PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul Approves of Trump's Plan To Privatize the Air Traffic Control System




AuH20
06-05-2017, 04:43 PM
871847700446285824

merkelstan
06-05-2017, 07:09 PM
Does it open the franchise up to competition? Or does it hand-over a regulated monopoly to a couple of fat-cats?

Matt Collins
06-05-2017, 08:35 PM
As a professional pilot and semi-professional policy wonk I am thinking this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

More than likely they will give whichever company that wins the contract monopoly status. And they likely are not going to ease up the regulations. And the potential for graft and corruption will be yuuge. Big corporate bureaucracy piled on top of big government. Remember that anything the government does it screws up.

The honest truth is that the vast majority of the actions undertaken by ATC are obsolete and can be automated. Not everything, but most of it. The way that ATC currently operates is mostly manual by human beings which is absurd given the tools available to us in this modern era.

And this doesn't even begin to address the fact that the Constitution does not provide authorization for the federal government to manage air traffic.

My solution? Automate and decentralize (look up the NASA "SATS" program for more details).

Chester Copperpot
06-05-2017, 08:39 PM
it just occurred to me that the impetus for this is because the ATC is a money losing operation for the govt so to spin it off saves money and at the same time if they can get money for selling the franchise so more the better. sounds like a good thing to me.


ATC is also the old stock symbol for Atari Corporation when it was listed on the American Stock Exchange.. Just saying.. lol

specsaregood
06-05-2017, 09:22 PM
For those commenting but too lazy to lookup even the most basic aspects of the plan:
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/trump-announces-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control

excerpts:


President Trump announced Monday a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system a move that would remove the job of tracking and guiding airplanes from the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration

Guided by legislation that has been proposed in the past by House Transportation Committee chairman Bill Shuster, a private, nonprofit corporation would be created to operate, manage and control air traffic control nationwide, similar to what Canada does. The FAA would still have some oversight capacity, but a board made up mostly of representatives of the major airlines would govern this corporation.

The air traffic controllers' union is generally supportive of the proposal, as it sees the current FAA air traffic control system as somewhat inefficient. The Shuster plan would still allow for the controllers to be part of the union.

But some groups have been critical of efforts to privatize air traffic control operations, saying it gives the airlines too much control over the system for their own benefit.

The group Flyers' Rights calls it the "creation of an airline controlled corporate monopoly." It also says privatizing air traffic control amounts to "handing the airlines (for free) control over a core public asset, and providing them nearly unbridled power to extract new fees and increased taxes from passengers

Keith and stuff
06-06-2017, 09:32 AM
If it becomes like the Canadian system, as Trump spoke about, it will be a very good thing.

Let's Balance the Budget
Here's how to reduce the size and scope of government
John Stossel | February 3, 2011
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/03/lets-balance-the-budget

I'll begin with things I'm most eager to cut. Let's privatize air traffic control. Canada did it, and it works better.

Video of Stossel on FOX. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/4y2ec1/stossel_private_is_better/

TL;DW, private airport screeners are twice as effective at finding contraband than the TSA, Canada's private air traffic control is cheaper and better than America's bureaucracy, much drone testing is being done overseas to avoid FAA rules...

Ender
06-06-2017, 11:28 AM
Does it open the franchise up to competition? Or does it hand-over a regulated monopoly to a couple of fat-cats?

I have the exact same question.

Keith and stuff
06-06-2017, 01:57 PM
I have the exact same question.

1 non-profit is the plan mentioned in the press conference. The less like the American system and the only like the Canadian system the better. John Stossel has been one of the top promoters of this reform for years. There's a good chance that's where Trump got the idea as they have likely run in the same Manhattan circles for years.

dannno
06-06-2017, 02:36 PM
1 non-profit is the plan mentioned in the press conference. The less like the American system and the only like the Canadian system the better. John Stossel has been one of the top promoters of this reform for years. There's a good chance that's where Trump got the idea as they have likely run in the same Manhattan circles for years.

You don't get it, it doesn't matter if Rand Paul, John Stossel, Judge Napolitano, Thomas Massie, Peter Schiff, Alex Jones or even the man himself Ron Paul likes something proposed by Trump, because if it is proposed by Trump it HAS to be bad no matter what.

helmuth_hubener
06-06-2017, 02:52 PM
Does it open the franchise up to competition? Or does it hand-over a regulated monopoly to a couple of fat-cats? Even the latter would be an improvement (and a major one!).


