Do you think the US should start proposing bills where the benefits only go to states whose Senators vote to pass it?

[goaded]

It would save a heck of a lot of money, too. Maybe half the price of each bill.

Yes. If, say, Iowa wants $829m in federal funding, it should vote for it.

No, it's fine to claim credit for things you voted against.

Other/see results

Updates

+1 y

This isn't a serious proposition, but a thought experiment. Why should people benefit from a bill the vote against?

[Friendlybro79]

They should benefit because we should help each other no matter what. Some people vote against stuff because they're told voting yes or no is bad. They believe lying politicians and that's not fair to hurt avg citizens. If your proposal were real this would create more division in my opinion.

So if I voted against a bill that ultimately helped me I might start thinking differently the next time and switch parties etc. We can't fall into the divided states of Democrats and Republicans. We need to stand united no matter our differences and continue to strive to be better to each other.

[goaded]

But it's the the politicians, representatives and senators, who are doing the voting. If they can vote against something but get the same benefits as if they'd voted for it, what's the incentive to vote for something you know will benefit your state and your re-election prospects?

[Friendlybro79]

I meant it could change minds of people to vote for a different party who will vote for a law to be put into place.

[goaded]

Isn't that kind of the point?

[RolandCuthbert]

No sir. We are one nation. Sure we have state sovereignty but there are a lot of folks in a state that disagree with the politics of the majority. Like for instance, many GaGers pretend that California is a liberal stronghold. Sure most of the state votes democratic. But truthfully it has some of the most Conservative counties in the country. Vice versa for Texas.

[goaded]

I don't really see the problem. If you vote against something but get all the beneifts anyway if your side loses, what's to stop you voting against really positive things?

I mean, campaigning on the basis of "isn't the new bridge (I voted against having) really nice?" seem a bit sus?

[RolandCuthbert]

I mean that doesn't sound illogical? If you are talking about the nation splitting up that is one thing. But our laws are for every American citizen. You can't have a law for democrats and another one for republicans.

And our legislative process, no matter how it appears to outsiders is the way we create laws. Obamacare isn't just some benefit for people, it is the law.

[goaded]

OK, I see that, but many states refused to accept the benefits of Obamacare, and I was thinking more of the pork items, roads, highways, bridges, etc.

[RolandCuthbert]

Goaded, you have to read up on how the government works. I can forgive you because you are not American. But this is my problem with most GaGers. They don't know how the American government operates. And they don't understand the Constitution.

So Biden signs legislation for infrastructure. It is a law for every single American. The money gets distributed on a state by state basis. Those states get to decide the priority for their own infrastructure projects. The government can put certain guidelines on that money. But of course, you have to look at how the bill was written also. And sure a lot of corruption comes into play in certain states, democratic or republican as politicians distribute money to their friends.

But that is up to the voters in the states who either keep re-electing corrupt officials or vote people in who are honest.

Some folks in Illinois supported Blagejovich. And they got a crook who was willing to do anything to get paid.



The state of Illinois has had four different governors go to jail for corruption. Republican and Democrat. But that is how the system works. It can't be dependent upon what the politics are within a given state. State sovereignty is a crucial idea in the way our government operates.

[goaded]

But it's not the state government that would be the ones responsible, it would be the representatives and senators in congress.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not understanding what you mean by that.

You understand how legislation is written, right?

[goaded]

I'm sure I don't. Is there a formula that lays out how much money is paid to a particular state by population or some such, or do legislators bargain for as much as they can get away with? In the latter case, why should they get the benefits if they vote against the final bill?

[RolandCuthbert]

Yes, that is decided using census data, which is why we push non-"Whites" to participate in the census.

I just think you need to educate yourself on the process. So many folks here not only post ignorant crap. . . they beat us over the head with everything they do not know or understand.

[goaded]

Ah, OK, so Iowa's $829m was their share of a roughly $8 billion bill? (Iowa's population is 0.952% of the US.)

I really don't know, and I accept that. I do see what Biden's on about though.

[RolandCuthbert]

If he is even suggesting that, he is wrong.

