Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
"You must spread..." God, gays and guns, here we come. F the jobs.
"You must spread..." God, gays and guns, here we come. F the jobs.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
- Thread starter Foxton
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
I don't have the math...but isn't that money that would have pretty much been paid by WI taxpayers anyways? (Being a decent chunk of the total sum allocated)
I don't have the math...but isn't that money that would have pretty much been paid by WI taxpayers anyways? (Being a decent chunk of the total sum allocated)
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
First off, he ran on stopping it. He won convincingly. Polls show wide majorities in favor of stopping it. So the majority of Wisconsinites are idiots as well? Nice
Secondly, it isn't "high speed". Factoring stops, it goes an average of 68mph.
Oh, and $10million dollars may be a "rounding error" but it's still $10 million dollars.
If the best argument for it is "it will probably get picked up by the Feds", I think we can do better.
First off, he ran on stopping it. He won convincingly. Polls show wide majorities in favor of stopping it. So the majority of Wisconsinites are idiots as well? Nice
Secondly, it isn't "high speed". Factoring stops, it goes an average of 68mph.
Oh, and $10million dollars may be a "rounding error" but it's still $10 million dollars.
If the best argument for it is "it will probably get picked up by the Feds", I think we can do better.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
I'll feel free to call those Wisconsinites opposed to the train idiots. One, why are they opposed to free money from the feds? Two, why are they opposed to a project that will move Wisconsin's transportation system into modernity? When gas prices are $7 a gallon, cities, regions, and states with diversified transportation infrastructure will reap the economic rewards, while those reliant on cars and gasoline will suffer.
Walker's focus on roads and roads alone is like the French and their focus on the Maginot Line. I'll feel free to lump any Wisconsinites who hold the same views into that bucket as well. Here's the thing about transportation - everyone uses it, so people think they know how it works. They're usually wrong, of course, but they know just enough to be dangerous. Like the guy in Minnesota who really wanted to shut off the ramp meters. He, of course, was wrong.
And no, the project isn't high speed, but that's what they're calling it, so I'll call it that too. However, all of the basic improvements would offer the groundwork for future high speed investments that would need to happen eventually anyway - grade separations, signal upgrades, etc. It's an incremental project. That's how infrastructure gets built.
And no, the fact that the feds will pick up the tab doesn't speak to the merits of the project, it only speaks to the illogic of Scott Walker's arguments in opposition. He wants to create jobs, but turns down an $810 million grant. He wants to spurn investment, and yet he cancels a project the Wisconsin business community actively supported.
I'll feel free to call those Wisconsinites opposed to the train idiots. One, why are they opposed to free money from the feds? Two, why are they opposed to a project that will move Wisconsin's transportation system into modernity? When gas prices are $7 a gallon, cities, regions, and states with diversified transportation infrastructure will reap the economic rewards, while those reliant on cars and gasoline will suffer.
Walker's focus on roads and roads alone is like the French and their focus on the Maginot Line. I'll feel free to lump any Wisconsinites who hold the same views into that bucket as well. Here's the thing about transportation - everyone uses it, so people think they know how it works. They're usually wrong, of course, but they know just enough to be dangerous. Like the guy in Minnesota who really wanted to shut off the ramp meters. He, of course, was wrong.
And no, the project isn't high speed, but that's what they're calling it, so I'll call it that too. However, all of the basic improvements would offer the groundwork for future high speed investments that would need to happen eventually anyway - grade separations, signal upgrades, etc. It's an incremental project. That's how infrastructure gets built.
And no, the fact that the feds will pick up the tab doesn't speak to the merits of the project, it only speaks to the illogic of Scott Walker's arguments in opposition. He wants to create jobs, but turns down an $810 million grant. He wants to spurn investment, and yet he cancels a project the Wisconsin business community actively supported.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
We're clearly not going to agree on this, so I won't go around in circles on it. Two things though. It isn't "free money" from the feds. It's our money. We shouldn't be dancing a jig when it gets given back to us.
Second, I chuckled at this:
We're clearly not going to agree on this, so I won't go around in circles on it. Two things though. It isn't "free money" from the feds. It's our money. We shouldn't be dancing a jig when it gets given back to us.
