If user fees go into effect I'm done

On Feb 11, 7:21 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:46:30 -0800, wrote
(in article .com):

All I have to say about user fees is that if they are implemented and
I am going to be nickeled and dimed to death by a bureaucratic
nightmare that adds overhead and significantly more per hour cost to
an already expensive per hour rate for flying time, I am going to hang
up my wings...

Just imagine what the per pilot cost of the FAA will be when about
200,000 pilots are driven out of the system by user fees.

User fees will stop some people from flying, but most pilots will probably be
able to cope. The thing that gets me is the unending harassment. It is enough
to make you want to become a hermit. (Actually, I tried that :-) )

I can no longer fight political battles. I am completely exhausted. You guys
will have to fight the next civil war without me -- and I am convinced that
civil war is inevitable.

For myself, things have gotten so fouled up that I can no longer get medical
insurance in the state of Washington. Thanks to Mike Lowrie's insurance
'reforms,' there are NO medical insurers willing to cover anyone who does not
work for a big corporation. Group Health and one or two others might do it
for big deductibles and premiums approaching $1000 a month. I am sick of
fighting taxing authorities, insurance companies, and everyone else who has a
hand out. When I die, what the feds don't take, the state will seize the
rest. So it is all for nothing. With problems like that, user fees are just
another gnat sting. Foo.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

I hear you, but still I won't keep flying if I have to deal with user
fees. The gas is expensive enough as it is...

Flying is a hobby for me, not a vocation. I love it but I'm not a
wealthy man. As a member of the middle class, I am falling farther
and farther behind inflation. I haven't had an increase in my salary
since 2001. Gas prices have gone way up since then, as have other
staples. Thank god I bought my house in 2000. I wouldn't be able to
afford to buy it now!

Lou Dobbs is the only journalist who even has a clue as to what is
really happening right now, and he is a voice in the wilderness. We
are being sold out by our congressmen and our business leaders...
they keep getting richer and the rest of us fall farther behind every
year.

Globalization is sucking this country dry, as are the leeches in our
government. Its going to get a lot worse before it gets better...
and it may very well come to a civil war if our economy collapses.

writes:

Globalization is sucking this country dry, as are the leeches in our
government. Its going to get a lot worse before it gets better...
and it may very well come to a civil war if our economy collapses.

A civil war is extremely unlikely. The usual pattern is a succession of
increasingly troublesome crises, terminating with the end of democratic
government and a new dictatorship. Democracies are their own worst enemies,
and they tend to regularly self-destruct. The problem with giving everyone a
voice is that many people are stupid.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

A civil war is extremely unlikely. The usual pattern is a succession of
increasingly troublesome crises, terminating with the end of democratic
government and a new dictatorship. Democracies are their own worst enemies,
and they tend to regularly self-destruct. The problem with giving everyone a
voice is that many people are stupid.


I have to agree with you completely on that.

It benefits a government for its subjects to be ignorant, and if you can
control the educational system then you can insure a continued dumbing
down of society to a point that rebelion is less likely. Like piglets
sucking on a hogs teats, the people can be placated in various ways.

There truly *should* be some sort of test before one can vote so as
to weed out the both the ignorant and the stupid people.

ktbr writes:

It benefits a government for its subjects to be ignorant, and if you can
control the educational system then you can insure a continued dumbing
down of society to a point that rebelion is less likely.

Yes. That's why widespread lack of education (particularly illiteracy, and
particularly among women) is seen in countries with high rates of corruption
and severely autocratic regimes.

Like piglets sucking on a hogs teats, the people can be placated in
various ways.

Bread and circuses. Many people care about little else, and will always vote
in favor of this. Even in Russia, there are people who pine for the old days
of the Soviet Union: sure, you didn't have much freedom, but you didn't really
have to work hard, you couldn't go broke, etc., because the state looked after
you.

There truly *should* be some sort of test before one can vote so as
to weed out the both the ignorant and the stupid people.

Yes, but unfortunately those tests invariably become corrupt, as they are used
to create a voting elite, rather than to assess competence to vote. The
problem is that the tests are usually imposed by the same people who are
elected by the voting, which is a conflict of interest.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Yes, but unfortunately those tests invariably become corrupt, as they are used
to create a voting elite, rather than to assess competence to vote. The
problem is that the tests are usually imposed by the same people who are
elected by the voting, which is a conflict of interest.


