The subsidies to GA are MASSIVE

Doug wrote:
Having an airport is a point of pride in a community and
there is a safety aspect so far as medical transport goes.

Not really. You can helo someone out of a town without an airport.

But maybe
raising the aviation fuel tax would be appropriate here, trying to get
GA to pay it's way.

Are you kidding me? How about after everyone ELSE starts paying their
way? I promise you, GA contributes more to this country than some woman
on welfare with eight kids...and yet she's NEVER going to pay her way.

In article ,
Emily wrote:

You know, I really wonder why someone which such hatred for GA posts in
a group like this.

(Not sniping at Emily) why do people insist on feeding the trolls?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Why should she? Everyone ELSE gets a subsidy, why not her?

We're all against govt subisidies until it comes to OUR gov't subsidy.
Then strangely, we are in favor of THAT one.

Emily wrote:
Are you kidding me? How about after everyone ELSE starts paying their
way? I promise you, GA contributes more to this country than some woman
on welfare with eight kids...and yet she's NEVER going to pay her way.

Doug wrote:
Why should she? Everyone ELSE gets a subsidy, why not her?

We're all against govt subisidies until it comes to OUR gov't subsidy.
Then strangely, we are in favor of THAT one.

There's a huge difference. Sorry if you can't see that.

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Emily wrote:

You know, I really wonder why someone which such hatred for GA posts in
a group like this.

(Not sniping at Emily) why do people insist on feeding the trolls?

Alright, hand's been slapped, thread's been killed....

Oh, I see it. I just think that GA should pay its own way, at least as
close as possible. And the fuel tax is the most painless way to
accomplish that. I'd much prefer that over landing fees or ATC fees.

Emily wrote:
Doug wrote:
Why should she? Everyone ELSE gets a subsidy, why not her?

We're all against govt subisidies until it comes to OUR gov't subsidy.
Then strangely, we are in favor of THAT one.

There's a huge difference. Sorry if you can't see that.

"Skylune" wrote:
DAMN: the subsidies are enormous, as every informed person knows....

If you would just go to the FAA website and check out their materials on
their budget, you'd find more relevant information. The document titled
"Revised Air Traffic Organization Data Package" [1] contains breakdowns
with better information than you are supplying. An explanation is given
in [2] on what the tables rows and columns mean and how the information
was collected.

The subsidies do not appear to be "enormous". The FAA appears to be
spending more than gets from all aviation fees and taxes [3], but that
appears to be a recent phenomenon (if I understand their Trust Fund
white paper).

[1] http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ta_Package.pdf

[2] http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...Background.pdf

[3] http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...Trust_Fund.pdf

Emily wrote:

Judah wrote:
snip


Why stop at transportation?
Perhaps we should have User Fees for the Welfare system?


You're forgetting, the poor people who use welfare can't help
themselves, whereas we pilots are filthy rich and can pay.

You know, I really wonder why someone which such hatred for GA posts in
a group like this.

Because people like that tend to live miserable lives of isolation as
they have no friends. Any attention is better than no attention, hence
the posts here.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:
(Not sniping at Emily) why do people insist on feeding the trolls?

The issue is relevant to this newsgroup and, IMHO, worth discussing[*]. The
information needed to support or refute skylune's assertions appear to be
available. I found it worthwhile and educational to track down facts to see
what the situation really is (and discovered it's complicated!)
[*] Unlike Jay Honeck's Arizona voter ID law thread, which you have even
responded to, but is, IMHO, technically trolling. I objected to that thread
but not this one....

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

(Not sniping at Emily) why do people insist on feeding the trolls?

The issue is relevant to this newsgroup and, IMHO, worth discussing[*]. The
information needed to support or refute skylune's assertions appear to be
available. I found it worthwhile and educational to track down facts to see
what the situation really is (and discovered it's complicated!)

but you haven't learned that skypuke hasn't exhibited any signs of learning.
He's very much like the long island looney bird.

A discussion of the issue can occur without feeding trolls.


[*] Unlike Jay Honeck's Arizona voter ID law thread, which you have even
responded to, but is, IMHO, technically trolling.

OT is not the same as trolling.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate