Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 147

Thread: The government shutdown.....

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,306
    If such mundane local matters as small airport infrastructure and firefighting gear require the blessing of a federal mandarin, couldn’t a reasonable person conclude that our government is too top-heavy?

  2. #82
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,802
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    If such mundane local matters as small airport infrastructure and firefighting gear require the blessing of a federal mandarin, couldn’t a reasonable person conclude that our government is too top-heavy?
    They could. But they could also look into the history of how those federal grant programs came into being in the first place to try and determine if they were logical. I was recently at TWA museum in Kansas City and one of the things the docent talked about was that back in the '50's there was just air traffic control in the immediate area surrounding major airports. Once the plane had gotten outside that immediate area they flew whereever. Which resulted in a few crashes. I would suspect that small local airport safety requirements, and funding to pay for those requirements, stems from this. I would assume that a rinky dink airport far from a major airport has less requirements (although maybe not, and it could be argued that they should.) But bae's tiny airport isn't that far from Seattle or Vancouver. Two airports that have lots of traffic through them that could easily get tangled up in bae's airport's traffic. Hence the need for greater safety abilities at it and other similarly situated airports across the country.

  3. #83
    Williamsmith
    Guest
    Here are some very rigorous rules regarding air space around varying sizes of airports and additional technology requirements where air traffic is the greatest. The least restrictive is the see and be seen Unicom type situation that occurs at very small airports but to the point of government.......I feel it is similar to turning up the gain on my amplifier. Too little is not effective, too much ruins everything, there is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle.

    Id like to see Nancy and Chuck tell Donald that they will see to it he gets the funding for the wall if he just releases the last four tax returns he has filed. Could be some interesting stepping and fetching going on then.

    Or maybe he Dems can explain why they are not in favor of providing national security seeing as how all the opioids and fentanyl that kills our population of addicts comes from across the Mexican border as well as other concerns about safety.

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,306
    I don’t doubt the wisdom of a national air traffic control or postal system or nuclear deterrent. But there are any number of areas where the feds use their taxing powers to dictate minor matters to street level government. If a sparrow can’t fall to earth or pothole be filled unless some central government commissar wills it, then we are at the mercy of the whims of a pretty remote set of masters.

    From my petty perch as a local government bureaucrat, I see this all the time. There is a vast vortex of cash inhaled from local citizens to Washington that then (less administrative friction) flows back through states to the little governments where most of the work gets done. Terms, conditions, mandates and various expensive forms of bureaucratic dominance rituals are accreted along the way.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Teacher Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    12,889
    The Dems don’t want the wall because the drugs are coming across the border in cars. The wall can’t stop it.

  6. #86
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Teacher Terry View Post
    The Dems don’t want the wall because the drugs are coming across the border in cars. The wall can’t stop it.
    No, the Dems don't want the wall because the President does, so, as long as the President is blamed for the government shutdown, the Dems will ensure it stays shut down for as long as it takes.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #87
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,477
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    If such mundane local matters as small airport infrastructure and firefighting gear require the blessing of a federal mandarin, couldn’t a reasonable person conclude that our government is too top-heavy?
    It doesn't require a "blessing", just a signature on the document releasing the funding, which in the airport case is from fuel/landing fees and predesignated for the purpose. Most of it goes to pavement. Sort of like the federal highway system.

    You can argue that the government shouldn't be involved in roads, but....

  8. #88
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    25,383
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    It doesn't require a "blessing", just a signature on the document releasing the funding, which in the airport case is from fuel/landing fees and predesignated for the purpose. Most of it goes to pavement. Sort of like the federal highway system.

    You can argue that the government shouldn't be involved in roads, but....
    Isnt the national highway system a basic part of national security? At least, it was explained that way to me.

    I think the federal government’s main job is national security so I wouldnt be arguing against that.

  9. #89
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,477
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    Isnt the national highway system a basic part of national security? At least, it was explained that way to me.

    I think the federal government’s main job is national security so I wouldnt be arguing against that.
    I suspect this airport is too. It's *right* on the border, and we have agreements in place with the local military commands to use it as a staging area for all sorts of fun things. They even come out here and drill.

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    123
    But is the wall necessary? The number of immigrants has decreased annually for several years. Most of the illegal drugs come in through ports of entry or on planes. The largest number of illegal aliens comes from people who overstay their visas.

    I have not heard an argument for the wall that does not ignore these two facts. I would be willing to listen to one.

    And I also have problems claiming that anyone who does not want the wall does not want strong borders or national security. You can have both without a wall.

    Maybe we could spend the money instead on enforcing the current immigration laws that we already have. That might solve some of the problems.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •