Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It hasn't been debunked you moron. It is being denied as relevant by the fools who cut it's funding. That is not the same thing. The system is already being used and operational on many tracks, including the southbound track where the accident occurred.I was blaming Republicans for the latest vote, that is why I quoted the 825 million and specific delay to the system that would have prevented the latest accident. If someone can show how Democrats undermined funding let them show it.Nope, it was a stupid response and you are wrong about the only prevention having been to have two engineers. What could have and would have prevented the accident is called positive train control technology. It has been installed on many sections of track, but lack of funding prevented it from being installed on the entire system, including the northbound section of track involved with this accident. 825 million dollars were cut from latest budget that were designated to finish installing the system by the end of the year. The Republican budget prolonged it's implementation until 2020." Amtrak is a federally-chartered corporation, with the Federal government as majority stockholder. The Board is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and Amtrak is operated as a for-profit company, rather than a public authority."
None of the things you mentioned have a damned thing to do with the recent train crash. Hitting a curve with a speed limit of 50 mph at 106 mph was the cause of the accident, period! The only thing that possibly could have prevented this accident was having two Engineers in the cab to keep a check on each other.
But see, you are blaming republicans, for what is natural to a socialized system.
Did you miss the fact our government is $18 Trillion in debt? Did you miss the fact we don't have loads of money to buy everything everyone wants?
Yes, we don't have money to make Amtrak, a money losing corporation, all the technology and updates we want. It should be completely privatized into a private corporation, and if there is a market for Amtrak, it should make a profit on it's own. If there is no market, then it should be closed.
Not sure how you could privatize the system at this late. Seems the taxpayers have invested huge amounts into the system and turning it over to private interest could be a quandary.
I originally asked the question about any nations having a rail system that was not subsidized. I knew the answer was going to be none. Someone tried to answer the question with a deflection, but as yet, no one has named a country. That is because people, no matter their politics, understand that rail service is a necessity even in third world nations. Privatization may work to some degree or level, depending on the circumstances, but in the end, government subsidizing becomes a requirement.
Yes you are far left partisan hack, that much is already known..
Using debunked far left religious propaganda as your "facts" that do not fit in reality..
foxnews.com/tech/2015/05/14/positive-train-control-technology-could-have-prevented-amtrak-crash-experts-say/
nydailynews.com/news/national-signal-system-prevented-amtrak-train-crash-article-1.2221460
Republicans - fuck infrastructure. Let this country die. I want my rights back.In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
nearly half the stimulus were tax cuts. Otherwise Republicans wouldn't have signed on. What do tax cuts pay for? Even tarded right wingernuts should be able to figure that one out.It hasn't been debunked you moron. It is being denied as relevant by the fools who cut it's funding. That is not the same thing. The system is already being used and operational on many tracks, including the southbound track where the accident occurred.I was blaming Republicans for the latest vote, that is why I quoted the 825 million and specific delay to the system that would have prevented the latest accident. If someone can show how Democrats undermined funding let them show it.Nope, it was a stupid response and you are wrong about the only prevention having been to have two engineers. What could have and would have prevented the accident is called positive train control technology. It has been installed on many sections of track, but lack of funding prevented it from being installed on the entire system, including the northbound section of track involved with this accident. 825 million dollars were cut from latest budget that were designated to finish installing the system by the end of the year. The Republican budget prolonged it's implementation until 2020.
But see, you are blaming republicans, for what is natural to a socialized system.
Did you miss the fact our government is $18 Trillion in debt? Did you miss the fact we don't have loads of money to buy everything everyone wants?
Yes, we don't have money to make Amtrak, a money losing corporation, all the technology and updates we want. It should be completely privatized into a private corporation, and if there is a market for Amtrak, it should make a profit on it's own. If there is no market, then it should be closed.
Not sure how you could privatize the system at this late. Seems the taxpayers have invested huge amounts into the system and turning it over to private interest could be a quandary.
I originally asked the question about any nations having a rail system that was not subsidized. I knew the answer was going to be none. Someone tried to answer the question with a deflection, but as yet, no one has named a country. That is because people, no matter their politics, understand that rail service is a necessity even in third world nations. Privatization may work to some degree or level, depending on the circumstances, but in the end, government subsidizing becomes a requirement.
Yes you are far left partisan hack, that much is already known..
