Torutured AOPA logic

A Boyer acolyte makes the following statement publicly (regarding user
fees):

"That is why it's vital that we ensure airports get the funding they need
to maintain safety and generate revenue."

They need to "get funding" to "generate revenue."

LOL. Sounds like when Democrats talk about "investment," meaning raising
taxes to provide more money to public sector unions. If these airports are
such economic "engines," they wouldn't need annual subsidies. AOPA at
least calls the subsidies a "lifeline," thus implying that many would
cease to exist if users had to pay, rather than taxpayers and commercial
passengers, which generate virtually ALL OF THE REVENUE in the ATF.

The best part is that these comments were made in conference in CHICAGO!
Apparently, the economic armegeddon resulting from closing Megis has yet
to occur...

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
A Boyer acolyte makes the following statement publicly (regarding user
fees):

"That is why it's vital that we ensure airports get the funding they need
to maintain safety and generate revenue."

They need to "get funding" to "generate revenue."

Sometimes you strike me as an extremely intelligent fellow.

Sometimes you strike me as a complete idiot.

Today is the latter.

But Steve, sometimes I am joking around.
Not about the acolyte's quotes though. I think it is hysterical funny
that they "need funding to generate revenue."

Man, if anyone can outdo The Onion, it is Boyer's minions.

Of course you need funding to generate revenue. If you don't, the
infrastructure will crumble and there will be no business revenue. The
reason all the major GA manufacturers originated in the U.S. is because
of our publicly funded infrastructure. The WW2 also had much to do with
it, but that too was publicly funded. Too many Americans think that
only the poor need public assistance and everyone else rose up on their
own feet. The weathly reap the benefits of our public system far more
than the poor.


Skylune wrote:
But Steve, sometimes I am joking around.
Not about the acolyte's quotes though. I think it is hysterical funny
that they "need funding to generate revenue."

Man, if anyone can outdo The Onion, it is Boyer's minions.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
But Steve, sometimes I am joking around.
Not about the acolyte's quotes though. I think it is hysterical funny
that they "need funding to generate revenue."

Man, if anyone can outdo The Onion, it is Boyer's minions.


So you can operate a business and produce revenue without funding. Please
tell us how. For that matter right it down and sell it on late night
infomercials.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
But Steve, sometimes I am joking around.
Not about the acolyte's quotes though. I think it is hysterical funny
that they "need funding to generate revenue."

Man, if anyone can outdo The Onion, it is Boyer's minions.


So you can operate a business and produce revenue without funding. Please
tell us how. For that matter right it down and sell it on late night
infomercials.



How would you pay for the infomercials without funds?

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
A Boyer acolyte makes the following statement publicly (regarding user
fees):

"That is why it's vital that we ensure airports get the funding they need
to maintain safety and generate revenue."

They need to "get funding" to "generate revenue."

Have you ever heard of the term 'Venture Capitalist"?

How about "Investor"?

How about "capital formation"?

I've heard that Americans are economically ignorant, but this is ridiculous.

Michelle

What businesses run on annual government operating subsidies, and get
federal capital subsidies?

What other businesses need a federal "lifeline?"

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
What businesses run on annual government operating subsidies, and get
federal capital subsidies?

Fire Department
Police Department
School Department
Street Department
Public Works
Railroad

Chrysler
Delta






What other businesses need a federal "lifeline?"

"Michelle Settle" writes:

"Skylune" wrote in message

[...] "That is why it's vital that we ensure airports get the
funding they need to maintain safety and generate revenue."

They need to "get funding" to "generate revenue."

Have you ever heard of the term 'Venture Capitalist"?
How about "Investor"?
[...]

Thing is, airports don't tend to be owned by venture capitalists.
Governmental "investment" in them tends to be of the sort of
expenditure that anticipates only ancialliary benefits (like survival
of dependent businesses, infrastructure capability, social stability
and whatnot), and not direct financial benefit in terms of net profit
returned to the "investor" (federal? taxpayer).

- FChE