Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Playing with the calculator a bit, the taxes seem to penalize you for having more kids, which seems backwards, especially during a recession. Still, to be getting taxed $4-6k, you'd have to be making a huge amount of income and/or using a huge amount of gasoline. That seems pretty exceptional.StrikeS2k said:
Better yet. Let's see you discuss Prop 13's upside regarding commercial property.T Bell said:And all of that's traceable to Prop 13? Let's test your understanding here and see you discuss Prop 13's upside.Shadowfax said:Why not? Seems like the states is losing a lot of tax revenue.StrikeS2k said:
Mine will be around $2500. Families with kids get hit for about $200 each which seems rather stupid. How anyone can think it's a good idea to jack up taxes like this in a recession is mind-boggling. My wife and I will just have to cut spending, but this is going to put others in a serious bind.StrikeS2k said:
You're wrong. The state spends ~ 13 BILLION a year on Illegals. So, if there hadn't been any illegals for the last three years in CA you'd almost have the shortage covered already. It costs 3 times as much to house an inmate in a CA prison than it does in Federal prison due to ungodly high salaries paid to the prison guards due to their union. The list goes on and on. Certainly people being stupid and voting for dumb spending measures is part of the problem. Oh, and if the rail you voted for was the one from So. Cal. to San Francisco you were one of those people. That's one of the dumbest ideas ever. But those measures are NOT the main problem.
You can easily say the same for the alternative : How anyone can think it's a good idea for a state to cut spending by $140 Billion in a recession is mind-boggling.
No. Rail lines NEVER pay for themselves. They are gigantic sinkholes of gov't money, because public transportation has to be available for low salaried citizens to effectively use to get to and from work. Thus they never recoup their huge initial fixed costs.There's no good solution to this problem. Everyone involved is to blame, and in California that means every resident.
We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
Don't blame me. I've never voted for any of this dreck.
Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
Absolutely. Go ahead and read this and this for starters and get back to me with your discussion of how their conclusions are incorrect.Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
I took a glance. I'd rather read this, from someone who has is a huge proponent of rail in CA but is vehemently opposed to this particular line:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../EDB913D4MU.DTLAbsolutely. Go ahead and read this and this for starters and get back to me with your discussion of how their conclusions are incorrect.Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
We don't have a problem of transporting people between LA and SF. People have a problem commuting into each of these cities. The most recent bond measure is throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at a problem that we don't have.Moreover, this country has an incorrect belief that mass transit can only be made possible through the government. Our initial subway and rail lines were all developed by the private sector. Not surprisingly, very few of these lines have progressed much further since the government took them over.Absolutely. Go ahead and read this and this for starters and get back to me with your discussion of how their conclusions are incorrect.Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
Yet we include billions in the stimulus package for a potential rail line to Vegas
They aren't deficit spending because their credit is so bad. They are just pulling money out of the economy and then putting it back in. Except they don't put in as much as they took out due to the beuorocracy. How is that good for the economy?
Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.I took a glance. I'd rather read this, from someone who has is a huge proponent of rail in CA but is vehemently opposed to this particular line:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../EDB913D4MU.DTLAbsolutely. Go ahead and read this and this for starters and get back to me with your discussion of how their conclusions are incorrect.Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
Note the credentials of the author. He is more qualified to offer an opinion on this rail line than ANYONE on the planet.
So you actually believe this line will get used by 117 MILLION people annually in 2030? He gave pretty good context in noting that only 29 MILLION use AMTRAK today, NATIONWIDE. So I ask again. You actually believe 117 MILLION people will use this annually in 2030?And please, point out the other inaccuracies. I'd love to pick holes in those as well. not to mention that you aren't addressing the more serious points such as the fact that a business plan was supposed to be done by Sept. 1 of last year so people could actually be truly informed. And that plan wasn't done even by the election. Has that plan even been done by now?
Part of the money in that proposal is targeted at improving the mass transit infrastructure "locally," particularly where it integrates with the high speed train. There were separate proposals for local mass transit as well. Los Angeles passed measure R to address this for instance. As others have mentioned, you pay a price for cutting spending in a recession as well - will it be less in the long run than the money saved short term?
People need better commute options, not better inter-city travel options.Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.I took a glance. I'd rather read this, from someone who has is a huge proponent of rail in CA but is vehemently opposed to this particular line:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../EDB913D4MU.DTLAbsolutely. Go ahead and read this and this for starters and get back to me with your discussion of how their conclusions are incorrect.Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
Note the credentials of the author. He is more qualified to offer an opinion on this rail line than ANYONE on the planet.
AMTRAK != local transit. Thanks for highlighting another problem with the article you posted.