Using debunked far left religious propaganda as your "facts" that do not fit in reality..
foxnews.com/tech/2015/05/14/positive-train-control-technology-could-have-prevented-amtrak-crash-experts-say/
nydailynews.com/news/national-signal-system-prevented-amtrak-train-crash-article-1.2221460
And you just proved my comments correct, far left drone!
Funding had nothing to do with as these system were being put in place. Darn those unions for not being fast enough since the funding looks like it came from the Obama stimulus. So it was slow on implementation due to the unions..
Funding has everything to do with the two articles I posted from conservative news sources. You are just willing to make bold faced lies rather than admit a truth that does't go along with your rhetoric. Typical brainwashed right wing moron.It hasn't been debunked you moron. It is being denied as relevant by the fools who cut it's funding. That is not the same thing. The system is already being used and operational on many tracks, including the southbound track where the accident occurred.I was blaming Republicans for the latest vote, that is why I quoted the 825 million and specific delay to the system that would have prevented the latest accident. If someone can show how Democrats undermined funding let them show it.Nope, it was a stupid response and you are wrong about the only prevention having been to have two engineers. What could have and would have prevented the accident is called positive train control technology. It has been installed on many sections of track, but lack of funding prevented it from being installed on the entire system, including the northbound section of track involved with this accident. 825 million dollars were cut from latest budget that were designated to finish installing the system by the end of the year. The Republican budget prolonged it's implementation until 2020.
But see, you are blaming republicans, for what is natural to a socialized system.
Did you miss the fact our government is $18 Trillion in debt? Did you miss the fact we don't have loads of money to buy everything everyone wants?
Yes, we don't have money to make Amtrak, a money losing corporation, all the technology and updates we want. It should be completely privatized into a private corporation, and if there is a market for Amtrak, it should make a profit on it's own. If there is no market, then it should be closed.
Not sure how you could privatize the system at this late. Seems the taxpayers have invested huge amounts into the system and turning it over to private interest could be a quandary.
I originally asked the question about any nations having a rail system that was not subsidized. I knew the answer was going to be none. Someone tried to answer the question with a deflection, but as yet, no one has named a country. That is because people, no matter their politics, understand that rail service is a necessity even in third world nations. Privatization may work to some degree or level, depending on the circumstances, but in the end, government subsidizing becomes a requirement.
Yes you are far left partisan hack, that much is already known..
Using debunked far left religious propaganda as your "facts" that do not fit in reality..
foxnews.com/tech/2015/05/14/positive-train-control-technology-could-have-prevented-amtrak-crash-experts-say/
nydailynews.com/news/national-signal-system-prevented-amtrak-train-crash-article-1.2221460
And you just proved my comments correct, far left drone!
Funding had nothing to do with as these system were being put in place. Darn those unions for not being fast enough since the funding looks like it came from the Obama stimulus. So it was slow on implementation due to the unions..
Funding has everything to do with the two articles I posted from conservative news sources. You are just willing to make bold faced lies rather than admit a truth that does't go along with your rhetoric. Typical brainwashed right wing moron.It hasn't been debunked you moron. It is being denied as relevant by the fools who cut it's funding. That is not the same thing. The system is already being used and operational on many tracks, including the southbound track where the accident occurred.I was blaming Republicans for the latest vote, that is why I quoted the 825 million and specific delay to the system that would have prevented the latest accident. If someone can show how Democrats undermined funding let them show it.But see, you are blaming republicans, for what is natural to a socialized system.
Did you miss the fact our government is $18 Trillion in debt? Did you miss the fact we don't have loads of money to buy everything everyone wants?
Yes, we don't have money to make Amtrak, a money losing corporation, all the technology and updates we want. It should be completely privatized into a private corporation, and if there is a market for Amtrak, it should make a profit on it's own. If there is no market, then it should be closed.
Not sure how you could privatize the system at this late. Seems the taxpayers have invested huge amounts into the system and turning it over to private interest could be a quandary.
I originally asked the question about any nations having a rail system that was not subsidized. I knew the answer was going to be none. Someone tried to answer the question with a deflection, but as yet, no one has named a country. That is because people, no matter their politics, understand that rail service is a necessity even in third world nations. Privatization may work to some degree or level, depending on the circumstances, but in the end, government subsidizing becomes a requirement.
Yes you are far left partisan hack, that much is already known..
