It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama wants to build a nationwide light rail system

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
A Trillion hasn't been a big deal since Reagan ran up over a trillion in debt back in the eighties. The free market experiment has put us $13 Trillion in the hole.

Where were you people when the repubs were running up huge deficits?

At least this money will be spent here in the U.S., and not fighting some phony baloney war.




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I was complaining about Bush's spending too. So you cant accuse me of being partisan on spending. What kind of jackass sinks billions of dollars into a city that just got flooded and is 18 feet below sea level and surrounded by water.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Lets put this in perspective. One trillion dollars divided by 300 million Americans comes out to $3,333 (for every man woman and child in the USA).

Now multiply that by 13 for the 13 trillion will be in debt by the end of the year. You get $43,329 (for every man woman and child in the USA).

So say you are a family of:
2 members = $86,658 worth of government debt on top of any personal debt you may have.

3 members = $129,987

4 memebers = $173,316

Now factor in the amount we have underfunded SS/Medicare, and that puts the number at around 50 trillion.. give or take a few trillion.. what the hell. You get $166,650 of debt/future liabilities (for every man woman and child in the USA).

For a family of 3 (say a man, his wife, and their child) that debt becomes $499,950.

So lets just give another what the hell and round that up to:
A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT FOR A FAMILY OF 3.

That is if we dont overspend one more dollar...



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Gee, if we have a few more repub admins, we could be a hundred Trillion in debt the way they run our government.

Why should the middle class pay back the government debt created by giving rich people tax cuts. I have a better idea, raise the taxes on the rich to make up for the debt created when the repubs lowered their tax rates.

In 1945, we were far deeper in debt in relation to GDP. We taxed the rich at 80% or something like that, and paid off the debt in a decade, all while building our nations Interstate highway system. We then had the best economic period in our nations history. I say we need a repeat, except this time we build a advance electric rail system where people can run their privately owned rail cars on the system.

As far as SS is concerned, our 13T in debt includes what we currently owe SS. What we may or may not owe SS in the future is nothing but pure speculation.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


If we dont find a way to elect politicians that wont promise people whatever they want to hear to get elected then we will be a hundred trillion in debt if we dont go bankrupt first. This is not a republican/democratic debate for me. I am past that. They both suck. We need to limit government spending by amending the constitution so they cant spend more than they take in and they cant tax anyone above a certain percent. Why in the hell should anyone have to pay 80% in taxes? At the point we might as well just become communist and say screw it.



[edit on 18-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 18-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I think taxes should be paid on wealth, not income, but then again, wealth is even harder to tax. Being that taxes are on income, I don't see anything with the most wealthy being taxed at 80%. Considering the interest rates, and the cut of the money banks get on every transaction, not to mention insurance, I have no sympathy for the super rich. As far as I am concerned, they are getting a free ride. Some got wealthy by contributing greatly, but many just got there by ruthlessly working the system.

I believe in sticking with what works. High tax rates on the super rich, and investment in infrastructure gave us the economic success of the fifties, through the sixties, and into the seventies. We should go back to that formula. Re-vamping our nations infrastructure is a good place to start.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


First off no insult intended.

So basically you are a communist (i dont mean that as an insult). Taxing wealth is even worse than taxing income. Where do you believe wealth begins? If I have a 100k in investments? 1m? 10m? 100m? Having wealthy people in a society is good for it. If you dont have wealthy people to donate or invest then you are depending on the government for everything.

It is one thing to pay for a war to defend your country and we all work to pay off that debt. Its another thing to give up your hard earned dollars to pay for a train, or health care, etc...



[edit on 18-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Before we get too far into "Light rail", look into Houstons light rail system. A half billion dollars and counting with 7 miles of track that goes from nowhere to nowhere. It would have been cheaper to buy a fleet of limos, put the rest of the cash in the bank and pay for drivers and gas out of the interest. The concept sounds nice but implimentation is another matter altogether.
Let's be honest here as well. The vast majority of TAXPAYERS that this burden will fall upon will never get a chance to have their say in things. Who cqares though. We've got a left wing mandate to bury the taxpayers so far into debt that we'll never see daylight again.

Sure, let's spend trillions on redundant transportation and levy more taxes. It sounds cool and it is what all of the other socialist nations are doing. Why not?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


I keep having to repeat myself on this little subject.

Once again, everyone say it with me.

They have no intention on ever paying off the national debt.

That is why it is so easy for them to spend massive amounts of money they don't have on projects we don't need. They have no intention on paying off the national debt.


[edit on 4/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



I must agree with you that they have no intention of paying off the national debt. We will convert to a global credit system.

Not currency as we know it. It's called Global Nationalization or our financial instatutions.

Weve now allowed the G20 to step in and fix our economic crisis. They caught us on our knees.

This is also causing a global shift in power. The US in no longer looked upon as a nation of wealth, as they did after WW2.

The dollar no longer rules. As mad as we are we are helpless to change it. We cant vote on G20 meeting agendas.






posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


No offense, but you don't have a clue what communism is. Sounds like you have been programmed by someone like Rush. Communist countries don't have market systems, income, so no taxes.

Wealth begins with innovation and hard work, those are the essential investments. What you will find that the rich do is primarily put up blockades to prevent people from gaining on their hard work and innovative ideas. Read some history, the story of the rich is one of pure exploitation. It was the working classes, as in the trade unions, that created the market system.

Do you know where JP Morgan first gained his fortune? I recommend a book titled "Wizard, The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla", by Marc J Seifer.

All of our nations current debts were created by tax cuts for the super rich, combined with an end to enforcing the laws against corrupt business practices leading the the rape of our S&L system, and now our banks. Our defense budget isn't being spent to protect our nation, it is being spent to protect the overseas assets of the super rich. If anyone should pay our national debt it should be the super rich. Who should pay for the wars in Iraq? Exxon, Bechtel, Halliburton, or the people who made the most money from these companies, and a host of others.

Building infrastructure is an important part of what government does, more important than world military domination. Funny how the ones who complain about government debt are always the people who want the government to spend the most money, and on all the wrong things.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Who do you people think are pulling the strings of the CWO, the international banking community, and the abuse of our tax dollars that have ran up 13T in debt under free market principles? I give you a clue, it is not Joe Sixpack, who might at least get a job of building a new national rail system, as opposed to getting sent to some foreign land to have his butt shot off.

At least a national rail system would give us something for our money. Cause we got nothing for either war in Iraq.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
there was a time when america lead the way for a long time of our history

however recent history all america has been doing is trying to imitate what other countries do. ie railways to nowhere.


i say it high times america starts doing her own thing agian and bring pride back to the minds of every us citizen.


and a big step in the real right direction to this country is to stop spending money on things we dont freaking need.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by neo67
 


EXACTLY

We should NOT be content to copy what Europe and Japan has done, we should reinvent transportation, put computers and motor controller technology to use, and develop a new system that frees us from the bondage of the commute, not to mention the traffic cop and a horde of parasites that suck our blood through the automobile.

Our love of the automobile has allowed the oil industry to enslave us. It is time we found our way out of the desert.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
All those who want to tell themselves that building a new transportation system is wrong, and blame it all on the NWO, I think you should look at this article.

finance.yahoo.com...


Exxon Mobil shoved aside Wal-Mart Stores to retake the top place on the Fortune 500, proving that Big Oil was king of the economy last year.

Exxon Mobil was the top selling-company in 2008, with nearly $443 billion in revenue, a jump of almost 19% from the prior year. The Irving, Texas-based oil giant was also the most profitable, with earnings of $45.2 billion.

Other oil companies took high ranking spots in the Fortune 500. Chevron held its place at third, its revenues growing nearly 25%, while ConocoPhillips moved up one notch to fourth, its sales jumping more than 29%.


And surprise, surprise, surprise, we are fighting two wars in the Middle East where most of the planets oil reserves are located.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


God forbid anyone in this world make a profit on something. That in of itself is some sort of conspiracy. I guess they should just sell it to us for what they paid for it because there were no risk at all for them to supply these products to us.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


The oil companies are making plenty of profit, and then a great deal more, and is where the problem lies. My tax dollars are supporting their business with overseas military support. Why shouldn't I expect these oil companies making record profits to pay for the wars in the region with most of the worlds oil supplies.

You really don't get how oil companies and automobile companies have gotten our transportation system created in a manner that assures their tremendous profits?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


You really don't get how oil companies and automobile companies have gotten our transportation system created in a manner that assures their tremendous profits?


Well why dont you explain it to me. Because if they have done it in a manner that insures their profits then they suck at it. GM and Chrysler are about bankrupt. Maybe they need to go back to the drawing board on their little plans for world domination.

So I guess since you are for limiting the profits on oil companies in the good years then you are for handing them money during the bad years.

Its called a free market. If you dont like the oil companies making a profit then quit buying their products.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 20-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Oh and by the way the taxes (at least 15%) in a gallon of gas are equal to or more than the profit margin (10%) for the oil companies who took all the risk to get you that gallon of gas.



[edit on 20-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Didnt we do this in like 1818?

Then nobody used them for transportation so they ceased to be economically viable. Last I knew Amtrack was bankrupt and living off of its own 'stimulus' package.

I've taken trains up and down the East Coast and it's expensive. Like $60-$80 to go to Maryland from NY. Ridiculous. Not to mention the pain figuring out the bus schedule once I got there or paying for a taxi.

I would love to travel by rail but it's expensive and a real pain in the A.

To change that the cost of rail travel would have to fall a lot or the cost of flying and driving would have to skyrocket. But if driving becomes too expensive what happens to the everyday work commute? We all move into those urban ghettos and live in government condos like they want us to do or will little town to town trains spring up all over the o#ry and run every hour on the hour 24/7?

Cute idea but unrealistic and doomed to be another money pit.


Its for transporting goods not people ; trucks dont mix with compact cars and they dont belong on the freeways ; good thinking obama just 8 years too late



new topics




 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join