Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Historiker
It is easy to get the public transportation competitive by subsidizing it with the taxpayer's money. This way, all have to pay for the convinience of a few.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Nicely said, Leo.

What's surprising to me is how *low* the rate of gun-related homicide is in the US. For a country awash in guns (almost one gun per capita here), we've a low-moderate *rate* associated with it. Access has never been equal to use here, something that is a confounder for many, but does trace itself back to our 'citizen militia' roots.

What I don't like about those statistics is, that they always ignore all those countless cases where guns protected someone. I think I've read about 5.000 or 6.000 cases of use of firearms for self-protection each day in the us.

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Historiker
It is easy to get the public transportation competitive by subsidizing it with the taxpayer's money. This way, all have to pay for the convinience of a few.

Well, duh! Its not very likely that the commuters themselves would be able to foot the entire bill. Besides that, the idea is to expand the commuter transport network to such levels that car commuters willingly switch to public transit, thus reducing both traffic levels and emissions. Unfortunately, I think the LA public transit system is still very, very far from that.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
One thing that I dont think has been said yet is that I recall hearing somewhere that the overwhelming majority of gun-related incidents involved household members or friends/acquaintances.

Well, that's kind of a no-brainer. The overwhelming majority of homicides of all ilk (not just guns), domestic violence of all sorts and other similar incidents involve family or 'friends / acquaintances'.

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
One thing that I dont think has been said yet is that I recall hearing somewhere that the overwhelming majority of gun-related incidents involved household members or friends/acquaintances.

Well, that's kind of a no-brainer. The overwhelming majority of homicides of all ilk (not just guns), domestic violence of all sorts and other similar incidents involve family or 'friends / acquaintances'.

I'm just trying to get across to our European brothers that this isnt the wild west with showdowns at high noon every bloody day. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Historiker
It is easy to get the public transportation competitive by subsidizing it with the taxpayer's money. This way, all have to pay for the convinience of a few.

Well, duh! Its not very likely that the commuters themselves would be able to foot the entire bill. Besides that, the idea is to expand the commuter transport network to such levels that car commuters willingly switch to public transit, thus reducing both traffic levels and emissions. Unfortunately, I think the LA public transit system is still very, very far from that.

Billing everyone for the benefit of a select few is a slippery slope, comrade. The balance is to make public the debt for which there is a significant uniform benefit to those charged with the debt.

So, making the state responsible for LA public transit is a gross injustice to those Californians living in Fresno. If there's an overwhelming reason that this *must* be done, then maybe you could sell it to the state's voters. Too often though-far, far too often, the taxpayer is given a bill for something for a benefit they will never receive.

If the Los Angeleans want to gild their highway with Los Angeles tax dollars, they can go to it. But drawing in / mandating the support of the state or Feds for a decidedly local project is a problem. The fact that SoCal cannot afford to develop most of the public works / public improvements projects without significant outside aid speaks to the profligate nature of the SoCal / California governance.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Well, that's kind of a no-brainer. The overwhelming majority of homicides of all ilk (not just guns), domestic violence of all sorts and other similar incidents involve family or 'friends / acquaintances'.

I'm just trying to get across to our European brothers that this isnt the wild west with showdowns at high noon every bloody day. [:)]

Of course not, dumbass. We do most of our shootin' at night, during our drug deals.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm having trouble rationalizing Federal assistance / subsidies for Los Angeles train systems. Then again, I'm a Federalist. I *might* agree to subsidize a rail spur for Los Angelinos if the terminus ends in a 30' drop into the Pacific though...[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm having trouble rationalizing Federal assistance / subsidies for Los Angeles train systems. Then again, I'm a Federalist. I *might* agree to subsidize a rail spur for Los Angelinos if the terminus ends in a 30' drop into the Pacific though...[:'(]

Simple, its in the federal government's direct interest to revitalize and expand the public transit network all over the US. Not only will this have a direct impact on our national fossil fuels dependency, but it will also reduce the strain on the national highway system which is the direct responsibility of the federal government.

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


Billing everyone for the benefit of a select few is a slippery slope, comrade. The balance is to make public the debt for which there is a significant uniform benefit to those charged with the debt.

So, making the state responsible for LA public transit is a gross injustice to those Californians living in Fresno. If there's an overwhelming reason that this *must* be done, then maybe you could sell it to the state's voters. Too often though-far, far too often, the taxpayer is given a bill for something for a benefit they will never receive.

If the Los Angeleans want to gild their highway with Los Angeles tax dollars, they can go to it. But drawing in / mandating the support of the state or Feds for a decidedly local project is a problem. The fact that SoCal cannot afford to develop most of the public works / public improvements projects without significant outside aid speaks to the profligate nature of the SoCal / California governance.

