Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

Details on the Senate Dem proposal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...duction-plan/2011/07/08/gIQAFQbS4H_print.html

Senate Democrats have drafted a sweeping debt-reduction plan that would slice $4 trillion from projected borrowing over the next decade without touching the expensive health and retirement programs targeted by President Obama.

Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing to stabilize borrowing through sharp cuts at the Pentagon and other government agencies, as well as $2 trillion in new taxes, primarily on families earning more than $1 million year, according to a copy of the plan obtained by The Washington Post.

........

Under the blueprint, the top income tax rate would rise to 39.6 percent for individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and families earning more than $1 million. That group, which constitutes the nation’s richest 1 percent of households, would also pay a 20 percent rate on capital gains and dividends, rather than the 15 percent rate now in effect.

In addition to raising rates for the very wealthiest families, the blueprint proposes to obtain fresh revenue by targeting offshore tax havens and corporate shelters. It would also scale back the array of tax breaks and deductions known as tax expenditures, perhaps by focusing on the wealthiest households, which claim an average of $205,000 in tax breaks each year on average income of $1.1 million.

The blueprint would take nearly $900 billion from the Pentagon over the next decade — the same amount recommended by Obama’s fiscal commission. It would slice more than $350 billion from domestic programs. And it would produce interest savings of nearly $600 billion attributable to reduced borrowing.

Only about $80 billion would be cut from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs, and nothing from Social Security. But even without touching those programs, the plan would stabilize borrowing by 2014 and begin pushing the national debt down as a share of the economy.​

Would have been nice to see more of this when they were actually in power and all.

There's your cuts Republicans! Take it! Fuck.

 

[WickedAngel]

There's your cuts Republicans! Take it! Fuck.

Cuts to the Pentagon and tax increases for the rich? There's no way they'll go for that.

 

[eznark]

And the inheritance tax.
Which is the two ways that most rich people in this country get their money.
Sure, income tax cuts are great for starving the beast, but for all their whining, income tax brackets have a rather small impact on their overall finance of billionaires.
And I have no doubt that if push came to shove, they will sacrifice the income tax rates in order to preserve their real money makers.

Capital gains increases are a non-starter because they affect a significant portion of individuals and hamper entrepreneurial investment. It's anathema to Obama's talk yesterday (it was yesterday right?) about trying to spur increased investments in new ventures.

To me we're more likely to see a cap gains reduction since it's a simple sell for democrats: "Clinton did it and it worked, we're following our boy" and it's a sop to the GOP. If the Dems demand increases at the upper bracket, giving capital gains cuts (which are far more important and truly can drive economic investment) would be a wise trade-off.

 

[gcubed]

Capital gains increases are a non-starter because they affect a significant portion of individuals and hamper entrepreneurial investment. It's anathema to Obama's talk yesterday (it was yesterday right?) about trying to spur increased investments in new ventures.

To me we're more likely to see a cap gains reduction since it's a simple sell for democrats: "Clinton did it and it worked, we're following our boy" and it's a sop to the GOP. If the Dems demand increases at the upper bracket, giving capital gains cuts (which are far more important and truly can drive economic investment) would be a wise trade-off.

Only problem with that is they would lose far more money lowering the capital gains rate then they would get by raising the tax rate on families over 1000000

 

[GhaleonEB]

There's your cuts Republicans! Take it! Fuck.

While I think it's a great proposal, but I'm a bit cynical about it. This is what I expected from the party we elected in 2008. But they would never pass anything this progressive, as we saw from the constant squabbling when they held the House. Even a Dem controlled House, this wouldn't go through.

I don't think Obama would sign it, either. Too harsh on the wealthy for his tastes.

 

[Stinkles]

Capital gains increases are a non-starter because they affect a significant portion of individuals and hamper entrepreneurial investment. It's anathema to Obama's talk yesterday (it was yesterday right?) about trying to spur increased investments in new ventures.

