So the new Darling of the GOP is a Socialist. Christie is giving $261 million of state money to finish a Casino of all things. So I just wanted to ask my AMHD Tea Party people when will the first rally at Drumthwacket be? I work 5 minutes from there so whenever the rally is let me know. Also where can I get my sign of Christie dressed like Stalin or Hitler. Please let me know ASAP I assume the rally should be happening soon.

Monica Yant Kinney: As the State Turns: Christie gets cozy with casino | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/09/2011 (http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/monica_yant_kinney/20110209_Monica_Yant_Kinney__As_the_State_Turns__C hristie_gets_cozy_with_casino.html)

Would you rather it be to the States welfare bums that contribute nothing to the states revenue stream?

A Casinio can be argued will generate much income for the state.

Just what I thought the Tea party is nothing more then marks for the Republicans.

Considering what the Democrats have done to that stateover the decades... at least this one thing has the potiential of bringing in more money than it cost, Unlike Obamas Stimulus package.

And its not uncommon for states to give all sorts of incentives to atract large employers or high value employers for the tax revenue they create... they nearly ALL do it.

I don't have an opinion on the border war between NJ and Penn.

Are you saying that your state doesn't use funds to prop up it's growing casino industry for the purpose of seducing the casino users to cross the border and play in Penn. Instead of Atlantic City ?

Not saying it's right or wrong .But giving state funds to keep businesses in the state is the norm. The alternative would be Penn casino's getting an unfair trade advantage.

You do know that AC is a dying city and they are wasting their money cause the PA casinos are eating AC's casinos Lunch. But I bet if Christie was a Dem the Tea party (look I am not calling them that name for the first time) would be all over freaking out.

Tom I don't care if the state does it. But the fact is since a Repub is doing it the Tea Party isn't saying S*&T.

AC may be a dying city or not... but ignore it and you have another Camden... and how much state money goes there every year to that hell hole... and to what end? ITs something they have now... vs. for something else they don't and thus is an unknown uproven entity.

Incidentally I'm not a Casino visitor.

He was also just in Illinois trying to lure their businesses to NJ (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/04/christie-tries-to-lure-illinois-businesses-to-new-jersey/). It's what a governor does, competes for an economic advantage for his state.

Keeping industry in the state is money well spent . And it is a state and local issue... to be addressed by the people of the State.

You mistake the rationale for the Tea Party. It is FEDERAL SPENDING that has no rationale under the Constitution that has them upset .

If you were telling me that the Federal Government was spending money to prop up NJ casino's I'd have an issue with it.

I see what you are saying Tom. Steve I understand that is what a governor does.

I'll tell you this much I will never step foot in a NJ casino again since they are getting rid of the Casino Commission and letting the Casino's police themselves. That should work out well.

....... since they are getting rid of the Casino Commission and letting the Casino's police themselves. That should work out well.That may prove to be a decision they soon regret if it is exactly as you claim. Assuming they completely bow out and let them do it ALL themselves. Not sure what extent of control they are giving up... as in limited or full.

I'm sure Christie will answer for himself, he always does. But, the column you posted is a little misleading. NJ, is not becoming "a 20 percent partner in a business it regulates." It's a break on future taxes, taxes that would never be collected if this casino isn't finished, which will help the casino secure fi9naninc go to complete the project. And Spit, he's not letting the casinos police themselves (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/casinos_tourism/new-casino-legislation-costs-gaming-inspectors-their-jobs/article_6fe6ef76-2f32-11e0-8044-001cc4c002e0.html).

Hello spit:

I'm just watching these guys say it's perfectly fine for Christie to invest in his state, but Obama can't invest in the country.

excon

Obama hasn't invested in his country yet... he's paid back political contributors thus far.

HUGE difference between those two.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Federalist 45 (James Madison)

What tom said.

Hello tom:

Nobody is saying he doesn't have the authority to spend taxpayer dollars... It's just that he says the state is broke when, say, education needs to be addressed, or tunnels need to be built, but not so broke when casinos need money...

We understand... Really. We do.

excon

Hello tom:

Nobody is saying he doesn't have the authority to spend taxpayer dollars... It's just that he says the state is broke when, say, education needs to be addressed, or tunnels need to be built, but not so broke when casinos need money...

We understand... Really. We do.

excon

You can't fix education by throwing dollars at it... the last 30+ years have proven that doesn't work. The more money gets spent... the worse the education system has gotten.

Get rid of the liberal ideologs and propagandists... and Hire actual teachers again like they used to have when we were still in school. Back in our day and earlier they got a lot more done with a lot less per student... even adjusted for inflation.

I'm not defending his decision. States have dabbled in all kinds of gambling as a way to make revenue ;and have fallen flat in the attempt.

