I actually do consider myself a bit of an amateur (and yes, I do mean amateur and I am well aware of the connotations) economist. I'm bored tonight, so take this math and do with it what you will.

My assumptions are very limited, and as follows:

The absence of a high speed rail line from L.A. to Vegas would have absolutely no impact on the lives of 99.999% of Americans.

A decent job "created" might be something along the lines of $50,000 per year for ten years, or $500,000 in earned income to the individual.


If my assumptions are acceptable, then $8 billion in "emergency stimulus" spending (as opposed to duly debated budget priorities getting more than thirty seconds of consideration) should "create" 16,000 tax paying jobs in order to be considered a break-even for the American people. Otherwise we may as well pick 16,000 people in a lottery and hand them each half a million dollars.

If you take the definition of a decent job downward, say to $40,000 for eight years, then the necessary 'break even' point would be 25,000 "created jobs." I'm not inclined to think that any liberal apologist would move the definitions in the other direction. Can anybody within the reach of this thread suggest to me that this rail line will create 16,000-25,000 stable jobs?

The tax revenue from a rail line may or may not offset some of the cost. I have no idea how many people would ride such a line. I am aware that Amtrak is a colossal failure, subsidized with tax dollars, for whatever that's worth. If the legitimacy of the LA-Vegas line could be justified in terms of tax revenue, public value, and pollution prevention though, it could have been appropriated by the single ruling majority in the country through the budget process. This didn't happen. It went into this microwave-style bill because people needed jobs yesterday and this bill will do it. Baloney.

Liberals can blame President Bush for everything until they're blue in the face. Conservatives can blame liberal social policies for everything until they're blue in the face. This is boring. Utterly and completely boring. I, unlike most who share my views (and all who lost in '00 and '04, BTW), am perfectly resigned to the fact that my side lost a relatively close election. To the victor goes the initiative. When you're in charge, you make your case to the people and you have the upper hand in passing laws. When President Bush wanted to cut taxes for ALL Americans to fight the recession that he inherited, he made his case publicly. He did not have a filibuster-proof majority and he did not scare people into voting for a bill that they had not read. His case was made, his compromises were made, and the bill was passed. Ditto for the much-maligned Iraq war, which received widespread bipartisan support after a lengthy debate. He screwed up on a number of occasions over the course of eight years. I can point them out far more clearly that the average Democrat can, believe me. He did not, however, sneak secret pet projects into a bill late at night and tell people that they would starve unless the bill passed within five minutes.

So we come full circle. If the bill wasn't going to be signed until Tuesday afternoon, why did it have to pass before anybody could see what it contained? With three days for legislators to consider the bill, the vote could have been done in an hour. The left could have celebrated the coming utopia and conservatives could have lamented the coming apocalypse. The references to the Great Depression could have continued, as if the Carter years never happened. The president could have burned his fossil fuels all the way to Denver and had his photo op just the way he did anyway. Nothing would have changed, other than our representative government actually showing some sense of accountability to the people.

 

I know... right.... the real answer to the economy is to shove more money at the auto industry and every other failing business that shows up.

I am going to open a stand in the desert and sell sand and see if I can get a fat o' check

 

In fairness to all I think that congress should set an example by taking a pay cut. They should also reduce their retirement benefits and not be allowed to receive their retirement benefits until the same age as the rest of the population. In addition they should only be allowed to collect an equivalent of what social security would pay a retiree. Government employees should participate in social security and not be forced to retire at 59 1/2 years of age. They should also not be allowed to collect any retirement benefits until they reach the same retirement age as allowed by social security. That in itself would reduce our budgetary needs by billions of dollars. We could tie congressional compensation to the deficit and how well they manage our economy. They can receive a bonus by balancing the budget and how much money they cut from the budget each year. Reduce their pay to no more than $100,000. The only way they can get a raise is to give us a balance budget and cut the size of the government. These people have not been held accountable for many years. By holding them to a standard they would be forced to reduce spending or forfeit their bonus. I know. That isn't the way government works.

People talk about the government NEEDS to do something but I think that is flawed thinking. Private enterprise should be allowed to fail. The government has already failed. The economy will recover on it's own if the government stays out of it. If government really wanted to help they should reduce taxes and start cutting non essential government. The non essential part is about 2/3 of the government we now employ. Putting back the excise tax on foreign made goods would encourage companies to start manufacturing goods in this country again. An economy cannot survive strictly as a service economy. I believe that has been proven in the last several decades. Tax incentives for those who provide more jobs would do more to turn the economy around than all these pet government programs. As far as the commuter train from LA to Vegas, it will likely be a loser just like Amtrak on the east coast. Without government subsidies Amtrak would have gone out of business long ago. The market works when left alone. I do think we need some regulations, but most could be thrown away and our country and economy would be the better for it.