Bush would have never made such a proposal. And he was hated by liberals. He took their hatred and just let it slide right off.

[goaded]

No, it's my idea, Biden was simply pointing out that Republicans are campaigning on getting benefits for their state that they voted against.

[RolandCuthbert]

Okay. . . well, you know my view on that. I think you are kind of throwing more fuel into this fire. Because we will definitely being seeing memes and videos claiming this is what he said or meant.

[goaded]

I don't think many people are paying attention to what I write on GaG.

[monorprise]

That depends on how you define a nation. If we defined nation like most of the world America and Canada consist of around 10 Nations between them.

Regardless we clearly are not united on almost anything having very different needs, dispositions, values and interest derived from very different geographies, climates, economies, and even cultures.

At present every election is a contest between large highly compromised coalitions for which everyone is forced to pick and fight for the least intolerable to rule over everyone.

You are of course right Most of California that would be better off not under the rule of the disconnected urban majority there of.

Until the 1960's California had a State senate which existed to keep such disconnected laws local to where it was favorable,

After the federal Government destroyed California's republican system of Government, her cities began to impose their highly incompatible urban rules on the rest of the state slowly driving it under and out of business.

[Tanhoaon]

That’s not gonna happen. Red states feed blue states. Blue never want that. Red doesn’t want that either since they propose the united. Furthermore, if you do that, people will start to move to red state (but keep voting shit in their blue state), soon or late it is working like individual countries when different states have passed a lot of different policies.
We are united for a reason.

[Anonymous]

What is wrong with just using your state?

If your afraid of people opting out why not make a private contract like an HOA? You can enslave each-other to each-other for life, and the goverment might even help enforce it via its courts.

[exitseven]

Yes, since 90% of government spending is just flushing money down the toilet anything that would save money would be a good thing. Eventually all the states will figure it out and maybe we will finally have a balanced budget.

[goaded]

When was the last time there was a balanced budget? 1999. Then someone passed tax cuts and started a couple of unfunded wars.

[MikeInHawaii]

The budget really wasn’t balanced then, except with some optimistic projections on costs and revenues, but it came pretty close.

If you look at the Truman and Clinton administrations, the closest we get to fiscal responsibility is a Democrat president with a Republican Congress. A Republican Congress won’t keep a Republican president from pissing away money, but they’ll restrain a Democrat.

[rachel776]

as long as only the people of those states pay for it

[goaded]

Fair enough.

[OddBeMe]

Ironically liberal states pay for red states’ programs.

[Agagagagaga]

@OddBeMe Ironically Conservative states feed blue states because crops don’t grow on asphalt. 🖕

[Friendlybro79]

@Agagagagaga ironically even more California is the number one in agricultural receipts greater than the number 2+3 red states combined. Also blue states feed people too. Sorry to burst your bubble. I didn't sit and add up all the percentages as it might be higher red states to be fair it's not like 90% to 10% just looking over the readily available numbers.

[Agagagagaga]

@Friendlybro79 external-content.duckduckgo.com/.../

[Friendlybro79]

@Agagagagaga

beef2live.com/story-states-produce-food-value-0-107252

Number of dollars by highest agricultural receipts. California is number 1. Regardless red and blue states feed this country not just red states.

[monorprise]

They would have to create totally separate taxes and accounts, and then you would have fights over shared resources being used, at which point why not just have a separate goverment do it?

We have States, and those States can even join together in Interstate compacts for any thing, why not just let them do the job.

[joeldalton]

Better choice would be that only those states whose representatives vote ‘yes’ have to pay for it.

[goaded]

On current figures, those states would probably come out even more ahead. Halving what the government actually has to pay out for each bill would be a windfall.

[joeldalton]

No, everyone gets the benefit, but only the ‘yes’ states’ taxes pay for it

[goaded]

Well, that's what's happening now. Only about 5 states pay more into the federal coffers than they take out.

[Avicenna]

Don't forget that states are either advantaged or disadvantaged by federal policies in ways that don't show up in the statistics of being a net payer/net beneficiary but still have financial impacts.

