Trains.com

What would the founding fathers think about this.

7833 views
195 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 7:58 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

I need to ask this question to all the thread participants: When each of your refers to the concept of HSR, you all seem to perceive it as a government run passenger service aka Amtrak II. Why is it necessary to emulate the integrated rail concept for HSR? Has anyone but myself visualized a HSR system in which the government (if indeed it has a primary role at all) simply constructs that ROW and then rents it out to whoever shows up with their HSR train? Why should the government also be responsible for marketing and running the trains? And why do most of you want to exclude freight from a potential HSR system?

As for funding, there is a tendency nowadays for both private and public ventures to be backed up by federal loan guarantees. These loan guarantees have the effect of lowering the cost of borrowing from the private loan markets, and unless the project goes belly up, the taxpayers aren't out one dime. Could the first vestiges of a HSR system be constructed this way, maybe include the right of Eminent Domain, without additional need for de facto taxpayer dollars?


What you suggest here is almost exactly what Amtrak has recommended for the development of the regional routes. A combination of federal/state/local government grants/loans are used to build the infrastructure and one of the government entities contracts the rest to any business that want's to do the job. Amtrak's proposal contemplates government ownership of the equipment, but I can't imagine that private ownership of the equipment would off the table.

Can't see any reason that the government owned routes could not be rented to freight railroads. The CSS&SB works that way.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 8:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

James

In your red letter response to my view, you have suggested that the OPINIONS of two of our very intelligent founding fathers should have the same weight as the Bible, The Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and Amendments.
No I did not say that these were as important as these. I was carrying out to the logical conclusion you mooting their beliefs. If one start to say “well this does not matter any more, they are too old.” Or “ Well I am sure they would change their mind.” You open up the whole basis of our country to the same interpretation.
QUOTE: On the other hand, Jefferson and Adams were expressing their view of the way they wanted the United States to move forward. In the two centuries subsequent to their statements, our society and our leaders decided that we could go in a different direction.
Have you ever wondered what you could do with the probably other third of your income if the government weren’t taking it? The path of our leaders is the same path taken thousands of years earlier by the Roman Republic; a path of corruption and greed. The founding fathers, especially Jefferson, were knowledgeable historians, these as you said are the paths they wanted our country to take. These words were not spoken lightly, neither were the spoken infrequently. These quotes of their voluminous work were based on the hindsight to try to prevent the repeating of history.
QUOTE: Solid and respected opinions come from careful evaluation of facts and circumstances. Over 200 years, the facts and circumstances relating to the isues of government involvement incommerce have changed very dramaticly and in ways the neither Jefferson nor Adams ever contemplated. That is why I have the view that their opinions are not relevant to today's issues and why any suggestions as to what they might think about government support of high speed passenger rail service is purely speculation.
These views were carried on much longer than their lifetimes take a look at this.
“The history of liberty is a history of limitation of government power, not the increase of it.” -Woodrow Wilson 28th President of the United States.
He saw things as they were over a full century after Adams, and Jefferson. To expand the government is to move away from liberty. To use the boondoggles of recent times as an excuse is as anti-gaites, put it perfectly: well your son is addicted to heroin, maybe he should try crack too?
As I said these views are not just a stated merely a couple times by a couple people, take a look for you self.
Cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible.”
- George Washington.

You can’t say this too is moot! Building such a proposed system on public credit is hardly a sparing use of it.
Every time government attempts to handle our affairs, it cost more and the results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves.”-Benjamin Constant, 1833-1891 Brazilian statesman.
Hardly a founding father, but still quite right. Now as Futuremodal, suggested government does not have to RUN, it just fund it. This is a matter of feasibilities, which I will tackle in one of my next posts.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 9:04 PM
One reason Government Spend so Much

Industries generally develop in three stages. First is scientific feasibility, second is engineering feasibility, and the third is economic feasibility.
Using the airline industry as an example, the question in the 1800’s was: “Is long-distance air travel possible?”
In the 1800’s, balloons were already in use but were not practical. This problem solve was the heavier-than-air-machine.
The Wright Brothers in 1903 proved scientific feasibility. They risked their time, money and lives to show that a heavier-than-air-machine could fly.
Lindbergh in 1927 proved engineering feasibility. He risked time, money and his life to show that long distance air travel was possible.
This gave investors enough confidence to risk their money in the aircraft industry. In 1935 the Douglas Company came with the DC-3, which was the beginning of economic feasibility.
The modern airline industry resulted from all this risk-taking. Today, a middle class American can go anywhere in the world much faster, and in much greater comfort, than a Roman emperor could. Travelers fly because the benefits are greater than the costs. This is economic feasibility.
This three-step model explains why governments gamble with other people’s money, so they tend to confuse scientific and engineering feasibility with economic feasibility.
Once science and engineering prove something can be done, those who comprise the government will do it even if the costs are greater than the benefits.

If any such lines are economically feasible, they should be built. However the government is incapable of deciding if it is or isn’t. If it is economically feasible, that means the private sector will pay for it. I am not against the government giving railroads the land during the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, even funding it possibly. However if the choices are, government funding, or no railroad; then I am afraid as Americans, and rail fans, we have but two choices. These are, no HSL and we put our favoritism aside; or we build an HSL, and compromise our values of our country. You choose.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Cedar Rapids, IA
  • 4,213 posts
Posted by blhanel on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 9:10 PM
This thread is proving to be quite interesting.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 9:19 PM

QUOTE: EVERY nation IN THE WORLD that has a functioning HSR or even a functioning national rail system has substantial government support.


EVERY ONE OF THEM LOOSES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 10:05 PM
Hang in there vsmith, it will be over soon.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 10:48 PM
Let me know when enough United States citizens... decide that sending their earnings to politicians is a mistake (no matter the political stripe).
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 11:04 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098


QUOTE: EVERY nation IN THE WORLD that has a functioning HSR or even a functioning national rail system has substantial government support.


EVERY ONE OF THEM LOOSES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!



Yes, they do, and they always will, but they still keep building more of them, more people keep riding them, and we keep admiring them from afar.

If everything has to earn a buck, why are we still in Iraq? Dont see any profits there?

Its not all about the money, namely tax money, yet thats all you seam focused on.

The Manhattan Project was the biggest money pit of the war, yet no one cried about the costs when it ended the war.

Going to the Moon?, I guess that was a boondogle also, regardless of any scientific knowledge, national prestige, beating the Soviets, just a waste? nor was the most massive achievement of the century, landing on another world, just an dream since Man could first talk, guess that was a waste also?

Everything worth doing, costs.

I would prefer to see my tax dolars being used for something constructive that I can actually use and would benifit me and 10,000's of others. Haven ridden the TGV and the Eurostar and the Chunnel from England to France, NOTHING you say can make me believe they are a waste of money, especially given the alternatives of schlepping in a car or bus on a highway or dealing with the insane overcrowded airports.

Youz needs a trip ta Europe ma friend, Someone get this man a Eurail Pass !!!
Once you experience it, the ability to get from city to city fast comfortably and cheap, you want it here also. Its that convincing.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 12:03 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098


QUOTE: EVERY nation IN THE WORLD that has a functioning HSR or even a functioning national rail system has substantial government support.


EVERY ONE OF THEM LOOSES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!



Yes, they do, and they always will, but they still keep building more of them, more people keep riding them, and we keep admiring them from afar.

Where we probably should if it has to be paid for out of the pockets of people who have no say in the matter. Why if so many people want it and are going to pay for it anyways, why don’t we try LETTING THEM CHOOSE, gasp freedom, if they want to?

QUOTE: If everything has to earn a buck, why are we still in Iraq? Dont see any profits there?
Well now this is different, I thought you said we went in for oil profits. We went in to save lives, and establish peace. Keeping our country safe is in our national interest and will in the long run help the whole nation, we can pay for it now, or pay for it later, and we have little choice.

QUOTE: Its not all about the money, namely tax money, yet thats all you seam focused on.
You have a better way to fund it, that you haven’t mentioned?

QUOTE: The Manhattan Project was the biggest money pit of the war, yet no one cried about the costs when it ended the war.

Going to the Moon?, I guess that was a boondogle also, regardless of any scientific knowledge, national prestige, beating the Soviets, just a waste? nor was the most massive achievement of the century, landing on another world, just an dream since Man could first talk, guess that was a waste also?

Everything worth doing, costs.

The atomic bomb saved the life of many an American soldier. Space exploration has helped us to launch many communication satellites, which are economically feasible, ie make money. Defeating the Russians also saved many Americans lives. So if you were trying to imply that I value money over life, you got me dead wrong. I don’t mind some government funding for scientific, and military research, for many reasons. But, even this can get out of hand; look at how many scientists continue to proclaim the theory of global warming, just to keep their research money. Yes everything worth doing cost money, the question becomes is it worth the money.
QUOTE: Youz needs a trip ta Europe ma friend, Someone get this man a Eurail Pass !!!
Once you experience it, the ability to get from city to city fast comfortably and cheap, you want it here also. Its that convincing.
Sounds like a great idea! That is if I can survive going through France, the country operated so much like you want; look at it, DO WE WANT AMERICA TO BECOME LIKE FRANCE?In France due to a socialist society, 30% of the people are unemployed. People don't work because the government takes their money for the TGV and other much worse swindles.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 12:41 AM
You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Bath, England, UK
  • 712 posts
Posted by Tulyar15 on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 1:43 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.


