Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

monsoon

Southern City Transit Funding

Recommended Posts

monsoon    0

Looks as if most Southern cities are going to go without for at least another year as only 1 Southern city received funding in the very meger 2006 Bush Budget for transit Funding. Charlotte' LRT project was the only project that Bush recommended for full funding in the South, with no existing project receiving funding either.

The full details can be found in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Southron    14

More suburban and exurban sprawl means more votes for the GOP. Fat chance transit will ever get much needed support from these guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    0

it's sad when iraq gets more money than the south in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. thanks bush, you moron.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, the 50 billion we'll spend on Iraq is greater than the trillions we'll spend on the South this year. :rolleyes:

Nice liberal twist with the lack of other cities even applying to federal funding being left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    0

They had enough fun before the election with their buddy Moore. They'll still keep at it Rather than leave it alone.

Politics, such a fun game so long as you'vel earned to never take it personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

monsoon    0

Yes, the 50 billion we'll spend on Iraq is greater than the trillions we'll spend on the South this year.  :rolleyes: 

Nice liberal twist with the lack of other cities even applying to federal funding being left out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually its 500 Billion and last time I checked, the Iraqi's didn't pay the taxes in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    0

Actually its 500 Billion and last time I checked, the Iraqi's didn't pay the taxes in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Metro, who told you we're spending $500 billion in one year on Iraq?

"The Cost of War calculator is set to reach $207.5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005)"

That figure includes all funding direclty or indirectly associated with the War in Iraq since we first set foot there.

You know we spend twice that on foreign vehicles and parts each year and last I checked, they didn't pay our taxes either. Same with foreign electronics. It's a two way street really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    0

Now that's very likely but we were in context of a single year and comparing $500 billion over the course of 5-6 years to $20-24 trillion over the same time span for the Southern US doesn't come close to competing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monsoon    0

Now that's very likely but we were in context of a single year and comparing $500 billion over the course of 5-6 years to $20-24 trillion over the same time span for the Southern US doesn't come close to competing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Southern states don't get trillions in federal funding each year either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    0

State budgets for the South combined in 2006 will be around $400 billion plus another $700 billion the federal gov will spend on the South so overall Souther Budget is just over $1 trillion for 2006. OK, I was over in my first post. but over the course of another 5-6, that will be, taken annual increases into account, $6-8 trillion. Still far more than the possible $500 billion that the war in Iraq costs, directly and indirectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monsoon    0

State budgets for the South combined in 2006 will be around $400 billion plus another $700 billion the federal gov will spend on the South so overall Souther Budget is just over $1 trillion for 2006.  OK, I was over in my first post. but over the course of another 5-6, that will be, taken annual increases into account, $6-8 trillion.  Still far more than the possible $500 billion that the war in Iraq costs, directly and indirectly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you are being disingenuous. First you make the silly comment about $50M vs Trillions and when called out on this, you are now attempting to drag the entire combined Federal and State budget into the this discussion. heh. And in any case the Iraqis did not pay a dime in taxes for any of this benefit.

The bottom line of the original comment is that Bush's budget for rail transit funding equates to justs a few days of war funding is very correct. This is not a liberal twist or any other kind of twist. It is a simple fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GaTechGuy    0

Yes, the 50 billion we'll spend on Iraq is greater than the trillions we'll spend on the South this year.  :rolleyes: 

Nice liberal twist with the lack of other cities even applying to federal funding being left out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why apply for what you know you can't get? "The trillions we'll spend on the south this year"? Are you referring to the Federal government? The entire Federal budget for 2005 is 2.3 trillion...what trillions are you referring to?

The Federal Debt as of now is $7,730,577,840,657. Thats a $2,056,399,630,771 increase from the $5,674,178,209,886 that the debt stood at on Sept. 30th 2000. Thats a 36% increase under Bush in just over 4 years! Under the 8 years of Clinton (a democrat) the debt increased by $1,609,557,554,365 or 39.5%. If we payed off the national debt with one dollar per second it would take us 245,135 years to pay off the national debt. We can't afford the amount of money we spend in our own country, much less the money we spend on Iraq. No liberal twist needed, but it helps. Politicians in general tend to be idiots when in comes to fiscal responsibility but Bush is certainly king of them all....but hey, ignorance is bliss. :thumbsup:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tables.html

http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html

http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nashvol85    0

Politicians in general tend to be idiots when in comes to fiscal responsibility

Outside of a select few, I think that is all that needs to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    0

Well, only 2 cities applied and one did get the funding so the 'why apply when you know you won't get it' doesn't seem to fit.

You guys are missing two points here.

The first was that someone stated that we spend more in Iraq in one year than the whole South.

