The EU is NOT an elected body. It is a parasitic bureaucracy that acts without reasonable, or effective oversight and it is doing this for money, just like every other progressive organization on earth.
Like the pig, Jesse Jackson, Jr. Said, "It's all about the money."
Now that England is moving out, they have to steal from others to make up the difference, so they have money to force democracies to indulge their communist agenda.

Yeah, I got that. Which is why I called them 'autocrats' and not something else. But - the nations that make up the EU are supposed to be democracies? Germany was a republic, but I guess they are some kind of hybrid now. France is a democracy, UK, a parliamentary republic, etc. So, the EU sets a law, google supposedly violates it, EU fines them, and then google tells them to pound sand.

The question remains. If I was in charge of google I would tell the EU to get stuffed. There is NO WAY the EU powers would block the google URL. It just wouldn't happen. In fact, I might self-block the EU from accessing google URLs for a few days, just out of spite. Of course, that would cost money, but the alternative to knuckling under to the EU is unacceptable. Google owns the domain, they don't have to play nice about it. As much as I dislike google, their motives are fundamentally sound. Advance google, and the google brand(s). There are other search engines, plenty of them. Can you imagine if they forced Vauxall to advertise Peugeot cars along side Vauxall cars?  Lunacy

If the EU tried to block google.com, the autocrats in charge would be in a world of shit. I know plenty of countries block a lot of URLs, but this is the EU, not Somalia, or Cuba, or China. They are supposedly 'democracies' of some kind, although they certainly operate a lot more like oligarchy.

Why is that a straw man argument?  The decision to have an elective abortion is very personal, emotional and most certainly involves a doctor.

As far as Federal dollars going to elective abortions, those doing so are breaking the law.

Planned Parenthood has been braking the law since the 70s. I'm not going to look it up but pretty sure nearly half their funding is from federal sources. About all they do is provide abortions to low income women. Now, I'm not complaining that low income women want and need abortions, I'm fine with that, but my take is, you want the govt to pay for your abortion, you get sterilized.

There are women who have gone to PPH more than a dozen times for abortions. Many women getting an abortion there are repeat customers. Using fed funded PPH as a birth control method is idiotic. But it's only a part of the idiotic stuff the govt does.

I have no faith in any govt organization or group that tries to determine the cost/use factors of the NAS. From a GA perspective, is getting FF considered a 'use'? Even though the report posted calls a use an IFR en route service, I'll bet dollars to donuts that includes VFR flight following which is handled with a flight strip just like an IFR controlled flight. Further, the slant on business use aircraft being lumped into GA is disingenuous. There is a bright line in that report that is 'carrier' related, and then - all others. Not cool.

GA hasn't paid its fair share for ATC services for decades.

Do you have some source for that? Because, the airport and airway trust fund, which was instituted in the late 70s to collect revenue from the small users of the ATC and FAA facilities has always operated in the black. In fact, it has operated in the black so well that money has been diverted from the airport and airway trust for general funding for decades. It would seem to me, that not only are we paying our own way, we are on the debit side of the ledger and are helping to pay for many other non-aviation related bills.

As I recall, back then the AATF was first used to offset losses from the recently setup AMTRAK debacle which has LOST money since the day it was implemented. Makes sense of course, airport-airway is what trains use all the time. Once the rule was in place, of course the congress would simply rape the AATF every year and put the monies into the general fund to offset losses and make the bottom line look not as bad. Of course, airports and airways suffered, but the general public didn't care, that was for 'rich plane owners' problems, and they had welfare and govt cheese to pay for.

Back then AOPA was screaming and ranting in congress about the diversion, all to no avail. Today, some of the money collected from fuel tax is diverted to the fed highway trust fund. Some of it is spent by the FAA for operations(specifically excluded in the orig bill) and some of it is spent on airport and airways. However, as we all know, small airports are closing all over the nation. Where is the fund spending its money? Well, I can tell you. DFW got a new toll collection road improvement 6 years ago, mostly funded by the AATF. Note - this toll collection doesn't benefit the AATF, the tolls go to the city and county of Fort Worth and Tarrant. Hmmm you say? not even an air side of the airport, but the driving side improvement. Sigh. Where else did the money go? Since 2004, some of it has gone to pay for longer hours, and more people in the customs and immigration after changes to the law required people to follow the new exit and entry rules for intl flights. Wait a minute, the AATF is paying for INS/customs salary? Yup, at airports, so we get to pay our own customs and INS fees. Hmmmm, that doesn't happen at the road borders, or sea borders, but only at airports of entry.

Want more? Nevermind. It's a complete boondoggle. We're more than paying our way, and money is being taken from us to fund all kinds of non-av stuff. But, we can't do or say anything about it, cuz we're just 'rich plane owner bastards'.

Don't disagree with most of this.  Will quibble with the position that the "left" wants everything, all the time.  From my view the "left" and the "right" are more than willing to feed off the public teat, they just want to spend it on different things.

Can you provide a verifiable example of government funds going to abortion for convenience?  Might want to start with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Are you also in favor of Federal funding of birth control to minimize the rate of abortions?  Personally believe government should neither promote nor prohibit abortion.  It is such an emotional and personal decision that government should play no role.

 
I do agree with your premise of "common welfare" and the examples you show.  Not so clear as why you believe that the health of our citizens isn't part of that.

Taxes are a necessity of a civilized society, no way around it.  You may believe it is being taken from you by force, but there isn't a way around it.  Funny how the argument usually boils down to dollars - generally follows the line that someone is getting something for free and I'm paying for it, and I don't like it.  Wish we could all pick and choose what our tax dollars go for, most likely the services provided by our government would be quite different.

I'm going to do my best to answer these issues you've brought up, but I'm not going to nest them. And remember, I'm a borderline anarchist, who masquerades as a conservative/libertarian.

Absolutely agree that both left and right are out of control on spending, and the only difference is what they spend it on. If it were me - I would have a balanced budget amendment except for for declared war. So we agree on that. The conservatives are just as bad on spending. In fact, the legislature should have used the power of the budget to defund(or not fund) Obamacare from 2016 when they took over the HR.

Well, I didn't say that there were fed funds being used for abortions of convenience, but since you asked, PPH is an abortion mill and they receive a lot of fed funds. It's simply a matter of follow the money if you want to connect the dots. Further and more to the point I made, if you take the stand that Elizabeth Warren wants(prominent Dem senator) she would have all abortions all the time, for all the people. This is a left platform that if Clinton were in office, and there were two more senators would become law in a matter of hours or days. Again - further on that, I would support ALL abortions if the woman only agrees to sterilization by the govt too. I am not against abortion per-se, but as a method of continuous birth control, then pay for it your damn self. One free abortion, one free sterilization and that is the end of that.

Not in favor of any birth control federally funded. See above, one abortion, one sterilization, job done. Now - funny side story here to lighten the mood. As a young man I was stationed at Futenma Marine corps air station in Okinawa Japan(I flew helicopters). Back in the 70s, most unit commanders would not allow enlisted men off-base without at least three free condoms on their person. Of course, the Marine corps provided a nice size basket of condoms on the outbound gate from the base. Take a hint here... :-)

Now the big one. basically - "is health care a right, just like freedom of speech, worship(or not worship), gun ownership, confront accusers, etc". Lets first take the philosophical argument, and work down from there. In Utopia, all things would be paid for, there would be no strife, no murder, mayhem, theft, full employment, and of course - perfect health for all. Utopian ideals are great. But - lets not kid ourselves, aside from the Greek states from the pre-christian era, the concept of a utopian society is a pipe dream. But - we can strive for a utopia, and we should work toward a goal of all these good things. No strife, theft, murder, we have full employment and everyone is provided great health care. Note however - aside from one exception, all those other things don't require the labor, and lifetime study of another. One can not kill each other on our own, we can not steal from others on our own, we can employ ourselves, or seek employment from others(not that they are required to employ anyone). To summarize, we can all PURSUE happiness, but that does not guarantee the outcome of happiness.

Getting further into the grittiness of this debate - I don't know what you do for a living, what your vocation is but let me pose a question to you. Suppose in the next go around of political discourse, and you were a private worker for a company or in individual contributor that overnight the govt decided to socialize your vocation. Snap! Now, everything you do, every decision you make, every task you perform, and every payment you received were suddenly bounded and defined by a schedule of some bureaucratic part of the fedguv. In fact, it would be a GS-11 who decide that your time was worth between X and Y, and if you wanted to stay in your chosen field, you could no longer charge Z, but had to be within the bounds of X and Y for your remuneration. Furthermore - not only were you limited on what you would be paid by the constraints of law, but you could NOT opt out of the system, and go on your own and charge what the market would bear. You would be constrained, to do your job, get your pre-defined pay, and be happy about it. Socialism is great on the giving end but it suck hind teat on the receiving end. To put it plainly, there is no other right, or even a natural law that requires the support and labor of another to satisfy the publics right. Does that really seem fair? Should doctors be reduced to simply garbage men of the human body by removing something that doesn't belong, or clearing out junk in the body that is causing a mess? Of course not.

Market forces. A nose job by an intern from Univ of Guadalajara with no experience might run you $12,000. A nose job from the top plastic surgeon in Hollywood might run you $80,000. Is it fair that these two functions are equivalent? If course not. So - the govt has an answer for that. The intern with one year of residence might be allowed to charge GS-9 pay scale. While the seasoned veteran from Hollywood could charge GS-17 scale. But - the key point here, is when it comes down to it, the govt is setting the pay scale, and NOT the individual. This might work for the armed forces, where a private makes squat, and a general makes big bucks, but is this the model we want to force on the health care industry.

Management and monitoring. I won't tell you how I know but I can tell you with some degree of certainty, that the govt has exposed about 80% of Obamacare client records to hackers. That is 80%!! When the Dr had your private health file, in paper, stuck in his back office, the chances of your file becoming public was about 0.05%. No one broke into Dr office to steal client records. No one. But now - the govt mandated centralized management and monitoring of your records under federal control. Have they done a perfect job? A great job? A good job? A poor job? A failing job? You know the answer. If the govt has your health records, and they control the means, methods, and cost of your health care - what do you suppose will happen to your choices and privacy, and relationship with your personal MD? Suppose the govt decides that at 85 years old, you are no longer worth extensive cancer invasive surgery? No matter that you can and would be willing to pay for it - since it's now a 'right' and all health care is mandated, that decision is no longer up to you. It's up to a GS-9, in an office, in a gray building in Bethesda MD. WTF? That is where single payer health care is headed. Think it can't happen? What about as a pilot with a special issuance? Haven't faced that yet? Well, I did and sure as hell there was a GS-7, sitting in an office in OKC deciding whether I would ever get to exercise the privilege of my certificate again. Extend that to US health care, and you will know what it's like. I HATED it. To call and supplicate some boney-ass civil servant so that I could still fly my personal plane, with my own money, in my own country was disgusting, and that is where federally mandated health care is going.

Taxes are a necessary evil. Recall that I started out saying I was a borderline anarchist. While I spent 5 years as a govt employee, I gave full measure to the citizens I defended and was happy to be part of the 'common defense'. I can even bend my anarchy to understand, support and even grudgingly agree with some social common welfare. I posted some of them, and admit that they are useful for a functioning, and advancing society. Roads, fire equipment, libraries, schools, and a few other things like ATC, I can even go along with some modest future looking advances like the NASA system, and nuclear research. We are a first world country, and by gosh we should lead the world in those fields. Having said that - where are we at now? Take a look at the damn budget. We've spent literally billions of dollars paying OTHER countries to not grow sugar cane. We spend half a billion on a private company to develop and market solar panels, but the money goes into the pocket of millionaires and we get nothing! We subsidize trillion dollar companies to grow the right crop(and not grow the wrong crop!) and then, and then! we subsidize them again for adding their product to motor fuels! Does this sound like good governance? When the govt goes on a bender and we then have to 'shut down', they say that only "essential govt services will be funded". WTF? WHY is there a non-essential govt service? Huh? I don't get it. Why would the US take money out of the private economy, so they can fund a study by Berkeley about the potential capture and use of bovine methane generation? Is that a function that the US taxpayer should be paying for?

Now I'll mention, not only are we paying for this kind of above stuff, we are borrowing from foreign companies, so that we can then send the money we pay interest on to other poor countries so they like us. Insanity. And there are people who defend this behavior. Well, lets just take this insanity, and extend it to - of all things personal health care. What could go wrong? How can a market, that is already saturated with overhead costs be any worse. I know - lets add federal bureaucracy and see how that works. A website that the market could produce for $10,000 costs $60 million - and doesn't work. Registrations are mandated, but the registration system is broken, so you have to register to register, and then when the system is finally working, go back and re-register again. You have to pay(well, actually you have to 'say' you paid), but since there is a no-reject clause, or a must treat clause, including you can't be turned down clause - why would anyone bother to pay?(many many didn't pay their premiums, but are still being treated, which is why Anthem just dropped out of another market).

What couldn't go more wrong than the prospect of adding the fedguv to health care. But - that's just the economic equation. The real stickler is that all citizens are mandated to engage in commerce with some health care producer. Not provider, but health care producer(read - insurance). And the final thought is that as a new undefined 'right' a health care provider(doctor, nurse, etc) must provide their vocation, and their labor because now rights are a function of what is good for the individual, and damn the rights of the providing person. Crazy...

I'd like to break the OPs rant down and deal with the several parts.

