What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
74 Comments
- Skywise, on 07/14/2009, -10/+31Bridge to nowhere...
- fury420, on 07/14/2009, -3/+21an unprofitable level of demand is not zero demand, and far flung rural areas are the ones that benefit most from access to air travel
- uriman, on 07/14/2009, -8/+24Why increase supply when there is no demand?
- greenmoonice, on 07/14/2009, -2/+16A high school buddy of mine's first airline job was with a small airline that provided esential air service. He said most of his flights at most had 20% to 30% occupancy and many times he would fly empty. Apparently the airlines made more money from the goverment than off the passengers. The subsidy was crazy becuase the larger the aircraft they flew the more money per seat they made. Because of that he was flying 727's in airports that were in the middle of nowhere- they had problems with cows on the runway!
- davebg8r, on 07/14/2009, -11/+24Another 'porky' little amendment that people like Senator Schumer claim no one cares about. Whats $173 million among taxpayers who are already deeply in debt?
You voted for this people. You have only yourselves to blame. Dont pretend like you didnt know this stuff was gonna happen.
And no, Im not a republican and sure as hell didnt vote for McCain either. - tamman2000, on 07/14/2009, -3/+14yeah, because being able to travel doesn't help commerce. And commerce doesn't create/keep jobs...
This kind of stuff sounds wasteful, but it really does pay off in the end. I would suspect that this program leads (directly or indirectly) to more than 200 mil in additional tax dollars... - SarcasticPirate, on 07/14/2009, -1/+9BREAKING: Bridges can fly
(we're *****) - MWeather, on 07/14/2009, -2/+10"The government can't create new jobs."
Sure it can. It's an employer like any other. - DirtyVicar, on 07/14/2009, -3/+10Well, on one hand it's mass transit and not much more expensive than the cost of a major freeway interchange in some random city. The High Five (I-635 & US 75) in Dallas was $250 million.
- kaisa, on 07/14/2009, -1/+8Everyone getting all angry about this should take a look at the rural broadband money that is wasted every year. Rural broadband immediately turns in to money to stop municipal broadband.
- MWeather, on 07/14/2009, -2/+9Who cares if the government subsidizes unprofitable air routes? It's better (and much cheaper) than the government's solution for subsidizing unprofitable postal routes: government owned monopoly.
If this makes you angry, the Post Office should make you absolutely livid.
If it doesn't, you may be suffering from Obamaphobia. - Wargala, on 07/14/2009, -5/+12Great. Then YOU pay for it.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -6/+12I'm actually flying Great Lakes next week to my Kansas hometown- it's the best option available by far and would be an incredible pain in the ass to see go out of business.
- palmer, on 07/14/2009, -0/+6This air service may be iffy in some cases, but the recent attempts to villianize the spending on small airports are sickening and ignorant. Small airports are the only way people and companies have to get to some of these places, while taking some burden off of our already overstressed major airports.
Many small airports have languished without repairs for a decade or more. Meanwhile they have a daily fight against developers and the municipal governments those developers have bought, and people who move next door to the airport and then complain about it. General aviation brings a ton of jobs to this country. It's time to stop bitching about it and start supporting it. - woodyex1, on 07/14/2009, -7/+13I'm glad to see that our tax dollars are going towards the most important issues of our time.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5Conservatives do not understand the concept of the bottom line.
Yes. This flight route might be unprofitable for the program itself. But for the nation's economy it would do a lot of good and open up jobs to people who might not otherwise have access to them.
Think of Microsoft. Microsoft is a huge corporation with their fingers in many pies. Their gaming wing produces the Xbox 360 console. In general this wing never really makes a profit. It's in the red more times than it's in the black.
So why does microsoft continue to fund it's gaming wing? Because they are threatened by Sony's PS3 and feel that if not kept in check, future playstation consoles could become something of a media center that could compete directly with the home PC market.
So by developing their own media center before Sony does they keep that threat at bay. Which means Microsoft will stay on people's mind whether they are in the market for a PC or a media center.
The bottom line for Microsoft is a profit even if their gaming division itself is not one.
Keep the bottom line in mind when criticizing the profitability of a particular government program.
Amtrak for example is a government run business that was never profitable when it was in the private sector. But the government felt it had to keep Amtrak alive because it had enormous benefits to businesses along the train's route.
A similar example is the recent auto bailouts. Though the car companies are clearly not very profitable at the moment the millions of jobs they affect in our economy is profitable to the government. So keeping as many of those jobs as possible is a priority for the government and they will attempt to salvage whatever they can.
This is pretty much the same concept. - UCDPike, on 07/14/2009, -5/+10It's probably cuz some senator from Montana doesn't get direct flights to his obscure ass home town
- sulthernao, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6Like fury said, there is demand but it is not profitable for the Airlines. AKA the government providing constituent service by subsidizing the service to make it profitable. I have no idea on whether rural people actually want this, but if they do, they have every right to vote for congressmen to get it done. It isn't a waste of money if people actually want it. That being said, if the people don't want it, then it is a waste of tax payer money.
- schnikies79, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4How about people choose where they want to live without the government, or yourself, meddling in the decision.
These people in "the middle of nowhere" grow your food. They mine your raw materials. Maybe your should re-think your position. - palmer, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Exactly. Where's the bellyaching about the ridiculously high "universal access fee" that we've been paying for ages?