Using debunked far left religious propaganda as your "facts" that do not fit in reality..
foxnews.com/tech/2015/05/14/positive-train-control-technology-could-have-prevented-amtrak-crash-experts-say/
nydailynews.com/news/national-signal-system-prevented-amtrak-train-crash-article-1.2221460
And you just proved my comments correct, far left drone!
Funding had nothing to do with as these system were being put in place. Darn those unions for not being fast enough since the funding looks like it came from the Obama stimulus. So it was slow on implementation due to the unions..
That is not the point you idiot. When the human factor is included there it is inevitable that a mistake or mishap will be made at some point. The technology of PTC and signals systems overrides human mistakes and mishaps. The engineer can die and fall on the throttle in the full speed position and the PCT will override the dead engineer and throttle and stop the train while it sends out emergency broadcast that an emergency is in progress.Funding has everything to do with the two articles I posted from conservative news sources. You are just willing to make bold faced lies rather than admit a truth that does't go along with your rhetoric. Typical brainwashed right wing moron.It hasn't been debunked you moron. It is being denied as relevant by the fools who cut it's funding. That is not the same thing. The system is already being used and operational on many tracks, including the southbound track where the accident occurred.I was blaming Republicans for the latest vote, that is why I quoted the 825 million and specific delay to the system that would have prevented the latest accident. If someone can show how Democrats undermined funding let them show it.
Not sure how you could privatize the system at this late. Seems the taxpayers have invested huge amounts into the system and turning it over to private interest could be a quandary.
I originally asked the question about any nations having a rail system that was not subsidized. I knew the answer was going to be none. Someone tried to answer the question with a deflection, but as yet, no one has named a country. That is because people, no matter their politics, understand that rail service is a necessity even in third world nations. Privatization may work to some degree or level, depending on the circumstances, but in the end, government subsidizing becomes a requirement.
Yes you are far left partisan hack, that much is already known..
Using debunked far left religious propaganda as your "facts" that do not fit in reality..
foxnews.com/tech/2015/05/14/positive-train-control-technology-could-have-prevented-amtrak-crash-experts-say/
nydailynews.com/news/national-signal-system-prevented-amtrak-train-crash-article-1.2221460
And you just proved my comments correct, far left drone!
Funding had nothing to do with as these system were being put in place. Darn those unions for not being fast enough since the funding looks like it came from the Obama stimulus. So it was slow on implementation due to the unions..
Typical far left drone.
Wrong! The conductor speeding in a train had more to do with this than anything else. Unless you think the NTSB is wrong!
When the GOP cut budgets, the first to go are always safety and training. Heck, even a dunce knows that.Funding has everything to do with the two articles I posted from conservative news sources. You are just willing to make bold faced lies rather than admit a truth that does't go along with your rhetoric. Typical brainwashed right wing moron.It hasn't been debunked you moron. It is being denied as relevant by the fools who cut it's funding. That is not the same thing. The system is already being used and operational on many tracks, including the southbound track where the accident occurred.I was blaming Republicans for the latest vote, that is why I quoted the 825 million and specific delay to the system that would have prevented the latest accident. If someone can show how Democrats undermined funding let them show it.
Not sure how you could privatize the system at this late. Seems the taxpayers have invested huge amounts into the system and turning it over to private interest could be a quandary.
I originally asked the question about any nations having a rail system that was not subsidized. I knew the answer was going to be none. Someone tried to answer the question with a deflection, but as yet, no one has named a country. That is because people, no matter their politics, understand that rail service is a necessity even in third world nations. Privatization may work to some degree or level, depending on the circumstances, but in the end, government subsidizing becomes a requirement.
Yes you are far left partisan hack, that much is already known..
Using debunked far left religious propaganda as your "facts" that do not fit in reality..
foxnews.com/tech/2015/05/14/positive-train-control-technology-could-have-prevented-amtrak-crash-experts-say/
nydailynews.com/news/national-signal-system-prevented-amtrak-train-crash-article-1.2221460
And you just proved my comments correct, far left drone!
Funding had nothing to do with as these system were being put in place. Darn those unions for not being fast enough since the funding looks like it came from the Obama stimulus. So it was slow on implementation due to the unions..
Typical far left drone.
Wrong! The conductor speeding in a train had more to do with this than anything else. Unless you think the NTSB is wrong!
