The Next President is...

[HeloDude]

24 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Outstanding!  I formally request a quibbling emoji.

You know, TDS goes both ways, as in one so deranged by Trump love, you can't think rationally or objectively anymore.

As for the topic, what are the benefits of a privatized ATC vs GS employees?  Wouldn't it cost more because now someone is now making profit?  OK, so ban profits.  Now that CEO writes his contract to make $5M.  Does said private company have the same oversight and obligation to the FAA/Congress on accountability?  Would said company have free reign to set fees, charge more for foreign carriers, cut services to some class D muni, etc?  Would that mean no taxpayer funds, thus driving up ticket prices?  Would my taxes go down? (I already know thats a fat No).  How do you charge that Cirrus doing 30 T/Gs for training?  What about the soon to be electrics?  They don't buy gas, so how do they pay to play? Do pilots pay by the landing or the vector?  Would this drive more VFR flying to not talk to ATC/file a flight plan?  Can ATC still give a pilot a ph number to call or is more like a security guard pulling you over for speeding?  Most importantly, what effect will this have on safety.  And this is stuff off the top of my head.

My point is, some things need to be govt, especially items that serve a broad public.  While it doesn't mean it can't work, waiving your hand and saying privatize it doesn't equal lower costs to the tax payers.

If Trump does something I like, I say it, if not, I say I don’t like it just the same.

As for privatizing vs government employee…as we are seeing, it’s a much, much easier to adjust the numbers with a contract employees vs government employees.  Just one example, which is all I need since the discussion is on shrinking the size of the federal workforce.
 

As for safety, was I trained more poorly with sim instructors who were contractors vs GS employees?  Was my life more at risk when I was flown on a rotator by a contracted company vs on a military jet?

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Outstanding!  I formally request a quibbling emoji.

You know, TDS goes both ways, as in one so deranged by Trump love, you can't think rationally or objectively anymore.

As for the topic, what are the benefits of a privatized ATC vs GS employees?  Wouldn't it cost more because now someone is now making profit?  OK, so ban profits.  Now that CEO writes his contract to make $5M.  Does said private company have the same oversight and obligation to the FAA/Congress on accountability?  Would said company have free reign to set fees, charge more for foreign carriers, cut services to some class D muni, etc?  Would that mean no taxpayer funds, thus driving up ticket prices?  Would my taxes go down? (I already know thats a fat No).  How do you charge that Cirrus doing 30 T/Gs for training?  What about the soon to be electrics?  They don't buy gas, so how do they pay to play? Do pilots pay by the landing or the vector?  Would this drive more VFR flying to not talk to ATC/file a flight plan?  Can ATC still give a pilot a ph number to call or is more like a security guard pulling you over for speeding?  Most importantly, what effect will this have on safety.  And this is stuff off the top of my head.

My point is, some things need to be govt, especially items that serve a broad public.  While it doesn't mean it can't work, waiving your hand and saying privatize it doesn't equal lower costs to the tax payers.

Bro I have to ask, are you this unpleasant in real life conversation?  I've never seen anything but an angry rant from you.  Sincerely I wish you the best.

[Banzai]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Bro I have to ask, are you this unpleasant in real life conversation?  I've never seen anything but an angry rant from you.  Sincerely I wish you the best.

Same bro, the condescension from you is palpable.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Same bro, the condescension from you is palpable.

Sorry you feel that way.  Unlike many internet boards, my sense is here we have a minimum starting respect for each other based on our shared experience as mil aviators.  I trade barbs with others about ideas, but I think if you were walking by my house & it was on fire you'd probably help.  I would for you.  That's a LOT better than much of the political discourse nowadays; so if someone is constantly pissed it's not bad to mention it & wish them the best.  Cheers 

[nunya]

7 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

if you were walking by my house & it was on fire you'd probably help

Only if you live with bqzip's mom. She calls me the fireman. I turn the hoes on.

