Funding on a national level would be more difficult as would the oversight on spending.

No No No No.

Lead the way California.

Otherwise I’m thinking its a scam.

Kidding
I know its a scam.

2 Likes

Thankfully there’s no enumerated power for it.

1 Like

No.



1 Like

But it would be cheaper!

Not counting unfunded liabilities.

3 Likes

Fee schedules. They are useful

Which is standard. Even Texas doesn’t count unfunded liabilities.

It gets even better moving forward.

Now TWICE and once during a pandemic California could not even muster a VOTE or put up a PROJECTED cost analysis. There is no way to make a move to the federal level. The argument will be


Why did California fail so miserably with it?

Look at them! :rofl:

“We have to have it national!!!”

Same exact excuse they use for gun control.

2 Likes

I thought it was supposed to be so much cheaper
 and free for many people. This doesn’t make sense.

2 Likes

Let’s look at big statewide projects, shall we? I’ll begin. How’s that high speed rail coming along? You know
 progress, current status, budget-wise?

2 Likes

Look at whom? You haven’t come out in possible favor of a national plan subject to conditions?

Since when does state level failure indicate that it can’t be done on a national level except this time? What other policies can we project this onto?

Right that’s not how any of this works despite the sale tactics.

Y’all. You©, you.

Sure. I’m willing to listen to practically anything. Except weak-assed excuses.

1 Like

The excuses have nothing to do with a national level plan. But okie dokie.

If the national plan you© want is done like everything else and fails, will you cry “We need it global!” like socialists always do?

2 Likes

image

2 are being built. One private, one government.

Seems to be doing ok. It’s hard to work with California terrain an population density. Really if flyover country had more interest and money
 they should have built the railroads.

By they are broke and depend on CA
 so here we are.