[goaded]

@Avicenna Well, some state's representatives understand that the general welfare is a good thing, others not so much. The former voted for and implemented the ACA, the others didn't.

[joeldalton]

No, that’s not how it works now, dummy.

[goaded]

Explain.

[Avicenna]

Goaded, what you're suggesting is to deny funding altogether simply because you don't like someone's politics. Whether you want to make their state pay for it or not, it's a recipe for chaos in terms of administration. And some powers are specifically given to the federal government, not the states. So you are essentially telling a member of Congress, vote for the defense appropriations bill that I want you to vote for or your National Guard won't be funded. Will you also refuse to have the military protect that state because their representatives in Congress exercise their democratic right to vote "nay" on a bill>

[joeldalton]

I pay income taxes. That’s the explanation.

[goaded]

That's a pathetic explanation. @joeldalton

[goaded]

@Avicenna

[goaded]

@Avicenna What I'm proposing is that there are consequences to voting against a bill that supports your state. Does the federal government even fund the National Guard? Whatever. I'm not saying every bill has to be like that, just mostly infrastructure bills. It would be an optional element to some bills. Any legislator will still be free to debate, and say that too much money is being spent, and their voting against it will reduce that amount. Win-win!

[Avicenna]

Your claim is without context as well as a dataset that can be analyzed. Let's limit this to infrastructure, as you suggest- what bills did they vote against and why? They have the democratic right to vote against a bill, and it would not surprise me if sometimes something were put in a bill merely to get them to vote for legislation they would not otherwise vote for (logrolling).

Furthermore, did them voting against the legislation prevent its passage? If not, you're complaining for no reason at all.

[joeldalton]

You asked for an explanation on how I know I pay for shit my reps don’t vote for, and that’s the explanation. Did you forget your meds today?

[goaded]

@Avicenna The ones they stopped from passing they didn't get bragging rights to, the ones they tried but failed to stop passing, they claim they're heroes for bringing money into the state. Every Republican voted against the Build Back Better bill (iirc), a reduced version passed, then they crowed about the amount of money they got.

[Avicenna]

How about posting something other than vague claims that can't be verified.

[Avicenna]

BBB is anathema to the Republicans, but since it's the agenda of European leftists, I can see why you were upset that they dared to vote against it. Did it ever occur to you that was bad legislation?

[HighValue]

As long as the people in states that didn't vote for it are not taxed to pay for it.

[goaded]

Sounds fair. I'm pretty sure New York and California, etc. would love their federal tax burden to be reduced.

[HighValue]

I live in CA and I don't want to be paying for all the lazy people here getting government aid for housing, food stamps, free cell phones, free medical for illegals, etc. This state is terrible. I plan to leave next summer.

[goaded]

Well, that's a state's issue, and I'm sure they'll be sorry to see you go.

[Avicenna]

Let's see, would that be legal? No way in hell.

[goaded]

What would make it illegal?

I mean, it might well be, it was just a thought I had, but if you have proof, I'd be interested in reading it so I can update the question.

[Avicenna]

I understand you don't understand the US Constitution, but what makes you think it would be legal in the first place?

[Avicenna]

And in which European countries would something like that be legal?

[goaded]

I really don't know. What makes you so sure it's illegal?

It's not like it's a bribe to the legisators, the money goes to their state, not them. A No vote is basically saying, they don't want the bill, so why should their state benefit?

[Avicenna]

Let's say it's legislation for the entire federal budget.

[goaded]

Then if your representatives in congress vote against it, they'll have reduced the resulting deficit. That's a good thing, isn't it?

[Avicenna]

Your flippant answer shows that you aren't being serious here. Come back when you see what the obvious problems with that would be.

[goaded]

Why don't you spell it out for me? Why should your state benefit from something your representatives in congress voted against?

[Avicenna]

For starters, who's paying?

[goaded]

You think Iowa would be crowing about federal funding if they could afford to pay for those things themselves?

[Avicenna]

How about answering the scenario I brought up?

[goaded]

Which one? "Let's say it's legislation for the entire federal budget."?