When the GOP cut budgets, the first to go are always safety and training. Heck, even a dunce knows that.Funding has everything to do with the two articles I posted from conservative news sources. You are just willing to make bold faced lies rather than admit a truth that does't go along with your rhetoric. Typical brainwashed right wing moron.It hasn't been debunked you moron. It is being denied as relevant by the fools who cut it's funding. That is not the same thing. The system is already being used and operational on many tracks, including the southbound track where the accident occurred.Yes you are far left partisan hack, that much is already known..
Using debunked far left religious propaganda as your "facts" that do not fit in reality..
foxnews.com/tech/2015/05/14/positive-train-control-technology-could-have-prevented-amtrak-crash-experts-say/
nydailynews.com/news/national-signal-system-prevented-amtrak-train-crash-article-1.2221460
And you just proved my comments correct, far left drone!
Funding had nothing to do with as these system were being put in place. Darn those unions for not being fast enough since the funding looks like it came from the Obama stimulus. So it was slow on implementation due to the unions..
Typical far left drone.
Wrong! The conductor speeding in a train had more to do with this than anything else. Unless you think the NTSB is wrong!
That isn't the argument's fault at all. The average speed of an AMTRAK train is 57mph in the NE corridor - and much slower going through congested areas with lots of crossings. When the road is clear, you can drive 65-70 mph with far fewer stops. This gets you where you want to be in much less time than taking a train. Our train system was designed in the 1800s and the layout really hasn't changed much. But if you could commute between DC and NY in a couple of hours or less (trains that reach a speed of 200+mph already exist), do you think there might be more riders? How about if there was a fast and easy connection to and from more suburbs?Having lived the bulk of my career in the Northeast corridor, I love riding the Acela over flying when I can. Usually I few for time, but I did take the Acela many times.
However, government funding it is ridiculous. If it isn't economically viable, it should go away
OK fine... let's look at that from a different angle. The NE corridor parallels I95 which - as anyone who has to drive that road can tell you - has too many cars for too little road surface. On top of that, US Census data shows that every year we can expect the number of vehicles using that road to increase by around 2% due to population growth alone. Since it's a major route, more businesses have been placed in areas with quick access - which further congests it, especially in and around metro areas and burns millions of gallons of fuel every year just waiting for the traffic ahead to clear. I95 is a federal road, which means that when it falls into disrepair it's the government which funds it - and with more traffic than every hitting that roadway, it will fall into disrepair with greater regularity. There's a limit as to how wide you can make the road and the cost of widening will also fall on the government to fund. So, either way you look at it, the government is going to spend money... lots of it.
I think, if you look at it, transportation is in the national interest. Commuter rails have been proven not only to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads (if you don't believe that, try commuting from Oakland to San Francisco during a BART strike), but reduces oil consumption. And, if we're going to have to pay for transportation anyway, we should actually be looking to be efficient as possible and develop ways of getting around that has a much longer limit timeline.
LOL, this is the classic argument, you make it sound like you've come up with an angle no one has thought of.
Yes, the I-95 corridor is hell. I lived a bunch of time in the DC area and a bunch of time in the NY area. I used to go up and down 95 quite a bit. At least a decade ago, it just got so painful I stopped and when I was driving I started driving up through Pennsylvania. Further but faster.
However, here's what's wrong with your argument. Look at the # of people who travel on the train versus by car on those roads. It's a pittance, they add almost nothing to the roads. Then you look at the cost of keeping the train running. It's a feel good argument with no substance.
BART in SF is not a high speed rail, but there is really no other way I could find to ease the commute into and out of the city. Even with delays, my travel time was cut significantly. And I knew quite a folks who left a junker parked in the city for when they got off the train so they could get around town and parked it overnight when they went home again. It saved hours of inching (literally) over a 5 lane bridge.
On 95, hell yeah if they could do 200 mph there would be more riders. That was what held me back from using it. The 5 hour train trip was just too long with constant shuttles flying. You get it down to a couple hours and then you're in the game with the time to get in and out of airports and avoid the endless weather delays.
I lived in the bay area also, San Jose. The whole area is a parking lot, yes, BART as miserable as it can be is a good option if it's viable on your travel route. I consider BART and Amtrak entirely different discussions though. Regional transportation makes a lot more sense for government involvement than traveling between cities
However, again, on Amtrak, if people won't pay for it on their own, why would it make sense for government to do it?
