Obamao: Federal Government to Control Light Rail

[dawp]

You realize that the only reason central California wasn't a dust bowl the whole time is ENTIRELY BECAUSE of the federal government, right? Who do you think built the irrigation network to begin with? How dumb can you be?

this is patranus we're talking about here, what do you expect?

 

[Genx87]

Maybe because populous and prosperous states like California subsidize states like North Dakota quite heavily, and voluntarily. If it wasn't for federal monies, lots of red states would dry up and blow away, the population count shrivel up like dried prunes.

I'm sure North Dakota will continue to come out ahead, as will a lot of other red state ingrates and whiners...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

They're also the ones with the most to gain from healthcare reform, even though there's no known cure for stupidity...

You do realize ND has had a shrinking population for decades right? They are shriveling up even with federal money. And I love how ND is a red state when they have Kent Conrad, a ranking democrat as their senator and has been since 1987. Byron Dorgan another democrat as their senator since 1992. And Earl Pomeroy a democrat as their house rep since 1993.

Lefties like you shold be kissing NDs ass for delivering 100% of their representation for the democrats. Instead you knuckle draggers paint them a red state lmao. Cant even be bothered to do the most basic research on the people you insult.

 

[Robor]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of

LOL... That is priceless. Unfortunately, I really know someone very much like that guy.

 

[piasabird]

The federal government manages things so well.

 

[rudder]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another epic fail by FearNoEvil.

Even the ever trollish Patranous says, "The Obama administration is proposing that the federal government oversee safety regulations for subway and light-rail systems in the wake of several accidents that killed or injured passengers. "

Or in short, the need for regulation logically follows in the wake of accidents that killed and injured passengers.

And now the ever reading challenged FearNoEvil says there is no reason for regulation?????????? And dead and maimed passenger are not any reason for concerns.

May I suggest that failing kindly just shutting up, FearNoEvil should try to peddle his swill to the families of dead and maimed passengers to get the other side of the story.

light rail is already regulated. Do we need to bloat the Federal government even more? Some recent crashes were due to employees breaking regulations. What other regulation can you put in place to stop an operator from smoking pot or texting while driving a subway?

Someone mentioned Valujet. Well they were regulated by the Feds. A contractor decided to illegally ship some oxygen containers and ended up killing a bunch of people along with the airline.

Maybe people should stop being dip shits and/or make it easier to fire their incompetent asses. Then we would not need the Federal government to regulate how thick my toilet paper needs to be.

 

[ayabe]

"It doesn’t make sense that transit and commuter rail that run on parallel tracks have different safety standards, NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said."

/thread

Get the fuck out of here.

 

[K1052]

"It doesn’t make sense that transit and commuter rail that run on parallel tracks have different safety standards, NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said."

/thread

Get the fuck out of here.

If the Feds try to enforce FRA crash/safety standards on every transit agency in the country that operates light rail or a subway and provides zero cash to do it will bankrupt EVERYONE running rail.

If they really want to help they could pony up the many billions of dollars worth of money that transit agencies need to rebuild crumbling infrastructure and replace ancient (and increasingly dangerous) rolling stock.

 

[rudder]

"It doesn’t make sense that transit and commuter rail that run on parallel tracks have different safety standards, NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said."

/thread

Get the fuck out of here.

So you want to increase the expense of operating a commuter rail.. which other than suffering from human errors are safe... which will mostly likely be without any Federal funding to offset the increase and further burdening the states and municipalities who will then pass those expenses along to the riders. Yes it is an incredibly long run on sentence.

 

[OutHouse]

Maybe because populous and prosperous states like California subsidize states like North Dakota quite heavily, and voluntarily. If it wasn't for federal monies, lots of red states would dry up and blow away, the population count shrivel up like dried prunes.

I'm sure North Dakota will continue to come out ahead, as will a lot of other red state ingrates and whiners...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

They're also the ones with the most to gain from healthcare reform, even though there's no known cure for stupidity...

http://www.demnpl.com/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={9F98102E-E016-41C4-8F2E-79F7468EB098}

Conrad
pomeroy
dorgan

yea they are a solid red state.

 

[alphatarget1]

Light rail is mostly safe. Probably safer than driving with a bunch of soccermoms in SUVs. No need for the Federal government to step in.

 

[Infohawk]

A lot of times the federal government can coerce local authorities into oversight with federal funds. However, this article seems to suggest even non-federally-funded will get oversight, which does not seem right and is wasteful.

It may be legal though. The commerce clause applies to instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Even light rail is capable of crossing interstate lines.

 

[tk149]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aunzocnGrU48&pos=8

I lost my copy of the Constitution, where does it grant the federal government authority to regulate intrastate commerce?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3)

"[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
The executive and congressional branches with the complicity of the judicial branch have abused the hell out of this clause to authorize regulation of almost every aspect of our society, ever since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. If you think about it, you can make a link, however tenuous, to ANYTHING that you want to regulate. If X affects Y, and Y affects Z, and Z affects Q, and Q affects interstate commerce, than Congress has the authority to regulate X. Ridiculous.

In short, this is nothing new, but that doesn't make it right. Unfortunately, the genie's out of the bottle now, and until there's a revolution, this situation will not change.

 

[Patranus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3)

"[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
The executive and congressional branches with the complicity of the judicial branch have abused the hell out of this clause to authorize regulation of almost every aspect of our society, ever since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. If you think about it, you can make a link, however tenuous, to ANYTHING that you want to regulate. If X affects Y, and Y affects Z, and Z affects Q, and Q affects interstate commerce, than Congress has the authority to regulate X. Ridiculous.

In short, this is nothing new, but that doesn't make it right. Unfortunately, the genie's out of the bottle now, and until there's a revolution, this situation will not change.

The Supreme Court actually ruled on a case involving guns and schools zones.

 

[tk149]

The Supreme Court actually ruled on a case involving guns and schools zones.

I'd guess you're talking about US v Lopez. That pretty much changed nothing, except to affirm that Congress must establish a link, however tenuous, to the Commerce Clause as a source of Constitutional authority. Note that it was a 5-4 decision, and did not touch on any previous rulings on the ability of Congress to regulate whatever the hell it feels like as long as they throw something about interstate commerce into the legislation.

The Constitution died in 1942. We've been propping up a corpse ever since.