OK, what's the problem? It would only affect what your state gained from the budget, not everything else. Would legislators be more or less inclined to vote for legislation that doesn't harm their state?

[Avicenna]

A reasonable person would just admit that they hadn't thought about the implications of your suggestion rather than trying to move the goalposts. That is not how such legislation would work, and it would be anti-democratic to impose your idea because it would coerce members of Congress into voting for legislation despite wanting to vote against it in its current form, meaning among other things, it would chill the process of negotiation that is inherent in the democratic process.

Would you really want to, say, deny the children of one state federal aid for their schools because some of their elected representatives has a problem with some aspect of the legislation?

It seems to me that the solution

[Avicenna]

The solution for what you're complaining about is a smaller role for the federal government in some areas so states can devise and fund their own policies.

[goaded]

I already said I hadn't thought about the implications when I asked why you thought they would be illegal (something you still haven't answered, by the way).

The Republican party has proven for decades that their idea of negotiation is to squeeze out every concession possible, then vote against it anyway. Making their vote have consequences seems perfectly rational, to me.

"Would you really want to, say, deny the children of one state federal aid for their schools because some of their elected representatives has a problem with some aspect of the legislation?"
No, but that's exactly what multiple Republican states did to their own people with the ACA. They had free money to improve the health of their citizens and rejected it. What you should be asking yourself is "would the state's representatives be re-elected if...".

Most states couldn't fund themselves without the federal government. Most of them are Red.

[Avicenna]

As usual, you're looking at this through the wrong lens.

Roand Cuthbert explained to you why your proposal is not lega, I also added some more to it with my comments, but in a nutshell, what you're proposing is not legal because it violate the

[Avicenna]

Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The states who opted out of the ACA exercised their legal right to do so because they felt it was bad policy and would put them on the hook for large future expenditures that they didn't think was a good idea, which is exactly what the ACA's "free money" would have locked them into.

And if you're correct that Republicans have negotiated things through the democratic process that they then vote against (which seems pretty impossible- how did it pass?) what's the difference? The legislation passed. What you're really saying is that you hate Republicans and you want to punish them because you hate them.

Time and time again we see that you insist that everyone do exactly what you want them to do, and want to punish them if they don't, which is the very definition of totalitarianism. That you aren't even a US citizen makes it even worse, as does the fact that you benefit from US military protection that you don't pay for at the same time the country of your residence refuses to spend what it agreed to spend on defense back in 2015.

[goaded]

I trust Roland not to lie to me.

"And if you're correct that Republicans have negotiated things through the democratic process that they then vote against (which seems pretty impossible- how did it pass?)"
Usually it doesn't. Sometimes it does, despite all the Republicans voting against a bill that contains almost everything they asked for. That's why there's practically no point in negotiating with the Republican party any more.

[Avicenna]

Such is your life- you only trust people who share your totalitarian ideology. But that is why I cited what he told you.

There are all sorts of legislative tactics used in the US Congress, but you haven't shown us a dataset that shows what they voted against and why. And what legislation have they negotiated for and then were able to prevent from passing despite it having what they wanted in there?

At the end of the day, nothing you say makes sense. It's all just an expression of your passive-agressive irrational hatred for Republicans.

[goaded]

I'm pretty sure @RolandCuthbert and I disagree about a lot of things, maybe even everything other than democracy is a good thing and should be protected. Any my hatred of Republicans, at least the MAGA variety, is exactly the same as my hatred of Nazis.

"There are all sorts of legislative tactics used in the US Congress, but you haven't shown us a dataset that shows what they voted against and why. And what legislation have they negotiated for and then were able to prevent from passing despite it having what they wanted in there?"
I need to show "datasets" now? Did you watch the video? Of course not.

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded I disagree that you have to show some dataset. But the truth is if people vote for politicians who do this, have to take responsibility for their vote. I mean we have Republicans now scrubbing their sites of any support for banning abortion.

It is on the folks who support them to know what their candidate stands for.

You can't create some law that then proceeds ban people from benefiting from that a particular piece of legislation they voted against.

That's just wrong.

[goaded]

@RolandCuthbert Why would people vote against politicians who brought home the goodies, even while voting against the "bad guys" who voted for them?