As a professional pilot and semi-professional policy wonk I am thinking this is going to be the worst of both worlds.

It works great for New Zealand.

Good enough for the Kiwis, good enough for me!

Next up for privatization: the DMV.

helmuth_hubener
06-06-2017, 02:54 PM
There's a good chance that's where Trump got the idea as they have likely run in the same Manhattan circles for years.

Nay, he got it from idiom's signature block right here on RPF!

Makin' it Great, guys! Let's keep it up!

merkelstan
06-06-2017, 10:49 PM
Even the latter would be an improvement (and a major one!).



Why?

mrsat_98
06-07-2017, 05:19 AM
Remember that anything the government does it screws up.

Gov is like a puppy dog, what is does not fuck up it shits on.

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2017, 08:13 AM
Why?

Because people matter. Who is actually running a thing matters. Even if the incentives are off and everything isn't perfect. Bad incentives (like being a monopoly) are corrosive in the long term, but have some good, high-quality, private-sector people running a thing and it can go really well for the first couple decades at least, and sometimes longer, depending on specifics.

Private sector people are a much higher calibre of men than government bureaucrats.

We see similar reasons causing a private charter school in a quiet, white suburb to be a whole lot better than an inner city gov't school. The money's all coming from the same place, and in theory the people running the charter school are just state "cronies" and no better than the perma-tenured high school 'professors' in the indoctrination camp cum war zone. But in practice, it's night and day. Eventually, should the system continue, the charter schools and other private schools that accept gov't money will become increasingly corrupted by the system they're a part of. But that could take a long time. And even then, it's probably always going to be much better in the suburbs or wherever the good people are than it is where they are not.

Plus, being contractors Trump could actually fire them, which with gov't bureaucrats he absolutely cannot do (It's the Law™). So there's a leap forward incentive-wise, too.

acptulsa
06-07-2017, 08:26 AM
Plus, being contractors Trump could actually fire them, which with gov't bureaucrats he absolutely cannot do (It's the Law™). So there's a leap forward incentive-wise, too.

WTF are you talking about? Trump's airline went bankrupt.

This is a return to the CAA--the Civil Aeronautics Administration. There's no profit in air traffic control, and there's no way a couple of competitors trying to competitively do the same job at the same time is going to work. That's just stupid. This is also not a case of 'privatization' as in prisons, where the government tries to 'oversee' the lowest bidding contractor. This is the government turning over control of the commercial air lanes to the airlines, and the airlines will jointly set up their own system of traffic control, just as it is in Canada, just as it was before the federal government declared the old CAA illegal, took over, and made themselves another massive power grab so they could reserve most of the nation's air space for the military.

specs provided this information in Post Five, and people just continued blathering in ignorance. Sorry, specs, people are not only too lazy to look this stuff up so they can come into the discussion well-informed, they can't even be bothered to study and understand the post where you try to spoon-feed them so they won't look like idiots.

The only way Trump 'fires' a civil organization operated jointly by the airlines is if he flip flops and re-federalizes the commercial air lanes. Which, of course, would not be surprising. Flip flops are S.O.P. for Trump. But considering this is the very first time he has acted even slightly like a conservative since he got elected, it certainly would be a shame.

Keith and stuff
06-07-2017, 08:29 AM
Would More Government Infrastructure Spending Boost the U.S. Economy?
By Ryan Bourne
June 6, 2017
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/would-more-government-infrastructure-spending-boost-us-economy

Ryan Bourne occupies the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.

This is the #1 step in a 7 step Cato Institute plan. You are welcome to debate it on Fedbook. https://www.facebook.com/CatoInstitute/photos/a.483297729076.267265.26668999076/10154732695819077/?type=3&theater

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18953594_10154732695819077_4664917037671978727_o.p ng?oh=e689731a9f688fd7641ec2a619265dae&oe=59DED37C

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2017, 08:57 AM
What are you talking about? Trump's airline went bankrupt. I must admit my emotional attachment to logic and reason, a handicap which, rightly or wrongly, does not allow me to see the undoubted strength of this proof you have presented as to why privatization is bad. But that's not all -- even worse, I actually see my own words discussing the mechanics of (imperfect, incomplete) privatizations and their results as more logically connected and relevant to a discussion on the merits of an (imperfect, incomplete) privatization of air traffic control!