[disgruntledemployee]

21 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Bro I have to ask, are you this unpleasant in real life conversation?  I've never seen anything but an angry rant from you.  Sincerely I wish you the best.

Bud, almost anytime I post something that's counter to Trump/cabinet, someone makes a personal attack on me.  It's like the topic is indefensible, so attack the critic.

I keep saying, debate the content.  Mod man himself went personal. uhhello did it last week.  Seriously, scroll back and see for yourself.

Cheers

[BashiChuni]

username does fit. try being less grumpy

[disgruntledemployee]

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

username does fit. try being less grumpy

Point proven.  You try harder vs depending on a made up internet name.

[brickhistory]

Two recent wins:

Trump told the UN to shove their plan to tax shipping above 5,000 tons for carbon emissions.  Not member nations, but the UN itself would levy the tax and control the funding.  That would be quite the precedent setting to have the UN start taxing.

U.N. shipping agency delays decision on ship fuel emissions tax after Trump pressure

 

The second is a little more justice, I hope.  Brennan referred to DOJ for prosecution.

BREAKING: Another Trump Enemy Now in Legal Crosshairs After Criminal Referral From Congress

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Two recent wins:

Trump told the UN to shove their plan to tax shipping above 5,000 tons for carbon emissions.  Not member nations, but the UN itself would levy the tax and control the funding.  That would be quite the precedent setting to have the UN start taxing.

U.N. shipping agency delays decision on ship fuel emissions tax after Trump pressure

 

The second is a little more justice, I hope.  Brennan referred to DOJ for prosecution.

BREAKING: Another Trump Enemy Now in Legal Crosshairs After Criminal Referral From Congress

Looks like they’re doing well with their indictments. Before you get all argumentative, the author is a former US Attorney and worked at the federal appellate division, so she may know something about legal matters compared to a bunch of aircrew/former aircrew.

https://open.substack.com/pub/joycevance/p/comey-moves-to-dismiss?r=58l99b&utm_medium=ios

Edited Tuesday at 09:38 PM by Sua Sponte

[ViperMan]

On 10/19/2025 at 8:05 AM, Sua Sponte said:

When you cut in this administration, the position is eliminated. How do I know? I was a GS in this administration. I do agree there there are plenty of federal workers positions that are bloated and need to be eliminated, however you cut with a scalpel, not a chainsaw. These idiots are cutting key positions, like the nuclear scientists at NNSA, and then frantically trying to hire them back when they found out they are actually needed. There’s going to be time when those SMEs tell them to fuck off and they don’t come back, taking their decades of knowledge with them.

I hear you, but the time to use a scalpel was about 25-30 years ago. Now, our government his hard-broke, and there ain't no gaining of compromise with the other side to agree to cut spending. Exhibit #1 = our current government shutdown over public healthcare accounting. So blasting caps and chainsaws it is.

I don't like it - and I know you don't - but it's the inevitability of having grown complacent at the trough for far too long. So feel free to direct your ire towards past decisions. I hope you take a proper lesson from them going forward. The deficit spending has to end, or getting people back who are "actually needed" (as you say) is going to seem a quaint problem when we achieve total system collapse because the rest of the world tells us to fuck off with our BS debt issuance grift. So right now, this is what a hard choice looks like. The path you suggest is allowing the tidal wave to continue building. Hard no from me on that.

[ViperMan]

On 10/19/2025 at 1:38 AM, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, that GS-13 salary is really insane compared to the $40B the US just bought in Argentinian Pesos. Why’d we do that again? 

The problem isn't limited to simply the scale of what is being spent. The problem is also what the money is being spent on.

Marshall plan? Expensive? Check. Money well spent? Double check.

Rando GS-8 sending out emails to gather data that some other government agency already gathers? Expensive? Nope. Money well spent? Double nope.

