POLITICAL THREAD

[Bill Derington]

First - we pay more for cars and airfare.....bring in a 3rd way to transport us, and the cost of cars and airfare goes down.

Second, when gas prices go up (I remember gas at like $4.50/gal in KY when Bush was president) it offers another way to travel.

Third, those countries can move people, goods and services much more efficiently than we can - which is good for their economies. They are more mobile than us.

Fourth, it reduces traffic congestion and therefore boosts productivity for those countries. We have a major issue of traffic congestion, people running late for work, goods not being delivered on time from one place to the another, etc.

Fifth - it creates jobs. Hundreds of thousands of them.

First of all it doesn't move goods, and they definitely aren't more mobile than the US.

It would do nothing for congestion in urban areas. You're not going to take a high speed train for a 20 mile trip. Most urban areas already have public rail.

It would create jobs, but it would be a GIANT boondoggle. Whatever the proposed cost would be, triple it. The government is terribly inefficient, by design.
If it was feasible the private sector would attempt it, but it's not.

 

[TNTUK]

Love how some folks just think all this money to pay for this shi! is going to come from thin air. Bush, Obama and Congress wasted trillions fighting in Iraq, propping up donors belly up energy companies, list goes on and on. Where the hell do people think we can magically find another $10 trillion to pay for free handouts or stuff we should have had years ago is going to come from? China? Why not, they already own half our country now anyway.

I can see why our government has no comprehension of spending money wisely because their constituents are about as dumb about finances as they are so where is the accountability....

Get your facts straight - Obama didn't fight in Iraq. He inherited that BS of a mess, and he pulled our troops out as soon as he could (which he was also criticized for).

Spending on infrastructure is good for this country, but obviously by reading your post you have no idea what's good for you.

 

[Bill Derington]

As to your last comment - it's Trump's $1 Trillion infrastructure plan, not mine.

Also, I work and pay my fair share of taxes....if much rather a portion of my tax dollars go toward investing in our infrastructure to include high speed rail than to go on another foreign intervention/war costing trillions of dollars, the for certain.

Building a high speed rail system has benefits that would outweigh and pay back any initial investment.

I mean shit, if it were such a bad investment why does it work so well in Europe, China and Japan?

Look at the size of European countries, and Japan.
China has over a billion people, also a communist country.

 

[TNTUK]

First of all it doesn't move goods, and they definitely aren't more mobile than the US.

It would do nothing for congestion in urban areas. You're not going to take a high speed train for a 20 mile trip. Most urban areas already have public rail.

It would create jobs, but it would be a GIANT boondoggle. Whatever the proposed cost would be, triple it. The government is terribly inefficient, by design.
If it was feasible the private sector would attempt it, but it's not.

Rail most certainly moved goods. Are you kidding me with that?

 

[ukalumni00]

Get your facts straight - Obama didn't fight in Iraq. He inherited that BS of a mess, and he pulled our troops out as soon as he could (which he was also criticized for).

Spending on infrastructure is good for this country, but obviously by reading your post you have no idea what's good for you.

You really need to learn to read closer. Your not very good at this.

 

[Bill Derington]

Rail most certainly moved goods. Are you kidding me with that?

I didn't say rail didn't, I said high speed rail doesn't. The US is doing perfectly fine in moving goods by rail already.

 

[TNTUK]

Look at the size of European countries, and Japan.
China has over a billion people, also a communist country.

Hmm - can you explain to me what that has to do with anything?

Did Eisenhower say "Hmm we better not build a national highway system b/c our country is too big"? No, he didn't.

We used to be a country not afraid to tackle big projects - now we are a bunch of babies always complaining about the allocation of our taxpayer money. It's ridiculous.

 

[TNTUK]

You really need to learn to read closer. Your not very good at this.

Is that so? What did I misread big guy?

 

[TNTUK]

I didn't say rail didn't, I said high speed rail doesn't. The US is doing perfectly fine in moving goods by rail already.

Wait - so you don't think high speed rail is also used to transport goods???

 

[KendallCat]

I would argue that the obstructionist ways of the Republican controlled Congress did more harm to this country than Obama's policies.

Let's talk about an infrastructure bill. Obama begged for one for years..fixes our roads and bridges and railways..... and puts people to work (albeit not permanent employment, but it's better than sitting on your ass drawing from the gub'nit).