See my previous post.People need better commute options, not better inter-city travel options.Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.I took a glance. I'd rather read this, from someone who has is a huge proponent of rail in CA but is vehemently opposed to this particular line:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../EDB913D4MU.DTLAbsolutely. Go ahead and read this and this for starters and get back to me with your discussion of how their conclusions are incorrect.Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
Note the credentials of the author. He is more qualified to offer an opinion on this rail line than ANYONE on the planet.
Home of the Mexican Drug War...no thanks.Good, maybe it'll force people to move out, head to Phoenix, and then buy my house!
ROFLMAO. You didn't answer the question. THis is about usage, not how far the train goes. And, to your point, do you consider traveling from LA to SF local? Again, Amtrak's Acela line is pretty much comparable to this line in terms of distance and it ONLY carries 3 million a year. You're not helping your case!!!!So, answer my specific question. Do you think this line will carry 117 million people by 2030? It's a simple yes/no question.
Disagree....
Why Austin? I would be more inclinded to move to Dallas-Fort Worth...more opportunity.
Firstly, you realize the high speed trains make intra-city stops right? That it's not just L.A. to S.F. the project is covering, right? More importantly your question isn't applicable as the study doesn't talk about one particular line carrying 117 million people - it talks about the overall rail system carrying 117 million people. Do I think the entire rail system will handle 117 million people by then? Maybe, it depends on whether demographic projections are accurate and how far they get with the project. But that's what I'm talking about, the article you presented misstates things purposefully to try and make points. Read the actual study, then get back to me. It's pointless to continue this discussion until you are familiar with the source material.
You're right the propositions are a mess, and they cause a lot of the problems.Thing is, even the good idea ones never happen.
WTF are you talking about? Which study? I just looked at both of the articles you posted and I don't see any specifics about this project in either one that would change my mind. That's the difference between you and I. I deal with specifics, not generalities and platitudes. So I'm done discussing this with you until if/when you can give some specifics from, say, the non-existent business plan for this project you helped provide funding for. And if you think 117 million people will EVER use this thing annually you're high and have lost all credibility.
You're right, the vast majority of voters cannot be thought of as "educated voters" with enough information to make the decisions they're asked to. That's why we have a representative democracy. We vote in someone else who's full-time job is to understand this stuff and make the best decision. If he or she doesn't, we vote him out.Right now, our only recourse is to unify as a group of taxpayers and sue the hell out of Sacramento. Then vote in a measure to completely eliminate proposition balloting for all these pet pork projects."The People" just can't be trusted.
There isn't enough money to build the inter-city portion, much less additional intra-city add-ons.See my previous post.People need better commute options, not better inter-city travel options.Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.I took a glance. I'd rather read this, from someone who has is a huge proponent of rail in CA but is vehemently opposed to this particular line:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../EDB913D4MU.DTLAbsolutely. Go ahead and read this and this for starters and get back to me with your discussion of how their conclusions are incorrect.Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.
Note the credentials of the author. He is more qualified to offer an opinion on this rail line than ANYONE on the planet.
So you didn't read the second link? It's all right there. For instance:
Or this:
Those are specifics, not platitudes or generalities. There are plenty more facts, calculations and tables in that study as well you could discuss. If that's not good enough here's another study and another one and another one . I can see you're getting overly emotional about this, so I'll drop it.
Seems like the money would be much better spent in creating a mass transit system for LA and a mass transit system for the Bay Area and make sure they have easy access to the airports. At some point down the road they can connect the two, but there aren't a lot of people that travel from SF to LA on a regular basis.Millions of people commute every day and noone likes sitting in traffic. Commuter rails is a no-brainer. SF has Bart which isn't bad but really should be extended to Marin and the Peninsula, but I don't think LA or San Diego has anything but a bus and a very limited light rail system.
If I'm getting emotional it's because you're wasting my time. There are no specifics. They say other systems would benefit. They don't say how or by how much. That's why it's a GENERALITY. I want to know what rail lines would connect to it, where (specifically) it will stop, how long it will take to get to those places. You know, specifics. The only specifics in anything I've read that you've posted is that it will cost 10 billion just as a start up figure. Saying it will go and will help is not specifics. BTW, I clicked on the last of your new links and the site doesn't exist. Please quit wasting my time.BTW, I take issue with your assertion that this is not just a long distance line. All the major metropolitan areas in CA already have regional rail. I took Metrolink and Amtrak daily for 2 years when I worked in downtown LA. We had people in my office that commuted via Amtrak from San Diego. San Francisco has BART. And I'm not sure what you're saying earlier where you say the 117 million is for the "entire system". According to the official California High Speed Train website,
I don't consider LA's redline or the other rail that already exists to be part of any high speed network so I have to assume they're talking only about the new portion they're building. This line will only benefit people going from So. Cal. to No. Cal., and that's if you can get them out of their cars and/or planes. And again, if you think 117 million people are going to ride the high speed rail network by 2030 you're high.
