Discussion in 'General Topics' started by hook_dupin, Mar 15, 2017.
Until the rise of the megacities.
Choices? You speak of the recent wars of choice, no doubt. I completely agree; Choices need to be made. Wars of Choice... or EAS, Healthcare, Education, AND Border Protection, for instance. That would be a choice. Science or Magic... that would be another choice, but one too nuanced for an internet forum.
Number one cause of pilot fatalities in Alaska.
Very true. These days, those people are called "Mexicans".
I've gotten the impression you were in favor of privatized ATC. Not so?
I think he was getting at this:
Pretty typical, singular topic ad hominem from this particular poster, but at least he's consistent. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.
Larry- I offer that killing EAS has never been politically feasible. There's a reason the program is 40 years old.
It's like farm subsidies and highway construction. The budget fights are usually defense vs social programs. Nobody touches the highway bill.
I mean, I'm not even sure this is true. I mean, does the debt "need" to be reduced? I would think so...but geopolitics and macro-economics is tricky, sometimes things that apply to households don't necessary apply to nation states. I'm inclined to think that debt is bad...but most of the links I can find are ideologically motivated.
That's mail - the post office has killed more pilots than al queda...
The average joe titling himself as a deficit hawk is about as hilarious as a Subway sandwich "artist" paranoid about the sun going supernova.
Debt is not in its self bad, in fact most countries have some level of it due to the exacting nature of non budgeted discretionary spending.
Unchecked growth of debt and spending however are bad. Eventually you will reach a point of insolvency, and unless everybody else magically wakes up the same day in the same place and says "ok all is forgiven" that's a bad place to be. Eventually at the growing rate Debt outstrips GDP in interest payments to keep it from growing exponentially and at that point you are quite simply beyond the point of no return. Being that we are the big fish in the pond economically it's not like there will be anybody to bail us out as there is with smaller countries who don't impact the world wide economy with anywhere near the force we do (Greece for example).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am in favor of a safe system, NATCA members see no change in their bargaining rights or contract, and that Part 135 and Corporate General Aviation Operators start paying their fair share to use the system.
What I am getting at is that there are A LOT of folks out there with a love affair for Trump flying at these Part 135 and Corporate Aviation Operators who are going to be hurt more so by the privatization of ATC than I will be.
Also, just because there is a majority in this country, or someone gets more votes, doesn't mean they end up winning.
I would say that there are two reasons that EAS is 40 years old. Hook and I agree that it is politically tough to kill. The other is that it really does serve a purpose in our country. Some on this board either haven't experienced it at its best, or live in Mega-City One and just don't get that America is strongest because it is so many different things in one. That is somewhat akin to believing that the Majors should take over all flying, and that Regionals have no right to exist. Camels don't back up easily, and getting that nose entirely out of the tent is damn near impossible.
What is possible is removing the most egregious problems, and I submit that EAS has been tweaked and tweaked to cure *some* of those. Ditto farm subsidies, bridges to nowhere, expensive heated bus kiosks in Alaska, $10,000 military toilet seats (Home Depot supplies me, at $2.99 per), social program eligibility & fraud, and more.
I think debt-to-GDP ratio is the smartest way to talk about debt as opposed to an actual measure of the size of the debt. If we smartly take on debt to finance policies that grow the economy at a greater rate than the interest rate, then we've won. The opposite that @Lawman points out as well: we can spend not as wisely and invest in areas that don't grow the GDP and hence increase the debt burden.
That's a hard argument to make politically, though. It just gets translated into "I want to grow the debt!"
I'm far from an economist, but I do understand that national debt takes interest monies away from other government programs, present or future. Plus, like a family, more debt equals higher interest you'll have to pay to borrow more money (since that theoretically means that you're at higher risk of default). For a country, like a household, certain debts are considered more acceptable. Buying houses, cars - good. Debt-funded luxuries less so.
Higher-debt economies are more sluggish, with business and industry spending down, employment either decreasing or increasing more slowly. Higher-debt families can't spend as much because more money is going towards interest payments.
Presidents (and Congresses) on both sides of the political spectrum, have reduced the national debt, and at other times, have raised it. Somehow, the Democrats do more reducing, the Republicans do more raising, but I think the latter is just because some of their programs cost more, or new monies. I haven't done any research to back this up, so others may have other findings.
Political rhetoric on one side: Reduce Spending, Lower Your Taxes. The other: My Spending Bill is good for the country because it provides Governmental services you need, and Cures Today's Popular Problems.
Im all for a balanced budget and responsible government spending (if that exists) however I have a problem when they start taking an axe to everything and claim they are balancing the budget yet they are building a 12 billion $ + border wall and Trump racking up an incredible bill on travel and security.
Start to ?
Sigh....have you ever worked in the agriculture field in your life? Ever seen the show Dirty Jobs.
Yes, there are Mexicans who work in the fields. There are also Whites, Asians, Blacks, Browns, people of pretty much every single color of the spectrum.
I think some of you need to go spend some time outside of the city and see how the real world works. City folk sure are an entitled bunch. You just expect that food you eat to appear magically and think the people who willingly choose to live away from the city and work in an agricultural environment are just stupid hicks.
You would be very wrong. The guy/gal who raised that steak you had for dinner last week has a LOT of science education starting in primary school. Many have masters in animal husbandry. How about that spinach salad wrap you had between turns. That guy/gal who manages the farm where that spinach was grown most likely has an agriculture degree and has a better understanding of math than most pilots do. These people work hard and do so knowing that they contribute more to society than most "city folk" combined.
You go ahead and try to fill the bellies of your local big city on what you can grow and raise in and around the city limits and tell me how well that worked out for you. I am willing to bet there are a lot of starving people towards the end.
Just sayin, Alabama enacted tough illegal immigrant laws. Illegal immigrants left Alabama. Roughly 50% of Alabamas crops rotted in the fields due to lack of people to pick them. (None of this is related to EAS. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion one way or the other)
Separate names with a comma.