Well, consider this - all transportation, public as well as private, is subsidized by the government whether it's roads or rails. None of them turn a profit. When you take a bus, you pay a small fraction of the actual cost for maintenance of the fleet. If you drive, you pay excise taxes for your vehicle and the tires you buy which pays for a fraction of the maintenance of the roads you drive on. None of these fees even comes close, in aggregate, to paying for actual expenses - they're shared costs. The remainder is funded through direct taxation - you pay for public transit whether you use it or not, OTH people who don't drive also pay for roads. So why would you expect Amtrak, which is entirely a government owned transit system, to do anything different? There is only one government entity which provides a service to citizens which actually makes money - the Postal Service (and Congress wants to see that privatized... makes you wonder, huh?).
Believe it or not, it's even worse in Los Angeles. I could never tell when rush hour was on the 5. Even late Sunday nights it was worse than Boston traffic at 5pm on a Friday.Parking in SF is horrrible and expensive, and was when I last lived in The City nearly 40 years ago. However, one can park at Daly City*** BART overnight for free, or a dollar if they now charge to park. This way someone can have a junker and park without fear of tows or tickets as long as they don't leave the are longer than 24 hours.
*** Daly City is the most northern city in San Mateo Co. and its BART Station is less than half a mile from the SF City line.
Yes, I remember Daly City. Driving up from San Jose as you say that was the last exit before going into SF. You look at the cost of housing in SF, is living somewhere else and renting a parking spot in SF really worse? And as oldernwiser pointed out, traffic there is unbelievable, and I lived in NY, DC and Atlanta areas as well. I've lived in eight states from coast to coast, I've never seen traffic like there
On those points, let's look at cost effectiveness. Those inner cities and metro areas only got to be inner cities and metro areas because of the availability of transportation. Across this country, whole towns have sprung up because a railway put a station down and have died away when the rail was decommissioned. So, when it comes to cost effectiveness I guess we need to look at that from 2 different angles. If Amtrak was a private business seeking profit, then if there wasn't sufficient interest in the service it would close - cities be damned. But transportation from the government view isn't simply a bottom line ridership issue since communities thrive when there's more access to them, businesses thrive when there's easy access to raw materials as well as convenient shipping of finished goods. It then moves into the realm of national interest which is beyond the simple bottom line accounting.That isn't the argument's fault at all. The average speed of an AMTRAK train is 57mph in the NE corridor - and much slower going through congested areas with lots of crossings. When the road is clear, you can drive 65-70 mph with far fewer stops. This gets you where you want to be in much less time than taking a train. Our train system was designed in the 1800s and the layout really hasn't changed much. But if you could commute between DC and NY in a couple of hours or less (trains that reach a speed of 200+mph already exist), do you think there might be more riders? How about if there was a fast and easy connection to and from more suburbs?OK fine... let's look at that from a different angle. The NE corridor parallels I95 which - as anyone who has to drive that road can tell you - has too many cars for too little road surface. On top of that, US Census data shows that every year we can expect the number of vehicles using that road to increase by around 2% due to population growth alone. Since it's a major route, more businesses have been placed in areas with quick access - which further congests it, especially in and around metro areas and burns millions of gallons of fuel every year just waiting for the traffic ahead to clear. I95 is a federal road, which means that when it falls into disrepair it's the government which funds it - and with more traffic than every hitting that roadway, it will fall into disrepair with greater regularity. There's a limit as to how wide you can make the road and the cost of widening will also fall on the government to fund. So, either way you look at it, the government is going to spend money... lots of it.
I think, if you look at it, transportation is in the national interest. Commuter rails have been proven not only to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads (if you don't believe that, try commuting from Oakland to San Francisco during a BART strike), but reduces oil consumption. And, if we're going to have to pay for transportation anyway, we should actually be looking to be efficient as possible and develop ways of getting around that has a much longer limit timeline.
LOL, this is the classic argument, you make it sound like you've come up with an angle no one has thought of.
Yes, the I-95 corridor is hell. I lived a bunch of time in the DC area and a bunch of time in the NY area. I used to go up and down 95 quite a bit. At least a decade ago, it just got so painful I stopped and when I was driving I started driving up through Pennsylvania. Further but faster.
However, here's what's wrong with your argument. Look at the # of people who travel on the train versus by car on those roads. It's a pittance, they add almost nothing to the roads. Then you look at the cost of keeping the train running. It's a feel good argument with no substance.
BART in SF is not a high speed rail, but there is really no other way I could find to ease the commute into and out of the city. Even with delays, my travel time was cut significantly. And I knew quite a folks who left a junker parked in the city for when they got off the train so they could get around town and parked it overnight when they went home again. It saved hours of inching (literally) over a 5 lane bridge.
