Trump Administration Pulls $929 Million In Funding For California's High-Speed Rail (cnbc.com) 573
An anonymous reader shares a report from CNBC: The Federal Railroad Administration announced Thursday that it terminated a 2010 agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority and will pull a nearly $929 million federal grant. In a release, the FRA said the California agency "repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the FY10 agreement and has failed to make reasonable progress on the project." At the same time, the federal agency said, "California has abandoned its original vision of a high-speed passenger rail service connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, which was essential to its applications for FRA grant funding." In addition, the FRA said it "continues to consider all options regarding the return of $2.5 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds awarded to CHSRA." "The Trump administration's action is illegal and a direct assault on California, our green infrastructure, and the thousands of Central Valley workers who are building this project," Newsom said in a statement Thursday. "Just as we have seen from the Trump administration's attacks on our clean air standards, our immigrant communities and in countless other areas, the Trump administration is trying to exact political retribution on our state. This is California's money, appropriated by Congress, and we will vigorously defend it in court."
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Love how the media is spinning this, because even residents of California were bitching about the scope creep of this project, even floating ideas of abandoning rail for other options - which is line with FRA's complaint.
But hey, its Trump so writing something that doesn't blame him is against the MSM news, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Love how the media is spinning this, because even residents of California were bitching about the scope creep of this project, even floating ideas of abandoning rail for other options - which is line with FRA's complaint.
Is it seriously your assertion that "because even residents of California were bitching" this would be an acceptable reason to pull the funding? Can we get you to provide an example of a program where no one bitched to show how this line of logic makes sense?
But hey, its Trump so writing something that doesn't blame him is against the MSM news, right?
Alternately, it could be that had any president acted in much the same manner, we would rightfully expect a state to stand up for their already awarded funds which were in the process of being used for the purpose Congress intended?
But more likely that not, any time you see the media reporting on any what you perceive to be anti-Trump topics it must me that liberal media hating your beloved president. Man, that worldview must really suck to live with.
Re:I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, looks like someone is a bit sensitive.
I'm saying California residents have been openly critical about the fraud, waste, abuse, scope creep, and accountability of this project. To everyone outside of California that doesn't get this, it looks like Trump is the bad person here - not the people that were abusing this project.
Re:I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...It's a perpetual revenue stream...
...As congress intended. How dare the president torpedo their efforts!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, but when normal rail lines aren't being properly maintained and run, I don't really think high speed rail is reasonable.
We'd have done a lot better if that same money had been invested in improving the tracks for standard rail service, and possibly buying some new vehicles. I *do* think the rail lines are important. Important enough that if the owners don't want to maintain them they should be nationalized (and then **maintained**). It's an argument similar to that justifying the highway sy
Re:I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
The fundamental problem is the freight railroads own their rails, and the freight is worth much more than the passengers, so it gets priority. You need a dedicated right-of-way for passenger rail to work at all, and getting that ROW with large enough radius curves and minimal grade changes to support high-speed operations has a very big impact on existing landowners.
California botched the HSR, badly. The plan was based on getting support from congressional districts that were most opposed to it, when what should have been done first was to build from LA north and upgrade existing lines from SF south. Connecting the two might be a multi-generational project, but extending them out builds the economy and opportunity for a much larger group. When you have critical mass then you can work on the expensive connection.
Re: (Score:3)
Net-net, both kinds of rail - freight and passenger - have value.
Freight is better for rail-line profit; it's hard for passenger rail to run on farebox revenue only without subsidy (which is what most European countries, Japan, and China do - the railroads are not truly private by any stretch of the imagination).
People argue that the spread-out nature of US geography makes rail impractical. But look at Europe - smaller countries, but a sizeable land mass overall, which is well-supplied with subsidized pass
Re:I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Love how the media is spinning this, because even residents of California were bitching about the scope creep of this project, even floating ideas of abandoning rail for other options - which is line with FRA's complaint.
Is it seriously your assertion that "because even residents of California were bitching" this would be an acceptable reason to pull the funding? Can we get you to provide an example of a program where no one bitched to show how this line of logic makes sense?
But hey, its Trump so writing something that doesn't blame him is against the MSM news, right?
Alternately, it could be that had any president acted in much the same manner, we would rightfully expect a state to stand up for their already awarded funds which were in the process of being used for the purpose Congress intended?
But more likely that not, any time you see the media reporting on any what you perceive to be anti-Trump topics it must me that liberal media hating your beloved president. Man, that worldview must really suck to live with.
What part of "used for high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco" is beyond your ability to comprehend?
California cancelled that - California doesn't deserve the money.
"Mommy, please give me my tuition money even though I dropped out of college!"
Grow the fuck up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:4, Informative)
The funds weren't being used for their intended purpose. That is the entire issue.
States' rights?! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is hardly a States' Rights matter! This is a matter of a State requesting Federal funds for a project and then not complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement.
You don't get to ask for a piece of what taxpayers pay out in all 50 states for some project you want to do in YOUR state, and then just spend it any way you choose, disregarding the original promised development plan.
Re:States' rights?! (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Trump or no Trump, I think that the funding pull-out is completely justified (I am not a Trump supporter at all).
Re:States' rights?! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:States' rights?! (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if Trump, Obama, or Bozo the clown is the president.
The money was given to the State by the Federal Government under a contract.
The state failed at every portion of that contract: over budget, over deadline, Reduction in coverage to two small cities in the middle of nowhere.
The federal government is essentially saying "Breach of contract, no.".
it's not complicated. Don't make it so.
If Adolph Hitler once said 2+2=4, would you pitch a fit over it?
Re: I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:3, Informative)
California said on Feb 12, 2019 that they were scrapping the $77 Billion project.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the project was not scrapped, it was reduced in size. The idea is to build the portion that has not been mired in political squabbles to enable it to then grow again to meet the full intended goals later.
I live about 300 meters from where the route was originally supposed to go through San Jose, so have seen a lot of the NIMBY arguments that have played out. A lot of it has been utterly dirty pool from those against the project.
Re:I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Whatever gave the People’s Republic of California the idea that it could get an extra federal $1 billion for a project it has already cancelled?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to blamed for an action, don't publicly direct that action [thehill.com] on your own damn Twitter account when you're the leader of the entity taking the action.
So unfair to be taken at your word...
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean credit... CA is scamming Federal funds here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This.
My wife likes ABC evening news with David Muir:
- Open with bad storm
- Show plane crash for third night in a row
- Troll Trump
- Play YouTube video
- Play Citizen reporter video
- Play hear-warming YouTube video
- Show "Made in America" video of 12 people who make checkers pieces
- Show Person of the Week from a YouTube video
Who the hell actually watches news on T.V. any more?
For news, I search for, "TV stations in _______," where the blank is the actual goddam place something important is happening. They stay on a story because it affects them.
If the place is
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, send this to New Mexico who actually has rail lines running between the major cities or to TX who actually has the population and economic interest to support something like this and also who needs to cut wear on their roads.
CA can't manage a power grid, regulated or deregulated. TX is not only running a successful deregulated system but despite having all the oil and coal will be fully renewable by 2020. Put hit speed rails between Austin, Dallas, and Houston for starters with extensions out to El
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
/. heads exploding due to contradiction, like a 60s sci fi robot in 3 ... 2... 1 ...
"Must hate Trump ... but the CA rail project is so stupid, and I have snarked at it before ... but must hate Trump ... aaauuuuuggghghhh!!!"
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not stupid. It's difficult. Likely *too* difficult for *us*. There's a big difference.
It's like a manned Mars expedition. That's not a stupid idea at all. What's stupid is believing that we'll have the political will to mount a credible effort because you *wish it to happen*. Every public dollar spent on Mars with a view to a manned mission in our lifetime is wasted, because it'll always be a half-assed PR stunt done on the cheap. We've become a country besotted with the past, yet unwilling to make the kinds of sacrifices people in the past took for granted as the price of greatness. We squabble over dividing the pie handed down to us by prior generations, without any thought to what we hand to future generations. Our ability to accomplish great things for the future is about what you'd expect from a country so focused on exploiting its legacy.
In comparison to Mars, high speed rail is *easy*. China's about the same size as us, and they've covered half their country in high speed rail links in about the same time we've struggled to pick the lowest of the low-hanging fruit: LA to San Francisco. We treat technological leadership as a birthright, but it's nothing so mystical. It's just the legacy of openness -- to big ideas, big projects, and immigrants with drive to improve their lot in life. That's how 5% of the world's population manages to achieve scientific, technological, economic and military dominance of the globe. We might as well put up a wall all the way around the country, because we don't want to see what's going on outside: other countries leaving us behind.
If you aren't going to use it for what you said (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you were going to use it for, then I'd like it back. I don't think that is unreasonable. I do think that letting California keep it would be unreasonable.
But ... but ... Trump! Orange!! Something!
Don't try your silly logic on us!
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sai (Score:4, Interesting)
He's still orange. He's still an idiot. He's still making the world a worse place.
You keep saying that like its true but, yet, you can't prove it. For once I would like to see one if you actually produce evidence to prove, it. Lets see it.
Well, all but the orange part. That is pretty clear.
Re: (Score:2)
"Charlottesville wouldn't have occurred without Trump" [thehill.com]
-Richard Spencer
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sai (Score:4)
Charlottesville might or might not have occurred with or without Trump. That can't be proven. We have had worse race clashes than Charlottesville under many presidents.
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sai (Score:4, Informative)
1. Net Neutrality - Trump and his administration have actively worked against Net Neutrality. We're starting to see the consequences of that as ISPs are throttling some services and promoting others. The world is worse because of this.
2. Climate change - Trump doesn't even understand it and he and his administration have been working to keep us on an unsustainable path. The world is worse because of this.
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sa (Score:4, Insightful)
And why should they fear repercussions? It's not like it's illegal to be a Nazi.
Do remember that First Amendment thing, if you can.
As long as they don't do anything illegal (and no, being a Nazi is not illegal), they should be able to march through the streets....
Re: (Score:2)
It's also legal to fire or not hire people who are known to be racists.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sa (Score:4, Insightful)
To quote one of the Greek philosophers, it is the sign of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it. So yeah, let the literal Nazis march in the street - it's way better to have them out in the open where you can keep an eye on what's going on with their ideology than having them hide away from the public eye to plan in the shadows.
Re: (Score:3)
So yeah, let the literal Nazis march in the street - it's way better to have them out in the open where you can keep an eye on what's going on with their ideology than having them hide away from the public eye to plan in the shadows.
This exactly. First they have right to have their views held in public, no matter how deplorable. Lets keep them in the public space, real life and web, where we can keep an eye on their bullshit. That way we know what to counter. Nazi's are already on the retreat into the dark web where they are free to spread their brand of stupidity at will. Driving that level of stupidity into hiding is the worse possible outcome.
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sa (Score:5, Informative)
> School shootings are going up even more.
The access to guns hasn't changed. Sounds like you are not addressing the issue if you think gun control is the answer.
>Domestic violence rates are increasing.
Not really. We are still trending down despite a few years of increased crime. Or do you think that a few years of "no warming" means that global warming is a hoax?
>Literal Nazis march though the streets without fear of repercussion.
You mean we live in a free and open society that values freedom of speech to the chagrin of censors and authoritarians that want mega corps like facebook to control everything of our lives. Hey, at least it isn't the government and the 1st doesn't apply amirite? Please value free speech. It's very important. It doesn't matter if the 1st applies to Facebook or not they and we should be championing the ideals that make this country great.
>Multiple states are banning abortion at the expense of women's lives
No abortion law is at "the expense of women's lives". Roe v Wade was a bad decision because it created a right out of privacy that didn't exist. Without Roe v. Wade states could still allow abortion all they want. Nothing in the constitution barred the public from deciding about abortion for themselves. That means it should be a states prerogative to outlaw it or not. This is the issue. The federal government and the courts should not take an issue away from the public deciding themselves through contorted interpretations.
