Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
- Thread starter
- #21
You didn't even watch the video, how did I get owned?
Another rich guy tells Obama he can fly a private jet anytime he wants to
- Thread starter Quantum Windbag
- Start date
You didn't even watch the video, how did I get owned?
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #22
wtf does socialism have to do with it?
we've got high speed rail from boston to washington. it bleeds money.
do you think that high speed rail would be a workable solution in less populated areas?
you should have your username tattooed backwards on your forehead and post in front of a mirror.
While I dont think we should tax more on the private jets, I'd rather cut the subsidies to these stupid airports in the middle of no where.
I got an idea, get in your car and drive to another airport. I don't care how far away that is, don't like it, don't live in the middle of no where. And if somebody brings up the farmers, I swear, what am I supposed to do subsidize their farm, pay them to waste corn while food prices go up, and subsidize their airport?
Im a conservative, but I gotta say most of these people talking entitlement reform need to take a hard look at all that they are getting from the government too.
I got an idea, get in your car and drive to another airport. I don't care how far away that is, don't like it, don't live in the middle of no where. And if somebody brings up the farmers, I swear, what am I supposed to do subsidize their farm, pay them to waste corn while food prices go up, and subsidize their airport?
Im a conservative, but I gotta say most of these people talking entitlement reform need to take a hard look at all that they are getting from the government too.
Wicked Jester
Libsmackin'chef
The government can't run a slow speed train, or simply deliver mail without losing money....And you liberal idiots think they can pull a profit with high speed trains?
Get the fuck outta here.
J.E.D
Gold Member
- Jul 28, 2011
- 14,159
- 2,229
- 280
- Banned
- #25
Then what's your point? The only thing relevant to this thread and Mr. Johnson's remarks is Obama wanting to end tax breaks for corporate jet owners. Since that's as close as Obama came to saying what you and Mr. Johnson think he said, that's all we have to work with. If you'd like to carry on an imagined controversy in your head, have at it. But Obama has in no way infringed upon anybody's right to own a private jet. Therefore, Mr. Johnson's remarks, and subsequently this thread, aren't based in reality. But hey, knock yourself out, kid.
Last edited:
Oh yeah, that's a great idea. Should only cost 4 or 5 HUNDRED BILLION dollars to go coast to coast. And then of course you would have to build another 50 or so power plants to power the thing. But who's counting. Certainly not you. It's amazing how little you folks think things through.
Tax and Spending Issues
January 3, 2008
SUBSIDIES KEEP SMALL-AIRPORT FLIGHTS IN THE AIR
Each day, about 3,000 passengers enjoy mostly empty, heavily subsidized flights, financed by a 30-year-old program that requires the U.S. government to guarantee commercial air service to scores of small communities that can't support it themselves, says USA Today.
Consider:
The Department of Transportation (DOT) pays a few small airlines $110 million a year total so they can profitably carry as few as four passengers per day to nearby hubs, often for rock-bottom fares.
The flight subsidies were conceived in 1978 as a 10-year program to keep flights going to small communities while the newly deregulated industry found a way to serve them or dropped them.
The subsidies, which come from fees and taxes paid by passengers and airlines on non-subsidized flights, fill the gap between an airline's estimate of the flights and its estimate of passenger ticket revenue, plus a 5 percent add-on for airlines' profits.
Further, as Congress has escalated subsidies through the years, the program has increasingly paid for flights between major airports and places that are neither rural nor isolated:
Twenty-four communities with subsidized air service are within 90 miles of an airport that had at least 1 million passengers in 2006; those subsidies cost $22 million a year.
In Jackson, Tenn., just 85 miles from Memphis International Airport, the DOT has paid $906,000 a year for 12 round-trip flights a week to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.
The flight takes about 1 1/2 hours; the same as driving from Jackson to the Memphis airport.
In Athens, Ga., DOT pays $1 million a year for 13 weekly round trips to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
In about 90 minutes, Athens residents could drive 82 miles to Atlanta's airport, the busiest in the world, with twice as many flights a day as Charlotte.
SUBSIDIES KEEP SMALL-AIRPORT FLIGHTS IN THE AIR
And this is just the subsidies to the airlines and does not include money spent on the operation and enhancement of small airports.
January 3, 2008
SUBSIDIES KEEP SMALL-AIRPORT FLIGHTS IN THE AIR
Each day, about 3,000 passengers enjoy mostly empty, heavily subsidized flights, financed by a 30-year-old program that requires the U.S. government to guarantee commercial air service to scores of small communities that can't support it themselves, says USA Today.
Consider:
The Department of Transportation (DOT) pays a few small airlines $110 million a year total so they can profitably carry as few as four passengers per day to nearby hubs, often for rock-bottom fares.
The flight subsidies were conceived in 1978 as a 10-year program to keep flights going to small communities while the newly deregulated industry found a way to serve them or dropped them.
The subsidies, which come from fees and taxes paid by passengers and airlines on non-subsidized flights, fill the gap between an airline's estimate of the flights and its estimate of passenger ticket revenue, plus a 5 percent add-on for airlines' profits.
Further, as Congress has escalated subsidies through the years, the program has increasingly paid for flights between major airports and places that are neither rural nor isolated:
Twenty-four communities with subsidized air service are within 90 miles of an airport that had at least 1 million passengers in 2006; those subsidies cost $22 million a year.
