Tom Coburn. He’s the Republican Senator you might remember for forcibly sterilizing his medical patients, claiming gays were part of a mega-conspiracy, and claiming that the nudity in Schindler’s List was sexual in nature.
Well now he and his other conservative allies are all a-twitter over a bill collecting all the spending he has blocked over the last year and a half. One of the projects that Coburn and The Heritage foundation are all upset about – and were afforded space in the far right Washington Times to bitch about – was the Metrorail system. Here’s the stenography reporting from the Times:
One of the biggest items in the legislation is $1.5 billion for Washington’s Metrorail system, which the conservative Heritage Foundation calls the ‘biggest earmark in history.’ The think tank notes that the project is seven times more expensive than the so-called ‘bridge to nowhere’ that became a symbol of excessive spending in the last Republican-led Congress.
Yes, friends, the Washington Metro Area rail system – a system that services Maryland, Virginia, and The District Of Columbia to the tune of 727,684 riders on average per day is exactly in the same category as the Republican sponsored Bridge To Nowhere.
Let’s go to the tape:
| DC Metro | Bridge To Nowhere | |
| Users: | 255,500,000/year | 0/year |
| Pork? | Used as a major transportation hub by millions of people in one of the world’s major centers of commerce and governance | A useless project in the middle of nowhere |
There’s nothing good about wasteful spending, especially from the government, but at some point you have to look at what people are actually saying and how it affects the real world and why the kind of people and news organizations that push this trash out on a daily basis should be shunned, ignored, and thrown in the dustbin of history.
(Reader Raphael sent this in)
I don’t get it. Why do conservatives hate mass transit so much? It’s happening here in Denver too.
Don’t you people want to get my little imported car out of your way so you’ll have more room to drive and park your Hummers?
Maybe if Oliver bothered to read the whole article, you’d have your answer.
Mass transit is not hated. Making other people pay for it is hated.
If you like mass transit, then pay for it. Don’t force taxpayers to pay your expenses.
If you like mass transit, then pay for it. Don’t force taxpayers to pay your expenses.
Do I get to stop subsidizing roads, traffic signals, traffic enforcement, parking lots, automobile and driver licensing, and so on?
You gotta deal.
Mass transit = infrastructure. I know conservatives believe in zero taxes for any and everything in this country, but in my mind my taxes should be spent on this sort of thing. As long as money is not wasted on things that do not improve mass transit, then I am perfectly fine with paying taxes. Transit allows people to get to work for cheap, its better for the environment and helps our economy.
Why is it bad for the feds to cover the passes for federal workers? Why is there such systematic distaste for the people and institutions that keep a country of 350 million running?
Also, JWG, your reasoning makes a great case for imposing carbon taxes. You want to dump your auto exhaust into the air? Then pay the cost. Don’t force taxpayers to pay your expenses.
Ditto Quaker. Don’t forget the costs of defense so that we can keep oil flowing from the Middle East.
Perhaps, to satisfy schidt-heads like JWG, we could implement an “a la carte” system of taxation. Citizens could fill out a form detailing the things they do NOT want their monies to be spent on…in JWG’s case, public transportation.
Fair, right?
Randy,
The problem is that they still wouldn’t want to pay those taxes:) Its like Republican can’t remember basic goverment classes from 7th grade. All taxes are evil because they are too daft to see how they personally benefit from taxes.
If the Fed can tell DC they can’t ban handguns (via SCOTUS proxy), then indeed the Fed has a responsibility to chip in like things for the DC Metro.
As a former DC resident, the Metro is one of the few things in that city that works. And since it’s our nation’s capitol and one of the biggest tourist attractions in the world, meaning that the Metro effectively represents our country, then yeah, the Fed should pay into it.
DC keeps a lot of people gainfully employed but a lot of these people live in Maryland or Virginia, which kind of puts it into a bind economically. If Republicans continue to insist on micro-managing than hell yes they have to pay for some things as well.
Thanks for making my point. Conservatives argue against federal taxes for those things as well. Oliver & company are arguing that someone in Idaho should pay for someone in Virginia to ride a train. That is complete BS.
And here we see the conservative view: to protect our magical Ayn Rand masturbatory fantasy version of capitalism, we should abandon all public infrastructure: roads, schools, etc. To make America pre-eminent we must turn it into a hobbled backwater little better than Burma or Burkina Faso!
Why is it bad for the feds to cover the passes for federal workers?
So you wouldn’t object one iota to handing out free townhomes for federal employees? After all, housing is a MUCH more important need than transportation.
What makes federal workers so special that they should get their transportation paid for? I have to pay for mine. Why can’t they pay for theirs?
And here we see the idiocy of the leftist mind — if it’s not funded by federal taxes and controlled by the federal government, then it is “abandoned.” We are all helpless without the nanny state.
you might remember for forcibly sterilizing his medical patients
Do you get paid for repeating lies?
A. It was ONE patient in question, not “patients”
B. The woman gave Coburn oral consent to do so.
C. She never showed up for trial, a telling sign of her veracity. Apparently, she didn’t want to perjure herself.
Now that we got the smears out of the way, let’s address the issue at hand.
First off, we have Quakers red herring. Roads, traffic signals, traffic enforcement, parking lots etc. are paid for entirely with tax dollars. It’s an absurd comparison.
As for earmark, I must admit that I find it amusing to see Oliver and company defending a Republican pork barrel project which this is. What’s more hilarious? Does anybody know how this earmark is to be paid for according to the author, Tom Davis? With revenues generated from offshore drilling. You have to LOVE the irony.