>We are worse off, as a species, than we were and as a country that has acted as a world leader for generations, we're failing everyone
Grow up. You sound like a petulant child.
Re: (Score:3)
What I don't like about Roe v Wade is that it essentially means that anything you can keep secret with your doctor means it's de facto legal. Even if you support abortion, it really was a bad court decision.
I think there should be limits to abortion because there is plenty of time for the woman to decide before the fetus has developed enough to be granted protection by the state. A woman can choose up to the point that her choice will end the life of another. Women are the biological "living incubator" that
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you s (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sa (Score:4)
Mine are doing great. Maybe you need a better broker. All our Allies are doing just fine. Still with us. Name one Allie that we have lost. We haven't partnered with any communists, we are trying to coexist with them. Which is a good thing, since they are well armed and a shooting war would be bad for everyone. Nazi's have always been marching in the streets, lets just keep an eye on them. Domestic violence is still trending down.
We are doing just fine. If you can prove otherwise please do so. Cite your sources, only credible source will be accepted. No Vox or Huffy post, or CNN.
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sa (Score:4, Insightful)
My stocks are doing quite well. I guess you just chose wrong? MSFT has doubled [yahoo.com] since President Trump's election, and is the most valuable tech company in the world.
We seem to be holding our "allies" accountable [washingtonpost.com], and learning that many of them were actually enemies who just smiled a lot (kind of like that "friend" who never paid for anything whenever you went out, and was never available to help you move a piece of furniture, but if you wanted to buy a round at the bar - he was first in line). I don't have to mention that several of them actively participated in the collusion narrative that Mueller proved didn't happen.
We're adding sanctions and tariffs on the Chinese, and keeping the pressure on the North Koreans. So much for partnering with Communists!
We're actually allowing science to happen. Science is not a political dogma, it's a process, and when you shut down debate by pointing to an imaginary consensus as "proof" - that's as far from science as you can get. Of course, the US is now energy independent, we export more oil than we import, and we're still dropping our emissions...
Yes, you mean like the school shooting In Colorado [reuters.com] by the Trump-Derangement-Syndrome suffering transgender high school student? Maybe if they weren't so provoked by the TDS-sufferers out there, they wouldn't have snapped and killed a fellow student. Didn't help bring down the trend that has been on the increase since 1990, when the "gun free school zone" nonsense started... [campussafetymagazine.com]
Violent Crime [fbi.gov] is down 4.3% from January 2017 until June 2018 (latest statistics).
Nazis marching, typically without issues. ATIFA being the real fascists, attacking people and destroying property to the point of being declared a domestic terror organization.
Not a single State has banned abortion. Not one.
You could go on and on, but considering your entire rant was nothing but proven lies, why would you?
Re: (Score:2)
https://spectator.us/racist-in... [spectator.us]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see. In 2015 announced that he was running for president. In 2016 played Hildabeast like a fiddle in the debates. Won the 2016 election, became president in 2017. So, not an idiot.
Still trying to fill a campaign promise that he made during the election. A majority of Americans want a wall along the southern boarder.
You're not a US citizen so your option doesn't count.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not EVERY measurable level.
He beat your goddess, Hillary, in a fair election.
GDP is over 3%, when Obama snarked that he'd need a magic wand to get it over 2%.
Unemployment is at historic lows.
These are all measurable.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the phrase you may be searching for is "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" ... assuming youre old enough to know how to read an analog clock... schools these days.. am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
Sucks in any way related to environmental/energy policy, science policy and funding, foreign policy, human rights (esp. women's rights and LGBT rights, and remember the child prison camps), tech regulation (goodbye net neutrality, hello pointless Huawei ban?), national security (white nationalists have now become at least as deadly as jihadists and Trump thinks they're not worth worrying about, and national security policies reflect that), the health of the democracy that Trump is brutally stress-testing wi
Re:If you aren't going to use it for what you said (Score:4, Insightful)
This is California. You can already see by the reaction here that they are clearly beyond reason on so many issue. Here is the typical California response on this issue.
