Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
Nothing more clearly illustrates the utter irresponsibility of Barack Obama than his advocacy of "high-speed rail." The man is not stupid. He knows how to use words that will sound wonderful to people who do not bother to stop and think.
High-speed rail may be feasible in parts of Europe or Japan, where the population density is much higher than in the United States. But, without enough people packed into a given space, there will never be enough riders to repay the high cost of building and maintaining a high-speed rail system.
Building a high-speed rail system between Los Angeles and San Francisco may sound great to people who don't give it any serious thought. But we are a more spread-out country than England, France or Japan. The distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco is greater than the distance from London to Paris-- by more than 100 miles.
In Japan, the distance between Tokyo and Osaka is comparable to the distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco. But the population of Osaka alone is larger than the combined populations of Los Angeles and San Francisco-- and Tokyo has millions more people than Osaka. That is why it can make sense to have a "bullet train" running between Osaka and Tokyo, but makes no sense to build one between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
However little President Obama knows or cares about economics, he knows a lot about politics-- and especially political rhetoric. "High-speed rail" is simply another set of lofty words to justify continued expansion of government spending. So are words like "investment in education" or "investment" in any number of other things, which serves the same political purpose.
Who cares what the realities are behind these nice-sounding words? Obama can leave that to the economists, the statisticians and the historians. His point is to win the votes of people who know little or nothing about economics, history or statistics. That includes a lot of people with expensive Ivy League degrees.
To talk glibly about spending more money on "high-speed rail" when the national debt has just passed a milestone, by exceeding the total value of our annual output, for the first time in more than half a century, is world-class chutzpa. The last time the U.S. national debt exceeded the value of our entire annual output, it was due to the cost of fighting World War II.
When World War II ended, in less than four years of American participation, we began paying down the national debt. But our current national debt has been expanding by leaps and bounds in peacetime-- and with no sign of an end in sight for the next decade.
Since more than 40 percent of our national debt is owed to foreigners, this means that goods and services produced by Americans, equal in value to more than 40 percent of our current output, will have to be sent overseas, free of charge, by either this generation or the generations that follow.
Since the generations that follow cannot vote today, the Obama administration's latest budget keeps the spending increasing, while regaling us with wonderful plans for big reductions in government spending-- years from now, after Obama is gone.
Make no mistake about it, spending wins votes, and votes are the ultimate bottom line for politicians. If fancy words and lofty visions are enough to get the voters to go along with more spending, then expect to hear a lot of fancy words and lofty visions.
One of the most successful political ploys is to promise people things without having the money to pay for them. Then, when others want to cut back on the things that have been promised, blame them for lacking the compassion of those who wrote the checks without enough money in the bank to cover them.
If all else fails, politicians can always say that we can pay for the things they promised us by raising taxes on "the rich." However, history shows that, when tax rates go up to very high levels, people put more of their money in tax shelters, so the government ends up collecting less revenue than before.
But history is so yesterday. What is far more exciting is to think of high-speed rail in the future, even if it is speeding us toward bankruptcy.
---
To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
February 22, 2011 @ 7:11 am
“….lofty words…” is way too polite for all these meaningless talking points leading us only downward.
“…people who know little or nothing…” were finally, about 1970s, to have the voting power to swing elections. Both sides hired manipulators to say what was wanted.
Here we are. Now what, as just arguing the fine points between ourselves is a waste.
February 22, 2011 @ 9:23 am
I don’t know why we have any passenger trains at all. Take a plane or the bus. Trains are for freight.
February 22, 2011 @ 9:31 am
I haven’t taken ANY train in years, and not likely I will anytime soon …
February 22, 2011 @ 9:40 am
What do you mean “during peacetime.” In case you haven’t noticed, we currently have troops in Afganistan and Iraq. Check the budget and see how much is being spent on the military!
