Major airlines taking control of ATC

[gsengle]

FYI you are already "taxed" my man.  Every time you click the fuel pump.  About as fair a way to dispense a tax for service and infrastructure as I can imagine.  You use it you pay.  Toll roads are just inefficient.  This debate is about control...

Indeed. And any time I hear user fees, I question the sanity of creating a more expensive bureaucracy to collect taxes when we already have a naturally proportionate model in place that is so simple to collect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MyNameIsNobody]

48 minutes ago, rogerl said:

The whole thing has that 'smell'.

Government's main function here is to counterbalance the charge of corporate structure (e.g. making profitr).  Make no mistake, the structure of the corporation serves a valuable purpose for all of us, but that purpose is necessarily at odds with what we may value (air?  water?  safety? freedom?).  This is where the non-corporate side of the balance needs counteracting weight from a government that deigns to speak for the populace.

Non-profit corporations leave out the most desirable aspect of corporations (ruthless pursuit of profit), while gaining the ability to generate profits that are tax free.  What's the point of going corporate if you are neglecting the most important aspect?  Rattle, rattle, rattle - can come up with some minor BS, undoubtedly.  "Minor BS", to emphasize.

Who really thinks that giving away assets paid for by the taxpayer to this entity is a good thing?  Only those who look to profit from it, e.g. those who profit from the system (airlines), those who profit from selling things to the entity, those who profit from running the entity.

Has anyone checked out the CEO salaries of major (and many minor) non-profits (charity-watch-like sites list these)?  Will the rules for the so-called 'non-profit' legislate the siphoning, or will this be just another straw for the best and the brightest to suck money out of the taxpayer, in addition to potentially infringing upon freedom to use public assets (airspace)?

An inexperienced boob (politics?  who needs it? ... uh, the whole idea of coalition building e.g. democratic governance maybe ...) elected by a suspicious 'electoral college'.   Funny how this countermands the popular vote in one direction recently.  The chump keeps proclaiming "I won!".  Even that is debatable.

Impressive Diatribe.  You lost me after the first sentence.  Then the words had "that smell".  Governments main function is NOT to counterbalance the corporate structure.  Were there corporations when the Constitution was written and the United States was formed?  The purpose of government is to: Provide for the common defense, Courts and civil liberty.  Part of pursuit of liberty is defined by what the government can not (Limitations) do to individuals in their pursuit of happiness.  Our country is based on Capitalism.  Corporations are made up of individuals seeking their happiness.  Of course if you don't like what executives make you can choose, as an individual pursuing your happiness, to not buy their stock or support their business.

Suspicious electoral college?  Funny.  We are a Republic.  We have the rule of law.  We have elected representatives that we vote to impact our pursuit of happiness.  Sorry that East coast West coast voting block didn't work out for you.  I'm good.  This "Chump" did indeed "win".  Debatable? Most definitely.

Enjoy your continued pursuit of happiness.  

I am.

[gsengle]

Our government also protects individual rights by giving us wide latitude to regulate commerce how we decide works for the common good, as long as the rules are fair and don't infringe on specific individual rights as enumerated in the constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MyNameIsNobody]

Just now, gsengle said:

Our government also protects individual rights by giving us wide latitude to regulate commerce how we decide works for the common good, as long as the rules are fair and don't infringe on specific individual rights as enumerated in the constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup.  Is the government protecting individual rights by not allowing individuals to purchase insurance/form groups across state lines, or are they working for lobbyists in Health Care industry?  In this case I would argue that existing rule of law is hurting "the people" and supporting large health care insurance carriers.  Speaking of monopolistic to big to fail entities...Like Airlines.

[gsengle]

Yup.  Is the government protecting individual rights by not allowing individuals to purchase insurance/form groups across state lines, or are they working for lobbyists in Health Care industry?  In this case I would argue that existing rule of law is hurting "the people" and supporting large health care insurance carriers.  Speaking of monopolistic to big to fail entities...Like Airlines.

Hey that's an issue left to the states. If you don't like your state insurance rules change em. That's called democracy, don't muddy the waters complaining about rules that state legislatures made. So much for states rights....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MyNameIsNobody]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

 

Hey that's an issue left to the states. If you don't like your state insurance rules change em. That's called democracy, don't muddy the waters complaining about rules that state legislatures made. So much for states rights....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I believe there is federal law prohibiting states to cross state lines.  I am all for states deciding what they wish to do on health insurance.