*Wah Wah bad man take away money on project we wasted money on and canceled. Wah Wah" *stamps feet* *stamps feet* "Wah wah its not fair, we are special we should keep the money" *more stamping of feet* *flee to safe space* *stick thumb in mouth*
Go head tell me I'm wrong.
Re:If you aren't going to use it for what you said (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean like like using Pell Grant money for NASA instead [washingtonpost.com], or using Military project money for a border wall instead [washingtonpost.com]?
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sai (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...military is bound by the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th- century federal law that restricts participation in law enforcement activities. Unless Congress specifically authorizes it, military personnel can't have direct contact with civilians, including immigrants, said Scott R. Anderson of The Brookings Institution."
Source: https://www.militarytimes.com/... [militarytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, I can try again, but do I get to unilaterally disregard any laws for my counterarguments too?
Re: If you aren't going to use it for what you sai (Score:4, Funny)
The Mexiphobia wall is not a useful border defense system. It's a costly piece of xenophobic protest art in the middle of the desert and a voluntary ecological disaster.
Re:If you aren't going to use it for what you said (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If you aren't going to use it for what you said (Score:5, Informative)
That might have been a valid complaint 15 years ago, but as of the most recent published figures, California is now net receiver of federal tax dollars. See table 3 here. https://rockinst.org/wp-conten... [rockinst.org]
That report was about New York, and it lists California as being a positive contributor. last time I looked California got between 78 and 90 cents for every dollar they pay in taxes. It's not one of the biggest contributor states by far but there are 40 million people in California, that's enough to subsidise a whole lot of rmooching red states. The states that 'carryð' the US financially in terms of raw volume of cash they contribute to the federal government are practically all blue.
Re:If you aren't going to use it for what you said (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If you aren't going to use it for what you said (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument is a insanely stupid. Those red states get a lot ag subsidies and one of the reason for that is as a matter of national security we don't gamble when it comes to bread stuffs. The citizens of California benefit for corn and wheat well below what would otherwise be market price just like everyone else. That by the way makes those red state GDPs look smaller. These are staples that would however be purchased anyway at higher prices because people need to eat.
Meanwhile CA has an enormous portion of its GDP that is related directly to intellectual property which can be monetized in the first place almost purely as a function of federal law. Its also enforced by federal law and litigated over in federal courts. None of that is measured as a subsidy but it absolutely is one because there are real costs associated with it borne by all tax payers not just Californians.
My point here isnt to "diss-CA" its that CA has a large economy but its not one that exists in a vacuum. The notion these comparisons of GDP and federal transfers between states is meaningful is wrong headed. It has been wrong since the antebellum; regardless of your political beliefs on how things ought to be the reality is our nation today is a highly integrated highly federalized country, its not a "confederacy of states", except in some narrow mostly administrative respects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"lists California as being a positive contributor. last time I looked California got between 78 and 90 cents for every dollar they pay in taxes. It's not one of the biggest contributor states by far but there are 40 million people in California, that's enough to subsidise a whole lot of rmooching red states"
And yet such assertions conveniently fail to mention the unbelievable debt and liability that California has accumulated. And it is still rising. CA ranks as 42nd in the USA for fiscal health.
https [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And a majority of the "practically" all blue states have major waterways for international trade purposes (oceans), which grants them a natural economic advantage over those dirty, "mooching" inland red states that have to rely on goods going through those blue states - and only via rail/highways/air. They SHOULD be making (and paying back) more money as a result.
Isn't that a common refrain from left-leaning, progressive voters? People paying their fair share based on their ability to pay? It seems like tha
Re: (Score:2)
That might have been a valid complaint 15 years ago, but as of the most recent published figures, California is now net receiver of federal tax dollars. See table 3 here. https://rockinst.org/wp-conten... [rockinst.org]
That was never so much a valid point as it was creative accounting.
https://thefederalist.com/2017... [thefederalist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
you were going to use it for, then I'd like it back. I don't think that is unreasonable. I do think that letting California keep it would be unreasonable.
