Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: More proof of who runs the US government. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So the sequester cut spending across the board and the first thing they try to fix is the FAA (actually the 2nd, I think they also reduced the effect the sequester had on defense budgets). One of the few parts of the government that directly provides services to the wealthiest Americans. I was watching CNBC a few days back and they were ranting about how the government just had to fix funding for the FAA. And what happens just a few days later... bam, a bill gets passed. Our government running like clockwork to serve the needs to the rich.

Unemployment benefits, Head Start, FDA food inspections, National Science Foundation, funding for public defenders... who cares about any of that? Oh right... the poor, we don't care about them.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Congresspeople are some of the biggest frequent fliers. Of course they're going to change things that hurt them personally.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
If they were truly serving the people who fly a lot, they'd have just cut funding for the FAA entirely and let the market run it.

That's insane and would be a chaotic mess.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
If they were truly serving the people who fly a lot, they'd have just cut funding for the FAA entirely and let the market run it.

That's insane and would be a chaotic mess.


Now, now - I'm sure the price premium to get access to airports that had proper lighting and are less likely to have you crash while landing would still be affordable to at least 5% of the population.

And meanwhile, think of all the cost savings the poorest 95% of the population would be able to enjoy! I mean, sure, maybe 13 times more flights might be crashing, but if you do survive the trip, just think how much you will have saved!

Ah, unsupervised capitalism. The sales! The cost-cutting opportunities!! THE PROFITS!!! It works so great in Russia - we should totally try that, here.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
while we are at it why dont we take lowest bid contracts for stuff like homeland security
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Altair IV wrote:
while we are at it why dont we take lowest bid contracts for stuff like homeland security


The current group sure is doing a bang-up job, having those Boston terrorists on a watch list, missing a triple homicide they committed, and letting them stay in the country. Yay for government competence!



yep, im sure cutting corners and out sourcing would have made that end much better.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Al Gore is as entitled to his opinions as the next guy, but I have no idea why you would think that makes his views on the FAA any better than anyone else? I believe unions have a purpose and a generalized view that they are evil is wrong headed. I do not have a "hard-on" for them. What you advocated above was for the Government to simply cut all funding to the FAA and then let the free market run with it. That, as I said, would be chaos and insanity all wrapped in a fucked up ball. You didn't say anything about an ordered transition to privatization if that is what you are trying to suggest now?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
So the sequester cut spending across the board and the first thing they try to fix is the FAA (actually the 2nd, I think they also reduced the effect the sequester had on defense budgets). One of the few parts of the government that directly provides services to the wealthiest Americans. I was watching CNBC a few days back and they were ranting about how the government just had to fix funding for the FAA. And what happens just a few days later... bam, a bill gets passed. Our government running like clockwork to serve the needs to the rich.


Another way to look at it is that the FAA represents a huge return on investment. If planes are grounded or experiencing major delays because a relatively small number of key staff are furloughed then the savings are going to be much more than offset by losses in the economy. At the simplest level, tax revenues to the government are almost certainly reduced by more than the savings.

Prioritizing getting air traffic controllers back to work is something the government would do if it were serving the upper classes but it's also something it would do if it were serving the lower classes. Thus I think it's unsound to infer either from the action.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is another pain point that is being conceded though, rather than used a leverage for a bigger deal. First defense and now this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
It is another pain point that is being conceded though, rather than used a leverage for a bigger deal. First defense and now this.


I must say that I would've been highly entertained watching Democrats try to use this for leverage without having it blow up their face.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think trying to use this as leverage would have been negligence. It's one thing to block a general policy proposal that the other side wants in order to secure quid-pro-quo passage of a policy you want. In theory, at least, this is the sort of value-creating trade that is a core of constructive negotiation.

It's quite different to recognize that there is a situation going on that is harming the country while simultaneously worsening the deficit and saying, "Well, the other side wants to fix that more than we do so let's block it to get something else that we want."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If the Sequestor is going to be permanent, which this deal shows that it likely is since any particular pain point will just be legislated away, the better option would be to pass a larger bill to grant the executive branch more flexibility for all programs rather than just one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
If the Sequestor is going to be permanent, which this deal shows that it likely is since any particular pain point will just be legislated away, the better option would be to pass a larger bill to grant the executive branch more flexibility for all programs rather than just one.


That's reasonable, but I don't think that justifies holding air traffic hostage in order to get it. YMMV.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think there would have to be a hostage scenario, the GOP leadership were in favor of that before, it was the Democratic contingent and the President that didn't want the flexibility. I think they should rethink that now. Of course the tea party would be against it, but if the President and the GOP supported it, I think they could have gotten it passed.

Now of course, if the President supported such a thing, perhaps the entire GOP support would evaporate?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
I don't think there would have to be a hostage scenario, the GOP leadership were in favor of that before, it was the Democratic contingent and the President that didn't want the flexibility.


There wasn't ever really that much Republican (or Congressional) enthusiasm for giving the President more authority and flexibility. I'm sure there would be Republican enthusiasm for more cuts to things they don't like to boost funding for things they do like, but that's about it. Congress is pretty jealous of its authority to dictate spending. Give that up and individual legislators feel pretty powerless.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Al Gore was a fan of privatizing air traffic controllers.


Completely false. Al Gore suggested splitting the ATC function off from the FAA and putting it into a separate government agency with dedicated funding from user fees. That's nothing like privatization. The government would still operate the system and pay for it. Privatizing air traffic control makes about as much sense as privatizing the police or privatizing the military. What are we going to do, each airline is supposed to choose a different air traffic control company to tell them where to fly?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Al Gore was a fan of privatizing air traffic controllers.


Completely false. Al Gore suggested splitting the ATC function off from the FAA and putting it into a separate government agency with dedicated funding from user fees. That's nothing like privatization.

They proposed setting up a semiprivate corporation in the same vein as Amtrak. That's a lot like privatization (though the worst of both worlds).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
They proposed setting up a semiprivate corporation in the same vein as Amtrak. That's a lot like privatization (though the worst of both worlds).


The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is nothing like privatization. Amtrak doesn't even support itself with user fees; it pays a large part of its budget with tax dollars. It's entirely controlled by the government. There are no investors other than the government. There are some "shareholders" but the stock has no value or voting rights.

If BJ is seriously claiming that all would be perfect with air traffic control if only it could be independent of government like Amtrak, all I can say is ROFL.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Privatizing air traffic control makes about as much sense as privatizing the police or privatizing the military.


Air traffic control was privatised, though not entirely, in the UK. According to Wikipedia: "The current shareholders in NATS are: the UK Government (49%); The Airline Group (42%) which is a consortium of British Airways, Lufthansa, EasyJet, Monarch Airlines, Thomas Cook Airlines, Thomson Airways and Virgin Atlantic; Heathrow Airport Holdings (4%); and NATS employees (5%)."

(Now whether that made sense, that's another discussion. And of course it's a highly regulated monopoly.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
jmilum wrote:
I don't think there would have to be a hostage scenario, the GOP leadership were in favor of that before, it was the Democratic contingent and the President that didn't want the flexibility.


There wasn't ever really that much Republican (or Congressional) enthusiasm for giving the President more authority and flexibility. I'm sure there would be Republican enthusiasm for more cuts to things they don't like to boost funding for things they do like, but that's about it. Congress is pretty jealous of its authority to dictate spending. Give that up and individual legislators feel pretty powerless.

I wasn't talking about more cuts, but about the flexibility to target the existing cuts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
jmilum wrote:
I don't think there would have to be a hostage scenario, the GOP leadership were in favor of that before, it was the Democratic contingent and the President that didn't want the flexibility.


There wasn't ever really that much Republican (or Congressional) enthusiasm for giving the President more authority and flexibility. I'm sure there would be Republican enthusiasm for more cuts to things they don't like to boost funding for things they do like, but that's about it. Congress is pretty jealous of its authority to dictate spending. Give that up and individual legislators feel pretty powerless.

I wasn't talking about more cuts, but about the flexibility to target the existing cuts.


Me too. What is the point of your response? As I said, There wasn't ever really that much Republican (or Congressional) enthusiasm for giving the President more authority and flexibility.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
75% of Senate Republicans voted yay in the cloture vote for the Toomey-Inhofe bill (S. 16) which would have given the President that flexibility had the measure eventually passed. The President threatened to veto it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
75% of Senate Republicans voted yay in the cloture vote for the Toomey-Inhofe bill (S. 16) which would have given the President that flexibility had the measure eventually passed. The President threatened to veto it.


None of that changes the fact that, as I said, members of Congress in both parties lacked enthusiasm for this bill, and that's why it went nowhere.

The Toomey-Inhofe bill is opposed by appropriators in both Houses of Congress and has been targeted by Republican defense hawks. They worry that President Obama would abuse the new flexibility to go after projects they favor.

Might some people have voted for cloture as a way to put Democrats on the spot and try to embarrass them? Sure. Was it ever going to pass Congress? No.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.