It's outrageous; I know.





specs provided this information in Post Five, and people just continued blathering in ignorance. Sorry, specs, people are not only too lazy to look this stuff up so they can come into the discussion well-informed, they can't even be bothered to study and understand the post where you try to spoon-feed them so they won't look like idiots. I think specs did a great job, and kudos to him!

For me, again, my logic affliction betrays me. It seems to me that what people care about (as in normal people, as in me for example) in real life in regards to air travel is whether it works well. They want their flights to go smoothly and stuff. Silly things like that. So for them, a system which gives "the airlines control over the system for their own benefit" is exactly what they want. Any changes to the air travel system that benefit the airlines benefit them. Benefitting is good! Improvement is good!

I understand it may be ideologically distasteful to you.

And actually, not so much ideological [you are still pro-freedom, right? So this would have to be seen as a step in the right direction (though imperfect! Eek!)] as personal. It's a bitter, personal grudge. There's a certain someone for whom you have a lot of hate, and nothing he does is ever, ever going to be admitted as good. At least, unless you overcome that and come back to logic.




But, whatever, this is just so many words, words, words. What am I even talking about? You already proved this is all horrible. After all, "Trump's airline went bankrupt." I mean, Q.E.D. Am I right? Or am I right?

acptulsa
06-07-2017, 09:18 AM
I must admit my emotional attachment to logic and reason, a handicap which, rightly or wrongly, does not allow me to see the undoubted strength of this proof you have presented as to why privatization is bad. But that's not all -- even worse, I actually see my own words discussing the mechanics of (imperfect, incomplete) privatizations and their results as more logically connected and relevant to a discussion on the merits of an (imperfect, incomplete) privatization of air traffic control!

It's outrageous; I know...

Am I right? Or am I right?

Very amusing.

You talked about the president firing the head of a civil board overseeing civil air traffic control as though he were maintaining federal control, but farming the organization out to some low bidder. I pointed out that the plan is to turn over control to the airlines, and let them take the thing over and run it more efficiently. And now you're trying to conflate that into me saying that farming it out to the low bidder is a bad thing, and calling this doubling down of your misinformation 'logic and reason'.

That misinformation is ideologically distasteful to me. Establishing a system of civil air traffic control where Trump is unable to fire anyone involved is not.

What are you giving specsaregood kudos for? Not for anything he wrote in post five, obviously, because if you read it at all you didn't understand a word of it. Just as if you read a word of what I posted in post 15, you didn't comprehend that either.

I know you find it distasteful that I'm standing up and stating unequivocally that I am not the straw man you erected and hung my name on. I'm sure you'd consider me a more agreeable fellow if I wore your gross mischaracterization of myself and my argument with good humor. But you'll get over it. You mischaracterized the nature of this reform, you mischaracterized my statement pointing that fact out, and you mischaracterized yourself as logical and reasonable. And there it is.

Danke
06-07-2017, 09:33 AM
If you're feeling steamed at the airlines for how they've been treating passengers, you might want to save some outrage for those who fly on private jets, two advocacy groups suggest.
As most travelers endure long security lines, increasing flight delays and extra charges for checked baggage, they are helping subsidize far more elegant travel for a privileged few, according to a report to be released today by Washington-based organizations Essential Action and the Institute for Policy Studies.
In particular, the report contends, owners of private jets benefit from a disproportionate share of federal funds for airport improvements and don't pay their fair share of the cost of the air traffic control system.
"The super-wealthy, private jet set are shifting the costs of their highflying indulgence on to the rest of us," said Robert Weissman, director of Essential Action and co-author of the report.