Rubbish! Air lines are only cheaper because they dont pay tax on fuel. Since air is the least environmentally friendly form of transport, this indirect susbidy is indefensible.
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Bath, England, UK
  • 712 posts
Posted by Tulyar15 on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 1:56 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Getting back to economics and transport, if you go back to Adam Smith, you will find that he accepts that roads (and hence transport infrastructure) are a legitimate responsibility of government. As for the issue of susbidy, it has been shown time and time again that unprofiitable does not mean uneconomic as non users benefit from rail services. Then of course there;s also the issue of climate change which even President Bush is finallly waking up to.

I think this is a very interesting point, would you care to expand on it?


Certainly.

One of the most quoted studies is that which the Greater London Council did in the 1960's when it was deciding whether or not to build the Victoria line. The results of the study suggested that on a pure profit and loss basis the line would loose money but the wider benefits such as reduced journey times, reduced congestion on other subway lines and also the road, greater property values would outweigh this. So the GLC went ahead and buitl the Victoria line, which opened in 1967. Within 10 years of opening it had paid for itself several times over as a result of the greater property values (and hence tax revenue - in Britain most local authorities are funded by property taxes). So a scheme which would not have been attractive to private investors was nonetheless affordable and financially worthwhile to local government.

Since the 1960's the UK Government has developed a method of assessing whether public sector projects represent good value or not by attempting to quantify the economic benefits of the project. For a project to be viable the ratio of benefits to cost must be at least 1.15 to 1 ie $1.15 of benefits for every $1.00 spent. In the case of the Waverley line from Edinburgh to Galashiels which the Scottish Parliament has just voted to re-open, the ratio is 2:1 which is regarded as very good. Benefits are likely to include giving greater mobility to people in an area of high unemployment, reduced unemployment as a result and as a consequence of this greater wealth to that area. At the same time it will also make it easier for day trippers to visit the area, bringing more money.

Finally I'd like to quote another example of non-users benefiting from the existence of a rail line. For several years I used to go up to Scotland to work on the Strathspey Railway, a preserved line which runs from Aviemore to Boat of Garten. Boat of Garten is a small village with just one shop and a pub. The guy who runs the shop told me that without the trade the railway brought him, he wouldn't survivie in business. As a result the villagers of Boat of Garten benefit by having a shop they would not have if the railway were not there.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 9:19 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Getting back to economics and transport, if you go back to Adam Smith, you will find that he accepts that roads (and hence transport infrastructure) are a legitimate responsibility of government. As for the issue of susbidy, it has been shown time and time again that unprofiitable does not mean uneconomic as non users benefit from rail services. Then of course there;s also the issue of climate change which even President Bush is finallly waking up to.

I think this is a very interesting point, would you care to expand on it?


Certainly.

QUOTE: One of the most quoted studies is that which the Greater London Council did in the 1960's when it was deciding whether or not to build the Victoria line. The results of the study suggested that on a pure profit and loss basis the line would loose money but the wider benefits such as reduced journey times, reduced congestion on other subway lines and also the road, greater property values would outweigh this. So the GLC went ahead and buitl the Victoria line, which opened in 1967. Within 10 years of opening it had paid for itself several times over as a result of the greater property values (and hence tax revenue - in Britain most local authorities are funded by property taxes). So a scheme which would not have been attractive to private investors was nonetheless affordable and financially worthwhile to local government.

Since the 1960's the UK Government has developed a method of assessing whether public sector projects represent good value or not by attempting to quantify the economic benefits of the project. For a project to be viable the ratio of benefits to cost must be at least 1.15 to 1 ie $1.15 of benefits for every $1.00 spent. In the case of the Waverley line from Edinburgh to Galashiels which the Scottish Parliament has just voted to re-open, the ratio is 2:1 which is regarded as very good. Benefits are likely to include giving greater mobility to people in an area of high unemployment, reduced unemployment as a result and as a consequence of this greater wealth to that area. At the same time it will also make it easier for day trippers to visit the area, bringing more money.

Finally I'd like to quote another example of non-users benefiting from the existence of a rail line. For several years I used to go up to Scotland to work on the Strathspey Railway, a preserved line which runs from Aviemore to Boat of Garten. Boat of Garten is a small village with just one shop and a pub. The guy who runs the shop told me that without the trade the railway brought him, he wouldn't survivie in business. As a result the villagers of Boat of Garten benefit by having a shop they would not have if the railway were not there.