Also check the record of Gov. Perry (R) of Texas to see his position on “high speed rail.” I agree that it is not in the countries best interest to invest in this travel option with the budget so out of balance, but this is not solely a Democratic idea.
Cut backs on many items will not resolve the deficit. There must also be tax increases and, I’m sorry to say, corporate America must pay some of those increases.
Education is the last place where cut backs should be taken. Educating our population is probably the most important thing that we can do.
February 22, 2011 @ 10:13 am
Let me start by saying I am NOT a fan of Rick Perry. That said, I looked up your claim. It looks like he once called high-speed rail an “important option” but no longer supports it. (See link below.) Perhaps he came to his senses. He did want to put in a huge tollway that involved grabbing land from private property owners. I think eminent domain is abuse of power.
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/11/01/the-survival-of-us-high-speed-rail-comes-down-to-tomorrow/
As far as education goes, Texas is a border state. The federal government requires us to provide free education to all the illegal aliens that pour across our border. They don’t provide any money for us to do so. These kids don’t speak a word of English, so we provide them with bilingual education. That is why we have a funding crisis in Texas education. California has similar problems.
February 22, 2011 @ 11:15 am
Hingram – education is one of the FIRST places we need to cut spending and cut drastically! We have spent countless billions on education for many, many decades and the education appropriation increases every year. Yet the quality of public education has decreased in inverse proportion. Said another way, the more we spend on education, the worse the quality of education in the public schools. It would be funny to listen to the current crop of high-school graduates attempt to put together a cogent thought if it weren’t so disturbing. Obviously not all public school graduates are functionally illiterate because some public schools are better than others. But, generally speaking, most public school graduates are what I would consider functionally illiterate. The billions of dollars that Obama wants to “invest” in education is code-speak for pay-offs to the education union. That money doesn’t go to “the children”, as liberals love to say, it goes straight into the pockets of bureaucrats and administrators within the education system. Or to teachers who have graduated from education schools as opposed to a genuine liberal arts college or engineering school. Most teachers nowadays have degrees in “education”. So “the children” learn all about the farce of global warming for example or how to be sensitive to their classmates but they don’t learn how to spell, comprehend what they read, think critically or deduce. They might know how to solve a very simple math equation. Maybe. ”The children” aren’t benefitting from the BILLIONS of dollars spent on so-called education. It is a corrupt racket between the education union and the Democrat Party. Period.
February 22, 2011 @ 11:17 am
Tax increases have NEVER helped our economy. The only thing that fosters economic development is jobs and jobs only come from the folks who operate a business and yes that means those mean nasty corporations. Unless of course you are one of those people who believe the growing government is where we should look for future employment opportunities.
Our population is probably one of the lowest performing countries when it comes to education. More and more money is being thrown at our education system with lower and lower positive results. Blame the Teacher’s Unions but education in this country is in the crapper.
February 22, 2011 @ 11:55 am
No bilingual education for ANYONE. English (Americanised) Is OUR official language. Send Illegal immigrants back to their place of birth. Enter America legally and learn “American”. Stop being PC because that leads US down a road we do not want to travel. Totally defund the “education department (federal)”. Go bact to the 60′s and 70′s for Educational responsibilities. STOP funding regimes globally and get out of the UN. Rmember only WE can save America!
February 22, 2011 @ 12:04 pm
Who do you think pays those “corporate taxes”? Corporations don’t pay taxes. They collect the money and forward it to the government. They are merely a conduit. Consumers pay ALL taxes, both directly and indirectly. The indirect ones are hidden in the price of goods and services.
February 22, 2011 @ 10:17 am
In any other situation, using someone elses money to get a reaction that we want would be considered bribery and therefore a felony. When spendthrift liberals use taxpayer dollars for pork barrell projects to ultimately buy votes, is it any less a felony just not a chargable one. We need more of these Charlatons charged tried and jailed.