Passing such a bill would have been good for our country, b/c we need to repair our infrastructure and many people still need good jobs....but R Congress wouldn't do it.

Within the next 3-6 months what do you think the R controlled government is going to do? They are going to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill.....the final bill may be for more or less than $1 trillion but that's the amount being floated around.

When Obama took office he had a Dem controlled Senate and House, so why did he not get an infrastructure bill done? Maybe because he was too busy cramming a horrendous Obamacare program that hurt individuals financially big time. Remember the "we need to pass it so we can see what is in it" line.

Obama had his chances and leaves with nothing to show for it but a crippled Democratic Party, a group who now riots at the inauguration rather than a peaceful transition of power, a party who stole the nomination from Sanders(where they had to put up 8mfoot fences in Philly due to the rioters at their OWN DNC. What does that tell you about the Dem party? They riot and protest their own party. Sure Starbucks loves their store getting destroyed in DC.

Scarlett and Ashley - who cares. Equal pay problem - ask Oprah about pay and equality. Put out a good product and people will pay to watch. I like Scarlett as an actress, but did anyone go to Avengers to watch just her? Well - maybe a few scenes

 

[augustaky1]

Wait - so you don't think high speed rail is also used to transport goods???

Is the current rail system usable for high speed? I don't think so, could be wrong. If not you are going to have to replace that. So are we going to get rid of the current track and the current trains to switch to high speed as well? And you think that is going to save us money?

I truly am lost.

Edit to add: While we are already $20T in debt.

 

[JBHolmesfan]

Lol. Whatever it would cost to make it happen (high speed rail) - could be less than $10 T....maybe 2 or 3...I dunno.

We are losing to our economic competitors...(China, Europe, etc) by not building high speed rail.

The benefits outweigh the investment. Lower costs to travel....a more mobile society....and more competition to get our business for travel by car, plane or rail.

Also creates jobs.

I'd be fascinated to see how the absence of a high speed rail is the reason we're losing to our economic competitors. Also, in regards to Europe those countries are far smaller than we are. Thus, it is much easier to travel to different cities within those countries and Europe as a whole. I'll admit I know little about high speed rails (like how fast they go), but I'd be surprised if a lot of folks choose a high speed rail to go from New York to LA. It may help things, but I'd be surprised if a high speed rail brings us back up to the top.

 

[ram1955]

Where else do you think the issue of taxpayer money and abortions intersect? (Hint: Planned Parenthood). Thanks for posting the article - it was a good read.

I read that federal funding - Medicaid, Medicare, etc - do not fund abortions unless it's a case of rape, incest or the life of the mother is at stake (Hyde Amendment)....and ACA insurance policies with government subsidies are prohibited to pay for abortions. There is a limited stream of federal taxpayer funds that may pay for an abortion - but again, only where it was a case of rape, incest, etc. (I.e. - very limited number, or as the Forbes article says - "under relatively rare circumstances" under the Reality #1 section). The article states that basically 95%+ of abortions are not funded by federal tax dollars. The other 5% of abortions fall under the exceptions to the Hyde Amendment.

Kentucky follows the federal Hyde Amendment as it relates payment with state tax dollars for abortions under those limited circumstances above.

The Reality #3 section, the article concluded it really hard to determine how many abortions are "funded" as a result of tax exclusion employer funded health insurance.....I could go on and on here.

At any rate - under the ACA, women have easy access to birth control which has led to a drop in the number of abortions performed each year......yet we want to kill the ACA, with a rise in abortions no doubt likely to follow.

We just like to do things backwards in this country.

Some of us don't necessarily want to kill obammer care. I simply want my rates to go back to what they were before the obammer care LIE with my deductables and benefits returning to the same level. PLUS if we're going to keep it, I want the feds to figure out how to pay for it without raising ANYONE'S taxes or adding to the debt.

 

[TNTUK]

When Obama took office he had a Dem controlled Senate and House, so why did he not get an infrastructure bill done? Maybe because he was too busy cramming a horrendous Obamacare program that hurt individuals financially big time. Remember the "we need to pass it so we can see what is in it" line.

Obama had his chances and leaves with nothing to show for it but a crippled Democratic Party, a group who now riots at the inauguration rather than a peaceful transition of power, a party who stole the nomination from Sanders(where they had to put up 8mfoot fences in Philly due to the rioters at their OWN DNC. What does that tell you about the Dem party? They riot and protest their own party. Sure Starbucks loves their store getting destroyed in DC.

Scarlett and Ashley - who cares. Equal pay problem - ask Oprah about pay and equality. Put out a good product and people will pay to watch. I like Scarlett as an actress, but did anyone go to Avengers to watch just her? Well - maybe a few scenes

Clarification - he had 2 years with a Dem controlled Congress and had to deal with A) the economic meltdown from the Bush admin policies...the stimulus package did have some infrastructure money in it..but that portion of the stimulus wasn't large enough. Vast majority went to bailing out Wall St. (Which was BS).

B) Dems focused on healthcare. Which they paid for politically.

As for the ACA hurting individuals "big time" there is a small percentage of people who don't qualify for subsidies (i.e. B/c they are fairly well off financially) whose premiums/deductibles have gone up. However, raised premiums have gone up not because of Obamacare, but rather, b/c of our greedy insurance companies.

Do you realize that in the five years leading up to the ACA premiums had raised 31% nationally? (They haven't raised that much across the board post-ACA).

I digress though.

Trump is going to ask the Republican Congress for a $1 Trillion infrastructure bill. It will be interesting to see if Congress goes along with it. Schumer is on record as being supportive of it, so I don't think you'll see many Dems oppose it. Just don't understand why Rs wouldn't work with Obama on an infrastructure bill 3 to 4 years ago when he was really pushing for it.

 

[ram1955]

http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/abortion-under-medicaid/?currentTimeframe=0

That's a chart on Medicaid. The 1st column...go down to KY - it says "Yes" to Medicaid following the Federal Standard for abortions - which means that the Hyde Amendment applies to KY Medicaid funds in our state. Therefore - no abortions paid by Medicaid unless rape, incest, or life of mother at risk. That's KY law, whether you want to face it or not.

So...since many of these "mothers"(?) are on the draw, exactly who is paying for their abortions? Those performing the abortions are not doing them for free.

 

[Bill Derington]

Hmm - can you explain to me what that has to do with anything?

Did Eisenhower say "Hmm we better not build a national highway system b/c our country is too big"? No, he didn't.

We used to be a country not afraid to tackle big projects - now we are a bunch of babies always complaining about the allocation of our taxpayer money. It's ridiculous.

You stated that it was working in those countries, I posted why it was.

Theres nothing about fear involved with it. It simply makes no sense here.

 

[ram1955]

Abortions are legal, bud.

They're still wrong.

 

[KendallCat]

Wait - so you don't think high speed rail is also used to transport goods???

High speed rail is our solution economically?? Using Europe as a model for economic prosperity

You do realize this is not the 1870's right? Europe uses it due to small countries and ability to travel between them. If you take a train from Lex to Florida you think it will take 5 hours? Don't worry about mountains, tunnels, rivers, stops needed to be profitable. While you are on your train I will be already there for hours getting work done - you will still be hours behind just getting there. Not to mention you still need to get a car or Uber once you get there. Good try.

 

[TNTUK]

Some of us don't necessarily want to kill obammer care. I simply want my rates to go back to what they were before the obammer care LIE with my deductables and benefits returning to the same level. PLUS if we're going to keep it, I want the feds to figure out how to pay for it without raising ANYONE'S taxes or adding to the debt.

Fair enough. I'm with you and support coming up with a plan to ensure low premiums and low deductibles. As long as we have insurance companies involved, I think it will be impossible.

And so far, what the Rs have proposed or are proposing are things that will not fix those issues (and they in fact support low premium, high deductible catastrophic plans).

We'll see what happens I suppose.

 

[TNTUK]

High speed rail is our solution economically?? Using Europe as a model for economic prosperity

You do realize this is not the 1870's right? Europe uses it due to small countries and ability to travel between them. If you take a train from Lex to Florida you think it will take 5 hours? Don't worry about mountains, tunnels, rivers, stops needed to be profitable. While you are on your train I will be already there for hours getting work done - you will still be hours behind just getting there. Not to mention you still need to get a car or Uber once you get there. Good try.

Hate to break it to you but the Euro is stronger than the dollar. ($1.07 UD dollars equal $1 Euro).

If you don't think another mode of transportation (high speed rail) doesn't boost economic activity, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[TNTUK]

They're still wrong.

