trump cancels funding, about $5 billion, for California high speed rail

[Gatsby]

While he's at it, why doesn't Trump cut all the federal highway money they get? And how about Medicaid? Cut California's federal offices. Shut down and relocate all military bases in California. Impose tariffs on every product, including produce, coming out of California.

California is going to learn a hard lesson about what can happen when you piss Trump off. Other blue states need to take note.

California spent $15 billion so far and didn't build one mile of rail.

 

[Gatsby]

One thing Erza Klein points out after examining many democrat infrastructure failures is that democrats haven't learned anything from their mile long track record of failure.

That's a mile longer than the track California managed to build.

 

[LouC]

trump cancels funding, about $5 billion, for California high speed rail​

Good.

 

[Gatsby]

They have a right to collectively bargain for the wage that they want.

Paying people for their labor is a good thing.

I don't know what labor costs California incurred, but it wasn't the labor of actually building a high-speed rail.

 

[Peter]

How does anybody make that decision? How about looking at the track record, progress and metrics?

Rail has a hard time in the US when you have an entire political party who seem dedicated to destroying it.
The rest of the world has shown that being reliant on the car is a terrible idea but nope, you guys think you know best.

London is such a great city because it has such great public transport and everybody uses it.
It isn't underfunded and seen as the domain of the poor.

 

[Showtime586]

One thing Erza Klein points out after examining many democrat infrastructure failures is that democrats haven't learned anything from their mile long track record of failure.

LMAO is the only response required to address such "dribble".

 

[SuperDS77]

Rail has a hard time in the US when you have an entire political party who seem dedicated to destroying it.
The rest of the world has shown that being reliant on the car is a terrible idea but nope, you guys think you know best.

Owning a vehicle provides a much greater level of freedom of movement. Something most of us in the USA value and treasure.

Hard for you limeys to understand, I get it. Being under the boot for so much longer can do that.

London is such a great city because it has such great public transport and everybody uses it.
It isn't underfunded and seen as the domain of the poor.

Great, that works for London. Dense population, narrow and poorly designed streets and government control of most aspects of life make this a practical situation.

 

[aociswundumho]

Owning a vehicle provides a much greater level of freedom of movement. Something most of us in the USA value and treasure.

Yes, which makes it easy for Americans to vote with their feet. The political left hates the whole idea of that.

Hard for you limeys to understand, I get it. Being under the boot for so much longer can do that.

Exactly. In the UK they arrest people every day for writing mean facebook posts.

 

[Jagged]

Sorry to put this bluntly, but I think that is very wrong and ignorant. A question is whether you can hear my argument, or not.



Please read this slowly and consider the topic. Normally people with your views are 'locked in' and have a hard time, it seems. They're locked into the idea 'the only issue with the debt is spending too much'.

I understand why that is compelling. The debt IS a crisis for the country - an intended one by Republicans, but that's a longer topic, but it's about "starve the beast". That can make a person passionate about wanting to 'fix' the debt.

But I suspect you are blind to the actual problem and cause: undertaxing the wealthy. That's pushed on you more by using the idea of 'wasteful governemnt spending' with this and that example to keep you locked in on the spending.

Let me try a crude analogy. There is a business, which has enough sales to be very profitable. But the owner has a wife who spends wildly on her own enjoyment - mansions, yachts, jets - more than the company makes.

The owner preaches the value of 'fiscal conservatism', and decries the threat of the debt the business faces, and says the debt leave him no choice but to slash the number of stores, salaries, the marketing budget - any spending that actually strengthens the business. The cuts cause the business to do worse and worse, but he never looks at his wife's spending.

That's our situation. The US can have a very successful economy, but our politics have been corrupted to not tax the rich, over, and over, and over, and over. The tax cuts for the rich are the entire national debt.

But you are told not to ever look at the tax cuts for the rich - that the massive debt can only be solved by cutting spending - spending that goes for the benefit of the American people.

I could write with numbers showing you the issue, but let's just look at the historical facts for examples. Reagan began this disaster, tripling our national debt, intentionally causing the debt. Bill Clinton increased taxes on the rich - without one Republican vote - and cut the deficit all eight years, until we had a budget surplus, the equivalent of reducing the wife's spending. It shows the issue clearly.

