|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1431074) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 13:44:01 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 23 07:13:18 2017. The only thing you have shown is that you are a :CONDESCENDING, POMPOUS, IGNORANT, BAG OF GAS. And here come the insults. Like clockwork. Every single person who is proven wrong starts shrieking about how horrible I am for proving them wrong. I blame SubChat's culture of toxic masculinity, where being proven wrong is considered a horrible shame that can never be lived down, so people who are proven wrong would rather make a futile effort to continue arguing their already-debunked point rather than admit it. In any case, now that you're in kindergarten mode, this "discussion" is clearly drawing to a close, but I'll take the liberty of completing this round as if you were an adult. You are the one that brought up this Land Grant bullshit. Actually, you did. I just mentioned that the railroads were subsidised; you brought up the land grants and tried to get away with rhetorical sleight of hand in which you pretended those were the only subsidies and attacked them as if it would magically disprove the fact that passenger rail has been entirely government-run since 1971 because the free market considers it unprofitable. - it applied only to 8% of railroad mileage OK, 1. If the government pays 8% of your costs, that's a subsidy. 2. The land grants didn't just apply to the railroad ROW; the government gave the railroads free land, which they then sold for cash. That's a subsidy. - across granger and western states How is the geographic location relevant to whether or not it was free? - on worthless land the US Government snatched from the Indians If it was worthless, they wouldn't have taken it. No one steals garbage. In any case, since you concede that the land belonged to the people living on it and was stolen from them, perhaps we should give it back to them. I'm sure Union Pacific won't mind having their "worthless" ROW snatched. - was between 100 and 150 years ago, Irrelevant. If I receive something for nothing, the passage of time doesn't render it paid for. Railroads are operating today because they got free land 150 years ago. If they'd never gotten the free land, they wouldn't exist. The passage of time does not expunge the effect of past actions on the present. - has NO relevancy today. Only according to your warped logic where the passage of time automatically makes something "irrelevant" because you say so. The United States is older than the land grants, so would I be justified in saying it has no relevance today and I'm free to break the "laws" passed by its completely-irrelevant government? Trump-like distractions don't work on Subchat. Exactly. So stop using them. You know I won't let you get away with that shit. You sermons and hypotheticals that you memorized from a textbook caption said NOTHING of any substance. Just because you're not intelligent enough to understand them doesn't mean they have no substance; in fact, they are incredibly relevant to everything I've attempted to discuss and why you're making a fool of yourself. Why don't you give it another shot? I can help you through it if you have trouble understanding. Suppose I own a building with 100 apartments. I offer to give you the building for free, on the condition that you set aside 10 apartment and rent them to me and my friends for $1 annual rent, meaning you receive 90 apartments for free that you may rent out for your own profit. Question 1: If you accept my generous offer, can I legitimately say I gave you something for nothing? Question 2: Suppose after 30 years of my renting the apartments for $1/year each, you decide that you're not going to let me renew at that preferential rate— you demand I pay market rent or move out. When I point to the initial contract under which I'm entitled to the preferential rate in exchange for giving you the building for free, you declare that the contract was a "de facto loan" and that by honouring it for 30 years, you have fully paid your debt to me. Are you within your rights to do so? Question 3: Suppose after 30 years, I voluntarily forfeit my rights to the 10 apartments and allow you to rent them at market rate. Have I given you something for nothing? Question 4: Suppose that when I make the decision in Question 3, I write you a card saying that after 30 years, I feel you've paid off any debt you owe me. Does that change your answer from Question 3? No other person on this thread agrees with you. LOL, that's such a SubChat-ism. In the real world, truth is not determined by popularity— especially not popularity among the handful of people immediately present. But on SubChat, nearly everyone who gets proven wrong says: "No one in this thread agrees with you!" I think it comes back to that culture of toxic masculinity thing. Being proven wrong is considered an unendurable shame, but matters of shame are largely community issues. If no one believes you've been proven wrong, then you don't have to face the (unjustified) scorn of your peers for having been proven wrong. Which is why everyone who gets proven wrong says: "No one in this thread agrees with you!" What they're really saying is: "My standing in the community is intact! My reputation among my SubChat peers is not destroyed by the unforgivable shame of having been proven wrong!" Mind you, in this case it's not actually true— other people in this thread have already agreed that you're wrong, but that's not actually all that relevant. A NORMAL person would get DOT budget documents, show receipts and disbursements from the Federal Highway and Aviation administration, and show how much was derived from the Highway and Aviation Trust funds. They are published in the NARP newsletter every year or so. I could point out that this is an absurd irrelevance. Airlines pay landing fees and pay indirectly through ticket taxes. Roads don't count as a subsidy; they're just basic infrastructure. Neither has any bearing on the fact that railroads were and are heavily subsidised. Or I could point out that you didn't do that so by your own admission you're not a "NORMAL person," whatever that is. Or I could do both. You forgot that about $52 Billion in transfer payments were made from general funds to the highway trust fund, because it neared bankruptcy, because the deadbeat Republicans won't raise the gas tax. I didn't "forget" anything. It's simply irrelevant. Roads are a basic piece of infrastructure every government is expected to pay for in one form or another. As such, roads never count as a subsidy to any particular industry. In economic terms, roads cannot be an intervention in the free market; they're just the way things are. You FAIL to understand that Aviation was partially supported by the RAILROAD ticket tax that went to general funds until 1960. A small ticket tax in effect briefly is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It's a drop in the bucket; it has a negligible effect on the numbers involved. Besides, it was repealed long ago, so that means by your own argument it has absolutely no relevance today. You FAIL to understand that massive government subsidies and intrusion ito ALL modes of transporation renders the "Free Market" a non-existent concept. See, the trouble is that you don't understand exactly what the free market is. So why don't you explain, in your own words, what you think the free market is, and I can correct you? You FAIL to understand subsidies, both implicit and explicit. That's a hoot. In practically every post, I've had to explain to you what a subsidy is and you just don't get it. So why don't you explain, in your own words, what you think a subsidy is, and I can correct you? I'M DONE Good. You are too stupid to have a rational discussion with. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|