As you have pointed out this made the line economically feasible. I would not be totally against it in such a case, but one must be careful. Even if the government funds it, running it would still be a serious problem. If it works so well, what is keeping investors from it?
Also does anyone think there are any economically feasible lines here in the US?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 9:32 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.


Rubbish! Air lines are only cheaper because they dont pay tax on fuel. Since air is the least environmentally friendly form of transport, this indirect susbidy is indefensible.
Well, now he has a point. Airlines even though the government keeps up most of their infrastructure, still have much less than any possible railroads. Airlines don't run on tracks, that need replaced. Other than airports, air traffic doesn't get congested and slowed down, in flight. Airlines may always be leading passenger trains to their grave. Here is a little reasoning about a HSL; it must be cross-country compete with airlines and a long enough route to make it worth high speed. All the routes we have proposed are fairly short, not long cross-country routes, which require copious amounts of funding.
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 9:42 AM
Again, remember that all Department of Transportation figures do not include the tremendous subsidy given highway and air transportation because of

LAND USE

Highways and airports do not pay real estate taxes that support schools, police departments, waterworks, garbage disposal, the justice system, parks, sports facilities, libraries. Railroad taxes do.

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:02 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

No scholar in his right mind would consider taking Shakespeare at face value - he/she would insist on knowing about the environment in which old Bill wrote. I'm no Shakespearean scholar, but I do know that there are all sorts of puns written into those works, puns that go right over our heads today.

So too must we consider the thoughts/writings of our founding fathers in light of the times in which they occurred. Much of the Constitution deals with correcting the wrongs of the Brits as perceived by the colonists. That's not to say that they were wrong, since they paved the road to where we are today. But to take those thoughts/writings verbatim without considering history is to do a disservice to their originators.



Wow.

Put things in their historic context.

Now THAT's a novel thought.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:31 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.


"Cheaply as you can in a plane?"

So we're not supposed to consider the cost of the huge pieces of property needed for airports and runways? (BTW, these are bought, built, and maintained with your tax dollars)

Or the Air Traffic Control System? (PS: Run by and at the expense of the federal government)

The people making these decisions should be taking all these factors into consideration, along with the enviornmental impact of the different modes, to decide which is best for the given situation. This is not a "one size fits all" type question.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:39 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.


"Cheaply as you can in a plane?"

So we're not supposed to consider the cost of the huge pieces of property needed for airports and runways? (BTW, these are bought, built, and maintained with your tax dollars)

Or the Air Traffic Control System? (PS: Run by and at the expense of the federal government)

The people making these decisions should be taking all these factors into consideration, along with the enviornmental impact of the different modes, to decide which is best for the given situation. This is not a "one size fits all" type question.
The amount of money and breaks given the airlines is hardly an excuse to do the same for the railroads, which did get their land given to them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The people making these decisions should not be the government.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:55 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098


QUOTE: EVERY nation IN THE WORLD that has a functioning HSR or even a functioning national rail system has substantial government support.


EVERY ONE OF THEM LOOSES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!



Yes, they do, and they always will, but they still keep building more of them, more people keep riding them, and we keep admiring them from afar.

Where we probably should if it has to be paid for out of the pockets of people who have no say in the matter. Why if so many people want it and are going to pay for it anyways, why don’t we try LETTING THEM CHOOSE, gasp freedom, if they want to?
Choose, hmmm..Funny, I didnt have any say in going to Iraq? Billions spent every week there...I didnt have any say in a massive tax cut for the wealthy, lets watch that deficit soar like a Saturn V at takeoff! I didnt have any say yet I'm told these are for the national good? The amount of money spent in Iraq since Bush flew his Premature "Mission Accomplished" banner could have build a HSR system across the entire country. Yet I dont here any complaints about the millions being spoon fed to no-bid contract companies like Haliburton, wasted on boondoggle military programs like the Centurian Self Propelled Howitzer or the welfare for the rich taxcuts that our children are going to pay through the nose for. We didnt have a National Referendum for any of these yet here they are. Our government makes decisions that no one has a real say over they always have, thats the way government works.

QUOTE: If everything has to earn a buck, why are we still in Iraq? Dont see any profits there?