To me we're more likely to see a cap gains reduction since it's a simple sell for democrats: "Clinton did it and it worked, we're following our boy" and it's a sop to the GOP. If the Dems demand increases at the upper bracket, giving capital gains cuts (which are far more important and truly can drive economic investment) would be a wise trade-off.

Please show me evidence of the bolded.

 

[TacticalFox88]

While I think it's a great proposal, but I'm a bit cynical about it. This is what I expected from the party we elected in 2008. But they would never pass anything this progressive, as we saw from the constant squabbling when they held the House. Even a Dem controlled House, this wouldn't go through.

I don't think Obama would sign it, either. Too harsh on the wealthy for his tastes.

Come on Ghaleon. You really think Obama isn't for hiking taxes on the ri-*remembers Bush Tax cuts extension* Okay then, nevermind. *sigh*.

 

[Chichikov]

Capital gains increases are a non-starter because they affect a significant portion of individuals and hamper entrepreneurial investment. It's anathema to Obama's talk yesterday (it was yesterday right?) about trying to spur increased investments in new ventures.

About 8% of people pay capital taxes.
Less than a quarter of the number of people on Medicaid.

Also, what OuterWorldVoice said.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I doubt you genuinely believe this. Otherwise, if only.

Also, Bachmann has signed yet another conservative pledge. Titled The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family, it contains some essential provisions. My two favorite points:

Jackson, you miss the part that most concerns every male citizen of the United States:

--Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children - from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

I better turn from a streamer to a downloader if this came about.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I like that senate dem proposal but it doesn't reflect our political realities. Hell, dems wouldn't pass something that "liberal" when they had a super majority in the senate and controlled the house.

Huge defense cuts and big taxes on the rich? Nah, not in an election season.

I will say though: that is how you start a conversation, with the most unlikely proposal. THEN you start compromising and changing things.

 

[Oblivion]

While I think it's a great proposal, but I'm a bit cynical about it. This is what I expected from the party we elected in 2008. But they would never pass anything this progressive, as we saw from the constant squabbling when they held the House. Even a Dem controlled House, this wouldn't go through.

I don't think Obama would sign it, either. Too harsh on the wealthy for his tastes.

Pretty much.

To tell the truth, I'm getting a little (more) cynical with this sort of thing. The senate proposal is straight up Stalin levels of progressivism, and it makes dirty libs like me happy that the Dems are negotiating like they SHOULD have been on day fucking 1. Yet, this is little more than kabuki theater. I have little doubt that the likes of Sanders and Pelosi would support such a thing, but the vast majority of Democrats THEMSELVES, including Obama, don't want this. If Obama and many of the Dems were as stubborn and true to their convictions as the fuckhead teapublicans, then such deals like this would make a bit more difference.

As it stands, nothing useful from this proposal will ever get through, aside from MAYBE a few billion in removing subsidies, or an acceptable tax compromise by raising taxes on the poor.

 

[eznark]

Please show me evidence of the bolded.

What if I quote your boy?

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

-- President John F. Kennedy, 1963


The ACCF released a pretty good study about a year back. I'll see if I can find it. Alternatively, there have been numerous white papers on the impact of capital gains reductions on entrepreneurial investment in the 1990's. Google away! (There are a ton of fascinating ones. A few detail the resulting malinvestments in shitty internet start-ups as a result of the tax break).

edit: here it is

http://www.accf.org/media/dynamic/4/media_497.pdf


Chichikov: a significant portion of individuals as compared to a tax hike on 1% of the population.

 

[Oblivion]

Btw, love Bill Maher's New Rules yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvUkYueexEc

 

[speculawyer]

Please show me evidence of the bolded.

There is no such evidence. It is just another stupid 'trick the poor idiots' statement. If they have money to invest, they'll invest. What else are they gonna do, stick it in a mattress? You'll pay your ordinary income rate if you stick it in the bank.

 

[speculawyer]

What if I quote your boy?