I was going to go into a whole host of reasons why this is a bad idea, but lets just let the Washington Examiner handle it:
Let’s begin with the totally regressive, even elitist, nature of the new spending that would be authorized by the Davis earmark. A big chunk of Metro’s customers live in Davis’ district, especially in Fairfax County. The median household income there is twice the national average, $88,133 to $44,684, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Does Davis really think the daily commuting costs of people making twice the national median household income should be subsidized by hard-working middle- and lower-middle-class taxpayers?
Second, it’s not just the inequity at the federal level involved with the Davis proposal. What the Davis bill refers to as a “dedicated funding source,” the rest of the world calls a “tax.” And indeed if the Davis Metro bailout bill becomes law, local governments throughout Metro’s service area in the Washington region will have to raise taxes or divert existing spending to pay their mandated share of new Metro funding. Since fewer than 1-in-10 Washington region commuters use Metro, approval of the Davis proposal would create the same inequity at the local level as the federal level. Middle- and lower-middle class taxpayers would be forced to subsidize commuting costs of much more affluent Metro riders.
Third, Davis seeks to justify his Metro bailout by arguing the system “is essential for the continued and effective performance of the functions of the federal government?” But as MPPI notes, Metro is anything but effective:
“Unreliable and poorly run, the system is subject to frequent shutdowns and service interruptions due to equipment failure, bad weather, suicides, driver error and passenger medical emergencies. In mid-June heavy rain and wind caused the shut down of two of its five routes, significant delays on the other three and the complete shutdown of the two commuter rail lines serving suburban Virginia.”
Even Metro acknowledged during that June crisis that it is of dubious value in moving the federal work force to and from work, noting that “delays could be less severe if large numbers of them take advantage of the unscheduled leave option and stay home.”
Here’s a better idea: Stop subsidizing the waste and mismanagement inherent in an obsolete 1950s mass transportation concept, and force Metro to cut costs, become more efficient and undertake a crash course to learn how transit systems around the country are using competitive contracting to ease burdens on taxpayers while improving service to customers.
I’ve never understood the propensity to just spend money on something because in theory its a good thing. “You’re against mass transit!!” if you opposed this spending project. Please. It’s amazing how Oliver rails against bailing out airlines or other businesses with taxpayer dollars, but doing the same for the Metrorail system is perfectly ok.
Yes, because the Washington Examiner and its right-wing funding is just looking out for the little guy. The Metro is vital to the region, and as such, vital to keeping the government working. Now, I know the con ideal is governmental stasis Katrina style, but most of us think it should be at the very least semi-reliable in its operation.
As a daily rider I can note the system is pretty well run, frequent, and yes if there’s an accident it does need to be shut down for work. It’s also a major terrorist target because 700k of us use it every day.
But the Washington Examiner said something, so nevermind. Sheesh.
Why is it that you people cannot respond to the SUBSTANCE of what an article says?
It’s always fallacy after fallacy.
Let’s examine:
Yes, because the Washington Examiner and its right-wing funding is just looking out for the little guy.
An ad hominem attack.
The Metro is vital to the region
An appeal to emotion.
Now, I know the con ideal is governmental stasis Katrina style
A personal attack
It’s also a major terrorist target because 700k of us use it every day.
Another appeal to emotion.
Now, do you care to respond to the substance of the article in question and defend the funding in that light? Or are you willing to just admit that you really don’t care and just want the money spent?
First off, we have Quakers red herring. Roads, traffic signals, traffic enforcement, parking lots etc. are paid for entirely with tax dollars. It’s an absurd comparison.
Never said it.
Oliver & company are arguing that someone in Idaho should pay for someone in Virginia to ride a train. That is complete BS.
No, not Virginia. District of Columbia. It runs on the Federal dime.
You said they were “subsidized.” How are the public roads subsidized?
You said “entirely.” I didn’t.
In my state, there was recently a gigantic bond issue for the construction of some highways. There was some general revenue tax money involved.
The point is, if JWG and other conservatives get to pick and choose which government projects they’re willing to be taxed for, then I get the same privilege.
“Yes, because the Washington Examiner and its right-wing funding is just looking out for the little guy.”
Jay: “An ad hominem attack.”
While the Washington Examiner being right-wing doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong, it would be foolish to not consider the bias of the source. After all, Oliver is not saying, “They are righter wingers, so their facts are wrong.” I’m not trying to put words in his mouth, but I believe he is saying, “The Washington Examiner’s opinions are based more on political philosophy than they are on facts.”
“The Metro is vital to the region”
Jay: “An appeal to emotion.”
How? How is this an appeal to emotion? It would be an appeal to emotion if he said something like, “Do you want to force seniors to walk in the cold winters?”
By the way, the Washington Examiner article you quoted was loaded, absolutely loaded with that kind of argument. It’s total hypocrisy to ignore it in your source and attack someone else. It’s completely pathetic when your attack is so wrong.
YES, VIRGINIA. And Maryland.
I’d be curious to know the cost of an unsubsidized pay-to-play ticket, complete with the factored-in drop in usage. My guess is, absent their taxpayer subsidy, like certain food staples the price of a ticket would skyrocket to the point that it would make more economic sense to drive. Which, for anyone living with the traffic and air quality of the average metro area, is a bad thing.
What do our conservative colleagues propose as a better idea? If we’re not subsidizing so as to drop the per-unit cost of the service so that it makes economic sense to use it, what then? My tentative guess at your answer is that if it can’t function in a free market, it shouldn’t exist, to which my reply would be – have you ever been stuck in a rush hour? For the sake of the environment and drivers’ sanity, do you want to drive 700,000 people (or however many, a sizable amount if the price jumped dramatically) onto the roads?
