See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 1st, 2009 at 8:59 am, ajmontana said:

   And just think were probably not even an eighth of the way in on Hilldebeasts demands of ‘the deal” made with His Royal Odopeyness in November.

2. #2
   On July 1st, 2009 at 8:59 am, chapoutier said:

   The longtime veteran employee was abruptly “retired” this month

   Shouldn’t this be “last” month?

3. #3
   On July 1st, 2009 at 9:04 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

   Then again there are a lot of favors to be done for the Party Faithful-they served The One well and must be compensated. Let us not let petty things such as the Law get the way of Hope and Change.
   Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold could have an accident or sudden illness–it does happen; the Fort Marcy Park Effect.

   Silly you, still have family in the old country?
   (you might be a little young to remember that line from way too many spy movies)

4. #4
   On July 1st, 2009 at 9:11 am, Cosmo said:

   I was going to suggest that someone keep a running tally of the instances of cronyism and partisanship, but Michelle is doing a fine job documenting it all.

   Too bad the “real” journalists (see also, O.J.’s “real” killers) can’t be bothered to do the same.

5. #5
   On July 1st, 2009 at 9:19 am, chapoutier said:

   Too bad the “real” journalists (see also, O.J.’s “real” killers) can’t be bothered to do the same.

   Washington Post has had at least 2 stories on the firing and investigation.

6. #6
   On July 1st, 2009 at 9:21 am, NJ-Aviator said:

   You all see the pattern developing here?

   When crooks breaks into a place to steal and engage in other illegal acts……. the first thing the criminals do is take out the guards.

   Obama’s administration is in the process of neutralizing all of the guards so that his cronies can operate without fear of anyone pulling an alarm.

   When is something more than requests for documents going to happen? I want to see Federal Grand Juries convened and indictments handed down.

7. #7
   On July 1st, 2009 at 9:22 am, bradley said:

   Makes perfect sense to me: load up the IG offices with compliant Democrats who will oversee the distribution of wealth to those deemed appropriate. American politics and diversity at its finest. Remember: we have to spread the wealth around. The One told us so.

8. #8
   On July 1st, 2009 at 9:22 am, Flyoverman said:

   Shouldn’t this be “last” month?

   Let’s see here…. “Thirty days have September, April, June, and November, all the rest…”

   DOH!!!

9. #9
   On July 1st, 2009 at 9:22 am, Ragspierre said:

   Another day…

   another, “Dude, where’s my country…?!?!?”

   moment.

10. #10
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:23 am, Michelle Malkin said:

    Let’s see here…. “Thirty days have September, April, June, and November, all the rest…”

    Corrected. I wrote the column yesterday.

11. #11
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am, Ragspierre said:

    Washington Post has had at least 2 stories on the firing and investigation.

    Hu….

    zah…

12. #12
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am, maine yankee said:

    How long before every agency has a ‘party oficer’ appointed by the polit-boro ?

    (“ve haf wayz of maekeeng you ‘not talk’”

13. #13
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am, ThackerAgency said:

    It is sad that the administration thinks it is above the law.

    But I want to use this post to provide my support to a high speed rail system across the USA. I know it would be expensive, but it would provide jobs until it was completed.

    If we could go by rail from NY to LA in 4 hours, we would save oil. Lots of people would use the train instead of the airline if it were as convenient. I know I would.

14. #14
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am, Mach1Duck said:

    Ok folks, let us start writing the Senate Judicary and House Justice commities and demand an investigation, starting with AG Eric Holder.

15. #15
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am, ThackerAgency said:

    Corrected. I wrote the column yesterday.

    I use the ‘knuckle’ system. Ball your hand in a fist and count the months using the knuckles and the spaces in between the knuckles for each month. The months that fall on the knuckle are 31 days, the others are 30 or less days.

    Count the last knuckle as two (July and August). and then come back to complete the months.

    Anyway it works for me. . . and I don’t have to remember anything. It’s the fist calendar.

16. #16
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:35 am, chapoutier said:

    If we could go by rail from NY to LA in 4 hours, we would save oil. Lots of people would use the train instead of the airline if it were as convenient. I know I would.

    What airline do you use that goes from NY to LA in 4 hours?

17. #17
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:38 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    NJ-Aviator said:
    I want to see Federal Grand Juries convened and indictments handed down.

    With Eric Holder’s Assistant Attorneys General convening? Let’s see here…. “Thirty days have September, April, … I am not hopeful.
    Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold might get indicted for not removing his Amtrak Parking decal in a timely manner.

    The Politics of Destruction is a Liberal’s Family Value.

18. #18
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am, Flyoverman said:

    Washington Post has had at least 2 stories on the firing and investigation.

    That is encouraging. However, I’d like the broadcast networks and the White House press corps to start asking some pointed questions.

    One would hope that all journalists will understand that there is a clear difference between partisanship and corruption.

19. #19
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    What airline do you use that goes from NY to LA in 4 hours?

    The Good Airship Lollipop airline.

20. #20
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:44 am, Savage24 said:

    A government running wild and nobody to answer to. They are so confident that they don’t even try to hide their corruption anymore.

21. #21
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am, WarTip said:

    Hey I have an idea. The government is doing such a fine job running amtrak and the airline industries … subsidizing … not running … as we know the government does not want to “run” private industries … let’s give the government even more power to fully abscond with all powers related to private industry, health care and everything else that we the people are incapable or unwilling to provide for ourselves. Then everybody can hold hands, sing Kumbaya and live happily ever after … all equally of course … just that some people have to be a little more equal than others to make this happen.

    /BARF!

22. #22
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am, Flyoverman said:

    What airline do you use that goes from NY to LA in 4 hours?

    Non-stop it is actually 3 “relative” hours, after you set your watch to local time.

    HELP ME! I am starting to think like Harry Reid!

23. #23
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:49 am, ThackerAgency said:

    What airline do you use that goes from NY to LA in 4 hours?

    The Good Airship Lollipop airline.

    If you could do it by train, would you? Of course. We could lead the world in bullet train technology and reduce the need for oil consuming aircraft.

24. #24
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:51 am, ThackerAgency said:

    you could do it at 600 mph. I’ve driven it in 36 hours.

25. #25
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:53 am, Ragspierre said:

    NJ-Aviator said:
    I want to see Federal Grand Juries convened and indictments handed down.

    Once, not that long ago, there were common law grand juries, if something I read recently is true. Look it up.

    They were pretty much “people’s grand juries”…the place where the term “run-away grand jury” originated.

    Sort of makes one think….

26. #26
    On July 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Watchdogs are an endangered species in the Age of Obama.

    Remember when the Democrat[ic Socialist]s were moaning about a lack of oversight in the Bush administration?

    Projection, once again. They accuse Republicans of that which they themselves are guilty.

    The next time you hear a Democrat accuse a Republican of wrongdoing, look closely at the Democrat… they are likely many times more guilty of that very same thing.

27. #27
    On July 1st, 2009 at 10:49 am, GladzKravtz said:

    This is all so distressing.
    Is it me or is there really this difference like night and day between the ethics of the 2 parties?
    The Dems seem so blatantly corrupt and I didn’t hear AS much about the Reps. when they were in power, even with the rantings of Pelosi.
    Were the republicans equally as bad and we just chose not to see it?
    Boggles the mind.

28. #28
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:02 am, GladzKravtz said:

    I love high speed rail and that’s my means of xportation when in Europe. For the most part, very efficient and convenient. But!! From what I understand, it is highly and forever will be subsidized by the governments of each country (EU now?). That is something that is one long term committment and, in this country requires much planning. In other words, shouldn’t be in a bill that was not read/written and run thru like poop through a goose. (can i say poop?)

29. #29
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am, Ragspierre said:

    In other words, shouldn’t be in a bill that was not read/written and run thru like poop through a goose. (can i say poop?)

    As to poop, apparently…

    What’s wrong with ending the AMbroke monopoly, and seeing if there are free marketeers out there that would like to do some rail innovation?

    Works every time it is tried…

30. #30
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:24 am, rocketman said:

    ***
    I bet that Princess “SanFranNan” Pelosi’s “private” government jet probably goes from Washington, D.C. to Kalifornia in about 4 hours.
    ***
    As far as Amtrak–it can not compete with the airlines without massive government (read TAXPAYER) SUBSIDIES–not in time–not in cost. Most passenger rail transport exists to satisfy nostalgia buffs like me–those who like Sopwith Camels, Harleys, Colt .45 revolvers, Jack Daniels, charcoal grilled steaks, girls, etc. Only I pay for my own items–I don’t expect someone else to do so!
    ***
    Only businesses that can survive on their own should exist. The free market sorts things out pretty well.
    Those that can not survive should go the way of the horse and buggy, dinosaurs, Ford Pintos, etc.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

31. #31
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am, chapoutier said:

    As far as Amtrak–it can not compete with the airlines without massive government (read TAXPAYER) SUBSIDIES–not in time–not in cost. Most passenger rail transport exists to satisfy nostalgia buffs like me–those who like Sopwith Camels, Harleys, Colt .45 revolvers, Jack Daniels, charcoal grilled steaks, girls, etc. Only I pay for my own items–I don’t expect someone else to do so!

    I won’t speak for all of Amtrak, but this is simply untrue of the Northeast Corridor. It is highly used and highly profitable.

    From Amtrak’s 2008 Business Plan:

    Northeast Corridor Operations
    Revenue for the Northeast Corridor Operations is expected to be $916.9 million with operating expenses
    totaling $657.3 million (19% of the expense budget). A profit of $259.6 million is projected from this line
    of business.

32. #32
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am, WarTip said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:24 am, rocketman said:

    ***
    I bet that Princess “SanFranNan” Pelosi’s “private” government jet probably goes from Washington, D.C. to Kalifornia in about 4 hours.
    ***
    As far as Amtrak–it can not compete with the airlines without massive government (read TAXPAYER) SUBSIDIES–not in time–not in cost. Most passenger rail transport exists to satisfy nostalgia buffs like me–those who like Sopwith Camels, Harleys, Colt .45 revolvers, Jack Daniels, charcoal grilled steaks, girls, etc. Only I pay for my own items–I don’t expect someone else to do so!

    I actually prefer the Wild Turkey (Straight Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey as opposed to Sourmash which is what your Jack Daniels is) The charcoal after taste is just too unpleasant also whereas the aftertaste of the used wine casks that are used for aging Wild Turkey give it a little bit of extra flavor and not just pucker factor … but then again, who am I to say … budweiser and AOL make lots of money too.

    I am with you on the single action Colt .45 though.

33. #33
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am, Regulus said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:44 am, Savage24 said:

    A government running wild and nobody to answer to. They are so confident that they don’t even try to hide their corruption anymore.

    Exactly.

    I’d liken the USA today to a person who is suffering from a fever: you can try ice packs or potions to try to reduce the symptoms, but in the end the only way out of it is to go through it.

    With Hope-a-Dope at the helm, the House completely out of control under Pelosi and Reid sitting on a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority, there’s not much that conservatives can do but wait and see if donk fever breaks in 2010.

    The donks know this, too, which is (1) why they’re being so brazen, and (2) why they’re trying to do as much damage as they can before 2010, in the hope of making the patient so sick that he’ll never recover.

    Those donks in the New York legislature, who refused to stand for or recite the Pledge of Allegiance because a Republican was reciting it? That’s the face of today’s donkey party: totalitarian-minded, petulant thugs who can only love their country when they’re running things.

    Everything else is just variations on a theme.

34. #34
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:46 am, xler8bmw said:

    Wow that bus be full by now. He better nationalize Greyhound soon!

35. #35
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am, DBNinKY said:

    Investigative journalist Robert Stacy McCain, who has watch-dogged the watchdog stories, noted last week that Amtrak’s vice president and general counsel is Eleanor Acheson.

    Acheson, an old friend of Hillary Clinton, also has close ties to Vice President Joe “Mr. Amtrak” Biden. She hired Biden’s nominations counsel Jonathan Meyer to serve as her deputy general counsel. The two had also worked together in the Clinton Justice Department.

    I wonder, is it accurate for any of us to refer to these people as Clinton cronies? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to label them “Friends of Rahm?”

36. #36
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am, Ragspierre said:

    I won’t speak for all of Amtrak, but this is simply untrue of the Northeast Corridor. It is highly used and highly profitable.

    Then it would make a great item for a market sale.

    There is no excuse for government monopoly.

37. #37
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:52 am, J S Ragman said:

    Silly you, still have family in the old country?

    To paraphrase Frank Pentangeli, “Your father did business with Barry Hussein. Your father respected Barry Hussein. But your father never trusted Barry Hussein.”

38. #38
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:52 am, Ragspierre said:

    Wow that bus be full by now.

    You can’t count the bodies on the undercarriage…

39. #39
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am, happyscrapper said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am, ThackerAgency said: I use the ‘knuckle’ system. Ball your hand in a fist and count the months using the knuckles and the spaces in between the knuckles for each month. The months that fall on the knuckle are 31 days, the others are 30 or less days.

    Count the last knuckle as two (July and August). and then come back to complete the months.

    Anyway it works for me. . . and I don’t have to remember anything. It’s the fist calendar.

    Hey knucklehead…when I was in school, we learned the “30 days hath September” ditty. It is short, easy, and after all these years, I still use it a lot. Back in the “old days”, school actually taught us some valuable things we could use in our daily lives. I don’t know how old you are, but if you had learned that fomula, you wouldn’t have to count on your knuckles. Just saying…

    Oh, and Thacker, I am going out of town shortly so you won’t have to worry about my nasty comments to you for a few days. Happy Independence Day!!!

40. #40
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm, William said:

    I am still waiting for Barrack Hussein Obama to pay for our house, our cars, our vacations, our medical insurance our bills, our and our children’s education all the way through to our doctorates and Medical degrees, etc.

    My wife has heard enough from me saying, “Isn’t great! We don’t have to worry about anything any longer. Barrack Hussein Obama (Peace be unto him, Praise his Holy Name – tee hee) will take care of everything. He will pay all our bills, have our home renovated, buy us a new car, send us on vacation to Italy, India, Argentina, Hawaii, Morrea and Bora Bora, and so on!”

    She has responded with, “You say that all the time, but I am still waiting. I haven’t seen Obama do anything for us, so I wouldn’t count on him.”

    Recently, while at the lake in our nearby county park, the kind of park which is densely populated with wildlife, a plethora of flora and fauna, etc., I could have sworn that I saw our Savior, our Messiah, our Lord, Barrack Hussein Obama walking across the surface of the lake. There were birds alighting on his shoulder and he carried a lamb in one arm, while the tiger and the lion walked by each of his sides, wagging their tails in delight.

    Oh, what a wonderful, peaceful world, full of love, light, and joy our Master has brought us!

    He is so honest that Jesus the Christ walks away in shame!

    All hail our Savior, our Master, our Messiah, our Lord, Barrack Hussein Obama (Peace be unto him, Praise his Holy Name), the ultimate Divine incarnation of God in human form, the ocean of honesty, integrity, mercy, and compassion!

    We are so blessed to have such a man, and his wife and administration, with such integrity, such honesty, such compassion.

    Mahalo!

    Maui no ka oi!

    William

    /sarcasm off

41. #41
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm, Common Sense said:

    Wow! And we’re only 6 months into the Obamessiah.

    Chavez better watch out, Obama is going to put his Marxist takeover of Venezuela to shame.

42. #42
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:17 pm, Laree said:

    Atlas Shrugged.

43. #43
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm, William said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am, happyscrapper said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am, ThackerAgency said:

    I use the ‘knuckle’ system. Ball your hand in a fist and count the months using the knuckles and the spaces in between the knuckles for each month. The months that fall on the knuckle are 31 days, the others are 30 or less days.

    Count the last knuckle as two (July and August). and then come back to complete the months.

    Anyway it works for me. . . and I don’t have to remember anything. It’s the fist calendar.

    Hey knucklehead…when I was in school, we learned the “30 days hath September” ditty. It is short, easy, and after all these years, I still use it a lot. Back in the “old days”, school actually taught us some valuable things we could use in our daily lives. I don’t know how old you are, but if you had learned that fomula, you wouldn’t have to count on your knuckles. Just saying…

    ……….

    Hello “happyscrapper” and “ThackerAgency”

    My wife, who is quite bright and well educated, learned to use the “knuckle” system of keeping the 31 and 30 day months in order, while I learned the “Thirty days have (hath) November, April, June, and November, all the rest of 31, except February, which as 28, until leap year comes, then it has one more.”

    I had not recollection of ever seeing the “knuckle system” before I met my wife. When my wife first showed me the “knuckle system” I thought she was cute, or even adorable. The system actually works pretty good.

    Nevertheless, I taught our children the “30 days have [hat) November, April, June … ” method.

    Anyway,

    Isn’t great that so many whistle blowers are being shut down in the new era of “Hope and Change?”

    Yes, We can – silence dissent and anyone who dares blow the whistle on inappropriate and dishonest behavior.

44. #44
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    600mph TRAINS?

    LOL!!!! The air resistance! The red-hot front of the train!! The enormous barriers that would have to be put alongside the track to divert the blast wave and noise! The tens or hundreds of billions of $$$ to construct tracks and barriers, demolish buildings for right-of-way! The depoiling of millions of acres of wilderness, forest etc by frackin trains!

    What about 600mph trains from NY to chicago? Or Chicago-San Francisco? How about LA to Chicago? Each track costing billions, each requring right-of-way?? See where this is going??

    Simply crackpot. Not within the realm of technology. Or physics. Or economics.

    Ever ask yourself why people invented airplanes in the first place? So they could go faster w/o having to spend $$ on building rails and roads?

    Doi!!!

    Oh and btw: where what’s gonna power these trains? Unless it’s electricity generated by nuclear power, there will be no net decrease in greenhouse gases.

    Crackpotism to the nth.

45. #45
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm, William said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm, Common Sense said:

    Wow! And we’re only 6 months into the Obamessiah.

    Chavez better watch out, Obama is going to put his Marxist takeover of Venezuela to shame.

    Great point, “Common Sense!”

    I was going to say that the government takeover of the news media and government take over of the energy system and business might come about soon, but I forgot, Barrack Hussein Obama is already being worshipped by the news media here and abroad and our energy system is being taken over by Obama and his government, as has businesses.

    It’s started.

46. #46
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:25 pm, GladzKravtz said:

    What’s wrong with ending the AMbroke monopoly, and seeing if there are free marketeers out there that would like to do some rail innovation?

    In this particular bill that the house just passed? Free Marketeers, you were kidding, right? Running slow today..

47. #47
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm, chapoutier said:

    Then it would make a great item for a market sale.

    There is no excuse for government monopoly.

    How much do we spend subsidizing civilian air travel through the FAA? ($14 billion in 2007) and the TSA? (about 7 billion).

    Yes, the government taxes tickets, which presumably offsets some of the costs, but not nearly all.

    I won’t even begin to get into the subsidization of car travel, building all those nice roads for all you drivers out there (I ditched my car last month). In 2008 alone the Federal Highway Trust Fund required an 8 billion dollar injection from general funds…

    By comparison the $500 million or so subsidy for train travel is a relative bargain.

48. #48
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm, Ragspierre said:

    In this particular bill that the house just passed? Free Marketeers, you were kidding, right? Running slow today..

    No, not kidding, Gladz…

    Just following principals, rather than what we have to deal with in this bizzaro world we are living…

49. #49
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:33 pm, Ragspierre said:

    How much do we spend subsidizing civilian air travel through the FAA? ($14 billion in 2007) and the TSA? (about 7 billion).

    This is called “infrastructure”. It is a legitimate provision by a central Constitutional government.

    But, hey, I’m good with it being a completely separate budget item, with the direct users paying fully for the costs.

    You?

    I won’t even begin to get into the subsidization of car travel, building all those nice roads for all you drivers out there (I ditched my car last month). In 2008 alone the Federal Highway Trust Fund required an 8 billion dollar injection from general funds…

    Same as above. I also think that private road-building is completely practical and should be employed.

    You?

50. #50
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:33 pm, J S Ragman said:

    By comparison the $500 million or so subsidy for train travel is a relative bargain.

    Yes, if only they could use some of that money to buy Sherrif Joe Biden a one-way ticket to somewhere else.

51. #51
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm, chapoutier said:

    This is called “infrastructure”. It is a legitimate provision by a central Constitutional government.

    And why do you not consider rail “infrastructure”?

    But, hey, I’m good with it being a completely separate budget item, with the direct users paying fully for the costs.

    You?

    No. Because even those that do not directly use a particular portion of infrastructure derive benefits from its existence.

    Same as above. I also think that private road-building is completely practical and should be employed.

    You?

    Same answer as above. WRT private roads, I say go for it. Public/private are not mutually exclusive. Just ask UPS.

52. #52
    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm, no2pcbs1 said:

    zero hates ethical employees, so he finds a way to dismiss them. when one thrives on being unethical, honesty is like shining a light on cockroaches.

53. #53
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm, MacEamonn said:

    Dialogue from the Movie “Casablanca”:
    Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
    [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
    Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
    Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
    [aloud]
    Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

    Now is anyone shocked that a Federal Official (and his spouse) from Chicago are up to no good?

    The question is what, if anything, can we do about it?

54. #54
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:06 pm, Ragspierre said:

    And why do you not consider rail “infrastructure”?

    First, it was privately owed.

    Second, there is no intrinsic need for the government to build, maintain, or control it.

    No. Because even those that do not directly use a particular portion of infrastructure derive benefits from its existence.

    This is the classic (bankrupt) socialist argument. There are “free-riders” in the system, sooo… You are justified in socializing the system to make the “free-riders” pay. Ummm, no. There are ALWAYS free riders, if you drill down deep enough. That is NO excuse for socialism.

    WRT private roads, I say go for it. Public/private are not mutually exclusive. Just ask UPS.

    But a private enterprise CANNOT be successful in competition with government. One reason for this is the FACT that no private enterprise may impose a tax. They have to earn their money.

    Another reason, as applied to roads, is that there is a practical limit to the number of roads that can be built. The government controls the ground, so to speak, and effectively monopolizes the field.

    Ask UPS? You may be too young to recall, but FedX and UPS made a move to provide direct competition to the USPS back in the 70s. They were barred, by law.

55. #55
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:06 pm, lonewolf said:

    Thank you, #44,fulldroolcup, for enumerating the obvious impracticality of supersonic trains.

56. #56
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:08 pm, Republicanvet said:

    OT…if you want to delineate corruption in DC.

    From WaPo

    Inouye calls Treasury to get a bailout for a local Hawaiian bank he is heavily invested in, yet:

    Even if Inouye were directly involved, it would not violate the rules the Senate sets for itself, experts said.

    So if you’re a Democrat Senator, you can get a federal bailout ($135M) to cover your investment and there is no problem, yet the peons you represent cannot exercise their free speech rights and run certain advertisements within so many days of your campaign?

    I’m SURE the GOP will be all over this…

57. #57
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:13 pm, Republicanvet said:

    Not only invested in, but one he helped found, yet there is nothing wrong with this?

    Inouye reported ownership of Central Pacific shares worth $350,000 to $700,000, some held by his wife, at the end of 2007. The shares represented at least two-thirds of Inouye’s total reported assets. Inouye has requested a delay in filing his annual financial disclosure for 2008, which was due this spring, and he declined to provide the current value of his investment. Since the end of 2007, the bank’s stock has lost 79 percent of its value.

    Central Pacific was founded in 1954 by a group of World War II veterans including Inouye who were emerging leaders in Hawaii’s Japanese American community.

58. #58
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:13 pm, sonofdy said:

    Thank you, #44,fulldroolcup, for enumerating the obvious impracticality of supersonic trains.

    Not to mention the results of a train going 600mph hitting a cow.

    moooooo..splat….

59. #59
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:29 pm, happyscrapper said:

    Not to mention the results of a train going 600mph hitting a cow.

    moooooo..splat….

    Ha!!
    But, but, but, think of all the cow farts that will no longer pollute our precious Mother Earth.

60. #60
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:30 pm, chapoutier said:

    First, it was privately owed.

    Okay…your point is? When private industry was about to abandon it, the federal government moved in to protect what they felt was an integral part of the infrastructure.

    Second, there is no intrinsic need for the government to build, maintain, or control it.

    What is the intrinsic need for the government to provide air control for private commercial flights? You are simply holding rail to a different standard because you more than likely don’t take it.

    There are “free-riders” in the system, sooo… You are justified in socializing the system to make the “free-riders” pay. Ummm, no. There are ALWAYS free riders, if you drill down deep enough.

    Drill down deep enough? Please. It sits right on the surface. Do you really not think that I as a non-driver, don’t benefit greatly from others being able to drive? Again, I think it is simply a matter of bias toward the particular aspects (roads, planes) that you personally use and labeling that “infrastructure” and dismissing the aspects that you may not use (rail) as “socialism.”

61. #61
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm, b-cat said:

    What is the intrinsic need for the government to provide air control for private commercial flights?

    Planes flying into each other and crashing into cities.

62. #62
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:38 pm, Ragspierre said:

    When private industry was about to abandon it, the federal government moved in to protect what they felt was an integral part of the infrastructure.

    Please support that with some evidence.

    What is the intrinsic need for the government to provide air control for private commercial flights? You are simply holding rail to a different standard because you more than likely don’t take it.

    I agree as to the point on air control.

    I repudiate your personal assumption. Why did you feel the need to do that? Please, rest assured that I would gladly use a fast, comfortable and efficient rail system…that was privately run.

63. #63
    On July 1st, 2009 at 1:39 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm, chapoutier said:

    This is called “infrastructure”. It is a legitimate provision by a central Constitutional government.

    And why do you not consider rail “infrastructure”?

    The railroads own their right-of-ways and all their own facilities. If the government provided ROW, rails, and maintenance like it does for the trucking industry, railroads, including passenger traffic, would be fabulously profitable. What few ROWs are government-owned are leased to the operators.

    ECS

64. #64
    On July 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm, chapoutier said:

    Please support that with some evidence.

    From the original public law:

    The Congress finds that modern, efficient, intercity r.railroad passenger service is a necessay part of a balanced transportation system;
    thaat the public convenience and necessity require the continuance and
    improvement of such service to provide fast and comfortable transportation between crowded urban areas and in other areas of the country ;
    that rail passenger service can help to end the congestion on our high
    ways and the overcrowding of airways and airports; that the traveler
    in America should to the maximum extent feasible have freedom to
    choose the mode of travel most convenient to his needs; that to achieve
    these goals requires- the designation of a basic national rail passenger
    system and the establishment of a rail passenger corporation for the
    purpose of providing modern, efficient, intercity rail passenger service.

