|
|
| Re: Jerry Brown moves to shield CAHSR from environmental lawsuits (1160222) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Jerry Brown moves to shield CAHSR from environmental lawsuits |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jun 4 13:23:50 2012, in response to Re: Jerry Brown moves to shield CAHSR from environmental lawsuits, posted by brightonr68 on Mon Jun 4 00:29:30 2012. The fuel taxshould be raised and if you follow what is going on in congress there are proposals on the table to back door in such a raise by switching to a cost per mile fee due to the fact that as more hybrids and electric cars hit the road,then the amount of gas sold will decline.That's all fine and well, but any proposal to rectify the decades we've allowed the gas tax to atrophy is a long way from becoming law. And with the political situation in Congress, with the lower house bent on running the country into the ground rather than govern responsibly, any legislation that hints of revenue increases will be extremely difficult to sneak through. Our highways are leaching off the general tax fund today, and that is unlikely to change any time in the future, mileage based taxes or no. FYI the FAA is profitable if you account for all the taxes paid by private sector airlines and there employees. Then lets see some numbers. The FAA receives at least 8 billion dollars a year, while airlines pay just 3 billion dollars in taxes dedicated to those finances. Service fees cannot be included because they are paid to a local authority for the airport upkeep, not to the FAA. You cannot include the taxation on the employees because those same taxes would be paid by the employees of any alternative mode. Your response shows tons of bias that does not agree with the majority of the population of this great nation. Yeah, so what? Why should I concern myself with the opinion of someone from Arkansas regarding high speed rail? A majority of Californians approved the high speed rail, and the representatives of the remaining 270 million Americans who do not live in the Golden State approved the high speed rail funding they are now accessing. If we let everything be decided by popular polls on a national level nothing would ever get built and we'd make most third world banana republics look like superpowers. These high speed lines are also a major terrorist target that is much harder to defend then an airport Oh please. Are you so desperate you're just making things up now? You sure as hell can't hijack a train and fly it into a building. High speed rail is not as conducive as either airliners or crowded commuter trains as targets of bombings. The lack of a pressurized cabin and the lack of standees both reduces the structural damage and reduces the number of people within the blast radius of whatever bomb is within the train. Ask Carlos the Jackal how his attempts to destroy a TGV in the 1980s went. Just two people were killed in his bombing and the train remained upright and on the rails. I do not like his political approach to the issue. Throw hug sums of money at projects in order to make a big headline. The same problem I would have if any politician did it. So you don't like it because someone took the same approach we use with the Department of Defense and applied it to infrastructure? Yes, how dare we spend government money on a long term investment in our future when we could burn it on bombs, guns, and other wholly disposable items. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|