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

reply to post by macman


This is a quote which is probally far lower then the actual fees. Some states even require you to pay a fee to transfer a car title.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Why would you do this, given it's your car?
And since that would apply somehow to either mode, it is a non-issue.

reply to post by macman


Say I got a new million dollar car I just won at an RM Auction in say, Florida and I gotta get it from Florida to NJ and don't want to fly down to drive it back up because it's far too rare and valuable.

I'd contact a rail freight company and a shipping company to ship the thing.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


That's nice.
You would pay the title fee no matter, in any situation.
Moot point.

Next!!!?

reply to post by neo96


It's going to bring a lot of jobs to California. Who cares if it costs money. Money is an illusion in your head. There is no way anybody can pay of billions and trillions in debt. If the debt keeps piling up we might actually have an infrastructure that doesn't suck. Who cares what it costs.

reply to post by RightWingAvenger

So just spend more?
Ok then.

reply to post by neo96


So you're saying that using tax payer money for public infrastructure and creating jobs is bad? I guess the government should just stash tax money and never use it for decent public services...

You mad Neo?

Haters gonna hate...

Originally posted by Clisen33
reply to post by neo96

 

So you're saying that using tax payer money for public infrastructure and creating jobs is bad? I guess the government should just stash tax money and never use it for decent public services...

You mad Neo?

Haters gonna hate...

No, the money should be returned to whom it was taken from, the tax payer.

Originally posted by Clisen33
reply to post by neo96

 

So you're saying that using tax payer money for public infrastructure and creating jobs is bad? I guess the government should just stash tax money and never use it for decent public services...

You mad Neo?

Haters gonna hate...

Amtrak is the example.

It created jobs for a few thousand people....not millions.

And, guess who is still paying the freight ?

Taxpayer funded stimulus programs are only targeted for a few people ... not the majority.

The majority always pays the difference.

Neo, you are being as ignorant as you usually are.

California is a net tax donor state, meaning we get less back in federal funding than we pay in: the latest figures (from 2004) show we get back $0.79 for every dollar we send in.

Indiana fares much better, getting back $0.97 per tax dollar.

None of your taxes support a damn thing in California, we pay our own way and more.

The moochers are mostly the red states: New Mexico gets $2.00 for every tax dollar they send in, West Virginia $1.83, Mississippi $1.77, North Dakota $1.73, Alabama $1.71, Montana $1.58, South Dakota $1.49.

So get off your high horse and quit telling us how to spend our money.

www.taxfoundation.org...

Personally, I think pretty much everything east of the Mississippi, perhaps the Rockies, is too contaminated, too ignorant, too arrogant, and too ugly to want ot be associated with it. I'd much prefer California to be an independent nation, we'd be far better off without having to support a bunch of leechers who insult us constantly, yet are utterly dependent upon us for our food, our creativity, and our products

And oh, yes, our money.

reply to post by apacheman


You draft the annexation proposal, and I will sign it!!

Good riddance to Kommiefornia.

What does the State Budget look like for 2011? Just wondering.

reply to post by apacheman


Oh no.

Looks like Cali was looking for Daddy Fed to fund some projects.
articles.latimes.com...

And more
www.calfac.org...

But but but. I thought the whole thing was to be paid for my the State??


www.kcet.org...

Can the State do it, without Daddy Warbucks and the endless purse of the Fed Govt?
Probably not, seeing that the State can't operate in the Black since forever.

reply to post by macman


Macman you're just as ignorant as Neo96.

What part of getting back less than what we pay in didn't you comprehend?

Just because we get some of our money back, doesn't mean the federal government supports us.

If you hate California so much, don't watch the movies we produce, don't eat the food we provide, don't use any of the products we design and make, and don't take advantage of the research we do.

You, Neo96, and the other ignorant louts who constantly demean California should get your acts together and start producing locally what California subsidizes for you and quit leeching off of us.

But why work for something when you can get it subsidized by California?

Not sure where I stand on this. I remember something about a van services and other private transport services on the news a long time ago that got strong armed out of their businesses because of bus driver unions, or something like that. So a privately owned public transport system isn't out of question. However the atmosphere and politics apparently make it difficult.

The commute in California is a nightmare, people regular driving 4 hours to work and then another 4 hours home So a high speed rail might help? I think I know for certain though is because earthquakes happen there that doesn't mean you should build something.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Macman you're just as ignorant as Neo96.

What part of getting back less than what we pay in didn't you comprehend?

Just because we get some of our money back, doesn't mean the federal government supports us.

If you hate California so much, don't watch the movies we produce, don't eat the food we provide, don't use any of the products we design and make, and don't take advantage of the research we do.

You, Neo96, and the other ignorant louts who constantly demean California should get your acts together and start producing locally what California subsidizes for you and quit leeching off of us.

But why work for something when you can get it subsidized by California?

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

What part of on a State level don't you get?
Who says I don't grow vegetables or buy only local veggies, dairy and meat.
Your assuming again. It never ends well for you when you do this.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Macman you're just as ignorant as Neo96.

What part of getting back less than what we pay in didn't you comprehend?

Just because we get some of our money back, doesn't mean the federal government supports us.

If you hate California so much, don't watch the movies we produce, don't eat the food we provide, don't use any of the products we design and make, and don't take advantage of the research we do.

You, Neo96, and the other ignorant louts who constantly demean California should get your acts together and start producing locally what California subsidizes for you and quit leeching off of us.

But why work for something when you can get it subsidized by California?

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

You may have left out a couple of things

Don't elect or appoint California politicians and experts to national posts.

Don't borrow money the way Califoria does !

Originally posted by Mcupobob
Not sure where I stand on this. I remember something about a van services and other private transport services on the news a long time ago that got strong armed out of their businesses because of bus driver unions, or something like that. So a privately owned public transport system isn't out of question. However the atmosphere and politics apparently make it difficult.

The commute in California is a nightmare, people regular driving 4 hours to work and then another 4 hours home So a high speed rail might help? I think I know for certain though is because earthquakes happen there that doesn't mean you should build something.

edit on 11/18/2011 by Mcupobob because: (no reason given)

I have no problem if Cali wants it.
I have a problem when Fed money is used for their pet projects.
Or any State for that matter.

Rather pay for high-speed rails and get us off the oil tit than pay for wars in foreign lands. I hereby bequeath my share of the tax money to go to this rather than to that.

Seriously?

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.