Originally posted by neo96
Yeah someone has no valid arguement here.

Don't beat yourself up over it. It has been pretty much expected.

Originally posted by neo96
Blah California has more people on welfare than the entire population of Indiana

Productive my arse.

Way to kick your own argument when it is down. You are so funny. How does it feel admitting that a bunch of people supposedly on welfare can still pay their fare share while your state is a WELFARE STATE that has to come hat in hand asking for a handout. Who cares if they are on welfare since they seem to be able to help support your state.

Originally posted by FallenWun
I have no clue what you are talking about. What am I number 9 in? Where are you getting this? What does New Jersey have to do with it? I am lost.

You (and other posters) had mentioned that California is subsidising other states through its Federal taxes as you do not receive the same that you put in. California ranks 9th, New Jersey has the good fortune of being first, or last as I see it.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by FallenWun
I have no clue what you are talking about. What am I number 9 in? Where are you getting this? What does New Jersey have to do with it? I am lost.

You (and other posters) had mentioned that California is subsidising other states through its Federal taxes as you do not receive the same that you put in. California ranks 9th, New Jersey has the good fortune of being first, or last as I see it.

I am not in California as I stated.
Thus the confusion.

Originally posted by macman


But, you want other states to foot the bill.
That single position is the defining statement of you.

Then it is the defining statement of the OP. Since when do I get a say in what Indiana uses my money for?

Enough!!

This personal back and forth between members will stop, and I mean now.

As many of you who have posted in the last couple of days, and pages have just found out, manners and decorum are in seeming short supply 'round these parts. Guess what? You had all better find some.

This thread will be closed if you can't.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Would there be a way to snake around it?

No, not without substantial expense. Railroads either need to follow watercourses or ridgelines to minimize grades and operate efficiently. The fault runs southeast-northwest to the northeastern outskirts of Los Angeles and the northwestern countryside is rather mountainous. The Union Pacific line that snakes up the coast is not very condusive to high speed rail and has numerous twists and grades. The Valley route would be much straighter and allow for higher operating speeds but to get there you would necessarily have to cross the fault.

Originally posted by FallenWun
I am not in California as I stated.
Thus the confusion.

Sorry, my mistake.

Originally posted by neo96

The Los Angeles Times editorial board almost got the big picture on the state's high-speed rail plan this week. The editors decried the sadly predictable results of sinking vast amounts of money into government boondoggles, with consequences including political decisions on routing and location, spiraling costs, and bad management.

California's high-speed rail project has lots of problems, but its most basic is purpose. The project proposes to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco with an express train that will take two hours and 40 minutes from beginning to end. That sounds good in comparison to the drive, which is approximately six-and-a-half hours, when there is no traffic, or the existing Amtrak service, which takes almost 10 hours to go from Union Station to Moscone Center — and uses two buses.

Compare it to the flight: I have flown from ONT to OAK and ONT to SJC for less than $100 one-way, and neither was longer than 1.5 hours, from check in to arrival. Chuck in a 1 hour taxi to Fremont or where-ever in San Fran you want to go and sounds about even doing what we already do so why spend money on something that will do no better than what we have now?

Chickpeas aren't little bird eggs.... Just a little enlightenment for those that support BS expenditures like the railways and may also think the "Occupy ....." movements are targeting properly.

California should be happy and gleeful that they pay federal tax to support others and get less "cash back".

After all, they voted along that platform.

U.S. Senators;

Barbara Boxer (D)
Diane Feinstein (D)


2008 election;

61% for Obama (D)
34 house seats are Dems.
19 House seats are Repub.

The Dems love it when you do your duty to mankind......

Especially when the duty is truly a "duty" as in tax to pay somebody else

Originally posted by xuenchen
California should be happy and gleeful that they pay federal tax to support others and get less "cash back".

After all, they voted along that platform.

U.S. Senators;

Barbara Boxer (D)
Diane Feinstein (D)


2008 election;

61% for Obama (D)
34 house seats are Dems.
19 House seats are Repub.

The Dems love it when you do your duty to mankind......

Especially when the duty is truly a "duty" as in tax to pay somebody else

But, it is just not fair because it doesn't directly benefit them.
It is only good when it benefits who they see fit.