• 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

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

Projects of this nature will always have waste associated with it, even within the private industry. But for sure, you'd have to be on the look out for it.

Annnnnnnd, the money is going to come from, where?

Government has a printing press. Also, did you ask this question for the Iraq War or the bailouts after the banks and markets collapsed the ecnomy through unregulated means of reckless behavior which could only lead to the collapse of the system? Or is it just now because at this time Obama happened to say something about it?
 
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.

That's right! ;)

It just turned out to be a huge asset to interstate commerce. I don't see a nationwide passenger train system accomplishing either.
 
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.

So something which costs less than any of those things, which would provide jobs while the economy can recover, which would net out a positive and new transportation option to get around the country would be a dud because.....you say so? But it's ok to spend 10's, 100's, even 1000's of more than that on other things because...well we don't need to worry about money then?

Maybe if you were consistent with your criticism I could believe that your opinion is an intellectually honest and non-partisan one. But you seem to dismiss huge spending on some fronts and criticize smaller spending on other fronts so long as it appeals to your partisan ideology.
 
Projects of this nature will always have waste associated with it, even within the private industry. But for sure, you'd have to be on the look out for it.

We can count on the government to be on top of that. Right? :rofl



Government has a printing press.

That's not making money. That's printing money. Big difference.

Also, did you ask this question for the Iraq War or the bailouts after the banks and markets collapsed the ecnomy through unregulated means of reckless behavior which could only lead to the collapse of the system?

During the Iraq war, were we in the middle of a depression? As far as the banks are concerned, I said let them fold.


Or is it just now because at this time Obama happened to say something about it?

Or, are you saying because Obama told you it's a great idea?
 
That's right! ;)

It just turned out to be a huge asset to interstate commerce. I don't see a nationwide passenger train system accomplishing either.

Maybe you're too short sighted. The rails initially popped up to ship people and things from one end to the other. Now we do it by air freight or truck/rail (across the US). But air freight can be expensive, where as by rail is relatively inexpensive. A high speed system gives you something which can compete on the order of airlines. This is particularly useful for personal transportation as it will give people more options rather than flying. Maybe you haven't taken a family of 4 on a plane...it's expensive. But rail, even high speed rail, tends to be drastically cheaper than airline fair. And if the time increase is only maybe a factor of 2 instead of 10, it becomes a much more viable option. It also opens up ease of business trips through rail, rail is safer and less likely to be driven into a building than planes, it can increase tourism to varying States by making it easier and more convenient to travel between the States.

There is a wealth of potential in high speed rails. When the interstates were constructed, it probably was not foreseen to be as successful and accepted as it is now. High speed rail is in the same category.
 
So something which costs less than any of those things, which would provide jobs while the economy can recover, which would net out a positive and new transportation option to get around the country would be a dud because.....you say so? But it's ok to spend 10's, 100's, even 1000's of more than that on other things because...well we don't need to worry about money then?

If the return is less than the investment and the operating costs, it's a dud. Amtrack, comes to mind.

Maybe if you were consistent with your criticism I could believe that your opinion is an intellectually honest and non-partisan one. But you seem to dismiss huge spending on some fronts and criticize smaller spending on other fronts so long as it appeals to your partisan ideology.

I'm very consistent with my criticism. I've said for years that the government can't 1) create wealth nor, 2) create jobs. It just can't be done. The government has been trying to do it for two years, now and it has been a massive multi-trillion dollar failure.
 
Maybe you're too short sighted. The rails initially popped up to ship people and things from one end to the other. Now we do it by air freight or truck/rail (across the US). But air freight can be expensive, where as by rail is relatively inexpensive. A high speed system gives you something which can compete on the order of airlines. This is particularly useful for personal transportation as it will give people more options rather than flying. Maybe you haven't taken a family of 4 on a plane...it's expensive. But rail, even high speed rail, tends to be drastically cheaper than airline fair. And if the time increase is only maybe a factor of 2 instead of 10, it becomes a much more viable option. It also opens up ease of business trips through rail, rail is safer and less likely to be driven into a building than planes, it can increase tourism to varying States by making it easier and more convenient to travel between the States.

