A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old August 24th 03, 04:50 AM
Chris Hoffmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote:

A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last
only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse

from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will vote for those
candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the
result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies,
always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200
years.


I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but I
can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
might be babbling about? Besides which, I wouldn't trust the word of some
sniveling Lord Whatever from His Majesty's Empire from that time period.
Probably just sour grapes over losing the cash cow of resources that was
America. Aww. No tobacco plantation for His Lordship.

It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury, but
it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in the
first place. The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
Clinton's legacy, while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
father's economic path to onetermship. We DO value fiscal responsibility in
this here country, Jack.

--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
20 hrs




  #13  
Old August 24th 03, 05:23 AM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chris Hoffmann" wrote in message
...
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote:

A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can

last
only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse

from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will vote for

those
candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with

the
result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies,
always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200
years.


I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but I
can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
might be babbling about? Besides which, I wouldn't trust the word of some
sniveling Lord Whatever from His Majesty's Empire from that time period.
Probably just sour grapes over losing the cash cow of resources that was
America. Aww. No tobacco plantation for His Lordship.


Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.


It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury,

but
it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in

the
first place.


So you AGREE with MacCauley?

The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
Clinton's legacy,


And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?

while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
father's economic path to onetermship.


Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.

We DO value fiscal responsibility in
this here country, Jack.


And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens of
TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?





  #15  
Old August 24th 03, 04:08 PM
Paul Tomblin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In a previous article, "PlanetJ" said:
That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.


Look how well deregulation worked for the electricity grid.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
"He passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the
platform upon which he was standing collapsed." "I thought he was hanged?"
"That's what I said, isn't it?"
  #16  
Old August 24th 03, 06:10 PM
Chris Hoffmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
30 hrs
"Tom S." wrote in message
...

In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley

wrote:


Whoops, better make that 1857.

Blah, blah, blah
The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been

200
years.


I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations, but

I
can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this guy
might be babbling about?


Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.


Yeah. Well, thanks for the list of countries anyway. Unless you're referring
to ancient Greece, or Rome, or India, I believe most modern democracies
have had their origins in the mid 18th century. (Those 3 ancients lasted a
LOT longer than 200 years...) I'd also like to point out that the majority
of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.


It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public treasury,

but
it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it in

the
first place.


So you AGREE with MacCauley?


What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
understanding that money doesn't grow on trees. The trouble is having
representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the well is
dry. Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves into debt
until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem to
allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what they're
doing TO THEMSELVES. Hopefully before a coup, but sometimes not. When we
taxpayers see the 30-40 percent taken off the top of our paychecks while our
favorite programs being cut or eliminated due to lack of funds, sooner or
later we will start to wonder what exactly it is our tax dollars are being
used for. But I sure as hell don't think that anyone is going to decide that
we'd be better off with an authoritarian government.


The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
Clinton's legacy,


And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?


The Republicans in the House and Senate. I didn't say it was fair.


while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
father's economic path to onetermship.


Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.

We DO value fiscal responsibility in
this here country, Jack.


And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens

of
TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?


I'll worry about that when whoever is supposed to be collecting on it wants
us to pay up. Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they expect
payment due.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but while the economy was good and the gov't had a
surplus, weren't we supposed to have been "paid up" within a decade or so?
Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
vote.....Yessir.....






  #17  
Old August 24th 03, 07:01 PM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chris Hoffmann" wrote in message
...

In 1797, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley

wrote:


Whoops, better make that 1857.



Yep...you're right.


Blah, blah, blah
The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been

200
years.


I'm no expert on the history of world's greatest democratic nations,

but
I
can't name one prior to 1797. Any idea what country(s) exactly this

guy
might be babbling about?


Your knowlege of history is, like...non-existant.


Yeah. Well, thanks for the list of countries anyway. Unless you're

referring
to ancient Greece, or Rome, or India, I believe most modern democracies
have had their origins in the mid 18th century. (Those 3 ancients lasted a
LOT longer than 200 years...) I'd also like to point out that the majority


They evolved INTO democracies...then collapsed. Even Greece and Rome started
as republics, then degenerated into democracies...just like we're doing.

of countries which have reverted to dictatorship after a period of
democracy, have since gone BACK to democracy.


And what is different in their composition since the reverted to democracy?