Hey I'm just calling it like it is. Whether you think it's wrong doesn't change the fact it's legal.

 

[ram1955]

I would argue that the obstructionist ways of the Republican controlled Congress did more harm to this country than Obama's policies.

Let's talk about an infrastructure bill. Obama begged for one for years..fixes our roads and bridges and railways..... and puts people to work (albeit not permanent employment, but it's better than sitting on your ass drawing from the gub'nit).

Passing such a bill would have been good for our country, b/c we need to repair our infrastructure and many people still need good jobs....but R Congress wouldn't do it.

Within the next 3-6 months what do you think the R controlled government is going to do? They are going to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill.....the final bill may be for more or less than $1 trillion but that's the amount being floated around.

Republican "obstruction" actually spared the country of even more harm. It's rarely the primary component of a dem sponsored bill that's the problem. It's the little "extras" they want to attach.

 

[TNTUK]

You stated that it was working in those countries, I posted why it was.

Theres nothing about fear involved with it. It simply makes no sense here.

It's working because it is...have you ever been to Europe and traveled by their train system?

 

[TNTUK]

Republican "obstruction" actually spared the country of even more harm. It's rarely the primary component of a dem sponsored bill that's the problem. It's the little "extras" they want to attach.

Like an extra Supreme Court Justice? Those kind of "extras"? Lol.

You think only Dems request pork projects? Are you for real?

 

[ram1955]

Fair enough. I'm with you and support coming up with a plan to ensure low premiums and low deductibles. As long as we have insurance companies involved, I think it will be impossible.

And so far, what the Rs have proposed or are proposing are things that will not fix those issues (and they in fact support low premium, high deductible catastrophic plans).

We'll see what happens I suppose.

My wife had a low premium/high deductible plan. We paid around $75 a month and were satisfied with it. They discontinued her policy. So...I now pay over 3x what I was paying for her. Am I supposed to feel better knowing someone else out there is now covered? Maybe I should but I don't.

 

[ram1955]

Clarification - he had 2 years with a Dem controlled Congress and had to deal with A) the economic meltdown from the Bush admin policies...the stimulus package did have some infrastructure money in it..but that portion of the stimulus wasn't large enough. Vast majority went to bailing out Wall St. (Which was BS).

B) Dems focused on healthcare. Which they paid for politically.

As for the ACA hurting individuals "big time" there is a small percentage of people who don't qualify for subsidies (i.e. B/c they are fairly well off financially) whose premiums/deductibles have gone up. However, raised premiums have gone up not because of Obamacare, but rather, b/c of our greedy insurance companies.

Do you realize that in the five years leading up to the ACA premiums had raised 31% nationally? (They haven't raised that much across the board post-ACA).

I digress though.

Trump is going to ask the Republican Congress for a $1 Trillion infrastructure bill. It will be interesting to see if Congress goes along with it. Schumer is on record as being supportive of it, so I don't think you'll see many Dems oppose it. Just don't understand why Rs wouldn't work with Obama on an infrastructure bill 3 to 4 years ago when he was really pushing for it.

 

[Bill Derington]

Wait - so you don't think high speed rail is also used to transport goods???

What are you calling high speed rail? Do you think bullet trains transport goods like our current rail lines do?

 

[ram1955]

Clarification - he had 2 years with a Dem controlled Congress and had to deal with A) the economic meltdown from the Bush admin policies...the stimulus package did have some infrastructure money in it..but that portion of the stimulus wasn't large enough. Vast majority went to bailing out Wall St. (Which was BS).

Let's be fair. Bush was forced into a war on 9/11. Wars cost money. As for the stimulus money....I have no problem with people that paid taxes getting some of their money back. ...Key words..."paid taxes".

 

[KendallCat]

It's working because it is...have you ever been to Europe and traveled by their train system?

Only works between large population centers which Europe has a bunch of in some areas. We do a similar thing with Philly, Boston, NYC, DC... with trains and airline shuttles because of efficiency. Do you think there are enough people going from Detroit to Florida, Cleveland to Tampa to make it worthwhile. Seattle to Portland would work. San Fran to LA/San Diego maybe, but the cost to build, acquire land, and "hope" you get enough rail traffic to make it financially feasible is a trillion $ risk. Would rather beef up key airports, interstates, bridges and tunnels which are used by people and commerce - if you did not have a bridge from say Louisville to Indy or NKY to Cincy that would cripple traffic and goods.