There is a wealth of potential in high speed rails. When the interstates were constructed, it probably was not foreseen to be as successful and accepted as it is now. High speed rail is in the same category.

Then, the airlines will start losing money and they'll need a bailout. How is this supposed to be a good thing?

The more I hear about cockamaimy ideas like this, the more I favor private investment in such projects.
 
We can count on the government to be on top of that. Right? :rofl

As much as any other major corporation. You don't think all those places that got our bailout money did so without "waste" do you? Or are you just making partisan arguments, ignoring the larger sum of money we spent on even more wasteful avenues than one which would provide a service to America at whole?

That's not making money. That's printing money. Big difference.

There is a bit of a difference, but you asked where the money would come from. We can print money at our leisure. Congress has that power.

During the Iraq war, were we in the middle of a depression? As far as the banks are concerned, I said let them fold.

No, but we've spent trillions of dollars on it now. I think that if one were to legitimately be asking where we can cut down, the first place would be from the war. Like Iraq fend for itself, it's not our duty to make them a government. I don't want to pay for their crap when we're worrying about paying for our own crap. The only think about this high speed rail is that during normal times I would have said no. But since we're in this big depression, there are ways to use government to alivieate the stress on the middle and lower classes while producing a positive net for us all as a whole. We don't need to carve faces into a mountain, but a high speed rail system would be a huge benefit to the lot of us.

Or, are you saying because Obama told you it's a great idea?

Nope, I don't particularly like Obama. But I said at the very beginning of the depression that what we should do, instead of bailing out the "too big to fail" jerks was to build a high speed rail system and create a high speed internet backbone for the country as well. I thought those would be worth while work projects to temporarily employ folk out of a job and to give us something positive in the end. We didn't get anything positive from spending all our money on those banking jerks.
 
Then, the airlines will start losing money and they'll need a bailout. How is this supposed to be a good thing?

The more I hear about cockamaimy ideas like this, the more I favor private investment in such projects.

They already get bail out money and huge subsidies. I'm willing to let the airline industry go and let it survive on its own. It would consolidate into only a few carriers because of the costs involved. Meanwhile, the high speed rail would then offer good alternatives for the rest of us who don't want to be felt up by TSA.
 
For those who say government cannot create wealth, how would you then classify infrastructure?
 
If the return is less than the investment and the operating costs, it's a dud. Amtrack, comes to mind.

Low speed rail is viable for certain distances. But it's not as great for long distances. High speed rail is great for both. And not all work projects ended up like Amtrack in the end. You're making an assumption that it won't be used to make your final conclusion. But I think that it would actually be well used since it would drastically cut travel time between major cities and would be a great alternative to flying.

I'm very consistent with my criticism. I've said for years that the government can't 1) create wealth nor, 2) create jobs. It just can't be done. The government has been trying to do it for two years, now and it has been a massive multi-trillion dollar failure.

The government can create wealth, it does so by existing. There is a large amount of value you get out of the government in general. It can also create jobs such as employing people for work projects. Now I will say that it's not generally good at doing these things well and can be rather wasteful. Which is why under normal operations, I choose not to employ it. But when the economy completely breaks as it has done, it does become possible on the short term to use government for these means. It won't be permanent. You're essentially investing into projects to keep people working till the private sector can recover to take back over. But it is possible and in these times even warranted.

We've spent money, we've spent **** tons of money. I have always said that if we're going to spend that money I would have MUCH preferred a works project over bailouts to the wealthy.
 
For those who say government cannot create wealth, how would you then classify infrastructure?

How does that create wealth? Where does the money come from to build that infrastructure?
 
As much as any other major corporation. You don't think all those places that got our bailout money did so without "waste" do you? Or are you just making partisan arguments, ignoring the larger sum of money we spent on even more wasteful avenues than one which would provide a service to America at whole?

