Trump Pushing Personal Pilot To Head FAA? Axios via

AlleyCat67 said:
I'm a novice pilot, but the reflexive hatred of the FAA on this board baffles me. I've really had nothing but easy experiences with them at the General Aviation level. They processed my student and PPL certificates quickly, registered my new plane purchase easily, and our air traffic system seems pretty reasonable compared to many others around the globe. Interactions with controllers have generally been positive or at least neutral. What is it, exactly, that you want out them that they don't do now?
Click to expand...

Google Bob Hoover and FAA for a start.
 
denverpilot said:
Enjoy the sandwich.
Click to expand...
Well, I recall noticing presidents trying and failing to reign in the bureaucracy for the sixty years or so that I have been aware of what was going on in politics, so we seem to be stuck with big government whether we like it or not. Given that, I HOPE he's right that it at least makes a fascist takeover more difficult.
 
Palmpilot said:
Well, I recall noticing presidents trying and failing to reign in the bureaucracy for the sixty years or so that I have been aware of what was going on in politics, so we seem to be stuck with big government whether we like it or not. Given that, I HOPE he's right that it at least makes a fascist takeover more difficult.
Click to expand...

Judging by opensecrets.org , the takeover happened a long time ago. “Law firms” make the largest individual campaign donations by a long shot.

Followed closely by two people who personally gave $21M in the last election. And no, their names aren’t “Koch”. I bet most people would have a hard time naming them without looking them up.

LOL... larger bureaucracies protect people from
tyrants. Just thinking clearly for ten seconds about that, easily debunks it. Tyrants use bureaucracy to hide their actions. If you don’t have a bureaucracy to use as a weapon, say, some “low level staffers at IRS in Cincinnati”, and fleets of well paid attorneys to fly high cover, how would a tyrant distance themselves from their actions?

Law Firms. Not Banks, not Industry, not Defense, not even Labor Unions come close to Law Firms in individual campaign donations. Think about it.

For a little help here, it’s essentially money laundering. The firm has no money until someone gives it to them. And sure, there’s public notice that the firm made the donation. But no public notice of who gave them the money in the first place.

Bureaucracies won’t save you from a billionaire if you **** one off. Especially one who’s made sure to make his or her regular large campaign donations through the lawyers, who took their cut before passing it along. Just the cost of doing business.

Oh yeah, one of those two people who gave the combined $21M? His bank got a bailout via AIG. He was just paying back his cut on that one. A little thank you note to his friends for paying for his mistakes with your wallet.

That would be a whole fleet of bureaucrats stealing from you via force and threat of incarceration, to help him stay wealthy, in case you missed it.
 
denverpilot said:
Technically the propaganda, er, photo... is part of its “content”...
Click to expand...

It's not valid to judge an article based on a small "part" of its content. Furthermore, interpreting the photo as propaganda is jumping to conclusions, especially when it's done by people who haven't read the article. Such a conclusion certainly doesn't seem consistent with this:

"Personally, I do not consider Trump to be an appropriate stand-in for the concept of fascism, but the point is that a lot of these people did make that association, to varying degrees, and they voted accordingly."
​
There were people expressing fears that the last president wanted to be a dictator, and there are people who have had the same fears about the current president. Clearly, the author is addressing fears that some people have. The current president is the one who gets his picture posted on most of the article nowadays. Boo hoo.

As has been said many times, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." The "It can't happen here" meme has been a subject of ridicule ever since Sinclair Lewis's 1935 book by that name, so when I saw an article purporting to find serious reasons to believe that it really can't happen here, I considered it worth finding out what the reasoning was. "Your mileage may vary."
 
denverpilot said:
Judging by opensecrets.org , the takeover happened a long time ago. “Law firms” make the largest individual campaign donations by a long shot.

Followed closely by two people who personally gave $21M in the last election. And no, their names aren’t “Koch”. I bet most people would have a hard time naming them without looking them up.

LOL... larger bureaucracies protect people from
tyrants. Just thinking clearly for ten seconds about that, easily debunks it. Tyrants use bureaucracy to hide their actions. If you don’t have a bureaucracy to use as a weapon, say, some “low level staffers at IRS in Cincinnati”, and fleets of well paid attorneys to fly high cover, how would a tyrant distance themselves from their actions?

Law Firms. Not Banks, not Industry, not Defense, not even Labor Unions come close to Law Firms in individual campaign donations. Think about it.

For a little help here, it’s essentially money laundering. The firm has no money until someone gives it to them. And sure, there’s public notice that the firm made the donation. But no public notice of who gave them the money in the first place.

Bureaucracies won’t save you from a billionaire if you **** one off. Especially one who’s made sure to make his or her regular large campaign donations through the lawyers, who took their cut before passing it along. Just the cost of doing business.

Oh yeah, one of those two people who gave the combined $21M? His bank got a bailout via AIG. He was just paying back his cut on that one. A little thank you note to his friends for paying for his mistakes with your wallet.

That would be a whole fleet of bureaucrats stealing from you via force and threat of incarceration, to help him stay wealthy, in case you missed it.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that addresses the arguments in the article.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't see how that addresses the arguments in the article.
Click to expand...

That $21M. Most of it came from you. A bureaucracy took it from you at the whims of politicians, handed it to the banker, who handed his cut to them.

The massive bureaucracy didn’t save you, on the contrary, it was the tool they used to rip you off at a distance.

Do you recall voting to bail out AIG? Nobody does.
 
That doesn't address any of the historical evidence in the article.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's a pretty selective paraphrasing. In his concluding remarks, he makes clear his view that big government has both good and bad consequences:

All of this is not to suggest that bigger government is always better. A government that is too big involves high costs in terms of efficiency and arguably justice. The former Soviet Union is one example of such a disastrous system.

...​
Click to expand...

I got that. But his negatives for big government revolve around economics and not the fact that we are a representative republic and having large unaccountable bureaucracies shadow protecting us by doing their own thing are not exactly what we were founded on.

The article feels forced. Like he thought up the premise wanting to defend big government and then tried to fit things to his theory while giving a slight counter on economic grounds. The checks and balances of our three branches were enough before the bureaucratic state bloated to unbelievable levels. I do not think without them that we'd be a fascist government today. Trump or no Trump.
 
Palmpilot said:
That doesn't address any of the historical evidence in the article.
Click to expand...

The two anecdotes about the 1930s and then he argues with himself about modern day China and convinces himself China is controlled by her bureaucracies too?

LOL... uhhh... methinks he's missed a number of news articles about Party leaders slapping various businesses for political gain... killing all Bitcoin miners, slapped Mariott for an employee clicking "like" on a Tibetan freedom Twitter post by accident from a company account, etc etc etc... China is definitely run by tyrants and they enact their politics via economic war, regularly. Their bureaucracies do nothing to protect their citizens from them.

And it doesn't appear he's all that great at history, either. He forgot a rather large country with massive bureucracies. USSR. Did those bureaucracies protect the citizens there much from tyrants in their government? LOL...

But anyway, you realize that author is really weak, right? His article on robots for Politico in 2013 wasn't any better written, either. And that's about all you can find published from him.
He's an economics professor at George Mason University. I don't think he gets out much, judging by how much he contradicts himself in his articles.

In the robot article, the robots are all coming to take all our jobs, he predicts a top 10-15%, and everyone else is headed for the poorhouse. And yet, he also says it'll be quite the nice utopia.

LOL... You can look it up. Pretty good idea to know your source when reading online blather like that guy writes. Thankfully he doesn't write much.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
I'm a novice pilot, but the reflexive hatred of the FAA on this board baffles me. I've really had nothing but easy experiences with them at the General Aviation level. They processed my student and PPL certificates quickly, registered my new plane purchase easily, and our air traffic system seems pretty reasonable compared to many others around the globe. Interactions with controllers have generally been positive or at least neutral. What is it, exactly, that you want out them that they don't do now?
Click to expand...

Just wait. Everything is great until it is not.
 
Dangerous to do...but swerving back to the topic, what would you guys say the qualifications to be Administrator are?

Why would one person be qualified, but someone else not be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top