The point is we should have cut the BS many years ago. Now though? The deficit is running so far out of control we don't have the luxury of making precise choices. Slash and burn as much as possible. In my view at least half (more) of what the government does it has no business doing, so you won't see any tears from me.

[disgruntledemployee]

So, you all let your reps know to vote no on the Big Beautiful Bill, one that increased the deficit?

Edited 21 hours ago by disgruntledemployee
In case of, "but, but, but"... I'm calling it now, 22 Oct, 1746 CDT.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

So, you all let your reps know to vote no on the Big Beautiful Bill, one that increased the deficit?

Are you suggesting that some of us didn’t voice these same concerns (increased deficit) on here this past summer?

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Are you suggesting that some of us didn’t voice these same concerns (increased deficit) on here this past summer?

They don't read or listen. This is just where they take out their frustrations on the amorphous "Republican voter" as depicted by their favorite news outlet. 

 

Every time one of them breaks out the "why aren't you criticizing Trump like you do the liberals" routine, someone points out that nearly every conservative here regularly criticizes Trump, and then suddenly their keyboard goes quiet. 

 

It's boring.

[Banzai]

On 10/18/2025 at 6:12 PM, Lord Ratner said:

If she's kept from the House when the government reopens, I'm with you 100%.

Until then it's just mock outrage. 

The Constitution did not contemplate a government shutdown. 

Congress yesterday voted to instate a conservative judge in Alabama.

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Banzai said:

Congress yesterday voted to instate a conservative judge in Alabama.

Got a link? 

 

If true, then we agree, that's a bunch of ridiculous bullshit. 

 

But then you won't have to search very hard to find my criticisms of the Republican party. 

[brabus]

3 hours ago, Banzai said:

Congress yesterday voted to instate a conservative judge in Alabama.

The Senate confirmed a federal judge yesterday. On the contrary, the Speaker of the House swears in new members of congress. They are two separate processes, but you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes that they are one in the same.

That said, the House could pass a resolution to swear her in during recess. But that resolution must occur before she can be sworn in. If you want to assert Johnson is stonewalling a resolution, then go ahead…but provide evidence that he’s actually doing that other than “your gut.”

[Lord Ratner]

34 minutes ago, brabus said:

The Senate confirmed a federal judge yesterday. On the contrary, the Speaker of the House swears in new members of congress. They are two separate processes, but you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes that they are one in the same.

That said, the House could pass a resolution to swear her in during recess. But that resolution must occur before she can be sworn in. If you want to assert Johnson is stonewalling a resolution, then go ahead…but provide evidence that he’s actually doing that other than “your gut.”

The nuance matters, but absent additional nuance I'm still inclined to agree with bonsai on this one. The Republicans in the house and the Senate are working in lockstep, so they should be pulling by the same rules as far as what is and isn't shut down business. 

 

Philosophically it's a bit hard to argue that you can't swear in a representative during a shutdown, as Congress is the mechanism for resolving the shutdown, and representatives and senators make up the Congress. What if 140 Republican congressman died in a plane crash during the shutdown? Should they be replaced by Republican governors and maintain the majority, or should Democrats be given the majority because the fatalities happened to coincide with the government shut down?

 

Not that it matters. The Democrats overplayed their hand by demanding the reversal of fairly-passed legislation in exchange for opening the government. The polls support this pretty convincingly.

[disgruntledemployee]

I guess this game of chicken will come down to which incumbents think their reelection is most at risk.

[brabus]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The Republicans in the house and the Senate are working in lockstep, so they should be pulling by the same rules as far as what is and isn't shut down business. 

*should*…as in that’s not reality. The point is there isn’t any nefarious politically-driven (in)action going on, it’s simply how it works. Don’t like how it works, that’s cool, and frankly I agree. But, Banzai’s painting a picture that Republicans have a choice and they’ve chosen not to swear a Dem in while doing the opposite for a Republican. That picture simply is not true' and that’s the point of my post.

Edited 1 minute ago by brabus