Milwaukee to Madison high speed rail? (Oconomowoc, Washington: sales, construction jobs, transfer)

[craptacular]

Now go watch video of something like the Wuhan - Guangzhou line in China, and imagine what it would be like if we actually tried to build something that could fundamentally alter regional travel.

YouTube -

[Milwaukee City]

I just wish our Govies would fix our roads. As someone who travels all over the US, rural and city it is a shame what kind of shape our roads are in!!! Our government should focus back on basic services!

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

I just wish our Govies would fix our roads. As someone who travels all over the US, rural and city it is a shame what kind of shape our roads are in!!! Our government should focus back on basic services!

The reason we don't have any money for basic infrastructure is because 54% of the federal budget goes directly towards military spending. The US has far and away the largest military on earth. We spend more on our military than the next 45 largest militaries combined. Japan and Germany have amazing infrastructure because they don't have to worry about supporting a military. Even if we cut our military spending in half, we would still be the dominant military power in the world, but we'd have a hell of a lot more money to spend on things like real universal healthcare and basic infrastructure.

[Allan Trafton]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

The reason we don't have any money for basic infrastructure is because 54% of the federal budget goes directly towards military spending. The US has far and away the largest military on earth. We spend more on our military than the next 45 largest militaries combined. Japan and Germany have amazing infrastructure because they don't have to worry about supporting a military. Even if we cut our military spending in half, we would still be the dominant military power in the world, but we'd have a hell of a lot more money to spend on things like real universal healthcare and basic infrastructure.

54% of the budget goes to defense? Where is your source. Typically around 25% or of the budget goes towards defense. In 2009 it was 23%. Maybe you were looking at years during WWII, then it was over 50%.

[Nuclear_Art]

The percentage of the federal budget going to defense is indeed only around 25% if you go directly by the chart. But sometimes the figures are misleading. If you look at your paycheck there are a few federal deductions. One for income tax, one for SS, and one for Medicare. Notice how they are all separate? The SS deduction is already budgeted as is Medicare. The income tax deduction is over 50% defense. That is what jjacobeclark is referring to.

The government does some trickery to downplay defense spending in the budget. Imagine if defense spending were halved. That would be a big chunk of change you would have in your pocket. Imagine having that much more money to spend every pay period. Do you think the economy would benefit? Imagine if a percentage of that $350 billion saved were used for HSR. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money here in the US than some overseas hellhole like Iraq, Afghanistan or a future expenditure in Iran or North Korea? We would only have to spend a huge amount for one year to build the rail and then a smaller amount every year for maintenance. After that we would have more money in our pocket and everyone should be happier.

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by Allan Trafton

54% of the budget goes to defense? Where is your source. Typically around 25% or of the budget goes towards defense. In 2009 it was 23%. Maybe you were looking at years during WWII, then it was over 50%.

The Federal Pie Chart

[Allan Trafton]

So all interest on debt on the current budget is related to past military spending and any future obligations on veterans benefits are counted as a current expenses. They use other ticks such as total tax income going towards defense. They state 48%, well since the government borrows enough to cover over 40% of its budget this very misleading. Consider the source and then make up our mind. This group has an agenda and they will fix the numbers in order to state their case. I don't buy what there selling and I think we way overspend on defense.

[Nuclear_Art]

Originally Posted by Allan Trafton

So all interest on debt on the current budget is related to past military spending and any future obligations on veterans benefits are counted as a current expenses. They use other ticks such as total tax income going towards defense. They state 48%, well since the government borrows enough to cover over 40% of its budget this very misleading. Consider the source and then make up our mind. This group has an agenda and they will fix the numbers in order to state their case. I don't buy what there selling and I think we way overspend on defense.

Basic math from the Wikipedia stats, factoring out Social Security and Medicare, because how much of those taxes goes to military spending? $0

Defense spending=23% of $2.7 trillion=$621 billion
Income tax receipts for 2009=$1.21 trillion
Divide to calculate percentages=51% of your income tax goes for defense spending.

No fancy trickery here, just basic calculations from government sources of data.

[Northwest Indiana]

Does anybody know if there is any progress on this project? I am very curious!

[andrea3821]

Since this was bumped, I figure I'll go ahead and make my comment.

For those who say they don't want to pay taxes for roads since you don't have a car: You are insane. Do you not use buses or taxis? Order delivery for dinner? How about postal service/FedEx/UPS? I suppose you like being able to go out to eat, how do you suppose they stock their kitchens? How do clothing stores stock their shelves? How do your kids/you get to school/college? Better yet, how do you plan to get to work? How about the fact that with roads, cops and emergency personnel can get to you in a time of need? You go grocery shopping, right? Or maybe you like to access the recreational things around town? God forbid you have a visitor who wants to come see you. Think about the argument you're making here. Perhaps we should just go back to the slow pace of taking a wagon on a dirt road, although the dirt road will inevitably get potholes which will need to be refilled with some gravel or dirt, and even then, you still have upkeep of your wagons and horses/mules to think about. Seriously, people, think before you start saying you don't want your tax dollars to go to roads.

Oh, and someone else said they hate kids and don't like to pay for public schools. Who do you think will be running America when you're 70 years old? Or selling you insurance, working for you at your office, serving you food in restaurants, etc.? Those pesky kids you didn't want to provide some learning for. Granted, I don't plan to send our kids to public school, but still, everyone is better off when kids get at least a basic education. I know I don't want to listen to some idiot ramble on, not able to string a sentence together b/c he didn't get to go to school. But that will never happen b/c there will always be some sort of funding for education, so both points are moot, really.

I think the HSR is a ridiculous idea from what has been presented. As a commuter train, it *may* be feasible if the quantity of passengers will be enough for it to recoup its initial costs and then start turning a profit (I'm not familiar with the funding of this, if it's gov't-run or private) or at least pay for its own maintenance and staffing. But with MKE to Chicago, people also use the train for pleasure, not just to commute. To me, paying $22 each way is stupid if you have more than say, one person going b/c the cost of gas would easily be less if 2 or more people were each paying $44 round trip. But if it was just me and I wanted to go explore Chicago for a day, I might consider it. I have a car but others who don't have one might be willing to pay that price per person so they can experience what Chicago has to offer. That's a pleasure trip, not a business trip. That is why the rail to Chicago makes more sense than the HSR from MKE to Madison. I don't see a lot pleasure trips to Madison. From Madison to MKE, possibly, but still, it's probably better to just drive if you have more than one person going.

Bottom line: I want to see where the money is coming from and how the HSR project will pay for itself, who will benefit from it, etc. before I will support my tax dollars going to it. I don't know the politics of the state yet but I'm sure this will be a matter that voters will decide, or at least influence through the election of public officials.