• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama - USATODAY.com

Gov. Rick Scott is canceling a proposed high-speed train line between Orlando and Tampa promoted by President Barack Obama, saying Wednesday it would cost Florida too much even with $2.4 billion in federal help. Cost overruns could put Florida on the hook for another $3 billion and once completed, there's a good chance ridership won't pay for the operating cost, meaning the state would have to pump even more money into the line each year, Scott said.

"The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits," the Republican governor, who took office last month, said in a press release.

But...but...didn't Obama promise us high speed rail in the SOTU address?
 
Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama - USATODAY.com



But...but...didn't Obama promise us high speed rail in the SOTU address?

A true, national high speed rail would be well worth the investment of money in addition to providing many jobs to see people through the economic turndown. I mean, that's if you care about the average American instead of sending the billions upon billions of dollars to bailouts of the banks and CEOs who made the mess.
 
But...but...didn't Obama promise us high speed rail in the SOTU address?

I think it says a lot about how cowardly the GOP have become. Can you imagine how different the world would be if Eisenhower's interstate highway system had been seen as "too great a risk".
 
I think it says a lot about how cowardly the GOP have become. Can you imagine how different the world would be if Eisenhower's interstate highway system had been seen as "too great a risk".

You know how great it would be if we had an actual, factual high speed rail? That would make a GREAT alternative to flying. If it took 5 hours to get from Denver to Chicago on train...**** I'd be going to well more Cubs games. New York to Chicago, Chicago to LA, link up all these major cities and then slowly expand off the backbone. True high speed rail would have major benefits for our country as well as providing many many jobs during the construction phase for which we can use to alivieate some of the burden on the middle and lower class experienced by this economic downturn. I would have much rather let the "too big to fail" jerks actually fail; see some of those CEOs in the gutter, and use that money to invest in a high speed rail and other work projects until the economy can recover enough for private business to take over.
 
The high speed rail is definitely worth the investment, but ultimately Florida has to support it, and it doesn't. I don't think this is about money as much as it is about Florida giving Obama the finger. Also, think about how many cars will be taken off the road by a light rail. Can't threaten the automobiles and the fossil fuels now can we.
 
You know how great it would be if we had an actual, factual high speed rail? That would make a GREAT alternative to flying. If it took 5 hours to get from Denver to Chicago on train...**** I'd be going to well more Cubs games. New York to Chicago, Chicago to LA, link up all these major cities and then slowly expand off the backbone. True high speed rail would have major benefits for our country as well as providing many many jobs during the construction phase for which we can use to alivieate some of the burden on the middle and lower class experienced by this economic downturn. I would have much rather let the "too big to fail" jerks actually fail; see some of those CEOs in the gutter, and use that money to invest in a high speed rail and other work projects until the economy can recover enough for private business to take over.

By all means... lets waste billions so you can see the ****ing Cubs :rolleyes:
 
This is good news i only wish they would junk the plan for High Speed Rail in California.

There is no need for it and if built it will go mostly unused.

These Rail plans are great for those building the systems they get rich but building anything when there is no demand is stupid and anyone who thinks it's a good idea is most likely mentally handicapped.

Oh yea Obama backs this Garbage, I guess that proves my case for mental issues. Everyone knows Obama has a narcissistic personality disorder and it's catching I guess because his mate has the same disorder.
 
By all means... lets waste billions so you can see the ****ing Cubs :rolleyes:

The French high speed rail system brings in 1 billion+ Euros a year in profits.
 
A true, national high speed rail would be well worth the investment of money in addition to providing many jobs to see people through the economic turndown. I mean, that's if you care about the average American instead of sending the billions upon billions of dollars to bailouts of the banks and CEOs who made the mess.

How dishonest.

It'd be a giant waste of money that would put us further indebt for what? Another AMTRACK?
 
Different situation all together.

How? It's better for the environment, cheaper to run, and causes people to venture out more because of the fact that it is cheaper and allows them to travel further and more often.