Some facts about the money being blocked by Coburn:
1) The money is intended to extend the rail to Dulles Airport (which is in Virginia, Quaker)
2) There are Republicans that support the bill. John Warner is a cosponsor (senator from Virgina, natch). Other Republicans are trying to keep hope alive.
I’m not trying to put words in his mouth, but I believe he is saying, “The Washington Examiner’s opinions are based more on political philosophy than they are on facts.”
And that’s still an ad hominem attack. It’s no different than saying, “The WE is wrong because it’s a conservative newspaper.”
That’s not an argument.
How? How is this an appeal to emotion? It would be an appeal to emotion if he said something like, “Do you want to force seniors to walk in the cold winters?”
Saying the Metro is “vital to the region” is an appeal to emotion because it doesn’t address why the Metro should get this bailout. Politicians argue that baseball fields are “vital to a city” because it creates jobs and larger tax base and claim that is why the public should should pay for a brand new ballpark. Amazing how the same argument is defended now.
By the way, the Washington Examiner article you quoted was loaded, absolutely loaded with that kind of argument. It’s total hypocrisy to ignore it in your source and attack someone else. It’s completely pathetic when your attack is so wrong.
Oh STFU. Let’s examine shall we?
1. Does the bailout say it will be paid for with revenues gained from offshore oil drilling? Answer: Yes. This is pretty funny considering Oliver has a post on this same page lambasting plans for that very thing.
2. Will local governments have to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere to pay for their mandated share of the cost of this bailout? Answer: Yes.
3. Is the Metro, like many of the same systems inefficiently run? Answer: Yes.
These are facts. And if anybody is being hypocritical, is the likes of Oliver and anybody else who supports this bailout when they’re opposed to similar bailouts for other businesses. In addition, why should government employees get free passes on the Metro? So they can sell them on Ebay?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/washington/24perk.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
So can anybody yet still defend why this bailout makes sense and why it should go through? And defend it with reason?
OK, so how do we fund transportation infrastructure without federal money? Provide a viable alternative and we can discuss the consequences in a rational fashion. Bonus points if the solution you propose has already worked somewhere else in the world.
At some level, infrastructure must be paid for. If the answer is to simply do without, that’s not going to be a popular answer, but I’ll give you points for intellectual honesty.
While I have no specific knowledge of how the DC Metro transit passes are implemented, it’s a pretty simple matter in general to tag transit passes with a serial number and trace them back to the source. Fixing that problem ought to be easily and quickly done.
Jay writes “How are the public roads subsidized?”
Wow. Just wow. I realize you probably still live in your mom’s basement, but adults like the rest of us pay these things called “taxes.” A large amount of these “taxes” go towards something built in the 1950’s called the Federal Highway system. It was basically a huge subsidy for both the oil and car industries.
You’re truly a dumb person.
Jay: “And that’s still an ad hominem attack. It’s no different than saying, ‘The WE is wrong because it’s a conservative newspaper.’”
No, it’s like saying, “Of course the Washington Examiner thinks that way, they are conservative. They are following a failed philosophy.”
“They are conservative, so they are wrong.” = Bad
“They are wrong, but they are conservative, so that’s no surprise.” = Being a dick, but essentially allowable.
You wouldn’t accept James Carville as a real source if he said Obama had a better plan for America.
“Saying the Metro is “vital to the region” is an appeal to emotion because it doesn’t address why the Metro should get this bailout.”
Ummm…. no.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of the term before you use it.
“Politicians argue that baseball fields are ‘vital to a city’ because it creates jobs and larger tax base and claim that is why the public should should pay for a brand new ballpark. Amazing how the same argument is defended now.”
Infrastructure = Vital
Baseball Team = Not Vital
Different situation. Different conclusion.
Got it?
Me: “By the way, the Washington Examiner article you quoted was loaded, absolutely loaded with that kind of argument. It’s total hypocrisy to ignore it in your source and attack someone else. It’s completely pathetic when your attack is so wrong.”
Jay: “Oh STFU. Let’s examine shall we?”
Yes. Let’s.
… Oh, I thought you were going to address my point. You didn’t.
For instance…
“Let’s begin with the totally regressive, even elitist, nature of the new spending that would be authorized by the Davis earmark. ”
That’s an appeal to emotion. A real appeal to emotion. It is calling the measure ‘elitist’, which is loaded language. You completely ignored that and attacked Oliver for an appeal to emotion that you can’t even properly define.
“These are facts. And if anybody is being hypocritical, is the likes of Oliver and anybody else who supports this bailout when they’re opposed to similar bailouts for other businesses.”
Jay, your ability to tell if two things are similar is completely messed up. You suffer from an almost pathological ability to detect nuance. You find one similarity, and you think the two situations are the same.
“So can anybody yet still defend why this bailout makes sense and why it should go through? And defend it with reason?”
Oil = $123.75 / barrel.
I don’t give a fuck if someone is selling their passes, as long as someone else is using them.
Higher mass transit usage = Less demand for oil.
The United States is dependent on foriegn oil AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO EVEN IF THEY LET OIL COMPANIES DRILL WHEREVER THEY WANT.
Reducing energy consumption is good for the nation, and is a matter of national security.
JWG – Republicans don’t want to pay for anything and try to steal everything – “Keep Hope Alive” belongs to a Democrat (you should pay royalities for saying that). – Oh, I forgot you’re like pathetic Robert Dole. During his presidential campaign using the song “I’m a Soul Man” at all his public appearances and refused to pay the royalties to its African-American composers.
Republicans are selfish and self-centered. They can’t share anything, they are so anti-community, yet they won’t go off into the sunset and build their own community and stay the hell there so people who believe in humanity, community and the well being of our society can live in peace and quiet.