On 95, hell yeah if they could do 200 mph there would be more riders. That was what held me back from using it. The 5 hour train trip was just too long with constant shuttles flying. You get it down to a couple hours and then you're in the game with the time to get in and out of airports and avoid the endless weather delays.
I lived in the bay area also, San Jose. The whole area is a parking lot, yes, BART as miserable as it can be is a good option if it's viable on your travel route. I consider BART and Amtrak entirely different discussions though. Regional transportation makes a lot more sense for government involvement than traveling between cities
However, again, on Amtrak, if people won't pay for it on their own, why would it make sense for government to do it?
Well, consider this - all transportation, public as well as private, is subsidized by the government whether it's roads or rails. None of them turn a profit. When you take a bus, you pay a small fraction of the actual cost for maintenance of the fleet. If you drive, you pay excise taxes for your vehicle and the tires you buy which pays for a fraction of the maintenance of the roads you drive on. None of these fees even comes close, in aggregate, to paying for actual expenses - they're shared costs. The remainder is funded through direct taxation - you pay for public transit whether you use it or not, OTH people who don't drive also pay for roads. So why would you expect Amtrak, which is entirely a government owned transit system, to do anything different? There is only one government entity which provides a service to citizens which actually makes money - the Postal Service (and Congress wants to see that privatized... makes you wonder, huh?).
Valid point, but the two points I raised are:
1) The distinction between metro area transportation and inter city transportation
2) The percentage wise tiny percentage of travelers transported by train and the cost effectiveness of it
I also lived in SoCal for a few years. I commuted from Ramona to La Jolla in San Diego - a distance of about 36 miles, and very little of that was actually on an artery or interstate. Some days were luckier than others, but I had to negotiate 60 demand-style traffic lights no matter which way I went (do you have any idea how frustrated you get when you have to stop 3 or 4 times for each of those lights because of the volume?). Once I did manage to get to a freeway, it was 4 and 5 lanes of nobody going anywhere - especially when school was in session. If I left for work early enough, I'd have an easy commute of just over an hour. I stayed later in order to avoid the homebound madness. So, my actual work day (salaried - no overtime, no extra pay) expanded to 14 hours + 2 hours of commuting. Awesome, huh?Believe it or not, it's even worse in Los Angeles. I could never tell when rush hour was on the 5. Even late Sunday nights it was worse than Boston traffic at 5pm on a Friday.Parking in SF is horrrible and expensive, and was when I last lived in The City nearly 40 years ago. However, one can park at Daly City*** BART overnight for free, or a dollar if they now charge to park. This way someone can have a junker and park without fear of tows or tickets as long as they don't leave the are longer than 24 hours.
*** Daly City is the most northern city in San Mateo Co. and its BART Station is less than half a mile from the SF City line.
Yes, I remember Daly City. Driving up from San Jose as you say that was the last exit before going into SF. You look at the cost of housing in SF, is living somewhere else and renting a parking spot in SF really worse? And as oldernwiser pointed out, traffic there is unbelievable, and I lived in NY, DC and Atlanta areas as well. I've lived in eight states from coast to coast, I've never seen traffic like there
Yes, I'm aware of that. I haven't lived in LA and haven't had to deal with commuting there. But it does actually sound worse
Republicans - fuck infrastructure. Let this country die. I want my rights back.In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
From 2001 to 2008, millions of jobs moved to China. Over 40,000 factories closed. Republicans held both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court.
Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
If Amtrak is always losing money how is giving them more a good idea?
Republicans - fuck infrastructure. Let this country die. I want my rights back.In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
From 2001 to 2008, millions of jobs moved to China. Over 40,000 factories closed. Republicans held both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court.
Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
Yeah.... you do realize that infrastructure doesn't' create jobs right?
And again, a child demands stuff. Adults consider what they can afford. It's funny because in 2008, you people on the left were screaming about Bush's $400 Billion deficit. But then you expect him to spend endlessly on 'infrastructure'.
Of course then the irony continued, because in 2009 you passed a massive $800 Billion stimulus package, which didn't stimulate anything, and only about $100 Billion went to infrastructure. And the very instant that this was done... you people on the left started screaming we should have spent more.
We did spend more. $700 Billion more. And you people on the left, had the House... the Senate... and the Presidency.... and you didn't spend enough on infrastructure? You blew throw $800 Billion, and only put about 14% of that towards infrastructure... and you had 100% control over the government? And you want to blame who for your complete and total incompetence?