Cut welfare: Absolutely true. Comes in several flavors. 1. Eliminate the new immigrants from getting any fed/state subsidies for five years after they arrive(I think it should be 20 years, but hey - 5 is a good start). 2. Put a lifetime cap on direct welfare payments of 18 years(funny, that's the amount of time from birth to adulthood for a welfare queen), and some other caps for other programs, but all would have a lifetime cap for direct welfare payments. 3. Cut back welfare where the recipient has hidden assets from the feds(bad problem).

Trump's direct payments to landlords: Partly true, mostly false. This is called the Section 8 housing assistance program. Trump does not own any real estate that is directly tied to any Section 8 housing payments. He is a partner in a large real estate trust that owns some redevelopment property that accepts Section 8 payments. I don't know what his stake in it is exactly, but he(and I) are all minority ownership interest. Why does the trust own RE which would be covered by Section 8 payments? Because, the govt tells us that as part of any RE trust where the assets exceed about 5 mil, a certain percent of the holdings MUST be in low-income, or structured relief payment housing - i.e. must accept Section 8. It - is - the - law.

Tax break for one of his golf courses: True. One more more of his courses was converted from a kind of fescue which is high water use to a kind of grass that uses far less water to stay green. The congress(in their infinite wisdom) back in 2009(who was prez?) offered tax rebates for courses which changed grass type. The law is on the books, the golf course qualifies, and Trump is taking LEGAL advantage of the tax break, or dodge, or loophole. BTW, the golf course is part of a collection of assets that is once again publicly owned, and so for the administrators(it is NOT Trump, he's turned all that over to others to manage) to not take advantage of reducing tax liability would be a case of failure to properly reduce taxes and fees, and maximize profits for their shareholders.

Thief and moron. A 'thief' by definition is someone who takes from someone else, or a group of people by force. So - that one's a lie. The moron comment is not worth responding to. Meh - whatev.

This whole subject is a very, very big and complex calculus. From an engineering perspective, it's filled with caveats, limit restrictions, and a lot of presumptions.

Complete cycle calorimitry is almost impossible to do the same way twice. For every conversion that is taken into account, another one may be missed, or undercounted, or overcounted.

Having said that, there are some basics we can take into account to make some broad statements.

1. Minimize conversions - What this means is that; each time you convert an energy utility from one frame to another, there is always heat loss(unless heat it the primary goal). Example: The Otto cycle engine runs on refined petroleum. There is one and only one conversion here, from chemical energy stored in the fuel, to mechanical energy produced by the engine. Sadly, even the best most modern Otto cycle engines are only about 40% efficient. But - from a life cycle perspective, that 40% looks good. The waste products are not taken into account, which would ultimately make it worse, but here's where the debate begins. Waste product effects.

2. Lower heat transfer equals greater efficiency - Motors of the same torque run much, much cooler than engines of the same capacity. There are far lower friction transfers, far fewer moving parts, and the motor operates on a function of electrodynamic lines of force, that never physically touch. All this combines to make the electric motor much more power transfer efficient, due primarily to the lower heat exchange losses.

3. Use(transfer) molecular energy at the outer most shell of the molecule - This one is more for the physicist, than the engineer, but it's an important base energy model. In brief, a copper wire conducts electricity better than an aluminum wire because there are more avail valance electrons in copper than aluminum. From the nuclear field we can get huge amounts of energy release from the middle of the U or Pu atom, but the task of getting to it, and then harnessing it for useful power is a long, long, messy chain of energy conversions, limit boundaries(we don't want it to blow up spectacularly), and stepwise heat losses.

Trying to take all the cycle energy costs in moving meatsacks around on the ground or in the air is a big, messy job. Most people have a bare understanding that the electricity which powers their Tesla actually came from petroleum burning. The US relies heavily on petroleum power, including coal. Only a small percent of our power is provided by other means, and only a small part of that percent is from what is called 'green' sources.

Further to that, if we take the life cycle energy budget for a solar panel into account, for most panels it would have to provide sunlight produced energy for about 13 years before it pays back the energy budget used to produce it in the first place(including the glass cover, frame, connectors, etc). However, I have to admit that as more solar panels are built on a large scale, and the improvements in solar panel efficiency increase, this number may be below 10 years now. My research was done back in the late 90s, and is fairly stale. Even at 10 years, that's a long payback time for the lifecycle budget of an energy source.

We will never get away from petroleum produced energy. Take the big three into account when deciding on your efficiency, and try not to fall for the marketing claims. They are often misleading, and in some cases flat out lies.