Well now this is different, I thought you said we went in for oil profits. We went in to save lives, and establish peace. Keeping our country safe is in our national interest and will in the long run help the whole nation, we can pay for it now, or pay for it later, and we have little choice.
one small question? WHERES OSAMA? I dont think he's in Iraq. Niether were the MWDs...If we had sent 100,000 troops into Afghanistan and northern Pakistan and rooted out and eliminated Al Quida then and there, I would be elated! But this BS in Iraq had NOTHING to do with making America safer, they knew there were no MWDs but they needed a justifation to go after a personal vendetta Bush inherited from his fathers administration. Thats why I'm so bitter over Iraq. Big Oil did move in almost the next day, but got its nose so bloodied by the insurgents they fled and havent been back since. Ithe insurgants BTW are almost entirely lead by former Baath party leaders, they are using Mojadin suicide bombers simply as ready cannon fodder, or didnt you read the interview in Al Jarzera with a bomber handler, a former Baath mamber, about how this was being done, he even states that when the US leaves he knows there will be a civil war between the Bathe and Al quida forces for control. This debacle in Iraq because our fearless leaders had already decided they were going in and just made the evidence fit there version. The evidence is out there. On top of that maybe there worst failure was that they again COMPLETELY misunderstood the middle east, and charged in like Reagan did in Lebanon. We all know how that ended...I support our troops but it just galls me to think they're lives are being used up in a war thats justification was flawed from the outset . All this and Osama is still free ...

are we getting a litle off topic here? I doubt you and I will ever see eye to eye on this topic, but this is my viewpoint and take it only as that.

QUOTE: Its not all about the money, namely tax money, yet thats all you seam focused on.

You have a better way to fund it, that you haven’t mentioned?
As I said before, government is the only source of funding large enough to support such an endevour. Private industry just simply lacks the capital so its going to have to come from either federal, and/or State sources.

QUOTE: The Manhattan Project was the biggest money pit of the war, yet no one cried about the costs when it ended the war.
Going to the Moon?, I guess that was a boondogle also, regardless of any scientific knowledge, national prestige, beating the Soviets, just a waste? nor was the most massive achievement of the century, landing on another world, just an dream since Man could first talk, guess that was a waste also?
Everything worth doing, costs.


The atomic bomb saved the life of many an American soldier. Space exploration has helped us to launch many communication satellites, which are economically feasible, ie make money. Defeating the Russians also saved many Americans lives. So if you were trying to imply that I value money over life, you got me dead wrong. I don’t mind some government funding for scientific, and military research, for many reasons. But, even this can get out of hand; look at how many scientists continue to proclaim the theory of global warming, just to keep their research money. Yes everything worth doing cost money, the question becomes is it worth the money.
Exactly MY point, things worth doing cost money, The Manhattan Project was a HUGE endevour, at its peak larger that the automobile industry. Yet we did it and we went to the Moon. Building a national HSR system linking the major cities of the country is DEFINITLY worth doing. I haven't been talking about linking San Francisco with Chicago, but Chicago to NY, Ny to Boston, NY to DC, LA to San Diego. DIRECT city to city, no stops inbetween, just like an airline and the TGV and ICE systems. and people should have the right to vote yea or nea, I suspect that they would overwhelmingly approve it given the alternatives of $3 a gallon car travel or cattle-plane travle today. The advantages over air travel to the business man and the tourist would in itself be worth doing.

Youz needs a trip ta Europe ma friend, Someone get this man a Eurail Pass !!!
Once you experience it, the ability to get from city to city fast comfortably and cheap, you want it here also. Its that convincing.


Sounds like a great idea! That is if I can survive going through France, the country operated so much like you want; look at it, DO WE WANT AMERICA TO BECOME LIKE FRANCE?In France due to a socialist society, 30% of the people are unemployed. People don't work because the government takes their money for the TGV and other much worse swindles.
Where did I ever say I wanted the US to operate like France? thats out of context. I just said government funding of HSR is a good idea. I can tell you've never been to France...Actually visiting a place before you condemn it is always a good idea, I used to think Italy was a dump, till I spent some time there, now I wont hesitate to take a visit there ...Ah Venice! France is a beautiful place, amazing country sides, terrific wine, food, OH the cheeses! But if you dont like France might I suggest Japan? Perhaps the most awesome national rail system in the world, all funded by the government, and great sushi too!

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 11:35 AM
QUOTE: Where did I ever say I wanted the US to operate like France? thats out of context. I just said government funding of HSR is a good idea. I can tell you've never been to France...Actually visiting a place before you condemn it is always a good idea, I used to think Italy was a dump, till I spent some time there, now I wont hesitate to take a visit there ...Ah Venice! France is a beautiful place, amazing country sides, terrific wine, food, OH the cheeses! But if you dont like France might I suggest Japan? Perhaps the most awesome national rail system in the world, all funded by the government, and great sushi too!