 

[ram1955]

Like an extra Supreme Court Justice? Those kind of "extras"? You think only Dems request pork projects? Are you for real?Lol.

As I said...it was Repub obstruction that spared us from more problems ie Supreme Court justice. Can you imagine the kind of reproachable thinking would have come from an obamer appointee??
It's the pork the dems request that's the problem. As for Repub pork....I'm usually opposed because it's unnecessary spending, not because it's something that by nature is bad for our country.

 

[Bill Derington]

It's working because it is...have you ever been to Europe and traveled by their train system?

It works because the nations are small. If the US was the size of Texas it would be feasible, in fact it would make a lot of sense.

 

[FusterCluck]

Dems have lost over 1,000 seats since Obama was elected.

You can spin that fact anyway your heart so desires.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Sorry guys. Sorry I engaged a guy who thinks high speed rail in the US is a good idea when it's the worst idea on record. Sorry.

Sorry Willy, I know you're reading this. Sorry man. I know, it's the dumbest topic imaginable and I shouldn't engage. Be well, Willy. Here's to you giving your wife a shocker while you're on timeout.

 

[TNTUK]

Only works between large population centers which Europe has a bunch of in some areas. We do a similar thing with Philly, Boston, NYC, DC... with trains and airline shuttles because of efficiency. Do you think there are enough people going from Detroit to Florida, Cleveland to Tampa to make it worthwhile. Seattle to Portland would work. San Fran to LA/San Diego maybe, but the cost to build, acquire land, and "hope" you get enough rail traffic to make it financially feasible is a trillion $ risk. Would rather beef up key airports, interstates, bridges and tunnels which are used by people and commerce - if you did not have a bridge from say Louisville to Indy or NKY to Cincy that would cripple traffic and goods.

I think you split it up from city to city.

Using Detroit for instance heading south....Detroit to Columbus OH...Cbus to Cincy; Cincy to Lou..Cincy to Lex...Lou to Nashville..Lex to Knoxville..to Atlanta....Atlanta to FL..etc.

I'm not advocating that these go from NYC straight thru to Disney world....there are stops along the way just like in Europe. That ensures you have people using it all along the way.

From a personal perspective, I hate flying and would LOVE to have a high speed rail system to travel to other cities. I would love it if I could hop on a train in Cincy and be in Chicago in 3 hours. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it would do more good than harm, and it's an awesome way to travel. I've traveled all over Europe mutiple times through their rail system and it's pretty awesome, and efficient.

Here is an interesting report from a conference of US Mayors on the economic impact of what high speed rail would mean.

http://www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail/documents/report.pdf

 

[thabigbluenation]

so what exactly are all these dykes getting out of this protest? it's entertaining honestly. but means nothing. it's the weekend, real men are watching sports, Trump is probably taking Melania and breaking in the White House proper like. so no one really cares.

Obama had 2 years with complete control and they concentrated on a health care bill with 2 wars going on and rather than putting people back to work. that was their downfall. they had a unique chance to do something special, instead they did that. the reason the repubs fought back so hard afterwards was because they were told to go eff themselves by Rahm and Obama when the dems were in the majority. so they returned the favor.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Michael Moore erroneously guesstimates that 1M were in D.C. today, then in the very next sentence he proudly proclaims "We are the majority of America!"

Someone needs to remind him there are 320M people in America. The majority spent the day working, enjoying their day off from work, watching CBB, and/or gearing up for the NFL Playoffs. Basically, not giving a shit about the women’s march.

 

[TNTUK]

It works because the nations are small. If the US was the size of Texas it would be feasible, in fact it would make a lot of sense.

Why does it work in China? That's a really large country, no?

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

China built theirs (among other things) with slave labor.

Is that what you are advocating? Troubling....

 

[Bill Derington]

Why does it work in China? That's a really large country, no?

Because it's a large population that is still relatively poor. It's also a communist country.

I'm not saying your hearts in the wrong place. There are portions of the Country that it would be feasible to build, but I don't think the cost would be worth it.

 

[TNTUK]

China built theirs (among other things) with slave labor.

Is that what you are advocating? Troubling....

No, that's not what I'm advocating - why would u say that shit?

And are you saying that China didn't pay their workers to build it?