Sport Pilot Talk

Actually, it is not "simple as that," but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

TimTaylor wrote:Yes, we could privatize everything so that only the wealthy could afford to pay for use and everyone else can do without. Privatization of ATC would increase cost due to the added profit factor. Those added cost would be passed through in the form of fees and/or price of goods and would affect the price of everything we purchase. There is no free lunch. We're going to pay in the form of taxes or fees and cost of goods. Privatization will add the profit (and greed) factor to our cost.

Drive up I85 north of Atlanta and see how many old, beat up cars zoom past you in the pay-for-use lane. It's the priviledged who can afford to pay the fees that get to use those lanes while the lower income people get to use the bumper-to-bumper lanes.

The poor are already paying for roads every time they buy a gallon of gas, pay sales taxes, or pay income taxes, state or federal. Changing who gets paid doesn't suddenly change the fact that everybody pays.

Profit only makes things cost more in the case of a monopoly. Competitive market economics reduce costs.

Please don’t turn this into a class warfare thread, this is about the merits of how to best structure the costs of ATC.

TimTaylor wrote:Actually, it is not "simple as that," but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Was that addressed to me? If so, I never said it was simple.

MrMorden wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:Actually, it is not "simple as that," but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Was that addressed to me? If so, I never said it was simple.

NO. Once again, every post I make is not ABOUT YOU or in RESPONSE TO YOU. Get over yourself. And I am not turning this into a class warfare argument, but that is a major factor in privatization. You wouldn't recognize that.

You make your post and I'll make my post. Just try that without telling me what I can and cannot post. Better yet, put me on your ignore list.

TimTaylor wrote:Actually, it is not "simple as that," but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Just for the record, who is this directed to?

I am pretty sure it was directed to me since in one of my post I stated "....it is as simple as that "

Wm.Ince wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:Actually, it is not "simple as that," but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Just for the record, who is this directed to?

The person who said it was "simple as that. Thanks for chiming in as you always do.

TimTaylor wrote:

MrMorden wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:Actually, it is not "simple as that," but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Was that addressed to me? If so, I never said it was simple.

NO. Once again, every post I make is not ABOUT YOU or in RESPONSE TO YOU. Get over yourself. And I am not turning this into a class warfare argument, but that is a major factor in privatization. You wouldn't recognize that.

You make your post and I'll make my post. Just try that without telling me what I can and cannot post. Better yet, put me on your ignore list.

You were responding to me in one post, then posted a response to “someone”where you didn’t make clear who the hell you were talking to. It’s not all about me, but dammit please using basic writing skills to make clear what is and isn’t. I Asked if it was about me, and then made a statement IF it was. I didn’t assume because I have been confused by your shitty writing style in the past. Leading to the same “it’s not all about you” rant because you have no idea how to make yourself clear.

Yeah, I would not recognize anything about class or economics, because I’m just an upper middle class white guy, whereas you are..oh, never mind. If somebody needs to get over themselves, it’s you.

I even agreed with you a couple of posts back, but you can’t help yourself but attack anybody who jiggles that giant chip on your shoulder. Same reason you go through a dozen user names on various forums because of the constant bans.

Let me give you a clue. If you see a post that seems to be in response to another post, but does not include a quote, there is a good possibility it is a response to the previous post.

TimTaylor wrote:The person who said it was "simple as that. Thanks for chiming in as you always do.

You're welcome.
I think it was a post from page 1, right?
It was a little confusing, because your post did not credit the originator.

Depends on how you have them sorted. It was in response to the post just before mine. I see no reason to quote every post I respond to if my response follows the one to which I am responding. I guess some here don't know how to read and follow a thread.

MrMorden wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:Yes, we could privatize everything so that only the wealthy could afford to pay for use and everyone else can do without. Privatization of ATC would increase cost due to the added profit factor. Those added cost would be passed through in the form of fees and/or price of goods and would affect the price of everything we purchase. There is no free lunch. We're going to pay in the form of taxes or fees and cost of goods. Privatization will add the profit (and greed) factor to our cost.

Drive up I85 north of Atlanta and see how many old, beat up cars zoom past you in the pay-for-use lane. It's the priviledged who can afford to pay the fees that get to use those lanes while the lower income people get to use the bumper-to-bumper lanes.

The poor are already paying for roads every time they buy a gallon of gas, pay sales taxes, or pay income taxes, state or federal. Changing who gets paid doesn't suddenly change the fact that everybody pays.

Profit only makes things cost more in the case of a monopoly. Competitive market economics reduce costs.

Please don’t turn this into a class warfare thread, this is about the merits of how to best structure the costs of ATC.

Why do you always turn these threads into something ugly?

TimTaylor wrote:Depends on how you have them sorted. It was in response to the post just before mine. I see no reason to quote every post I respond to if my response follows the one to which I am responding. I guess some here don't know how to read and follow a thread.

That sounds like a fishing expedition. Throw some bait out there . . . until you hook a sucker . . then start reeling in.
On the other hand, by not using the quote feature, maybe it was your post that caused the confusion, because there was no tag with it.
By the way, I think all of us can read and follow a thread. I find that insulting. Did you really mean it that way?

TimTaylor wrote:Depends on how you have them sorted. It was in response to the post just before mine. I see no reason to quote every post I respond to if my response follows the one to which I am responding. I guess some here don't know how to read and follow a thread.

You know which post you were responding to, but for the rest of us we are left wondering. You could have been typing your response to a post when the post imediately before your's was posted.

That just happened as I was responding to your post.

Someone made a statement and I immediately responded.