Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 pm
The Airlines have been lobbying hard this past year to shift some of their costs to General Aviation.
Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:34 pm
That might mean more flights in smaller aircraft. Maybe our smaller airports will benefit from this?
Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:44 pm
I personally don't mind user fees, but not the kind the government is talking about. Those are just new names for taxes!
If I want a weather report, I'll gladly pay for it. Just don't tax my gas for all the weather reports I won't need when all I have to do is look out the window when I go for a local flight. When the government weather report gets too expensive, private companies will spring up with lower cost services every bit as good or better.
My point is that user fees should be charged at the point of use, not through a gas tax slush fund where the individual users can't make their own decision if a given service is worthwhile or not or look for alternatives. Slush funds are great for bureaucrats who can make a living from deciding how to allocate funding amongst their friends. Not very good however for the efficient use of money to provide effective services.
Who needs an ELT when you can have OnStar?
If I want a weather report, I'll gladly pay for it. Just don't tax my gas for all the weather reports I won't need when all I have to do is look out the window when I go for a local flight. When the government weather report gets too expensive, private companies will spring up with lower cost services every bit as good or better.
My point is that user fees should be charged at the point of use, not through a gas tax slush fund where the individual users can't make their own decision if a given service is worthwhile or not or look for alternatives. Slush funds are great for bureaucrats who can make a living from deciding how to allocate funding amongst their friends. Not very good however for the efficient use of money to provide effective services.
Who needs an ELT when you can have OnStar?
Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:16 pm
Connery wrote:With the Democrats controlling Congress, I seriously doubt anything President Bush proposes will pass.
Roger that, that's what I see as well......
Lynn
Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:27 am
Unless it has to do with a tax increase, or similar. The they can get on TV and say the "rich" are not paying their fair share. Look at the recent census figures. Almost 50% are getting Gov't assistance. The "producers" cannot support many more "consumers".
In Ohio they are putting up signs to encourage people to call an 800 number to turn in smokers at bars, restaurants, public areas. I know that is the law (this non-smoker voted against as I felt personal rights were being infringed), but this is just too close to becomeing Germany 1939 or the old USSR where people were encouraged by the "law" (and rewarded) to turn in their fellow citizens.
Sorry to get out the old soap box, but I truely feel we are headed away from the vision of the founding fathers toward the vision of Lenin and Marx. I put forth the proof right from the mouth of Senator Clinton.
In Ohio they are putting up signs to encourage people to call an 800 number to turn in smokers at bars, restaurants, public areas. I know that is the law (this non-smoker voted against as I felt personal rights were being infringed), but this is just too close to becomeing Germany 1939 or the old USSR where people were encouraged by the "law" (and rewarded) to turn in their fellow citizens.
Sorry to get out the old soap box, but I truely feel we are headed away from the vision of the founding fathers toward the vision of Lenin and Marx. I put forth the proof right from the mouth of Senator Clinton.
Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:44 am
Just ask the question, do you want the fighting in Iraq or the USA. I know how I would anwser that. Europe has a lot of problems of their own making.
Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:00 am
Stoney wrote:Just ask the question, do you want the fighting in Iraq or the USA. I know how I would anwser that. Europe has a lot of problems of their own making.
Ahhh yes...the classic line of "if we don't fight them over there...we'll be fightin them here in the streets of America!".
No offense but I've gotta call you on this one.
So according to your above statement, if we hadn't have invaded Iraq...we might've instead been fighting them (Iraqi's) here in the streets of America?
While the Bush adminstration loves to perpetuate that myth most Americans have finally awoken to the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda and had no active WMD program.
John
Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:40 am
Stoney wrote:Just ask the question, do you want the fighting in Iraq or the USA. I know how I would anwser that. Europe has a lot of problems of their own making.
Maybe all the money being spent over there could be spent doing things that actually contribute to the security of our borders... and taking care of those who are already illegally here.
