AOPA Truthsquad

All arguments The Destroyer
makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked.

The arguments both for and against are quite simplistic, and it doesn't
matter whether they are "easily rebuked" or not. It's not so much a
question of whether you've counted the money correctly, as whether
you've counted all the money in the first place. Two very simple
(non-aviation) examples:

Who benefits from public education and public libraries?

What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
bridge with a pedestrian walkway?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .

What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
bridge with a pedestrian walkway?


Thanks Jose,

Nicely stated!

Peter

I wouldn't mind seeing AOPA fight EVERY expenditure from the aviation trust
fund that does not benefit GA.

Why should my fuel tax go towards maintaining a runway that would easily
last one hundred years if only piston aircraft used it?

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
All arguments The Destroyer
makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked.

The arguments both for and against are quite simplistic, and it doesn't
matter whether they are "easily rebuked" or not. It's not so much a
question of whether you've counted the money correctly, as whether
you've counted all the money in the first place. Two very simple
(non-aviation) examples:

Who benefits from public education and public libraries?

What is the "proper" fee to charge pedestrians when an existing (free)
pedestrian bridge is torn down to make room for an automotive toll
bridge with a pedestrian walkway?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thanks Jose,

Nicely stated!

Peter

"Skylune" wrote in message
oups.com...

I nominate Jose to head the AOPA. He is at least capable of rational
discussion, unlike The Destroyer, who relies 100% (that means full
reliance, Phil, since you obviously are "percentage challenged") on
hyperbole, rhetoric, and faulty logic. All arguments The Destroyer
makes regarding user fees are easily rebuked. (The easiest is to
simply look at the contribution that AV gas taxes make to the Trust
Fund.)


Let's have a rational discussion on the GA projects that you worked on.
Please identify them.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

Let's have a rational discussion on the GA projects that you worked on.
Please identify them.

KASH - Fuel Truck containment basin.

Although there has never been a fuel spill attributed to an airport based
fuel truck, Skylune found an EPA ruling somewhere that fuel trucks parked
overnight must be parked in a specially constructed basin to catch any fuel
that might leak.

He, and his Stop-The-Noise friends spent our tax dollars building a useless
basin.

Skylune wrote:
snip
Oh, and by the way, for the AOPA support staff who posted this on the
web site, an increase from 19.3 to 70.1 cents is NOT a 366% increase.
They should hire a fifth grade math teacher to put up the proper
number.



Hey dumbass. The math is correct. Where'd you go to school? (so it's
off by 1%)

19.3 * 3.66 == 70.638

Tim writes:

Skylune wrote:
[...] an increase from 19.3 to 70.1 cents is NOT a 366% increase. [...]

Hey dumbass. The math is correct. Where'd you go to school? [...]
19.3 * 3.66 == 70.638

So a "10% increase" is to correspond to a multiplication by 0.1 ?


- FChE