Of course they wasted their money; all the more reason why I oppose bailouts.



There is a bit of a difference, but you asked where the money would come from. We can print money at our leisure. Congress has that power.

Yeah, the Weimar government tried that to fix their economy. Sorry, but paying a million bucks for a loaf of bread won't be an economically positive sign.



No, but we've spent trillions of dollars on it now. I think that if one were to legitimately be asking where we can cut down, the first place would be from the war. Like Iraq fend for itself, it's not our duty to make them a government. I don't want to pay for their crap when we're worrying about paying for our own crap. The only think about this high speed rail is that during normal times I would have said no. But since we're in this big depression, there are ways to use government to alivieate the stress on the middle and lower classes while producing a positive net for us all as a whole. We don't need to carve faces into a mountain, but a high speed rail system would be a huge benefit to the lot of us.

Ok, that's fine; tell me again how that justifies wasting billions more on a friggin' train line?



Nope, I don't particularly like Obama. But I said at the very beginning of the depression that what we should do, instead of bailing out the "too big to fail" jerks was to build a high speed rail system and create a high speed internet backbone for the country as well. I thought those would be worth while work projects to temporarily employ folk out of a job and to give us something positive in the end. We didn't get anything positive from spending all our money on those banking jerks.

But you sure do sound like a Libbo.
 
How does that create wealth? Where does the money come from to build that infrastructure?

It creates wealth because it is a vehicle in order for people to maximize their efforts. Taking the highway system as an example, it allows for a greater volume of shipping than would otherwise be possible. It makes the shipping easier too. It is essentially a capital investment in the same way a stamping machine would be for a machine shop.

It comes from taxes.
 
They already get bail out money and huge subsidies. I'm willing to let the airline industry go and let it survive on its own. It would consolidate into only a few carriers because of the costs involved. Meanwhile, the high speed rail would then offer good alternatives for the rest of us

How so? Am I going to be able to buy my own train, put it on this line and operate a train business?



who don't want to be felt up by TSA.

Tell me that you have enough common sense to know that that won't go away, just because you're getting on a train.
 
It creates wealth because it is a vehicle in order for people to maximize their efforts.

Government intervention doesn't maximize private industry. A lack of government intervention maximizes private industry.

Taking the highway system as an example, it allows for a greater volume of shipping than would otherwise be possible. It makes the shipping easier too. It is essentially a capital investment in the same way a stamping machine would be for a machine shop.

Does the government buy the stamping machine? No?

It comes from taxes.

And, where do taxes come from?
 
Of course they wasted their money; all the more reason why I oppose bailouts.

Fair enough. Money was going to get spent, where should it have been spent? Bailouts for the wealthy, or work projects for the middle class and poor to make it through? I'd prefer the work projects. Actually, I would have preferred the proper oversight and regulation necessary in the first place to have avoided this whole mess. But it is what it is, and now here we sit. I think we are served better collectively through work projects than through bailouts.

Yeah, the Weimar government tried that to fix their economy. Sorry, but paying a million bucks for a loaf of bread won't be an economically positive sign.

We'd just revalue our currency.

Ok, that's fine; tell me again how that justifies wasting billions more on a friggin' train line?

People need jobs. The "solutions" we've done thus far are not solutions for us, but ways to keep the rich rich while the rest of us are left on our own. By spending the money on an actual national high speed rail system you will create temporary jobs so that people can start getting back to work. Not only do they earn wages to pay taxes, but you'll put them back into the economy so they can start consuming again. We net out a national high speed rail system as well, which will prove very useful and convienent for traveling around the country. It will spur people to visit friends/family more by making the trips cheaper and more accessable, it will spur tourism to particular States for the same reason. We all win with a high speed rail system.

But you sure do sound like a Libbo.

That's just a deflect designation in order to disregard what someone has said. I'm not a liberal, not in the modern sense anyway.
 
Government intervention doesn't maximize private industry. A lack of government intervention maximizes private industry.