February 22, 2011 @ 10:21 am
Why would any wast the money on high speed rail it is completely impractical. it would never pay for itself. There would never be enough riders to even pay for upkeep of the rail system without Tax Dollars. It is just more of same old thing. as for Education money is not going to solve the problem. We are number 21 in literacy in the world and all the countries above us spend less per student than we do. In math and science we are number 25 and again the countries ahead of us spend less per student. We are number 3 in the world for spending in secondary schools and number 4 in spending for primary school. We don’t have much to show for all that money. We need accountability from our teachers. The have been giving a free pass too long it’s time to evaluate them and their ability to impart the knowledge that they are required to teach. If they can’t teach then they should be fired!
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
February 22, 2011 @ 10:54 am
I think they said something similar about lack of ridership when they started building airports. If you don’t have fast and readily available rail service, people wont use it.
What happened to we’re the greatest, we’re the best in the world?
Europe and China are beating the pants off of us in rail transportation and it isn’t all just about passengers. Freight costs – and the amount of fuel used is dramatically less than shipping by truck. And the number of JOBs and businesses created by construction and operations of more RRs. Does anyone care about that???
February 22, 2011 @ 11:59 am
scotpond, bad comparison the rail system in Europe was mostly built 100 years ago. The same many European countries and the far east. As for Airports they didn’t just go out and start building these commercial airports they grew as the demand grew. I don’t ever remember any complaining about them not being used as the world not just America were in love with the idea of flying. People in general are not interested in travel by train if that were true we would not be subsidizing AMTRAK. Further more we are talking billions to build with limited destinations. I have ridden the trains in Europe and they are old the system is old and the profit is low even with high ridership. as for China they have serious infrastructure problems and they do not have to answer to the people. http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/02/21/questions-haunt-chinas-rail-program/
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
February 22, 2011 @ 12:13 pm
I am in complete agreement with those of you who oppose passenger rail travel because it doesn’t fully pay for itself. Now, let’s get the airlines to pay the full cost of air traffic control, airports, and other infrastruture. That seems fair. Let’s also get the people who travel on highways (truckers, bus companies, automobile drivers) to pay directly for the full cost of the highways and streets. That seems fair. How about the rivers and other waterways used by ships and barge companies and maintained and operated by various government agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers. We need to make those users pay the full cost. That seems fair. Maybe we should all just stay home. When a passenger train is going from where I am to where I need to go, I ride it. If we had a broader network of passenger trains, I would ride a lot more. Surely I’m not alone in this.
February 22, 2011 @ 2:26 pm
We already pay taxes for those things. I would be in agreement to pay in accordance with how much each person uses such things as highways.. That would benefit me. i travel 2.6 miles each way to work and rarely travel further than 10 miles in my car. I use the ten times less than the average driver in So. Cal. But the facts are all these freight companies pay to use the waterways and the highways. If you want them to pay more then you will also pay more for whatever they carry. As for riding trains It’s more of a hassle than going to the Airport and soon it will have back scatter machines and security check just like the airport. Also airlines pay big fees to airports and cities who run them. I’m also for firing the TSA and allowing privet security service like San Fransisco has. I’m sure you heard about those upstanding TSA agents who were stealing in New York. Last thing their is also another side to look at too. What happens to the airlines and airports who’s business is hurt by high speed rail, and peoples who lost their jobs? Again there would never be enough passengers to pay for the construction or the upkeep without government help. We don’t need more dead beats on the payroll.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
February 22, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
We actually do pay taxes for using the roads. Everyone that purchases gas or diesel pays those taxes. They tack it on to the cost of fuel. The worse your gas mileage, the more you pay. That should make the environmentalists happy. I drive a diesel truck and spend a fortune in federal and state taxes for every gallon of diesel I purchase. Can I subtract those taxes from my obligation to pay for high speed rail or Amtrack?