Not that Atlantic City doesn't collect lots of money.. It's just that the money the State has gained in revenue has been squandered .

Atlantic City should be paved in gold.
If NY ran it's lottery properly then taxes would not be needed to fund education.

Yes Christe is using state money to complete the project... But I'll wager that he reforms the system so it is more efficient and profitable for the State. I don't think that the op states Christie's argument for reducing the gaming commission's authority . But I bet it has lots to do with bureacratic inefficiency.

BTW... this is another example where the myth is debunked that "vice " can be regulated and made profitable for the state.

Hello tom:

Nobody is saying he doesn't have the authority to spend taxpayer dollars... It's just that he says the state is broke when, say, education needs to be addressed, or tunnels need to be built, but not so broke when casinos need money...

We understand... Really. We do

I'm just playing the role of fact checker.

My point exactly Ex!! When Dems do it=bad when Repubs do it=good. I get it now.

How do you think those teachers are going to get paid if the state has no revenue?

Hello again, Steve:

The state should collect taxes, instead of doing GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS of private business's.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

The state should collect taxes, instead of doing GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS of private business's.

excon

Then let them collect taxes from this industry. They will make the money back in no time.

Atlantic City casino revenue down by 12.3 percent in past year | NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/atlantic_city_casino_revenue_d_3.html)

Then let them collect taxes from this industry. They will make the money back in no time.Hello again, dad:

Just like WE did with our investment in General Motors...

I don't doubt that THIS private industry makes money and pays taxes... It's just that, like spit noticed, when Obama invests, it's reckless spending, but when a Republican invests, they'll make the money back, "in no time".

Let's cut to the chase.. The Obama budget "invests" in bullet trains. Why is that reckless spending, but when your guy spends, it's a smart investment??

excon

Hello again, dad:

Just like WE did with our investment in General Motors...

I don't doubt that THIS private industry makes money and pays taxes... It's just that, like spit noticed, when Obama invests, it's reckless spending, but when a Republican invests, they'll make the money back, "in no time".

Let's cut to the chase.. The Obama budget "invests" in bullet trains. Why is that reckless spending, but when your guy spends, it's a smart investment???

excon

Maybe its because of the track record we have with trains in this country?

Lets look at our current model AmTrack.

(quote)
The new Senate bill would provide $11.4 billion for Amtrak over six years and would junk the decade-old goal that the rail line make enough money to cover operating costs, a longtime goal of fiscal conservatives.

Amtrak carried 25.8 million passengers last year, the highest ridership level ever, and recorded a 20 percent increase in the use of its high-speed Acela service between Washington and Boston. Still, the company needed $1.3 billion from Congress to cover its operating costs and capital losses last year on its 21,000-mile, coast-to-coast network.

(source)

Senate votes to increase funding for Amtrak service - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/31/senate_votes_to_increase_funding_for_amtrak_servic e/)

Created by Congress in 1971 to provide intercity train travel, Amtrak has never recorded a profit while receiving more than $40 billion in federal funding since its inception.

Hello again, dad:

Many government investments don't pay off in dollars. If we simply measured them by the bottom line, we'd have to get rid of our interstate highway system, our national parks, our museums, our airports, and most of our bridges and tunnels, and this just names a few. These are things that make this country just a tad batter than others.

We really don't want to eat our seed corn (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

excon

I put it out there to show the difference between the "investments" made by the persons in question. I realize infrastructure is a losing proposition but its also a nessescity.

While looking around I found this rather disturbing and something you might be interested in reading. I had no idea.

(off topic)
Amtrak Snitches On Riders for Profits (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0624-02.htm)

Bullet trains ? Sounds like he's catering to a single constituent... Joe Biden.

He thinks bullet trains are cool because the Chinese are building high speed rail to transport their troops (and colonists )to the Tibet and Indian borders .

What you guys don't get is the difference between private enterprise, government enterprise and the national interest. Government enterprise is not socialism. In the national interest a rail system must be maintained, if private enterprise cannot provide such a system, government enterprise must. Someone is just trying to stave off this becoming a government enterprise when it fails. Best way for this to be run is if government takes over the track system, rents it out on a milage base to private enterprise, then profitable services will be provided by private enterprise or else not exist unless government provides them

Clete ,would your country build a rail system if everything indicates it would not be self sustaining ?
We are not Europe and Japan. The areas of Europe covered by highspeed rail and connecting local rail and subway systems would fit in Texas. Our cities are spread out except on the coastal areas . To extend high speed rail along corridors it would be needed would required extensive "eminent domain" land grabs . It would be a funding sieve .
We have AMTRACK already serving the corridors of the country that need rail connections.I believe that with the exception of the Northeast corridor between Boston and DC ,the rest of the system is a loser.