 

I don't remember using the term stupid. I also did not say useless. But, the rails come from Japan, the rail cars from Mexico, and the wood for the railroad ties from Canada. And, on the side of the heavy equipment doing the work, it may say "KOMATSU" or something like that. Outside of a few locals doing the assembly, who gets the work?

 

Add "ROWBOATS" to the list too, maybe that'll add more to it.:clap:

 

Rev.Vassago said:

Maybe that is true. But, that is not what I "heard." My statement wouldn't be true if I didn't quote what I HEARD (probably on FoxNews. They rarely get anything right!)

Whether or not my point is relevant is irrelevant. But, it might be more relevant IF you understood it. I was not saying divvy up the 800 billion between each family of 4, I was saying that to PAY for this particular stimulus package would COST each family of 4 about $8,000 (if paid for all in one year.) My point was that MAYBE, it would be worth it for a family to cough up $8,000 to "protect" their $50,000 a year job. I know.... assuming that it worked, etc.

Let's see..... 9 houses on your block are foreclosed due to your neighbors losing their jobs, AND/or lending capital being squeezed to the point they can't refinance. That lowers the value of YOUR house by about $8,000. (I heard THAT today.) There ya go. Reason enough by itself.

OR.... millions more lose their jobs, and tax revenues decrease. Your city, state AND federal governments raise your taxes to cover operating expenses.

Yeah, THAT was amazing! I had NO idea they could squeeze that many people onto such a small island! No WONDER they built bridges to nowhere. If they had built them anywhere ELSE, they'd have had to build them on TOP of people! :lol:

Sorry, I just don't "buy" that!

 

Oh, yeah... Ride the rails to Vegas, gamble all your money away, then go to the local truck stops and see if you can hitch a ride back home...

I know someone that went to Vegas in a $30,000 Lincoln, and came back home in a $90,000 bus.

And, when Hobo says, "long term jobs"... As what? Conductors? Or are the guys on the construction crew supposed to MILK the job??? Considering the number of people they'll hire to do the work, and how many of them will actually be locals.. (Gov funded construction jobs go out on BIDS, and it may not be a local company that gets the bid.) It may not even help the local population at all. I delivered equipment to CA for a project building a dam. The company was from BRAZIL, and the engineering firm that was doing all the designing was from Japan. The standing joke was (company was called CBPO) "CALL BRAZIL... PLANS OBSOLETE" I met 3 guys that spoke English on the site. Most were not even Hispanic Americans. Now, build your rail line and support the local population. Where are the American jobs coming from?

 

Dang it!! Windy has done it to me again! I should KNOW better than to get involved in a discussion based on one of his RUMORS that he can't even get straight!

The SHORT of it is that 8 billion is the TOTAL amount in the package for ALL light rail projects nationwide! To learn some TRUTH.... read some of these links:

Streetsblog Final Stimulus Bill Slaps Transit Riders in the Face

I don't usually link to blogs, but this one is informative

Final Stimulus Bill Rewards HSR Massively; Falls Somewhere Between House and Senate on Transit the transport politic

2009 Stimulus Bill - Streetswiki - Livable Streets

same goes for these two.

Las Vegas Now | Lawmakers told stimulus funds for roads will be used to patch pavement

This one is a bit more official and lists the ACTUAL dollar amounts.

Private group might build high-speed train to Las Vegas | The San Diego Union-Tribune

THIS one explains that the proposed project is to be privately funded, but MAY get SOME of the money!

Republicans cry foul over $8 billion for high-speed rail - Los Angeles Times

And THIS one shows that the WHOLE misconception came from REPUBLICANS who can't tell the TRUTH from their bungholes! :hellno::rofl:

I'm starting to think that WindWalker gets his INFO from the same sources that Double L does!! WAKE UP and do some research folks!!!

Woops! My bad, Windy! It was VITO who mentioned the $8 billion! But, my comments on the possible values of the high speed rail line still stand. And you Republicans should LOVE the fact that it is to be funded mostly by private investment.

The point is, too many people "picking at" the plan before they understand it. Give the man a chance, eh? Bush had 8 years and look where we are!

 

You people need to quit your damned whining, and do what I did.

I took my family down to Mexico; then, we all snuck back across the border.

Now, we're all illegal aliens, so we'll get welfare, food stamps, free housing, free health care, and free education!!

:lol: :lol:

 

See now Hobo? If you could have simply said that the single rail line might not get the full $8 billion, you would have been onto something. Then someone who cared to continue the discussion could have asked what amount below $8 billion would be justifiable, since you had already taken the position of defending the project at a cost of $8 billion. Perhaps an informative and interesting colloquy may have ensued.

