$54 mil of stimulus Money went to a Private Railroad, way to go POTUS!

[Empty V]

Not sure if anyone knew about this or not but $54 mil from the stimulus package went to improving 25 miles of a privately owned train called the "Wine Train" up in Napa Valley. I'm guessing it's just a coincidence Nanci Pelosi has business along the trains route. This is corruption at the highest level/ How can anyone be stupid enough to do something like this? I guess they're getting away with it so being corrupt right in broad daylight is working for them.

Wine Train

[srellim234]

Did you really expect any difference when control went from the Republicans to the Democrats in Washington? See the money that went to Halliburton on no-bid contracts from the Bush-Cheney administration for an example from the other side. This is called business as usual for them.

We're not going to stop this type of corruption until we stop gerrymandering and make elections competitive. We've allowed our system to restrict people who actually can get elected to the two major parties, and in most districts even that is restricted to one by artificially laying down boundaries that protect one party or the other.

[telcoman]

Not sure if anyone knew about this or not but $54 mil from the stimulus package went to improving 25 miles of a privately owned train called the "Wine Train" up in Napa Valley. I'm guessing it's just a coincidence Nanci Pelosi has business along the trains route. This is corruption at the highest level/ How can anyone be stupid enough to do something like this? I guess they're getting away with it so being corrupt right in broad daylight is working for them.

Wine Train

What about Shelby?

Perhaps faux news missed this story?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35..._hill/

BTW I took the wine train when I was in NAPA valley and it was a wonderful experienceThe train attracts many tourists and the tracks should be maintained and kept safe..Telcoman

[Empty V]

What about Shelby?

Perhaps faux news missed this story?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35..._hill/

BTW I took the wine train when I was in NAPA valley and it was a wonderful experienceThe train attracts many tourists and the tracks should be maintained and kept safe..Telcoman

I never said the the GOP were saints. I'm sure the wine train is great but it's all private businesses. How is that even remotely justifiable? How are they even allowed to have a private railroad? I'm guessing the guy at the end of the video in the link was someone that worked for the city. I thought it was pretty amazing how he said that he would have put the money into the run down streets instead of private businesses.

[audtatious]

What about Shelby?

Perhaps faux news missed this story?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35..._hill/

BTW I took the wine train when I was in NAPA valley and it was a wonderful experienceThe train attracts many tourists and the tracks should be maintained and kept safe..Telcoman

Did you visit Pelosi's union-free winery?

[smockers83]

Remove the fact that it's a private business (which really is irrelevant anyway) and that Nazi Pelosi is involved. It provided some sort of stimulus by providing jobs to a handful of people. It improved some sort of infrastructure. It did everything Obama wanted.

Now, to the private business part. What in God's name does that have to do with anything? How many public businesses are there? I can think of three or four off the top of my head (Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and Citi if you want to count that). Private business is what drives America. What's so unjustifiable about money going to private businesses? The money spent to build roads goes to private businesses, the contractors who build the roads.

You can have a private railroad. Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, all of your local and regional rail lines have private rail, and they're all private businesses. I don't understand what the big deal is?

[Empty V]

Remove the fact that it's a private business (which really is irrelevant anyway) and that Nazi Pelosi is involved. It provided some sort of stimulus by providing jobs to a handful of people. It improved some sort of infrastructure. It did everything Obama wanted.

First of all you can't just remove these things. This is part of my point. That's like saying "Remove the fact that the jury was paid off, he was still deemed innocent." Nancy Pelosi is a variable, and variables contribute to the conclusion.

Now, to the private business part. What in God's name does that have to do with anything? How many public businesses are there? I can think of three or four off the top of my head (Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and Citi if you want to count that). Private business is what drives America. What's so unjustifiable about money going to private businesses? The money spent to build roads goes to private businesses, the contractors who build the roads.

You can have a private railroad. Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, all of your local and regional rail lines have private rail, and they're all private businesses. I don't understand what the big deal is?

The fact that this $54 million will temporarily provide jobs and boost income for private businesses is a lot of money wasted. If the business cannot sustain themselves then they've made some poor decisions. If a business is working without a reserve then they're not managing their money properly. Also, that's a lot of money that could go to schools, streets and creating permanent jobs. Do you think that if Pelosi didn't have a stake in it they'd still have funded it? I highly doubt it. Our business is hurting but we're able to push through it because we've built up a reserve for times like this. We've also made cutback like everyone else. When times are tough you tighten your belt and quit your b****ing. If you don't make it then you weren't meant to do what you were doing. I know it sounds idealistic but I do not believe in this utopian socialist society that's being jammed down our throats.

Billy

[smockers83]

First of all you can't just remove these things. This is part of my point. That's like saying "Remove the fact that the jury was paid off, he was still deemed innocent." Nancy Pelosi is a variable, and variables contribute to the conclusion.

First of all, you completely missed my point. I didn't say whether it was right or wrong, what I said was that it provided stimulus to provide jobs, which in turn improved some sort of infrastructure. That's what Obama wanted to accomplish. You didn't see what I did there, did you? I took the partisanship out of this story. It is my understanding that California's flood control systems are at a critical point of failing.

The fact that this $54 million will temporarily provide jobs and boost income for private businesses is a lot of money wasted.

Time out here. No stimulus is put out there to create permanent jobs. All jobs out there as a product of a stimulus project are all temporary. When the project is complete, the jobs are gone. My question here is, how does this boost income for the business?

If the business cannot sustain themselves then they've made some poor decisions. If a business is working without a reserve then they're not managing their money properly. Also, that's a lot of money that could go to schools, streets and creating permanent jobs. Do you think that if Pelosi didn't have a stake in it they'd still have funded it? I highly doubt it. Our business is hurting but we're able to push through it because we've built up a reserve for times like this. We've also made cutback like everyone else. When times are tough you tighten your belt and quit your b****ing. If you don't make it then you weren't meant to do what you were doing. I know it sounds idealistic but I do not believe in this utopian socialist society that's being jammed down our throats.

Again, stimulus packages aren't necessarily designed to produce permanent jobs. The jobs they create are a band aid on a boo-boo in the jobs market until it heals. Even if the money did go to schools, they hire a couple of people. What happens when the money runs out? Program is gone, jobs are gone. They aren't going to be able to get another $54 million.

Now the mayor said that he would have spent it differently. You said you'd spend it differently. I probably would have spent it differently. This is the problem with the bickering over stimulus money, everyone seems to think they know what's best.

If she did have a stake in it, she played it quite nicely I have to admit, giving the money to the ACE for better flood protection. How valid it is, I'm not sure, but again, I've heard that California's flood protection is at a critical point. What do you do from here, you may ask? Get rid of that devil woman, please.

Going on a much broader topic of the stimulus package of February and the jobs market. Everyone's complaining of the jobs market still and that the last stimulus package didn't do much, which is making this jobs bill that is getting drafted much harder to swallow. However, one thing that people fail to realize is that employment is a lagging statistic in the economy. During the last recession during Bush's tenure, a good jobs market didn't return until two years after the bottom of the recession.

[audtatious]

I need a stimulus of a few grand so I can replace my driveway. It will allow for a few temporary jobs while making my travel much easier to go to the store and restaurants to spend my cash

[BusyBadger]

I would be more inclined to refer to it as a 'niche business' instead of a private business.

The issue I have is the relative impact, or rather lack of impact, the $54M will have where it's being used versus a more broad-based improvement in infrastructure that can be used by the masses. I'd love to see the demographics & metrics used to justify this decision.

This isn't a left/right thing either. One of my yardsticks is to think about what kind of reaction & coverage issues would get if the tables were turned. Anyone that thinks the GOP wouldn't be getting skewered by the press over this is more myopic than Mr. Magoo.