It is apparent you have not been there recently either. Have you looked at the headlines about France; the place is in a near civil war. You always want socialism, and France is run on total socialism, which is just a mild from of communism. People don’t like working to pay for nonsense like that, so they get mad and burn things. France will never compare to America, head out to Idaho, and take a look at the wide-open country on an early morning, no distant smoke from burning vehicles, no stench of the unabated populace. Not to mention, you can’t hunt in France, or even own a gun. Food well, I will take a hamburger any day of the week, and I can’t drink wine, plus if you want cheese got to Wisconsin. If you want real good eats nothing can ever beat a mess of homemade fried chicken, that’s good eatin. Japan would be better, but you idea of awesome, is being built on the backs of laborers being stolen from. If I were to steal rob banks, and mug people to build a HLS, you would call me a criminal. Were I to have congress do it, you would be pleased as punch.
I have decided to take you up on you offer, why don’t you get together with you friends and pay for a ticket for me to Europe. If it is as good as you say, I might change my mind. IF THESE PLACES ARE SO GREAT- WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 11:55 AM
QUOTE: Choose, hmmm..Funny, I didnt have any say in going to Iraq? Billions spent every week there...I didnt have any say in a massive tax cut for the wealthy, lets watch that deficit soar like a Saturn V at takeoff! I didnt have any say yet I'm told these are for the national good? The amount of money spent in Iraq since Bush flew his Premature "Mission Accomplished" banner could have build a HSR system across the entire country. Yet I dont here any complaints about the millions being spoon fed to no-bid contract companies like Haliburton, wasted on boondoggle military programs like the Centurian Self Propelled Howitzer or the welfare for the rich taxcuts that our children are going to pay through the nose for. We didnt have a National Referendum for any of these yet here they are.

No one had a choice; the choice was made on September 11th , when were brutally attacked by the tyrants of the middle east. If Saddam was not helping the terrorist, why are they all in Iraq, we aren’t the majority of our enemy’s in Iraq are not citizens of Iraqi.
You had plenty of say on the tax cuts, you can vote, you can talk about it, lot more.
The proof is in the pudding, we haven’t been attacked, we must be doing something right.
So what is the big difference between paying Halliburton to drill for your oil and a government funded HSL? I am for neither, just for the record. I suppose the B-52, B-2, M-60 tank, and M-16 rifle, were all boondoggles. We can’t keep the country safe if we don’t invest into our own security. In fact we were told to.
QUOTE: Our government makes decisions that no one has a real say over they always have, thats the way government works.

That’s the problem with government, it needs to be kept small.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.- George Washington.
As for the WMD here is the proof.

Now view the hypocrisy of the left in all it’s glory:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously dimini***he threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b believe that a deadly****nal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
“[W]without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
How interesting it is that all these Democrats who do not believe WMD’s exist now, thought they existed just a year ago or when a Democrat was in the White House. I find this “Let’s put the American people in mortal danger so I can get elected President” ethic to be highly disturbing. The proof is in the pudding.
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 1:14 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

You dudes are deep.

Let's make it simple, you can't move enough people, as fast, as cheaply,
as you can in an airplane, to make it worthwhile.


"Cheaply as you can in a plane?"

So we're not supposed to consider the cost of the huge pieces of property needed for airports and runways? (BTW, these are bought, built, and maintained with your tax dollars)

Or the Air Traffic Control System? (PS: Run by and at the expense of the federal government)

The people making these decisions should be taking all these factors into consideration, along with the enviornmental impact of the different modes, to decide which is best for the given situation. This is not a "one size fits all" type question.
The amount of money and breaks given the airlines is hardly an excuse to do the same for the railroads, which did get their land given to them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The people making these decisions should not be the government.



The "value" of the land given to the railroads, which wasn't much, was LONG ago eaten up by the losses the railroads incured for the first several years of operation, by operation thru an uninhabited area. The difference is the railroads got the land to develop the west and provide a link between east and west coasts. There was no "private enterprise" incentive to build a railroad through 1000 miles of wilderness, no freight or passengers to haul, which is how the railroads make their money, then and now.

After the Civil War, there was also concern that California would be the next to seceed from the union simply because it took months to get troops out there for protection of the coast before the railroads were built. But they do own the land, which means the cost of maintaining the right of way and taxes are the responsibility of the railroads, not the taxpayer. The same can not be said for the airlines which receive the right to use airports and the air traffic control system for a paltry "terminal fee." On top of that, they're so poorly managed that several of them are in bankruptcy. Air travel would be so much more expensive if the airlines needed to charge these costs to the passenger instead of feeding off the federal dole.

