The Media Shills for User Fees

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

http://preview.tinyurl.com/35souz

http://preview.tinyurl.com/34p9ap

Huh. No mention of av-gas taxes in either of these articles, nor any
comment on what money-losers other transportation facilities like roads
are.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[John Clear]

In article <200704160759038930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
C J Campbell > wrote:
>
>Huh. No mention of av-gas taxes in either of these articles, nor any
>comment on what money-losers other transportation facilities like roads
>are.

I've seen nearly identical articles come across the newswire from
nearly every state in the past few days. It looks like the airlines'
campaign to be given the NAS has been kicked into high gear.

I saw them via the California Aviation Alliance's email newsfeed.
http://californiaaviation.org/news.htm and select Aviation News
from the left menu to see the past releases.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-16 08:52:41 -0700, (John Clear) said:

> In article <200704160759038930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> C J Campbell > wrote:
>>
>> Huh. No mention of av-gas taxes in either of these articles, nor any
>> comment on what money-losers other transportation facilities like roads
>> are.
>
> I've seen nearly identical articles come across the newswire from
> nearly every state in the past few days. It looks like the airlines'
> campaign to be given the NAS has been kicked into high gear.
>
> I saw them via the California Aviation Alliance's email newsfeed.
> http://californiaaviation.org/news.htm and select Aviation News
> from the left menu to see the past releases.
>
> John

Yeah, these are AP articles originating in San Francisco (United must
have a media flack there).

However, a lot of this stuff looks like it was prepared by the FAA.
Perhaps it is time to investigate whether any Federal tax money was
illegally used in preparing these articles.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[ktbr]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> However, a lot of this stuff looks like it was prepared by the FAA.
> Perhaps it is time to investigate whether any Federal tax money was
> illegally used in preparing these articles.
>

This pales in contrast to the billions this country spends in
other areas, the vast majority is entitlements. The rest is
boondogles, payoff's and earmarks.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>> However, a lot of this stuff looks like it was prepared by the FAA.
>> Perhaps it is time to investigate whether any Federal tax money was
>> illegally used in preparing these articles.
>>
>
> This pales in contrast to the billions this country spends in
> other areas, the vast majority is entitlements. The rest is
> boondogles, payoff's and earmarks.

What, it's only 60% of the Federal budget! :~)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html

Nice little graphic for the numerically challenged.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
> In article <200704160759038930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> C J Campbell > wrote:
>>
>>Huh. No mention of av-gas taxes in either of these articles, nor any
>>comment on what money-losers other transportation facilities like roads
>>are.
>
> I've seen nearly identical articles come across the newswire from
> nearly every state in the past few days. It looks like the airlines'
> campaign to be given the NAS has been kicked into high gear.
>

Quite...they run their businesses into the ground, so let's have them run
the NAS.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:12:33 GMT, ktbr > wrote in
>:

>
>This pales in contrast to the billions this country spends in
>other areas, the vast majority is entitlements. The rest is
>boondogles, payoff's and earmarks.


So that makes it okay then? :-(

[Steve Foley]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:200704160759038930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/35souz
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/34p9ap
>
> Huh. No mention of av-gas taxes in either of these articles, nor any
> comment on what money-losers other transportation facilities like roads
> are.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

AOPA should jump on the bandwagon and call for the immediate cancellation of
all programs at GA airports that don't benefit GA (like passenger terminals,
runway overruns), and further call for a reduction of the fuel tax due to
the 'savings'.

[ktbr]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> So that makes it okay then? :-(
>

According to the OMB the spending for airports, and
transportation projects (etc.) is about the same
percentage of the federal budget today as it was in 1956.

What has gone ballistic is entitlements.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr > wrote in
>:

>What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.

Are you able to provide any examples?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr > wrote in
> >:
>
>> What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.
>
> Are you able to provide any examples?

I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph next to the
third paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.
>>
>> Are you able to provide any examples?
>
> I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph next to
> the third paragraph.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html
Is there an echo in here?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html
> Is there an echo in here?