On top of that, because they bypass the security that everyday people have to put up with, private jet passengers can drive -- or be driven -- to their aircraft on the tarmac, have their unscreened luggage loaded directly onto the plane, and board with keys and Swiss army knives in their pockets and plenty of shampoo and bottled water in their carry-ons.
"Most people don't realize the privilege of flying private," said Chuck Collins, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. "This should be a wake-up call."
Selena Shilad, executive director of the Alliance for Aviation Across America, which represents makers, owners and users of private jets, said the report unfairly attacked her members, most of whom, she said, are farmers, small-business people and charities.
The report, Shilad noted, endorses a Federal Aviation Administration proposal, supported by the airlines, to overhaul air-traffic-control funding in a way that would charge airlines less and private jet operators more.
"We feel strongly that this so-called study holds no water and is just another airline-backed effort to justify a tax cut that would be paid for by farmers, ranchers, small businesses and other organizations that depend on general aviation around the country," she said.
Although the report backs the FAA funding proposal, airlines had no role in financing the study, Collins said. The study, from two groups known for taking egalitarian stands on such issues as income distribution, also calls for a luxury tax on the purchase of private planes and tighter security for passengers flying in them.
Among the report's findings:
* About $2.2 billion of the $7 billion in federal funds spent making capital improvements to airports over the last two years was used to fix up remote airports that primarily serve private jets, such as Sardy Field in Aspen, Colo., and the Napa Valley Airport in California.
* Private fliers avoid a variety of niggling fees that are added to the cost of a commercial ticket, such as a $3.40 segment fee, a $3 passenger facility charge and a $2.50 security fee.
* Passengers on private planes usually avoid a 7.5% tax on the cost of airline tickets, which is used to fund air traffic control services.
The FAA proposed last year to shift traffic-control funding from ticket taxes to user fees and fuel taxes. The proposal has languished in Congress.


"We sought the change for two reasons," said Ian McGregor, a spokesman for the FAA in Los Angeles. "One was to create a more stable source of revenue, the other was that it didn't seem fair that the commercial airline passenger should subsidize the business executive who travels on a private jet."Private jets use about 16% of the air traffic control system's resources, but pay only 3% of its costs, McGregor said. Shilad disputed those figures, saying the FAA was manipulating the data.
Since 1990, the number of private jets in service has more than doubled to more than 10,000, according to the FAA.

acptulsa
06-07-2017, 09:51 AM
Interesting find. If there's a way for the FCC to torpedo this initiative and maintain itself and its power, driving a wedge between private and commercial operators is it.

Going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2017, 10:08 AM
Very amusing. Yes! Thank you. I have accomplished something good today. Amusement is a benefit I bring to you for no charge.


You talked about the president firing the head of a civil board overseeing civil air traffic control as though he were maintaining federal control, but farming the organization out to some low bidder. Because that was the topic of conversation. Merkelstan had asked, "Does it open the franchise up to competition? Or does it hand-over a regulated monopoly to a couple of fat-cats?" and I had said even replacing the FAA with a regulated monopoly would be an improvement, he asked, why," and I answered why such a thing would be better.



I pointed out that the plan is to turn over control to the airlines, and let them take the thing over and run it more efficiently. And now you're trying to conflate that into me saying that farming it out to the low bidder is a bad thing, and calling this doubling down of your misinformation 'logic and reason'. Don't worry, there's just been a misunderstanding. You'll see in a second. :)


That misinformation is ideologically distasteful to me. Establishing a system of civil air traffic control where Trump is unable to fire anyone involved is not. Understood.


What are you giving specsaregood kudos for? Not for anything he wrote in post five, obviously, because if you read it at all you didn't understand a word of it. Just as if you read a word of what I posted in post 15, you didn't comprehend that either. Look, I read them both, and they were great. Applause all around. However, I had not read specs' post previous to you referring to it! Nor do I know anything about what this executive order does other than what I read in this thread (which was, again, not even all the posts). Does that shed a little bit of light on things? My time is valuable. I had an interesting thought to share on the theory of privatizations, and why they could have beneficial results even if incomplete or impure.

So, I hope that makes sense to you. I was commenting, you would be correct to say, not on this specific plan of Trump privatizing air traffic control (which apparently is a great, or at least good, thing, and I guess we both agree on that) but more broadly: on privatization in abstract.

Is it irresponsible to comment in threads without reading the whole thing and without knowing anything about the topic of the thread? Sure! But I do it all the time. My time is valuable.


I know you find it distasteful that I'm standing up and stating unequivocally that I am not the straw man you erected and hung my name on. Not at all! I find it a stern and excellent corrective, one which was necessary to clear things up (and clear your good name, I suppose, in your dramatic interpretation).

Now, do consider -- and take this in the humble spirit in which it is offered, acp -- that using wording such as "continued blathering in ignorance," "lazy," and "idiots" is going to tend to make people go into "combat mode" and just assume you're disagreeing and hating on 100% of everything they're writing (and on them personally, as a human being), losing the nuance of your real position. Now it's true that I was blathering in ignorance (of what you wanted me to be not-ignorant of, but not, actually, about what I was writing about). Guilty! But you use your social intelligence to see that not everyone would so happily let it slide off their back as I do. True? This is why sometimes you get into these altercations, which I've watched over the years, often with people with whom you really don't disagree, or disagree on a very, very tiny technicality. I have the upmost respect for you. You've done great work for the liberty movement. Keep it up.

