Nice

[Bonestorm]

I'm sorry I didn't use commondreams.org or moveon.moron.... If you would like to participate in this conversation perhaps you could provide links to what YOU are reading so that we can all be as enlightened as you.

No, you used the right-wing equivalent.

I'd start with the actual CBO report (not the one that doesn't exist that dominated the news since last Friday). It can be found here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf

There are legitimate criticisms of the bill. Complaining that the bill doesn't provide parents with vouchers to send their kids to private schools isn't one of them.

 

[Cancel7]

I wrote something for common dreams once. You guys suck.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I wrote something for common dreams once. You guys suck.

and you are a far left nut.... so thanks for proving my point....

 

[Bonestorm]

I wrote something for common dreams once. You guys suck.

I didn't think it actually published any original content but was more of a collector of left-wing pieces from various other sources. I didn't intend to besmirch common dreams, I just pick my battles with SF. Some of his horseshit you just have to let slide.

 

[Cancel7]

I didn't think it actually published any original content but was more of a collector of left-wing pieces from various other sources. I didn't intend to besmirch common dreams, I just pick my battles with SF. Some of his horseshit you just have to let slide.

No they do publish some original pieces. And boy you are so right about SF. I think that we all do that with him.

 

[Cancel7]

SF, here's Josh Marshall on your nonsense about Amtrak. I gather you were on television with this stuff? Well, anyway, he calls it "militant ignorance".

Militant Ignorance

It may not be advisable for anyone to actually listen to the arguments House Republicans are actually making on the House floor. We're just listening again to Rep. Flake (R) who appears to have outdone himself in militant statements of economic nonsense. Earlier today we heard Flake claiming that tax cuts have no stimulus effect if they go to low-income earners who pay payroll taxes and not income taxes.

Now he's explaining how capital spending on AMTRAK is also not stimulus because AMTRAK doesn't run a profit. Again, total non-sequitur. I think rail is something we should be spending a lot more on. But you can certainly disagree with that on policy terms. But you can't claim that that capital spending on rail stock and rail upgrades doesn't provide jobs. Of course it provides jobs. And whether Amtrak is profitable or not is completely beside the point.

Where did they get this guy?

Actually, I forget. He's a chief GOP spokesman on this whole issue.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

[cawacko]

No, you used the right-wing equivalent.

I'd start with the actual CBO report (not the one that doesn't exist that dominated the news since last Friday). It can be found here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf

There are legitimate criticisms of the bill. Complaining that the bill doesn't provide parents with vouchers to send their kids to private schools isn't one of them.

What was in the Journal piece that you didn't find in the CBO report?

 

[Bonestorm]

What was in the Journal piece that you didn't find in the CBO report?

There is so much that is flatly wrong and stupid in the Journal op-ed that I simply don't know where to begin. Don't read it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.

Take as an example the outrage about spending $1 billion on AMTRAK and rail infrastructure upgrades because AMTRAK doesn't turn a profit. First, as Darla pointed out, whether AMTRAK turns a profit is completely irrelevant to whether spending on AMTRAK infrastructure will provide stimulus. My question is which highway turns a profit? I mean, if the knock on AMTRAK spending is that AMTRAK isn't profitable, should we assess the interstate highway system and whether it turns a profit? And they you have SF wondering (seriously) how spending on rail infrastructure is stimulus? The mind boggles.

 

[cawacko]

There is so much that is flatly wrong and stupid in the Journal op-ed that I simply don't know where to begin. Don't read it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.

Take as an example the outrage about spending $1 billion on AMTRAK and rail infrastructure upgrades because AMTRAK doesn't turn a profit. First, as Darla pointed out, whether AMTRAK turns a profit is completely irrelevant to whether spending on AMTRAK infrastructure will provide stimulus. My question is which highway turns a profit? I mean, if the knock on AMTRAK spending is that AMTRAK isn't profitable, should we assess the interstate highway system and whether it turns a profit? And they you have SF wondering (seriously) how spending on rail infrastructure is stimulus? The mind boggles.

Maybe not surprising but I would disagree with the TalkingPointsMemo. I think the profitability and long-term viability of AMTRACK does play a role. Technically yes building new rails is stimulus because it gives people jobs in the short-term. But AMTRACK is a money losing pit and building new rails is not going to change that so the money spent is doing no long-term benefit. It is not money well spent.

You are correct that highways themselves don't make money. But I believe the argument can be made that freeways facilitate business far more than AMTRACK does. We've all seen statistics for the number of hours of productivity workers lose from being stuck in traffic. Building new freeways can provide the short-term stimulus of providing jobs and providing the longer term benefit of helping to ease congestion.

 

[Bonestorm]

Maybe not surprising but I would disagree with the TalkingPointsMemo. I think the profitability and long-term viability of AMTRACK does play a role. Technically yes building new rails is stimulus because it gives people jobs in the short-term. But AMTRACK is a money losing pit and building new rails is not going to change that so the money spent is doing no long-term benefit. It is not money well spent.

You are correct that highways themselves don't make money. But I believe the argument can be made that freeways facilitate business far more than AMTRACK does. We've all seen statistics for the number of hours of productivity workers lose from being stuck in traffic. Building new freeways can provide the short-term stimulus of providing jobs and providing the longer term benefit of helping to ease congestion.

Pretending that rail infrastructure doesn't provide the same benefits as highway construction is short-sighted to the highest degree.

 

[Bonestorm]

By the way, here's a nifty chart from the Wall Street Journal (news pages, obviously):

 

[cawacko]

Pretending that rail infrastructure doesn't provide the same benefits as highway construction is short-sighted to the highest degree.

What is the long-term benefit of building more rails for Amtrak?

 

[Minister of Truth]

What is the long-term benefit of building more rails for Amtrak?

We in the Pacific NW hate light rail and trains in general. We just like to fucking drive already, and its not like a NE metropolis where everything is close and compacted geographically. My friend Sean is just about the only person who takes the Amtrak... (there's a station here in my college town, which I give him a ride to fairly frequently).

In fact, recently, the governor signed into law the bill that will see the creation of a new traffic tunnel that will replace the aging Alaskan Way Viaduct (Why a duck?).