- MWeather, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2"You do realize that the USPO was first established in 1775 and it is written into the constitution."
So you're not angry about the money, it's the legality of it that bothers you? Or did I miss your point? - MWeather, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2I take it you don't live on an unprofitable postal route.
- shig, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2"The king's cheese is half wasted in parings; But no matter, 'tis made of the people's milk." - Benjamin Franklin
- TheTaoOfBill, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Rural areas are often the hardest hit by economic crisis. A lack of local jobs can mean a hundred miles to the next hiring business.
Making rural flight routes possible will bring enormous economic benefits to these areas. Local businesses will be able to ship more product in for less money. Prices will go down. Tourism will go up and local business will feel the need to hire more to catch up with increasing demand.
Anytime you better connect rural areas with the rest of the country you are relieving some economic strains in the region. - kaisa, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Thats the idea, give the airlines money to fly unprofitable routes...but the subsidy is generally less than a route with high load factors. I heard a number once while I was working at American Eagle... EAS routes generally come out to be as profitable as a route with ~75% load factor. If they had just flown routes with 80%+ load factor, they would be doing better.
Sometimes, just because its subsidized doesn't mean its necessarily the best decision. You have to factor in the cost of ground support at the outstation as well...not just airfare. A part 121 carrier (scheduled passenger carrying operations) has a lot of regulations regarding places they can land. I'm sure the regionals would just rather do away with EAS. - enantiodromia, on 07/14/2009, -2/+4job creation?
try moving into one of these rural areas of the country, and start a business. i bet in about two weeks, you wished there was a faster cheaper way to send and receive goods. - enantiodromia, on 07/14/2009, -3/+5cliches: for the unthinking
- esc27, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2How many billions were spent bailing out the big airlines after 9/11? $173 million doesn't seem so bad.
- palmer, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1That's brilliant.
- robojerk, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1Look at California.
I some statistic on the radio that some of the large counties like Orange, LA, San Diego, etc. that more than half of the population work directly for government (city, county, state, fed) in some form or another. - dknybbrz, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1The essential air service program has been in effect since 1978 (deregulation, look it up), much a like affirmative action it started with good intentions but needs to be killed off.
- Jakeman21co, on 07/14/2009, -4/+5It's Congress. Nobody knows why they do half the ***** they do.
- CSheikh, on 07/14/2009, -2/+3You do realize that the USPO was first established in 1775 and it is written into the constitution. I realize it made much more sense back then compared to now, but so does the 2nd amendment.
- HimThatSpeaks, on 07/14/2009, -4/+5Yeah, it's probably going to make new jobs but not enough to justify the economic commitment. I am a strong democrat, I support Obama and voted for him, but I am not sure this is the right path he is taking with this. If something is not profitable, common sense says, don't do it. There are exceptions, such as when it is good for the general populace, but I don't think this is good for the general populace. Especially during these economic times. Sure as hell beats Bush going to war with the wrong country though. And republican posters, don't go thinking your party, or the future of your party is any better. Palin did this ***** and was continuing to in her home state with federal dollars.
- woodyex1, on 07/14/2009, -2/+3It doesn't cost you $200 to travel on US 75 either.
- tamman2000, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2Well, the bridge to nowhere would have cost nearly twice what this program costs and would have provided transit to orders of magnitude less.
So I guess this is like a bride to nowhere, ecept that there are lots more people in these nowheres and it costs less... - sulthernao, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2It's the largest employer in the US.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2But why can't we have excellent rail service and an Autobahn? Who won WW2 again?
- palmer, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2From your knowledge of geography, you must be from somewhere in the middle then. Somewhere other than Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis...
- Logrusmage, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2I agree. I ***** despise the USPS. It sucks horribly.
UPS/Fedex/DHL FTW! - ByteMeAHole, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2Seems like this Congress and Senate has yet to see a spending bill it doesn't like? Definitely taking after the new Commander and Chief of Spending himself...
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1Good point. And obviously the citizens did not protest enough that time either. When we fail to stand up for our rights the battle with tyrants gets even harder down the road.
- DifferentAngle, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2Flights to nowhere...
- Nintendesert, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1No, iPods just magically appear!
- Logrusmage, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2Unfortunately it is an employer that gets its money from other employers. Every job government creates was taken away from some other industry in the long run.
- MinimumEffort, on 07/15/2009, -1/+1sulthernao - a constituent service is what you get when the current minority interest that won the election gets together with a few other minority interest that won their election and agree to throw money at each other because the minority interests that aren't in power can't currently stop them.
- dknybbrz, on 07/15/2009, -1/+1The essential air service program has been in effect since 1978 (deregulation, look it up), much a like affirmative action it started with good intentions but needs to be killed off.
- lhbaker, on 07/15/2009, -3/+3What's everyone's beef with this? Do the people who live in rural areas not have the right to travel by anything other than Greyhound bus? Of course they need a subsidy, without it, the rural areas dry up, and businesses suffer due to a lack of expedient delivery options. If businesses suffer, the economy suffers, and nothing gets better.
The same people who ignorantly call this wasteful spending would undoubtedly deny these same people electricity, because, hey, why would they live out there in the first place? Oh, I don't know, maybe to grow your ***** food? -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is