Not going to able to argue that because I simply dont know enough about the funding process here, but I do agree that LA County commuter rail should be paid for by LA county taxes together with federal subsidies.

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Definitely one of the reasons I'm glad to be back in CA. This is just 5 minutes away from my house. WU and I had a lovely walk today. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Historiker
It is easy to get the public transportation competitive by subsidizing it with the taxpayer's money. This way, all have to pay for the convinience of a few.

Well, duh! Its not very likely that the commuters themselves would be able to foot the entire bill. Besides that, the idea is to expand the commuter transport network to such levels that car commuters willingly switch to public transit, thus reducing both traffic levels and emissions. Unfortunately, I think the LA public transit system is still very, very far from that.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm having trouble rationalizing Federal assistance / subsidies for Los Angeles train systems. Then again, I'm a Federalist. I *might* agree to subsidize a rail spur for Los Angelinos if the terminus ends in a 30' drop into the Pacific though...[:'(]

Simple, its in the federal government's direct interest to revitalize and expand the public transit network all over the US. Not only will this have a direct impact on our national fossil fuels dependency, but it will also reduce the strain on the national highway system which is the direct responsibility of the federal government.

Yes-INTERstate transit and transportation is very important for the Federal government to subsidize. Local stuff like LA (only) subway and the aforementioned high speed rail system? I don't think that presents the critical case.

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


Billing everyone for the benefit of a select few is a slippery slope, comrade. The balance is to make public the debt for which there is a significant uniform benefit to those charged with the debt.

So, making the state responsible for LA public transit is a gross injustice to those Californians living in Fresno. If there's an overwhelming reason that this *must* be done, then maybe you could sell it to the state's voters. Too often though-far, far too often, the taxpayer is given a bill for something for a benefit they will never receive.

If the Los Angeleans want to gild their highway with Los Angeles tax dollars, they can go to it. But drawing in / mandating the support of the state or Feds for a decidedly local project is a problem. The fact that SoCal cannot afford to develop most of the public works / public improvements projects without significant outside aid speaks to the profligate nature of the SoCal / California governance.

Not going to able to argue that because I simply dont know enough about the funding process here, but I do agree that LA County commuter rail should be paid for by LA county taxes together with federal subsidies.

Wait a minute!!! Why do I have to help pay for the LA county commuter rail??? [:D]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Definitely one of the reasons I'm glad to be back in CA. This is just 5 minutes away from my house. WU and I had a lovely walk today. [:)]

Something's wrong with those hillsides, chamo. [&:] I can't...quite...put...OH YEAH! I know now! They're not aflame! [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Historiker
It is easy to get the public transportation competitive by subsidizing it with the taxpayer's money. This way, all have to pay for the convinience of a few.

Well, duh! Its not very likely that the commuters themselves would be able to foot the entire bill. Besides that, the idea is to expand the commuter transport network to such levels that car commuters willingly switch to public transit, thus reducing both traffic levels and emissions. Unfortunately, I think the LA public transit system is still very, very far from that.

Well, you can take money and create a market that wasn't there. This way, you destroy other markets with the money of all. You know how I think about that...

I am thinking for quite a while to buy a free space in my home city and turn it into a parking lot. This is only worth considering, because people commute by car and need cars.

So wehn you take tax money to fund a public transportation, you'll hurt other parts of the economy quite a lot. Gas stations will have less revenue, car dealers will sell less cars, parking lot owners won't be able to sell the places to commuters, garages would have less to repair - and so on.
So by taking your and my money to artificially create the demand - that obviously doesn't exist right now - for a public transportation, you destroy businesses and jobs.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Historiker
It is easy to get the public transportation competitive by subsidizing it with the taxpayer's money. This way, all have to pay for the convinience of a few.

Well, duh! Its not very likely that the commuters themselves would be able to foot the entire bill. Besides that, the idea is to expand the commuter transport network to such levels that car commuters willingly switch to public transit, thus reducing both traffic levels and emissions. Unfortunately, I think the LA public transit system is still very, very far from that.

Billing everyone for the benefit of a select few is a slippery slope, comrade. The balance is to make public the debt for which there is a significant uniform benefit to those charged with the debt.

So, making the state responsible for LA public transit is a gross injustice to those Californians living in Fresno. If there's an overwhelming reason that this *must* be done, then maybe you could sell it to the state's voters. Too often though-far, far too often, the taxpayer is given a bill for something for a benefit they will never receive.

If the Los Angeleans want to gild their highway with Los Angeles tax dollars, they can go to it. But drawing in / mandating the support of the state or Feds for a decidedly local project is a problem. The fact that SoCal cannot afford to develop most of the public works / public improvements projects without significant outside aid speaks to the profligate nature of the SoCal / California governance.