How’d all those millions and millions of attendees at Glenn Beck’s rally in Washington D.C. get to and from the rally?
They jammed the D.C. Metro rail stations, notes James Rowen.
35 thoughts on “Beck rally attendees don’t mind socialized mass transit!”
Comments are closed.
didn’t they also send out a memo stating what stops to get off on and which ones to avoid to take our country back?
Oh, I get it. Because people who are against specificl projects oh say like spending almost a billion on a Madison to Milwaukee train line are against all public transit.
Transit seems like it would fall under the “free market” category to most of Beck’s followers.
Never said that, did I?
Not explicitly. Just sick of hearing it said either directly or implied.
As far as Beck’s followers, I couldn’t begin to guess & have never seen more than a 2 minute clip here or there when it’s been posted somewhere. What I do know is that my complaint against trains or other mass transit is when they’re a poor choice for practical reasons – primarily when usage is drastically out of line with expense. I do believe that where feasible, public transit is a good thing, and it’s important to provide options for people who can’t afford cars. But buses or trains that run empty are wasting taxpayers’ money.
Again, this is a common, slick move of yours Zach. Put junk like this out there and then when someone like Locke calls you out you can hide behind “I never said that.” Well what ARE you saying then?
The debate here in WI isn’t whether mass transit in and of itself is good or bad, but will it work here with such a low population density vs. the cost. I think most people in cities the size of DC and NY are actually using the subway, whereas here most people will be subsidizing (i.e. paying) for it and never using it. The only things DC and Madison have in common is a dome and lack of common sense. Other than that, thanks for completely oversimplifying a complex issue.
I’m not hiding behind anything; I’m simply making an observation and sharing a link.
So the headline “Beck rally attendees don’t mind socialized mass transit!” wasn’t yours? That’s kind of an opininated statement rather than fact. And I’ll have to remember that posting a link doesn’t mean anything about the one who is posting it.
Sure, the headline’s mine, and it’s meant to convey how ironic I find it that so many of the folks who listen to Glenn Beck no doubt rail against “socialism this” and “socialism that,” but yet don’t mind socialized services like mass transit, fire and police protection, etc.
As to the comments made here about the higher speed rail line between Milwaukee and Madison, I’ll admit I’m not completely sold on it as a high priority project; I would have rather seen something done about the Hoan Bridge or the Zoo Interchange first.
By your broad definition all government would be considered socialism. I think one can rally against what Obama is trying to do with health care, cap and trade, and his spreading the wealth around garbage, and still be ok with mass transit and fire and police protection.
“I bet those folks in DC walked on sidewalks, used water, and flushed the toilets too. The hyporcisy! Why, the very mall itself is socialist!” Nice try though.
Actually much of government functions do fit into the category of socialism, which is why many people show their ignorance when they complain of socialism. Sure you can disagree with specific programs but to rail against socialism in general is ridiculous.
We have always had, and always will have a mixed economy. We will NEVER have a socialistic economy any more than we will ever have a “free market” economy. Different things work best in different ways and all work together to form our economy.
As for this: “I bet those folks in DC walked on sidewalks, used water, and flushed the toilets too. The hyporcisy! Why, the very mall itself is socialist!” Its realistic for the people who say they want government completely out of their lives(hello Joe Miller), yet have no problem using the benefits of what our government gives them.
Proud Progressive,
Government has grown out of proportion to the private sector. The average government employee makes almost 2x the private sector equivalent and are 8x less likely to quit or be fired. That does not even include benefits. What do I get for paying over 60% of my paycheck to taxes? Not much, decent roads, public library (hello internet), police, have my own water supply, do not use any other city services. I want to pay some taxes but I want everyone else to pay the same rate. If you would like to keep the “Progressive” tax system then I should be allowed to drive down the center of the highway, first in line at the DMV, and have 24 hour police surveillance of my property.
People are sick of the government… did you catch the controversy of Chris Christie and the Race To The Top application! Christie is making a fool out of this administration.
I would agree to a rail system in Wisconsin if only the people that actually paid taxes were able to ride on it.
How many “equivalent” positions are there?
What’s the private sector equivalent to the police officer?
I know guys in road construction make good money, whether they work for the Street Dept or a road builder.
I’m finding your “facts” a little dubious here.
Jim,
Check out the references. It is absolutely ridiculous to pay a government 9-3:30 employee the same as their private sector equivalent.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf
http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary
Geez, guess you were correct on the “Police”, you really got me!
I really dont get what your advocating here? a race to the bottom? China type wages??
You dont use “any” other government services? The food you eat isn’t safe? the public schools? the court system? roads plowed? fire department?
How do you figure everyone at the same rate?
Proud Progressive,
No my children go to private school, I have never needed to use the fire or police department, and yes I eat food from the grocery store. The cost of safety testing is not provided by the federal government. The producers of the said food pay for safety inspections and that cost is passed on to me at the grocery store.
Why shouldn’t everyone pay the same tax rate. Matter of fact people who are less well off than me use the vast majority of government services. I don’t mind paying more in total taxes but I do mind paying more on a percentage basis when I don’t even use the services.
Any other genius thoughts?
Your children might go to private school, but please dont think you have never needed the public schools. Almost everywhere you go you are using the servcies of ex public school students. We the people, gives everyone the chance at an education which in turns helps out society as a whole. Not to mention what the quality of the local school system does to your property value.
Congrats for not needing the police or fire department, I hope you never do.
Your whole thing about the food is false in its premise, have you not been following the tainted egg story?
People less well off than you use the vast majority of government services? what might they be?
I asked a question, how can you charge everyone the same tax rate? How is that even possible?