What I'd give for The Who to play "Won't Get Fooled Again" at Superbowl Halftime with a montage of the Obama & Co. in the background.

[telcoman]

What I'd give for The Who to play "Won't Get Fooled Again" at Superbowl Halftime with a montage of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby & Co. in the background.

Fixed that for ya

Telcoman

[srellim234]

You should have changed that to " a montage of any Republican and/or Democrat in the background."

And definitely not limited to the executive branch of our government.

[audtatious]

He's too partisan to see or care. While the majority who post here are fiscal conservatives we at least admit that there is stupidity on both sides of the Gov.

[Empty V]

First of all, you completely missed my point. I didn't say whether it was right or wrong, what I said was that it provided stimulus to provide jobs, which in turn improved some sort of infrastructure. That's what Obama wanted to accomplish. You didn't see what I did there, did you? I took the partisanship out of this story. It is my understanding that California's flood control systems are at a critical point of failing.

Time out here. No stimulus is put out there to create permanent jobs. All jobs out there as a product of a stimulus project are all temporary. When the project is complete, the jobs are gone. My question here is, how does this boost income for the business?

Again, stimulus packages aren't necessarily designed to produce permanent jobs. The jobs they create are a band aid on a boo-boo in the jobs market until it heals. Even if the money did go to schools, they hire a couple of people. What happens when the money runs out? Program is gone, jobs are gone. They aren't going to be able to get another $54 million.

Now the mayor said that he would have spent it differently. You said you'd spend it differently. I probably would have spent it differently. This is the problem with the bickering over stimulus money, everyone seems to think they know what's best.

If she did have a stake in it, she played it quite nicely I have to admit, giving the money to the ACE for better flood protection. How valid it is, I'm not sure, but again, I've heard that California's flood protection is at a critical point. What do you do from here, you may ask? Get rid of that devil woman, please.

Going on a much broader topic of the stimulus package of February and the jobs market. Everyone's complaining of the jobs market still and that the last stimulus package didn't do much, which is making this jobs bill that is getting drafted much harder to swallow. However, one thing that people fail to realize is that employment is a lagging statistic in the economy. During the last recession during Bush's tenure, a good jobs market didn't return until two years after the bottom of the recession.

I understood your point but I think it's completely necessary to examine the motivation behind it. If the intention is criminal then it shouldn't have happened at all.

Using the flood control issue is nothing but a deflection tool. You could argue that every single city in California could use some kind of preventative flood control measures. We had 4 days of straight rain a few weeks ago and parts of Long Beach actually flooded. I'm sure the city knew that it's been a hazard and brought it to the state's attention but did they get stimulus money? No.

It's very simple. We don't get much rain out here so when it does it's considered apocalyptic which creates a great outlet for justifying funds. We're always going to have problems when it rains because we're not built for it. It's always been like this and always will be.

To be perfectly honest I had no idea that the stimulus package was supposed to be a band-aid measure. I guess I figured that when you're dealing with that much money the intent is to fix problems, not give them a pep talk. In his state of the union he spoke about how the money was tracked which was total BS. When they did the auto bailout no one knew where that money went and I thought that GM became a govt run entity. It sounds like socialism to me.

[audtatious]

Obama came in and pledged to create 3 million new jobs within 2 years. The expectation was that they would be permanent jobs and not temporary jobs, IMO. They've been unable to do so and the blame is solely on the Bush Administration for their failure. The days of "President on watch" being to blame for what happens ended when Obama was elected so for the next year I expect things to still be blamed on Bush even though the majority is tired of hearing him blame others with every other sentence.

Bush "left Obama with a 1.2 trillion deficit". You see it reported that way in the MSM all the time. The truth is that Bush did leave with a deficit, but not 1.2 trillion. That number included the whole 1st stimulus package (over 700 billion which the Dem controlled Congress pressed forth for it's passage) in which appx 500 million was not spent under Bush but actually held over for Obama to make decisions with (and a large portion of it being already paid back by banks which received the first TARP funds). That means Bush only had a 700 billion deficit (less with the repaid funds based on the first TARP). Still running a deficit but FAR less than Obama want's you to think.

