this is how government fails

Bfgrn said:
Here is STY's original statement:

late last year, the north texas transit authority raised the toll road fee from .75 to 1.00 to to make up for a budget shortfall. As the majority of us predicted would happen, less people used the toll roads, so the obvious end result was a decrease in revenue.

I never said use of the toll road would NOT decrease, I agree it will...you don't have to be scholar to figure that out...

BUT, to say "the obvious end result was a decrease in revenue" is a FALSE statement. It is not obvious, it requires proof of TWO things:

1) that ENOUGH people stopped using the road solely BECAUSE of the toll increase to create a loss of revenue.

2) that no OTHER factors exist that would cause motorists to stop using the toll road.

STY did NEITHER...thus, his argument is invalid...
Click to expand...

pure supposition and assumption on your part. my argument and statement of facts stands valid.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
pure supposition and assumption on your part. my argument and statement of facts stands valid.
Click to expand...

No...you statement is NOTHING but your OPINION...based on pure supposition and assumption on your part.

IF you can't understand that, you're a REAL pea brain...
 
AssHatZombie said:
Dude. You've been pwned. Take your bruised ego, flaccid mini-penis and beat it.
Click to expand...

WOW... a pea brain that spews bluster...and you SAY you're not a right winger

Your argument is invalid... you simply expressed what you feel...you squealed out an emotional outburst...

You "SAY" there was a quarter toll increase late last year...it appears NO WHERE in YOUR linked article...the article ONLY discusses a "proposal to cut costs and raise rates by 34 percent."

You "SAY" "less people used the toll roads, so the obvious end result was a decrease in revenue."...but the quarter toll increase you "SAY" was imposed late last year as the sole REASON for a decrease in revenue appears NO WHERE in YOUR linked article...

Matter of FACT, the article DOES say: "the NTTA has studied the impact of the proposed rate increases on traffic declines and thinks the additional revenue will be "sufficient," Chief Financial Officer Janice Davis told the Dallas Morning News."

The ONLY thing mentioned as a reason for a decrease in revenue in your linked article is THIS: "The economic conditions are affecting everyone, and we are not immune to it," said NTTA spokeswoman Sherita Coffelt. "So our traffic is down, and of course, when traffic is down, revenue is down."

"economic conditions" is not a synonym for a quarter toll increase you "SAY" was imposed late last year as the sole REASON for a decrease in revenue that appears NO WHERE in YOUR linked article...
 
AssHatZombie said:
Hey. You're one whose mama named em boffergroin.
Click to expand...

My screen name which I chose is actually Bfgrn...on the other hand your screen name which you chose is ACTUALLY ASS-Hat-ZOMBIE...:pke:

BigAssThong.jpg


dunce.jpg


resident-evil-zombie-small.jpg
 
Bfgrn said:
My screen name which I chose is actually Bfgrn...on the other hand your screen name which you chose is ACTUALLY ASS-Hat-ZOMBIE...:pke:

BigAssThong.jpg


dunce.jpg


resident-evil-zombie-small.jpg
Click to expand...
The missing eye picture is supposed to be a crying turtle now. And that looks like a prison rape photo.
 
Bfgrn said:
You "SAY" there was a quarter toll increase late last year...it appears NO WHERE in YOUR linked article...the article ONLY discusses a "proposal to cut costs and raise rates by 34 percent."

You "SAY" "less people used the toll roads, so the obvious end result was a decrease in revenue."...but the quarter toll increase you "SAY" was imposed late last year as the sole REASON for a decrease in revenue appears NO WHERE in YOUR linked article...
Click to expand...

yeah, funny how living here and driving it on an almost daily basis provides me with that factual information, isn't it?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yeah, funny how living here and driving it on an almost daily basis provides me with that factual information, isn't it?
Click to expand...

There is NO WAY just living there and driving there alone can glean the factual information required to make statistical conclusions...

You stated your OPINION, nothing more...
 
Bfgrn said:
There is NO WAY just living there and driving there alone can glean the factual information required to make statistical conclusions...

You stated your OPINION, nothing more...
Click to expand...

hey dipshit, LIVING HERE and DRIVING on it gives me the factual knowledge of WHEN they RAISED the toll fee to a dollar. THAT is what I was talking about.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
hey dipshit, LIVING HERE and DRIVING on it gives me the factual knowledge of WHEN they RAISED the toll fee to a dollar. THAT is what I was talking about.
Click to expand...

Your FIRST reasonable "statement"... but I don't live there or drive there, so your article doesn't support your opinion...
 
AssHatZombie said:
You still didn't prove that consumption didn't decrease due to the rate hike.
Click to expand...

I didn't try to. I expect consumption to decrease due to a rate hike.

The unanswered questions are:
1) how much decrease is solely due to the rate hike.
2) are there other factors that contribute to a consumption decrease

i.e. huge increase in gas prices, which would stimulate car pooling, using alternate forms of transportation. An increase in unemployment; people don't drive every day to a job they no longer have.
 
Bfgrn said:
I didn't try to. I expect consumption to decrease due to a rate hike.

The unanswered questions are:
1) how much decrease is solely due to the rate hike.
2) are there other factors that contribute to a consumption decrease

i.e. huge increase in gas prices, which would stimulate car pooling, using alternate forms of transportation. An increase in unemployment; people don't drive every day to a job they no longer have.
Click to expand...

lame
 
AssHatZombie said:
lame
Click to expand...

I don't see how it is lame. again... what is the bitch here? that revenues decreased because of the rate hike...THAT is what has not been proven. If usage decreased because of the rate hike by a percentage that was less than the percentage increase in tolls, there is no decrease in revenue due to the rate hike.
 
maineman said:
I don't see how it is lame. again... what is the bitch here? that revenues decreased because of the rate hike...THAT is what has not been proven. If usage decreased because of the rate hike by a percentage that was less than the percentage increase in tolls, there is no decrease in revenue due to the rate hike.
Click to expand...

The opposite case has been proven neither.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The opposite case has been proven neither.
Click to expand...


the OP implies that the rate increase is primarily responsible for the revenue decrease. The onus is there to prove that.

Clearly, if you do not know or cannot measure how much of the consumption decrease is due to the increase in tolls, you cannot assert that raising the tolls caused the revenues to go down, can you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top