In NJ’s capital, Trenton, mass transportation (buses) is provided for state employees. Even though I am not a state employee and can’t use this service when I go to Trenton, not once have I thought it was not a good thing. Providing mass transportation for state and government employees in capital cities enables citizens and other motorists doing business to move more freely throughout the city and contributes to less traffic, parking, cogestion and improves the state government.
The money is intended to extend the rail to Dulles Airport
Is it just going to go ’round and ’round the airport? Or will the other end of the line be somewhere else?
I realize you probably still live in your mom’s basement, but adults like the rest of us pay these things called “taxes.”M.
Before calling people dumb you should at the very least have a rudimentary understanding of what a subsidy is. Subsidies are payments by the government made directly to a business or economic sector or in the form of some kind of tax break.
The only time a public road could be considered a subsidy is if a local government specifically built a road to accommodate a business of some sort. I know some localities purposely built new roads in order to get Walmart stores to build there. As a result, Walmart directly benefits.
So get educated dipshit before you start calling other people dumb.
You’re wrong. The construction and maintenance of the Federal Highway system is largely understood by economists to be a subsidy. It’s an indirect payment, but a payment nonetheless, taken out of the Federal coffers. More bluntly, just who do you think pays for the highway system? Halliburton? GM? Microsoft?
FWIW, I think the highway system is a good thing myself. I just get frustrated with the hypocrisy of saying “Public transportation is socialist” when we have a perfectly socialist network of roads for people who own and drive cars.
But nice of you once again to turn this into a discussion of semantics, rather than the glaring fact that you are once again wrong about everything you try and babble on about.
“Before calling people dumb you should at the very least have a rudimentary understanding of what a subsidy is. Subsidies are payments by the government made directly to a business or economic sector or in the form of some kind of tax break.”
Not necessarily direct. That is one definition, but it doesn’t have to be direct, nor to a private business. Creating roads that are free to use can be seen as subsidizing the businesses that use them.
You wouldn’t accept James Carville as a real source if he said Obama had a better plan for America.
“A better plan for America” is a campaign statement, not any kind of statement with regard to numbers. If Carville was a source for why Obama’s tax plans were better than what we currently have, and layed out in detail what those plans were, it would be a logical fallacy for me to dismiss whatever it is he wrote simply because he was James Carville. What I would do (unlike what you and Oliver are doing) is I would go through it and show why I agreed or disagreed with the issue.
Ummm…. no.
Brilliant retort.
Jay, your ability to tell if two things are similar is completely messed up. You suffer from an almost pathological ability to detect nuance. You find one similarity, and you think the two situations are the same.
This from the man who shouts HYPOCRITE at every turn. Now it’s “nuance.” Good lord.
And yet Oliver still hasn’t defended this bailout other than to say: “Metro good.”
Oil = $123.75 / barrel.
That’s not an answer to the question. This was introduced by Davis in 2006 when oil was half the price it is today.
I don’t give a fuck if someone is selling their passes, as long as someone else is using them.
You’re kidding right? You don’t care if people are committing fraud?
i>The construction and maintenance of the Federal Highway system is largely understood by economists to be a subsidy.
I’m sorry but you’re wrong. You keep using phrases like “basically is” and “largely understood” but I’m not interested in your adverbs. A subsidy is exactly what I said it is. We don’t have competing interstate highway systems with one getting tax dollars paid to it for maintenance, construction, etc. while another doesn’t.
FWIW, I think the highway system is a good thing myself.
So do I.
But nice of you once again to turn this into a discussion of semantics, rather than the glaring fact that you are once again wrong about everything you try and babble on about.
Whatever. You’re the one engaging in misdirection, pouting about what constitutes a subsidy, yet I’m the one turning this into a discussion of semantics. Yet, you haven’t addressed why this $1.5 bailout is something that is worth paying for.
The 1.5$ billion is over 10 years, not just one. Averaged by the current number of riders, it is 58 cents per rider. For that sum, we take a large amount of cars off the road, speeding delivery of products to and around the Capital District. It also speeds the movement of military resources. Free flowing traffic saves gasoline, reducing demand and reducing the price of gas worldwide, including Idaho. We also take millions of tons of carbon out of the air, reducing asthma and reduce deaths/impairments from auto accidents which saves money on health care (something like 60% of the health care costs in the US are assumed by the government).
It isn’t a subsidy, its an investment which over the long run is offset by the cost savings. Also remember that some of the spending is capital improvement, whose benefits last beyond the 10 year period.
Your stupid burns Jay. It really does.
Please enlighten us — if the building and maintenance of the highway system _isn’t_ a subsidy, what is it? The Fed basically pays for all of it. Both private citizens and large corporations (think 18 wheelers hauling stuff to Wal-Mart) get the benefit of using it.
THIS. IS. A. SUBSIDY.
YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT.
As for the DC Metro, like I said, I used to live there. It’s a good system, routinely ranked among the best public transit systems in the entire world. DC is in a unique situation since the people who work in the District often don’t live their, and hence, don’t pay state or property taxes. The DC government is far from perfect, but you don’t seem to understand that 1) DC doesn’t have the tax base that a real state does, 2) it’s our nation’s capitol and a huge national and international tourist attraction, 3) it’s no more “socialist” or what have you than the existing roads and bridges people use with their cars. I’m all for more oversight, but killing Metro would be idiotic. No wonder you’re for it.
And btw, 1.5 billion is what we spend in about three days in Iraq. Before we start cutting infrastructure that gets people to work so they can make money and pay taxes, let’s cut out the real wasteful bullshit like failed military occupations, mkay?