[srellim234]

Obama has, in fact, saved a tremendous # of permanent jobs you aren't giving him credit for. They're all on Wall Street, bailed out by the taxpayers.

The bailouts never should have happened and the government should have let them all go under, to be replaced by new or surviving firms if the need for their services was really there. B of A, Chase, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, those people still have their jobs in the private sector due to the bailouts.

[audtatious]

I agree yet the number of "saved" jobs is an unknown as well.

Above I was specifically talking about the number of promised "new" jobs.

[srellim234]

Well, the number of government employees is rising rapidly.

[smockers83]

Obama has, in fact, saved a tremendous # of permanent jobs you aren't giving him credit for. They're all on Wall Street, bailed out by the taxpayers.

The bailouts never should have happened and the government should have let them all go under, to be replaced by new or surviving firms if the need for their services was really there. B of A, Chase, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, those people still have their jobs in the private sector due to the bailouts.

If you're talking about AIG and TARP, you'd be wrong on the first part (wasn't Obama).

If the biggest banks in the country would've gone under, the US would have gone under. You cannot let that large of a portion of the financial system in your country disappear. On top of that, the sheer size of the capital and cash lost would also have been catastrophic to the country. That's the systemic risk everyone talks about to allowing them to collapse. Many of these banks were forced with the funds. I'm not sure how you can lump Chase in there? Chase is probably the best-run bank today, next to the likes of Wells Fargo.

Jobs should remain in the private sector.

[smockers83]

Using the flood control issue is nothing but a deflection tool. You could argue that every single city in California could use some kind of preventative flood control measures. We had 4 days of straight rain a few weeks ago and parts of Long Beach actually flooded. I'm sure the city knew that it's been a hazard and brought it to the state's attention but did they get stimulus money? No.

It's very simple. We don't get much rain out here so when it does it's considered apocalyptic which creates a great outlet for justifying funds. We're always going to have problems when it rains because we're not built for it. It's always been like this and always will be.

To be perfectly honest I had no idea that the stimulus package was supposed to be a band-aid measure. I guess I figured that when you're dealing with that much money the intent is to fix problems, not give them a pep talk. In his state of the union he spoke about how the money was tracked which was total BS. When they did the auto bailout no one knew where that money went and I thought that GM became a govt run entity. It sounds like socialism to me.

Flood control is not necessarily a deflection. Why do people of SoCal think they are all of Cali? Sacramento could be on the verge of being submerged under 20' of water. True story.

Government spending in terms of stimulus can never be permanent. How could it be? If we have a $700 billion stimulus package, do you think we authorize that $700 billion year after year to keep the jobs? Just think about it.

[audtatious]

Well, the number of government employees is rising rapidly.

And so are the salaries of Gov employees who are in management or above positions. Wall Street is bad for giving money to those rich bastards who make poor choices yet the Gov, who is more widely known for making poor choices, is OK with similar. Makes a lot of sense

[JustinStrife]

I need about 15 grand for a forged motor. Come on Obama. Help a poor guy out. Just take a little bit of it from the other tax payers and send it my way. I'll be giving work to a few shops for one project, but it's stimulating the economy!

[audtatious]

" If you are hoping to visit the newest crown jewel in America’s park system chosen by Congress, throw away the car keys and open up your wallet. The 2,900 pristine acres of beachfront property were not cheap — or even in the United States.

The property soliciting accusations of “pork” from critics is the Castle Nugent National Historic Park. It’s in the U.S. Virgin Islands, about a thousand miles from Miami and an expensive jet ride to get there.

Two weeks ago, on a near party line vote, a huge Democratic majority in the House agreed to spend $50 million to buy the former cotton plantation on the island of St. Croix.

“This is a beautiful and important natural and cultural resource that is in danger of being lost forever,” Virgin Island delegate, Donna Christiansen, told House colleagues in January.

