Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-23-2008, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
259 posts, read 762,534 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck22b View Post
Deficit spending is going to be a necessity in the coming years... whether we want to use deficit spending to create jobs and net economic positive projects or spend it on unemployment will be up to us.

I'd rather have people working on projects rather than having to spend a deficit on unemployment and having people with too much time on their hands.

-chuck22b
Hate to be a stickler but deficit spending is what got us into this mess nationally. Spending within our means will be vital to our economic recovery long term. Going further into debt will only exasperate the problems we now face. Better to tighten the belt now when it isn't so bad than later when it'll be impossible. Governments can go bankrupt ya know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2008, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Chino, CA
1,458 posts, read 3,272,744 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapparulez View Post
Hate to be a stickler but deficit spending is what got us into this mess nationally. Spending within our means will be vital to our economic recovery long term. Going further into debt will only exasperate the problems we now face. Better to tighten the belt now when it isn't so bad than later when it'll be impossible. Governments can go bankrupt ya know.
So, you'd rather pay someone not to work? vs. someone to work? California already has 7% unemployment and some areas already have close to 10%... would you rather pay their unemployment benefits and get a deficit this way? or have them work?

Unemployment is only going to rise this point forward. Tightening up when we're heading for one of the worst downturns is what prolonged the depression. Tighten up when we're prospering (save for a rainy day fund)... and spend when we're not. Sadly, our government spent when we were prospering.

This rail system can be similar to the Hoover Dam project or the Tennessee Valley Authority which created public works projects during the depression to keep people employed. Talking about return on investment... we still get energy and power from both of these projects and the costs have definitely paid dividends over the years.

Those projects created jobs that reduced the glaring 25% unemployment (1933) to 14% in 4 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

-chuck22b
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 05:41 PM
 
Location: California
11,466 posts, read 19,286,936 times
Reputation: 12712
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
It will pay for itself, go read the actual report on it b/c it clearly states that. Of course you and others can keep speculating that it will fail but you have nothing to prove that or even indicate that besides personal opinion.

With gas prices rising to record levels every year I don't see how it makes any sense to solely rely on two forms of transportation that are completely dependent on the volatile oil market.
The report is just an opinion, there is no way to prove it will pay for itself, it is going to depend on how many ride it and I don't believe it can come close with a billion needed in maintenance each year and the high security needed.
That is just my opinion based of what I've read on the subject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 06:15 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,957 posts, read 32,406,811 times
Reputation: 13587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog View Post
The report is just an opinion, there is no way to prove it will pay for itself, it is going to depend on how many ride it and I don't believe it can come close with a billion needed in maintenance each year and the high security needed.
That is just my opinion based of what I've read on the subject.
How is it an "opinion"? They didn't just make up all of these numbers out of nowhere. Studies and analysis were done to come up with these projections and numbers by PROFESSIONALS. Do you think they just make it up?

This is the same thing they do with any transportation project, large or small. When they expand a light rail system the same studies and analysis are done and many times the projects meets or exceeds those ridership projections, sometimes they fall below them too. So you can make the assumption they will fall below projections, and you are entitled to that opinion of course, but that isn't any different than making the assumption that it will meet or exceed those projections as well.

Last edited by sav858; 10-23-2008 at 06:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 06:28 PM
 
Location: California
11,466 posts, read 19,286,936 times
Reputation: 12712
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
How is it an "opinion"? They didn't just make up all of these numbers out of nowhere. Studies and analysis were done to come up with these projections and numbers by PROFESSIONALS. Do you think they just make it up?

This is the same thing they do with any transportation project, large or small. When they expand a light rail system the same studies and analysis are done and many times the projects meets or exceeds those ridership projections, sometimes they fall below them too. So you can make the assumption they will fall below projections but that isn't any different than making the assumption that it will meet or exceed those projections.
You can only speculate how many people will ride it, theres no way to really know, I think it's a great idea on paper, I don't see a need for it I doubt it will be cost affective, the problem is the cost to build and maintain such a system is over the top compaired to the reality of the amount of customers, I think at a future time it may be cost affective but I don't believe it is right now, it will put a burden on the tax payers, I'm not going to be upset if it passes I just don't think the time is right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 4,130,898 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangodoodles View Post
Only if you want to ride the bus. The train for me only goes from San Francisco to Bakersfield but if I wanted to go to San Diego I'd have to take the bus for part of the journey and no thank you.
No, you'd take the Coast Starlight from San Jose (Or Oakland) to Los Angeles. And then from Union station you'd take the Pacific Surfliner into Downtown San Diego. No bus is necessary. You are thinking of the San Joaquins route, but that isn't the only one out of the Bay area.

Now, if you want to first go to Bakersfield and then to San Diego you'd have a problem. But how many people need to do this? Bakersfield isn't exactly a place many people travel to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 06:56 PM
 
2,027 posts, read 4,193,615 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanoid View Post
No, you'd take the Coast Starlight from San Jose (Or Oakland) to Los Angeles. And then from Union station you'd take the Pacific Surfliner into Downtown San Diego. No bus is necessary. You are thinking of the San Joaquins route, but that isn't the only one out of the Bay area.