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded Because of the culture war. Like think about Ukrainians. Typically coming to this nation, they would be Republican. Because of all the cultural issues. Gay marriage, trans rights, social welfare, abortion, etc.

They only reason why they would vote Democratic is because of their hatred for Russia.

Many Americans are the same way. That should not be hard to understand.

[goaded]

@RolandCuthbert But why should they be rewarded for voting for them? You don't like the federal government, then don't take from the federal government.

[goaded]

See how long the culture wars last, then.

[goaded]

Sorry: But why should they be rewarded for voting *against* them?

[RolandCuthbert]

Because they have freedom of choice.

You see, I am not a political animal. This is why I can't be a liberal. Because to me, the process is way more important than my political beliefs. I can't use the system to punish someone over their politics. If they elect someone who was sabotaging legislation that they eventually benefited from, that's the right.

And if we don't stand up for the rights of people, even those we disagree with, we will all lose our rights.

I don't want a society where everyone has to agree with me. I want a society that is focused on freedom. People are free to be stupid.

[goaded]

@RolandCuthbert How are people to know if their choice was stupid if there are no consequences? "We'll elect this anti-abortion idiot, because we know we'll still get federal support for XYZ." Isn't it a conservative axiom that there are consequences for your actions? Wouldn't democracy work better if people realised that?

[RolandCuthbert]

But there consequences. Mississippi is one of the most corrupt states in this union. Kentucky is near last in healthcare, near last in education, near last in economic growth.

But they vote for the same folks year after year. Those are the consequences.

New Mexico's education system is even worst. And the poverty rate is the highest in the nation.

There are consequences for voting. . . or not voting.



Michelle Lujan Grisham is the thirty-second governor of the state of New Mexico, the first Democratic Hispanic woman to be elected governor in U. S. history

[Avicenna]

@goaded: If you're going to take a simplistic approach to a complex issue and make inaccurate claims completely devoid of context even after it's been explained to you why that's not appropriate, you will continue to be clueless- at least bother to fully understand the system and the society before you stamp your feet and demand that it accommodate your hatred of people who have different opinions about what public policies their society (and not yours) should make. Even if your claims were completely accurate (and they most definitely are not), they are essentially much ado about nothing.

At the end of the day, people have different ideas about what should be done. If it were up to me, we'd do some things differently in the US and in Germany as well.

[goaded]

You still haven't said why you're so sure it would be illegal.

[Avicenna]

Yes, I did- reread this thread if you missed it. Are you OK with residents of NRW not getting something that their delegation in the Bundesrat or Bundestag votes against?

Incidentally, your friends in the Democratic Party have some really nasty habits in Congress that would be especially problematic is your desired policy were implemented. There are two in particular that come to mind.

The first is the practice of putting unrelated amendments or riders onto legislation that they know their political opponents will vote against because of the negative long-term policy implications, because it's pork, and/or their constituents don't want it. This is done either to sneak in things that they don't want debated on the floor of Congress or noticed by the general public, and it's also done to claim that someone voted against a piece of legislation when in fact the real problem was the riders, pork, etc.

The second practice, which is sometimes used in conjunction with the first, is drafting long, complex bills and calling a floor vote before the bill can be reviewed by the other side of the aisle (which wasn't involved in drafting it and definitely hasn't seen the final version). Remember Nancy Pelosi's famous remark about the ACA, "We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it". Not appropriate at all for such massive legislation, and massive legislation like that should anyhow have some sort of consensus.

Anyway, stop pretending the Democrats are angels and that everything should be changed to suit them. They're corrupt ideologues and the fact that you ignore that damages your credibility beyond repair.

[goaded]

Oh, so states are people now, as well as corporations?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

@RolandCuthbert did give a good explanation of how legislation is written, but not why it has to be written that way. I mean, there's centuries of people changing their vote to get benefits for their state, but only recently have they insisted on those benefits and voted against the bill anyway.

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded You still have not made your point. They have a right to do that. And the people who vote for them are supposed to hold them accountable. People have a right to support politicians that do that.