[...]

This post tries to get you started. Are you able to break out of the brainwashing to never look at taxing the rich? This is a post competing with decades of massive propaganda and brainwashing. Did it get through?

Unfortunately, you resort to prejudice in your response to my post. You seem to think i'm in favor of tax cuts for the rich. Or even tax cuts in general. You're wrong about that. In my opinion, bringing the debt down requires both significant cuts in federal spending AND significant increases in taxes. Especially on the upper brackets. You're also wrong when you blame just one party. It's not just Republicans. Democrats have also significantly contributed to increasing the debt. This is likely the biggest threat to America, and if it's not tackled, could lead to the downfall of America. It could make the Great Depression look like good times.

 

[Jagged]

@Jagged if you are able to benefit from the post above, I'd like to add some more about the situation I think you are in, likely.

Another way the propaganda manipulates you to keep you looking only at spending cuts, and not taxing the rich, is what's called a straw man, or a false dilemma, by convincing you the 'two sides' of the issue are people like you, who have sense, and recognize the debt is a threat to the county, and that the other side are childish, indulgent "liberals" who don't understand the debt, like people who run up credit card debt on things they can't affod.

Easy call, that, and it makes you entrenched on how right you are and how wrong the other side is.

But it's all manipulation, a lie.

And to prevent you 'waking up' to the idea of the rich being undertaxed being the problem, there is a whole lot more propaganda about that - it tells you if you even think of it, you are being jealous, selfish, greedy, trying to 'take their money' like theft. Indeed, 'taxes are theft' is a slogan. There are also many propaganda arguments to say 'taxing the rich doesn't work, convincing you that would 'kill the golden goose'. Forget about it.

All of this is a massive brainwashing operation to prevent you seeing the crisis caused by the $50 trillion+ in tax cut wealth redistribution for the rich, to keep you in a tunnel vision convinced you are trying to save the country from destruction by firmly demanding spending cuts. And you almost never hear a message like the one I just posted trying to help you escape the brainwashing.

See the post above this one.

 

[Jagged]

So, you can't understand the broad truth of how it's true about nearly all trump-voting states, because your state is an exception?

That's because I'm not talking about any other states. The issue here is using federal funding to benefit just 2 states. I think that's wrong. No other states matter in this discussion and anyone bringing them in is doing so only as a diversion.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Paying people is a bad thing .

Weird.

Not when the work is unproductive.

 

[Jezcoe]

Not when the work is unproductive.

That isn’t the fault of the laborers.

 

[Craig234]

The issue here is using federal funding to benefit just 2 states

Ya, the other states get no federal funds for anything, you say?

 

[Craig234]

In my opinion, bringing the debt down requires both significant cuts in federal spending AND significant increases in taxes. Especially on the upper brackets.

Amount additionally redistributed from the American people to the rich by Republican policies since Reagan: over $50 trillion. National debt: nearly $40 trillion. The issue is pretty much entirely undertaxing the rich. Spending cuts can be discussed specifically in addition, but it's about the taxes.

You're also wrong when you blame just one party. It's not just Republicans. Democrats have also significantly contributed to increasing the debt. This is likely the biggest threat to America, and if it's not tackled, could lead to the downfall of America. It could make the Great Depression look like good times.

It's about one party. This debt crisis began with Reagan, since you apparently don't know the history, Republicans decided they couldn't get the oligarchy spending cuts they wanted passed, so they decided to FORCE the cuts by cutting the revenue to pay for them. But instead of forcing cuts, it increased debt. Reagan tripled the national debt. His policy was called "starve the beast". Only Republicans have passed the tax cuts for the rich.

 

[MAGAnificent]

That isn’t the fault of the laborers.

Obviously, they should and were paid for work done, however the federal government should not continue to fund non-productive work. Let Gavin Newscum figure it out.

 

[Craig234]

Rail has a hard time in the US when you have an entire political party who seem dedicated to destroying it.
The rest of the world has shown that being reliant on the car is a terrible idea but nope, you guys think you know best.