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

-- President John F. Kennedy, 1963


The ACCF released a pretty good study about a year back. I'll see if I can find it. Alternatively, there have been numerous white papers on the impact of capital gains reductions on entrepreneurial investment in the 1990's. Google away! (There are a ton of fascinating ones. A few detail the resulting malinvestments in shitty internet start-ups as a result of the tax break).

edit: here it is

http://www.accf.org/media/dynamic/4/media_497.pdf

Oooh Kennedy said it so it MUST be true. poppycock.

The ACCF? LOL. That is like asking the coal industry if coal is good.


And these days, you can borrow money at historically low rates so it is not like much investment money is needed. People are buying treasuries at zero percent . . . there is plenty of capital money! That is not an issue. The lack of good things to invest in is the issue.

 

[eznark]

So you didn't read it?

 

[SolKane]

The ACCF released a pretty good study about a year back. I'll see if I can find it. Alternatively, there have been numerous white papers on the impact of capital gains reductions on entrepreneurial investment in the 1990's. Google away! (There are a ton of fascinating ones. A few detail the resulting malinvestments in shitty internet start-ups as a result of the tax break).

edit: here it is

http://www.accf.org/media/dynamic/4/media_497.pdf

"William Gentry", lol

 

[RegularCitizen]

There's your cuts Republicans! Take it! Fuck.

Thanks.

 

[pgtl_10]

Capital gains increases are a non-starter because they affect a significant portion of individuals and hamper entrepreneurial investment. It's anathema to Obama's talk yesterday (it was yesterday right?) about trying to spur increased investments in new ventures.

To me we're more likely to see a cap gains reduction since it's a simple sell for democrats: "Clinton did it and it worked, we're following our boy" and it's a sop to the GOP. If the Dems demand increases at the upper bracket, giving capital gains cuts (which are far more important and truly can drive economic investment) would be a wise trade-off.

I'm pretty sure decades ago capital gains was considered income that was sbject to income tax.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. First, 20% is just going back to the pre-Bush tax rates.

Second, it's only on the upper most potion of the income spectrum:

Under the blueprint, the top income tax rate would rise to 39.6 percent for individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and families earning more than $1 million. That group, which constitutes the nation’s richest 1 percent of households, would also pay a 20 percent rate on capital gains and dividends, rather than the 15 percent rate now in effect.

I don't think the nation would suffer a lack of small business innovation if we moved capical gains taxes up 5% to where they were before, on the top 1%. That's just absurd.

 

[Aaron Strife]

that plan sounds awesome, so it's not going to pass

 

[jamesinclair]

There is no such evidence. It is just another stupid 'trick the poor idiots' statement. If they have money to invest, they'll invest. What else are they gonna do, stick it in a mattress? You'll pay your ordinary income rate if you stick it in the bank.

Seriously.

Option A: Keep money in box. Pay no taxes. Make no money.
Option B: Invest money. Make return. Pay 20% on return.


Yeah, that Option B sure is unattractive.

 

[polyh3dron]

Welp, guess we're gonna see what happens when the USA defaults on its debts. Boehner just declined the White House's compromise. Wow.

Replublicans are so fucked in 2012 unless they can dupe the "Independents" into thinking that this is Obama's fault but Obama offered up the Dems' sacred fucking cows in order to make a deal.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Forgive me, but what chance do you think Obama has of being reelected? Months ago I would have said he would be a shoe in, but now I'm not so sure. I think it's going to be much closer than people expect. I guess it's good for the Dems that the Republicans running for office are historically weak.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Forgive me, but what chance do you think Obama has of being reelected? Months ago I would have said he would be a shoe in, but now I'm not so sure. I think it's going to be much closer than people expect. I guess it's good for the Dems that the Republicans running for office are historically weak.

I still say it's a lock, but as of now it's going to almost JFK/Nixon close.

 

[polyh3dron]

Well when you have the Republicans doing nothing but intentionally tanking the American economy to make Obama look bad, they're not exactly a better choice.

 

[numble]

Aid to Pakistani military suspended and/or cancelled:
http://nyti.ms/qMzw1Q

 

[Loudninja]

Boehner Abandons ‘Grand Bargain’ Talks Over Tax Hikes

House Speaker John Boehner is abandoning discussions with the White House on a large-scale debt deal slated to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the issue of tax hikes. Instead, Boehner said the talks should focus on reaching a smaller debt-reduction deal.

"Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes," Boehner said in the statement.

"I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase," Boehner said.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...house-for-large-scale-debt-deal.php?ref=fpblg

 

[PhoenixDark]

Boehner rejects Obama's deal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html

Who didn't see this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mETgb-fPRo

 

[TacticalFox88]

Well when you have the Republicans doing nothing but intentionally tanking the American economy to make Obama look bad, they're not exactly a better choice.

The entire goal of the Republicans was to sabotage not only Obama's presidency, but tank the ENTIRE economy and then turn around and blame him for it.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Boehner rejects Obama's deal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html

Who didn't see this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mETgb-fPRo

Awesome

Now Dems need to present that Senate proposal as their deal. Go All in with it, all Dems on all TV channels, News op-eds.

 

[PhoenixDark]

They literally just rejected Medicare cuts alongside 4T in cuts because of small tax cuts, and now would rather take a deal half as big. Do we need any more proof that the GOP truly doesn't give a shit about the deficit or the economy? Obama could have added an abortion repeal rider in the bill and it still would be rejected.

And tomorrow Obama will move the goalpost further back so he can declare victory.

 

[ThisWreckage]

They literally just rejected Medicare cuts alongside 4T in cuts because of small tax cuts, and now would rather take a deal half as big. Do we need any more proof that the GOP truly doesn't give a shit about the deficit or the economy? Obama could have added an abortion repeal rider in the bill and it still would be rejected.

And tomorrow Obama will move the goalpost further back so he can declare victory.

I believe a similar thing happened in Rome. The general good for the people took a backseat to petty rivalries within the Senate and power plays designed to net a person or group of people more power. They don't care about the public, they just want to see the opposing side suffer and lose. They probably get hard by seeing the other side concede or revise their goals.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Boehner rejects Obama's deal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html

Who didn't see this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mETgb-fPRo

My preferred outcome for this standoff would be for Obama to hold a prime time press conference, stating he will sign a clean bill, or a balanced bill, but not an all cuts bill. Particularly one that cuts programs the poor and middle class, while explicitly protecting the wealthy. And and then hold to that line, no matter what.

I don't see it happening. Obama will cave again.

 

[eznark]

I don't think it's as big of a deal as you guys are making it out to be. Boehner is just rejecting the "big" changes. On Friday they were claiming there would be changes to tax codes (not just changes in rates) and entitlement program tweaks (not just benefit changes). There was no real way any of that stuff would get done.

He still said he is down for the mid-level packages. Obviously he isn't going to say yes to tax increases until he has to, and the back-against-the-wall negotiations happen tomorrow.

 

[ElectricThunder]

Not surprised in the least that this thing will go deeper down the rabbit hole---at this rate they've still got ample "time" to ramp up the crazy even more while PERHAPS Obama will "argue them back" to whatever inane shit they come up with this coming Tuesday or Wednesday or whatever.

This has all of the pieces coming together to be one of the craziest damn things my generation, the mid-20somethings, have yet to behold.

Bah, at least Kucinich or Gravel would've made things interesting, even if set upon by members of both parties for their non-public masters...

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I'm wondering when the voters are going to get fed up with these games and stop voting in poorly qualified clowns

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't think it's as big of a deal as you guys are making it out to be. Boehner is just rejecting the "big" changes. On Friday they were claiming there would be changes to tax codes (not just changes in rates) and entitlement program tweaks (not just benefit changes). There was no real way any of that stuff would get done.

He still said he is down for the mid-level packages. Obviously he isn't going to say yes to tax increases until he has to, and the back-against-the-wall negotiations happen tomorrow.

Given Obama's penchant for caving, it makes sense to hold out until Sunday (or beyond) on his part. But at the same time I get the impression Boehner's caucus, not Boehner, made this decision. Yesterday's jobs report merely gave him the excuse he needed.