I don't see where you are going with this.

[goaded]

@RolandCuthbert The point is, why would you hold your representatives responsible if they still bring home the pork? They take credit for the pork on votes they lose and lie about the bills they block. The proper answer is a better-informed electorate, of course, but that's not going to happen either. (Although Biden's recent speeches are making the point.)

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded You are asking nonsensical questions. It is like asking a crazy person why they bang their head against the wall.

You can spend your entire life trying to understand.

Or you could just accept, they have the right to do whatever they wish as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

I wonder if the root cause to this misunderstanding is cultural. I don't seek to control or understand everything. I am quite sure there are belief systems that I will never understand. But that does not bother me. . . nor do I question the right those belief systems have to exist.

But here is the disturbing thing for me. These states are not 100% democratic or republican. They are always a mixture. Why punish a significant part of the population because of the political manipulation of a few people?

[goaded]

@RolandCuthbert That's an easy one to answer: it's nice when it stops.

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded How is that easy to answer?

Again, why do you have to understand all human motivation? And isn't that ethnocentric? To pretend that everyone's decisions or beliefs, must make sense to you?

Maybe they don't. And maybe that's okay.

I mean in the end, I think we should try to understand one another. But if someone's beliefs don't make sense to you, why is that a big deal?

[goaded]

@RolandCuthbert It's just an old joke: "Why are you hitting yourself with that frying pan? It's nice when it stops.".

Am I trying to "understand all human motivation"? I thought I was trying to come up with a solution to what I perceive as a systemic problem.

Like I said, maybe having the president point out what is going on will be good enough, but now Politico and CNN have been taken over by right wing billionaires, even fewer people will get to hear what he has to say.

Maybe I'm also being as unfair as the people whose response to "Tax the Rich" is that nobody's stopping you from just giving the government money.

[Avicenna]

@goaded: Let's bring it a little closer to home for you. Germany has for years refused to spend 2% of its GDP on defense, despite having agreed to do that, along with all other NATO members. Should the US be allowed to remove Article 5 protections from Germany and the other NATO countries that don't spend the amount they've agreed to (meaning Germany would not be protected by other NATO states)? And if you don't think they should, why not?

I guess you don't understand the Equal Protection Clause, but you're trying to strip ordinary citizens of federal funds simply because you don't like that their members of Congress are from a party you hate (and you still expect them to pay their taxes like everyone else). That's totally totalitarian and it's discriminatory, i. e., not equal protection of the law.

As for this alleged immense problem you think you've identified, well, the US has lots of problems, but that isn't one of them. What you're trying to do is impose European Union-style "legislating" on a different society. The EU thinks it's perfectly fine to withhold EU funds from countries that disagree with EU bureaucrats and Germany on an issue, which is where you got this idea from. The EU supra-state is notorious for its democratic deficit, so that's not a model for anyone.

[goaded]

Ooh, you've been doing some homework!

Germany, being for obvious reasons unwilling to build up a serious military, spent money on trying to avoid conflict. Even so, they paid three quarters of America's budget, for a quarter of the population.

"In 2019, the US contributed nearly €470 million to NATO's budget of €2.12 billion. The German contribution amounted to €313 million."

The federal government is allowed to attatch strings to federal grants; for example, to require states to have a drinking age of 21 in order to receive federal funds for highways. And, finally, I didn't get this idea from anywhere but my own mind; it's called thinking. Try it some time.

[RolandCuthbert]

But that isn't a systemic "problem". Right? That is a choice. You are looking to punish those who are political enemies. Now my political enemies may be okay with that. God knows trump was all about punishing the folks who refused to certify his claims.

But why would I want to live in that kind of system?

As for what has happened to our political discourse, again. . . we have the power to change that. It is just a matter of understanding our issues and organizing.

[goaded]

@RolandCuthbert You're right, it's not the system that's necessarily at fault, it's the way the McConnell senate uses it. Organising and talking might make a difference, I hope you're right.

I disagree that my suggestion is about punishing political enemies, it's about imposing consequences for actions. It was surely bad enough when you had to essentially buy a senator's vote by adding pork that benefited their state (and the senator's chance of re-election), but now the pork doesn't even get their vote.

