Live data from Hacker News

A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

nytimes.com

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it." Not if the funds are paying for people living in these states legally. . Surely you see the distinction between funding people legally living in the US and those living here illegally. What I know is that if California elected responsible politicians that u…

Instead of down voting, please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally instead of funding a train for people who are here legally.

> Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#72
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of money spent for K-12 education people who live in California illegally as well as university education and healthcare far, far exceeds the > "I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument..." I don't believe I'm an inflammatory argument. Fiscally responsible politicians would not spend tax money on people who are not legally in the country except on law enforcement. The solution to the train…

Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory. Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes. How about sales taxes? Or approaching the question from the other direction, how about t…

> "Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory.

Well, they are people living here illegally. I don't see that as inflammatory but a statement of fact. How else would you say that?

> Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes.

No, fiscally responsible politicians should not be using taxpayer funds to fund people who are living in the country illegally -- against the law except for law enforcement.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#73
post #3

Money if fungible. California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens (illegal immigrants). For example, there was an NYT op-ed piece which explained that 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition UC Berkeley. Thus, the Federal Funds noted in this article were in fact being used to fund people who are residing in this country illegally. We don't even have enough money for the poor who…

People are down voting, the but the assessment is a correct one: California citizens need to elect responsible politicians that spend money on people who live in the the US and CA legally instead of those illegally. If they elected responsible politicians that understood this, they would have their train funded. Taxes should be only spent on people living in the US legally. Not certain why people have a problem with…

> Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#74
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you start on the ends people will actually pay money to ride the train The initial operating segment runs through the Valley to San Jose; that's pretty close to the S.F. end , and is the third biggest city in California (and the second biggest covered by the whole Phase 1 LA-to-SF alignment.) Obviously, the initial operating segment isn't going to connect both ends, and short of doing that, where specifically wo…

The initial plan was to go from Stockton to Fresno. They only extended it to San Jose when people complained about how useless that would be.

> The initial plan was to go from Stockton to Fresno.

No, the initial plan was Burbank to Merced.

Not that the initial (or any intermediate) plan is even germane to the discussion.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#75
post #3

Money if fungible. California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens (illegal immigrants). For example, there was an NYT op-ed piece which explained that 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition UC Berkeley. Thus, the Federal Funds noted in this article were in fact being used to fund people who are residing in this country illegally. We don't even have enough money for the poor who…

People are down voting, the but the assessment is a correct one: California citizens need to elect responsible politicians that spend money on people who live in the the US and CA legally instead of those illegally. If they elected responsible politicians that understood this, they would have their train funded. Taxes should be only spent on people living in the US legally. Not certain why people have a problem with…

> Taxes should be only spent on people living in the US legally. Not certain why people have a problem with that.

So, you're saying we should get rid of ICE because it's tax money being spent on people who are not legal residents of the US?

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#76
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Building the middle part where no one lives is easier and will make a lot of jobs in a lot of poor areas The planned initial operating segment has one endpoint in the third largest city in the state, and passes through the fifth largest city in the state, so the idea that it's in a place where no one lives is, well, what recently has become known as an "alternative fact".

Actually you're the one pedaling in alternative facts. The initial operating segment was going to be Stockton to Fresno until people complained about how stupid that was, and then they added San Jose.

> The initial operating segment was going to be Stockton to Fresno until people complained about how stupid that was, and then they added San Jose.

Since we're discussing how the existing project is being built and is planned to be operated, and not historical plans that have been rejected as suboptimal, that would be irrelevant in any case. It's also, AFAICT, not true; in both the final 2014 Business Plan with the Merced to Burbank IOS, and the draft 2016 Business Plan (they are done in even numbered years) which shifted to the San Jose to Bakersfield IOS, Stockton was not only not part of the IOS, but not even part of the Phase 1 SF-to-LA plan, only the Phase 2 expansion to Sacramento and San Diego, which is more of a vague concept than a concrete plan.)

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#77
>Caltrain plans to use the money to switch to modern electric trains, from old diesel locomotives that are prone to failure.

I ride the Caltrain about once a week and I haven't encountered a delay due to a locomotive failure. How often does this happen?

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#78
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it." Not if the funds are paying for people living in these states legally. . Surely you see the distinction between funding people legally living in the US and those living here illegally. What I know is that if California elected responsible politicians that u…

A major flaw in your argument is the implication that undocumented individuals in CA (or the US in general) do not pay for the services they use. While in certain cases that might be true, in others they are net contributors. See social security taxes [1]. I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument without providing much data or grappling with the practical implications of your argument. Even if we wer…

The February study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says that, on average, the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented residents pay a total of about 8 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes each year[0].

That's total taxation, encompassing sales tax, and (for those not being paid "under the table"), income tax and FICA. Again, that's a national average; in CA, sales tax would make it higher). That's not remotely paying all of their own way overall.

As for overall impact: "Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform said the $11.74 billion tax contribution covers only a small fraction of what undocumented residents and their dependents use in government services. The Washington, D.C. organization, which favors stricter immigration enforcement, estimates it collectively costs state and local governments about $84 billion a year to provide education, health care, public safety and other services to undocumented residents and their dependents."[0]

As for Social Security, they get that back as much as legal residents do, if they file for it. Quoting your source: "He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits." That's retirement benefits alone, being paid out already. As these payees age and retire, they'll collect far more than they paid in, and that will worsen as lifespans increase... hence it being referred to as a "Ponzi Scheme".

"We lose money on every transaction, but we make it up in volume!"

[0] SJ Mercury News, March 3, page B2, "Undocumented immigrants’ taxes calculated"

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#79
post #13
post #3

Money if fungible. California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens (illegal immigrants). For example, there was an NYT op-ed piece which explained that 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition UC Berkeley. Thus, the Federal Funds noted in this article were in fact being used to fund people who are residing in this country illegally. We don't even have enough money for the poor who…

Holding transit money hostage to punish the state for other transgressions is petty and authoritarian. Instead, step up enforcement of the immigration issue and keep the train issue separate. And before you scream, "sanctuary state!", either decide immigration is a state issue or not, but don't say it's a federal issue and then rely on states to enforce it. That's a pretty typical MO for the federal government -- dem…

The hostage-taking here is in the form of the $647 million omnibus transit bill encompassing the Caltrain electrification portion.

It's like kidnapping a kitten and demanding a $100 ransom for "kitten food" or the kitten dies... then spending $1 on kitten food. And you'll likely have to pay more to get the kitten back later anyway.

The Democrats are free to introduce a clean bill with just the Caltrain electrification funds. A clean bill (funding ALL of it, even) would sail through Congress.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#80
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it." Not if the funds are paying for people living in these states legally. . Surely you see the distinction between funding people legally living in the US and those living here illegally. What I know is that if California elected responsible politicians that u…

Do you realize that many Californians associate more strongly with the undocumented immigrants than they do with people from the south? That is California. That is the state they want to have. It won't be run the way you want it to. I grew up there. I would much rather have my money flow to my neighbor, someone who works hard and is essential to the economy, than someone in Mississippi, no matter their citizenship st…

> "I would much rather have my money flow to my neighbor, someone who works hard and is essential to the economy, than someone in Mississippi, no matter their citizenship status."

You mean, no matter whether they are living in the country legally or not. Well, OK. But I see that there are a lot of veterans that have served their country throughout America and I believe they deserve our support over neighbors who are living in the country illegally. Let's agree to disagree on that one.

Post reply on HN