Control Tower Controversy brewing in the FAA

David....remember that there is an election coming up in 2004.

Bob Gardner

"David H" wrote in message
...
Will Alaska (and other states with votes that the administration thinks
they can woo) also get an exemption from the recent legislation that
specifies that seafood inspectors are "inherantly governmental" and thus
can't be privatized?

The Bush administration sure does seem to have a major bug up its ass
about forcing ATC privatization - WHY? At the same time they're
declaring things like seafood inspectors are inherantly governmental
(not to mention those federal employees who screen baggage for nail
clippers). There's something here that doesn't quite add up. They seem
really, really intent on pushing ATC privatization. What's really
behind this?

Who stands to gain from ATC privatization? Are there major businesses
that do this now, and others that are quietly preparing to pick up some
fat federal ATC contracts? Do these companies have any connection to
the white house and friends?

"Follow the money...."

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:dvS1b.237758$YN5.161014@sccrnsc01...
David....remember that there is an election coming up in 2004.

Bob Gardner

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.

"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

"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?

--
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.....

"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.

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

Degenerated? I always thought democracy was the better of the two. At least
it always was through all those games of Civ.


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?

I don't know offhand. Germany's democracy after the third reich, I suspect,
was different than before. I would guess that the second incarnation of
democracy either gave more power to the individual, or more to the state,
depending on the particular case.

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.

I disagree.

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.

I definitely disagree. At least the time it takes for them to get bounced
needs improvement.


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.

The American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea,
Vietnam.......


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

Disagree here as well. If congress really could move that fast on a sudden
economic trend, we really would be in good shape.


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?

Bingo! Not what I was referring to, but that wasn't an unexpected answer. It
WILL be interesting to see how administrations handle that big hand grenade,
won't it?


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

I don't think that's accurate. We haven't been in deficit spending for 140
years, number one. Number two, projected budget surpluses only a few years
ago were in the hundreds of billions, and growing. Even with debt in the
teens of trillions, 10 years at that rate of surplus isn't far out of the
ballpark. The light was at the end of the tunnel, until the Great Giveaway.


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.

On that, I agree.