So I don't see why the railroads, which provide a transportation service like the airlines and the highways, SHOULDN'T receive federal money.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 4:01 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Where did I ever say I wanted the US to operate like France? thats out of context. I just said government funding of HSR is a good idea. I can tell you've never been to France...Actually visiting a place before you condemn it is always a good idea, I used to think Italy was a dump, till I spent some time there, now I wont hesitate to take a visit there ...Ah Venice! France is a beautiful place, amazing country sides, terrific wine, food, OH the cheeses! But if you dont like France might I suggest Japan? Perhaps the most awesome national rail system in the world, all funded by the government, and great sushi too!


It is apparent you have not been there recently either. Have you looked at the headlines about France; the place is in a near civil war. You always want socialism, and France is run on total socialism, which is just a mild from of communism. People don’t like working to pay for nonsense like that, so they get mad and burn things. France will never compare to America, head out to Idaho, and take a look at the wide-open country on an early morning, no distant smoke from burning vehicles, no stench of the unabated populace. Not to mention, you can’t hunt in France, or even own a gun. Food well, I will take a hamburger any day of the week, and I can’t drink wine, plus if you want cheese got to Wisconsin. If you want real good eats nothing can ever beat a mess of homemade fried chicken, that’s good eatin. Japan would be better, but you idea of awesome, is being built on the backs of laborers being stolen from. If I were to steal rob banks, and mug people to build a HLS, you would call me a criminal. Were I to have congress do it, you would be pleased as punch.
I have decided to take you up on you offer, why don’t you get together with you friends and pay for a ticket for me to Europe. If it is as good as you say, I might change my mind. IF THESE PLACES ARE SO GREAT- WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?


Man, you really need a vacation, I only said its a nice place to visit! What, leave California? F[censored] that noise. Got the best of everything here, Surf for breakfast , ski for dinner.

PS I kinda prefer Colorado...where the squirrels usually manage to keep all the nuts from getting too numorous.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 4:22 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Choose, hmmm..Funny, I didnt have any say in going to Iraq? Billions spent every week there...I didnt have any say in a massive tax cut for the wealthy, lets watch that deficit soar like a Saturn V at takeoff! I didnt have any say yet I'm told these are for the national good? The amount of money spent in Iraq since Bush flew his Premature "Mission Accomplished" banner could have build a HSR system across the entire country. Yet I dont here any complaints about the millions being spoon fed to no-bid contract companies like Haliburton, wasted on boondoggle military programs like the Centurian Self Propelled Howitzer or the welfare for the rich taxcuts that our children are going to pay through the nose for. We didnt have a National Referendum for any of these yet here they are.

No one had a choice; the choice was made on September 11th , when were brutally attacked by the tyrants of the middle east (Afghanistan is in the Middle East? Sheeooot I thought that was part of Asia) . If Saddam was not helping the terrorist, why are they all in Iraq, (because they poured over in the border from Iran and Syria spoiling to kill as many American GIs as they could..Saddam's ego would tolerate no rivals like Bin Laden) we aren’t the majority of our enemy’s in Iraq are not citizens of Iraqi.
You had plenty of say on the tax cuts, you can vote, you can talk about it, lot more. (I do vote, voted last night , but the fact is that unless the majority of my fellow citizens vote the same as I do, then I have no choice but to live with the decisions those I oppose in office have made, if the present regime decides to end all taxation for those making $1M a year and the congress and senate aprrove it, is that my vote being considered?, just a thought)
The proof is in the pudding, we haven’t been attacked (Spain, Britain, and Thailand might have something to say about that, they are afterall our allies and might disagree) , we must be doing something right. (Maybe, or its just that by being in Iraq, we are giving them a much easier way to get close to our troops and create havoc)So what is the big difference between paying Halliburton to drill for your oil and a government funded HSL? I am for neither, just for the record. I suppose the B-52, B-2, M-60 tank, and M-16 rifle, were all boondoggles. (No, but the Centurian, the B-1, and the original Bradleys were big fiascos, it took a big fix to get the Bradley made right) and the We can’t keep the country safe if we don’t invest into our own security. In fact we were told to. ( I dont disagree with that, I just wi***o see more logical approach to it, to me a good example of that would be the Preditor, can stay aloft for hours, take out targets, without risking a pilots life)
QUOTE: Our government makes decisions that no one has a real say over they always have, thats the way government works.

That’s the problem with government, it needs to be kept small.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.- George Washington.
As for the WMD here is the proof.

Now view the hypocrisy of the left in all it’s glory:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously dimini***he threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b believe that a deadly****nal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
“[W]without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
How interesting it is that all these Democrats who do not believe WMD’s exist now, thought they existed just a year ago or when a Democrat was in the White House. I find this “Let’s put the American people in mortal danger so I can get elected President” ethic to be highly disturbing. The proof is in the pudding.