The second was that liberals tend to withhold certain data to make things appear one way when it's not. Metro gave the appearance that all cities with any form of mass transit had applied for funding and only charlotte was approved. The missing data is that only 1 other Souther city with mass transit even applied for the funding. It puts things in better context when you know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GaTechGuy    0

Viper, I'm not exactly sure where you got the idea that no other southern cities applied for federal money for their transportation projects. Lake made the comment that the only Florida city to apply was Tampa, but unless I missed something there was nothing more said about that.

Your point that liberals tend to leave out data to support their claims is entirely true, but then again its true of any politician whether they be liberal, conservative or in the middle. (Bush and Social Security)

My comments were a bit off topic, but thats a subject that I feel very passionate about and therefore love to debate. Anyhow this shouldn't turn into some liberal/conservative brawl; you made some very valid points and I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    0

Almost $8 billion in federal funding this year for transit.

Houston also applied and was denied.

By the way, cities that cleaned up their local air pollution lose lots of federal funding so those that had better air indexes than the previous year won't even apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monsoon    0

Well, only 2 cities applied and one did get the funding so the 'why apply when you know you won't get it' doesn't seem to fit.

You guys are missing two points here.

The first was that someone stated that we spend more in Iraq in one year than the whole South.

The second was that liberals tend to withhold certain data to make things appear one way when it's not.  Metro gave the appearance that all cities with any form of mass transit had applied for funding and only charlotte was approved.  The missing data is that only 1 other Souther city with mass transit even applied for the funding.  It puts things in better context when you know that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

26 cities applied, not 2. Second, the statement was that more was spent fighting the war in Iraq in just a few days, than all the transit funding budgeted by Bush for 2006. And third I did not give any appearances at all. Just the facts. Before you start lecturing others about facts you need to get yours straight and quit making statements to start fights. I've found that people who like to make claims about liberals like to distort information by leaving things out just as much as the people they criticize. Quit proving my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satalac    492

Yes, the 50 billion we'll spend on Iraq is greater than the trillions we'll spend on the South this year.  :rolleyes: 

Nice liberal twist with the lack of other cities even applying to federal funding being left out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

50 billion is very very conservative (don't mind the pun there :P ). we are also losing lives in iraq, not to mention pissing off the world. so not only are we doing this, we're also taking money away that could be used in our own country for our own people. sorry if this sounds selfish, but i'd like to take advantage of my own tax dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viper    0

Call me a sucker for those that want independence from tyranny then.

All that money being spent over there and I'm still getting annual raises, my cost of living increases are negligible, etc...

In fact, unless someone told us that major money was being spent elsewhere, you'd never even know it.

I like the fact that several million girls can finally go to school, rape rooms were destroyed, democracy was opened to Iraq and is spreading to Lebanon and even Egypt, more homes have electricity in Iraq than ever before and Saddam is no longer a threat to anyone. What has it cost us? A few billion that we hardly can tell is gone and just over 1,000 soldiers in a volunteer military which is far less than any major war we've ever fought in with the exception of 100 hours of war in the first Gulf War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satalac    492

Call me a sucker for those that want independence from tyranny then.

All that money being spent over there and I'm still getting annual raises, my cost of living increases are negligible, etc...

In fact, unless someone told us that major money was being spent elsewhere, you'd never even know it. 

I like the fact that several million girls can finally go to school, rape rooms were destroyed, democracy was opened to Iraq and is spreading to Lebanon and even Egypt, more homes have electricity in Iraq than ever before and Saddam is no longer a threat to anyone.  What has it cost us?  A few billion that we hardly can tell is gone and just over 1,000 soldiers in a volunteer military which is far less than any major war we've ever fought in with the exception of 100 hours of war in the first Gulf War.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i find it funny that you think that iraq is free from tyranny. tyranny from whom? sure, saddam is gone, but there will just be another. why do you think there is so much resistance? i am glad that saddam is gone, he was a horrible person, but the united states really screwed up on the way they went about it. our foreign policy right now ranks with what it was in vietnam, and that is horrible. i don't understand why we can't go back to isolationism. what ever happened to walk softly and carry a big stick? believe it or not, the attacks from 9/11 were caused by our butting in to everybodies lives in the middle east. i'm not saying that am glad they happened, i am certainly not, but i understand why they happened. the united states is in a dangerous place, and it needs to step carefully before another tragedy happens. i love this country with all my heart, but the leadership is sub-par right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dale    599

^ Suffice it to say that those opposed to Iraq are going to revel in cost comparisons between the war and American mass-transit. Whereas those who support Iraq are going to be undaunted by such comparisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.