Hello again, dad:

Many government investments don't pay off in dollars. If we simply measured them by the bottom line, we'd have to get rid of our interstate highway system, our national parks, our museums, our airports, and most of our bridges and tunnels, and this just names a few. These are things that make this country just a tad batter than others.

We really don't want to eat our seed corn (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

excon

Dr . Krugman... we don't eat our seed corn ,we turn it into bio-fuels ;creating artificial shortages that have had huge impacts inside and outside our borders .

What was only a decade ago our total Federal budget is now the amt of our deficit . Yet Krugman continues to advocate more and more spending.

Hello again, spit:

It becomes clear that when Republicans spend, it's investment... But, when Democrats do it, it's reckless...

excon

If the State of Washingon wants to waste money on bullet trains ,knock yourselves out. If New Jersey wants to invest in the casino business it's their concern. I oppose such spending in NY for reasons I've already cited .

At least when you talk about a national rail service it falls under established Federal spending going back to the 1st Congresses of the country . I oppose it on a national level for reasons I've already mentioned... and I would if a Republican President proposed it.

Hello again, Steve:

The state should collect taxes, instead of doing GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS of private business's.

Again, allow me to play the role of fact checker. He's not taking over anything, he's not putting a penny of cash out for this casino, and he's not allowing the casinos to police themselves.

Clete ,would your country build a rail system if everything indicates it would not be self sustaining ?
We are not Europe and Japan. The areas of Europe covered by highspeed rail and connecting local rail and subway systems would fit in Texas. Our cities are spread out except on the coastal areas . To extend high speed rail along corridors it would be needed would required extensive "eminent domain" land grabs . It would be a funding sieve .
We have AMTRACK already serving the corridors of the country that need rail connections.I believe that with the exception of the Northeast corridor between Boston and DC ,the rest of the system is a loser.

Interesting question, Tom, my country has a huge rail system, 41,000 Km, and with the exception of the mining industry in remote areas, none of it was provided by private enterprise. Many parts of this system lie idle with passanger traffic only a distant memory because it never could be self sustaining with a population of our size, but government had the responsibility to provide transport if the nation was to develop. The latest projects are to build an inland railway from Melbourne to Brisbane for freight traffic, that's about fifteen hundred miles and obviously sustainability is a real question, and high speed links on the eastern sea board, again sustainability is the question and so is the economic benefit of taking that traffic off the highways. We don't have the same preoccupation with eminent domain as you do because of Consititutional protections

The Compost editorial today suggests that high speed rail is a subsidized money pit everywhere it's tried .
A lost cause: The high-speed rail race (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021605977.html)

Every dollar spent to subsidize high-speed rail is a dollar that cannot be spent modernizing highways, expanding the freight rail system or creating private-sector jobs.

Hello again, tom:

Couple things...

The term, "subsidized money pit" says all I need to know about the writers position... Indeed, what subsidy ISN'T a money pit? That's what subsidy's are - gifts of taxpayer money which PROMOTE particular goals somebody in government thinks are worthwhile.

Just yesterday, somebody in government thought that we should STOP subsidizing the most profitable industry there ever was in the history of the world... but it got defeated. So, one persons money pit, is another persons good idea.

Particularly, choosing to subsidize highways, which promote driving, or choosing to subsidize a bullet train, which promotes energy savings, I'd choose the train.

excon

The train will not replace the fact that Americans prefer to move by auto. The bullet train will be populated by the few ,not the many . Therefore it is subsidy money misplaced .

The train will not replace the fact that Americans prefer to move by auto.Hello again, tom:

Yeah... When cars first came out, people shouted, "get a horse".

I admit, I'm a train guy. Oh, I like to drive too. I've covered this whole country end to end lots of times.. The interstate is smoooooth, and those little stops along the way with fast food joints, and the same hotels, are convenient... But, let's face it. They're ugly as hell. Freeways are ugly as hell. Driving on them is boring as hell.

When I came to NY a couple years ago, my train traveled through the most beautiful parts of our country. There was no smog. There was no traffic.. There was no ugly highway. There were no cops lurking around the next bend... There was only the window of my private stateroom, where the only interruption was being summoned to the dining car, where I partook in particularly good meals and great conversation. They had BIG windows in the dining car too. Oh, did I mention the wine and cheese tasting?

excon

Like I said.. trains like that benefit the few. If you told me that money was going to be invested in light rail in high population centers at least there is some logic to the expense.

Like I said ..trains like that benefit the few.Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh.. I wasn't alone.

excon

Ok ,how many were on the train ? The highways between NY and Seattle carry more auto passengers per minute than was in your whole train. Intercontinental rail is not a practical alternative to the mobility needs of American.
The article I linked however made a valid point about freight rail.