February 22, 2011 @ 10:51 am
Don’t raise taxes on Americans! Raise taxes on the world by imposing tariffs on things we buy from out of the country! The world has been depending on America for too long and sponging off our generosity (foreign aid), good will (military protection), and gladly using us to buy their stuff so they can catch up to us. They have never repaid us in any way for the above facts. Now it is time that they do.
Quit foreign aid–except to Israel! Use our own resourses for energy and eliminate foreign dependance…then we won’t have to worry about “keeping the peace” in the mid-east as much.
February 22, 2011 @ 12:19 pm
The problem here is that historically, when we’ve imposed tariffs on other countries goods, they have retaliated with tariffs of their own. Tariffs are a lose-lose proposition.
February 22, 2011 @ 10:52 am
I disagree that education should be last place for cuts. There is an awful lot of money spent on education now and I don’t see children any smarter. In fact, just the opposite.
Corporations don’t pay taxes, they just raise prices on us.
Entitlement reform must happen. This cannot be left alone or kicked down the road any longer. It has to be done now.
February 22, 2011 @ 11:46 am
Exactly right copperpempy, on all points. Your comment about corporate taxes was dead on. Corporations never pay taxes – they simply pass it on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services. So corporate taxes are just another form of taxation of the taxpayer. But the taxpayers it hits the hardest are the middle class and the poor. So liberals, who claim to have cornered the market on compassion and morality, are responsible for impoverishing the middle class, increasing the poverty of the poor and stifling investment by the rich, thereby increasing unemployment! I’m noticing that the liberals posting here have no understanding of basic economics. They just repeat the same old tired, liberal platitudes like “it’s for the children” or “we’ve got to make the (evil) rich pay their fair share”. Those strategies don’t work anymore; the American people have woken up and are paying attention. Finally. We’re sick of having our hard-earned dollars confiscated from us and given to slackers and union hacks. If you liberals are so concerned about the children and the unions, by all means feel free to give them some of YOUR money. Have you tried that?????
February 22, 2011 @ 12:09 pm
pleasepassthetea. Where would you suppose that corporations get the money to pay taxes if they did not charge enough. How stupid are you? Everybody pays taxes except those on government assistance. Believe me if corporations didn’t pay taxes they would just have more money, just like we would.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
February 22, 2011 @ 1:07 pm
This is in response to onewildman. Actually I’m not stupid. I’m not exactly sure what you were trying to say to me. But I do disagree with you that corporations pay taxes. Yes they are taxed and they pay that tax. But they FUND the tax by increasing the costs of their goods and services. The net result is that they don’t pay the tax increase, we (the taxpayers) pay the increase. Which is why increasing corporate taxes is a BAD idea because it ends up on the backs of the taxpayer and is hardest on the middle class and the poor, who have less money at their disposal in the first place. The bottom line is that we are being taxed at confiscatory levels and all it has done is bankrupt the private sector. But Obama WANTS to bankrupt the private sector – this is exactly what he is trying to do. As for impeaching Obama, I agree with you one hundred percent onewildman. The guy is a communist and is trying to change us into a fascist state. Everything he has done points to that – the takeover of the banks, the car industry, the health insurance industry (ObamaCare), his attempt to control conservative media outlets, the list goes on and on. He is a very dangerous and evil man.
February 22, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
pleasepassthetea You have poor comprehension of how people are taxed and all companies regardless of size are taxed. Your local liqueur pays taxes not just collects taxes for states. Where do you suppose they get the moneys to pay these taxes. They sale things at a price that they can make a profit at and pay taxes. Why is that so hard to understand. It is no different small to large companies. Also these large corporations you complain about are the same ones that common people with IRA’s and 501K’s get the return on their retirement accounts. I the only thing I get from you is nonsense. I suggest you go and talk to someone who owns a business or has a degree. Maybe then you can comprehend how things work. By the way with your logic your company pays you at a high enough level so you too can pay your taxes. If you did not have to pay taxes they would pay you less what ever your taxes would have been.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
February 23, 2011 @ 12:00 pm
Onewildman – What the heck???? I’m NOT complaining about the big corporations. They employ people onewildman. That is a good thing not a bad thing. The point I’m making which you evidently don’t get is that continuing and increasing taxes on corporations only results in increased prices of goods and services to the CONSUMER. DUH! That is the fact whether you like it or not. The CONSUMER is the one who foots the bill for the tax increases to the corporations. Maybe YOU should get a clue onewildman. That’s the way it works. I’m not sure what your problem is. I think you might have been saying the same thing but your spelling isn’t so good. ”They sale (sic) things at a price that they can make a profit and pay taxes”. Isn’t that exactly what I’ve said now THREE TIMES??? Albeit a little more articulately. . . Yes I’ve basically said the EXACT same thing as you three times yet you insist on arguing with me that I’m wrong! It’s a little bizarre. I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how you can read my post and understand it to say something very different from what it says.
February 22, 2011 @ 11:02 am
Trains have the unfortunate limitation of traveling only where there are tracks. I don’t know much about high-speed trains, but I would assume that the tracks for them might have some different requirements. There are many more highways and even dirt roads than there are train tracks. You can take a bus to and from pretty much any little town or big city. Are they slow? Well, yes. They stop at every little town along the way. If there was more demand, the bus companies would probably add buses and offer more non-stop trips. Since the buses aren’t heavily subsidized by the government like the passenger trains, their solutions will always be market driven. That is the way all travel should work.
If I want to ride on Amtrack, I would have to go to Albuquerque, NM. By the time I drove that far, I would just as soon stay on the highway. Why should I have to pay for other people to have access to trains?
February 22, 2011 @ 12:10 pm
Excellent point Busses for mass transit< I recall in my younger days seeing 2 and sometimes 3 GreyHound busses passing my house on US11. One would be a local that you could flag down from the roadside the others were Express that only stopped at Major destinations where there was a Terminal. Of course in those days there were also Passenger Trains that kept on a tight schedule of departures and arrivals. Then we built the InterState System or if you recall the Mission 66 Road system, and the trains and Bus Companies went into decline. Progress you know.
All of the previous posts go to prove there is no need for rapid rail in this country at theis time.
February 22, 2011 @ 11:08 am
Political courage is a rare commodity even in good times. In fact, it has become an oxymoron right up there with “crash landing” and “jumbo shrimp”. But when times are hard and we need leadership the most, most politicians go AWOL. Especially President Obama who apparently has decided to be the President of the Left only!
High-speed rail? Please!
We are witnessing an all-time record in political cowardice. An entire party’s state legislature has slipped across state lines because they don’t have the courage to stand and fight for what they believe in. In Washington, Democrats refuse to discuss and debate significant but necessary budget cuts. And no one seems serious about addressing entitlements!
Elections have consequences! So we’ve heard ad nauseum from the Democrats since the 2008 elections. Apparently, they only have consequences when Democrats are elected but not when the other party wins. The people have spoken. They want the size of government reduced, spending cut and shared sacrifice while we claw our way back to prosperity.
The Last Jump – A Novel of World War II
http://www.thelastjump.com
Some proceeds assist families of the fallen
February 22, 2011 @ 11:26 am
When will politicians get it through their thick heads that we are not Europeans? The U.S. is not like Europe. We don’t want to be like Europe. What works in Europe does not necessarily work in the U.S. Trains work in Europe because it is densely populated, it’s more economical than paying for a car and paying the gas prices that Europeans have to pay (thanks to their heavy taxation). Here in the U.S. it is faster and more economical in most cases to get somewhere in a car. Here in Denver where I live, we put in a new light rail system that goes through downtown from some of the suburbs. Unfortunately, it is cheaper for me to drive downtown and pay for parking than it is to pay the price for a round trip ticket on the light rail. We already have Amtrak which is a complete bust and would have gone belly-up years ago if it weren’t subsidized by our taxes. The idea of building a high speed train system is at best, completely absurd. At worst, it is recklessly irresponsible to initiate such a colossal expenditure at a time when we need to be slashing spending at every level just to survive.
