Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - Re: CE-04-34, Horizontal support (teamgrumman@aol.com)
2. 12:10 AM - User Fees (teamgrumman@aol.com)
3. 04:44 AM - Re: User Fees (Bruce Smith)
4. 12:03 PM - Re: User Fees (teamgrumman@aol.com)
5. 12:44 PM - Re: User Fees (Stephen Meyers)
6. 12:48 PM - Re: User Fees (Rick)
7. 12:51 PM - Re: User Fees (A1ynk@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CE-04-34, Horizontal support |
Thanks Gil.
-----Original Message-----
From: gilalex@earthlink.net
Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support
Gary ....I'll dig 'em out and mail them..... gil A
At 11:32 PM 4/5/2007, you wrote:
Thanks for the update Gil. I'd love to borrow the drill guides and
reamers. I'm having some special braces made and I'm not sure when
I'll have them. Plus, there is a lot of other work I'm doing on the
plane.
But, yes, if you don't mind, I'd love to borrow the drill and ream.
Thanks
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: gilalex@earthlink.net
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support
At 08:14 PM 4/5/2007, you wrote:
I tried scraping it with several different types of scrapers, even an
exacto. I finally used an duel action orbital sander. I never did
get any to chip off. It took about two hours to sand down all of the
rough edges. That includes all the hand work in the corners. Looks
pretty good now.
Hope you didn't take too much of the 0.025 off...:^) - or is 0.032
there?
As for drilling and shimming to make the stub spar fit the vertical
braces, I plan on clamping the vertical braces in place with the
horizontal and stub spar installed before I drill any holes. That
way, the braces will be tight against the stub spar.
Yes.. but it's hard to hold the verticals in alignment while the glue
dries... at least to the accuracy to not have anything under stress in
the final assembly.
Once the verticals are bonded and riveted, then it's easy to use
C-clamps and get levels on the horizontal for alignment... as well as
tip measurements to the fus. centerline to get no sweep forward/sweep
back....
My plane had shims on one side - I think the fus. side - already...
Do you want the drill guide and reamer for the two big holes?
That seemed to be the hardest part to me - I bet most folks would
just use a big drill bit and screw up the existing hole in the stub
spar...:^(
I like all my bolts to be a nice slip fit if possible...:^)
gil A
-----Original Message-----
From: gilalex@earthlink.net
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support
I'll ask Bill S for round cylinders...
The removal is below.... the adhesive was quite brittle....
------------------------------------
When I did it, I seem to remember it chipped off fairly easily...
Of course, use an aluminum scraping edge so the base material
isn't gouged.
And a final clean up with scotchbrite disk.
gil in Tucson ... did that....
At 11:16 AM 4/5/2007, you wrote:
The one I've got has the vertical braces buckled about twice as
much as yours. So, how did you clean up the residual adheasive?
I have a customer who got some cylinders done by BS. Two of
them always used a lot of oil. We removed them and had LyCon go
over them.
When BS overhauled them, they were honed out-of-round. Lycon
recut the cylinder (it only took less than .002) and installed some new
rings.
All is well now after 400 hours. Just a heads up.
-----Original Message-----
From: gilalex@earthlink.net
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support
Boy ... the SAIB is old enough I thought they would have
all been found by now...:^)
No photos of the repair, but the damage is here...
Check the little bend of the verticals that goes under the top
plate... that seems to be a real weak point... upper left and upper
right in the pics.
I have a couple of drill bushings and a reamer that will help
you drill the new bolt hole in the vertical webs... want to borrow
them? I think that is the most critical part of the process....
fore and aft location can be fixed with shims with a Tiger part
number... I have those drawings too, JPG copy attached...
Pics are in this directory....
http://home.earthlink.net/~gilalex/Tiger/
....hope this helps gil A ... waiting for
cylinders to to arrive at Bill Scott's place...:^)
At 07:10 AM 4/5/2007, you wrote:
Gil, I have a Tiger in the shop right now with a crack from the
attachment bolt hole to the edge of the angle on the RH side.
The bonding of the other leg is fine and there is virtually not
deformation of the angle.
Do you have some photos of your plane and the repair you could
email me?
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: Gil Alexander
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support
Gary,
When I did it, I seem to remember it chipped off fairly easily...
Of course, use an aluminum scraping edge so the base material
isn't gouged.
And a final clean up with scotchbrite disk.
gil in Tucson ... did that....
At 10:12 PM 4/4/2007, you wrote:
This is mostly meant for Bob Stewart only because I think he's
done this before. And Cliff too, if he's repaired this one.
I've got the braces off. They came off fairly easily with
a heat gun.
Didn't require a whole lot of heat actually. What I need
to know is . . . . .
How do I get the rest of the adheasive off the skin of the fuselage?
Do I sand it off with an orbital sander? Do I reheat it
and scrape it? I tried picking at it a bit to see if it will
come off. It's stuck pretty well.
