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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I only flew 150 hours last year.
I used an airport maintained (even partially) by taxpayers 3 times. I used no navaids. I'd say I didn't get my money's worth. ticle , xyzzy wrote: What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that makes flying economically feasible and what is the source? Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of? Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on? Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us 24/7? etc. etc. If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I learned a long time ago not to open my mouth on usenet, you'd think I
would have remembered. In the interest of bandwidth I at least removed ..ifr and .owning from this conversation. Otis Winslow wrote: Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't managed to earn and have much. If you read my message carefully you will not find that I "always feel guilty", nor that I want to take anything away from anyone. In true usenet style I suppose I should counter with "why do Conservatives always spout off like arrogant pricks about how much they have and how much they deserve it?" But that is impossible, since I know and respect many conservative-minded people who DON'T feel or act that way. I'm not complaining about what I have, but I'm also not claiming that I have singular right to it. Maybe I should put it this way, and then shut up and let the spouters have their fling. Rant on, flame away, I'm going away after this. When I voted against Reagan in 84, I ended up with a record-breaking deficit, guaranteeing higher taxes in the future. There were also cuts in my extended family's health care and social services, and a vast outpouring of mentally ill homeless people onto the streets. Curiously, that same extended family continue to vote Republican, though they are hard pressed to explain why. When I voted against the older Bush in 88, I ended up with even more deficit spending, my friends going to war and dying over the rights to cheap oil even though pump prices hit all-time highs, and drug and weapons dealing in the absolute upper echelon of the government that I pay for. Was anyone impeached? Hell, hands were not even slapped. When I voted for Clinton, I ended up with eight years of slightly higher taxes, a COMPLETE turnaround of deficit spending culminating in a record *surplus*. It helped that business and real estate were both booming at the time, but it also helped that he managed the boom wisely and hired good people to give him advice. I saw my taxes climb 3%. I was willing to spend that kind of money for what I, my family and friends, and my country got for it. Now that the younger Bush is in office, more of my friends are overseas, and though fewer are dying, more are being forced to work in dangerous conditions (like asbestos removal) without adequate safety equipment, more are having their tours extended unreasonably. Taxes are lower for those making six figures or better, but for those in lower brackets conditions are worse than ever---taxes unchanged, services cut. Bush is a bumbling idiot. Most if not all of my conservative friends are voting for Kerry just to get the guy out of office. He has made life in this country difficult unilaterally, and the ultra-partisan congress has not helped. Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their own stuff. For what it's worth, I worked hard for my things as well, from a poor midwest farm family to a manager in a high-tech company. But I'm not fooling myself with someone else's scare tactics. No one is trying to give my stuff to someone else, or yours either. Social services are not for weak idiots, they are for people with less. It's called charity, and it is supposedly a Christian ideal. More flame bait: Has anyone else noticed that the majority of conservatives tend to be Christian, yet the conservative ideal is completely ANTI-Christian? Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff. Government has no right to *take* anything. Don't forget that we have hired them to run our large organization. They are not an evil entity that we must appease, they are our EMPLOYEES, and it is our responsibility to keep an eye on them. The republican administrations over the past twenty years have taken far more out of our pockets and away from our families---in form of our kids going off to war to feed their special interests. If you are worried about someone playing Robin Hood, look deeper than what you see on TV---the current administration is stealing you BLIND. They are ****ing down your back and telling you it is raining. They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals. HAHAHHAA.. okay, now I'm off my soapbox. It's tough to argue with that kind of one-toothed logic. Musky pro stuff, pro defensive military, ANTI aggressive military and ANTI right-wing conservative scare-tactic bull**** |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article , xyzzy
wrote: What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that makes flying economically feasible and what is the source? Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of? Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on? Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us 24/7? etc. etc. If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself. If you think we need full strength 7000' runways for a cessna 150, then you are seriously fooling yourself. If you think we need 150' wide runways for a cessna 150, then you are seriously fooling yourself. If you think we need a full time control tower at most of our fields, then you are seriously fooling yourself. If you think we need radar coverage over (almost) all of CONUS, then you are seriously fooling yourself. You might want to consider how much money would be saved by the FAA if tiny GA airplanes were to disappear. -- Bob Noel |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Musky