    Next, I am a bit unclear as to what exactly you’re saying wrt air traffic control. Do you oppose the government providing that for private flights?

    And okay, you repudiate my personal assumption. I didn’t think concluding that you probably don’t use rail based upon your opinion of it was terribly offensive. But so be it. I apologize. Perhaps you could just tell me then, how much you use rail to travel so I don’t have to assume.

65. #65
    On July 1st, 2009 at 2:22 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Your statement was the government was compelled to take over passanger service because private providers were abandoning it.

    I don’t give a flying flip what lie Congress uttered in their take-over.

    It does nothing to support your statement.

    I have not traveled on a passenger train since I was a child. As I said, I would be delighted to travel on a rail alternative to a car or plane that was comparable and competitive…and PRIVATE.

66. #66
    On July 1st, 2009 at 2:28 pm, Ragspierre said:

    The primary regulatory authority affecting rail interest from early twentieth century was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC played a leading role in rate-setting and intervened in other ways detrimental to passenger rail. In 1958, the ICC was granted authority to allow or reject modifications and eliminations of passenger routes (train-offs).[15] Many routes required beneficial pruning, but the ICC delayed action by an average of eight months and when it did authorize modifications, the ICC insisted that unsuccessful routes be merged with profitable ones. Thus, fast, popular rail service was transformed into slow, unpopular service.[13] The ICC was even more critical of corporate mergers. Many combinations, which railroads sought to complete, were delayed for years and even decades, such as the merger of the New York Central Railroad and Pennsylvania Railroad, into what eventually became Penn Central, and the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad and Erie Railroad into the Erie Lackawanna Railway. By the time the ICC approved the mergers in the 1960s, disinvestments by the federal government, years of deteriorating equipment and station facilities and the flight of passengers to the air and car had taken their toll and the mergers were unsuccessful.

    Taxation

    At the same time, railroads carried a substantial tax burden. A World War II-era excise tax of 15% on passenger rail travel survived until 1962.[16] Local governments, far from providing needed support to passenger rail, viewed rail infrastructure as a ready source for property tax revenues. In one extreme example, in 1959 the Great Northern Railway, which owned about a third of one percent (0.34%) of the land in Lincoln County, Montana, was assessed more than 91% of all school taxes in the county.[13] To this day, railroads are generally taxed at a higher rate than other industries, and the rates vary greatly from state to state.[17]

    Railroads also were saddled with antiquated work rules and an inflexible relationship with trade unions. Work policies did not adapt to technological change.[13] Average train speeds doubled from 1919 to 1959, but unions resisted efforts to modify their existing 100 to 150 mile work days. As a result, railroaders’ work days were roughly cut in half, from 5-7½ hours in 1919 down to 2½-3¾ hours in 1959. Labor rules also perpetuated positions that had been obviated by technology. Between 1947 and 1957, passenger railroad financial efficiency dropped by 42% per mile.

    Anybody see a pattern here…????

    Hmmmmmm…..?????

67. #67
    On July 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm, chapoutier said:

    Your statement was the government was compelled to take over passanger service because private providers were abandoning it.

    What part, exactly do you dispute? That private providers were abandoning passenger service? Here, read this.

    In 1957, the two largest railroads in the country, the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central, announced that they were considering a merger. Their leaders thought that merging could improve the railroads’ efficiency, especially if it allowed them to eliminate excess capacity in their region caused by stiff competition from truckers. The merger was finally approved by the boards and stockholders of both companies in 1962, but it took another six years of ICC proceedings–and maneuvering to respond to opposition by labor unions, state and local governments, and other opponents–before the two railroads could complete their deal, forming the Penn Central in 1968. Contrary to expectations, the merger did not shore up the financial condition of the railroads. The Penn Central struggled to meld two very different corporate cultures in an already difficult economic environment, and in 1970 it filed for bankruptcy–at the time, the largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history.(10)

    Fearful that losses from passenger service would contribute to the weakening of other railroads, policymakers looked for a way to relieve the freight railroads of that burden. The result was the passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, which created Amtrak. The company began operating on May 1, 1971.

    If your issue is that you do not believe that Congress took it over to save it from dying…then…uhh… okay. I showed you the freaking preamble to the bill. If you think Congress was lying, great but the burden of proof is back on you.

68. #68
    On July 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Lemme help you, Chaps, since you cannot honestly provide your support.

    The GOVERNMENT had screwed with the market by:

    1. regulating rates
    2. mandating service in uneconomic sections
    3. favoring unions
    4. intervening in, and prohibiting market transactions (i.e., mergers, entry into the market, trading in authorized routes, etc.)
    5. taxation (imposing costs that other transport did not face)
    6. restricting competition (awarding routes, etc)

    That made passenger service unprofitable, substandard, and antiquated.

    Then, SHAZAAM, they found that private providers were going out of business.

    So, their response…then as now…after SCREWING up an entire sector of our economy…

    Was to impose a fascist system.

    This was done under, and by, Nixon, who was no conservative.

    It was not due to the private rail companies failing. It was done as the result of GOVERNMENT intervention in the market FAILING.

    Hope that clarifies this topic for you.

69. #69
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm, chapoutier said:

    If everything you say is true, I have no doubt that is part of the reason, how does that change one bit my simple assertion that private rail wanted to abandon passenger service? I am not arguing whether or not the gunshot to the foot was self inflicted. I am merely pointing out the big hole in your foot.

    Hope that clarifies my previous posts for you. Sorry I didn’t provide you with the necessary support for something I never said.

70. #70
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:30 pm, John Deaux said:

    Government imposed restrictions and taxes on rail carriers causing them to suffer, then bought them up at bargain proces when the private operators couldn’t make a profit. All in the interest of the public good.

    Does that sound like…

    The mortgage industry?
    The auto industry?
    The energy industry? Sorry, got a bit ahead of myself.

71. #71
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm, Ragspierre said:

    how does that change one bit my simple assertion that private rail wanted to abandon passenger service?

    Wanted to abandon…?

    That is like saying the legitimate owner of a business targeted by Tony Soprano wanted to abandon his or her enterprise.

    But, I think our little demonstration is complete. Thank you for participating.

72. #72
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:36 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    How much do we spend subsidizing civilian air travel through the FAA? ($14 billion in 2007) and the TSA? (about 7 billion).

    Another misleading use of the word “subsidize”. The word doesn’t mean “regulate”, or “oversee”. The stock market is not “subsidized” by the SEC. The FDA doesn’t “subsidize” the drug industry.

    (never mind that the SEC has been completely ineffective in its regulatory function)

    Here’s the definition of subsidy:

    “Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.”

    The airlines do not receive “grants” by the government to help run their business. They do not profit from regulation, any more than restaurants profit from health regulations . Anyone who thinks airlines welcome the idiocy of the TSA hasn’t a clue.

    As for

    What is the intrinsic need for the government to provide air control for private commercial flights?

    It’s called “public safety”, which is a basic function of government, especially in a federal system where some standards and regs must be unified to be effective.

    Otherwise private flights could collide with military flights. Get it? GET IT?

73. #73
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:45 pm, Ragspierre said:

    It’s called “public safety”, which is a basic function of government, especially in a federal system where some standards and regs must be unified to be effective.

    Otherwise private flights could collide with military flights. Get it? GET IT?

    Full; think with me on this…

    Could a private organization do what the FAA does in terms of national air traffic control? No question that the function is a public safety necessity. Is the Federal government the only…or even the best…entity that can provide it?

74. #74
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:45 pm, chapoutier said:

    Wanted to abandon…?

    I see, you want to make some silly pedantic argument about the nature of desire. Of course no one wants to abandon a profitable business, if it is IN FACT profitable, not if it could be profitable in the freaking abstract land of fairies and rainbows.

    But, conceding your reasons, passenger rail service was not. Faced with reality, I suppose private providers wanted to shed themselves of presumably unprofitable ventures. Again, please note I am not arguing the reasons for the unprofitability (though the role government regulation played in the demise of private passenger service is hardly as open and shut as you seem to think). Merely the result.

75. #75
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm, travlinman said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am, ThackerAgency said:

    …If we could go by rail from NY to LA in 4 hours, we would save oil. Lots of people would use the train instead of the airline if it were as convenient. I know I would.

    Uh TA, that would require a 600 MpH (LA to NYC = ~2463 miles) train. A little excessive for rail travel isn’t it? It sure would decrease the amoount of time spent waiting at rail crossings. Although the occasional sonic boom as increasingly faster rail travel eventually breaches the sound barrier would get old quick!

76. #76
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Chaps;

    “The patient died. Never mind that he was shot.”

    The demise of private rail service in America is not merely and open and shut case, it is manifestly cause and effect.

    But I don’t expect you to see the models all around you. That would take eyes that are open.

77. #77
    On July 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm, chapoutier said:

    “Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.”

    Right. The government subsidizes private commercial flight by providing a service necessary to the industry. How hard is that to understand?

    If it was just about public safety, why not just mandate that private carriers pay for their own air traffic control?

    And don’t think that air traffic is the only subsidization. How much money do existing or new airports receive from the federal government? How is a nonexistent airport a safety concern?

78. #78
    On July 1st, 2009 at 4:09 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    Rags, if we were a smaller country w/o a federal system (like the UK), a private organization might be able to run an air traffic control system.

    But here in the US such an organization would necessarily require federal backing , since even the “private” FAA would have to deal with military aviation, let alone work with and within each state to handle civil aviation.

    I suspect a private entity would have to be given immunity from lawsuits as well. Otherwise any crash that involved the “private” FAA’s employers (such as traffic controllers) or equipment (a faulty radar or weather detector) would lead to ruinous lawsuits). Lawyers would be able to second-guess capital expenditures (“If you had only replaced that radar dome last year this crash would never have happened.”)

    Statistically such a private entity would be sued every year or so, if not given immunity—not something potential investors would want to contemplate

    (Think a private FAA wouldn’t have been sued for allowing those birds near the end of the runway in NY?)

    I support privatization, in general, but not when “public safety” is involved. Ergo no private armies either.

    (We saw on “24″ where that leads! )

79. #79
    On July 1st, 2009 at 4:36 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    Right. The government subsidizes private commercial flight by providing a service necessary to the industry. How hard is that to understand?

    Sorry, but that is NOT the definition of a subsidy. Maybe in your own mind you can distort the language to make ALL government services “subsidies”, but in the world of rational people you will justly be ignored, if not mocked.

    Does the government subsidize you by having an army and navy? Does it subsidize you by building interstates you use to commute? No, you pay taxes to support those valid functions, which in turn benefit you and the rest of society.

    If it was just about public safety, why not just mandate that private carriers pay for their own air traffic control?

    Because obviously nothing short of a fully coordinated and integrated system will provide for nationwide safety. In any case the airlines do pay a variety of user fees to help pay for the services they get. The traveling public pays them in the end, though, through higher ticket prices — just as happens in all other industries getting services from the government.

    (Not so with real subsidies, such as the ones given domestic sugar growers)

    And don’t think that air traffic is the only subsidization. How much money do existing or new airports receive from the federal government?

    Sorry, but if you want to argue that providing for national infrastructure that permits essntial businesses to function is not a valid function of the federal goverment, you are on your own.

    As for “new airports”, leftist NIMBYs have made damn sure no major airports have been built for over 20 years. I think Denver was the last.

    But don’t try comparing that to Amtrak, which has consistently lost money and could not exist unless the government continually contributed to its operating and capital budgets.

    The airlines have never been big moneymakers, but they at least didn’t get government money when most went into, and emerged from, bankruptcy. Unlike AMTRAK they pay their way.

    How is a nonexistent airport a safety concern?

    If I knew what your point is, I might respond.

80. #80
    On July 1st, 2009 at 4:36 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Full:

    There are many successful private fire departments and ambulance services.

    An air traffic control system deals in information. Couldn’t a private FAA equivalent have the same information?

    Every industry is liable for a deviation from the standard of care. Nothing else, generally speaking. I know this, because I am a suer (I sue, and defend, people and businesses).

    When an industry faces risks, they buy insurance against those risks. When they CAN be liable, isn’t there a strong incentive to avoid liability? Would that not auger toward greater safety?

    Birds are an “act of God”. That’s a very good defense, BTW.

    Remember a few years ago when the FAA paid gazillions for a new, whiz-bang radar system…that didn’t work? Would a private firm be as likely to make that gaff? If it did, would you and I have paid for it?

    Private armies, no. But then, the Constitution provides for our common defense.

    Just submitted for your consideration.

81. #81
    On July 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm, chapoutier said:

    fulldrool:

    Fact: The commercial airline industry could not function without air traffic control.

    Fact: The various fees and taxes charged to passenger tickets don’t come anywhere CLOSE to covering its cost.

    If you don’t like my definition of subsidization, fine, use whatever word you like to call the fact that the government is covering the difference between the actual costs and what it charges the industry.

    Sorry, but if you want to argue that providing for national infrastructure that permits essntial businesses to function is not a valid function of the federal goverment, you are on your own.

    No. My argument is that passenger rail is part of that same infrastructure.

    But don’t try comparing that to Amtrak, which has consistently lost money and could not exist unless the government continually contributed to its operating and capital budgets.

    How do you think they would do if they actually had to pay for all of their costs? If they had to pay to build their own airports?

    If I knew what your point is, I might respond.

    My point here is that federal dollars go all the time to building new airports, or expanding new ones so that they can have more flights or accommodate bigger planes. If you want to get worked up about Amtrak’s subsidies, maybe you should try to muster up some rage for aviation project outlays that are not directly related to safety.

    I disagree with Rags for the most part, but at least he is consistently indignant about government spending.

82. #82
    On July 1st, 2009 at 5:05 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Fact: The various fees and taxes charged to passenger tickets don’t come anywhere CLOSE to covering its cost.

    Sources, please.

    Ummm….what about the MANY fees that are paid by cargo carriers?

    When the DFW Airport was built, an IMMENSE bond issue was subscribed to by local people. I’m sure there was Federal money, but was it necessary?

83. #83
    On July 1st, 2009 at 5:43 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sources, please.

    If you want to pour over this to verify, be my guest, but essentially the FAA budget is about $15 billion. Its take from the all the various excise taxes is about $5.6 billion.

84. #84
    On July 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Chaps;

    Looking a page 21, I see a very close match between receipts and outlays.

85. #85
    On July 1st, 2009 at 6:01 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    Arghhh! My posts are not getting through.

    Chap: the problem with your argument is that AMTRAK pays no income taxes or user fees, and thus contributes nothing to the construction of its own track bed and equipment.

    Airlines and cargo carriers do pay taxes that indirectly go to airport construction and maintenance, plus all the other user fees they pay.

    Your use of the word “subsidy” is downright PERVERSE.

    Are YOU “subsidized” when YOU use an inter-state to commute to work?

    Finally, why do people and institutions invest in airport bond issues, when they know (according to you) that the airlines won’t pay their fair share?

    To call what you pass as “argument” as sophistry would be giving you too much credit.

86. #86
    On July 1st, 2009 at 6:04 pm, chapoutier said:

    Chaps;

    Looking a page 21, I see a very close match between receipts and outlays.

    You are misreading. That is not the FAA’s budget. That is the budget for the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, which collects all those excise taxes. Line 4504 gives the the amount of those excise taxes that go to FAA functions.

87. #87
    On July 1st, 2009 at 6:12 pm, chapoutier said:

    Chap: the problem with your argument is that AMTRAK pays no income taxes or user fees, and thus contributes nothing to the construction of its own track bed and equipment.

    You do know they charge you to ride the train right? So to say that Amtrak contributes nothing to its own maintenance is patently absurd.

    Airlines and cargo carriers do pay taxes that indirectly go to airport construction and maintenance, plus all the other user fees they pay.

    And my point is that they pay in less than their total costs. If your only definition of “subsidize” is that absolutely 100% of the amount is paid from general funds, well…then..forget it..it is pointless to argue with you. Try to follow this analogy. Giving you a painting worth $100,000 is a gift of that amount for tax purposes. Selling you the same painting for $25,000 is still a gift to the extent of $75,000.

    Are YOU “subsidized” when YOU use an inter-state to commute to work?

    To the extent that gasoline taxes do not pay for 100% of all of the costs associated with building and maintaining highways, yes I am subsidized.

88. #88
    On July 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pm, Ragspierre said:

    You are misreading. That is not the FAA’s budget. That is the budget for the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, which collects all those excise taxes. Line 4504 gives the the amount of those excise taxes that go to FAA functions.

    That reading would make the cash receipts several times the outlay. Wanna read that again…?

    The receipts are $12 billion plus.

89. #89
    On July 1st, 2009 at 8:07 pm, greenLibertarian said:

    Thanks for the heads-up, Michelle.

    I wrote the House Oversight Committee, and noticed they say they will investigate the Amtrak IG ‘retirement’, hope it’s a real investigation and not smoke-blowing.

90. #90
    On July 1st, 2009 at 8:11 pm, chapoutier said:

    The receipts are $12 billion plus.

    Right. Only 5.6 of which goes to the FAA. That makes up, what? 40% of the FAA’s total budget. The rest of that trust money goes to other programs related to aviation.

91. #91
    On July 1st, 2009 at 8:25 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    You do know they charge you to ride the train right? So to say that Amtrak contributes nothing to its own maintenance is patently absurd.

    No, its revenues help pay its operating expenses, and NOT its capital expenses. That’s the way accounting works. Revenue minus COGS is profit. Profit, as retained earnings, is used to fund capital expenses, as is other sources of capital, such as borrowing.. Amtrak’s income statemetns clearly show the capital contributions coming from the feds, year after year.

    Airlines fund their own capital expenses, mainly in the form of their airplanes and facilities. Airlines have to pay back their creditors; Amtrak doesn’t. Amtrak doesn’t even pay for its trains. Airlines pay income taxes and user fees. Amtrak doesn’t.

    And my point is that they pay in less than their total costs. If your only definition of “subsidize” is that absolutely 100% of the amount is paid from general funds, well…then..forget it..it is pointless to argue with you.

    Totally off-point, due to your narcissistic attempts to impose YOUR definitions on the world.

    Try to follow this analogy. Giving you a painting worth $100,000 is a gift of that amount for tax purposes. Selling you the same painting for $25,000 is still a gift to the extent of $75,000.

    Try to follow THIS: an airport is not a thing or “service” that someone can “give” you for free, or to which anyone can impute INCOME. Its “value” cannot be determined by divvying up some number, because some of what it is and does depreciates over time, while other things do not. Some of what it does comes from capital expenses paid for by long-term bonds, IOUs. Other parts don’t directly affect the profitability of the airlines at such as parking and restaurants, which are big moneymakers at all airports.

    The task of the airport authority is to recapture its capital costs over time, to repay its debts, and to at least break even.

    YOU seem to think airport authorities operate in the red all the time. Evidence for that?

    Logan Airport in Boston was in the black for 2006-2008. Kinda explodes yer premise, doesn’t it.

    I say again: why do bondholders accept IOUS for airport construction , knowing that airports aren’t paying their share?

    You refuse to answer that, which is telling.

    To the extent that gasoline taxes do not pay for 100% of all of the costs associated with building and maintaining highways, yes I am subsidized.

    And I am the Queen of Sheba.

92. #92
    On July 1st, 2009 at 8:28 pm, Dimsdale said:

    On July 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Watchdogs are an endangered species in the Age of Obama.

    Remember when the Democrat[ic Socialist]s were moaning about a lack of oversight in the Bush administration?

    Projection, once again. They accuse Republicans of that which they themselves are guilty.

    The next time you hear a Democrat accuse a Republican of wrongdoing, look closely at the Democrat… they are likely many times more guilty of that very same thing.

    Bush fired some attorneys for NOT doing their job. Obama fires them FOR doing their job.

    Culture of corruption indeed.