Let’s also look at the free Metro cards for government employees. Removing this benefit would mean one of two things: 1. Government employees would demand cash payment roughly equal to the lost benefit, negating the saving 2. Government employees would effectively earn less, meaning the government workforce is less skilled than today. Any time you reduce wages, you reduce the field of qualified workers to fill those spots. Removing the Metrocards results in less talented federal employees, resulting in less service for citizens nationwide, including that guy in Idaho that doesn’t want to pay for rail in DC.
As I’m reading down this thread I get the growing feeling that this should be exactly the sort of thing a conservative would support – an employer providing a benefit in part to be more competitive and attract better employees and a business accepting a government subsidy (which, let’s face it, loads do in one way or another) to be more competitive with the auto transportation market, which has a natural advantage because we Americans sure do love us some cars.
But EL has beaten me to it. So I’ll just leave it at ‘what he said.’
THIS. IS. A. SUBSIDY.
No, it is NOT a subsidy you MORON!!!
An example of an infrastructure subsidy would be if the US government created a single lane within the federal highway system that only Walmart trucks could use. Walmart would then benefit disproportionately from the provision of that infrastructure, at the expense of taxpayers.
Can you comprehend that now? Have I made it simple enough for you to understand what a subsidy is?
Federal expenditures are construction and maintenance of the federal highway system is NOT a subsidy. Good grief, where they hell did you get your education, on the back of a book of matches?
I’m all for more oversight, but killing Metro would be idiotic. No wonder you’re for it.
I’ve never said anywhere that I am for “killing” Metro so you’re either mistaken or purposely lying. As somebody that used to commute to work every day for four years, I understand the value of public transportation. But I also know that public transportation suffers from a great deal of financial mismanagement, waste, and inefficiency. Those issues should be addressed first before throwing more money at it.
It isn’t a subsidy
Yes, it most certainly is a subsidy. The Metro Rail system charges fees for riding on the trains, yet still gets money and as we’ve read, federal workers get free passes. That means the system is being subsidized. And like I said, the Metrorail system should be required to do some improvements on its end before grabbing another $3 billion in federal and state taxes.
What improvements did we get from the opening of the discount window so that banks could get reduced price money? What changes did we get in the way banks do business?
What improvements did we get from throwing $100s of million dollars at the Iraq massacre? Is their more accountability in the Pentagon as a result?
What improvements did the oil companies make in efficiency in exchange for their billions in tax breaks?
Yes, it most certainly is a subsidy. The Metro Rail system charges fees for riding on the trains, yet still gets money and as we’ve read, federal workers get free passes. That means the system is being subsidized.
Way back up yonder, I was using “subsidy” in this same sense. JWG wrote that public transit users should pay the cost of mass transit and as a non-user, he doesn’t want to be burndened with the cost.
Seems fair to me, but only if transit users are off the hook for chipping in for automobile-related public costs.
Now if y’all want to go on yelling “IDIOT” at one another, knock yourselves out.
“If Carville was a source for why Obama’s tax plans were better than what we currently have, and layed out in detail what those plans were, it would be a logical fallacy for me to dismiss whatever it is he wrote simply because he was James Carville.”
And if Carville started out with shouts of elitism…
The Washington Examiner didn’t give a sourced argument based on facts. They gave their opinion based on their political philosophy.
There’s a huge fucking difference.
Me: “Ummm…. no.”
Jay: “Brilliant retort.”
I’ve already explained why you are wrong, Jay, you responded by repeating your mistake, as if the second time you said it would magically be correct.
It is not an appeal to emotion by any definition you will find in a book on logical reasoning.
“This from the man who shouts HYPOCRITE at every turn. Now it’s ‘nuance.’ Good lord.”
Two points…
1.) I only shout hypocrite when I encounter one.
2.) You completely ignored my point. Care to actually respond to my argument? Or are you going to continue to prove who incredibly stupid you are.
“And yet Oliver still hasn’t defended this bailout other than to say: ‘Metro good.’”
Fucking liar. Oliver explained why it was good in his original post.
Me: “Oil = $123.75 / barrel.”
Jay: “That’s not an answer to the question. This was introduced by Davis in 2006 when oil was half the price it is today.”
Two more points…
1.) You are fucking stupid.
2.) Oil at $60 a gallon is EXPENSIVE and improving mass transit is one step the government can take to prevent oil hitting $123.75 a barrel.
Me: “I don’t give a fuck if someone is selling their passes, as long as someone else is using them.”
Jay: “You’re kidding right? You don’t care if people are committing fraud?”
Not in this context. Mass transit is needed to reduce wasting energy. Don’t care who uses it, as long as it is used to reduce automobile traffic.
I’m one of the few federal civil servants that I know lurks (and infrequently posts) here. I live in the District and have available to me through my employer a Federal Transit Benefit which I can use to pay for Metro fares. Commuters in MD and VA can also use their benefit to pay for VRE or MARC commuter train fares.
For those of you who don’t know, Washington DC has the second worst traffic in the nation (behind LA). There are way too many cars trying to get in and out of DC every day. Personally, I ride a bike almost every day I go to work, unless there’s snow or ice on the roads.
I am the first to admit the WMATA has its problems. Trains and buses frequently run off-schedule. Track, platform and other station maintenance (or other problems) disrupt the system. However, the figures cited upthread indicate that this is well-frequented public transit system that moves federal workers and tourists alike.
It was once the case that federal workers received a stack of paper “Metrochecks” roughly equivalent to $100/month, regardless of the actual distance of their commute. Auditors should not have been shocked to discover that some less-than-scrupulous Feds were trying to resell their Metrochecks on eBay for personal profit. (BTW, this was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Every Metrocheck has a serial number that are linked to the employee when they are distributed. All anyone would need to do is check the database and the employee would be cold busted for violating federal criminal statutes.)