Great minds and all that...

[Jose]

>>>>What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you able to provide any examples?
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph next to
>>> the third paragraph.
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html
>
> Is there an echo in here?

"Beef and pork".

That is, the part of the graph that is growing is the one labled "Social
Security and other payments to individuals". This lumps together a
number of disparate items which are then inappropriately labeled
"entitlements". Social security is something that one pays into, and
one receives benefits based on what one has paid in (and when). It is a
form of insurance, albeit one that has been administered by the
government. One may just as well throw tax refunds into the "payments
to individuals" pot too!

This is different from welfare, which is simply given. Without a
breakdown as to how much each program contributes to this big category,
it is unfair to say that "entitlements have gone ballistic" based on
this graph. The article shows a Social security as the dominant form of
"payments to individuals" Medicare and medicaid =combined= equal this,
and the category "payments to the poor" is about one sixth of the total.

I don't defend the present situation, but one must be careful in the
analysis.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> Social security is something that one pays into, and
> one receives benefits based on what one has paid in (and when).

If only it was. ..

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:59:03 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>http://preview.tinyurl.com/35souz
>
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/34p9ap
>
>Huh. No mention of av-gas taxes in either of these articles, nor any
>comment on what money-losers other transportation facilities like roads
>are.

Am familiar with a local corporate flight department. They operated 2
mid-size bizjets what the NBAA considers to be the "average" number of
flight hours last year.

They paid around $65,000 in FET on fuel last year. For the airlines,
burning the same number of gallons would be around $12,000 in FET.

The really neat factoid is that over half of the $66K was "spent" at
the local FBO, which chooses NOT to file as an "aviation end user" or
whatever they call it. The way I understand the law (as of October
2005 ?) means that $30K or so in FET went into the federal highway
fund.

TC

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:45:13 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.
>>
>> Are you able to provide any examples?
>
>I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph next to the
>third paragraph.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html
>

I hope you're not suggesting that Social Security payments should be
slashed to provide more money for the military.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I hope you're not suggesting that Social Security payments should be
> slashed to provide more money for the military.

I hope you're not suggesting that as the only means of funding the military.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:45:13 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr > wrote
>>> in >:
>>>
>>>> What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.
>>>
>>> Are you able to provide any examples?
>>
>> I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph
>> next to the third paragraph.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html
>>
>
> I hope you're not suggesting that Social Security payments should be
> slashed to provide more money for the military.

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Though, I wouldn't mind having my
share of the $199billion that the poor think they are entitled to back in my
bank account.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:38:53 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>
>I hope you're not suggesting that as the only means of funding the military.

You didn't view the chart.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:43:42 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:45:13 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr > wrote
>>>> in >:
>>>>
>>>>> What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.
>>>>
>>>> Are you able to provide any examples?
>>>
>>> I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph
>>> next to the third paragraph.
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>>> dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html
>>>
>>
>> I hope you're not suggesting that Social Security payments should be
>> slashed to provide more money for the military.
>
>I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Though, I wouldn't mind having my
>share of the $199billion that the poor think they are entitled to back in my
>bank account.
>

Have you ever stopped to consider the horrendous effect failure to
provide the indigent and their dependent children with the health care
and other necessities of life might precipitate? Would you rather
wade through infectious derelicts as you walk to the office, read of
the sharp increase in crimes of desperation, not to mention suffering
the guilt of failing to act humanly toward your more unfortunate
fellows? I hope you don't think there won't be unpleasant
consequences if fundamental assistance weren't provided the poor. (In
the case of those who failed to comply with US immigration laws to
gain admittance to the US, the picture is considerably less clear.)

[Jose]

> (In
> the case of those who failed to comply with US immigration laws to
> gain admittance to the US, the picture is considerably less clear.)

Why is it less clear? Infectious diseases don't discriminate, crimes of
desperation occur on both sides of the fence, and acting humanely
includes all people. If the picture is less clear, then it must be for
other reasons.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:56:55 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> (In
>> the case of those who failed to comply with US immigration laws to
>> gain admittance to the US, the picture is considerably less clear.)
>
>Why is it less clear? Infectious diseases don't discriminate, crimes of
>desperation occur on both sides of the fence, and acting humanely
>includes all people. If the picture is less clear, then it must be for
>other reasons.


