Trump pulls brakes on $13B Obama-backed rail-tunnel plan

Yet another good decision from Trump. Why should people in Idaho pay for a transportation issue that is used by nobody but local residents in New York? Trump is getting control of out of control federal spending and just saved taxpayers billions of dollars.

"The plan, proposed under President Barack Obama in 2015, includes revitalizing a deteriorating Amtrak tunnel connecting New Jersey to New York City, repairing damage to a dual-tunnel conduit, and reconstructing the New Jersey railroad network’s aging Portal Bridge, Crain’s New York Business reported.

Amtrak, which owns most of the rail tunnels and tracks between Boston and Washington, D.C., contends that the existing tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York City is damaged and could fail within 10 to 15 years, threatening daily rail transportation in the Northeast.

The original Obama-era plan called for costs to be split among New York state, New Jersey and the federal government.

'A local project'

But in a letter Friday, the Trump administration notified New York and New Jersey that the Obama-era deal was now "non-existent" because the states recently requested that their portions be covered by loans from the federal government -- meaning Washington would supply all of the initial funding for what the Trump White House is calling "a local project."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...kes-on-13b-obama-backed-rail-tunnel-plan.html

 

Works for me......

 

Of course, Commie Donnie supports MAKING AMERICA A THIRD-WORLD COUNTRY AGAIN, so why upgrade our transportation system.

 

The only commies are on the left.

And, if the trains can't pay for their own maintenance, then they suck anyway.

 

It's a New York transportation system for New York residents to commute to jobs. It's local infrastructure and since New York is such a high tax blue state that has taken money from federal coffers because people have been able to write off high state taxes they should pay for their own infrastructure. Why should Idaho pay for New York commuters?

 

Exactly. Why do private train companies need public financed infrastructure.

 

I love right-wing socialists complaining about socialism. The fact is it is the welfare-loving red states which are receiving more than their fair share of
federal dollars at the expense of the blue states.

 

Communists and our right-wing socialists have so much in common, including the support of supply-side economics.

Lost leaders still can be beneficial, as in the case of high-speed trains:
Lower air pollution
Less auto traffic
Less road and bridge construction
Less road and bridge maintenance
Attracts more tourists
In other words, defying Commie Donnie by MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

 

It may be a subtle message that infrastructure is up next -- get on board because that is the only solution that is going to be offered.

 

Trump tackling infrastructure... wait.. cutting spending on infrastructure, thought Trump said he was gonna spend 1 trillion on infrastructure

 

As someone who lives in NY/NJ I can't see a reason to not dislike Trump as it negatively effects me directly.

 

And we are all behind this 100%. Just go ahead, pull NY and NJ exorbitant state and property taxes together, issue bonds if necessary (tolls will pay for them) and do it.

MAKE HUDSON RIVER CROSSINGS GREAT AGAIN.

 

Another good move by Trump, he's done well in his first year.

here's a little comparison with the last guy. lol

 

So why should people in Arizona pay a train system in NY? Or any anywhere else other then Arizona when they will not befit form it?

 

I guess the same reason people from states like MA/NJ/NY historically payed for the red states?

The flood of federal money into the emerging Sunbelt — provided by states in the Northeast and the industrial Midwest, the regions that paid the most federal taxes — grew so pronounced that it became the subject of heated debate during the 1970s. Amid the stagflation that gripped the world economy, the Sunbelt boomed while the old industrial heartland faced almost catastrophic decline. Northern leaders blamed the decline of the Rust Belt on the imbalance in the distribution of federal development money. Business Week even ran the story, “The Second War Between the States.”

For 80 years, residents of the populous, high-tax (and today mostly blue) states have subsidized their fellow citizens in lower income, lower tax (and today mostly red) states. Ryan and other advocates of SALT elimination portray the deduction as an unfair burden imposed by spendthrift regions on better functioning states. But in fact, congressional Republicans’ plan to eliminate the SALT deduction is the latest battleground in this long-running regional conflict over the federal balance of payments — one that has, paradoxically, showered federal largesse most lavishly on the opponents of big government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...states-want-even-more/?utm_term=.958fbcc025e3

 

It could be said that only towboat companies and the bigger local marine dealers benefit from the 29 locks & dams on the Mississippi river.

But there's no more economical way to move the bulk materials of commerce than by barge up and down the backbone of the country and its tributaries, especially the Ohio and Missouri rivers, and it benefits everyone. The Mississippi watershed drains more than 40% of the USA and moves a lot of commerce that supports a lot of companies and jobs far from the nuns and cans that mark the channels. Locks & dams make this possible.

Likewise the infrastructure of NY, NJ et al has to be maintained because it benefits everyone -- although perhaps not as broadly and as equally as a US Army Corp of Engineers project on a large river. The country cannot do without these.

Other than bridges to nowhere and bullet trains, infrastructure is almost always a good fiscal investment, and while heavy population centers get a big share, everybody gets a share where they are, too.

 

Which is a total ****ing crock of ****. There are lies damn lies and statistics.

Lets do a little ****ing math!

The state of Alaska gets the highest federal tax dollars per capita and has the highest net per capita according to lying piece of **** media statisticians. The state gets about

$2,000,000,000 from the feds.

How do the lying statisticans get to such a high net well they look at federal tax dollars. BUT!!! They do not count the amount of money the feds get from the sale of natural resources on the lands the federal government has stolen from the state.

Approximately 550,000,000 barrels of oil come from federally owned lands in Alaska annually. With the opening of ANWAR it will be even more. The feds get a nice 18% royalty on those barrels of oil. Even at a modest $60 per barrel of oil thats almost $6,000,000,000 annually to the federal from the state of Alaska. And thats just oil. There is also timber and minerals.

So how do lying piece of **** east coast liberals in the press get that Alaska has the highest net of any state in the Union. Well simply they dont count any of it! They dont count any money the feds get natural resource sales from the rural red states. Not the oil. Not the timber. Not the natural gas. Not the minerals. Nothing! Why do you think every red state wants its ****ing land back? The feds are making money hand over fist that should be going to the states.

Then these ****s have the ****ing audacity to count the money the feds spend on the upkeep of those lands that they make a huge ****ing profit from as federal money going to red states. Count their costs but dont count their revenue.

**** THEM!!!!!

The next time you get the urge to say

Bite your tongue because its a ****ing lie pushed by media pieces of ****!

 

This is a private infrastructure project that has no business being financed by federal funds. If NY City thinks propping up this private infrastructure is in their best interest then that's their call but don't ask people in Ohio to fund it.

 

Because Trump won't force people in Montana to prop up your local commuter transportation system?

 

Sorry but you can't compare locals commuting to jobs to interstate commerce moving on the Mississippi River.

 

The obama legacy keeps getting smaller and smaller....

 

"Yet another good decision from Trump. Why should people in Idaho pay for a transportation issue that is used by nobody but local residents in New York?"

Can't say.

Idaho is a receiver state. It receives more Federal money than it pays in taxes.

Which makes your premise false.

 

I am not in a position to take your claims apart, but I suspect that they won't stand up.

There are a lot of red states that have relatively little federal land, and no natural recources to export. On that alone, your projection fails.

 

It is absolutely amazing.

This project is absolutely essential. If the two tubes under the Hudson River are allowed to continue to deteriorate, it will cripple ground transporation throughout the entire Northeast corridor, severely damage the economy of New York City and the sorrounding areas, and tell the entire world that the US is planning on letting what previous generations build fall down around its ears

The sheer stupidity of this is breathaking.

But, as we all see, it plays to the trailer park crowd.

 

Of course you can't say because it makes no sense. This is a NY City local issue and has no business being financed by other states.