JoeWeber

Did you read the post? Single working mother. Make it single working father, if that helps.

Does that include redistributing borrowed money? And what constitutes a functioning member of society? Would a single working mother in subsidized housing who also receives food stamps be considered functioning?

That's fantastic. You're finally beginning to grasp how unlikely events can lead to an undesirable conclusion.

At this point I have to think Trump. He's in control and tightening his grip every second. He now knows he can get away with murder. His control of the government is such that CIA Director Haspel stood and applauded him at the SOTU. He not only fired Vindman but also his twin brother. His base is unified and motivated. I also suspect he'll find more ways to juice the economy to ice the cake. Might as well go a bit longer in the market, I'm guessing,

Just because an asteroid might be traveling at 45,000mph when it hits doesn't mean it wasn't a long time coming or that it's eventual impact and far reaching consequences could not be foreseen. It's simply something that won't be noticed if you spend your day chewing grass.

Now they've canned Vindman. Heads on pikes.

And here I thought it was just to jerk my chain. Now I'm hurt.

Yup, stand by for a lot more winning.

Turtle, you make too many assumptions. Excepting piece rate TI's and packers I doubt SDHV has drawn any businesses to the Airport. Further, paying tens of thousands to the airport over 15 years does not confer cash cow status. It's nothing money that doesn't dent the operating costs must less the construction costs. I own an Airport. There is nothing cheap about it. Just sealcoating a 3000' runway is $25K and that lasts 2-3 years. Paving repairs, general upkeep, property taxes and on and on add a hell of a lot more to the bill. Simply, you need to not factor in construction costs and all ongoing operating costs not to mention the opportunity cost of not using that value in a more profitable investment. Only governments do that. So no, you and Brent are both wrong. It's a huge subsidy. Understand, I'm not opposed to the subsidy at all. I believe the government is smart to support GA in America. But just because someones conservative values make admitting that impossible does not make it false.

Welcome to the Imperial Presidency and stand by for non stop gloating from (fill in the blank) as one petty abuse of power after another comes our way. Say the Lord: "Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly."

Both, but I've bombed in better joints than this one. Let me rephrase: it's a good idea being poorly marketed because that would be considered an even worse idea.

Be it Highways, Internet, Health Care, Police and Fire or Airports, such is the ardent hope of governments everywhere. You are welcome, comrade.

Brent, then why be a chump? Go buy your own airport and bank the savings? The reality is you are not counting all you get for free. For example, do you lease a specified area on the airport for your jumpers? Is it large enough to guarantee they will always land in? Are you paying local market value for that landing area?

You are being subsidized. You are benefitting from infrastructure paid for by the government for some reason that did not envision you. Get real, Brent, you are on the tit. There's no shame it that anymore than when you spend your food stamps. It's just how we all help each other.

Said the Tyrannosaurus to the Triceratops.

Let me help you out with a real world analogy. Say, for example, I buy a flash Caravan for $1.5M cash. You buy a $1.5M Caravan with a mortgage. So I have sunk costs and you have operating expenses. Now, I could, if I disregarded the investment cost and the opportunity cost of using that capital in some other profitable way, including paying down debt, lease my aircraft at a fraction of what you'd be able to offer. But I wouldn't because it would be dumb. No one except governments purchase assets and lease them for less than market value. You are being subsidized.

Isn't question #1 who will benefit and how? These big numbers everyone seems twitterpated over are chump change in the real world. They are buying an edifice; a representation of who we are, where we came from and a promise of where we might go. Yes, they are doing a shit show job of it but don't forget from where they who make these crap decisions came.

And how does your sunk cost fallacy factor into your analysis? You were a bank officer and you call a double 182 DZ a cash cow? How does the tiedown area factor into your subsidy? How about the airport authority who maintains your camping area. Obviously you aren't a pilot or you'd know that you can never say there is no ATC. And so what that you buy a little avgas. But ignore all of that, and let's not make it all about you. You know you aren't paying the freight and that means you are subsidized like Elon Musk. Sorry brother but this one you won't win.

Marketing. Branding. Relationship building. Bush peeing. Or, possibly, showing you are someone to someone you want something from someday. Sometimes what you are paying for is something other what it seems you are paying for. Anyone can look down the street. Looking down the street and around the corner is the trick.

Well, we could spend some time examining whether FAA funded public use airports are subsidizing socialist skydiving operations. I suppose if in addition to a very, very expensive hangar lease, the airport requires the jumpers to lease, at fair market value, a parachute landing area large enough to contain the jumpers (20+ acres anyway) and they paid a whole, whole lot of avgas tax, hosted a pancake breakfast or three, and so on there might be an argument the operation was carrying it's weight. But then there would need to be many other users paying their equal fair share including improvement and maintenance funds etc. etc so probably not. Then there is ATC, right? South of the Pickerel Capital of the World and North of the Wall that keeps falling over jumpers don't pay a penny for the several hours a day of direct assistance many operations receive. Who pays for that? Ivanka? The collective? It ain't the gas tax on what a 182 burns, I'm guessing. What's your guess?

Now you're starting to sound like Ron.

Has anyone on this site claimed that the government has the ability to control climate? My impression is that, at most, non-deniers believe that we, with or without the government, can affect climate.

O.K., I'll bite: which of the above do you not support?

No one can fault your desire to get good information. First half true, second half lame projection. When in doubt, make shit up. You're not having a great week, gotta say.

Was that my inside voice? So sorry. I'll try therapy.