London is such a great city because it has such great public transport and everybody uses it.
It isn't underfunded and seen as the domain of the poor.

Mind the gap - something Americans should do about the wealth gap in our oligarchy which is why we have that party against spending on the public.

 

[Jagged]

Ya, the other states get no federal funds for anything, you say?

No, I don't say. I said I believe federal funding should be when it benefits the nation, not just a couple of states.

 

[Jagged]

Amount additionally redistributed from the American people to the rich by Republican policies since Reagan: over $50 trillion. National debt: nearly $40 trillion. The issue is pretty much entirely undertaxing the rich. Spending cuts can be discussed specifically in addition, but it's about the taxes.



It's about one party. This debt crisis began with Reagan, since you apparently don't know the history, Republicans decided they couldn't get the oligarchy spending cuts they wanted passed, so they decided to FORCE the cuts by cutting the revenue to pay for them. But instead of forcing cuts, it increased debt. Reagan tripled the national debt. His policy was called "starve the beast". Only Republicans have passed the tax cuts for the rich.

Just because it started under Reagan doesn't mean Democrats since didn't contribute to the debt. You point out the debt is closing in on $40 trillion, but Democrats added as much as Republicans.

 

[Craig234]

No, I don't say. I said I believe federal funding should be when it benefits the nation, not just a couple of states.

That's a clueless view. Let's say the federal government provides healthcare benefits, like Medicare. How does any one of those people getting the benefit help the rest of the nation? Few things 'help the whole nation'. Things help parts of the nation. That is in the national interest.

 

[Craig234]

Just because it started under Reagan doesn't mean Democrats since didn't contribute to the debt. You point out the debt is closing in on $40 trillion, but Democrats added as much as Republicans.

We're not talking about the debt, we're talking about the tax cuts for the rich that are responsible for the entire debt amount. Republicans are responsible for those, period. A few Democrats might have voted for some, Democrats might not have repealed enough, but all of them were passed by Republicans.

 

[Diving Mullah]

Trump rescinds $4bn in US funding for California high-speed rail project

White House says no viable path forward for planned 800-mile system aiming to connect San Francisco to LA

www.theguardian.com

Trump administration pulls another $175m from California’s high-speed rail

Move follows cancellation earlier this summer of $4bn in federal grants for state’s ambitious but long-overdue plan

www.theguardian.com

A good example of how small minds think small!!!
The state of railroad transportation in the U.S. is nearly 50 years behind that of most first-world countries. High-speed rail could actually be a viable solution to the housing crisis, allowing people to live outside high-density areas with high living costs and still commute daily to work. This would not only reduce housing pressure in cities but also boost the economies of suburban areas—a pattern we've already seen wherever such systems have been implemented successfully.

For instance, when trains were upgraded and beign full electric between San Francisco and San Jose, ridership increased threefold. Yet, there are constant attempts to cut funding, largely because this administration bends to the interests of oil companies instead of prioritizing what benefits the people.

From personal experience, when we took the train from Los Angeles to New Orleans, nearly every car was full—despite it being the so-called “slow season,” according to the conductor. On another trip from San Francisco to Chicago, the same was true. Clearly, people will take the train if it offers reliable service and a more comfortable alternative to driving through traffic congestion. Compared to the increasingly unpleasant experience of air travel, trains can provide a far better option.

Unfortunately, the U.S. rail system has not been developed to handle true high-speed service. Upgrading it will take both time and money, but in the long run, it would be an investment that benefits everyone.



Diving Mullah

 

[Jagged]

That's a clueless view. Let's say the federal government provides healthcare benefits, like Medicare. How does any one of those people getting the benefit help the rest of the nation? Few things 'help the whole nation'. Things help parts of the nation. That is in the national interest.

Learn what "nation" means.

 

[Craig234]

Learn what "nation" means.

You. It's not one thing. Ours has 50 states, territories, a lot of people.

 

[Jagged]

This debt crisis began with Reagan,

Just because it started under Reagan doesn't mean Democrats since didn't contribute to the debt.

We're not talking about the debt,

Sell stupid elsewhere.