February 22, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
OK, back to high speed rail. If you have ever spent extended time in Europe or Asia, one of the first things that impresses you on your way home from your return flight is the VAST OPEN SPACE. No one is standing in the middle of the cloverleaf of the highway with a cow on a lead rope so it can graze, there are no veggies growing in every square inch of space between homes, there usually isn’t any space between houses anyway because everyone lives right on top of each other.
This speaks to Lowell’s comments about the lack of high population that makes these rail lines logical. We are now giving huge subsidies to our current passenger rail systems to keep them going, (thanks to Harry Reid & friends). High speed rail is only practical if your population is crushingly crowded. It is also massively expensive. I have a great idea. Let’s VOTE on it instead of having the proclaimer in chief tell us what to do.
Pingback: Tweets that mention » Sowell: Reckless Spending Commentary -- Topsy.com
February 22, 2011 @ 12:43 pm
I have used the light rail in Dallas when I worked downtown and I greatly enjoyed it for the most part. The cost to ride was greatly offset by the cost of gas to drive downtown and find a parking space and I could sleep on the way to work and back and the parking was free while I was at work. I have used light rail in Atlanta, GA, too when I worked in South Carolina. I used it when I was flying home while I worked out there and would come home for a few days. The airfare was cheaper from the airport there than from the one in the city I was working in. I had to pay to park but again, it was cheaper than parking at the airport. That being said, I do not like that it is subsidized by the local and federal government so that people who do not utilize it have to pay for it.
It is my understanding that Amtrak trains do not own the rails they ride on therefore they have to pay for the right to use those rails and they have to yield to the freight trains that own the rails thereby extending the time you would have a on a trip. I looked into riding Amtrak one time and the cost was as expensive as flying but taking days to complete the trip. It would have been a nice trip to take because I could see the scenery but I simply did not have the time for the trip.
Every point Mr. Sowell makes is right on. You must have a very dense population to make it cost affective. To build a high speed rail is a very, very expensive process because the tolerances have to be so tight. I have gone over bridges in a car and felt how my car would bounce over a small changes where the bridge supports met. Can you imagine what affect that would have on a train traveling 200+MPH? I have seen trains whose rails have a slight dip and this would have a devastating affect on a HS train. I believe the max speed freight trains travel is 65MPH but even they have to slow to make those curves. And there are several cases where rails have given way because of the ground collapsing before someone noticed.
Next, what would propel those trains? Electricity. The freight trains use on-board diesels to generate electricity that propels them. Another fossil fule that Obama wants to stop using. The plan would be that the HS trains would use power from the grid. Right now, we are having difficulty producing enough electricity to power our own homes and businesses. Where would that power be generated.
I can come up with other issues but anyone with a brain can see them. The problem is, the ones without the brains are the ones who will never read this and will believe Obama’s plans are realistic. Hope and change. I just HOPE that I will have at least CHANGE in my pocket when he is done.
February 22, 2011 @ 1:05 pm
The only high speed rail I support is the one we use to run Obama out of town on after the tar and feathering.
February 22, 2011 @ 1:53 pm
I second that.
February 22, 2011 @ 3:10 pm
I like that thought!
February 22, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
AMEN, Bill, may I quote you on that? But, do we really even need a rail? Might be a lot more fun without it!
February 22, 2011 @ 2:28 pm
High speed rail makes little sense across the vast expanses of much of the United States, including the western two thirds. There are exceptions, however, but maybe not the ones Obama would make. These exceptions could economically augment other forms of transportation within a handful of specified corridors. A good example follows.
We frequently travel I-35 between Fort Worth and San Antonio, Texas. At the best of times, the trip takes almost five hours by automobile at slightly above the speed limit. Usually, however, it takes longer because that route is nearly bumper to bumper for about 18 hours each day. Construction is ongoing at about five places and has been for more than the past 25 years since I’ve been in the area. A parallel high speed train could cover the same distance in under two hours, including six intermediate stops. With sufficient frequencies, it would draw a lot of people out of their cars and onto the train. Fares might not cover all capital costs, but it would likely cover direct operating expenses. It would be electric, therefore saving gas, wear and tear, and other infrastructure costs and it would be quiet. I don’t have current figures at hand, but I do know that 30 years ago when I had specific information, per mile rail construction was about 1/7 the cost of highway construction. I suspect that ratio might be a little different for high speed rail, but still favors rail. Also, running steel wheels on steel rails reduces friction and allows faster, yet cheaper per passenger running than any other transportation mode. So, I envision a high speed train between Dallas/Fort Worth and San Antonio as being potentially a very viable alternative. Beyond those end points? No. Of course, many of you will disagree with me, but that’s what I believe.
February 22, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
What you say sounds good but how many people will take that trip every day. I would guess very few. That is the real problem. You might be willing to but your in the minority and those who would once or twice a year wont pay for it leaving the rest of the tax payers to pay for it. I will give you an example: in CA we have Metro Link it’s been around about twenty years and there is no sign of reduced cars on the freeway. Also I see them at a crossing to and from my way to work. I have never seen more than four or five cars and they have never been full. They now have four less trains running a day and they have increased fares up to 6% depending how far you go. At one time we had the best transportation system in the US but the Auto manufactures bought the system and let decline so more people would buy cars. Believe me people in California love their cars and don’t want to give up that freedom associated with using your own car. There is one other thing I live 20 miles from the final stop on metro link so I am sure that it gets more crowed as it gets closer to L.A. but it starts about 25 miles east of where I live.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
February 22, 2011 @ 4:55 pm
President Obama is running for re-election and is looking for sound bites and contemporary sounding comments to make so that he continues to look “hip” for the young voters that helped him get elected in 2008. He has to know that this country is too spread out and diverse to justify any major investment in a national high speed rail system, although in his 2012 budget, he raised the Dept of Transportation’s budget by 68% to begin the spending supposedly on high speed rail. High speed rail sounds exciting…and hip. Get it? It is going to help us “Win the Future”..right??
Obama is inexperienced and very superficial, and it is obvious when he gets asked unprepared questions and has to answer them on the spot. He typically bungles his answers and looks bad in the process. The Democrats that are in place to help him gert re-elected are going to attempt to create an image of him that is Reaganesque and moderate so that he can swing over the independent voters. So, we are going to get plastered with all kinds of photo shoots and press snips that make Obama look like something he isn’t.
The Republican party and the candidate that is nominated to run against Obama has to be prepared to expose all of this nonsense looking ahead. And, FOX and other more balanced networks have to continue to expose what is going on so that the public stays informed with the real information.
Do not pay any attention to the lamestreet major media networks. They have lost their way.
February 22, 2011 @ 5:25 pm
In a time of prosperity, it might be great to invest in light rail! At this time we are broke, and have no business starting these projects that provide temporary employment at the expense of taxpayers.