[gsengle]

I believe there is federal law prohibiting states to cross state lines.  I am all for states deciding what they wish to do on health insurance.

And that's all they are doing. States if smart would start by setting up regional markets and normalize regulation. But it's hard to get passed....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steingar]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

And that's all they are doing. States if smart would start by setting up regional markets and normalize regulation. But it's hard to get passed....

 

The problem with all this is it costs money, and lots of it, for insurance companies to cross state lines.  Not all that easy to set up agencies and the like, especially when there are already players in the game.

[peevee]

IBTL

[gsengle]

The problem with all this is it costs money, and lots of it, for insurance companies to cross state lines.  Not all that easy to set up agencies and the like, especially when there are already players in the game.

Yep that's our federal system. Has some downsides.

In other news, the free market isn't magic...

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40608253

But we are off topic.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steingar]

Rather badly.  The saddest thing is the rationale behind all this privatization talk is the funding stream for the FAA has grown highly unpredictable due to the gridlock in Congress.  One might think about fixing the latter rather than bolluxing the former.

I'm reminded of the lake I visited in Guatemala.  There are algal blooms because agricultural runoff and raw sewage are being dumped in the lake.  The government's answer was aerators, rather than fix the problem.  A fun note, the aerators lasted a day before enterprising individuals stole all the copper (and anything else of value) out of them.

[peevee]

56 minutes ago, steingar said:

Rather badly.  The saddest thing is the rationale behind all this privatization talk is the funding stream for the FAA has grown highly unpredictable due to the gridlock in Congress.  One might think about fixing the latter rather than bolluxing the former.

.

That's the gist of it yeah

 

[Andy95W]

Why hasn't anyone proposed that our air traffic control system be left up to the states?  That way, each state could (or could not) privatize on its own.

[gsengle]

Why hasn't anyone proposed that our air traffic control system be left up to the states?  That way, each state could (or could not) privatize on its own.

Ok now that's funny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MyNameIsNobody]

6 hours ago, rogerl said:

I am loathe to engage *you* as *you* are prone to dragging things down to a personal level, but *you* asked, so I will clarify:

Governments main function is, uh, you forgot to add the words FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES you types are so eager to conserve a literal interpretation of even in the face of changing circumstances, "...promote the general Welfare...".  Creative editing works for history revisionism I guess.

The greeks were said to postulate that government is for one thing: Improve the lives of citizens.  So, yea, *you* can define it however you want as can everyone else.

"Corporations are made up of individuals seeking their happiness."  WFT does that even mean?  A corporation is a legal entity; try wikipedia.

And No,  I can't to choose not to buy the stock of a non-profit corporation (the subject of this discussion), as by definition it does not issue stock.  So no, no and more no on that too.

And to top it off with the rest of that BS, I don't know *you* so no, I am not really concerned with your happiness - that is your job to deal with.  As my own is mine, but nonetheless thank *you* for your good wishes in pursuit of that.

Yup, you did state not for profit.  My bad.  Not for profits are legal entities as well.  How about just getting rid of tax-free not for profits?  How about we just blow up the tax code and every loop hole and just pay a percentage so that there is enough in the Federal budget to promote the general welfare?  I am good with that.  Perhaps the high salaries for CEO's would be adjusted if they are paying taxes?

I still find it interesting that you think the primary purpose of government is to reign in Capitalism.  Were the founding fathers thinking about clean water/air/soil pollution?  Is that the number one purpose/concern now?  NOT EVEN IN THE TOP TWENTY areas of importance for Federal Government.

Really bummed out that you "know I make it personal", but yet you don't "know me".  I still wish you success in pursuit of individual happiness.

I just want fuel tax to continue to be the vehicle for taxation on GA.

6 hours ago, steingar said:

The problem with all this is it costs money, and lots of it, for insurance companies to cross state lines.  Not all that easy to set up agencies and the like, especially when there are already players in the game.

Maybe the ability for new "other" insurance groups like ETSY (If you sell on ETSY) or Plumbers (If you are a one man shop) etc. could pool and have a large enough group to get a better price on insurance coverage?  I don't know.  I am happy with my high deductible health insurance that I never use.  Others?  Not so much apparently.