Kalifornia wants high speed rail guess what that means? Your Going to Pay for it.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

It never looks well for you when you write incomprehensible sentences that bear only a passing resemblance to standard English.

Weak, very weak

The "Federal" money was ours in the first place, getting some of it back is not taking anything we don't have a right to.

edit on 18-11-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

Corrected my response.
Was eating lunch.

So the Federal money is part yours, and damn it the state is entitled to it back?
Thought that the Federal money was for National things? Not Pet Projects of the State.
Grasping huh??

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

edit on 18-11-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

Looks like you are guilty of returning to edit as well.
I retract my tears of shame from typing a post with a sentence out of sequence.

What exactly do you think Federal money is for?

Pet projects of the investor/political class like the wars we are engaged in? Or travesties like the TSA and Homeland Security?

High speed rail is a useful project, although it certainly needs route modification. Getting a few tens of thousand cars off the roads will help in innumerable ways.

Just curious, what state do you live in? A donor state or a moocher state?

Why shouldn't California be entitled to receive some of its own money back that we throw into the common pool for precisely these sorts of projects?

It seems you really do support redistribution of wealth, as long as it comes out of California's pocket.

reply to post by macman


YYYYEEEEESSSSSS WWWWEEEEEEEE DDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


HSR IS NOT AMTRAK. Let me say that again HSR IS NOT AMTRAK

HSR IS SUCESSFUL in the USA.

Originally posted by apacheman
What exactly do you think Federal money is for?

Pet projects of the investor/political class like the wars we are engaged in? Or travesties like the TSA and Homeland Security?

High speed rail is a useful project, although it certainly needs route modification. Getting a few tens of thousand cars off the roads will help in innumerable ways.

Just curious, what state do you live in? A donor state or a moocher state?

Why shouldn't California be entitled to receive some of its own money back that we throw into the common pool for precisely these sorts of projects?

It seems you really do support redistribution of wealth, as long as it comes out of California's pocket.

Federal money, as it implies, via common sense and real world application, would be to fund and run the Federal Govt.
Not that hard to make the distinction.
State Funds, are to fund and run the State.
County funds are to fund and run the County.
Therefore, Federal Funds are for..............................................Wait for it..............................................
to Fund and run the Federal Govt.
Not to dole out to the States for pet projects.
And I know just how much it hurts, with the rallying cry for "it's to help everyone" or "it will be useful, so long as everyone is forced to use it".
No thanks.

Pet projects of the investor/political class like the wars we are engaged in? Or travesties like the TSA and Homeland Security?

Your assuming again. I warned you about that.
When did I say I supported those things?

Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by macman

 

YYYYEEEEESSSSSS WWWWEEEEEEEE DDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


HSR IS NOT AMTRAK. Let me say that again HSR IS NOT AMTRAK

HSR IS SUCESSFUL in the USA.

Show me where it is successful.
And by successful, profitable without the use of Tax dollars to offset yearly budgets.

Originally posted by apacheman


Why shouldn't California be entitled to receive some of its own money back that we throw into the common pool for precisely these sorts of projects?

It seems you really do support redistribution of wealth, as long as it comes out of California's pocket.

Um, no.
Your logic does not add up.
If all states contribute to the federal pool, for federal funding, then when you say Cali is "entitled" to some of the money back, then turn around and suggest I am for wealth redistribution is funny.

Seeing that what you want, Cali to get money back, suggests that Cali pays too much and you want Cali to keep more of its money.
Sounds very Conservative of you. I think someone has assumed your login, because this just can't be.
Federal Money is for the Federal Govt. Not the State when they have a pet project that they really really want, yet don't have the funds to do it themselves.

reply to post by macman


Actually, on some issues, I'm quite conservative, on others, quite liberal.

For instance I advocate a tax system whereby the taxpayer dictates which department, agency, and/or specific program he or she wants their tax dollars to fund.

Is that conservative or liberal?

Beats me, I avoid such labels whenever possible. I try as hard as I can to simply be pragmatic.

Given that tax dollars are allocated for these types of things, then I stand by my posts.

I try to live and operate in the real world as much as possible, not in the neoconservative fantasylands where facts don't matter, but ideology does.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Given that tax dollars are allocated for these types of things, then I stand by my posts.

No, they are not.
The federal budget is to fund and run the federal govt.
Pet project funding, or slush funds, are ways to pay off State Govt representatives for voting one way or the other.
Stop being so willfully naive.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Given that tax dollars are allocated for these types of things, then I stand by my posts.

Pet project funding, or slush funds, are ways to pay off State Govt representatives for voting one way or the other.

edit on 18-11-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Ultimately the state politicians is NOT going to own the train or railways in question... It is like
you have created a mental wall and projected your feeling onto it. The truth is, PEOPLE
are going to utilize the trains, this will leaded to commerce, which will create money
and more jobs.

You see, you are choosing the way you look at things, you take a wee biddy concept and try to
blow it up into the entire concept, that creates a truly false understanding of the entire impact
of anything relating to the government or various things you "don't like". But the way you frame this,
it is hard to tell if you even understand that you are doing this in your own head. Political points
for a politician is one of hundreds of considerations in which to weigh this...

What California lacks is a revenue problem and you can thank Scientology for that as most of Hollywood belongs to it and gives up every last cent they have to them to make it be a huge tax haven, until that is addressed Cali will always be in a pickle.

Also, where do you think most of the domestically produced produce during the winter months comes from? California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Given that tax dollars are allocated for these types of things, then I stand by my posts.

Pet project funding, or slush funds, are ways to pay off State Govt representatives for voting one way or the other.

edit on 18-11-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Ultimately the state politicians is NOT going to own the train or railways in question... It is like
you have created a mental wall and projected your feeling onto it. The truth is, PEOPLE
are going to utilize the trains, this will leaded to commerce, which will create money
and more jobs.

You see, you are choosing the way you look at things, you take a wee biddy concept and try to
blow it up into the entire concept, that creates a truly false understanding of the entire impact
of anything relating to the government or various things you "don't like". But the way you frame this,
it is hard to tell if you even understand that you are doing this in your own head. Political points
for a politician is one of hundreds of considerations in which to weigh this...

edit on 18-11-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

Ok then. Show me where HSR is successful in the US. Profitable, non leeching off the State Budget and self sustaining.

And please post a picture of your crystal ball showing you the future, where people are riding such thing.

Again, Johnny Come Lately, I don't care what Kommiefornia does. The state could build a bridge to the moon, just long as the state doesn't look for the Federal Govt to support its stupid habit.

reply to post by macman


How many times must you be told that California is a DONOR state?

That means we give more into the federal budget than we get back.

That means that no one outside California pays a dime nor even a penny for whatever here.

It's our own money we get back, just not all of it.

Chances are, you live in a state that we support.

And just to let you now: we're pretty damn capitalistic here, so you can stop the lying insults.

But I guess when confronted with facts, lying insults are the best some ignorant twits can offer.

reply to post by apacheman


Sounds like Cali is scamming its citizens. And I have never heard of that.

So, why does Cali just not OVERPAY as you suggest and use that money?
Sounds like BS.

If Cali wants it, Cali pays for it.
Very simple.

reply to post by macman


California isn't scamming its citizens, at least not on that issue.

The federal government takes the money before the individual or state sees it, then returns a portion of it later.

It's called an income tax. Have you heard of it? They take out of your check every week, along with the social security tax and a bunch of others on goods sold or transported.

Californians work as hard as anyone and produce more than most, which is why we wind up being a donor state.

Obviously you don't understand how the US finances work, where the money comes from, and how it gets back to those who were taxed to get it.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

California isn't scamming its citizens, at least not on that issue.

The federal government takes the money before the individual or state sees it, then returns a portion of it later.

It's called an income tax. Have you heard of it? They take out of your check every week, along with the social security tax and a bunch of others on goods sold or transported.

Californians work as hard as anyone and produce more than most, which is why we wind up being a donor state.

Obviously you don't understand how the US finances work, where the money comes from, and how it gets back to those who were taxed to get it.

Are you serious???
I do believe that Federal income is the same for a person in Cali, as it is in Florida.
I think you have read too many sites claiming things that seem to reside in the realm of WTF.

Federal Income tax is to fund the federal govt.

This is basics, that you are trying to twist so they line up with what you pitch.

Californians produce more then others?
Ok then. Basically "My state is better then yours is".
Sure sure.

reply to post by macman


No, there are just a lot more of us.

More people = more tax dollars.

More people = more gas tax income.

More people = more production.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

No, there are just a lot more of us.

More people = more tax dollars.

More people = more gas tax income.

More people = more production.

You forgot.
More People = more consumption.

reply to post by macman


More consumption = more tax income.

But what does that have to do with the subject under discussion?

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

More consumption = more tax income.

But what does that have to do with the subject under discussion?

No, not really.
Just more consumption.

You are on this soapbox pitch that Cali is some how above the rest of the states in production, money and everything else.
To me, this is the antithesis of why Cali is disliked.
Most there see no problem that the state is being run into the ground, and the State Reps go to DC with hat in hand asking "Please sir, may I have some more?"
While Cali has every right to do the most asinine things, like gun laws that outlaw something meaningless due to the scary name, laws banning cell phone usage while driving because the state populace must be too dumb to make decisions for themselves and many more, it is the oozing of this crap out from the state that tees people off.
Keep that crap in Cali, and quit depending on the Fed and the rest of the nation to fund projects like HSR.

If Cali is so great, so productive and so much better, then why can't it do this on its own?
Because Cali is broke. That's why.

Keep your veggies and fruit picked by illegals, keep your draconian gun laws concocted by people that fear an inanimate object, keep you HSR.