Discussion: High Speed Rail

[Paradoxium]

You are wrong chaseter and Handsome, government is in the business of LOSING . Stuff like success, metrics and adjustments has no business here. In government we solve our problem by throwing as much money at it and hopes it works out. It totally never fails t:

 

[Paradoxium]

Healthcare not working out?

Throw money at it.

Going bankrupt?

Throw money at it.

Paper Shredder going too fast and out of control?

Throw money at it.

 

[dnno1]

And here we have the classic leftist mentality on display:

1. It doesn't matter if the government loses money on a venture. Never mind that this is being paid from taxpayer money! We don't owe it to them to make sure ventures can at least break even!!

2. Price point mentality completely ignores that "cheaper" ignores the price of government subsidies to keep the operation running . . . at a loss, mind you. And if you do so, it may seem cheaper. But it may not be in reality. But then again, what does reality matter when it feeeeeeeels right?

3. Marginal use? Who cares?? We want the high speed rail, so it doesn't matter whether or not we can afford it or whether it would even get used enough to justify its existence. In fact, we shouldn't even consider that. We want it, so let's do it! We'll just raise taxes! Or print money! Or issue more debt instruments!

Governments aren't chartered to make a profit. They provide a service to the public. The rationale for a government to start a project is not necessarily profit/loss, but rather cost/benefit (which runs along similar principals). Now if the service/project provides no benefit to society, then it can be eliminated, phased out, or not even perused. A perfect example of that were the military base closure and realignment from 1989 to 1995 or the recent shutdown of the virtual fence along the Mexico border. As far as marginal use of a HSR system, that is yet to be seen. According to forecasts, there is a need and a growing demand for high speed rail so it is doubtful that it will be marginally used. People said the same thing about the Metro Rail system and other mass transit rail systems that were built in major cities in California, and the truth of the matter is that their utilization is greater than it ever was before.

 

[Kelly]

Ok, so it doesn't make a profit.....IT'S NOT GOING TO BREAK EVEN EITHER....IT WILL BE ANOTHER FREAKING LEEEEEAAAACCCCHHHH.....

Good grief...

Now, if we are talking a French TGV....then I might think about it.

 

[Paradoxium]

Lets make Slow Speed Rail Free of charge. And pay the employees 6 digit figure salaries (with benefits). Everyone wins t:

 

[Handsome Rob]

Lets make Slow Speed Rail Free of charge. And pay the employees 6 digit figure salaries (with benefits). Everyone wins t:

Free is great. I love it when things cost absolutely nothing to anyone.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Governments aren't chartered to make a profit. They provide a service to the public. The rationale for a government to start a project is not necessarily profit/loss, but rather cost/benefit (which runs along similar principals). Now if the service/project provides no benefit to society, then it can be eliminated, phased out, or not even perused. A perfect example of that were the military base closure and realignment from 1989 to 1995 or the recent shutdown of the virtual fence along the Mexico border. As far as marginal use of a HSR system, that is yet to be seen. According to forecasts, there is a need and a growing demand for high speed rail so it is doubtful that it will be marginally used. People said the same thing about the Metro Rail system and other mass transit rail systems that were built in major cities in California, and the truth of the matter is that their utilization is greater than it ever was before.

Translation: If we think it would be a benefit to society, then cost is irrelevant.

 

[dnno1]

Translation: If we think it would be a benefit to society, then cost is irrelevant.

And that is why we fought WWII.

 

[Kelly]

Wow...

Freedom, Democracy, continuing as a Republic, Free Market, society....rather than becoming part of Imperial Japan...vs. Getting to Canada faster.

lmao....

 

[Handsome Rob]

6,000,000 dead Jews, not including gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, etc.

Being able ride from point A to point B for $50 less (ticket cost) than flying in an airplane.

Definitely moral equivalents.

 

[Kelly]

To be fair though, that is not why we got into WWII....we didn't know all of that was going on...

With that said, us getting into WWII, kept that kind of regime from taking over Europe....

 

[enterthemadness]

To be fair though, that is not why we got into WWII....we didn't know all of that was going on...

With that said, us getting into WWII, kept that kind of regime from taking over Europe....

America knew or had a hutch that Germany was killing Jews though. I learned this today at school. Teacher has rare Hollywood 1938-39 mag. It has article in it.

 

[Kelly]

America knew or had a hutch that Germany was killing Jews though. I learned this today at school. Teacher has rare Hollywood 1938-39 mag. It has article in it.

Of course they did, but they had no idea to what extent Hitler had gone....

I would venture to say that Hitler declaring war on the US, had far more to do with it....

 

[dnno1]

To be fair though, that is not why we got into WWII....we didn't know all of that was going on...

With that said, us getting into WWII, kept that kind of regime from taking over Europe....

No, but we did spend a lot of money, and people had to make a lot of sacrifices with the rationing and all. There was a benefit to all of that and we can not deny that there was. That benefit is part of the reason why we were motivated to fight in that war.

