If L.A. had a modern rail system like many major cities around the world.

The spread of population in Los Angeles, the terrain, and the seismographic picture do not make for a cost-effective mass transit system that would serve the whole area. In most large cities, there is a CBD ("Central Business District") that is the hub of the mass transit system, and all the surrounding areas have service to the CBD. That is not the case in L.A. They do have mass transit, but it serves only a small percentage of the overall population.

Not to mention the car culture, in which people manifest their adopted personalities with their Beemers, Prius's, Tesla's, & whatnot.
 
The spread of population in Los Angeles, the terrain, and the seismographic picture do not make for a cost-effective mass transit system that would serve the whole area. In most large cities, there is a CBD ("Central Business District") that is the hub of the mass transit system, and all the surrounding areas have service to the CBD. That is not the case in L.A. They do have mass transit, but it serves only a small percentage of the overall population.

Not to mention the car culture, in which people manifest their adopted personalities with their Beemers, Prius's, Tesla's, & whatnot.
LA in 2030.
cars2.gif
 
The spread of population in Los Angeles, the terrain, and the seismographic picture do not make for a cost-effective mass transit system that would serve the whole area. In most large cities, there is a CBD ("Central Business District") that is the hub of the mass transit system, and all the surrounding areas have service to the CBD. That is not the case in L.A. They do have mass transit, but it serves only a small percentage of the overall population.

Not to mention the car culture, in which people manifest their adopted personalities with their Beemers, Prius's, Tesla's, & whatnot.

More Ferraris, Bentleys, and Lamborghinis.
 
Money invested in infrastructure pays benefits, even if it is borrowed money. We just had Trump's tax cuts, money we borrowed to give to ourselves. You can argue the fairness of it but not that we'll all be paying interest until it is repaid and the benefits will be slim.
You seem more confused than normal.

A tax cut is not borrowing money from ourselves. A tax cut is allowing the earner to keep more of what they earned. It is not the government's money.

Also, our revenues have increased in spite of the tax cut. That's a great thing!
The real question is why did revenues rise? Was it because of economic growth or just inflation?
Before and after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), several prominent conservatives, including Republicans in the House and Senate, former Reagan economist Art Laffer, and members of the Trump administration, claimed that the act would either increase revenues or at least pay for itself. In principle, a tax cut could “pay for itself” if it spurred substantial economic growth—if tax revenues rose from the combination of higher wages and hours worked, greater investment returns, and larger corporate profits. The TCJA, however, is not that tax cut.
  • The actual amount of tax revenue collected in FY2018 was significantly lower than the CBO’s projection made in January 2017—before the tax cut was signed into law.
Given that the economy grew in 2018, and in the absence of another policy that could have caused a large revenue loss, the data imply that the 2017 tax cut substantially reduced revenues.
The 2017 tax cut reduced the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent—a 40 percent reduction. It also reduced income taxes for most Americans.

Did the TCJA spur enough growth to maintain federal revenue levels?
While some TCJA supporters observe that nominal revenues were higher in fiscal year 2018 (which began Oct. 1, 2017) than in FY2017, that comparison does not address the question of the TCJA’s effects. Nominal revenues rise because of inflation and economic growth. Adjusted for inflation, total revenues fell from FY2017 to FY2018 (Figure 1). Adjusted for the size of the economy, they fell even more.​

We reduced our income (the tax cut) but did not reduce our expenses (gov't spending) so we'll need to borrow more to cover the difference. You can put whatever spin you want on it but we increased our borrowing to cover the tax cut. Basic economics. Still confused?
 
Look up the history of traction companies in the U.S. they used to blanket the U.S.. One could travel all the way from NYC to Chicago or Atlanta just using local electric rails, even small towns had them. You find old books of their stock prices at Google's books, used to be free for downloading, but not sure if they still are. They all went bankrupt when cities and states started taxing railroad real estate to subsidize the automobile companies and the demand for better roads for those.

Public trnasportation around here was focused on bus routes for the black and latino maids of rich people to be able to get to their employers' houses, and didn't go where anybody else needed to go by the 1940's. You know, like to Bernie Sander's houses.
 
Th LA metropolitan area is designed for Automobiles and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

The place is too spread out and people want their freedom to move about on their own schedules, not a rigid rail system.

Hardly anyone uses the current rail system that they've poured billions into.

Rail = FAIL
 
Th LA metropolitan area is designed for Automobiles and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

The place is too spread out and people want their freedom to move about on their own schedules, not a rigid rail system.

Hardly anyone uses the current rail system that they've poured billions into.

Rail = FAIL

The irony of this is that it was light rials that made the suburbs possible in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially LA. Without the rail lines, Hollywood and every other small town would have been empty fields until after WW II.
 

Forum List

Back
Top