However, a couple of years ago, WMATA moved toward a paperless system by introducing the SmartTrip plastic farecards. OPM (Office of Personnel and Management) cleaned up the transit subsidy distribution process. They required everyone receiving the benefit to provide the actual distances traveled and scaled the benefit accordingly. No one automatically gets the maximum benefit. Secondly they required all Federal employees to receive their transit benefit electronically directly credited to their SmartTrip cards. It is now next to impossible to try to resell unused Metrochecks, since they no longer issue them (at least to me–they may still issue Metrochecks to the VRE/MARC riders to facilitate transit purchases outside of the WMATA system.)
I mentioned earlier that I usually ride a bike to work. I’m only on the Metro if I have a meeting to attend or it’s snowing/icy roads. As a consequence, I have reduced the amount of subsidy I take. Since I had built up a stack of Metrochecks during the heydays before they cracked down and I use the bike so frequently, there was a period of time when I didn’t really need to take my benefit. They actually kicked me out of the system after several quarters of not taking the benefit. I had to reapply even though my employment status and place of residence had not changed. Internally, the system has gotten much better. It’s fairer and less prone to giving just anyone more benefit than they would need. I’m a good case to show that if you’re not using it, you will lose it.
One last word on whether or not Feds should be receiving this benefit in the first place. I mentioned that we have the second worst traffic in the nation behind LA. What do you think would happen if Feds no longer received Metro subsidies? First of all, there would be an immediate increase in gridlock on the roads. Secondly, many people would not be able to find parking (workers or DC tourists) if they even got into DC. Finally, the Metro system would need to dramatically raise rates in order to offset the reduced ridership possibly tilting it into economic inviability. This would cause havoc to our Government. It doesn’t run without employees having the capacity to make it too their offices. Removing the transit benefit wouldn’t impact me too much since I’m still on the bike. However, it would be a real shame to lose a public transit system that works pretty well.
Per your example, Wal-Mart doesn’t _need_ its own lane on the highway — it’s already got six perfectly good ones for its needs. You fail.
The Fed spends billions and billions of dollars to make sure that people who own cars and burn lots of gasoline can get to and from work, to the store, etc. Owning a car is the “norm” in America, and that doesn’t bother me. What does is that somehow Republicans seem to forget that roads are just as expensive to build and maintain as train-tracks — they don’t fall magically out of the sky, Jesus doesn’t point his finger and make them appear, etc. In the 1950’s, when gas was cheap, it made sense to build a Federal highway system and effectively hobble American rail. These days? It’s not looking like such a hot idea.
As for my education? Please feel free to e-mail me. I’d be happy to compare degrees with you any day.
“Removing the transit benefit wouldn’t impact me too much since I’m still on the bike.”
Actually, increased car traffic would probably make the commute more dangerous for you on bike.
It is not an appeal to emotion by any definition you will find in a book on logical reasoning.
It most certainly is and you’re wrong on this and you know it.
“The Metro is vital to the region” is not a valid argument in favor of more subsidization. It just isn’t.
You apparently have no idea what an appeal to emotion fallacy is. It’s very simple
1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore X is true.
Care to actually respond to my argument?
You didn’t make an argument, you made an accusation couched as an ‘argument.’. Air travel and the Metrorail are two forms of transportation. Yet, Oliver rails against bailouts for one and supports it for another. That’s inconsistent. This has nothing to do with nuance. It has to do with two completely differing viewpoints regarding the same time of federal bailouts.
Fucking liar. Oliver explained why it was good in his original post.
No, he did not. He spoke about the MetroRail system. Ok. We get it. But he hasn’t yet provided a concrete reason for supporting the $1.5 billion.
Oil at $60 a gallon is EXPENSIVE and improving mass transit is one step the government can take to prevent oil hitting $123.75 a barrel.
Actually, by inflationary standards, $60 was not all that high. The price had been far too low for far too long. Any commodities expert will tell you this. And considering that only 5% of the population uses mass transit, the impact on oil prices will be negligible. Many people simply do not have convenient access to mass transit.
Not in this context. Mass transit is needed to reduce wasting energy. Don’t care who uses it, as long as it is used to reduce automobile traffic.
The problem is, you have people double dipping and there’s nothing right about that. If the people who get the passes don’t want to use them, they should give them away, not sell them for profit on Ebay.
Per your example, Wal-Mart doesn’t _need_ its own lane on the highway — it’s already got six perfectly good ones for its needs. You fail.
It doesn’t matter. It was an example used to show you what a subsidy is.
What does is that somehow Republicans seem to forget that roads are just as expensive to build and maintain as train-tracks — they don’t fall magically out of the sky, Jesus doesn’t point his finger and make them appear, etc. In the 1950’s, when gas was cheap, it made sense to build a Federal highway system and effectively hobble American rail. These days? It’s not looking like such a hot idea.
First of all, the notion that this is somehow a “Republican” issue is bogus. The representative who is pushing for this money is a Republican so can we please dispense with that nonsense? Mass transit issues are a two party problem and its largely due to geography. If you want, read up on Florida trying to get some light rail built between Daytona Beach and Orlando. For over ten years, the state legislature has been bickering with local and county governments along with NIMBY’s who want to see less traffic, but don’t want a train station built anywhere near their home. The result? Nothing. If they had just put their heads together, it could have worked and people would be able to live along the I-4 corridor and taken the train to downtown Orlando with shuttles that would take people to Disney, Universal and other theme parks.
As I said earlier, I am supporter of mass transit. What I am not a supporter of is, throwing more money at areas of mass transit without demanding they clean up their mess first. I don’t see why that is such a big deal.