… “Now is not the time to spend up to $50 million dollars of the taxpayers’ money to buy nearly 3,000 acres of beachfront property on a Caribbean Island,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, (R-Wash.), ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee. “We can’t afford a price tag for a new park in St Croix, just as many Americans will never be able to afford a visit there.”

Democrats approved the purchase, even though the National Park Service has yet to complete a study on the purchase.

“We don’t have the money to do this,” said Rep Jason Chaffetz, (R – Utah). “Currently the National Park Service has an estimated $9 billion in backlog maintenance on existing parks. Why should the people of Iowa, Rhode Island or California or Utah have to continue to pay and supplement the people there on St Croix for this property?”"

[seang]

I need about 15 grand for a forged motor. Come on Obama. Help a poor guy out. Just take a little bit of it from the other tax payers and send it my way. I'll be giving work to a few shops for one project, but it's stimulating the economy!

I have been cooking up an idea like that myself, I even have a name for it - "Government Subsidized Enthusiasm". Under this radical new program, car enthusiasts will get ONE (1) car to restore after presenting their ideas to the board of administrators. Extra money could be granted depending on the knowledge and skill levels of the individual and I propose a $5000 bonus to those who acquire ALL liscenses on Gran Turismo. There are still a few details in the pot that haven't matured, I might propose something to help ease the financial strain and subsequent needed roadwork - we would also need our own cross-continental autobahn hello!!!!

Sincerely, Adam West

[audtatious]

Autobahn style expressway would never work here......Us Red Staters are too stupid to understand how to use it. Only the Blue Staters are intelligent enough to save us from ourselves.

Duh.....

[smockers83]

Autobahn style expressway would never work here......Us Red Staters are too stupid to understand how to use it. Only the Blue Staters are intelligent enough to save us from ourselves.

Duh.....

I've actually come up with a theory that states the opposite. My theory after 5.5 years of observation of living in a very liberal city is that liberals are terrible drivers. Where I live, people don't know the rules of the road and simply can't drive. However, immediately out of the city where your more conservative people live, they have no problem driving.

Here's why this theory works. Liberals tend to be selfish and self-serving, only thinking for themselves whereas conservatives tend to think for the greater good. This may not exactly be the case in D.C., but it is more so across the country.

[srellim234]

I would take issue with your idea that conservatives think for the greater good.

The difference is that conservatives think more of the individual doing and liberals think more of collective doing.

The problems come in when either tries to implement the philosophy. Power corrupts.

[smockers83]

Yes, conservatives believe in the individual and the liberals think in terms of the collective when it comes to policy, but that's just it. The collective is thinking in terms of itself and what it wants and doesn't care about others. Take the last healthcare push that has failed. The collective being all of those who want cheaper healthcare coverage. The liberals said ok, we'll give it to you, but was it really for the greater good of the country? Not really, because the cost structure of the system never changed. The government just makes it cheaper to the consumer, but there's still the additional cost that needs to be taken care of some how...the rest of the country has to pick it up via taxes.

Collective systems in history have always been proven to be inferior to non-collective systems. With that in mind, who thinks for the greater good of the country?

[srellim234]

Not the current "conservatives" who align themselves with the Republican Party. They are only interested in creating power for themselves and becoming dictators to all others. They don't give a d*mn about the country. Only about themselves and their power.

They tote the party line, read from scripts and aren't capable of independent thought. They follow along like sheep, just like the Democrats follow along like sheep on the other side.

[audtatious]

Then I deem to life the "un-party".

First on the agenda.....all teenagers go to the military for a mandatory 2 years. Only ones who don't go are those who attend college. Fail college, go to the military for 2 years. Spew out a kid in HS? Kid goes to foster care for 2 years while you attend. Too "stupid/radical" to be trusted with a gun? Then you spend the first year learning to follow orders and the second year learning some trade that is valuable to the outside world.

Lets work the laziness out of the new generation.