In Jackson, Tenn., just 85 miles from Memphis International Airport, the DOT has paid $906,000 a year for 12 round-trip flights a week to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.
The flight takes about 1 1/2 hours; the same as driving from Jackson to the Memphis airport.
In Athens, Ga., DOT pays $1 million a year for 13 weekly round trips to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
In about 90 minutes, Athens residents could drive 82 miles to Atlanta's airport, the busiest in the world, with twice as many flights a day as Charlotte.
SUBSIDIES KEEP SMALL-AIRPORT FLIGHTS IN THE AIR
And this is just the subsidies to the airlines and does not include money spent on the operation and enhancement of small airports.
Feds keep little-used airports in business
Updated 9/17/2009 4:17 PM |By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WILLIAMSBURG, Ky. One of the USA's newest airports has a 5,500-foot lighted runway, a Colonial-style terminal with white columns, and hundreds of acres for growth. But Kentucky's Williamsburg-Whitley County Airport lacks one feature: airline passengers.
Built using $11 million in federal money, the airport is used only by private airplanes. Many are piston-engine aircraft owned by residents such as Keith Brashear, the airport board chairman who keeps his two-seat Cessna in the airport hangar. On a typical day, the airport has just two or three flights, manager Jessica Roberts says. Some days, there are none.
The Williamsburg airport is the result of an obscure federal program that raises billions of dollars a year through taxes on every airplane ticket sold in the United States. The taxes can add up to 15% to the cost of a flight or about $29 to a $200 round-trip ticket.
Federal lawmakers have used some of the money to build and maintain the world's most expansive and expensive network of airports 2,834 of them nationwide with no scheduled passenger flights. Known as general-aviation airports, they operate separately from the 139 well-known commercial airports that handle almost all passenger flights.
In the first full accounting of the 28-year-old Airport Improvement Program, USA TODAY found that Congress has directed $15 billion to general-aviation airports, which typically are tucked on country roads and industrial byways.
Feds keep little-used airports in business - USATODAY.com
Updated 9/17/2009 4:17 PM |By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WILLIAMSBURG, Ky. One of the USA's newest airports has a 5,500-foot lighted runway, a Colonial-style terminal with white columns, and hundreds of acres for growth. But Kentucky's Williamsburg-Whitley County Airport lacks one feature: airline passengers.
Built using $11 million in federal money, the airport is used only by private airplanes. Many are piston-engine aircraft owned by residents such as Keith Brashear, the airport board chairman who keeps his two-seat Cessna in the airport hangar. On a typical day, the airport has just two or three flights, manager Jessica Roberts says. Some days, there are none.
The Williamsburg airport is the result of an obscure federal program that raises billions of dollars a year through taxes on every airplane ticket sold in the United States. The taxes can add up to 15% to the cost of a flight or about $29 to a $200 round-trip ticket.
Federal lawmakers have used some of the money to build and maintain the world's most expansive and expensive network of airports 2,834 of them nationwide with no scheduled passenger flights. Known as general-aviation airports, they operate separately from the 139 well-known commercial airports that handle almost all passenger flights.
In the first full accounting of the 28-year-old Airport Improvement Program, USA TODAY found that Congress has directed $15 billion to general-aviation airports, which typically are tucked on country roads and industrial byways.
Feds keep little-used airports in business - USATODAY.com
grunt11b
VIP Member
But he is trying to pass laws to make it harder for people to achieve that goal.
Is it an entitlement or sumpthin?
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
- Thread starter
- #34
Then what's your point? The only thing relevant to this thread and Mr. Johnson's remarks is Obama wanting to end tax breaks for corporate jet owners. Since that's as close as Obama came to saying what you and Mr. Johnson think he said, that's all we have to work with. If you'd like to carry on an imagined controversy in your head, have at it. But Obama has in no way infringed upon anybody's right to own a private jet. Therefore, Mr. Johnson's remarks, and subsequently this thread, aren't based in reality. But hey, knock yourself out, kid.
Watch the video, he talks about not going after successful people simply because they have money.
The only thing in this thread relative to your brain is the period at the end of this sentence.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
- Thread starter
- #35
Who is supporting that in this thread?
J.E.D
Gold Member
- Jul 28, 2011
- 14,159
- 2,229
- 280
- Banned
- #36
Then what's your point? The only thing relevant to this thread and Mr. Johnson's remarks is Obama wanting to end tax breaks for corporate jet owners. Since that's as close as Obama came to saying what you and Mr. Johnson think he said, that's all we have to work with. If you'd like to carry on an imagined controversy in your head, have at it. But Obama has in no way infringed upon anybody's right to own a private jet. Therefore, Mr. Johnson's remarks, and subsequently this thread, aren't based in reality. But hey, knock yourself out, kid.
Watch the video, he talks about not going after successful people simply because they have money.
The only thing in this thread relative to your brain is the period at the end of this sentence.
In other words, I owned you and all you have left are deflections and insults. You. Are. An. Idiot.
The guy in the opening post article says he earned it all and yet undoubtably takes advantage of tax doillars spent on general aviation?
California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,059
- 0
- Banned
- #38
California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,059
- 0
- Banned
- #39
No. It's his right to spend his money however he chooses.
I wonder how many of the morons who 'hate' the private travel industry actually know how many people are employed because of that industry?
Why do you want to throw yet more people out of work?
Similar threads