No one to blame but yourselves.
Pouring one billion dollars per year into a dysfunctional rail system is not an example of investing in the country.And assholes like you scream that it is all a boondoggle and we shouldn't invest in our own country. Even bridges that are highly needed or more money to upgrade them to be able to handle a future earth quake = boondoggle! You spent how much on infrastructure in Iraq? SO you have no effin room to whine!
We spend about 2-3% of the federal budget on infrastructure. If we wish to have the best,,,well, we better be ready to pay for it. Of course, you don't want us to be the best! Your plan is Slash, cut and burn!!!
Of course it does. But at what cost? And I'm not talking about the taxes to pay for labor and materials. There is land acquisition, survey costs. administrative costs, cost over runs. The list goes on and on....Republicans - fuck infrastructure. Let this country die. I want my rights back.In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
From 2001 to 2008, millions of jobs moved to China. Over 40,000 factories closed. Republicans held both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court.
Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
Yeah.... you do realize that infrastructure doesn't' create jobs right?
And again, a child demands stuff. Adults consider what they can afford. It's funny because in 2008, you people on the left were screaming about Bush's $400 Billion deficit. But then you expect him to spend endlessly on 'infrastructure'.
Of course then the irony continued, because in 2009 you passed a massive $800 Billion stimulus package, which didn't stimulate anything, and only about $100 Billion went to infrastructure. And the very instant that this was done... you people on the left started screaming we should have spent more.
We did spend more. $700 Billion more. And you people on the left, had the House... the Senate... and the Presidency.... and you didn't spend enough on infrastructure? You blew throw $800 Billion, and only put about 14% of that towards infrastructure... and you had 100% control over the government? And you want to blame who for your complete and total incompetence?
No one to blame but yourselves.
Building and maintaining infrastructure does create jobs, short term (building) and long term (maintaining). How anyone can believe otherwise is mind blowing.
Consider the interstate highway system. How many business loops were created, building retail food, fuel and lodging structures; how many people are employed in the restaurants, hotels, motels, campgrounds and other services along thousands of miles of highway? How many state troopers patrol these miles, how many tow operators and repair shops aid the stranded traveler?
How many long haul truckers are on these roads everyday, and how many businesses are dependent on their goods being transported to and from retail establishments?
What's your point?Republicans - fuck infrastructure. Let this country die. I want my rights back.In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
From 2001 to 2008, millions of jobs moved to China. Over 40,000 factories closed. Republicans held both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court.
Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.
Yeah.... you do realize that infrastructure doesn't' create jobs right?
And again, a child demands stuff. Adults consider what they can afford. It's funny because in 2008, you people on the left were screaming about Bush's $400 Billion deficit. But then you expect him to spend endlessly on 'infrastructure'.
Of course then the irony continued, because in 2009 you passed a massive $800 Billion stimulus package, which didn't stimulate anything, and only about $100 Billion went to infrastructure. And the very instant that this was done... you people on the left started screaming we should have spent more.
We did spend more. $700 Billion more. And you people on the left, had the House... the Senate... and the Presidency.... and you didn't spend enough on infrastructure? You blew throw $800 Billion, and only put about 14% of that towards infrastructure... and you had 100% control over the government? And you want to blame who for your complete and total incompetence?
No one to blame but yourselves.
Building and maintaining infrastructure does create jobs, short term (building) and long term (maintaining). How anyone can believe otherwise is mind blowing.
Consider the interstate highway system. How many business loops were created, building retail food, fuel and lodging structures; how many people are employed in the restaurants, hotels, motels, campgrounds and other services along thousands of miles of highway? How many state troopers patrol these miles, how many tow operators and repair shops aid the stranded traveler?
How many long haul truckers are on these roads everyday, and how many businesses are dependent on their goods being transported to and from retail establishments?
Regarding infrastructure...What it is that you want?And assholes like you scream that it is all a boondoggle and we shouldn't invest in our own country. Even bridges that are highly needed or more money to upgrade them to be able to handle a future earth quake = boondoggle! You spent how much on infrastructure in Iraq? SO you have no effin room to whine!
We spend about 2-3% of the federal budget on infrastructure. If we wish to have the best,,,well, we better be ready to pay for it. Of course, you don't want us to be the best! Your plan is Slash, cut and burn!!!
