Star Tribune Writes on Lack of Federal Presence in Bridge Disaster

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There are lots of ways to take advantage of NYC without directly working there

I'm sorry but I live in Philly and I don't recall paying any extra taxes when I take Amtrack that takes me to Connecticut if I stay on it, or NYC if I get off there

And trust me the people of Alaska get a benefit from being in the same country as the Financial Capital of the World

Whatever costs that are incurred by Amtrack are passed on to you when you purchase your ticket. This is another bad example. NY doesn't lose money by having people come into their state by train. Assuming they do and pushing for a federal tax to correct that non-issue is a false argument.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Whatever costs that are incurred by Amtrack are passed on to you when you purchase your ticket. This is another bad example. NY doesn't lose money by having people come into their state by train. Assuming they do and pushing for a federal tax to correct that non-issue is a false argument.

Fine, skip trains, say I get there by local roads, mapquest has a feature where you skip portions that toll (which is always roads like turnpikes)

It would be ridiculous to set up a national system of tolling everytime you went 1 city block, and those roads need repairing...

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Fine, skip trains, say I get there by local roads, mapquest has a feature where you skip portions that toll (which is always roads like turnpikes)

It would be ridiculous to set up a national system of tolling everytime you went 1 city block, and those roads need repairing...

Or you could swim the Hudson River if you wanted and skip the toll as well. Or you could carpool and split to costs as well. Or.. Or.. Or..

No tax is absolute either. The fact is that People from NJ are paying their costs to NY and THEN SOME!!!!! NY profits from the arrangement with NJ and they have the ability to directly CONTROL the amount they receive. That's how it should be. If they wanted to they could add a toll on whatever road people are using. If it becomes popular enough they will. The initiation of a Federal Tax will not only waste money and take control out of NY where it belongs, it would be 100% pointless. What benefit would NY or NJ serve? None. Absolutely none. There is no good reason for it other than to expand the power of government to interfere within the states in ways that they have no reason or business to be involved in. The entire idea of it is completely frivilous and serves to benefit noone.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Or you could swim the Hudson River if you wanted and skip the toll as well. Or you could carpool and split to costs as well. Or.. Or.. Or..

No tax is absolute either. The fact is that People from NJ are paying their costs to NY and THEN SOME!!!!! NY profits from the arrangement with NJ and they have the ability to directly CONTROL the amount they receive. That's how it should be. If they wanted to they could add a toll on whatever road people are using. If it becomes popular enough they will. The initiation of a Federal Tax will not only waste money and take control out of NY where it belongs, it would be 100% pointless. What benefit would NY or NJ serve? None. Absolutely none. There is no good reason for it other than to expand the power of government to interfere within the states in ways that they have no reason or business to be involved in. The entire idea of it is completely frivilous and serves to benefit noone.

Your personal opinion contracts in certain ways that even go beyond a strict reading of the constitution, which has the federal government sticking its nose into how NJ and DE trade with each other even in a fair and balanced way...you really think that's neccesary?

Well, it's the Constitution

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Your personal opinion contracts in certain ways that even go beyond a strict reading of the constitution, which has the federal government sticking its nose into how NJ and DE trade with each other even in a fair and balanced way...you really think that's neccesary?

Well, it's the Constitution

Lets try to backtrack here as the point has seemed to have gotten misguided in this post.

You are advocating for a fully federally funded transportation system in the United States.

You said there are areas where the government HAS to be in control... then you went on to name half state and half federal organizations and spending propositions that didn't clearly reflect that view. When that didn't really work out you started saying it was more fair and gave NJ and NY as an example. When that didn't work out we're now down to the constitution.

I'm not really going to argue over the logistics of the constitutional legality of the issue. I'm arguing over what's right and what's wrong here. Just because politicians may or may not have the power to do something doesn't mean they should. They have the power to do A LOT of things, that's not a reason to do them. And it clearly isn't a reason to back up the advocation of such ides.

This all seems to be in response to basically me saying there's no point to it and it benefits nobody. This isn't exactly a valid response to my statement. It seems like a red herring personally. I don't believe I ever argued whether something was legally able to be done. I simply argued that it shouldn't be done. I really don't see the point in whether or not it may be constitutionally legal. If it wasn't, then there'd be an argument. If it is legal, what's the point in bringing it up? It doesn't serve to defend a position. It's simply changing the subject to something I personally don't care to debate.

[Thorgrim]

It's not that the "example" is flawed, its that i dont feel like going back and forth on it when I think there might be an easier example

and your opinions seem well set in this area so it seems pointless to go on