True enough... Perhaps there should be a merit based approach to
voting to allow for cancelling out the ignorant. Sort of allow
for Darwin's theory to have its productive influence on govenrment,
instead of the reverse effect as is now the case.

As an example: If you _graduate_ from High School you get one vote.

Then, you can get additional votes like:

Service in the military - you get an additional vote.
Graduate from college - get an additional vote.
For each $10,000 in taxes you paid - get an additional vote.
For each child you raised who becomes a productive citizen
you get an additional vote.


You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon, and one vote for each $10,000 in welfare
benefits you were given.... if you pay it back then you get an
extra vote that year.

In this way people would be more vested in their country and have
incentives to work hard, make good decisions. I believe you would
still need term limits however.

ktbr writes:

True enough... Perhaps there should be a merit based approach to
voting to allow for cancelling out the ignorant. Sort of allow
for Darwin's theory to have its productive influence on govenrment,
instead of the reverse effect as is now the case.

Literacy tests came close to that. But then someone observed that people
deprived of an education would necessarily fail such tests, and they went
away.

Of course, one could argue that anyone who hasn't received a decent education
isn't qualified to vote, irrespective of _why_ he hasn't received an
education, but that is politically incorrect.

Even today, with 1/3 of the U.S. population illiterate, there aren't too many
people who are qualified to vote, even though most of them are allowed to
vote.

Service in the military - you get an additional vote.
Graduate from college - get an additional vote.
For each $10,000 in taxes you paid - get an additional vote.
For each child you raised who becomes a productive citizen
you get an additional vote.

All of these are subject to abuse, unfortunately.

You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon ...

That is already the case.

In this way people would be more vested in their country and have
incentives to work hard, make good decisions. I believe you would
still need term limits however.

Yes.

My idea would be to draft people into elections. Instead of letting anyone
who wants to run enter the election, you'd choose people based on some sort of
objective criteria and then draft them into the election (they'd have the
option of declining). Then the candidates would all be qualified, rather than
simply ambitious and self-centered.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Of course, one could argue that anyone who hasn't received a decent education
isn't qualified to vote, irrespective of _why_ he hasn't received an
education, but that is politically incorrect.

That is precisely what I am arguing. In this country education up
to the 12th grade is paid for by taxpayers (whether they have children
or not). There is no excuse why someone should squander their
chance at an education through HS... and if you do well there are
scholarships through college.

Even today, with 1/3 of the U.S. population illiterate, there aren't too many
people who are qualified to vote, even though most of them are allowed to
vote.

Exactly my point.


All of these are subject to abuse, unfortunately.


You think so? give me an example then. I doubt its any easier
to abuse than the current welfare system.... or even the
current politcal system where politicians buy votes from
the ignoreant by promising them more "stuff"...

You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon ...


That is already the case.

Only in some states... and lots of politicians want to put an end
to that, including Hillary Clinton I believe (at one time anyway).


My idea would be to draft people into elections. Instead of letting anyone
who wants to run enter the election, you'd choose people based on some sort of
objective criteria and then draft them into the election (they'd have the
option of declining). Then the candidates would all be qualified, rather than
simply ambitious and self-centered.


If Washington was actually reformed (all the old farts kicked OUT) and
term limits in place it might be necesary to "draft" some people.
Heheh.. I really like the sound of that.... sort of like jury duty.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Even today, with 1/3 of the U.S. population illiterate, there aren't
too many people who are qualified to vote, even though most of them
are allowed to vote.


And where exactly do you get that 1/3 of the US population is illiterate?

The CIA world fact book says...

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

But that is the CIA, so I can understant if you say "Bull" to that.

But this link http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/St...x?StoryId=2553 is
written by a guy saying that Cuba is doing a great job and compares the US
to Cuba and even he says 97%.

My idea would be to draft people into elections. Instead of letting anyone
who wants to run enter the election, you'd choose people based on some sort of
objective criteria and then draft them into the election (they'd have the
option of declining). Then the candidates would all be qualified, rather than
simply ambitious and self-centered.

Well, MX, this is a most excellent idea. In my future, perfect
political party, this will be a main plank in our platform.

Take the rest of the day off...with double pay.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"ktbr" wrote

You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon,

I though that convicted felons did not get any votes, as it now stands. You
are in favor of changing that?
--
Jim in NC