Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:

No one wonders what Obama's position is?

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

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:57:53 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:

No one wonders what Obama's position is?


Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
Bush's?

On Jun 30, 11:16*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
Bush's?

I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera wrote:

Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
Bush's?

I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.

As far as the user fees debate goes, someone is going to pay for aviation.
The only question is who that someone is going to be.

McCain heavily supports user fees, period.

As far as taxes in general goes, NOT paying taxes is more crippling. Almost
8 years of failed supply-side, borrow-and-spend policies have without
question crippled this nation.

On Jun 30, 12:19*pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ...
As far as the user fees debate goes, someone is going to pay for aviation.
The only question is who that someone is going to be.

We're paying for it now (including an aviation fund surplus) so I
guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.


McCain heavily supports user fees, period.

As far as taxes in general goes, NOT paying taxes is more crippling. *Almost
8 years of failed supply-side, borrow-and-spend policies have without
question crippled this nation.

Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
economics.

-Robert, MBA

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
economics.

-Robert, MBA

Aw, Christ. Not only a Calfornian, but an MBA. They know EVERYTHING.

"The criticism we hear most has to do with arrogance," says Bill
Boulding, associate dean for the daytime MBA Program at Duke
University's Fuqua School of Business, "essentially that students leave
MBA programs thinking they should be CEO and tell everyone what to do
when in fact they may not even be prepared to do the job they've taken.""

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n21067809



:P


-c

On Jun 30, 1:19*pm, gatt wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, "Mike" wrote:
Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
economics.

-Robert, MBA

Aw, Christ. *Not only a Calfornian, but an MBA. *They know EVERYTHING.

"The criticism we hear most has to do with arrogance," says Bill
Boulding, associate dean for the daytime MBA Program at Duke
University's Fuqua School of Business, "essentially that students leave
MBA programs thinking they should be CEO and tell everyone what to do
when in fact they may not even be prepared to do the job they've taken.""

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n21067809

:P

Oh good. You didn't have a response so you came back with a non-
sequitur argument.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
...
As far as the user fees debate goes, someone is going to pay for
aviation.
The only question is who that someone is going to be.

We're paying for it now (including an aviation fund surplus) so I
guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.

That would be a poor guess.

But since you care to guess my views on the subject, I'll take a crack at
yours. You apparently support McCain. McCain supports user fees. So I
guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.

Furthermore, your attempts at twisting your political views towards the
subject of aviation are truly pathetic. McCain heavily supports user fees,
period. His record and statements are quite clear on the subject.

McCain heavily supports user fees, period.

As far as taxes in general goes, NOT paying taxes is more crippling.
Almost
8 years of failed supply-side, borrow-and-spend policies have without
question crippled this nation.

Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
economics.

-Robert, MBA

What's more conservative than balancing the budget?

I should have known you're a fake conservative with a limited knowledge of
economics, regardless of whatever unverifiable credentials you care to
flaunt.

On Jun 30, 1:39*pm, "Mike" wrote:

We're paying for it now (including an aviation fund surplus) so I
guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.

That would be a poor guess.

You really need to educate yourself on the subject of GA funding. If
you did you would realize that GA pays more in tax than we get from
the system. Those that say we are not don't realize that a Cessna uses
less services than a 747. In anycase, fuel tax is easier and cheaper
to collect than reading credit card numbers over the air. Not sure if
you are actually interested in facts though, its not clear from your
post.

But since you care to guess my views on the subject, I'll take a crack at
yours. *You apparently support McCain. *McCain supports user fees. *So I
guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.

I don't recall saying that. I'm voting for John Galt.


-Robert

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:19:30 GMT, "Mike" wrote
in 6laak.144$Ae3.138@trnddc05:

As far as the user fees debate goes, someone is going to pay for aviation.
The only question is who that someone is going to be.


It would seem to me, that if the tax to fund ATC were based _solely_
on aviation fuel purchases, only those who fly or ship freight would
be paying it (with the possible exceptions of the military, gliders,
airships, balloons, and aircraft with a MoGas STC). The tax could be
collected from the producer/refiner, so that there are far fewer bills
to manage than if it were levied on a per-ATC-use basis. What could
be more equitable? The ATC tax would be levied against those who use
ATC services commensurate with their usage. Air carrier ticket tax is
not equitable, for example, because a dead-heading airline flight pays
no tax but still uses ATC services.

In any event, I'm happy to hear that Bush's advisors want to apply
user fees to military ATC usage, for that is what is intimated in the
phrase "everyone talking to ATC."