Where is the downside? Charlotte is going to build a highspeed train to Washington D.C. and I, along with others here in Charlotte, are extremely excited about the prospect of being able to get from here to D.C. or NYC in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable price.

I might even drive my electric car to the train station when it is built in a few years. How awesome would that be?
 
Some of you seem to be conflating "profitable" with "good policy." Is the interstate highway system profitable for the government? No...it costs billions to build and maintain, and generates almost no revenue aside from a few toll roads. Yet very few people would say that the interstate highway system was a bad investment.

I think high-speed rail would be much the same. Will it bring in more government revenue than it costs? No, of course not. But that's not the goal. The goal is to provide a benefit to society.
 
By all means... lets waste billions so you can see the ****ing Cubs :rolleyes:

It wouldn't be wasteful, it would provide jobs, and improve American infrastructure. It's a win/win in my book.
 
Different situation all together.

Explain how it is a different situation? Are American's too "good" to travel by train? You do know the train built the west right? How about when petrol is 5+ bucks a gallon? Will the tune change then? Or are you gonna use the debunked excuse of "America is a big place" bull crap?
 
I'm all for shoring up infrastructure and making sure our transportation, energy, and communications systems stay relevant and competitive. However, in many cases some things are just not necessary. If Floridians think that they don't need/want high-speed rail, then they probably don't.
 
By all means... lets waste billions so you can see the ****ing Cubs :rolleyes:

Let's see. Billions on a public work project which would create jobs and provide a dramatic and useful boost to overall transportation in the United States. Or 100's of billions spent on bailing out CEOs and banks which caused the mess in the first place, while leaving the middle and lower class to fend for themselves as the government gives golden parachutes to the companies and CEOs at fault. Hmmm...let's see. Which would I prefer we spend our money on. I don't know, this one is tough. On one hand, those CEOs and banks certainly need their money to save them from the reckless behavior and decisions which broke the economy. But on the other hand, people could have jobs till the economy recovered and we'd provide a huge public service to people, drastically cutting travel time by rail and offering true competition against the airlines. Hmmm....man, this is tough......where to spend all that money?
 
The GOP loves spending money on the industrial military complex and fighting stupid wars, but when it comes to betterment of our people (unless you are very rich) they are AWOL. Let's dig up Dwight David Eisenhower and make him president again.
 
A true, national high speed rail would be well worth the investment of money in addition to providing many jobs to see people through the economic turndown. I mean, that's if you care about the average American instead of sending the billions upon billions of dollars to bailouts of the banks and CEOs who made the mess.

That's great...find some private investors and build it.
 
I think it says a lot about how cowardly the GOP have become. Can you imagine how different the world would be if Eisenhower's interstate highway system had been seen as "too great a risk".

Do you even know why the interstate system was built?
 
That's great...find some private investors and build it.

They can't. The land is owned by the government and the scale of the project is such that it is best handled through government. Particularly as a work program when the economy has collapsed.
 
The French high speed rail system brings in 1 billion+ Euros a year in profits.

How much did it cost to build and how much does it cost to operate every year?
 
Do you even know why the interstate system was built?

The main purpose was for ease of military movement within the country. However, it is a wide and vast system which is utilized by the vast majority of common citizens now. It is a project scale on the order necessary for government involvement and has implemented a system which has vastly benefited the lot of us.
 
How much did it cost to build and how much does it cost to operate every year?

Less than the Iraq War. Less than the aggregated bailouts given to the companies who caused the economic mess in the first place.
 
They can't. The land is owned by the government and the scale of the project is such that it is best handled through government.

I'm sure there won't be any waste involved in that project. :rofl


Particularly as a work program when the economy has collapsed.

Annnnnnnd, the money is going to come from, where?
 
Less than the Iraq War. Less than the aggregated bailouts given to the companies who caused the economic mess in the first place.

That's irrelevant.

If it brings in a billion a year and it costs two billion a year to operate, then it's obviously a dud.
 
Back
Top Bottom