I wouldn't mind traveling by train on occasion, but there hasn't been a passenger train here in oh, 30 years? Why should there be, we can fly to Dallas in 45 minutes for 50 bucks.

Ok ,how many were on the train ? The highways between NY and Seattle carry more auto passengers per minute than was in your whole train. Hello again, tom:

Look, I don't know ANYTHING about this stuff. But, I can add. You MIGHT be right in absolute terms, but highways are lots more expensive to maintain that ONE set of tracks. You also MIGHT be wrong.

On these one set of tracks, why can't there be 5 eastbound trains and 5 westbound? What about 10 each way? How about 20 or 30 in each direction? I'll betcha there's a number where the trains can carry MORE passengers per minute, in more comfort and safety than all the east/west bound freeway traffic..

Look, the airline industry today, is like the greyhound bus of my youth. You took it because there was NO alternative. It stunk. It was overcrowded. It was slow. It stopped everywhere. It was revolting.

The bullet train industry could be what the airlines were at one time - a PLEASURE to travel on, and cost effective too.

excon

The train will not replace the fact that Americans prefer to move by auto. The bullet train will be populated by the few ,not the many . Therefore it is subsidy money misplaced .

Money is not misplaced Tom just because you don't want to use the service. In any case who in their right mind undertakes long distance driving when a fast reliable economical service is available. Hike your gas prices to world parity and you will change your mind.

Really ? And how often do you cross your continent by rail ?

For me to get to the Amtrack route (the Northeast corridor being the only part of our government provided system that come close to profitable... lets say I want a round tripper to and from Washington DC normal commuter hrs. ) ;I have to commute into downtown NYC early in the morning to make the 7 AM train ;pay local rail rates to get there ;coordinate my time to get there ,and go through whatever security has been concocted at Penn station... wait for my train to depart (this now has been close to 2 hrs ) pay a price of $160 round tripper and get there almost 3 hrs later. OR . I can leave my home in NYC suburbia ;get on the highways and arrive in DC at essentially the same time frame. (round trip gas is at most $60)... even at so called world prices it's cheaper and less of an inconvenience.

Now if for some God aweful reason I had to regularly commute that then of course I'd take the train . But that would be a huge exception to the rule. Most people don't regularly commute that route and distance.
A bullet train would traverse the route quicker no doubt (although I question the speeds it would be allowed to travel in densely populated areas ) .But the benefits would be for the few.

I'd rather spend the money if given a choice on infrastructure like electric charging stations ,hydrogen or natural gas fill ups . You can trust me on this . The United States will never become a nation that is overly dependent on commuter rail.

Really ? And how often do you cross your continent by rail ?



Tried it once and never made it, Rail journeys unfortunately aren't always practical as you point out, although there is a nice XPT intercity runs almost past my door and now I have concessions cheap too. In my youth I frequently travelled by long distance rail, different days, now the air fare is cheaper than fuel for intercontinental travel, but that could be turned around if there were high speed trains at reasonable prices. What will make it happen is climate change and the emphasis on carbon reduction

I have used long distance rail in Britain and China and found them very good,

Tried it once and never made it, Rail journies unfortunately arn't always practical as you point out, although there is a nice XPT intercity runs almost past my door and now I have concessions cheap too. In my youth I frequently travelled by long distance rail, different days, now the air fare is cheaper than fuel for intercontinental travel, but that could be turned around if there were high speed trains at reasonable prices. What will make it happen is climate change and the emphasis on carbon reduction

I have used long distance rail in Britain and China and found them very good,

Problem is Britain is fairly small in size given the population (we have more than a few states bigger than Britain). Same with any part of Europe. Its easy to put a self sustaining rail system where population density is high... and there really isn't much distance or land mass to deal with. Italy as an example I am familiar with. Its roughly the size of Pennsylvania with 5 times the population... without even taking into consideration the fairly high portion of uninhabital space due to the nature of the terrain of Italy. So that really drives up the population density vs land mass to serve.

Can't comment on China... never been there. But rail would appear to be convenient, IF the two places you were traveling between were actually served... but what if they aren't?

Then you take the bus, or fly, no I recognise that we have to be practical but we should also look to the future. What is observable is that our roads become more and more clogged with traffic and much of this traffic could use rail if rail were more efficient

Then you take the bus, or fly, no I recognise that we have to be practical but we should also look to the future. What is observable is that our roads become more and more clogged with traffic and much of this traffic could use rail if rail were more efficient

But that's not pratical... you would have to be able to get everywhere from anywhere by rail... and that would take more miles of rail than exist miles of roads and insufficient ridership in most of those places to maintain those rails.

You can do that in a postage stamp of a country... but not anyplace that actually has any real space.