wrote: I learned a long time ago not to open my mouth on usenet, you'd think I would have remembered. In the interest of bandwidth I at least removed .ifr and .owning from this conversation. [snip] When I voted against Reagan in 84, I ended up with a record-breaking deficit, guaranteeing higher taxes in the future. soapbox one of these days people are going to learn which branch of government is responsible for what. (Hint: Congress appropriates money). If you didn't like the deficit budgets, then you should be whining to the congress critters that appropriated (iirc) $1.79 for every additional $1 that came in. /soapbox -- Bob Noel |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"xyzzy" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message ... Sounds to me like pilots are a lot like farmers, sqawking for the gumbit to cut their taxes and stay out of their "self-reliant" way, while refusing to acknowledge (even to themselves) the massive government spending, protection, and subsidies that make their activity economically feasible. What is this massive government spending, protection, and subsidy that makes flying economically feasible and what is the source? Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of? I do. Private, public access airport. Has never received a dime of government money but does pay massive amounts of taxes. The vast majority of airports I use are private, public acess airports. Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on? I have no use for them. Get rid of them far as I am concerned. Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us 24/7? I have no use for them and very, very, very seldom make use of them. They could go away as far as I am concerned. Mostly they get in my way. etc. etc. If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself. I get back almost no services for the fuel taxes I pay. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Otis Winslow" wrote in message .. . Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't managed to earn and have much. There was a time when I didn't have anything. I worked hard and now I have things. I want to keep them. They're mine. I don't want Liberals to play Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their own stuff. Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff. They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals. The very guiltless and Libertarian Otis W. Didja ever notice how liberals are more than willing to take other peoples assets and redistribute them but are more than willing to keep their assets to themselves. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message m... Didja ever notice how liberals are more than willing to take other peoples assets and redistribute them but are more than willing to keep their assets to themselves. And the "conservatives" are different, how? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Wow, a political post on RAP I actually agree with. I may have to print and
frame... Michael "Musky" wrote in message ... I learned a long time ago not to open my mouth on usenet, you'd think I would have remembered. In the interest of bandwidth I at least removed .ifr and .owning from this conversation. Otis Winslow wrote: Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't managed to earn and have much. If you read my message carefully you will not find that I "always feel guilty", nor that I want to take anything away from anyone. In true usenet style I suppose I should counter with "why do Conservatives always spout off like arrogant pricks about how much they have and how much they deserve it?" But that is impossible, since I know and respect many conservative-minded people who DON'T feel or act that way. I'm not complaining about what I have, but I'm also not claiming that I have singular right to it. Maybe I should put it this way, and then shut up and let the spouters have their fling. Rant on, flame away, I'm going away after this. When I voted against Reagan in 84, I ended up with a record-breaking deficit, guaranteeing higher taxes in the future. There were also cuts in my extended family's health care and social services, and a vast outpouring of mentally ill homeless people onto the streets. Curiously, that same extended family continue to vote Republican, though they are hard pressed to explain why. When I voted against the older Bush in 88, I ended up with even more deficit spending, my friends going to war and dying over the rights to cheap oil even though pump prices hit all-time highs, and drug and weapons dealing in the absolute upper echelon of the government that I pay for. Was anyone impeached? Hell, hands were not even slapped. When I voted for Clinton, I ended up with eight years of slightly higher taxes, a COMPLETE turnaround of deficit spending culminating in a record *surplus*. It helped that business and real estate were both booming at the time, but it also helped that he managed the boom wisely and hired good people to give him advice. I saw my taxes climb 3%. I was willing to spend that kind of money for what I, my family and friends, and my country got for it. Now that the younger Bush is in office, more of my friends are overseas, and though fewer are dying, more are being forced to work in dangerous conditions (like asbestos removal) without adequate safety equipment, more are having their tours extended unreasonably. Taxes are lower for those making six figures or better, but for those in lower brackets conditions are worse than ever---taxes unchanged, services cut. Bush is a bumbling idiot. Most if not all of my conservative friends are voting for Kerry just to get the guy out of office. He has made life in this country difficult unilaterally, and the ultra-partisan congress has not helped. Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their own stuff. For what it's worth, I worked hard for my things as well, from a poor midwest farm family to a manager in a high-tech company. But I'm not fooling myself with someone else's scare tactics. No one is trying to give my stuff to someone else, or yours either. Social services are not for weak idiots, they are for people with less. It's called charity, and it is supposedly a Christian ideal. More flame bait: Has anyone else noticed that the majority of conservatives tend to be Christian, yet the conservative ideal is completely ANTI-Christian? Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff. Government has no right to *take* anything. Don't forget that we have hired them to run our large organization. They are not an evil entity that we must appease, they are our EMPLOYEES, and it is our responsibility to keep an eye on them. The republican administrations over the past twenty years have taken far more out of our pockets and away from our families---in form of our kids going off to war to feed their special interests. If you are worried about someone playing Robin Hood, look deeper than what you see on TV---the current administration is stealing you BLIND. They are ****ing down your back and telling you it is raining. They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals. HAHAHHAA.. okay, now I'm off my soapbox. It's tough to argue with that kind of one-toothed logic. Musky pro stuff, pro defensive military, ANTI aggressive military and ANTI right-wing conservative scare-tactic bull**** |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Snip
Bush is a bumbling idiot. Most if not all of my conservative friends are voting for Kerry just to get the guy out of office. He has made life in this country difficult unilaterally, and the ultra-partisan congress has not helped. So tell me Mr. Musky, what is it YOU like so much about John Kerry? Tell me about all the wonderful qualities that make him qualified to be the leader of the free world................ Tell me about all of the hypocrisy he is going to eventually have to explain away if his friends in the media actually decide to do their jobs before the election. Tell me about his purported running mate...the socialist former Whitehouse resident, now carpetbagger Senator from New York. Oops...maybe you might not want to criticize her too much...people that have been critical of her have a bad habit of show up at room temperature. I truly hope you libs keep underestimating the President, and keep calling him a "bumbling idiot"...keep looking down your pointy noses at the man...keep trotting out the "smarter-than-thou" dandies from the freakshow you call the Democratic Party. Your just making the re-election campaign easier. Who are the ultra-partisans in congress...what do you think of the recent remarks by the senior Senator (say hypocrite Kennedy) from Mass? How about the recent comments/attack by the former Senator from Nebraska when addressing Ms. Rice in front of the "Non-Partisan" 9-11 commission. How do you like La La Pelosi's position on the military?...on gay marriage? bty I call bullsh!t on the above statement. No true conservative would ever vote for the most flamingly liberal candidate we have seen since Michael Dukakis. Your "conservative friends" appear to have very little conviction...or could it be they really are liberals masquerading as conservatives? Musky pro stuff, pro defensive military, ANTI aggressive military What the hell does that mean. You would like to have a nice shinny military we can parade around on national holidays, but never use? How does a "defensive" military protect this population from terrorists? Is that where we just wait and see if those nasty old terrorist kill more of us... maybe then we could have that great bastion of liberalism, the United Nations, pass another resolution damning their actions. NO dummy...you take the fight to them just like our president is doing...and just like many Democrats talked about doing in the former administration but never had the balls to take decisive action. It is truly amazing that all of those big talkers back then are now giving aid and comfort to the enemy now by attempting to undermine the credibility of Commander in Chief. Here is a news flash for you....they declared war on us a long time ago...we are at war whether you and your buddies like it or not. Your hero (the president that benefited from Reagan's policies, economic and foreign, that allowed for the prosperity of the 1990's) chose legal action rather than military action...hence the attacks of 9-11. One would think you pacifists would actually study history...your theories and positions have never...ever worked. I would prefer not to be conquered...unlike your brethren in places like France...I like being the one passing out the bloody noses, not the one taking the beating. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
xyzzy wrote: Who pays to build and maintain all those airports we fly out of? Most of the ones I fly out of are privately built and owned. Who pays to build and maintain all the navaids we depend on? Buddy, I can do without them if the Feds would free up the airspace and go away. Who pays for all those air traffic controllers that are available for us 24/7? I don't use them. If you honestly think the user fees you pay in taxes on your 100LL cover the cost of your use of this stuff, you are seriously fooling yourself. Bull****. George Patterson This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
Pilot's Political Orientation | Chicken Bone | Owning | 314 | June 21st 04 06:10 PM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |