Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously? The fact you would even ask such a ridiculous question shows your understanding of the Constitution is seriously flawed. It isn't a carte blanche affirmative grant of powers subject to a few exceptions, rather it specifies the few and limited powers the federal government has.
Wow, talk about the uninformed voter bloc.....
I would agree with the poster, and your blatant mouthing (and not proving any facts) shows your just trying to be intimidating and not source.
Power plants, schools, postal service, etc. . .are all run by the government. Starting in 1937 airlines were run by the government too (setting routes, fares, etc). Its a bad idea, i'll grant you, but saying the constitution prevents it is stupid.
The reason we don't want to go back to the CAB is because what we have now works better. Not because the CAB was somehow against the constitution for 40 years
Seriously? The fact you would even ask such a ridiculous question shows your understanding of the Constitution is seriously flawed. It isn't a carte blanche affirmative grant of powers subject to a few exceptions, rather it specifies the few and limited powers the federal government has.
Wow, talk about the uninformed voter bloc.....
We vote here and if this what the voters want,they can have it.No different than Social Security or Obamacare.The Constitution does not forbid socialism btw.
Ah, I get it now. From your circular argument I take it you agree with me, well, up until you speculate that the Govt couldn't do what they do in many, many instances. Run things at cost.
Anyone can run anything at cost. Whether or not they can run it on budget and in a fiscally responsible manner is a more important benchmark. How's the government doing by that standard?
Air travel was certainly much more pleasant (and cheaper) when they were closely regulated. Initially deregulation brought competition and price reductions, more airlines and routes. Over time though mergers and out-right collusion have made air travel both difficult and expensive.
Air travel was considerably more costly when the government protected routes,fares and schedules of the big carriers and controlled the market. Deregulation created competition and fares came tumbling down, especially for routes that carry the most passengers.
Over time, heavy losses and labor conflicts ensued. Former giants and regional airlines folded, including many of the new airlines founded after deregulation.
In the early 90's, my employer paid about $1400 ( adjusted for inflation ) for an unrestricted coach ticket between ORD and the airports that served the NYC area. Today, that ticket would cost < $300.
I don't expect the same in flight experience as I did back when, given I am paying a fraction of what it used to cost. I certainly don't need a hot meal on a 2 hour flight. I also have the option to pay more to get more in business or first class.
Permanent nationalization would mean government subsidy of air travel. No thank you.
Air travel was certainly much more pleasant (and cheaper) when they were closely regulated. Initially deregulation brought competition and price reductions, more airlines and routes. Over time though mergers and out-right collusion have made air travel both difficult and expensive.
Air Travel was more pleasant when it was expensive and only people that NEEDED to be somewhere due to business could afford to fly. Things went downhill when the "unwashed masses" were allowed to buy a ticket. I remember the days when flying was a special occasion and people were fully dressed in suits and ties.
I don't know of another country that has more than one airline. Maybe we just need one "American" airline and fares were charged that reflected the actual cost of travel.
We vote here and if this what the voters want,they can have it.No different than Social Security or Obamacare.The Constitution does not forbid socialism btw.
Actually yes it does. Article 1 Section 8 specifies the ONLY things the government can spend the public money on, and if you wanted pure socialism, hardly anything would pass Constitutional muster.
I'm just wondering if the Airlines should just be Nationalized? They don't seem to be able to operate profitably, so make them non profit.
great, maybe we can also fire all the employees and politicians that are currently in federal employ too. after all, all they have done is bankrupt the country and our great great great grandchildren will still be paying todays debt off when they are old and gray.
What would you like me to prove? That no constitutional authorization exists? You want me to prove a negative?
The 10th amendment would say we can not nationalize the airline industry
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'm just wondering if the Airlines should just be Nationalized?
Absolutely, 1000% NO WAY
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