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
--------
te: 4/4/2007 1:09 PM
--------
It has remn their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
[Image Removed]
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
==========
TeamGrumman-List Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
==========
; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
==========
TeamGrumman-List Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
==========
; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
==========
TeamGrumman-List Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
==========
; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get printed,
pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees.
Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom
Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less than it
did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more than shuffle
money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more in bonuses than
any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just amazes me. Defending
multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-owners?) as cost-effective
goes beyond anything I can comprehend. Privately owned airfields, as
in the U.K., mean that the owners of those airfields can decide to
charge whatever fees they deem necessary in order to pay this months
mortgage. This only makes the owners, corporations, wealthy at the
expense of excluding anything remotely resembling a middle-class.
From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying user
fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. Me thinks
youve been a British subject a little too long. Which reminds me of
a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, are
missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The rich can
afford to pay high fees for what they want because their taxes have
been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. For some
reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is to pay
taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and the middle
class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well.
Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that long
ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of charge. If
someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had to do is get
there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers and Park
maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians found they
could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there are fees. The
cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach for an increasing
larger percentage of the population.
In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the
best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it
cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern,
up-to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was
affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one
percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it.
Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was
purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value
increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of 50.
A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a Health
Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a parking fee,
and a student body Identification fee. Roads and other infrastructure
are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it costs a minimum of $50,000
in fees just to break ground for a new house. An average 3 bedroom
2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. That same house costs over $400,000
today.
Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really
want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of our
airports and making the cost of recreational flying unaffordable to all
but the wealthy? Who really wins when the government gets out of
maintaining the most affordable, safest, self-supporting aviation
system in the world? Do you, or does anyone, really trust private
corporations to NOT price gouge? Privatizing the aviation system makes
about as much sense as privatizing our highway system. Oh, right, that
could never happen.
The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our
Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these
rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Gary L Vogt
Auburn, CA
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Gary,
Awesome letter. Any chance you'll be forming a presidential
exploratory committee?
Bruce Smith
On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:10 AM, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote:
>
> Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get
> printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees.
>
> Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom
>
> Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less
> than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more
> than shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more
> in bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just
> amazes me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-
> owners?) as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend.
> Privately owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of
> those airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem
> necessary in order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes
> the owners, corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding
> anything remotely resembling a middle-class.
>
> From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying
> user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others.
> Me thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which
> reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are
> more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right
> themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
>
> The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees,
> are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The
> rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their
> taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income.
> For some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is
> to pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and
> the middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well.
>
> Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that
> long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of
> charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had
> to do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers
> and Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians
> found they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there
> are fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach
> for an increasing larger percentage of the population.
>
> In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the
> best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it
> cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up-
> to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was
> affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one
> percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it.
> Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was
> purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value
> increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of
> 50. A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a
> Health Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a
> parking fee, and a student body Identification fee. Roads and
> other infrastructure are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it
> costs a minimum of $50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new
> house. An average 3 bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000.
> That same house costs over $400,000 today.
>
> Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really
> want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of
> our airports and making the cost of recreational flying
> unaffordable to all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the
> government gets out of maintaining the most affordable, safest,
> self-supporting aviation system in the world? Do you, or does
> anyone, really trust private corporations to NOT price gouge?
> Privatizing the aviation system makes about as much sense as
> privatizing our highway system. Oh, right, that could never happen.
>
> The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our
> Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these
> rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments
> are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
> consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government
> becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
> alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
> foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
> form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
> Happiness.
>
> Gary L Vogt
> Auburn, CA
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> __
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Maybe, if I had about 100 million dollars to spend
-----Original Message-----
From: res02p3h@comcast.net
Sent: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees
<res02p3h@comcast.net>
Gary,
Awesome letter. Any chance you'll be forming a presidential
exploratory committee?
Bruce Smith
On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:10 AM, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote:
>
> Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get >
printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees.
>
> Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom
>
> Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less >
than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more > than
shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more > in
bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just > amazes
me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-> owners?)
as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend. > Privately
owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of > those
airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem > necessary in
order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes > the owners,
corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding > anything remotely
resembling a middle-class.
>
> From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying >
user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. > Me
thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which >
reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are >
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right >
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
>
> The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, >
are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The >
rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their >
taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. > For
some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is > to
pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and > the
middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well.
>
> Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that >
long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of >
charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had > to
do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers > and
Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians > found
they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there > are
fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach > for an
increasing larger percentage of the population.
>
> In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the
> best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it >
cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up->
to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was >
affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one >
percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it. >
Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was >
purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value >
increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of > 50.
A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a > Health
Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a > parking fee,
and a student body Identification fee. Roads and > other infrastructure
are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it > costs a minimum of
$50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new > house. An average 3
bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. > That same house costs over
$400,000 today.