Instead though, you did a Google search and tried to cherry-pick some articles.

The first is a blog, as you noted. It seems to me that your reading of the blog came from a fairly ideological starting point. The blog's quote from the AP article says, "In late-stage talks, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pressed for $8 billion to construct high-speed rail lines, quadrupling the amount in the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday. Reid's office issued a statement noting that a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail might get a big chunk of the money." If you're simply reading the article for the information that it contains and not trying to back up a political position, it sure as hell sounds like Senator Reid got the money allocated for a pet project.

Then we have a chart showing that the House allocated nothing, the Senate allocated $2 billion, and those aforementioned late-stage talks between Senator Reid and President Obama somehow compromised by allocating $8 billion. Nothing to raise an eyebrow there, eh? The article uses the usual vague description of where the money goes. We may deduce that the full $8 billion wouldn't go to a single project, but again the 'pet project' angle concerning Reid seems to be backed up by the information in the article.

I'm not sure what exactly the third one is supposed to say. We spend far more on highways than we do on mass transit? Shocking, really. You would almost think that we Americans value our freedom of movement and prefer to drive our own cars around. If we really loved sitting next to some uwashed soul from Ohio as we traveled, perhaps we would spend more on railroads that we do on highways. Even liberals used to believe that supply and demand were important factors. If demand was there and supply wasn't, then you would have people clamoring for rail lines all over. I don't hear the outcry. If supply was there and demand wasn't, the line would have been built a long time ago and it wouldn't be used much. If supply would drive demand though... ohh, that's blasphemy in your world isn't it? Sorry about that. So I guess in reality we have been in some state of equilibrium and the authors of that site just don't get it.

The fourth one (AP article) simply reminds me that I should get a job as a journalist. They do the written equivalent of me backing into a swimming pool with my doors open, yet they keep their jobs. Nevada will get $201 million in highway funds and $49 million for rapid-transit rail, so they have $1 billion in ready to go projects. Then some of those projects are listed even though the article starts by saying that most of the highway money will be used fixing potholes. The numbers are inconsistent with anything reported by anybody else (including other AP writers). There is no explanation to tie it all together. Inverted pyramid, anyone? Remember that from eighth grade Journalism? Oy. That article is a mess.

I think the next one was my favorite. If you're not careful, that pesky Google will give you an article from March of 2007 and won't even tell you about it. Perhaps it really was going to be privately funded when the economy was growing at a robust pace. Mix in some gloom and doom though, and you can stick the taxpayers with the bill instead. Viva la Cuba!

The last one reminds me that, if I really did want to be a journalist, I might want to start slanting leftward pretty soon. Quote a few Democrats as they attack Republicans for seeing what happened, even though those same Democrats don't have a viable explanation. Don't bother exploring the possibility that the Republicans are onto something. Then completely undermine your own story by quoting this fella:

"It's not just specifically for us," said Bruce Aguilera, chairman of the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, which plans to seek a still-undetermined amount of the stimulus money for the $12-billion-to-$14-billion project.

"Not just specifically for us"? Yeah, those wacky Republicans are really out on a limb here. The guy needs to hire a PR consultant. You're supposed to pretend to be largely uninformed about the goings on, but hopeful. You're not supposed to essentially acknowledge that you finally got what Harry Reid owed you. Congressman Obey's best defense of the whole thing? Pointing out that the cabinet secretary was a Republican. Well wow! That's some thorough analysis. Almost as poignant as the White House official who defended the bill by pointing out that Heath Schuler wasn't a good NFL quarterback.

Okay, I'll back off of my hatchet job on the linked articles now. I just expected better from you and I was disappointed to see what you came up with.

On the actual point... If it's not $8 billion for the Vegas to LA line, then what amount is it? And where does the rest of the $8 billion go? Nobody knows, obviously. That's a common theme when you spend more money than anybody in the history of human civilization without letting the people see what is going on. Nobody knows much of anything. The liberals in our society seem perfectly content to accept that an unknown dollar amount spent on unknown projects will create millions of jobs, simply because The One says so. If I'm going to hop on the train to Shangri-la, I would like to see exactly how they back up these claims. Whether Reid's cut is $1 billion or the full $8 billion, people know a pet project when they see one.

Now that I've gotten all bogged down in the mundane, I'll add the larger point that this $8 billion is merely 1% of the spending. Given that I am a fiscally conservative individual, this 1% will naturally be tough to justify in my opinion. Polls however indicate that at least half the country agrees with me this time around. And we only have another 99% to comb through... That's why the bill had to pass before the weekend and everybody knows it. The details won't hold up to the light of day and now it's too late for anyone to get cold feet.