Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Obama plans to piss away $53 billion on bankrupt state CA magic trains
Source:
examiner
URL Source: http://www.examiner.com/environment ... rail-gets-boost-from-v-p-biden
Published: Feb 8, 2011
Author: frank maccioli
Post Date: 2011-02-08 16:52:02 by Happy Quanzaa
Keywords: None
Views: 17495
Comments: 32
Speaking at an event at Philadelphia's 30th Street Railroad Station, Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that the Obama administration plans to spend $53 billion over the next 6 years on high speed rail and existing rail networks. About $8 billion of the money will be allocated for the 2012 budget, with the rest allocated over the next 5 years. In a press release following the announcement, the California High-Speed Rail Authority's CEO Roelof van Ark said, “This is the kind of bold investment in the future of our nation’s infrastructure that will get the attention of the private sector and make high-speed travel a reality in the United States. Californians are already doing their part to invest in and develop a fast, clean and low-cost transportation system, and we are pleased to have the partnership of our federal government.” California plans to develop over 800 miles of high-speed rail over the next several years, utilizing trains that can reach upwards of 220 miles per hour. An initial 120 mile segment will begin construction in 2012 between Fresno and Bakersfield. The High-Speed Rail authority estimates that the project will result in 100,000 construction jobs over the next 5 years with funds already approved. “True high-speed rail that travels faster than 200 miles per hour over long distances between California’s major metropolitan centers will mean strengthening our state’s economy in the long term,” said van Ark. “In the near term, development of this system will mean tens of thousands of jobs at a time when we need them the most and a huge boost that will assist our state’s economy.” Not everyone supports the project, including House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R- Fla) and Railroads Subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), according to published sources. Mica reportedly likened the funding to "...giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio..." Ref.: Washington Post Shuster doesn't believe funding should be given to any project unless it can show a significant impact. He reportedly said, “I’m not willing to spend money unless we know it is going to be targeted on the one corridor where it could seriously have an impact, and that’s the Northeast Corridor.” Ref.: Bloomberg It remains to be seen what will happen to the President's budget proposals when presented to Congress. Conservatives in Congress have called for eliminating the high-speed rail program and Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee have previously pushed to cut its funding. Indeed, even one of California's own congressmen, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) has signed on to legislation that could result in a loss of funding for California's project. (See "Derailing High Speed Rail" ) For more information: CA High-Speed Rail Press Release CA High-Speed Rail Authority website Continue reading on Examiner.com: California's high-speed rail gets boost from V.P. Biden - Bakersfield Environmental News | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/environmental-news-in-bakersfield/california-s-high-speed-rail-gets-boost-from-v-p-biden#ixzz1DPH7ydy6 California's high-speed rail gets boost from V.P. Biden
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Happy Quanzaa, capitalist eric, go65 (#0)
(Edited)
Government versus private sector: People in the computer industry in Seattle need to meet with people in the computer industry in Silicon Valley regularly. Private sector response: Alaska Airlines has a fight going both ways every hour between 6am and 10pm every day. It's less than an hour in the air. Several other airlines have flights on that route too. Government response: Their "national" high-speed rail plan does not connect Seattle and Silicon Valley. There are plans for a "high-speed" connect between Seattle and Portland (who cares about that?), but a "high-speed" connect to Silicon Valley is left unserved in the "national plan". This is called "national planning" versus reality. I live in Seattle. Why should I be forced to pay for this nonsense????? Any and all notions that the government should be in the transportation business are ill-conceived.
Having a high-speed rail between Fresno and Bakersfield...? Who give a shit about THAT? I mean, you're spending billions, to link two Podunk towns together. Wasn't this an episode of the Simpsons?
Socialist ass-hats think "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." And yes, that IS from LF's answer to Ben Bernanke, go65, leading disfunctional and delusional socialist of the forum. "Algren: You want me to kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos, I'll kill THE ENEMIES of Jappos... Rebs, or Sioux, or Cheyenne... For 500 bucks a month I'll kill whoever you want. But keep one thing in mind: I'd happily kill you for free." Captain Algren, "The Last Samurai"
The high-speed Fresno / Bakersfield link! Another great example of "national planning" versus reality. It's insane.
how much do you pay now to support the FAA and TSA operations to provide that Alaska Airlines route? BTW, I've long stated that high speed rail only makes sense where it can replace air travel, for example the northeast corridor.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Many may wish to leave both places, but few will want to travel between them. This is a variation of the "Bridge to Nowhere".
Going both ways between what locations? Seattle and Silicon Valley? That's a two hour flight down the coast. I've made that hop a couple dozen times. Plus, there's showing up at the airport at least an hour ahead and then navigating through the pain in the ass airport of SFO where, after you land, you're 45 minutes away from the rental cars. Rail lines are built in stages, btw.
I mean, you're spending billions, to link two Podunk towns together. Wasn't this an episode of the Simpsons? hell, one ford econoline will carry 40-50 illegals between bakersfield and fresno, they're the only ones who want to go to those shitburgs
How much do you charge them?
usually about $25 per person, i don't take pesos or credit cards.
Transportation is inherent to the commerce clause and the Framers knew that. It's also why they specifically gave Congress power to build roads.
They didn't give Congress the power to operate a taxpayer subsidized horse & carriage service.
At the time, what were canals?
What? You don't remember the cake sale they had to finance the Panama Canal? ;-D
The Feds didn't subsidize the boats that floated in them. And the last time passenger trains turned a profit, private industry was running them.
What is wrong with the liberal mind? There is clearly something wrong with these people.
The Feds most certainly did subsidize shipping. IN fact, that was one of the seveal ancillary issues between North and South in the lead up to the Civil War. The problem with your logic is that it is rooted in the insane belief that if it wasn't available to the Framers then, it would be opposed by them today. The Framers weren't a bunch of close minded simpletons being supported by a bunch of fools. They weren't elbowing each other out of the way in an effort to be the "next" blithering fool who either left office or died 15 years ago. They were men of vision who knew that the wealth of a nation depended as much upon government help in one area where it did not depend upon it in another.
27 March 1794, Congress commissioned for six ships of war to be constructed in order to safeguard American shipping interests and merchant trade using the high seas. Among these six ships was USS Constitution. Along with the construction of these new ships Congress acted to reestablish the United States Navy and then the United States Marine Corps, both as we know them today. Not until the Naval Act of 1794, for the Betterment of the Service, did the United States Navy (now) appear again with the United States Marine Corps. This congressional action was the first establishment of the now United States military as opposed to the old Continental military. April 1796 Congress cuts the above order in half and authorizes only three ships. 10 May 1797 USS United States launched (Navy official). Ship in service for 62 years. Lost at Norfolk, 1861. 1 July 1797 President Adams authorizes Marines on ships. 21 October 1797 USS Constitution launched (Navy official). 3 April 1798 Navy Department enacted. 11 July 1798 The United States Marines are officially established by an act of Congress. The pay is $1.00 per week. They had been organized however, about one year before under the Navy at sea and the Army on land. In 1798, Officers and some enlisted men had to decide whether to stay with the Marines or return to the Army. Some Officers returned. After the War of 1812, more Officers transferred to the Army. November 1798 Marine Band established. One Drum Major, one Fife Major, 32 drums and fifes. 9 July 1799 USS Constitution stands ready to depart Boston with new commanding officer and new Marine CO and XO. USS Constitution, as part of its 450-man crew, had 55 United States Marines assigned. The first detachment of six marines arrived at Edmond Hart's Shipyard in Boston early in 1794. Their duties were to safeguard the government stores of supplies and the work area for the building of USS Constitution as well as other duties as necessary. When USS Constitution was launched the guard detachment became part of "ships company" and put to sea When the War known as the War of 1812 finally became a reality, the Marine Corps or "Marine Department" was only twelve years old. Marine levels remained well below the authorized requirements set by Congress. The authorized level in 1809 was 1897. This remained so from the establishment up through the War of 1812. The listed figures for active strength (actual) during the War was: 30 June 1812 10 Officers, 483 enlisted men 30 June 1813 12 Officers, 579 enlisted men 30 June 1814 11 Officers, 579 enlisted men 30 June 1815 8 Officers, 680 enlisted men The authorized level for April of 1814 was set at 2700. Recruiting was a continued problem and authorization levels were never reached. In 1800 the Navy Yard at Charlestown, Massachusetts was established. The first detachment of Marines arrived from other duties in the Boston area under command of a sergeant. They took up guard details and established one of the oldest Marine Barracks in the United States. The Marine presence continued at the Navy Yard until 1973 when the yard was officially closed as a military installation. The yard now comes under the United States Park Service and is part of the Boston National Historical Park and open to the public. http://www.1812marines.org/history.htm We subsidized shipping in a big way. Much of military funding, even wars we fought were prices we gladly paid in blood and coin to make sure shipping was not interfered with.
The merchant ships the Federal Navy & Marine Corp. protected were owned by private individuals & companies, who built and paid for them with their own money.
I remember when the railroads desperately wanted to dump passenger trains and thought Amtrak way the way to do it. In 2009 27.1 million people traveled by train in the US. It ain't dead yet.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
And who wouldn't have had them for long had the US taxpayer not footed the bill for their protection.
What's that got to do with the Federal government seizing everybody's money to build trains and tracks only a few will ever ride? The nearest Amtrak station to me is an hour away, why should I pay for your ride?
The U.S. taxpayer didn't fund jack-federal-shit until 1913 when the God-awful 16th Amendment was ratified.
That's got to be one of the stupidest statements that I have seen regarding US government finance.
The don't "seize" everyone's money. In fact. they don't seize anyone's money unless they break a law. Of all the arguments that you have, the "taxes = theft" is either the stupidest or closest to insane that you can make. Your pick.
Sorry pal, there was no Federal Income Tax until 1913, and that's a historical fact that can't be changed.
"No federal income tax" is not the same as "no federal taxes". And I accept your apology...(;^D
The Federal Government was funded with import tariffs, which of course wound up being paid for consumers of the imported product. It boiled down to an indirect consumer tax, paid voluntarily by those who chose to consume.
Tobacco, liquor, quill feathers, leather, were just a few items regularly subbject to a Federal tax. User fees and other excise taxes were levied for various services. The US taxed incomes up to 10K @ 3% and over 10K @ 5% to finance the Civil War. Taxes, let alone income taxes, weren't invented in 1913. And the Congress, at various times during the 19th century, came close to passing an income tax. And, btw, the USCON did not disallow an income tax. It just established an almost impossible to devise method of levying them.
In Jefferson's time a tax on imported consumer goods was easily avoided by Americans, that is no longer the case. BTW, the income tax is also an indirect tax. The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
True, and all the various taxes you mentioned are paid in the price of the end product. That made them consumer taxes, which just so happens to be what the The FairTax is.
Also known as the permission to live tax.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
It's all turned into noise. Should have a graduated 3-15% flat tax on incomes starting at $60K. NO deductions or exclusions and all dividends and gains taxed as ordinary income. And US based corps need an AMT of 25% on income.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#2. To: jwpegler (#1)
Their "national" high-speed rail plan does not connect Seattle and Silicon Valley. There are plans for a "high-speed" connect over the 400 miles between Seattle and Portland (who cares about that?), but the additional 800 miles to Silicon Valley are left unserved in the "national plan".
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
(Edited)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#4. To: jwpegler (#1)
I live in Seattle. Why should I be forced to pay for this nonsense?????
#5. To: Happy Quanzaa (#0)
initial 120 mile segment will begin construction in 2012 between Fresno and Bakersfield
#6. To: jwpegler (#1)
(Edited)
Private sector response: Alaska Airlines has a fight going both ways every hour between 6am and 10pm every day.
#7. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
Having a high-speed rail between Fresno and Bakersfield...? Who give a shit about THAT?
#8. To: calcon (#7)
#9. To: Fred Mertz (#8)
#10. To: jwpegler (#1)
(Edited)
Any and all notions that the government should be in the transportation business are ill-conceived.
#11. To: war (#10)
It's also why they specifically gave Congress power to build roads.
#12. To: Happy Quanzaa (#11)
They didn't give Congress the power to operate a taxpayer subsidized horse & carriage service.
#13. To: war (#12)
#14. To: war (#12)
At the time, what were canals?
#15. To: Happy Quanzaa (#14)
#16. To: Happy Quanzaa (#14)
(Edited)
The Feds didn't subsidize the boats that floated in them.
#17. To: war (#16)
During the period from 1783 (when the last fighting ship of the American Revolution was sold) until 1797, our country was without a navy or Marine Corps. During the 1790's American merchant shipping began to be harassed by France and countries in the Middle East.
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
#19. To: Happy Quanzaa (#14)
And the last time passenger trains turned a profit, private industry was running them.
#20. To: Happy Quanzaa (#18)
#21. To: war (#20)
#22. To: war (#20)
the US taxpayer not footed the bill for their protection.
#23. To: Happy Quanzaa (#22)
The U.S. taxpayer didn't fund jack-federal-shit until 1913 when the God-awful 16th Amendment was ratified.
#24. To: Happy Quanzaa (#21)
What's that got to do with the Federal government seizing everybody's money
#25. To: war (#23)
#26. To: Happy Quanzaa (#25)
(Edited)
#27. To: war (#26)
(Edited)
#28. To: Happy Quanzaa (#27)
(Edited)
#29. To: Happy Quanzaa (#27)
The Federal Government was funded with import tariffs, which of course wound up being paid for consumers of the imported product. It boiled down to an indirect consumer tax, paid voluntarily by those who chose to consume.
#30. To: war (#28)
#31. To: Happy Quanzaa (#30)
That made them consumer taxes, which just so happens to be what the The FairTax is.
#32. To: Happy Quanzaa (#30)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]