days later I actually had to leave for a 6wk school. When I came back I was surprised to discover the aircraft was still "down for maintenance" (means can't fly). It turns out they tore out and replaced the whole flight control system and still had what I identified. After that, as sort of a last resort, they sent the servos away to be checked out. It turned out that one of the servos in the flight control system was failing such that a mechanical link would eventually be formed between "collective" (held in your left hand) and "cyclic" movement. That's wouldn't be a good thing... Basically it would eventually cause a lowering of the collective to cause a coresponding (and unwanted/uncontrolable) left bank from the aircraft. It would be very hard to land and would most likely be ugly for whoever it happened to.
Do I think that would have happened if I had flown the aircraft back on the day I was testing it? No, it "probably" wouldn't have happened then but I wouldn't have wanted to be in it when it did happen... Anyway, I was in a leadership position and chose to go against the overwhelming push to go one way. I choose the other direction and may not have saved a catastrophic crash that day but I don't care to know for sure either way. I just did what "I knew and felt" to be right. That's what I want from my leaders. Don't do/don't do it just because people say so... Earn your paycheck and be a leader.
"I think they do nothing to substantially change why people should or shouldn't have voted for it. I'm afraid that I'm beginning to understand flyerd's points all too well.
Any additions or subtractions should have been focused solely on the mortgage market and doing something to change the current attitude in gov, business, and public about the dangers of debt. No one is talking about this being the underlying problem. No one is talking about the complete moral breakdown by individuals, businesses, gov inherent in defaulting (all wrapped up in LYING)."
--> I'm in complete agreement with you on this grid.
This morning, Rep's John Boehner (R) and Roy Blunt (R) Said the bill got better since Monday and that 3 "important" things happened since Mon... 1) "Calls" began to even out as "voters" began to "recognize" the need for this plan iot stop/avoid the very negative current/future impact to them in their lives on main street. 2) The SCC took action irt mrk to mkt, and 3) the important additions like FDIC insurance coverage, and tax legislation.
Well, number 1 goes right back to my spineless comments because the politicians should act like "leaders" and have the fortitude to vote for something "before" people calling start to "figure out/accept" that the plan is necessary (especially when the plan hasn't really changed over the past few days...). Notice I said "start to" because I'm sure that plenty of the calls to their offices are still against it (like the fact that employers cut jobs by most in 5yrs in Sep, which falls in-line with the "round and round" items I wrote about on 30Sep,7:09PM that could lead to dbl digit unemployment and severe depression (the CA issue is another example of what I was talking about because states need credit too...). Numbers 2/3 are good but pretty much "all" of those things would/could have been done outside the plan as well. Maybe they just really agree with the additions of things like the wooden arrow, and rum tax credits that were added and had "less chance" of getting passed on their own as opposed to the AMT, alt energy, FDIC, and mrk to mkt items did… It still boils down to being just more political "cover" for spineless politicians to be able to vote for something without "risking their re-election" because "now" they can say "I fought for my constituents for relief from the AMT and for more alt energy credits that we need iot help our nation get away from our dependency on foreign oil"... "WHATEVER"...
I can at least respect the fact that Rep Michele Bachmann (R) Minnesota said she will not vote for the new bill because it's fundamentally the same bill but with some added "wrapping paper". She's exactly right on that thought but still wrong (IMO) irt her "nay" vote.
"the tide of public opinion is supposedly swinging more favorably toward the bill b/c of a really bad few days in the market"
--> Actually, while I was making all my calls to the politicians offices (the calls I referenced in a recent post irt confirming my "Joe avg" thoughts), they told me the sentiment hadn't really changed that much. The sentiment was only a little more favorable.
"We're willing to drop our principles of smaller gov, less gov intervention, socializing private sector losses, etc. in essence rewarding the irresponsible by not forcing them to pay the consequences of their actions."
--> I completely agree with the negative sentiment irt not letting people/business fall on their swords if risk goes wrong. I still don't see this as completely dropping our principles though. I believe this is a necessary "evil". Yes there's always the possibility that a sort of "precedent" could cause more and more of a socialist society but I don't see it happening in that way to any more degree than it otherwise would have. I believe that type of talk from news/political individuals is both "fear mongering" and irresponsible. Now perhaps someone would like to say that my "fear mongering" comment should apply to my previous description of the no-credit cause and effect to deep depression but that's obviously a matter of personnel opinion.
BUT, thats back to the faulty assumption that the $700B is being SPENT not LOANED.
Lets worry about GME for a while.
There has been a lot a talk about this (maybe we have been wrong in dismissing it?)
This is what I'm talking about. If the government wants to do this bailout (which I still think is a very bad principle), then it needs to find the $700 billion out of its own budget, just like you and I would have to do.
You are right in principle, but our people in Congress don't work that way.
1. Those two provisions are VERY helpful. The turkeys in the House beat them back (with George's help). If they are needed to pass the whole bill, then good for them.
2. In order for the Senate to take up the failed house bill they had to attach it to a bill already in their jurisdiction. So.....
I think they do nothing to substantially change why people should or shouldn't have voted for it. I'm afraid that I'm beginning to understand flyerd's points all too well.
Any additions or subtractions should have been focused solely on the mortgage market and doing something to change the current attitude in gov, business, and public about the dangers of debt. No one is talking about this being the underlying problem. No one is talking about the complete moral breakdown by individuals, businesses, gov inherent in defaulting (all wrapped up in LYING).
Let's break it down small scale. How do you feel about the guy who asks you for a $100 loan, says he really needs it, promises he'll have the money next month, but NEVER pays you back? No matter how good his excuse may be, what's your character assessment of that person? If he was really in dire need, he should've asked for charity or begged, not asked for a loan. A loan has the implicit understanding of repayment.
PS...Maybe they are followed the lead of the hero of the people, Senator Shelby, who actually said, on the record, that the Chrysler and S&L bailouts were disasters that cost the taxpayers' money.
What really is saddening me now flyerd is that the tide of public opinion is supposedly swinging more favorably toward the bill b/c of a really bad few days in the market (personal losses in 401ks, IRAs) and a few pointless additions to the bill (though I do think raising the FDIC limit was a tiny step in the right direction...maybe forcing homeowners who have to take advantage of the bill to keep their home to take a Dave Ramsey--or anything other no debt, live within your means teacher--course?).
We're being sellouts (those of us who disagreed in the first place). We're willing to drop our principles of smaller gov, less gov intervention, socializing private sector losses, etc. in essence rewarding the irresponsible by not forcing them to pay the consequences of their actions. Our country will not learn a lesson about fiscal responsibility and the stupidity of founding a "house of cards" economy on excessive debt will continue.
Our country will continue down the dangerous path of thinking the government should solve our problems. No personal responsibility. It's "give me liberty, unless it hurts my pocketbook." I truly, truly hope that I'm overreacting. I truly hope this isn't just one more step down a socialist mentality in our nation, but with Social Security, the increased chanced of Social (universal) Healthcare, I see no end in sight. God help us.
"Your posts under lionelman17 and flyerd1 have demonstrated unbelievable arrogance toward average Joe, which you may be too arrogant to realize!"
OK sicko, rational this.
1. A Representative from Texas voted NO because of a rash of calls and emails from his KNOWLEDABLE constituents. After the market tanked the same representative stated that 70% of his calls and emails switched to ordering him to vote YES.
2. A group was witnessed watching TV in an airport. When the vote went NO they cheered. Then the market tanked and the discussion turned to "OH, what's happening to my 401k"
Ignorance trumps knowledge again.