Taking that idea a bit farther, huge quantities of California tax money are used by the Federal (Trump) government to prop up red states.
California disagrees with you [ca.gov], and says it gets back about what it puts in. But I guess you know better about the State of California's finances than the State of California's analyst's office, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell are you on about?
He's high on partisanship. That and nowhere as bright as he's convinced he is.
Funding the Wall (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Going to use the money to help fund the wall, so it almost counts as Mexico paying for it. :-)
Why does't Trump just pass the hat among the red states to raise money for the wall? ... oh... right ... they are all net recipients of federal dollars from blue states except Texas and Texas hates the idea of a border wall.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to use the money to help fund the wall, so it almost counts as Mexico paying for it. :-)
Why does't Trump just pass the hat among the red states to raise money for the wall? ... oh... right ... they are all net recipients of federal dollars from blue states except Texas and Texas hates the idea of a border wall.
That's not how this whole thing works now is it? By the way, Texas, in general, supports the wall idea, regardless of how many "man on the street" interviews you see...
"This is California's money" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
CA pays more in federal taxes than they receive in funding. Unless you live in NY or CA, you are probably a federal welfare baby whom the coastal residents of this nation have deigned to support.
Re:"This is California's money" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, mod parent up! (Score:2)
grandparent is over-rated.
This emotional BS is wrecking the country and it's been promoted in the culture; critical thinking loses but it has been losing more and more each decade. On top of that Trend the Russians help all of this get worse... which should have been common knowledge once they strategy was discovered near the beginning of the cold war. It only paused during the collapse then the man in charge of the plan became dictator and super charged it in the 90s.... right about the time the right-w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From a budgetary perspective, the rest of the union is propping up CA. CA has massively unfunded mandates, state pension funds and the like that if you started counting them like they do for the post office, they would be utterly bankrupt. CA is on paper paying a lot of taxes but then their residents (until last year) got it all back in Federal Tax refunds because the state taxed them so much. CA is also the biggest taker of public moneys for these kind of projects.
If you want rail in your state, why doesn'
Newsom understanding of contracts (Score:5, Insightful)
If I personally have a contract to do a project with certain short-term goals, then not only don't meet those goals, but change what the project is. I would fully expect the money flow to stop since my part of the contract was not met.
It seems to me if there was to be a lawsuit, then it should go the other way around.
This is how it's done (Score:2)
Start with a potentially worthwhile project that has a reasonable budget. Sink a lot of cash into it, then report that it will cost far more that originally planned and be far less useful.
But hey, we've already spend all that money - if we stop now it'll be for nothing. So let's more than double the budget (from $40B to $98B) and push the timeline out indefinitely. Because all that money is being spent in Nancy Pelosi's district, so it must be good.
Question: You know how... (Score:5, Funny)
...you get a California liberal to build a wall in a desert in the middle of nowhere, for seven billion dollars?
Answer: Tell them its a train.
Trump's been going about this border wall thing all wrong.
Pull funding for Trump golf trips (Score:2)
It would be easier to stop Trump from playing golf every weekend, and would probably save even more money.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be easier to stop Trump from playing golf every weekend, and would probably save even more money.
Trump has so far taken 175 trips costing between $99M [trumpgolfcount.com] and $595M [npr.org]. Assuming the worst case, it will take Trump only one term to spend more golfing than he's trying to take away from California.
Welcome back to drudgedot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? That summary was mostly quotes. Yes, it didn't paint Trump as the villain, and in fact it makes CA sound like idiots ( they/we are ), but given that's mostly quotes I'm not sure we can lay that on the editors.
Trumponomics at work (Score:3)
He's cutting as much Federal money as possible that goes to the States.
The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.
Trumponomics increases the money supply. By the time stagflation kicks in, he'll be out of office.
Generally the US is terrible at HSR (Score:3)
Because our culture doesn't accept rail transport though there are growing numbers of people favoring HSR (places where traffic, housing, etc. are getting so bad that companies finding it difficult to hire good talent). https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
What gets me is so many people bitch about wasting money on HSR but yet don't have a problem spending a trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan with nothing to show for it.