 

[chaseter]

To come back and and make us 14 trillion in debt and counting. Damn you Nazis. We'll get you next time.

 

[dnno1]

We had the debt under control until Regan and the Bushes took control.

 

[hippie_hunter]

We had the debt under control until Regan and the Bushes took control.

You do realize that even though Reagan and the Bushes had no fiscal discipline, our debt stems from the effects of the social programs implemented by FDR and LBJ. The programs they implemented account for about 60% of our budget.

 

[chaseter]

Even under Clinton, who I admire, our national debt increased. Yes he had a budget surplus, but we still took on more debt.

Obama has eclipsed Reagan and both Bushes in terms of spending and I have no idea why dnno is talking about having the debt under control but then wanting to spend billions and billions on trains at this point in time when are debt is over going to hit 15 trillion this year.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

You do realize that even though Reagan and the Bushes had no fiscal discipline, our debt stems from the effects of the social programs implemented by FDR and LBJ. The programs they implemented account for about 60% of our budget.

Fair enough, but how much of our budget is eaten up by the Department of Defense? I don't understand why even with this supposed fiscally responsible GOP, the military industrial complex is still a sacred cow. It didn't seem like they even touched the DoD in this recent deal they struck last week. We're manufacturing multi-million dollar fighter-jets such as the F22 that will likely never even see combat. And don't even get me started on stuff like the Star Wars missile defense program. Start cutting the funds for these kind of bloated, outdated weapon systems that serve basically no purpose, and then we'll talk about cutting social initiatives that might actually help people.

 

[Franklin Richards]

We cut the CPB but the Pentegon's budget increased.

 

[chaseter]

Fair enough, but how much of our budget is eaten up by the Department of Defense? I don't understand why even with this supposed fiscally responsible GOP, the military industrial complex is still a sacred cow. It didn't seem like they even touched the DoD in this recent deal they struck last week. We're manufacturing multi-million dollar fighter-jets such as the F22 that will likely never even see combat. And don't even get me started on stuff like the Star Wars missile defense program. Start cutting the funds for these kind of bloated, outdated weapon systems that serve basically no purpose, and then we'll talk about cutting social initiatives that might actually help people.

While I agree we need to cut some defense spending, it is a pebble in the pond that is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The first mistake the government made is by spending all the cash it takes in for those above programs instead of having a huge account with all that money in it. Now that more people are retiring than entering the work force, we are screwed.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Fair enough, but how much of our budget is eaten up by the Department of Defense? I don't understand why even with this supposed fiscally responsible GOP, the military industrial complex is still a sacred cow. It didn't seem like they even touched the DoD in this recent deal they struck last week. We're manufacturing multi-million dollar fighter-jets such as the F22 that will likely never even see combat. And don't even get me started on stuff like the Star Wars missile defense program. Start cutting the funds for these kind of bloated, outdated weapon systems that serve basically no purpose, and then we'll talk about cutting social initiatives that might actually help people.

If you read my past posts throughout this forum, I actually agree with you. I often include the need to cut wasteful Defense spending because it too consumes a massive part of our budget.

However, the Defense budget is easy. All you need is the political willpower to cut it. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the other hand need more than just cuts. Simply cutting those programs would make them ineffective and with those programs underfunded, all they would do is just be massive wastes of time, money, and effort. They actually need to be reformed for the 21st Century so that way they can be affordable and effective. However, just like with cutting Defense spending, our lawmakers are cowards who are too afraid to do much needed changes.

 

[dnno1]

You do realize that even though Reagan and the Bushes had no fiscal discipline, our debt stems from the effects of the social programs implemented by FDR and LBJ. The programs they implemented account for about 60% of our budget.

Had Regan and both Bushes not spent as much as they did, Bill Clinton's administration would have payed off the WWII debt and the debt from the following 7 administrations (up to and including Jimmy Carter) and we would have easily been able to handle this past economic downturn. We are currently a little over $14 trillion in debt. $12 trillion of it is from spending and interest on the debt from Regan and both Bushes alone. These are the administrations that said that deficits do not matter. Look were we are now.

 

[dnno1]

Even under Clinton, who I admire, our national debt increased. Yes he had a budget surplus, but we still took on more debt.

Obama has eclipsed Reagan and both Bushes in terms of spending and I have no idea why dnno is talking about having the debt under control but then wanting to spend billions and billions on trains at this point in time when are debt is over going to hit 15 trillion this year.

That's because $2.2 trillion was interest on the Reagan-Bush (the father) debt. Because Clinton raised taxes (by about 4%) and had balanced budgets, he would have paid off the WWII debt (or most of it) had there been no excessive debt accrued from the two prior administrations. Like I said before, $12 trillion of the $14 trillion debt can be attributed to Ronald Regan and both George Bushes (that would include interest on their debt). That would mean that the remaining $2 trillion is attributed to both Bill Clinton (who actually reduced the debt) and Barack Obama.

 

[chaseter]

The budget and national debt are two different things. You can pass a budget of 80 trillion and come in 70 trillion under and then tomg I will be teh thrifties.