3 ms·
From what I understand, ATC also covers military flights in the US, which gives a pretty good national security reason to have central control over it... at lea
by crooked-v 1y ago
From what I understand, ATC also covers military flights in the US, which gives a pretty good national security reason to have central control over it... at least when a particular party isn't intentionally trying to destroy it along with various other government functions.
- alemanek 1y agoI think the argument is more that ATC, people and equipment needed, should be funded via use fees. This ensures that the system is self sustaining. Also as demand increases then revenue to run the system would also increase.
- amypetrik8 1y agoI agree - a good example is bridges and bridge tolls. Maybe a lot of people in NYC have crossed the verrazano bridge. "see, most of us have crossed it, I don't see why taxes shouldn't pay for it". The counterexample would be the trucking company, that once taxes pay for it and not tolls, runs convoys of tractor trailers up and down the bridge, rapidly accelerating wear & tear - had they paid on a toll basis they'd be paying their fare share vs someone who crossed in one time 8 years ago.
- nandomrumber 1y agoHow do you determine which party is refusing to capitulate at any particular moment in time. Doesn’t it take two to have a disagreement?
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoWell since the Republicans closed shop and went home instead of staying and trying to figure out a working solution, while also having the majority and the presidency, in this case it's easy to determine.