CS,
Luckily, most of my commute has a bike lane. I’ve found that more traffic actually makes me safer. When there are more cars on the road it can be actually better for me. Traffic backs up, so I’m cruising along a line of stopped cars on my left. Of course, it may increase the likelihood of meeting a dreaded “right hook” driver. We recently had a DC cyclist going along in her bike lane who was killed by a negligent truck driver taking a right hand turn across the bike lane.
Although I face the daily danger of becoming a “ghost biker”, at least I can sleep well at night knowing I’m not burdening Jay and Co. by not taking my Metro Transit subsidy.
Me: “It is not an appeal to emotion by any definition you will find in a book on logical reasoning.”
Jay: “It most certainly is and you’re wrong on this and you know it.
“The Metro is vital to the region” is not a valid argument in favor of more subsidization. It just isn’t.
You apparently have no idea what an appeal to emotion fallacy is. It’s very simple
1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore X is true.”
There is nothing emotional about saying “The Metro is vital to the region.” NOTHING YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT. Saying it had sentimental appeal would be emotional. Saying it is vital is not.
It is not emotional to say, “A balanced diet is vital to your health.”
Go to a fucking university and ask a goddamn philosophy professor if that argument is an appeal to emotion.
Do you even know what the word, ‘vital’ means?
Fucking hell, according to your theory, nearly every single argument is an appeal to emotion.
‘For matters vital to national security, we must bomb Iran.’
1. Favorable emotions are associated with national security.
2. Therefore the argument is an appeal to emotion.
“You didn’t make an argument, you made an accusation couched as an ‘argument.’. Air travel and the Metrorail are two forms of transportation. Yet, Oliver rails against bailouts for one and supports it for another. That’s inconsistent. This has nothing to do with nuance. It has to do with two completely differing viewpoints regarding the same time of federal bailouts.”
Jay. Shut the fuck up, you ignorant piece of shit.
These two things are not the same. Therefore, someone’s reaction to them will be different. For instance, you don’t need to build a rail line to fly a plane, so the upfront cost is much less. Secondly, rail lines are exclusive by nature (you can’t share access easily), while this is not true when flying. See? The two are different and must be treated differently.
If you can’t figure that out, just shut up.
“And considering that only 5% of the population uses mass transit, the impact on oil prices will be negligible. Many people simply do not have convenient access to mass transit.”
Which is why mass transit needs to be improved, shit for brains.
I figure any post now you are just going to type YHBT and laugh your ass off. You certainly can’t be this stupid by accident.
“If the people who get the passes don’t want to use them, they should give them away, not sell them for profit on Ebay.”
That’s not very capitalistic of you. The government is giving them away for free, so they obviously don’t think they have a value. Someone else does. Money is exchanged. Everyone should be happy.
Saying it had sentimental appeal would be emotional. Saying it is vital is not.
Normally, I don’t this in comment sections, but ROFLMAO!!! Oh man. That is good. In the world of Stroke, the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion has to have “sentimental appeal.” Good grief.
It is not emotional to say, “A balanced diet is vital to your health.”
If somebody told me that I had to eat Wheatina and I asked why, and they said, “Because it is vital to your health!” it wouldn’t be a valid reason for me to eat it.
Jay. Shut the fuck up, you ignorant piece of shit.
Blow me.
I can do the schoolyard nonsense too. Yippee.
For instance, you don’t need to build a rail line to fly a plane, so the upfront cost is much less. Secondly, rail lines are exclusive by nature (you can’t share access easily), while this is not true when flying. See? The two are different and must be treated differently.
A bailout is a bailout asshole. Who the hell cares about exclusivity? We’re talking about modes of transportation that are looking to the government for an infusion of cash to remain viable. Here is what Oliver said about the airlines:
One of the major issues I wrote about on this blog back after 9/11 was about the free money congress and the president handed to the airlines. Just let them die. Trust the market, and let them die. I fear that my sentiments about Bear Stearns are going to work out similarly.
Why should MetroRail be any different? Why shouldn’t they be forced into a situation where they become more efficient and better managed?
Why?
Which is why mass transit needs to be improved, shit for brains.
Dickhead, people are not, NOT using mass transit because it needs to be improved.
I swear. Trying to get you to understand the simplest of things is like trying to reason with a 2 month old baby.
That’s not very capitalistic of you. The government is giving them away for free, so they obviously don’t think they have a value. Someone else does. Money is exchanged. Everyone should be happy.
Uh, except for the fact that the government is “giving them away” after being paid for by tax dollars. I guess you have no problem with people selling food stamps either.
Now if y’all want to go on yelling “IDIOT” at one another, knock yourselves out.
I’m not kidding. I want you to knock yourselves out! Ball up your little fists and punch yourselves in the head ’til you fall down!
Either that or stop yelling “IDIOT” at each other.
So you wouldn’t object one iota to handing out free townhomes for federal employees?
Because 59 cents per rider per year is exactly the same as a $300000 townhouse.
Can’t we deport people for having the stupid? It makes more sense than deporting them for skin color like the conservatives want to do. But we can’t because the conservative would bitch because they’re such obvious targets.
Look! A subway! Booga booga!
OK, it’s a slow day at work, so once again I’ll bite.
The Fed spends lots of money on roads.
The Fed spends a little money on railroad tracks and light-rail type stuff, but it’s a relative drop in the bucket to the behemoth that is the Federal highway system. (Amtrak? It’s always been a joke, but that’s on purpose. It was set up to fail, although mismanagement over the years didn’t help it either.)
This is, in effect, a subsidy for auto makers and fuel producers. It was _meant_ to work that way. Ford and GM had some pretty smart cookies working for them when Eisenhower put the whole shebang together. It’s no accident that Americans think of their roads and highways as “free” when in fact they’re incredibly expensive to maintain (and happen to be going to hell pretty quickly these days all around the country).