Now, if you want to first go to Bakersfield and then to San Diego you'd have a problem. But how many people need to do this? Bakersfield isn't exactly a place many people travel to.
Well, I live there. And I like to visit San Diego during breaks although I just end up driving because it is faster. But what about from Bakersfield to San Diego? You just have to drive all the way or take a bus then a train. The point is though, all of these methods take way longer than a high-speed rail would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 4,130,898 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck22b View Post
Deficit spending is going to be a necessity in the coming years... whether we want to use deficit spending to create jobs and net economic positive projects or spend it on unemployment will be up to us.
Deficit spending would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that the state was deficit spending during a big boom in tax revenue! California is going to have one of the worst budget crises in the nation. I mean seriously, its hard to even express in words how stupid the politicians in this state are.

A lot of California productive business has been hollowed out, businesses have been leaving the state for decades now. California is likely to have one of the more severe recessions in the union.

Regardless, will the state even be able to find buyers for these bonds? They can hardly find buyers for the bonds they are trying to sell now. Right now California bonds look about as attractive as swamp land in Florida.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tangodoodles View Post
Well, I live there. And I like to visit San Diego during breaks although I just end up driving because it is faster. But what about from Bakersfield to San Diego? You just have to drive all the way or take a bus then a train. The point is though, all of these methods take way longer than a high-speed rail would.
No offense, but you being able to travel quickly to San Diego during breaks isn't very important. Its not going to help the state in any meaningful way. If the state spends on transportation infrastructure it should be targeted towards making the state a more efficient place to do business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck22b View Post
So, you'd rather pay someone not to work? vs. someone to work? California already has 7% unemployment and some areas already have close to 10%... would you rather pay their unemployment benefits and get a deficit this way? or have them work?
Unemployment benefits don't last forever, you are paying someone while they find a new job. Anyhow, California isn't going to be able to do much deficit spending unless the Federal government gives it the money. California can't pull money out of its rear end and nobody is going to loan that much money to California right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 07:31 PM
 
2,027 posts, read 4,193,615 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanoid View Post
No offense, but you being able to travel quickly to San Diego during breaks isn't very important. Its not going to help the state in any meaningful way. If the state spends on transportation infrastructure it should be targeted towards making the state a more efficient place to do business.
Well, I was just giving an example of how people would use the rail. My next door neighbor from Bakersfield commutes to L.A. everyday. Imagine if that only took him an hour instead of almost three taking traffic into account. There are a lot of people who could benefit from this rail and just because you aren't one of those people doesn't mean that such people don't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
259 posts, read 762,534 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck22b View Post
So, you'd rather pay someone not to work? vs. someone to work? California already has 7% unemployment and some areas already have close to 10%... would you rather pay their unemployment benefits and get a deficit this way? or have them work?

Unemployment is only going to rise this point forward. Tightening up when we're heading for one of the worst downturns is what prolonged the depression. Tighten up when we're prospering (save for a rainy day fund)... and spend when we're not. Sadly, our government spent when we were prospering.

This rail system can be similar to the Hoover Dam project or the Tennessee Valley Authority which created public works projects during the depression to keep people employed. Talking about return on investment... we still get energy and power from both of these projects and the costs have definitely paid dividends over the years.

Those projects created jobs that reduced the glaring 25% unemployment (1933) to 14% in 4 years.

New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-chuck22b
I know. All I am saying is that we have been deficit spending for roughly 35 years. There is not more "loans" to be had from foreigners. The New Deal II can only come to fruition if taxes are drastically raised, budgets cut from other programs(NASA, Military, Education, ect). We will have no choice but to live within our means.

This is not 1933. America did not have 11 trillion in liabilities. btw, We are required to pay 11.8% interest on the national debt each year. Do you realize how much that comes out too right now? 1.2 TRILLION per year goes directly to foreign banks. Our taxes. This situation is wholly different than 1933 and there will be no deficit spending a year and a half from now.

Credit has dried up in the private sector and soon it will dry up in the public sector. You watch. Oh and these bailouts, it's like putting bandaids on a gun shot wound to the heart. Our economy is on the hook for over $500 TRILLION in derivitives and thus far only the CDS(Credit Default Swaps) markets have collapsed. The CDS market was "only" about $70 TRILLION. Everyone is freaked out that the CDS market could bring down the Derivitives market. If that happens. Game over.

So I would suggest googling some of the terms I have used and do some additional research on the actual present situation. This is not 1888, 1929, 1979, 1987, 1998, or 2001...this is 2008 and the mother of all global meltdowns in just on the horizon. If I were you I would keep a large portion of your cash outside of the bank and start stocking up on food. Or do you expect the government to take care of you when it will likely be unable to take care of itself?

I apologize for my condescending attitude, but I felt slighted by the "history" lesson. Call me crazy...it don't make no difference to me. As they say, no skin off my ass!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top