From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
news:llflst$8kd$2@news.albasani.net...
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>On 5/14/2014 10:49 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>conklin wrote:
>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>>conklin wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:23:45 AM UTC-4, conklin wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>As far as evidence you simply make it up, like RDU going bankrupt.
>
>>>>>>>No one ever said RDU was going bankrupt.
>
>>>>>>>What people did say was that RDU required significant subsidies to
>>>>>>>function.
>
>>>>>>>Relevant portions of their financial statements--showing the
>>>>>>>subsidies--were quoted. Curiously, you never responded to those
>>>>>>>specific
>>>>>>>quotes.
>
>>>>>>More nonsense. Ticket tax money is not a "subsidy." It is a user fee
>>>>>>paid by users. And so is the PCF. And so forth. And, by the way,
>>>>>>daily operations pay for the bonds, not the taxpayer. You don't know
>>>>>>how to read a financial statement.
>
>>>>>George, you don't get to re-define an excise tax as a user fee,
>
>>>>Sorry you don't understand English. It is a fee paid by users for use
>>>>in
>>>>air travel. It is not a subsidy.
>
>>>No, that would be airfare. If the airport isn't subsidized, I still want
>>>to know why the airport gets to collect an excise tax on passengers in
>>>addition to rent paid to it by airlines. Why isn't rent sufficient to
>>>operate the airport and retire its construction bonds?
>
>>Because that is how the agency running the airport chooses to finance
>>its capital and operating budgets.
>
> If the airport cannot retire its debt nor operate on revenues it receives
> from rent from airlines, it's being subsidized
This idiot does not know the difference between landside and airside. It is
hopeless to talk to such people.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
