Say goodbye to your transit subsidies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

What prevents you from paying for your own metro commute?

I have to buy my own gas. No one buys it for me. Why should someone else pay for your farecrard?

People using the metro helps keep gas prices lower. If people use metro less and drive more, that will create more of a demand on gas. The price of gas will then go up in reaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

What prevents you from paying for your own metro commute?

I have to buy my own gas. No one buys it for me. Why should someone else pay for your farecrard?

People using the metro helps keep gas prices lower. If people use metro less and drive more, that will create more of a demand on gas. The price of gas will then go up in reaction.

So by that logic, people driving more would result in fewer people using the metro, and then metro would be cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

Why do you think everyone in the DMV earns $300K a year? We are not all lobbyists you know!

+1. There are subsidies for public transport for a reason. Wait till everyone is sitting in even more traffic than there currently is because more people start driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

What prevents you from paying for your own metro commute?

I have to buy my own gas. No one buys it for me. Why should someone else pay for your farecrard?

People using the metro helps keep gas prices lower. If people use metro less and drive more, that will create more of a demand on gas. The price of gas will then go up in reaction.

So by that logic, people driving more would result in fewer people using the metro, and then metro would be cheaper.

There's a big fixed cost component, so probably less than you would think. Bottom line is all these f'n subsidies need to go away. They're causing a ton of unintended consequences and damaging our economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

They were paying to make your car commute less horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who said anything about 8 year olds working? You're sounding a little bit unhinged.

No more than you, my dear. You seem to want to get rid of "gubmint" regulations or incentives, so why not get rid of child labor laws too? Or are you admitting that some government regulation and interference is actually a good thing?

When did I ever say all regulation was bad? However, the federal register is up to 80,000 pages today. Maybe we have a tad bit too much regulation at this point, huh? We sure as hell don't need even more.

Obamacare: 3,000 pages of regulations and it refers to probably another 20,000 pages of rules, policies, guidelines, and boilerplate BS. It's been an utter failure. I told you knuckleheads it would be a failure 8 years ago, and I'm not even Nostradamus. How'd I do that?



Way too much central planning going on. It's the hallmark of inefficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

They were paying to make your car commute less horrible.

Stop trying to make things better through Uncle Sham. The more you do, the worse things get.

[Anonymous]

Can employers cut it if it was written in your employment contract?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

They were paying to make your car commute less horrible.

Stop trying to make things better through Uncle Sham. The more you do, the worse things get.

So you would be in favor of wealthier places, like urban/liberal areas, keeping more of their money and reducing subsidies to rural/trump-supporting areas of the country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Rs are doing everything they can to rape the environment and my kid's future

Yes, your future depends on subsidies and handouts from others.

Maybe you should try a little pride and strive towards self-sufficiency. What a concept!

Wow, you really hate the working poor, don't you? Either that or you have absolutely no ability to imagine other people's lives.

Actually, no. Not an ogre by far. But instead of a small percentage (the exception) needing help, it seems to be moving to a vast majority. Why is that?


All the government policies sound SO wonderful. So given all the help (as an example, now having 48 million on food stamps, instead of 32 million previously), we seem to have more and more problems and poverty.


YOU TELL ME.... if gubmint redistribution is so wonderful, why do we have more poverty than ever. Time to try something new, no?

Redistribution as you love to think of it, from the rich to the poor - is a total myth. For the last 40 years we've been doing trickle down economics. Except nothing ever trickles down. Wages for the working class and middle class have largely remained stagnant while the richest have gotten richer and while corporations have been making record profits. All off of the backs of the working class. The wealth redistribution that's actually happening is from the middle class to the rich. And the Trump tax proposal will make that even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

What prevents you from paying for your own metro commute?

I have to buy my own gas. No one buys it for me. Why should someone else pay for your farecrard?

People using the metro helps keep gas prices lower. If people use metro less and drive more, that will create more of a demand on gas. The price of gas will then go up in reaction.

So by that logic, people driving more would result in fewer people using the metro, and then metro would be cheaper.

There's a big fixed cost component, so probably less than you would think. Bottom line is all these f'n subsidies need to go away. They're causing a ton of unintended consequences and damaging our economy.

Is your Econ degree from Trump U?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

The government gives you heavy subsidies. It pays for the roads, gives the car makers all sorts of help and incentives, and it operates a military that protects access to the petroleum that powers the cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Rs are doing everything they can to rape the environment and my kid's future

Yes, your future depends on subsidies and handouts from others.

Maybe you should try a little pride and strive towards self-sufficiency. What a concept!

Wow, you really hate the working poor, don't you? Either that or you have absolutely no ability to imagine other people's lives.

Actually, no. Not an ogre by far. But instead of a small percentage (the exception) needing help, it seems to be moving to a vast majority. Why is that?


All the government policies sound SO wonderful. So given all the help (as an example, now having 48 million on food stamps, instead of 32 million previously), we seem to have more and more problems and poverty.


YOU TELL ME.... if gubmint redistribution is so wonderful, why do we have more poverty than ever. Time to try something new, no?

Redistribution as you love to think of it, from the rich to the poor - is a total myth. For the last 40 years we've been doing trickle down economics. Except nothing ever trickles down. Wages for the working class and middle class have largely remained stagnant while the richest have gotten richer and while corporations have been making record profits. All off of the backs of the working class. The wealth redistribution that's actually happening is from the middle class to the rich. And the Trump tax proposal will make that even worse.

Stop talking. You're embarrassing yourself.


"In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began."

http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

What prevents you from paying for your own metro commute?

I have to buy my own gas. No one buys it for me. Why should someone else pay for your farecrard?

People using the metro helps keep gas prices lower. If people use metro less and drive more, that will create more of a demand on gas. The price of gas will then go up in reaction.

So by that logic, people driving more would result in fewer people using the metro, and then metro would be cheaper.

There's a big fixed cost component, so probably less than you would think. Bottom line is all these f'n subsidies need to go away. They're causing a ton of unintended consequences and damaging our economy.

Exactly. All roads should be tolled. People have gotten used to free government roads. Motorists need to pay their fair share. The gas tax doesn’t come close to paying for all these free roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

Why do you think everyone in the DMV earns $300K a year? We are not all lobbyists you know!

+1. There are subsidies for public transport for a reason. Wait till everyone is sitting in even more traffic than there currently is because more people start driving.

If people have to sit in traffic, some additional will choose to use the metro because time becomes more valuable. Honestly, can you give me data as to what percent of metro riders use subsidized cards?