Second, I chuckled at this:
"It's not high speed, but darnit we're going to call it that anyways!"
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
That's what they're calling the project, so I'll call it that too. Maybe I think your screenname is innaccurate or something, but I'll still call you WeWantMore.
And the money has already been obligated. It's federal money, and spending it on rail was a federal decision. That money will still be spent on rail, it just won't be spent in Wisconsin or Ohio. And if you live in Wisconsin, I fail to see how that's a victory. Yesterday, the state was in line to get $810 million dollars from the feds, and today it is in line to get zilch. Is that worthy of a dance?
That's what they're calling the project, so I'll call it that too. Maybe I think your screenname is innaccurate or something, but I'll still call you WeWantMore.
And the money has already been obligated. It's federal money, and spending it on rail was a federal decision. That money will still be spent on rail, it just won't be spent in Wisconsin or Ohio. And if you live in Wisconsin, I fail to see how that's a victory. Yesterday, the state was in line to get $810 million dollars from the feds, and today it is in line to get zilch. Is that worthy of a dance?
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Death by 1,000,000 self-inflicted papercuts. Hell of a way to go out.
Death by 1,000,000 self-inflicted papercuts. Hell of a way to go out.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Ah, but that's the best part. It's not being given back to us. We'll be paying the exact same share of that $810 M in our taxes that we would have if that money were being spent in Wisconsin. Now, though, it's being spent in 4 or 5 other states. And once again Wisconsin gets effed on the return of federal tax dollars to the state. Not to mention all the jobs that were lost. Or the future jobs. Or the $100 M + already spent that the state will have to return to the Feds.
Ah, but that's the best part. It's not being given back to us. We'll be paying the exact same share of that $810 M in our taxes that we would have if that money were being spent in Wisconsin. Now, though, it's being spent in 4 or 5 other states. And once again Wisconsin gets effed on the return of federal tax dollars to the state. Not to mention all the jobs that were lost. Or the future jobs. Or the $100 M + already spent that the state will have to return to the Feds.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Is there more to the decision? It would seem the rail lines would employ enough people to eat into the $10mm annual risk (if I'm reading all of this accurately). Seems like a wash in terms of ongoing budget.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
To have an impact on the debt you would need to assign the money to paying down the debt, rather than just put it back in the pool where it activates other spending.
If I were an honest fiscal conservative and federalist, I would propose repatriating the national debt to the states on the basis of each state's share of the deficit: the difference between how much is collected from their own citizens in federal taxes and how much the state rakes in from federal spending. Then I would eliminate all federal taxation and fund all projects based on state revenue collection.
Any state could get itself in the black by a combination of cutting spending and amping revenue by whatever tax structure they chose: low taxes funding no social services to attract business or moderate taxes and a high quality of life to attract productive taxpayers. Each state's books would be separate -- if a state under (or over) taxed itself to where revenue was not meeting spending, it would be exposed and its policies changed by its new state government, or it would become a permanent backwater where nobody would want to live and work. No other state would have to support free riders.
Spending would be local so demagogues could no longer whip up their populations by appealing to inter-state resentment (the demagogues would immediately tweak their rhetoric to intra-state resentment, but that's a problem for the states to work out). Revenue collection would be local so demagogues could no longer talk out of both sides of their mouth, fulminating against government programs and then living off the backs of other states' taxpayers.
Everybody honest would win. Everybody dishonest would lose.
I would take that deal.
To have an impact on the debt you would need to assign the money to paying down the debt, rather than just put it back in the pool where it activates other spending.
If I were an honest fiscal conservative and federalist, I would propose repatriating the national debt to the states on the basis of each state's share of the deficit: the difference between how much is collected from their own citizens in federal taxes and how much the state rakes in from federal spending. Then I would eliminate all federal taxation and fund all projects based on state revenue collection.
Any state could get itself in the black by a combination of cutting spending and amping revenue by whatever tax structure they chose: low taxes funding no social services to attract business or moderate taxes and a high quality of life to attract productive taxpayers. Each state's books would be separate -- if a state under (or over) taxed itself to where revenue was not meeting spending, it would be exposed and its policies changed by its new state government, or it would become a permanent backwater where nobody would want to live and work. No other state would have to support free riders.
Spending would be local so demagogues could no longer whip up their populations by appealing to inter-state resentment (the demagogues would immediately tweak their rhetoric to intra-state resentment, but that's a problem for the states to work out). Revenue collection would be local so demagogues could no longer talk out of both sides of their mouth, fulminating against government programs and then living off the backs of other states' taxpayers.
Everybody honest would win. Everybody dishonest would lose.
I would take that deal.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Kepler -
I would say this proposal is a strawman designed to pull conservatives out of the bushes...you would take your deal because you live in a place where you assume you would benefit...what would happen if people from nearby states started to flow into your state to avail themselves of the better services and benefits (without contributing as much or more than they take)?
Your proposal does divide the problem up into 50 pieces but I don't see that it solves it.
Kepler -
I would say this proposal is a strawman designed to pull conservatives out of the bushes...you would take your deal because you live in a place where you assume you would benefit...what would happen if people from nearby states started to flow into your state to avail themselves of the better services and benefits (without contributing as much or more than they take)?
Your proposal does divide the problem up into 50 pieces but I don't see that it solves it.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
And it ignores the fact that certain things are clearly national issues, either inherently (immigration, national defense) or by Constitutional mandate (postal service). You can't have 50* different policies on those kinds of issues, with 50* different funding sources.
* in reality it'd be more than 50, since we still have to provide things to the territories like Puerto Rico, D.C., Mariana Isles, Guam, etc.
And it ignores the fact that certain things are clearly national issues, either inherently (immigration, national defense) or by Constitutional mandate (postal service). You can't have 50* different policies on those kinds of issues, with 50* different funding sources.
* in reality it'd be more than 50, since we still have to provide things to the territories like Puerto Rico, D.C., Mariana Isles, Guam, etc.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
I won't pretend that Walker's decision is based on any rational analysis of the situation. The operating costs were never really an issue. He has a long history as the Milwaukee County Exec of opposing transit projects of any type.
What's troubling is that you apparently cannot appeal to reason with him. It's not like this is a super-lefty idea, the original proposal for this train was floated by Tommy Thompson.
I won't pretend that Walker's decision is based on any rational analysis of the situation. The operating costs were never really an issue. He has a long history as the Milwaukee County Exec of opposing transit projects of any type.
What's troubling is that you apparently cannot appeal to reason with him. It's not like this is a super-lefty idea, the original proposal for this train was floated by Tommy Thompson.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
In the big picture, there's no such thing as free money, just the short-term delusion that it's free.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
So there are communal goods when it serves conservative partisan rhetoric, and not when it doesn't.
So there are communal goods when it serves conservative partisan rhetoric, and not when it doesn't.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
that scenario seems to parallel something we're experiencing in Arizona, and a lot of people don't seem to care. But, I don't want to get Kepler wound up on that subject, so I won't say more.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
"conservative partisan rhetoric" here being code for the U.S. Constitution... busted! Seriously, has there ever been a conservative that doesn't want national defense upheld? That's silly.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
I haven't agreed with unofan much these days, but he's clearly correct. Your exercise could rationally only take things so far, without recognizing that there are communal issues that are clearly necessary to address on a larger scale, regardless of if you're liberal or conservative. Of course, some would claim that liberals are taking the communal idea ever farther these days than it's previously been conceived to go.
I haven't agreed with unofan much these days, but he's clearly correct. Your exercise could rationally only take things so far, without recognizing that there are communal issues that are clearly necessary to address on a larger scale, regardless of if you're liberal or conservative. Of course, some would claim that liberals are taking the communal idea ever farther these days than it's previously been conceived to go.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Just wondering: Has ObamaCare crashed the stock market yet?
Just wondering: Has ObamaCare crashed the stock market yet?
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation
Its so wonderful that now the unions who supported it are requesting exemptions
*updated link
Its so wonderful that now the unions who supported it are requesting exemptions
*updated link
Last edited:
- Status