>
> Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really >
want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of > our
airports and making the cost of recreational flying > unaffordable to
all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the > government gets out of
maintaining the most affordable, safest, > self-supporting aviation
system in the world? Do you, or does > anyone, really trust private
corporations to NOT price gouge? > Privatizing the aviation system
makes about as much sense as > privatizing our highway system. Oh,
right, that could never happen.
>
> The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our >
Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these >
rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments > are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the > consent of
the governed, That whenever any Form of Government > becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to > alter or
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such > form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and > Happiness.
>
> Gary L Vogt
> Auburn, CA
>
>
______________________________________________________________________>
__
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Actually, that wouldn't do it...
I saw on the news recently, where it's estimated that it will take more than 400
million to get elected president now. That's about what Bush spent in 2004.
Stephen Meyers
Largo, FL
1969 AA1 N103RG
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees
Maybe, if I had about 100 million dollars to spend
-----Original Message-----
From: res02p3h@comcast.net
Sent: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees
<res02p3h@comcast.net>
Gary,
Awesome letter. Any chance you'll be forming a presidential
exploratory committee?
Bruce Smith
On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:10 AM, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote:
>
> Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get >
printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees.
>
> Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom
>
> Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less >
than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more > than
shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more > in
bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just > amazes
me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-> owners?)
as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend. > Privately
owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of > those
airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem > necessary in
order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes > the owners,
corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding > anything remotely
resembling a middle-class.
>
> From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying >
user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. > Me
thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which >
reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are >
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right >
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
>
> The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, >
are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The >
rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their >
taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. > For
some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is > to
pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and > the
middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well.
>
> Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that >
long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of >
charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had > to
do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers > and
Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians > found
they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there > are
fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach > for an
increasing larger percentage of the population.
>
> In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the
> best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it >
cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up->
to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was >
affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one >
percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it. >
Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was >
purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value >
increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of > 50.
A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a > Health
Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a > parking fee,
and a student body Identification fee. Roads and > other infrastructure
are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it > costs a minimum of
$50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new > house. An average 3
bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. > That same house costs over
$400,000 today.
>
> Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really >
want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of > our
airports and making the cost of recreational flying > unaffordable to
all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the > government gets out of
maintaining the most affordable, safest, > self-supporting aviation
system in the world? Do you, or does > anyone, really trust private
corporations to NOT price gouge? > Privatizing the aviation system
makes about as much sense as > privatizing our highway system. Oh,
right, that could never happen.
>
> The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our >
Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these >
rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments > are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the > consent of
the governed, That whenever any Form of Government > becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to > alter or
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such > form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and > Happiness.
>
> Gary L Vogt
> Auburn, CA
>
>
______________________________________________________________________>
__
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Gary for president? Well that would make a very interesting world indeed. I
would love it and never stop smiling. I don't think he would ever invade a
country unless it was named Hooters. We would all parachute in from
Grummans with cocktails in our packs.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
teamgrumman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees
Maybe, if I had about 100 million dollars to spend
-----Original Message-----
From: res02p3h@comcast.net
Sent: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees
<res02p3h@comcast.net>
Gary,
Awesome letter. Any chance you'll be forming a presidential
exploratory committee?
Bruce Smith
On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:10 AM, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote:
>
> Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get >
printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees.
>
> Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom
>
> Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less >
than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more > than
shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more > in
bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just > amazes
me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-> owners?)
as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend. > Privately
owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of > those
airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem > necessary in
order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes > the owners,
corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding > anything remotely
resembling a middle-class.
>
> From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying >
user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. > Me
thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which >
reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are >
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right >
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
>
> The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, >
are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The >
rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their >
taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. > For
some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is > to
pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and > the
middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well.
>
> Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that >
long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of >
charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had > to
do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers > and
Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians > found
they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there > are
fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach > for an
increasing larger percentage of the population.
>
> In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the
> best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it >
cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up->
to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was >
affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one >
percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it. >
Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was >
purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value >
increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of > 50.
A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a > Health
Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a > parking fee,
and a student body Identification fee. Roads and > other infrastructure
are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it > costs a minimum of
$50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new > house. An average 3
bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. > That same house costs over
$400,000 today.
>
> Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really >
want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of > our
airports and making the cost of recreational flying > unaffordable to
all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the > government gets out of
maintaining the most affordable, safest, > self-supporting aviation
system in the world? Do you, or does > anyone, really trust private
corporations to NOT price gouge? > Privatizing the aviation system
makes about as much sense as > privatizing our highway system. Oh,
right, that could never happen.
>
> The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our >
Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these >
rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments > are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the > consent of
the governed, That whenever any Form of Government > becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to > alter or
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such > form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and > Happiness.
>
> Gary L Vogt
> Auburn, CA
>
>
______________________________________________________________________>
__
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I like your piece there Gary. You have my vote. Mind if I forward it to
someone?
Bill Hatton the worthless helicopter mechanic
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|