But I disagree with your point on tomorrow's meeting: why would Boehner draw the line in the sand before the meeting, then break his word at the meeting? Seems like he can't get the votes, which means no deal unless Obama caves. Which will probably happen tomorrow.

 

[eznark]

Given Obama's penchant for caving, it makes sense to hold out until Sunday (or beyond) on his part. But at the same time I get the impression Boehner's caucus, not Boehner, made this decision. Yesterday's jobs report merely gave him the excuse he needed.

But I disagree with your point on tomorrow's meeting: why would Boehner draw the line in the sand before the meeting, then break his word at the meeting? Seems like he can't get the votes, which means no deal unless Obama caves. Which will probably happen tomorrow.

Everyone has drawn a different line in the sand. Everyone will have to bend a little bit, then they will all hold hands and spin whatever shitty "fuck over America" deal they all work out and the media will lap it up because they avoided the terrible, awful, depression inducing default.

Too Big To Fail 2.0

 

[GhaleonEB]

I don't think it's as big of a deal as you guys are making it out to be. Boehner is just rejecting the "big" changes. On Friday they were claiming there would be changes to tax codes (not just changes in rates) and entitlement program tweaks (not just benefit changes). There was no real way any of that stuff would get done.

He still said he is down for the mid-level packages. Obviously he isn't going to say yes to tax increases until he has to, and the back-against-the-wall negotiations happen tomorrow.

Boehner is saying, if he can't get all of what he wants, he'll take some of it, so long as Obama gets none of what he wants.

This is a moment of maximum leverage for Obama. Boehner knows this. If he sqeeks out without any revenue increases here, there won't be any later. Not in the budgeting process (just look at the crap the House is producing on that front), nor any other legislation.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I'm wondering when the voters are going to get fed up with these games and stop voting in poorly qualified clowns

If the economy stays like this, it won't be long. Maybe 2000 years.

 

[Jackson50]

Jackson, you miss the part that most concerns every male citizen of the United States:

--Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children - from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

I better turn from a streamer to a downloader if this came about.

I like that they label children "the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy." That sounds so odd.

Aid to Pakistani military suspended and/or cancelled:
http://nyti.ms/qMzw1Q

I think it was inevitable that some aid was going to be withheld. The recent supposition by ADM Mullen and the recent revelation that senior Pakistani military officials may have been bribed by N. Korea only compounded the damage already done to bilateral relations.

Forgive me, but what chance do you think Obama has of being reelected? Months ago I would have said he would be a shoe in, but now I'm not so sure. I think it's going to be much closer than people expect. I guess it's good for the Dems that the Republicans running for office are historically weak.

Presently, his prospects have diminished. The recent employment reports are certainly disconcerting. Output has been languid. Conversely, other metrics indicate increased economic growth. If growth increases and stabilizes by 2012, his prospects will improve considerably; at a minimum, sustained job growth comparable to February, March, and April would prove beneficial. Regardless, it is too early to make a worthwhile prediction based on economic conditions.

The GOP nominee will not prove especially challenging; a moderate would present the strongest challenge, and the GOP is unlikely to nominate a moderate. A strident ideologue would diminish the GOP's prospects. Thus, the nominee will probably be an average, orthodox partisan that satisfies the base while not entirely alienating moderates. Such a candidate would pose an average challenge.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I like that they label children "the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy." That sounds so odd.

Good catch. That's hilarious actually.

 

[jamesinclair]

They literally just rejected Medicare cuts alongside 4T in cuts because of small tax cuts, and now would rather take a deal half as big. Do we need any more proof that the GOP truly doesn't give a shit about the deficit or the economy? Obama could have added an abortion repeal rider in the bill and it still would be rejected.

Thsi is actually fantastic.

The die hard tea party faction was looking for 10t in cuts. When they find out the GOP is trying to reduce the amount of cuts....well, theyre not getting the teaparty vote.

