BS: FAA funding (or lack of)

Subject: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 05:02 PM

Can anyone (from either side) come up with an excuse for this congressional inaction that's gonna cost the us taxpayers about a billion bucks?

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 05:07 PM

Boehner

I don't wanna!



But really...
Its mostly about the right wing trying to abolish unions among FAA workers. West Virgina Senator Rockafeller is not caving into reight wing demands on the union issue. Blame him.

Polite talking heads pretend its about 200 million in subsidies and trying to cut funds to rural airports.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 05:13 PM

The FAA has been funded by continuing resolutions (temporary funding) for two years.

In fact most Gov Agenices have been running on CR's for years.

This time they did not give the FAA even temporary funding.

I know and you know there is no excuse for having safety inspectors of airplanes having to work for free in a nation that had the greatest respect in aviation.



I propose that COngress people of both parties, start paying back the money they cost the FAA and USA by leaving for vacation instead of finishing the nationls work.

I'm sure they can afford a 400 dollar deduction for the rest of thier life until the bill is paid. New members will not be exempt.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 05:22 PM

The deficit hawk Republicans would rather lose 22 million a day than let the Obama Administration simply due its duty under current law.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 08:05 PM

This, if one might ask, is now called Job Creation

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 08:21 PM

The Republicans are daily writing campaign points for the Democrats next year.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 09:03 PM

Not. There is a pretty large crowd of the brain-dead blaming the Democrats for this TeaBagger clusterfuck.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 11 - 10:30 PM

Ask Johnny Bonehead... This legislation had to be approved by the House 1st and he and his terrorists left town without bringing it to the floor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 01:51 PM

As Donual, JtS, Bobert and Greg F. are spinning their habitual lies, let me state a few facts- as none have been presented previously.


The funding bill had provisions to REQUIRE unions, not to prevent them. THAT was what was causing arguement.

The HOUSE bill was passed, and it was the Democratic SENATE that adjourned without taking action.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 02:50 PM

Which house bill? unconditional extension of funding?

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 03:04 PM

The beardieboy is talking about the REPUBLICAN written House bill which did pass but carried with it a 16.5 million per year budget cut in air subsidy to smaller, rural, locales. The ENTIRE air subsidy program costs 200 million per year which is roughly what was lost in ticket taxes in the first week of the shutdown!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 04:00 PM

The bill sought to override a change in counting votes for unions in a unionization election. Essentially, the Democrats seek to count a "no" vote as a "no" vote, a "yes" vote as a "yes" vote, and a no-vote as a no-vote. The Republican position is that no-votes (i.e., not voting at all) should count as a "no" vote, the same as actually, you know, voting "no."

Between that and the fight about funding rural airport support, which favors Democrats (among them, Harry Reid), makes for a contentious time. But instead of funding, say, two months of operation, while Congress fights it out, the Republican House simply went home. At a cost of some astronomical amount per week, putting construction projects on hold and ending the collection of ticket taxes (and the bloody airlines are keeping the taxes, rather than lowering ticket prices -- one wonders if this is a problem or part of the strategy).

As the whole thing is part of a continuing resolution, there's no reason, other than politics, for doing it this way. It's amazing how good Republicans are at politicking, and how bad at actually governing. Unless someone with money profits, that is.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 06:25 PM

If you can't find a crisis, create one

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: pdq
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 06:35 PM

"a crisis is a terrible thing to waste" ~ Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's guru

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 06:38 PM

That's because the Democrats don't create them.

The Republican's can have a crisis whenever they want.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Aug 11 - 06:50 PM

The funding bill had provisions to REQUIRE unions, not to prevent them. THAT was what was causing arguement.

I don't know what bill you're talking about, BB, but it sure ain't the TeaBagger Republikan one that passed the House.

See Songbob post, above. Or learn to read for comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 04:29 PM

WEll, a smidge of sanity has pevailed. An extension to Sept.16 has put
a significant number of folks back to work. And restored some tax revenue. At least for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 06:40 PM

Official Notice:

The Union of Mudcat Political Commentators has held an election under the NLRB rules , and the majority of the votes cast were in favor of a union. Since the Internet does not have "right to work" rules, only those members in good standing will be permitted to post political comments henceforth.