Helmuth

dannno
06-07-2017, 02:14 PM
WTF are you talking about? Trump's airline went bankrupt.

Any other individuals you know of who started a successful airline?




This is a return to the CAA--the Civil Aeronautics Administration. There's no profit in air traffic control, and there's no way a couple of competitors trying to competitively do the same job at the same time is going to work. That's just stupid. This is also not a case of 'privatization' as in prisons, where the government tries to 'oversee' the lowest bidding contractor. This is the government turning over control of the commercial air lanes to the airlines, and the airlines will jointly set up their own system of traffic control, just as it is in Canada, just as it was before the federal government declared the old CAA illegal, took over, and made themselves another massive power grab so they could reserve most of the nation's air space for the military.

specs provided this information in Post Five, and people just continued blathering in ignorance. Sorry, specs, people are not only too lazy to look this stuff up so they can come into the discussion well-informed, they can't even be bothered to study and understand the post where you try to spoon-feed them so they won't look like idiots.

The only way Trump 'fires' a civil organization operated jointly by the airlines is if he flip flops and re-federalizes the commercial air lanes. Which, of course, would not be surprising. Flip flops are S.O.P. for Trump. But considering this is the very first time he has acted even slightly like a conservative since he got elected, it certainly would be a shame.

Why does it work better in New Zealand?

acptulsa
06-07-2017, 04:55 PM
Any other individuals you know of who started a successful airline?

I could name several individuals who started successful airlines, from Braniff to Branson. Trump would not be on the list. He started no airline; he took one over and renamed it. He ran no successful airline; Trump Shuttle lost well over three hundred million dollars in only three years.

I understand you stick your brown toady nose into every thread you can because you're just trying to make a living. And I truly hate to be the one to tell you how to do your job. But if you're out to defend Trump, doesn't it make more sense to praise him to the skies for doing the first conservative thing he has ever done in trying to privatize American air traffic control? That has to go more smoothly than trying to make the most massive of his several bankruptcies seem like anything but incompetent arrogance on his part.


Why does it work better in New Zealand?

Collins, in the process of ASSuming Trump was trying to retain this power to Washington, but find a contractor to do it, brought up SATS. Hubener, whose time is insanely valuable, did a quick web search and discovered New Zealand was toying with the idea of adapting SATS, so he inserted a Kiwi Komment. I said nothing about anything south of the equator at all. So why are you asking me?

If I didn't bite the bait where my numerous personality defects were involved, what makes you think I'd help you derail this thread? I admit I'm curious how you intended to turn a discussion of a pair of South Pacific islands into blind adulation of an old orange brat. But I'm not curious enough about it to help you insert distractions in an intelligent and informative discussion.

dannno
06-07-2017, 05:02 PM
Collins, in the process of ASSuming Trump was trying to retain this power to Washington, but find a contractor to do it, brought up SATS. Hubener, whose time is insanely valuable, did a quick web search and discovered New Zealand was toying with the idea of adapting SATS, so he inserted a Kiwi Komment. I said nothing about anything south of the equator at all. So why are you asking me?

If I didn't bite the bait where my numerous personality defects were involved, what makes you think I'd help you derail this thread? I admit I'm curious how you intended to turn a discussion of a pair of South Pacific islands into blind adulation of an old orange brat. But I'm not curious enough about it to help you insert distractions in an intelligent and informative discussion.

lol, dude, I have no idea what link you are talking about, all I did was go to idiom's signature, he is from New Zealand:


In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

I didn't just read the line about Air Traffic Control, btw, I read ALL of the lines because most of them are applicable to this conversation.

Keep in mind this is a list, coming from a libertarian, who is bragging about how his country runs shit better than in the US.

NOW tell me some more about how privatizing is so much worse than letting the lazy ass stupid people who work for the government run shit.

acptulsa
06-07-2017, 05:09 PM
NOW tell me some more about how privatizing is so much worse than letting the lazy ass stupid people who work for the government run $#@!.

Before I could tell you some more about that, I would have to tell you something about that.

So here's what you do. You prove you didn't just libel me by finding one instance in 42,376 posts where I ever once said privatizing is worse than letting bureaucrats run something, just one, and I will entertain you by trying to say 'some more' about it.