As usual, you keep trying to ignore the larger issue here and bring it down to a semantic one. “ZOMG THAT’S NOT WHAT SUBSIDY MEANS!” Well, first of all, it is. But fine — let’s call it something else for the sake of argument. How about “BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF FEDERAL TAX MONEY SPENT SO AMERICANS CAN DRIVE ANYWHERE THEY NEED TO GO IN THEIR AUTOMOBILES WHICH CONSUME LOTS AND LOTS OF GASOLINE.” Hmm. Not too compact, and I probably shouldn’t even bother with a troll like yourself, but at the very least, on a beautiful Pacific Northwest Friday afternoon, I hope I’ve broken this pretty simple issue down into something your lizard-brain can comprehend.
Hope springs eternal.
And another point before I excuse myself — you mention that some public transit systems are poorly run, and I certainly agree. But guess what’s worse than most public transit systems? The traffic problems surrounding any mid- to large-size American city. By your logic, we should stop funding road repairs because the traffic is really bad and the damn things don’t pay for themselves. See how ridiculous you’re coming off? You bitch about tax monies going to fund public transit and yet you’ve said _nothing_ against the much more expensive road and highway system which is arguably more broken than Amtrak ever was.
A bit of funny for diversion.
Oliver today:
>Yes, because the Washington Examiner and its right-wing funding is just looking out for the little guy.
Oliver in January, 2006 (http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2006/01/30/the-republican-problem-of-race/):
>Predictably, Michelle Malkin is pulling a “look over here” complaining that the scientists that conducted the study donated to Kerry. It’s as if the Bush people have a history of not being pro-science or something. Look, 2 2 equals four – even when a Democrat is adding it up.
I guess 2 2 only equals 4 if a Democrat is adding it up, huh Oliver?
If the source is a source of misinformation, yes. In the world of the Examiner and other right-wing news, 2 2 never seems to come out to 4.
Hmm. How about, you know, doing the math yourself (to continue the analogy) before passing judgement on it?
I’m not familiar enough with the Examiner to know what what misinformation you are referring to. However, if that is all that is required, then by your logic it would be valid for me to discard anything the NYT says because I have occasionally found them to be purveyors of biased and misleading information, correct?
Not too compact, and I probably shouldn’t even bother with a troll like yourself
I always know the argument is over once the whiny babies start whipping out the troll attacks.
By your logic, we should stop funding road repairs because the traffic is really bad and the damn things don’t pay for themselves. See how ridiculous you’re coming off? You bitch about tax monies going to fund public transit
Why do you continue to engage in such intellectual dishonesty? My logic is the same as saying the government shouldn’t give the same road construction firm contracts if they’ve performed so poorly in the past. Get off the fucking crack.
In addition, I didn’t “bitch about tax monies going to fund public transit” you inbred twit. I said the public transit should become better managed, more efficient and make better use of the tax dollars they are already getting before having any more money tossed their way.
Just wow.
If the source is a source of misinformation, yes.
Show me ONE thing in the Examiner article that is misinformation.
ONE.
Me: “Saying it had sentimental appeal would be emotional. Saying it is vital is not.”
Jay: “Normally, I don’t this in comment sections, but ROFLMAO!!! Oh man. That is good. In the world of Stroke, the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion has to have “sentimental appeal.” Good grief.”
You are an illiterate fucker, you know that? I didn’t say it had to, I gave an example. I’ve given more than one example so far, but you have still refused to show how ‘vital’ is somehow emotionally loaded language. So shut the fuck up, asshole.
“It is not emotional to say, ‘A balanced diet is vital to your health.’”
“If somebody told me that I had to eat Wheatina and I asked why, and they said, ‘Because it is vital to your health!’ it wouldn’t be a valid reason for me to eat it.”
No, but it wouldn’t be an appeal to emotion either. It simply wouldn’t be giving enough information.
If they said, “You should eat a balanced diet, because it is vital to your health.” It would be a valid argument.
“A bailout is a bailout asshole.”
How are you not dead yet? You are so fucking stupid you should have accidentally eliminated yourself from the gene pool.
You must judge each situation individually. You can’t judge them based on a one word description.
Is this really outside of your ability to understand?
Me: “Which is why mass transit needs to be improved, shit for brains.”
Jay: “Dickhead, people are not, NOT using mass transit because it needs to be improved.”
Holy fuck! Do you even understand English? Or do you think cutting off the Metro’s funding will magically make it better?
“I swear. Trying to get you to understand the simplest of things is like trying to reason with a 2 month old baby.”
That’s funny coming from a guy who doesn’t know the meaning of the word, ‘emotion’.
“I guess you have no problem with people selling food stamps either.”
Why would they?
The point of giving out free Metro passes is to get people to use the Metro instead of driving to work. I don’t really care who uses the Metro, as long as it is used and people get to work.
Oh man. This thread is full of win.
Once again, you’re moving the goal-posts Jay. You’ve been hard-charging about how awful it would be to “bail out” the DC metro because it must be horribly mis-managed. I suggest that the beltways surrounding any major city are possibly even worse and by your “logic,” we should stop funding them as well since they’re broken, expensive, and wasteful to boot.
Your response? “Well, it’s the sub-contractor’s fault. Get another one.”
So if there _is_ a horribly managed public transit system out there (I can assure you, the DC Metro ain’t one of them), now you’re arguing it _should_ be fixed, but only by a really really good private subcontractor (Halliburton, I can only assume).
Dude, now you’re doing the logical equivalent of a small furry kitten (probably dropped on its head a few too many times) chasing its own tail.
But please, I await your rebuttal toute suite.