It may be true that we'd all like a bigger slice of the public

treasury,
but
it's also true that we'd like to not need to contribute so much to it

in
the
first place.


So you AGREE with MacCauley?


What am I supposed to be agreeing with? Most people are capable of
understanding that money doesn't grow on trees.


Capable yes...dealing it with, no.

The trouble is having
representatives who can't or won't tell their constituents that the well

is
dry.


When they do, they get bounced from office.


Or who say that the well is dry when it isn't.
I take issue with his assertion that we're going to vote ourselves into

debt
until we collapse under it. Not that it's untrue, but he doesn't seem to
allow for the idea that people will eventually get wise to what they're
doing TO THEMSELVES.


It allows for it, but tell me an instance when the "addicts" have ever moved
to avert the inevitiable reckoning.

Hopefully before a coup, but sometimes not. When we
taxpayers see the 30-40 percent taken off the top of our paychecks while

our
favorite programs being cut or eliminated due to lack of funds, sooner or
later we will start to wonder what exactly it is our tax dollars are being
used for. But I sure as hell don't think that anyone is going to decide

that
we'd be better off with an authoritarian government.


Why is the solution an authoritarian government. The great welfare states
have been authoritarian.



The federal budget surpluses of the 90's might save Bill
Clinton's legacy,


And who was the "fiscal power" during those surpluses?


The Republicans in the House and Senate. I didn't say it was fair.


And the Repub's only milked the booming tech sectors until the dot.com
"bubble" burst.



while George "D is for Deficit" Bush may follow his
father's economic path to onetermship.


Again, the wisdom of the "people" is apparent, especially the ones who
consistently score in the 10-20% bracket on quizzes regarding economics.

We DO value fiscal responsibility in
this here country, Jack.


And those "deficit's" you just mentioned? How about the Long Term
Liabilities (as opposed to cash/current deficit) that run into the teens

of
TRILLIONS of $$$? How 'bout that, Jack?


I'll worry about that when whoever is supposed to be collecting on it

wants
us to pay up.


Better start, because it's already beginning and it's accellerating over the
next 12-25 years. What it is is government pension funds and retirement
plans for military, civil service, Congress and and several "off budget"
programs.


Anyone who allows a multi trillion dollar debt to acumulate
against them ought to be prepared for a disappointment when they expect
payment due.


Like Social Security?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but while the economy was good and the gov't had

a
surplus, weren't we supposed to have been "paid up" within a decade or so?


One hundred forty years of deficit spending paid up in ten? All based on
five boom years? Get real!

Until Dubya decided to spread the wealth? Yeah...$300 sure bought MY
vote.....Yessir.....


Well, send it back.

We can't spend our way to prosperity anymore than we can tax out way to it.


  #18  
Old August 24th 03, 07:58 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

wrote in message ...

[snipped]

The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate with

a
private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.


You got that right, Joe. It is time to automate the ground side of the
system.


LOL, and you've got *just* the piece of automation for sale that will do the
trick, if only those dang FAA unions would get out of your way...

Chip, ZTL



  #19  
Old August 24th 03, 08:01 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

...

[snipped]

The time might be overdue for the controller workforce to negotiate

with
a
private employer rather than the FAA Administrator.


You got that right, Joe. It is time to automate the ground side of the
system.


LOL, and you've got *just* the piece of automation for sale that will do

the
trick, if only those dang FAA unions would get out of your way...


BCAG, no more is Lockmart in the way of innovation. We generally only do
the airborn side of automation and that is well along, thanks to Oz.


  #20  
Old August 24th 03, 08:31 PM
Brooks Hagenow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "PlanetJ" said:
That gives me a warm fuzzy. Knowing the separation of aircraft in IFR
weather is done by low bidder's and profit based.


Look how well deregulation worked for the electricity grid.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
"He passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when

the
platform upon which he was standing collapsed." "I thought he was hanged?"
"That's what I said, isn't it?"


Are you kidding? The electric grid is still highly regulated. And when was
the last time a power company has been able to build a new power plant or
run new high voltage power lines. All the kooks come out of the woodwork
saying the high voltage lines cause cancer, building a new nuclear plant
will lead to another Chernobyl, coal and oil plants pollute the air, and
best of all wind power farms ruin the scenery. We can't drill for oil
anywhere because they think it will turn wildlife areas into a big waist
land yet they complain about the cost of gas at the pump.

But none of that has anything to do with flying.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.