test
I agree with Schlimm.
Dan
The discussion started about the Chinese HSR record. Naturally enough it morphed into a discussion about US HSR, or the apparent lack of it, the lack of government funding etc. and then a question of funding priorities. The question of wars and defense spending was NOT political; it was about the government, and entirely non-partisan and calm. Why do you need to lock down anything that diverges from some straight and narrow path of what is to be tolerated? If a discussion on a topic closely related to railroading remains civil, in the interests of having threads that a lot of members might show an interest in, why not try to lighten up? It is only when name-calling starts that steps should be taken, and even then why not just delete/ban the offenders instead of locking down? How about a little respect for the 1st Amendment in a journalistic endeavor?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It figures that the lock doesn't work with the new software.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Short answer- yes it's being locked. The forum software has a glich where it seems to keep coming unlocked (?) By my count 2/3 of the posts were purely politcal content. The 1/3 that were railroad related were mostly on the first page. Yes it was enthusiastic debate. But it was 2/3 politics only. The intent of the forums is to discuss trains/railroads/similar. Inasmuch as we are trying to not get to strict(?) about political issues that are part of a railroad discussion, I feel this thread doesn't fit that description. It had become a discussion about the our country's spending on the military. While that's certainly an important issue worthy of serious discussion, I'd suggest that it's a topic for some other, current events type forum. The forum policies are written to keep this from becoming such a forum.-Norris
While there was, as predicted, an enthusiastic debate about spending priorities, I didn't see anything political. No mention was made about which party is responsible. Just the opposite. The consensus seems to be that ALL our leaders have lousy priorities.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Bucyrus What I want to know is, why 302 mph?
What I want to know is, why 302 mph?
I guess because the speed reached was 486 km/hr, which converts to 301.986 399 43 mile/hour.
Paul_D_North_Jr Now I'm confused - Is or should this thread be 'locked', or not ?
Now I'm confused - Is or should this thread be 'locked', or not ?
Looks like a case of: "After further review, the call on the field was overturned!"
I think we are much more enamoured with being outright consumers, and that would include the consumption of the automobile. We like to shop, to buy, to own, to have, to ingest. In order to accomplish this often, we also realize that we need to spend less on more....to economize. Or, to spread the cost around more neat, cool, items.
Those whose living depends on our orientation to consumerism learned long ago that they could make more money by offering cheap goods of a certain minimal quality and making them available widely. We all know how that was accomplished. But, we have ourselves to blame for our orientation to the dollar and its value. It is always viewed as a means to an end. It is a utility. In that respect, its value is what we assign to it, and on what we are willing to part with it. HSR is not a known quantity today, and solves no salient problems in the minds of the electorate. Salient problems are those which stand out as needing our attention. Yes, the car solves many of those great needs, but so do cheap gas (where the rest of the industrialized world pays double or triple our costs) and cheap goods in nice packages. We can't have it all unless the price comes down.
HSR is small potatoes and seems hugely expensive. Once/if we decide that it solves a salient problem....
Crandell
Guys- this thread went off track after about the first page. Since then, nearly all the posts are pure politics. Let's see if we can get back to trains and railroads.[ thread locked ]-Norris user/moderator
The current hysteria that every dime spent is destroying our country is causing a great reduction in common sense.
You can buy a bicycle for about $100 and ride it to and from work at around 15 MPH for very little operating cost. Is a $30,000 car really a good investment?
Yes, transportation options that increase speed, comfort, and efficiency are a good investment. Putting all your transportation eggs in one basket is NOT a good investment.
Let's not forget the lives lost, the men and women maimed: US dead and wounded - Korea 128000, Viet Nam 211000, Iraq 36000, Afghanistan 7000. That can't be measured in dollars. If you spend lots of money on a military, the tendency is to shoot first and talk later.
Think about what we might have done with a fraction of the 21 trillion dollars (BTW, that was actual dollars, not converted into today's dollar worth. If in today;s dollars, would probably be 4X that figure).
Phoebe Vet Let's not forget all the money in black budgets for research and development of all those super secret weapons programs. I, for one, would like to see that money used on our infrastructure. Roads, Air, Rail, etc. Both development and maintenance. When you spend trillions on weapons, there is always too much temptation to use them. To quote Abraham Maslow: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. "
Let's not forget all the money in black budgets for research and development of all those super secret weapons programs.
I, for one, would like to see that money used on our infrastructure. Roads, Air, Rail, etc. Both development and maintenance. When you spend trillions on weapons, there is always too much temptation to use them.
To quote Abraham Maslow: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. "
Does the same apply passenger rail? You can run over 200 MPH, but is a $200 hammer worth the cost?
To put this into perspective, total defense spending by the US (not including separate funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghan) from 1946-2009: 21 trillion, 243 billion dollars. Of course not all was wasted, though it surely subsidized and was a stimulus to the military-industrial complex and thus the economy. And that is the point. We subsidize many endeavors. The questions are: Do we know who is getting the money? How much? Would we prefer to use the money in other ways?
Bucyrus I am all for spending as little on the military as we can, and for not getting into wars unless it is necessary. However, I need a little clarification. Are you guys actually saying that if we reduced military spending to a level that you would approve, we would then have complete fiscal responsibility in government?