Re:Insert unpopular opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Because infrastructure makes more sense when it's done where there are actually people?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because infrastructure makes more sense when it's done where there are actually people?
Such as between Bakersfield (population 350,000) and Merced (population 80,000)?
Now that's a giant number of people! That's much better than spending the money in places like Philadelphia (population 1,500,000) or Chicago (population 2,700,000) or Houston (population 2,300,000) or San Antonio (1,500,000) or Dallas/Fort Worth (1,000,000).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Insert unpopular opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue in California is flights between SF and LA make up a huge portion of their CO2 emissions, and ultimately the regions airports are approaching capacity. Addressing that is a huge spend alone.
Add in the fact that Fresno and Bakersfield (and Modesto) can prosper with high speed links to the economic centers of the state, and you have something that is a public good.
The bulk of the land purchased was farmland, so it shouldn’t have been that expensive... but it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Because infrastructure makes more sense when it's done where there are actually people?
Which is the exact opposite of what this was. It's the equivalent of building high speed rail between Zephyrhills, FL and Tampa, FL. Then saying "hey look guys! Look at this high speed rail that's really gonna change stuff. Everyone from Lakeland is gonna take it right from Lakeland!" If anything, California has so many serious problems going on right now that they'd be far better off stopping all the pet-project bullshit, buckling down and actually dealing with it.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, infrastructure is cheaper to build where there are no people. Try building an airport in downtown San Francisco! Or just try adding runways to SFO and SJC. A bullet train line down the peninsula would be MUCH cheaper and give all those people easy access to both airports, reducing both air and freeway traffic.
Population matters (Score:3)
Perhaps we can use this to develop better infrastructure for the central United States?
Such as what exactly? What is your specific proposal? What does the central US need that it does not already have and that would add substantial economic value? I live in the midwest so I'm not opposed to such an idea but you need to be a LOT more specific.
Why should California get all the special treatment when they have the natural advantage of ocean access?
First off most of the central US has ocean access via the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio rivers and/or the Great Lakes. Sure it's not as direct but it's still economically hugely valuable [kfvs12.com]. How do you think a big percent of the agriculture and mining
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have always taken in more tax dollars than they've given. They just used some creative accounting to not account for it. All the federal lands, federal buildings, federal funding for immigrants, federal funding for Medicare, federal tax refunds aren't counted towards going "in" so it looks like a net positive.
CA is also defaulting on all their state pension funds, the chickens are slowly coming home to roost with delayed and missed payments and CA fervently denying people access to their pensions but w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you don't know this but 'reasonable progress' is an objective measure for ALL federal funding. Sure it's not always followed up on, but all government funded programs from scientific research to Medicare and Medicaid is funded in this manner, hence why so many doctors are starting to turn down Medicare/Medicaid because they won't be reimbursed from the government if the healthcare costs in your practice don't go down.
Re:Delusional Trump supporters. (Score:5, Informative)
Tax cuts for middle class
I saw ONLY $16 per paycheck. BFD!
Which makes it true... Even if you didn't see some huge increase in take home pay, you DID see one...
Creating jobs, especially for blacks and other minorities
That is a lie.
Really, are you sure of that? So the Department of Labor is lying about this? Black unemployment is at near all time lows as is overall unemployment. Some minority groups are at historically low levels of unemployment. Go check it out for yourself before making the blanket claim of this being a lie.
Moving US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem
So what? And it's causing MORE instability in that region.
How so? The issue in the region is IRAN, not where the US embassy is located.
Removing US troops from Syria
Thanks to George W. Monkeyboy for causing the problems there.
So.. You seriously going to blame a US president who's been out of office for 10 years now for Syria but give Obama who served as president for 8 of those years a pass? I think you are willingly blind here...
Still waiting for that impeachment CNN promised by the end of the week for the last 2 years.
Another lie.