Do your actually read the posts you respond to anymore?
Kent’s point was that the cost of food inspections is paid for by the producers, not general taxes. I don’t know if this is true or not, but I know your response about the recent egg problems has nothing to do with it.
Um…you charge everyone the same tax rate by…you know, charging everyone the same rate. I’d expect you to argue in favor of progressive tax rates, but if you can’t even comprehend how it’s possible to eliminate the tax tables in favor of a single bracket…
The point is, it is the FDA(however flawed) that keeps companies like the one that put out the tainted eggs in check. We saw by the oil spill what happens when you let companies “regulate” themselves.
I don’t comprehend how it is possible to have the same tax rate. Lets say there is an across the board 20% tax rate. Now lets say we both make 100k a year. Seems like we would be paying the same in taxes right? Now lets say you have 3 kids and I have one, and your house is twice as big as mine. Now im paying twice what you are because we are paying the same and your getting more services.
but that’s what you deserve since you weren’t born wealthy. if you don’t have an oil well go get one and quit yer whinin’
Deductions don’t change the tax rate. If your complaint is that the current system is a steaming pile of crap, needlessly complicated because the politicians use it to force behaviors and pick winners & losers rather than just fairly & objectively collect the money necessary to fund it’s services and you think it should scrapped & started over from scratch, I’ll agree with you. As is, the myriad of deductions is not directly related to income so there’s no reason we can’t compare tax rates to say we’re both paying the same rate of 20%.
In your world, I’m sure you wish you could make people with bigger houses pay more taxes, but in the real world, the size of your house has nothing to do with your income. If you mean because of mortgage interest deduction – which has nothing to do with size of your house (only size of your loan and interest rate) then we’re back to our overlord elected federal officials who decided to try and shape society by encouraging people to go into debt. Lovely how that has worked out the last few years, huh?
When we both pay the exact same amount of taxes as in the example,(we both make 100k and we get a 20% straight tax)) and you have two more kids and a house twice as big as mine, you are getting double the services for the same price. You are getting double the police protection, fire protection, sewer service, etc… than I am. Hence you are getting more and the flat tax is blatantly unfair.
How is he getting double the fire protection? If your house is on fire, they show up. If his house is on fire, they show up.
I don’t see your point about having kids or a house. Bigger house is going to mean higher property taxes. Kids are a deduction NOW, regardless of tax rate. Those two things have little/nothing to do with income tax rates.
I am referring strictly to a flat tax, and how it is not nor will never be fair. I agree with you all that the current tax system needs to be reformed.
Um, sewer is metered according to usage. Well at least in places where they’re smart enough to know that waste sewage and storm water drainage aren’t the same thing & should be kept separate. 🙂
Seriously, police & fire protection come at different levels depending on income? You can’t be this dense, are you overtired or something?
Setting aside the terrible examples you’ve given, you’re on the wrong side of the argument anyway. Off the top of my head, here’s a list of government services whose usage tends to go up as income levels go down:
Medicaid
SCHIP
Unemployment benefits
Hospitals (especially ER for typical care)
Education (higher income = higher private schooling usage)
Public transportation
Food stamps
TANF (AFDC)
Social services in general
Care to provide a list (a legitimate one, since your police, fire & sewage are already out) of government services that go up with income level?
Just to be clear in this context, I’m not bashing the programs or criticizing their existence or effectiveness (that’s an entirely different discussion). I’m simply listing them as examples of government services consumed more by lower income individuals/families.
And now let’s remember somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the population pays zero or negative federal income taxes. And around 30-45 percent of the population pays zero state income taxes.
If you ever have been to DC the metro system is the only way to get around that town, not sure why libs are making an issue of this. High speed rail and the boondoggle it will be has nothing to do with a metro transit system.
Exactly and I’m not sure why they can’t distinguish between the two. For as much as liberals pretended to rail against the “you’re either with us or against us” mentality, they sure like to use it a lot!
DC Metro DAILY RIDERSHIP: 801,400 (Q1 2009)
City of Milwaukee ENTIRE POPULATION: 604,477 (2008)
Milwaukee County bus ridership in 2009: 39,405,363 passenger trips.
Just to be clear, I recognize that daily ridership is quite different than yearly passenger trips, but the point I’m trying to make is that there’s definitely a high demand for mass transit options, at least within Milwaukee County.
There’s no debating that mass transit options are needed within and around the Milwaukee metro area, provided it’s cost effective and makes sense. I’m just wondering how many of them need to travel to Madison and back at an uneconomical fare.
Yeah, as I’ve said before, I’m not convinced that building that rail line between Milwaukee and Madison is the absolute best use of that money.
its the only use of that money though isnt it? i know one of the candidates said he would take that money and build roads but that is impossible. if we dont use it for trains someone else will.
what will really make the trains viable is when we can connect minneapolis to Madison to milwaukee to chicago
One one hand you’re right, the suggestions about what they are going to do with the money (as opposed to the hypothetical, the money would be better used by…) is inappropriate and foolish. Most likely if the project is canceled, the money is down the drain.
On the other hand, if you’re saying the only way to get that big chunk of stimulus money was to build the Madison to Milwaukee line then that’s exactly why our government debt is so obscenely high. Everyone wants to “get theirs” whether they really need it or not.
Yeah that will be so totally amazing – I mean just world-changing. Except they already have Minneapolis to Milwaukee to Chicago, it’s called the Amtrak “Empire Builder” (hah). Not quite sure what you gain by adding a stop in Madison to that route though other than an even longer ride.
The problem is not that government is performing services but rather, that government often providing services inefficiently and wastefully.