February 22, 2011 @ 6:39 pm
THE DICTATOR AND KNOWING HOW TO USE THE RIGHT WORDS TO “SNOW” PEOPLE IS THE MUSLIM MOTTO AND TECHNIQUE OF “APPEASE AMERICANS UNTIL WE CAN CONTROL THEM” AND NO ONE HAS THE SENSE TO SEE IT. THIS NARCISSISTIC, MARXIST LOVER, AMERICA HATER HAS IGNORED THE CONSTITUTION JUST LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD DO IN HIS CAMPAIGN. HIS WORDS WERE, ”I WILL CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION” AND I YELLED AT THE TV “YOU IGNORANT AMERICA HATING S%%” WHEN I SAW AND HEARD THOSE WORDS. HE SAID IT MANY TIMES. THE IGNORANT AMERICANS DIDN’T CATCH IT BECAUSE OF RACE AND WANTING TO BE PART OF HISTORY. I HOPE THEY CAN SEE THAT RACE AND HISTORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LACK OF INTELLIGENCE (IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY, ETC) AND HATING AMERICA. YOU GOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR BUT THE REST OF US HAVE TO SUFFER BECAUSE OF OTHERS (YOUR) IGNORANCE AND STUPIDY. I HAVE A FEELING THAT YOU IDIOTS WILL FALL FOR THESE “NICE” WORDS (NOW AND UNTIL ELECTION AGAIN) AND DO IT AGAIN IN 2012. THERE IS NO CURE FOR STUPIDITY.
February 23, 2011 @ 8:37 pm
I agree with the last statement, that’s all I understood and makes any sense!
February 23, 2011 @ 7:33 am
Onewildman, I think that we are all on the same page here. Pleasepassthetea is saying that raising taxes on companies means that the consumers will end up paying more for the goods/services that the companies provide. She(?) is against that just as you seem to be.
Or, maybe I am misunderstanding the dialogue here. Perhaps I am confused, but I agree with the fiscal principles contained in both your and pleasepassthetea’s posts.
Okay, I need some help here. I know that I clicked on “Log in to reply” under copperpempy’s 2/22 post. However, once again, my post is not under copperpempy’s post, but at the bottom of the page. This is very frustrating. Can anyone give me some input on what I am doing wrong? Thanks.
February 23, 2011 @ 12:04 pm
you must log in first and then go to the comment and click on “reply to this comment”
The point I’m trying to make about taxes is simply that everyone pays taxes If you worked for just your take home pay and then had to pay taxes your bottom line is you would have to ask for money to pay your taxes. That in essence is what you do you work for a wage that allows you to pay taxes and still have a decent take home pay. If you do not then you find a job that will pay enough. So if you use the same logic about corporations not paying taxes, then you also are not paying taxes the company is.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
February 23, 2011 @ 12:10 pm
Thank you Bethany! I am so relieved that someone gets it! I’m only sorry onewildman doesn’t seem to. And yes, I’m a “she” -
February 23, 2011 @ 7:48 pm
Okay, onewildman, let’s see how this works! I logged in before replying to the comment. Hopefully, it will show in the correct place.
I am still a little confused regarding the posts, which I still believe both indicate that increased corporate taxes are a bad thing. I think that the differences are simply semantics or terminology and not ideology, but whatever. I just hate to see any sort of fussiness between people who probably agree more often than not.
Thanks for the posting tip! It looks like it is working!
February 23, 2011 @ 10:27 pm
I don’t like the arguing either and don’t know why onewildman started this argument. Am totally baffled. I noticed that LIberty 1430 was saying virtually the same thing as I said but he didn’t jump all over Liberty. Anyway it seems to me too that he’s saying the same thing. I think.
February 23, 2011 @ 8:33 pm
I knew you could do it, Bethany, congrats! Usually, if you’re logged in a few times, after that you will be logged in automatically, as soon as you open the site and it appears on your screen! Your name will appear at the upper right corner of the Home page, just below the header! If your name does appear there, you ARE logged in and don’t have to do it again! It may depend on your provider, or your connection, but it works that way for me! Do you shut down your pc between uses? Then you’ll probably need to log in each time you get online! I never shut down, unless I have to, due to a connection, or provider problem! Just turn off your monitor, that’s all!
You can only ‘Reply to a Comment;’ you cannot reply to a reply! I’m trying to get that changed, but having no luck thus far! Don’t know that it ever will change, but seems to me, it would simplify things considerably!
Don’t be discouraged, don’t let it frighten you, you’re doing fine! Keep on, keeping on and good luck!