round-trip from NYC to DC

sechumlib wrote:
On 2006-06-15 22:35:45 -0400, jdoe said:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:11:26 GMT, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2006-06-15 15:04:03 -0400, jdoe said:

Just because some fool posts idiocy on the internet, that doesn't make
it fact and you are even a bigger fool for buying into that guy's BS.

Seems like maybe you have an axe to grind, or something?
you keep commenting on me, are you incapable of discussing the
subject? if so feel free not to respond

I like ;-) the fact that you use a definition of "subsidy" that is
clearly different from the definition(s) used by others in this thread,

No one disputes that the airlines are heavily subsidized. This is S.O.P.
not just in the U.S., but for carriers throughout the world. The Amtrak
subsidy is an annual direct cash infusion from the federal government,
while the airline subsidies are more subtle, and come from various
sources, some federal, some state, and some local. I.e., many airports
will waive landing fees for a certain number of years in order to
attract new routes and new airlines to the airport. Local governments
subsidize the construction of terminals, runways, and other
infrastructure. Aircraft design and manufacturer is indirectly
subsidized via military contracts to the same aerospace companies.
Airlines receive payments from the federal government to make their
fleets available to the government in an emergency, though AFAIK, the
government has never used the fleets. The airlines have non-monetary
subsidies as well, such as the tariffs regarding transportation of
passengers within the U.S. by foreign carriers.

It's not to say that any of these subsidies are bad or good, but to
claim that the airlines are not subsidized is incorrect. They receive
far more money than Amtrak in subsidies.

On 2006-06-16 18:11:26 -0400, SMS said:

No one disputes that the airlines are heavily subsidized.

That is simply NOT SO. "jdoe" disputes it abusively.

jdoe wrote:

why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.

This is a common misunderstanding. All transportation
is given a major subsidy, some direct and some indirect.
This is, as far as I can tell, true in all countries.
The difference in the US is that much of the subsidies
for air and highway are indirect while most for mass
transit and rail is direct. In fact, the Amtrak budget
from Congress includes millions for expenses that are
not really Amtrak. When Congress set Amtrak up they
gave it some major obligations that the private
railroads had. This means Amtrak has to pay for the
clean up of waste sites that were created by the
private railroads and "given" to Amtrak so the
private companies didn't have to pay for clean up.
Amtrak was also given major pension responsibilities
so they have to pay for the retirement of many earlier
workers who never worked for Amtrak.

I have always paid more in taxes for other peoples'
use of roads, highways, cars, gas, airports, and
airlines than I paid directly for my use. On the
other hand, I probably have gotten most or all of the
value of my tax money that went to mass transit and
Amtrak back in my use.


Bob valen (at) mailcart (dot) us

jdoe wrote:
let the train users pay their own way just like plane
users do and highway users do.

Hah! Like the gov't. doesn't exist to heavily subsidize building
of highways, guarantee loans for car makers, proved grants for
terminals and runways, operate air traffic control and aircraft
security, and at the same time, hasnn't hobbled Amtrak with
a railroad priority lower than freight, building and operating its
own terminals, antiquated equipment, and running unprofitable
routes for political support of its meager subsidies.

The proble isn't that train users don't pay their own way, its
that the passenger rail infrastructure has never been serviced
by the gov't. to same degree of the other transportation modes.
=R=

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:34:35 -0400, jdoe wrote:

The proble isn't that train users don't pay their own way, its
that the passenger rail infrastructure has never been serviced
by the gov't. to same degree of the other transportation modes.
and the reason trains don't get federal monies is because train users
Not even close.

If gasoline were taxed enough to cover the true cost of the highways
instead of being subsidized, gas would be over $6/gallon.

On 2006-06-26 08:28:47 -0400, jdoe said:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:24:12 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:34:35 -0400, jdoe wrote:

The proble isn't that train users don't pay their own way, its
that the passenger rail infrastructure has never been serviced
by the gov't. to same degree of the other transportation modes.
and the reason trains don't get federal monies is because train users
Not even close.

If gasoline were taxed enough to cover the true cost of the highways
instead of being subsidized, gas would be over $6/gallon.
data?

How about YOU provide data?

On 2006-06-26 12:47:37 -0400, jdoe said:

in other words you just spout numbers and have no data to back them
up. If you want to check on my claims try using google

Well, since you're the one who originally cast minuscule doubt on
everything said here about subsidization of air & road travel, and did
it in the most disrespectful and abusive manner possible, I think it's
up to you to support your position and up to the rest of us to see
reality until we are shown it's not there.