All scabs will be procecuted by the Department of Justice, and fined heavily.


If you did not vote, you have no say in the matter.

If you want to join, contact me and I will inform you of the dues and union limitations that have been implemented. All dues will be used for officer salaries and to support political candidates that the officers decide upon.




If you don't like this, why do you think it should apply to others???

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 06:45 PM

If you did not vote, you have no say in the matter.

You are arguing the wrong side. How is not counted counting as "no" having a say? If you do not vote. You are "saying" that you did not vote. Not that you are against the union.

All this law means is that Delta has to work as hard as the union.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 06:50 PM

JTS,,

You have posted without union membership- you will be contacted as to the fine for a first offense.

YOU did not vote, so YOU have no say in the matter. Right??

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 06:57 PM

BB, you must really enjoy playing the prat, eh? Standard TeaPotty tantrum-throwing BS

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 07:02 PM

Bruce, You didn't hold a vote. Therefor you have committed the crime of tortured analogy. If you do nor surrender yourself to the nearest Mudcat homeland security station a warrant will be issued for your arrested sense of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 09:15 PM

bb says Since the Internet does not have "right to work" rules, only those members in good standing will be permitted to post political comments henceforth.

Right to work laws in the US are STATE LAWS that say that the company may hire workers who do not choose to be voting members of the union or to pay dues to a union.

Some STATES allow workers at a company to "not be members" but allow the union to require them to pay dues. The proper terminology here is a "Union Shop," and all represented employees pay for representation, but don't necessarily have to be members of the union. The collection of dues for non-members can be by payroll deduction if the contract includes a "check-off" clause (which is illegal in most "right to work" states.)

A few states have passed STATE LAWS enabling union contracts to require all employees in a bargaining unit to actually be union members in good standing, and this is called a CLOSED SHOP provision of State Law. A company can only be prevented from hiring anyone they like, regardless of union membership, only in the few "Closed Shop" states, and even then only if the membership requirement is included in the contract.

FEDERAL LAW requires that a union must provide full representation for all members of the bargaining unit regardless of whether they choose to be "voting members" and regardless of whether they pay dues, so in any case non-members who "are part of the group" for which the union has reponsibility have all the rights of others, regardless of payment of dues and regardless of participation in union votes. The only way of avoiding giving rights to non-members is to exclude them from getting a job within the bargaining unit, legal only in the few "Closed Shop" states and then only at companies who have agreed with a closed shop clause in their contract with the union.

Aside from voting, a US union may offer "side benefits," like a discount agreements with local merchants, or in fairly rare cases "sponsored (discounted) auto insurance," etc., that come only with the "union card;" but all rights defined in the contract are - by FEDERAL LAW SUPERCEDING STATE LAWS - shared by all in the defined group of employess and the union IS REQUIRED to assure enforcement and delivery of the terms of the contract to all.

As "posting" is a legitimate work task here, a citation of the specific (state) law permitting a Closed Shop, and a copy of the required written and approved contract showing inclusion of a membership requirement and current validity of the contract for the membership will be necessary before implementing bb's claim of his restriction (for US members at least).

(But calling the non-members "SCABS" is a surviving tradition, although "free riders" is more common in some places due to PC.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 09:28 PM

You mean I don't get to be "procecuted."

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 09:46 PM

More likely you'll get proxycuted (somebody will speak for you to tell you what you mean?)

John

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 09:48 PM

I don't care as long as I get cuted somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 09:52 PM

Beardedbruce is back! I've missed you, Bruce!

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 10:12 PM

Hmm.... a majority of one, methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 11 - 10:30 PM

I missed Bruce. He is a good guy. He gave me craft beer once at a getaway.

Subject: RE: BS: FAA funding (or lack of)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 11 - 08:52 AM

The TeaPublicans have run AMOK. The Democrats are left with only two choices, cave on everything or draw a line in the sand once in a while and let the public see those destructive hypocrites for what they are.