Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2013, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,619,694 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Sure, it's easy not to be concerned if you're totally ignorant of the careful safeguards that have been engineered into the flying experience through experience and innovation. Air travel fatalities are at an all-time low in this country, and you think this happened just by coincidence?
Well the DoT doesn't want to cut anywhere else but the FAA.
They got $2.5 billion to study high speed rail.
They got a 36% increase in their budget for FY2013.

But they chose to close towers and furlough FAA workers.
You go figure the logic in that.

 
Old 03-03-2013, 12:30 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,894,043 times
Reputation: 9284
That's odd... why aren't the people flying paying for services that are used entirely by them?
 
Old 03-03-2013, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,619,694 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
That's odd... why aren't the people flying paying for services that are used entirely by them?
They do. 80% of the FAA budget is from user taxes and fees.
Only 20% is Fed tax money and that is what the DoT is cutting.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

LaHood said $1 billion in cuts to DoT and FAA is under DoT.
If they are getting new money of $2.5 billion to study high speed rail, just cut that back to $1.5 billion and leave all the other services intact.
 
Old 03-03-2013, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Sarasota FL
6,864 posts, read 12,102,735 times
Reputation: 6744
Can anyone imagine the amount of towers the FAA would close if they were told that they could have only the same amount of money to spend in 2013 that they spent in 2012 We would never hear the end of 'draconian cuts'. JFK, LAX, to close runways.
 
Old 03-03-2013, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,619,694 times
Reputation: 27720
And yet....$2.5 billion given to them to study high speed rail which they aren't talking about.
 
Old 03-03-2013, 03:00 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,318,501 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Sure, it's easy not to be concerned if you're totally ignorant of the careful safeguards that have been engineered into the flying experience through experience and innovation. Air travel fatalities are at an all-time low in this country, and you think this happened just by coincidence?
1. No towers will be closed just the same as the janitors in D.C. aren't going to have their pay cut.
2. Airplanes land all the time without manned towers.
 
Old 03-03-2013, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,146,306 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
80% of the FAA's budget money comes from "user taxes" that go into the Aviation Trust Fund.

Sequestration doesn't affect this. The Dept of Transportation is getting the cuts and they are directing most of the cuts right at the FAA and the towers.

Why furlough some paper pushers at desks when you can cause havoc in America by shutting down towers ?

We are but pawns in a political game being played in DC. They don't care about us, they don't care about the economy, they don't care about the debt and deficit spending. They are playing power games among themselves.


Rethinking the FAA budget - The Hill's Congress Blog
Like most other federal transportation programs, aviation has traditionally been funded largely by user taxes, including the passenger ticket tax, fuel taxes on private planes, and a variety of other aviation excise taxes. These monies are accounted for in the Aviation Trust Fund, which is the source of capital spending on airports and air traffic control, as well as a large portion of the FAA’s operating budget (roughly corresponding to its air traffic control workforce). Traditionally, aviation user taxes brought in more than 80 percent of the FAA’s budget.
I agree with you for the most part but I blame this 70% on Congressional Republicans...
 
Old 03-03-2013, 03:25 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,557 posts, read 60,809,385 times
Reputation: 61193
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
I agree with you for the most part but I blame this 70% on Congressional Republicans...
Of course you do. Bush, too, no doubt.
 
Old 03-03-2013, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,698,431 times
Reputation: 9176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Not if they're commercial aircraft, they don't. There are thousands of commercial planes flying over the United States at any point in time. That's multiple hundreds of thousands of people being transported daily. How do you think all of these little dots on this map manage to safely depart their origin and navigate to their destination without chaos and accidents in the skies? You think this "just happens" on its own?



Many conservatives are too dense to know what the FAA is or what it does to keep them from dying when they fly their oversized butts across the country on commercial aircraft.
I'm pretty sure you're the one without a clue. Yes, commercial flights take off and land without ATC all the time, all over the country.

You don't seem to know the meaning of the simple word 'commercial'.

And what conservatives have to do with it is lost.

Before you even think of opening your piehole and telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, you're wrong. Dead wrong. I know far, far, far, far more about it than you ever will.

BTW, my butt isn't oversized.
 
Old 03-03-2013, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,146,306 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Of course you do. Bush, too, no doubt.
Just the Congressional Republicans. We're not talking about the great recession now...
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top