Again, what has CNN been routinely reporting for the last two years then about the Russian Collusion thing. They have entertained many guests who claimed that impeachment was a given, that it would be upon us shortly. It may be a bit of an overstatement here, but CNN HAS allowed many of it's guests and talking heads to claim impeachment was immanent and unavoidable, that the evidence was as plain as Trump's fake tan. Turns out that the Russian Collusion thing was the lie here, but CNN persists in not reporting this.. So who's been lying here?
Sure, if you hate America or are an idiot, he failed. If you are a reasonable US citizen he is winning every time.
Trump hates America. He is a criminal and a liar. And the fact that so many of his followers can't see that just proves how gullible and stupid they are. And his idiotic trade war is a YUGE TAX on all of us. Oh, and N.Korea is launching missiles again! SOOOOO much winning!!!
And YOU are playing into Kim and China's hands. The Tariffs are simply taxes on cheap stuff we buy from China, income to offset the deficit and if the stock market is any indication isn't going to hurt us all that much. This will hurt China more than us. China is just playing a political game, loading folks like you up with "oh my god, it's a tax!" rhetoric to hurt Trump who's playing hardball with them. You are pulling for China in this, not because it's hurting you, but because you don't like the administration. This is the same thing for Kim and DPRK. He's rattling his saber because he KNOWS Trump is winning and that he's in serious trouble and his BEST bet is to get Trump out of office. So he plops a few missiles off, hops folks like you up and ramps up the rhetoric to Kim's advantage.
You end up supporting the cause of Communist China and the evil despot in charge in North Korea, not because it's what's best for the word or even the USA, but because you just don't like the guy in the oval office...
Re: (Score:3)
>>> Tax cuts for middle class
>> I saw ONLY $16 per paycheck. BFD!
> Which makes it true... Even if you didn't see some huge increase in take home pay, you DID see one...
Yep. The biggest lies come from those who don't look at what taxes they actually paid, they look at their REFUNDS. Well, duh, the witholdings went DOWN so the money is in every check. Has nothing to do with the amount of refund at the end of the year.
I don't know about his $16 per check example, perhaps he is upper class
Re: (Score:3)
Which makes it true... Even if you didn't see some huge increase in take home pay, you DID see one...
Except then more people had to pay more in taxes come tax day. The big issue was the "tax cut for the middle class" was fairly insignificant and temporary, while the wealthy got a huge cut. Has propped up the stock market a bit as companies have used the extra money to buy back stocks.
The original poster admitted his paycheck included $18 more due to the tax change. Your claim of who the tax cut actually benefited the most is a commonly used conflation by the left. Yes, in dollars, those who initially paid more in taxes than you, get to keep more. But they still pay MORE than you because they make more than you. Unless you are going to argue that everybody should make the same, regardless of what they do, your argument is really nothing more than class envy.
Really, are you sure of that? So the Department of Labor is lying about this? Black unemployment is at near all time lows as is overall unemployment. Some minority groups are at historically low levels of unemployment. Go check it out for yourself before making the blanket claim of this being a lie.
All unemployment is low. Trump hasn't done anything specifically to help minorities
Well, then face it, he's he
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you have higher education and you're struggling with student debt?
There are usually two kinds of people who have this problem in US. Those that got degrees that were "fashionable" (read: useless), essentially studying for a hobby rather than a job. And those that simply don't know how to manage their finances.
Easy measure: Are you employed at at least upper five digits a year rate as you have higher education that is useful for a job people would want to pay you for? If no, your degree was likely of t
Re: (Score:2)
with the orange man. now he can take that billion and spend it on the wall! oh wait, wasn't Mexico supposed to be paying for the wall? I'm confused.
Hmmm.. So his tariff idea this week hasn't been reported in the media you listen to has it... I believe he's suggested it twice now.. But I figure the Democrats won't touch it with a 10' pole, nor will they fix the immigration issue, lest they give Trump a clear accomplishment to campaign on...
So, keep it up.. Trump's play is to paint democrats as obstructionist who don't care about the immigration nightmare and refuse to fix it. Get ready to counter that because by all accounts the average voter isn't pl