Ok, so I explain how it works and you reply with a mere statement of principal with nothing to back it up? Please use logic.

Does the government buy the stamping machine? No?

The stamping machine was a comparison, so I do not suspect that they would buy a stamping machine, unless it was a different agency (for example the US mint would probably buy a stamping machine).

And, where do taxes come from?

People and entitites that pay the taxes.
 
How so? Am I going to be able to buy my own train, put it on this line and operate a train business?

Possibly. Depends on how large an infrastructure you can build. Government owns all the rail lines now, the rail companies are allowed to use the rail system. So I don't see why you would necessarily be forbidden from using the rail for commercial purposes if we develop it well enough.

Tell me that you have enough common sense to know that that won't go away, just because you're getting on a train.

They can stick to the planes. Currently, the rail system while it does have security it is not on the level of TSA. TSA can stay away. They'll just have to find a different set of chumps to feel up.
 
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.

There's more $gazillions from the Chinese. Maybe if we buy the rail cars from them they'll give us a discount. :lol:
 
Fair enough. Money was going to get spent, where should it have been spent? Bailouts for the wealthy, or work projects for the middle class and poor to make it through? I'd prefer the work projects. Actually, I would have preferred the proper oversight and regulation necessary in the first place to have avoided this whole mess. But it is what it is, and now here we sit. I think we are served better collectively through work projects than through bailouts.

Neither! How many times do I have to say that?? Work programs are nothing more than welfare.



We'd just revalue our currency.

Since it's that easy, we can all just stay home and wait for the gubmint check to come on the first of the month.



People need jobs. The "solutions" we've done thus far are not solutions for us, but ways to keep the rich rich while the rest of us are left on our own. By spending the money on an actual national high speed rail system you will create temporary jobs so that people can start getting back to work. Not only do they earn wages to pay taxes, but you'll put them back into the economy so they can start consuming again. We net out a national high speed rail system as well, which will prove very useful and convienent for traveling around the country. It will spur people to visit friends/family more by making the trips cheaper and more accessable, it will spur tourism to particular States for the same reason. We all win with a high speed rail system.

The solution to the economy and unemployment, is for people to stop believing that the government isn't the solution.



That's just a deflect designation in order to disregard what someone has said. I'm not a liberal, not in the modern sense anyway.

Anyone that believes that government is the solution to economic ills and unemployment, is a Liberal, my friend. Sorry.
 
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?

It costs more then it's worth, is economically unsustainable, and American's don't do trains like Europeans do.
 
Ok, so I explain how it works and you reply with a mere statement of principal with nothing to back it up? Please use logic.

Your principal is wrong. After trillions of dollars being spent, how many jobs have been created by the government?



The stamping machine was a comparison, so I do not suspect that they would buy a stamping machine, unless it was a different agency (for example the US mint would probably buy a stamping machine).

IOW, you don't have a clue what I'm telling you? In one ear and out the other?



People and entitites that pay the taxes.

And, that's where the government gets 90+% of it's revenue. That being the case, the government can't create wealth.
 
Possibly. Depends on how large an infrastructure you can build. Government owns all the rail lines now, the rail companies are allowed to use the rail system. So I don't see why you would necessarily be forbidden from using the rail for commercial purposes if we develop it well enough.

Ohhhhh, so I have to build my own rail line. I see. So how is the interstate system a reasonable comparison? It's not...is it?



They can stick to the planes. Currently, the rail system while it does have security it is not on the level of TSA. TSA can stay away. They'll just have to find a different set of chumps to feel up.

Until terrorists frag a passenger car and then guess what.
 
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.

Then let the states work it out without the Fed shoving money they borrowed down their throats to put it in. If Colorado Nevada and California want to support a high speed rail line, they shoudl work it out and pay for their respective amounts if it makes sense to them. This whole, "it benefits society" nonsense is creepy. (Oh and btw, we all know we can't afford it right now right?)
 
Back
Top Bottom