93. #93
    On July 1st, 2009 at 8:30 pm, Dimsdale said:

    Heck, even if some Obama crony did get arrested or indicted, Holder would just let them off anyway, a la the New Black Panther poll thugs and community activists.

94. #94
    On July 1st, 2009 at 9:16 pm, chapoutier said:

    Airlines fund their own capital expenses, mainly in the form of their airplanes and facilities.

    Wrong. They fund some of them. The federal government helps out too. If you want to make a silly argument about whether a cost is capital or operating, be my guest. It is difference without distinction in this context.

    Logan Airport in Boston was in the black for 2006-2008. Kinda explodes yer premise, doesn’t it.

    Did they pay back federal grants? Did they pay for the air traffic control they depend on? Did they pay for the TSA that they depend on? Its easy to make a profit when Uncle Sam is picking up a nice chunck of the tab. Which is also why they are able to pay back all those nice bondholders.

    Totally off-point, due to your narcissistic attempts to impose YOUR definitions on the world.

    You are being a tool on this. Your definition of subsidize is stupid and narrow.

    Enough with you. Go ahead and hate Amtrak all you want, big fella.

95. #95
    On July 1st, 2009 at 10:12 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Chaps:

    You are all over the place here, and it isn’t pretty.

    You claimed that the taxes and fees charged by the FAA don’t cover the costs of civilian aviation. The figures prove you wrong.

    I have no doubt that the FAA spends more than it takes in from the sources noted, but a lot of what they do has little or nothing with airlines or cargo carriers. I read their happy BS budget.

    You claim that fuel taxes don’t cover the cost of highways. I haven’t seen anything to support that.

    You claimed that the private passenger carriers “abandoned” their interests. I showed you they were driven out of business by government interference in their market.

    Nothing here is getting through, is it?

    So, this reduces to a demonstration of your kind of thinking vs. ours.

96. #96
    On July 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm, chapoutier said:

    You claimed that the taxes and fees charged by the FAA don’t cover the costs of civilian aviation. The figures prove you wrong.

    Citation please. I don’t think you are getting that the FAA does not receive all of the money from those excise taxes. In simplest terms, their budget in 15 billion. They get 5.6 billion from the trust that collects the ticket excise taxes. Please show me where you dispute this. Cite a page number in the report if you can.

    but a lot of what they do has little or nothing with airlines or cargo carriers.

    Citations, please. What things? Also, what percentage of their budget is comprised of these items that you claim have nothing to do with airlines or cargo carriers.

    You claim that fuel taxes don’t cover the cost of highways. I haven’t seen anything to support that.

    I think I read that around 1/3 of all highway spending is paid for by gas tax. I am looking for the cite.

    You claimed that the private passenger carriers “abandoned” their interests. I showed you they were driven out of business by government interference in their market.

    I said they wanted out because it was losing money. I was even willing to concede your arguments as to why they were losing money. “Wanted out” b/c they couldn’t make a profit v. “forced out” is stupidly pedantic. If that is the extent of your thinking as opposed to mine, I am glad to be on the other side.

97. #97
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 am, fulldroolcup said:

    Chap, if a federal grant to expand the services or physical infrastructure of an otherwise profitable public enterprise such as most airports is a “subsidy”, then I STILL am the Queen of Sheba.

    Because a science grant to a university has to be “subsidy” too, right?

    Of course it does, because (accordin to you)everything the govt spends money on is a “subsidy”, right down to national defense, which is “really” a defense contractor subsidy.

    If government spends billions to propr up an otherwise UNprofitable enterprise, wee, that’s just fine with Chap, because it serves a social purpose.

    But if profitable enterprises don’t contribute an unquantified “more”, Chap just shoots off his yap claiming (w/o ANY evidence here) that they don’t pay enough.

    UNLESS the govt. $$ is spent on are bogus airoprt projects like your HERO Jack Murtha, which I guess is OK with Chap. But major airports MAKE money for their states, and airlines and cargo carriers MAKE money for themselves, as well as enrich their communities. Amtrak makes no money, doesn’t even come close to paying its own way, and can’t compete with airlines, trucks and cars.

    Chap, If brains were C4 you wouldn’t have enough to blow yer frackin nose.

    You ask for citations but ignore ours.

    Again:

    Logan Airport in Boston was in the black for 2006-2008. Kinda explodes yer premise, doesn’t it.

    google it yourself.

    I say again: why do bondholders accept IOUS for airport construction , knowing that airports aren’t paying their share?

    Answer that or STFU.

    What a frackin moron.

    You are lgm with an (alleged) law degree.

98. #98
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 am, chapoutier said:

    Of course it does, because (accordin to you)everything the govt spends money on is a “subsidy”, right down to national defense, which is “really” a defense contractor subsidy.

    Idiot. I never said every government expenditure is a subsidy. And the military is not a private profit making venture. So your analogy is as inane as the rest of your arguments thus far.

    I STILL am the Queen of Sheba.

    Sounds like you might have some issues to discuss with your therapist next session.

    If government spends billions to propr up an otherwise UNprofitable enterprise, wee, that’s just fine with Chap, because it serves a social purpose.

    Show me that airlines would be profitable if they absorbed all the actual costs inherent in flying.

    But if profitable enterprises don’t contribute an unquantified “more”, Chap just shoots off his yap claiming (w/o ANY evidence here) that they don’t pay enough.

    I have no idea what the hell you are spouting here. Please provide a droolcup to saneperson translaion.

    You ask for citations but ignore ours.

    Ours? Huh? Show me one freaking citation you have made. I just checked your posts and you have provided jack. I guess you are just sucking off Rag’s teat when you claim citations, since he can actually make an argument.

    UNLESS the govt. $$ is spent on are bogus airoprt projects like your HERO Jack Murtha,

    Jack Murtha is not my hero and is apparently only slightly more senile and imbecilic than you.

    But major airports MAKE money for their states, and airlines and cargo carriers MAKE money for themselves, as well as enrich their communities.

    Sure. But do they pay back all the money the government sinks itno them? Answer my question for a change. WOULD AIRLINES BE PROFITABLE IF THEY HAD TO ASSUME ALL, AGAIN ALL, OF THEIR ACTUAL COSTS????

    Your stupid argument that “Logan was in the black” (which doesn’t “explode” any “premise” I put forth, fwiw) and that airport authorities have bondholder confidence totally ignores that the airline industry is already starting with a head start in the profit game by virtue of the fact that the US government provides essential services to these entities at below cost. The rest of that is made up from general funds. I have no problem with this. I agree airports do enrich their communities and the US as a whole. I also think rail does as well. That is my point, genius. Again, dollars to donuts, you don’t use rail and thus have an irrational bias against it.

99. #99
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 am, ThackerAgency said:

    I want to get to the top of the next page.

100. #100
     On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 am, ThackerAgency said:

     One more and I get to the top again!