You obviously only read the anti-rail propaganda rather than looking at the actual proposal. As was mentioned by Perrin above, the plan includes: 50 percent increase in bus service including 44 new routes ·New "Signature Express" buses on major crosstown routes with more frequent service and fewer stops for faster trips ·Nine new transit centers ·More than doubling the HOV-lane network to 250 miles of two-directional commuter-bus service ·Nine new Park & Ride lots with commuter-bus service $979 million in bus expansion ·$774 million in road construction How exactly is this a rail-only proposal?
There is currently a great deal devoted to public transportation, need we invest more when the benefit will be little different from the current metro bus system?? The benefits of rail are speed and efficiency - neither of which the bus system can provide because it uses the same roads as the cars. Multimodal transit systems are the most efficienct way to reduce net average travel times. Getting to work in 20 minutes instead of an hour means a potential 80 minutes extra of productive time from an individual. That's the benefit of light rail.
I'm not...I'm hoping for something similar to Dallas or Atlanta. I don't even begin to imagine that we will become Boston or New York. Frankly, I'm not sure I want to become those cities. But I don't think that necessarily means there is absolutely no place for rail in our city's public transportation.
Well, if you exclude the millions of Americans who have owned stocks over the past few months and the hundreds of millions of Americans who participated in last quarter's record economic growth, then yeah, the tax cut only benefitted the wealthy. These tax cuts have been a financial boon for millions of Americans. You used to be better than this, andy.
Yeah, we should bend over backwards to accommodate for homeless people -- people who pay ZERO in taxes and devalue the tax base of the city. What a brilliant policy. Perhaps you should re-read the post. Reading comprehension is a good thing. Light rail has nothing to do with the homeless.
Tell that to the 3 million plus people who have lost their jobs, Georgie. Then duck really fast as they swing a crowbar at your head.
Unfortunately, you have never been better than this, Jorge. You claim that hundreds (plural) of millions of Americans participated in the last quarter's economic growth, this would imply that over 2/3 of Americans made substantial gains. It is obvious that this is not the case and it is just as obvious that the only people who have substantially benefitted from Bush's tax cut are the people who are very wealthy. Personally, I have experienced an increase in taxes since the tax cut that was supposedly weighted toward the lower end of the economic scale (claim made by Bush during the campaign). This increase in taxes has no hope of being relieved unless my son is born before 1/1/04. Take your tired, unsubstantiated claims and use them on the rest of the cattle who still believe anything that the administration says. BTW, sorry for the derail to all the people talking about rail.
Your implication couldn't be more wrong. Hundreds of millions of Americans participated in last quarter's economic growth by being a part of the economy. Nice try at reshaping my words though. Once again you wilt like a flower when confronted. RMTex -- you can crow about jobs all you want, but since the latest tax cuts have taken effect, the economy has soared, the stock market has soared, and jobs have been created. Sorry to destroy your favorite Huffington-esque slogan. It is simply no longer factual.
soar (intr. v.) 2. To climb swiftly or powerfully (uh, not exactly) 4. To ascend suddenly above the normal or usual level (hmmm) I love the diction "participate in the economy" or what-not. Yes, we all participate in the economy as soon as we buy gum. Even homeless people (ewww, shudder) participate in the economy when they buy tall boys in paper bags and glare menacingly at T_J as he drives by in his luxury SUV.
So, you are claiming that just being present in America is "participating in last quarter's economic growth?" Nice try at obfuscation, but when it comes down to it, America is 3 million jobs and $500 billion + dollars further in the hole than we were when Bush took office. Besides, as I have stated before, I will listen to what you have to say about economics when you even make an attempt at refuting the hard data and facts presented in the Krugman thread from a while back. You are a partisan shill, a no-brained sheep who simply parrots the party line in the hopes of duping other sheep. RAWK - Rail won't work in Houston, Jorgie wants a cracker - RAWK And as a pre-emptive strike, I will read the sticky again after you stop your insults.
Well, it did surpass what T_J was dishing out. He didn't call you "no brain," but he did say you were "wrong." He also referenced Huffington, but that's not even an insult in my book. Sorry.
Soared? Hardly. They are definitely "up", but to use the word "soar" is a stretch. Only time will tell whether the tax cuts do what Dubya promised they would do. So far, the only jobs that have been created since the tax cuts have been in Iraq, not the US.
Andy, you certainly stepped over the line with your latest emotional breakdown. Nice try at changing your argument though. First you say that the tax cuts aren't working. Then, when confronted with evidence that they were working, you change your argument. Now you are talking about economic changes before the tax cuts were even implemented. How can the tax cuts be responsible for the evidence that you cite if the fall occurred before the cuts were even in place? Of course this is ridiculous. As if that weren't enough, you are forced to immediately revert back to the old, tired liberal fallacy that Bush created the downturn in the business cycle, a fallacy that has been debunked here too many times to count. The stock market predicted the economy would begin declining in March of 2000. Guess who was President then? Oops. Your argument is baseless and flawed. I can't wait to see the way you alter your argument next.
I don't know how often you read the news, particularly economic news, but the economy grew at a rate faster than any over the past 20 years last quarter. Soared is most certainly an appropriate word. Thank you tax cuts.
No more than you have stepped over it time and time again, though I admit that on this one, I was more ascerbic than you. Sorry, but you are the one trying to change the argument. No, I said that the tax cuts did not provide benefits to anybody except the wealthy. First, there is very little evidence that the tax cuts created the recent growth. There is plenty of evidence that suggests that the recent growth is a direct result of higher military spending that will not significantly impact the average American, something discussed in the Krugman thread that you continue to ignore because (I can only assume) you do not have anything intelligent to say on the subject. Um, where did I bring any of this up? The ridiculous part is how much you are reading into my statements. First, I never claimed that Bush was responsible for the downturn as there is very little proof that the president has much direct impact on the economy. Second, you never debunk anything as you do not cite facts or evidence, you rely on catch phrases and unproven theories to support your garbage. MY argument is baseless and flawed, huh? If so, then we are pot and kettle, dude.
I am sorry if I offended you, but IMO, that post was absolutely accurate. T_J has never shown me that he has the capacity for intelligent analysis, only mindless parroting. When confronted with facts and evidence, he runs and hides so as not to be shown up. If anyone (aside from T_J) felt insulted by my comments, I will apologize to them profusely.