[RolandCuthbert]

@goaded This is my problem.

You don't seem to understand that people have the right to elect people who abuse the system. The issue at stake now, is our democracy. That is a totally different issue.

But you seem to making the argument that because of that, Conservative politics is bad. And I am repeatedly trying to point out. Divorce the politics from the process.

Yes you are talking about enacting punishment on the people of an entire state whether they support their political leaders or not. And as an outsider, you do not understand how devastating that is to American democracy.

[TroyDT]

I think the U. S. House and Senate should start proposing bills that only relate to their enumerated powers.

[goaded]

They do. One of their powers is to pass laws, and fund them.

[MikeInHawaii]

That is not unlimited under the enumerated powers. Why are people in other states funding the fiasco of a commuter rail project in Honolulu? It only benefits people in one city.

[goaded]

@MikeInHawaii Maybe, but the metro area contains more people than any of the seven least populous states. I'm sure those states don't do too badly from federal funding.

[MikeInHawaii]

The problem with collectivism is if I pay 1/340,000,000 of the cost, but get far more than that in benefits, I and everyone else will support unfeasible projects. In the case of the Honolulu rail project, if it’s completed in my life time, it might save me some of the $1,200 per year I spend on gas and wear and tear on my $19,000 car. Based on current projection, it will cost over $200,000 per rider to build.

[goaded]

@MikeInHawaii That would mean only about 12,000 riders, in a city of a million. In London, 2 million people take the tube every day.

[MikeInHawaii]

How do you figure that? It’s about a $16 billion project currently projected to have 80,000 riders a day. And, the rail isn’t planned to go to Waikiki or the University of Hawaii campus, are two biggest sources of traffic.

[goaded]

@MikeInHawaii I saw a smaller number for the cost. Really, just 80,000 people a day?

Even so, you're not just paying for the first ride, they'll be riding it most days, twice a day, for decades. And it's potentially tens of thousands of fewer cars.

[MikeInHawaii]

You are actually demonstrating a problem with central planning. I live in Honolulu and I’m explaining the problems with the rail to someone literally on the opposite side of the world, who thinks it’s a good idea.

As I’m writing this, I’m on a city bus riding to the airport. I’m not opposed to mass transit. I used to routinely ride MARTA trains in Atlanta.

The population figure you quoted was for the City and County of Honolulu, which is the entire Island of Oahu. Many live 40 miles from the nearest station.

There won’t be stations in Waikiki or the University of Hawaii campus.

You mentioned benefits for decades. Many of the stations won’t be completed for another ten years and may be reclaimed by the ocean within thirty years.

Busses are much more cost effective.

[goaded]

@MikeInHawaii OK, then it sounds like yet another government cock-up, they're not rare anywhere around the world. Check out Berlin's new airport "originally planned to open in October 2011, five years after starting construction in 2006. However, the project encountered a series of successive delays due to poor construction planning, execution, management, and corruption," it finally opened in 2020, right in the middle of the pandemic.

Even so, the ones that are finished do usually end up making a profit in the long run.

[RiseofArtemis]

States who want Migrants should have those migrants, not Texas and Florida.

[MikeInHawaii]

Could those opposed also opt out of paying for it?

[goaded]

Why not? They take more funds than the pay into the pot anyway.

[Jamie05rhs]

Yes, and the people from the states who don't vote for it get a tax cut.

[KrakenAttackin]

This is called "pork" and It has been happening for a century.

[goaded]

Except they're still getting the pork without giving a vote. That's what's wrong.

[TheBigWhistle]

Absofuckintively. And do it yesterday.

[msc545]

A very radical idea that I agree with.

[KostasKouvalis]

YES!!!

[jimmy2]

No that not the way to do it

[goaded]

Then what is? "This bill will massively benefit my state, but I'll vote against it anyway because if it passes we still get the benefits, and if it doesn't I get to say I stood up against the opposition!" Surely anything that makes it less attractive for representatives to vote against their state's interests is a good thing?