Meanwhile, Obama can say "I offered everything, even Medicare and SS, and they didnt take it. Now lets do it our way, sell the Pentagon and turn it into condos"

 

[Oblivion]

This is a moment of maximum leverage for Obama. Boehner knows this. If he sqeeks out without any revenue increases here, there won't be any later. Not in the budgeting process (just look at the crap the House is producing on that front), nor any other legislation.

Yep, seems like Obama's got a pivotal weapon at his disposal. It's not like he'll somehow fuck this up by pre-emptively caving. :trollface

 

[TacticalFox88]

Yep, seems like Obama's got a pivotal weapon at his disposal. It's not like he'll somehow fuck this up by pre-emptively caving. :trollface

I seriously want him to show some balls. Now is NOT the time for his usual cowardly act.

 

[Journeywalker]

I'm not sure why we're even having this conversation. First, 20% is just going back to the pre-Bush tax rates.

Second, it's only on the upper most potion of the income spectrum:



I don't think the nation would suffer a lack of small business innovation if we moved capical gains taxes up 5% to where they were before, on the top 1%. That's just absurd.

Unless I'm missing something, this has a terrible loophole. You will see everyone paid with stock options and granted stock with $1 in ¨income¨ (especially on Wall Street).

 

[SomeDude]

Obama renewed the patriot act. This is against the United States constitution.

 

[jamesinclair]

So the Mica transportation bill is laying even more golden eggs.

This would mean a cut from about $11 billion for transit today to about $7 billion. What does this mean? Fewer dollars in the urban formula program means fewer new buses and rail cars for transit agencies across the country. Less money for state of good repair means a decline in the number of renovations of aging railway tunnels and viaducts or bus depots. A loss for the New Starts program means the end of several major capital expansion projects nationwide.

...

Though Mr. Mica’s specific approach is not yet apparent since the full legislation has yet to be released, the bill outline does state that “The percentage of available formula funds for transit programs that benefit suburban and rural areas” would be increased. The low down: Urban transit systems — the agencies that serve the vast majority of transit users — would suffer the ridiculous indignity of having their already smaller pot of funds be cut even further to benefit the less cost-effective, least valuable public transportation systems.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...nsportation-investment-a-difficult-prognosis/

Why do republicans hate America?

We need a Mcarthy-like figure to inquire into why we have destructive elements inside the US capitol.

 

[jamesinclair]

I missed this nugget about SunRail

This week’s endorsement of the Central Florida SunRail commuter train project by Governor Rick Scott (R) was a reflection of American democracy at its worse. Having complained of budget deficits and scorned off federal intercity rail funds for a fast train to link Tampa and Orlando that would have likely cost the state no money, Mr. Scott has given his go-ahead to a project whose primary beneficiary will be CSX, the freight rail operator, and whose costs to the state will run up the tab into the hundreds of millions of dollars — with few public benefits. The SunRail service will operate every 30 minutes at peak hours and every two hours during the middle of the day, at least at the beginning of operations. Future operations improvements lack funding.

The commuter line’s first phase was approved by the Federal Transit Administration in 2009 for New Starts funding because of years of influential lobbying by similarly debt-obsessed Congressman John Mica (R) despite considerable objections from the U.S. government over its cost effectiveness; it was arguably the most expensive per rider of any project approved that year. The project will serve an estimated 4,300 riders a day at a final cost of $1.2 billion, $432 million of which will be handed directly over to CSX for the purchase of its line.* This amounts to a state subsidy for a private corporation, in direct contrast to the high-speed rail line, which was attracting offers of hundreds of millions of dollars from private groups that saw operating profits on the horizon.


* The funds will allow SunRail to use the corridor during the day, but CSX will still be able to run freight trains on the corridor at night, potentially making maintenance of the line more difficult. This includes a completely out of proportion $200 million insurance policy that the state is paying to CSX to use the tracks. In addition, the funds provide tens millions of dollars to CSX to upgrade an adjacent line.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...successes-a-glimpse-of-american-difficulties/


I think when the republicans ask

"Will this proposed rail line be profitable?"

They mean

"How much taxpayer money can we directly inject into our campaign doners accounts?"