We have so many single mothers as compared to the 50's and 60's. Why is that?

Because dads are more likely than moms to see parenting as optional?

Seriously, though. Most in the American workforce go to work because they HAVE TO. You strengthen the workforce - and the economy - by pulling down the barriers to working, not raising them.

Subsidies also free up dollars to be spent elsewhere in the economy - i.e. on goods and services the private sector produces.

More than anything else these days, I'm thinking that the failure to invest in public education is REALLY starting to manifest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the subsidies aren't ending. They will no longer be tax deductible for your employer.

Which means they'll end because employers will no longer give them out. Guaranteed.

Then you work for a crappy employer.

Anonymous wrote:

Something new, like pre-1933 American society, amirite??
Why don't you do a little digging to compare what American society was like before there was a social safety net?

And how is providing incentives for employers to give their employees more help in terms of transit subsidies in terms of letting them write them off their tax bill any worse than just giving them the tax cut without doing anything for their employees? Do you HONESTLY believe that employees are suddenly going to be more generous than they are?

No, you're dead wrong.

I don't want tax payers to provide any incentives. That's how prices rise. The transit operators see an artificial subsidy and they raise prices of fares artificially. If all subsidies would go away, then the market and pricing would return to normal. We have so many subsidies, idiotic taxes and price supports, that there's nothing natural about this economy anymore.

That stupid shit gives us things like Obamacare health plans costing 15 grand a year with 8 grand in deductibles and college costs of 50 grand a year. It's stupid leftists policy that's creating artificial dislocations in the economy and making things worse, not better.

Stop doing stupid shit in the first place and we won't have most of the problems through unintended consequences that we have today.

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.

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.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

"Then employers need to pay them more." Yeah, that'll work! Why don't you try telling your own employer you want to be paid more to offset your commute and see how that goes?

And speaking of why taxpayers should pay for businesses and corporations to get tax benefits, uh HELLO???? Have you NOT been paying attention to the tax bill the Republicans have been trying to shove down our collective American throat?

You can either give corporations huge tax cuts and hope pretty please they take that money and pass it along to their employees (hee hee) or you can give them incentives to do it by giving them tax credits for when they do more for their employees. You prefer to live in a society where we are at the mercy of corporations' goodness because for some reason you think corporations have our best interest at heart. Bless you. You'd probably go back to when there were no labor laws and children as young as 8 were working in factories with no safety measures. Because at least they were contributing to society, hey?

You got me! I want to see three-year-olds working. Infants, even. How about fetuses? FFS. Wanting to abolish taxpayer subsidized commutes is equivalent to putting 8-year-olds in sweatshops? Democrats always take an argument to a ridiculous extreme.

No. When you subsidize shit, you are skewing the law of supply and demand. If an employee doesn't want to commute downtown for $50k (but did when she was subsidized at $255 a month), then the employer will have to kick it up to $53k to get the same level of employer once the subsidies end. It's not complicated. And if he doesn't want to pay an extra $3000, well....he'll get someone willing to work for $50k without a subsidy. Maybe not as good, but that's the employer's decision to make. That's how the free markets work.

You people seem to think government money falls from the skies. Whatever you are giving to someone, someone else is paying for. The entire idea of subsidizing everything - apartments, food, utilities, commuting costs, etc. - hasn't helped move people out of poverty at all. All it does is foster dependency.

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?

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?

Something new, like pre-1933 American society, amirite??
Why don't you do a little digging to compare what American society was like before there was a social safety net?

And how is providing incentives for employers to give their employees more help in terms of transit subsidies in terms of letting them write them off their tax bill any worse than just giving them the tax cut without doing anything for their employees? Do you HONESTLY believe that employees are suddenly going to be more generous than they are?

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

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.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

"Then employers need to pay them more." Yeah, that'll work! Why don't you try telling your own employer you want to be paid more to offset your commute and see how that goes?

And speaking of why taxpayers should pay for businesses and corporations to get tax benefits, uh HELLO???? Have you NOT been paying attention to the tax bill the Republicans have been trying to shove down our collective American throat?

You can either give corporations huge tax cuts and hope pretty please they take that money and pass it along to their employees (hee hee) or you can give them incentives to do it by giving them tax credits for when they do more for their employees. You prefer to live in a society where we are at the mercy of corporations' goodness because for some reason you think corporations have our best interest at heart. Bless you. You'd probably go back to when there were no labor laws and children as young as 8 were working in factories with no safety measures. Because at least they were contributing to society, hey?

Anonymous wrote:

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

Pretty sure you’ll be ok in your bubble if white privilege.

What does this have to do with color, white, brown, yellow or black? Is that your go to on every subject?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I dare you to say that to the face of a single mother of 2 earning 50K for whom that extra $150 a month means the difference between being able to get to work and not. Would you do it? I bet you would, and I bet you would laugh at her, too, you Grinch.

People like you can't even fathom how difficult it is for a large sector of the American public, the working poor. Shame on you, especially in this supposed season of giving and charity.

We have so many single mothers as compared to the 50's and 60's. Why is that?


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/how-americas-marriage-crisis-makes-income-inequality-so-much-worse/280056/

So let the employer pay her $51,000 a year instead of $50,000. The taxpayers should not have to pitch in toward compensation costs.

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

Pretty sure you’ll be ok in your bubble if white privilege.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I dare you to say that to the face of a single mother of 2 earning 50K for whom that extra $150 a month means the difference between being able to get to work and not. Would you do it? I bet you would, and I bet you would laugh at her, too, you Grinch.

People like you can't even fathom how difficult it is for a large sector of the American public, the working poor. Shame on you, especially in this supposed season of giving and charity.

We have so many single mothers as compared to the 50's and 60's. Why is that?


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/how-americas-marriage-crisis-makes-income-inequality-so-much-worse/280056/

Start your own thread. This is about transit subsidies. Public transportation doesn't give a sh!t about your marital status.

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.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the subsidies aren't ending. They will no longer be tax deductible for your employer.

Which means they'll end because employers will no longer give them out. Guaranteed.

Your existence depends on handouts from complete strangers? Too bad for you.

The sugar train is finally ending. Wahoo!

I dare you to say that to the face of a single mother of 2 earning 50K for whom that extra $150 a month means the difference between being able to get to work and not. Would you do it? I bet you would, and I bet you would laugh at her, too, you Grinch.

People like you can't even fathom how difficult it is for a large sector of the American public, the working poor. Shame on you, especially in this supposed season of giving and charity.

That single mom will be getting back a lot more in taxes than $150/month.