Unless and until then, stop lying about me.

dannno
06-07-2017, 05:16 PM
Before I could tell you some more about that, I would have to tell you something about that.

So here's what you do. You prove you didn't just libel me by finding one instance in 42,376 posts where I ever once said privatizing is worse than letting bureaucrats run something, just one, and I will entertain you by trying to say 'some more' about it.

Unless and until then, stop lying about me.

So then you agree with Trump and Rand that this will be beneficial?

871847700446285824

acptulsa
06-07-2017, 05:48 PM
Ah, yes. The Dannno Method. Argue first, ask questions later, make an honest effort to understand what is said never.

dannno
06-07-2017, 05:55 PM
Ah, yes. The Dannno Method. Argue first, ask questions later, make an honest effort to understand what is said never.

Ok, let me try and understand then, because it's a pretty basic question.

Keeping in mind that the word "privatizing" does not necessarily mean full privatization, it could mean moving toward privatizing something by privatizing elements of said thing.

Do you believe that this is a move that pushes toward more private control as opposed to government control?

Do you believe that things will be better, worse or the same if implemented?

Rand Paul thinks that this is a move toward privatization, and that things will improve if implemented. Explain if and why he is wrong.

acptulsa
06-07-2017, 06:03 PM
You're good at demanding that I jump through hoops for you.

Why don't you try reading the fucking thread, and see if all your questions were answered long before you popped up in it?

Ender
06-07-2017, 07:18 PM
Because people matter. Who is actually running a thing matters. Even if the incentives are off and everything isn't perfect. Bad incentives (like being a monopoly) are corrosive in the long term, but have some good, high-quality, private-sector people running a thing and it can go really well for the first couple decades at least, and sometimes longer, depending on specifics.

Private sector people are a much higher calibre of men than government bureaucrats.


We see similar reasons causing a private charter school in a quiet, white suburb to be a whole lot better than an inner city gov't school. The money's all coming from the same place, and in theory the people running the charter school are just state "cronies" and no better than the perma-tenured high school 'professors' in the indoctrination camp cum war zone. But in practice, it's night and day. Eventually, should the system continue, the charter schools and other private schools that accept gov't money will become increasingly corrupted by the system they're a part of. But that could take a long time. And even then, it's probably always going to be much better in the suburbs or wherever the good people are than it is where they are not.

Plus, being contractors Trump could actually fire them, which with gov't bureaucrats he absolutely cannot do (It's the Law™). So there's a leap forward incentive-wise, too.

A "private" charter school is still a state school- they must comply with the state education programs/rules or they get no funding.

A REAL private school, not attached to the gov is a much better solution.

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2017, 07:21 PM
acptulsa, chill buddy. I was not "baiting" you. I was expressing understanding and expressing respect, completely sincerely.

Look, I'll even help dannno out for you. dannno, acp was just annoyed at me (and I guess to an extent the Collins) for being uninformed about the details of Trump's plan and saying irrelevant things. However, he does think this privatization is a good thing. As he put it:

"Establishing a system of civil air traffic control where Trump is unable to fire anyone involved is not [distasteful to me]."

Now that may not be the clearest way to put it, but putted it is. To fan away the opacity and do some algebraic reduction of the double-negative:

You're wrong, Hubener, you idiot, that under Trump's privatization plan he will be able to fire anyone. He won't. That said, this new system President Trump is establishing is tasteful [that is, pleasing] to me.

I.e.: It's a good thing.

Reluctant mad props to Trump.

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2017, 07:24 PM
A "private" charter school is still a state school- they must comply with the state education programs/rules or they get no funding.

A REAL private school, not attached to the gov is a much better solution. Yeah, I know, Ender. I agree.

Ender
06-07-2017, 08:22 PM
Yeah, I know, Ender. I agree.

:cool:

helmuth_hubener
06-16-2017, 10:13 AM
Anyway, looks like all and sundry agree this air traffic control privatization is a great thing. A glimmer of light, a happy development, a reason to smile.

So..... woohoo!

Cleaner44
06-16-2017, 10:53 AM
Even the latter would be an improvement (and a major one!).



It works great for New Zealand.

Good enough for the Kiwis, good enough for me!

Next up for privatization: the DMV.

Here in AZ we have both govt DMV and private DMV. To use the private DMV cost about $10 and saves about 4 hours of your day. Win!