Ryan
money
Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:42 pm
Ryan, do you mean you think we could just possibly find better uses for the $500 million(oops slip of the pen) that's $500 billion, headed to $700 billion that we are spending on George's glorious adventure? Those pansy Dems might waste it on something like curing kids cancer, nothing manly about that. Unless Haliburton gets in the cancer business I don't think Republicans are going to be anxious to fund that. There is a charity group in Denver that I have done a little with. In 4 years they have raised $300,000 for research on the worst types of kid's cancer and raised the survival rate from about 15% to 60%. No cool uniforms or flight decks though.
Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:53 pm
A famous quote from our "edjumacated" president:
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." — George W. Bush, Jan. 2001.
What's really scary is that this little adventure in Iraq will almost certainly exceed the cost of the Vietnam war once everything is all said and done. The estimated costs of the Vietnam War is around $600 billion while the Iraq war is projected to surpass over $700 billion!
Keep in mind also that the Vietnam war lasted for 8 years...compared to 4 years so far for Iraq.
Another interesting fact:
The US budget for Iraq in FY 2006 comes to $3,749/Iraqi. This is more than double their per person GDP. It's like spending $91,000 per person in the US. (Why not just bribe the whole country?)
The Pentagon's estimate of their monthly "burn rate" is about $6.8 Billion/month now, but it excludes funds for military equipment etc.
John
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." — George W. Bush, Jan. 2001.
What's really scary is that this little adventure in Iraq will almost certainly exceed the cost of the Vietnam war once everything is all said and done. The estimated costs of the Vietnam War is around $600 billion while the Iraq war is projected to surpass over $700 billion!
Keep in mind also that the Vietnam war lasted for 8 years...compared to 4 years so far for Iraq.
Another interesting fact:
The US budget for Iraq in FY 2006 comes to $3,749/Iraqi. This is more than double their per person GDP. It's like spending $91,000 per person in the US.
(Why not just bribe the whole country?)
The Pentagon's estimate of their monthly "burn rate" is about $6.8 Billion/month now, but it excludes funds for military equipment etc.
John
Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:16 pm
Have any of you read "The Art of War" by Sun Su (SP?)? He laid out taking the battle to the enemy long ago. Fight on your terms, at the place and time of your choosing. That is how you win a war.
That is one of the reasons to be in Iraq, the place and time of our choosing.
That is one of the reasons to be in Iraq, the place and time of our choosing.
Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:53 pm
oscardeuce wrote:Have any of you read "The Art of War" by Sun Su (SP?)? He laid out taking the battle to the enemy long ago. Fight on your terms, at the place and time of your choosing. That is how you win a war.
That is one of the reasons to be in Iraq, the place and time of our choosing.
No...I haven't read it and I'm sure our illustrious president hasn't read it either (proabably not enough pictures in it
)
John
Re: money
Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:55 pm
Since when is it a responsibilty of the government to cure cancer?Bill Greenwood wrote:Those pansy Dems might waste it on something like curing kids cancer...
I can't think of a worse/slower way to accomplish that goal then to have the government do it! So you want to make the American Cancer Society obsolete?Are the Vietnam figures adjusted for today's dollars? What is the source of that figure?jpeters wrote:The estimated costs of the Vietnam War is around $600 billion while the Iraq war is projected to surpass over $700 billion!
Re: money
Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:12 pm
bdk wrote:Are the Vietnam figures adjusted for today's dollars? What is the source of that figure?jpeters wrote:The estimated costs of the Vietnam War is around $600 billion while the Iraq war is projected to surpass over $700 billion!
The figures are adjusted for inflation. The link below from a Washington Post article dated 8/27/06 says:
"When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01601.html
Keep in mind this includes the costs of Afghanistan as well (which is a fraction compared with Iraq). However, the projected overall costs for Iraq is expected to reach beyond $700 billion by most estimates I've read. If you take a long-term approach and factor in the hidden costs of replacing worn out vehicles & equipment and the long-term VA care for wounded vets the price tag estimate could even reach $1 trillion!!!!
John
Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:16 pm
A couple more famous quotes to share:
"The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years?We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]
"Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." - White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 2/18/03
"The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years?We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]
"Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." - White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 2/18/03