There are specifics in that study (I pointed out a couple, but you really should do your own reading at some point - it's silly to expect me to repost the content of entire studies), in the other studies I posted, and in all the documents and studies they list as references that actually do address what you're asking. I can't make you read the stuff though, and it seems that you consider that a waste of your time, you'd rather base your opinion off a brief article along with your anecdotal observations and yell at people about it. That's your prerogative, but it doesn't provide a compelling reason to take your viewpoint to heart.
I agree with this completely. As a person who used to live where the Red Line (LA's POS subway) was supposed to terminate I was waiting patiently for the day I could get away from my car. It would have been beautiful but the idiots terminated it in Universal City and now because of demand, instead of finishing it up to where it was supposed to go, they built a Bus line to get you from where I lived to where they terminated the subway. Totally idiocy. And when I moved to Denver I purposely bought a house within walking distance of the local light rail. I can take light rail anywhere downtown including stops in front of all the major entertainment venues in Denver. It's awesome. And, as I already indicated, I took regional train to work in downtown LA for a couple of years. I'm a huge proponent. Building high speed rail from LA to San Francisco at a huge cost is doing it backwards. We need to develop the regional systems and then we can look in to something like that. And this particular bill is heavily flawed even if you favor a high speed rail line throughout California. As someone previously mentioned, how asinine is it that in LA you can't even take a rail line to the airport? Instead of this POS they should be building a subway or light rail to the airport. Some people don't focus on the issues; they focus on keywords like "hope" and "change", or in this case "rail". And that's Groovus. Not worrying about the details just the keywords.
Feel free to post the specifics I've requested. I'm not going to read those reports cover to cover because I skimmed them and don't see anywhere they talk about specific stops or specifically how this will help the existing local and regional rail systems. If it exists post it. I doubt you will though, not because you don't want to but because it doesn't exist.There are specifics in that study (I pointed out a couple, but you really should do your own reading at some point - it's silly to expect me to repost the content of entire studies), in the other studies I posted, and in all the documents and studies they list as references that actually do address what you're asking. I can't make you read the stuff though, and it seems that you consider that a waste of your time, you'd rather base your opinion off a brief article along with your anecdotal observations and yell at people about it. That's your prerogative, but it doesn't provide a compelling reason to take your viewpoint to heart.
Except that I feel like I must qualify this a little bit. By the time you start seeing the venture capital and innovation centers move away from CA, it's too late. Each time we raise taxes, we flirt with the line where moving makes sense and once we step over that line we can't just lower taxes a tad to get the people we lost back.
Bingo. Use high speed rail to connect cities that are "out of the economy" due to their geographic location. i.e. upstate NY (and I am sure a number of other regions that have infrastructure internally to handle many more people, but due to structural changes in the economy such as loss of manufacturing, are underpopulated) - this becomes a tremendous national economic stimulus. But LA and SF are already connected pretty well. The juice is not worth the squeeze to make it easier to get from SF to LA - the juice IS worth the squeeze to make it easier to get from Claremont CA to Downtown LA to Santa Monica to the Airport to Century City. You have all these urban hubs - and no network other than roads to connect them. It's near criminal.
Actually - you don't. Chicago, another Democratic stronghold, is already at 10.25%.We already have the highest sales tax rate in the country!
i also purposefully chose my address due to its proximity with light rail. the light rail system is good but they really need to get it expanded west and northwest and all the way to DIA. it's perfect for people who work in the tech center or downtown as long as they live on the i-25 corridor or littleton. it's also perfect for people who like to go downtown and live down south. but they've got to get it expanded.
Napolitano isn't governor anymore, so the new gov can close the border like her constituents want! Then again, Napolitano is now the head of Homeland (in)Security, so now we'll have open borders, and then the MDW can spread into every state evenly and it won't be as concentrated in AZ. So...buy my house!Home of the Mexican Drug War...no thanks.Good, maybe it'll force people to move out, head to Phoenix, and then buy my house!
They don't need 117 million people to ride it. All it'll take is one person riding it 117 million times. HTH
* Phoenix got their own boondoggle light rail system (went live this past December, I believe), and it was already projected to lose money before the ground was broken.
Finally someone gets it. I've been on a crusade the last 5-10 years with all my friends and family to vote NO on propositions. I'd love to eliminate proposition balloting -- complete BS.
I don't think you understand the geography of Upstate NY very well. Having a 2-hour train trip from Rochester to New York even under the most advanced rail system is highly unrealistic. And even if it were remotely possible, to achieve that time you would need individual rail lines built in straight lines from New York to each individual city in Upstate New York (instead of running through each city). Of course, in doing so you would have to traverse the very hilly Southern Tier which would make for astronomical costs on top of what is already a pie in the sky idea.Oh, and you also discount the fact that there is only a minimal economic or demographic connection between Upstate New York and New York City and thereby simply is so little demand or need for such a rail line.But, ya, it's still a fantastic idea.