I haven't fully formed an opinion about this yet, but rather than
subsidizing persons who have chosen to ignore US immigration laws and
thus committed a felony to gain access to this nation, it might be
more reasonable to arrest them or deport them.

[Jose]

> I haven't fully formed an opinion about this yet, but rather than
> subsidizing persons who have chosen to ignore US immigration laws and
> thus committed a felony to gain access to this nation, it might be
> more reasonable to arrest them or deport them.

Perhaps. It's our country - we stole it fair and square. :)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:43:42 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:45:13 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:05 GMT, ktbr >
>>>>> wrote in >:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What has gone ballistic is [sic] entitlements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you able to provide any examples?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if ktbr can but I'll be happy to. Look at the graph
>>>> next to the third paragraph.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>>>> dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> I hope you're not suggesting that Social Security payments should be
>>> slashed to provide more money for the military.
>>
>> I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Though, I wouldn't mind
>> having my share of the $199billion that the poor think they are
>> entitled to back in my bank account.
>>
>
> Have you ever stopped to consider the horrendous effect failure to
> provide the indigent and their dependent children with the health care
> and other necessities of life might precipitate? Would you rather
> wade through infectious derelicts as you walk to the office, read of
> the sharp increase in crimes of desperation, not to mention suffering
> the guilt of failing to act humanly toward your more unfortunate
> fellows? I hope you don't think there won't be unpleasant
> consequences if fundamental assistance weren't provided the poor. (In
> the case of those who failed to comply with US immigration laws to
> gain admittance to the US, the picture is considerably less clear.)


Have you ever stopped to consider that the exponentially growing cost of
providing for the indigent simply makes more people indigent?

Have you ever stopped to consider that the people of the US are arguably the
most charitable people in the world and we might just help these people much
more cost effectively if the government didn't tax us so much.

Have you ever stopped to consider that if the government is going to give
these people money out of the pockets of those that actually work that it
might not be a bad idea to stop motivating them to have more out of wedlock
children.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:17:07 -0400, Jose >
wrote in >:

>It's our country - we stole it fair and square.

That argument can be made for virtually any country which is not
governed by the indigenous people who initially occupied that land.
Take Mexico and its Spanish heritage for instance ... It was "stolen
fair and square" from its indigenous people. However, it is primarily
those with some Spanish heritage who are flooding across US borders
not the indigenous people.

If immigrants to the US choose to commit felony offences by emigrating
without proper US documentation as a type of insurrection or political
statement, their cause loses credibility as a result of their failure
to recognize the rule of law. Peaceful change should come from within
the system by people who demonstrate their respect for justice and due
process. Those who find it more expedient to violate the law of the
land for political reasons deserve the treatment befitting any traitor
or foreign combatant. After all, they are not refugees, but
opportunists.

But you don't really want to hash this out here do you? I know I
don't.

[Jose]

> That argument can be made for virtually any country which is not
> governed by the indigenous people who initially occupied that land.

Right... which makes the "righteous" part of righteous indignation sort
of weak.

> If immigrants to the US choose to commit felony offences by emigrating...
> [...they] deserve the treatment befitting any traitor
> or foreign combatant.

Those are mighty strong words. The laws are made by people; they can
make any laws they want but that doesn't make them just laws.

> Peaceful change should come from within the system

Immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are not within the system to begin with.

> But you don't really want to hash this out here do you? I know I
> don't.

No, not really. I haven't made my mind up either, but when I do, I know
I'll be right. :)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote

> Have you ever stopped to consider that if the government is going to give
> these people money out of the pockets of those that actually work that it
> might not be a bad idea to stop motivating them to have more out of
> wedlock children.

There also needs to be workfare; you only get money if you are working on
some program, to the fullest of your ability.
--
Jim in NC