I am all for spending as little on the military as we can, and for not getting into wars unless it is necessary. However, I need a little clarification. Are you guys actually saying that if we reduced military spending to a level that you would approve, we would then have complete fiscal responsibility in government?
Of course not, but it would be a giant step in the right direction.
The no accountability clause was in the original TARP bill passed with overwhelming support by both parties during the Bush Administration.
I strongly agree that both parties share culpability for both the fiscal and the military problems.
President Washington warned us not to form political parties, and President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.
NKP guy Bucyrus: You said "Wasting money is how we got into this mess." With all respect, IMHO it's not "government waste" as some political-types feel, but wars. Wars are government waste on a grand scale. In my 62 years this country has been at war for almost half my life. We have 700 military bases around the world. THAT'S what's bleeding us dry and making it impossible to fund anything we need in the way of infrastructure. I seldom, if ever, see in these forums anyone blaming 30 years of constant, unnecessary, unpopular wars. The American taxpayer will get a real break only when his government stops trying to fight two wars at once while being the policeman of the world. In the meantime, other countries are building the infrastructure they need for the 21st Century. In the USA we're just about ready for 1965. Follow the money.
.....A big AMEN to that...!
Quentin
schlimm Phoebe Vet and NKP Guy, I agree. And it's even worse than that. Since the end of WWII, we've been continuously engaged in wars, police actions, "peace-keeping" operations (involving casualties), and occupations. Even now, we spend more on defense than all other nations of the world combined. And it is all non-partisan, lest the moderators determine this is too political, as both parties have kept this up for 65 years. The old Soviet Union collapsed because they spent too much on defense and foreign adventures (Afghanistan!!). Can we learn anything from history to start using our resources more wisely here at home? And, if all the costs (equipment replacement, pensions, medical care and needless deaths and maiming, etc.) of the Iraq nonsense are calculated, not just the immediate ones, it is likely to cost us over $2 Trillion, most of it wasted abroad rather than invested/spent and wasted in the US. If it were a forced choice, I'd rather waste the money here, than waste it overseas and sacrifice American lives needlessly.
Phoebe Vet and NKP Guy, I agree. And it's even worse than that. Since the end of WWII, we've been continuously engaged in wars, police actions, "peace-keeping" operations (involving casualties), and occupations. Even now, we spend more on defense than all other nations of the world combined. And it is all non-partisan, lest the moderators determine this is too political, as both parties have kept this up for 65 years. The old Soviet Union collapsed because they spent too much on defense and foreign adventures (Afghanistan!!). Can we learn anything from history to start using our resources more wisely here at home?
And, if all the costs (equipment replacement, pensions, medical care and needless deaths and maiming, etc.) of the Iraq nonsense are calculated, not just the immediate ones, it is likely to cost us over $2 Trillion, most of it wasted abroad rather than invested/spent and wasted in the US. If it were a forced choice, I'd rather waste the money here, than waste it overseas and sacrifice American lives needlessly.
NKP guy,
The military used to be the prime example of gold plated government spending, but that is “old hat” compared to this current era of bailouts and stimulus. When the president signed the first economic stimulus bill, he spent more money than the entire cost of the Iraq War to that point. We live in a new age where politicians believe that spending is the way to get us out of debt. They have just told us that unemployment benefits are a good way to grow the economy because every one-dollar turns into two dollars. But if we can make something out of nothing like that, then nobody should be lacking for money. They are living in an economic dream world as a way to rationalize the insatiable greed of the governing class.
Until now, $2-trillion of the tarp bailout was listed, but not accounted for. A few days ago, it was accounted for. The money went to prop up foreign banks, and to a lot of places that nobody can justify. For example, they gave $18-billion to G.E. So you have the fed chairman Bernanke, without the consent of congress, without asking the American people, spending $2-trillion without even a clear explanation. That amount of money is more than the entire annual U.S. budget. For $2-trillion, we could have built infrastructure to the moon and back.
So the problem is not military spending alone. The problem is that spending is the fuel that runs the ruling class, and makes it grow ever larger. If society is not constantly critical of that tendency, the spenders will take it all. Unfortunately too much of society is preoccupied with dance contests to notice what is happening to them.
You're absolutely right, but you have just opened a huge can of those proverbial worms.
Victrola1 Are the Chinese, or anybody else, doing anything about higher speed freight rail? Is 125 MPH a profitable speed to move freight?
Are the Chinese, or anybody else, doing anything about higher speed freight rail? Is 125 MPH a profitable speed to move freight?
I rather doubt 125MPH being desirable for general freight, but it would be interesting to see express handled by HSR, particularly if the frequent service allowed for same-day delivery. One advantage of express by HSR over air is that security would likely be less of an issue, which could allow for faster handling.
- Erik
eolafan [snip; emphasis added - PDN] Doing what we wanted as opposed to what was right can be blamed as much on ourselves as citizens as our politicians who let such things (and others) happen when they should have been smarter than us (that's why they are our supposed "leaders"). [snip]
Well, like the farmers say - "First, you have to be smarter than the mule . . . "
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.