Were is that Proof?

The simple inaurguable FACT is that they didnt find anything! not a sausage! The simple truth was that Saddam was playing our government like a fiddle right up to the start of the war. The IAEO was just about to issue its report stating that they had found no evidence that Saddam had any such atomic or chemical program, we have since found out that Saddam got rid of all his MWDs right after the first gulf war, they had become too great a liabilty, but continued to behave as if he still had them to keep his nieghbors off balance. If all that you said is true, Wheres the proof, all you have presented is just statements predating the post-invasion reality. While I don't doubt that most in our government firmly believed what they were told, the question is how much of what they were told was manipulated to create the desired effect?

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:07 PM
How much more blasted proof do you need, a mushroom cloud over your home town? He use the gosh-darn things ten time before we invaded. All of those people could see the proof, man since those people aren't very smart you must even less smart.
WARNING BIG FACT AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998. HERE IS YOUR PROOF! http://www.sundayherald.com/39252
[I]
  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: Buffalo NY USA
  • 452 posts
Posted by edkowal on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:27 PM
At the risk of going off-topic, the US Constitution has the following to say:

from section 8, which outlines the powers of Congress,

clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

from clause 3:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


from clause 7:

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

from clause 18:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If you take all of these statements together, I think they can be fairly interpreted to mean that the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to make decisions about how best to carry out their responsibilities. Those responsibilites include providing for the common good, regulating international and interstate commerce, and providing postal service. It can be argued that a high speed rail service would have impacts on each of these several areas.

So, I believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to fund and build a high speed rail service. Whether they decide to do so is up to them, which is what the Founding Fathers intended, as shown by clause 18, quoted above. Whether it is a good idea or not is a matter for debate, as we have been clearly shown by this thread, and the Founding Fathers were not of one mind on issues like this.

-Ed

Five out of four people have trouble with fractions. -Anonymous
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. -Benjamin Franklin
"You don't have to be Jeeves to love butlers, but it helps." (Followers of Levi's Real Jewish Rye will get this one) -Ed K
 "A potted watch never boils." -Ed Kowal
If it's not fun, why do it ? -Ben & Jerry

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 7:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

How much more blasted proof do you need, a mushroom cloud over your home town? He use the gosh-darn things ten time before we invaded. All of those people could see the proof, man since those people aren't very smart you must even less smart.
WARNING BIG FACT AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998. HERE IS YOUR PROOF! http://www.sundayherald.com/39252
[I]



I think I'll sit this one out.

(munch, munch)

....could you pass the salt? Thanks.[dinner]
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:15 PM
Ed, I agree congress has the power, and that the founders did not all agree. However you have to remember what helped to spark the revolution were taxes, taxes on everything. So it was a big beef with the founding fathers, which as I have quoted, implored us to be careful with our spending. The first rule of economics is “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” or TANSTAAFL. The money for a HSL has to come from some-where, if not from the people as investors in it, from the people as taxes. Many people, myself too often included, forget that the government is a non-profit organization; their money is our money. While we are usually wise with out own money (because it is ours), the government seems to be quite careless with it (because it isn’t there’s). True no one can ever no what the founding father’s would think about it. I do know that the founding father’s started this country on a common law system; meaning people have god given rights, and should follow these two fundamental rules.
1. DO ALL YOU HAVE AGREED TO DO
2. DO NOT ENCROACH ON OTHER PEOPLES OR THEIR PROPERTY.
Government can break these, but should do so only when absolutely necessary.
As to a HSL being viewed similar to a road, you may be thinking along the lines of a false premise. Everyone uses roads. Only a (sadly) slender amount of the population would use a HSL, everyone else is helping to pick up the tab, though. A tax increase is the only way the government could come up with enough money (our money) to pay for it. The founding fathers left personal opinions aside when the constitution was written, so it was left up to congress. I believe it could be considered for government funding, if it can be proven to be economically feasible, and used by enough people to make it a worthwhile public investment. I am not an expert in those matters, so I would like to see the opinions of some before I would decide for certain, but I haven’t seen that proof yet.
All right Murphy back on track, railroad track that is[:D].
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:23 PM
Lotus - RE: Your statement "Only a (sadly) slender amount of the population would use a HSL" is true for passenger HSR, but we all benefit from freight transportation expediency, so a freight HSR system would have societal benefits not seen in a passenger HSR system.

Murphy, I ain't eatin popcorn, I'm munching Cheez-It's. Get your own box!
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:34 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

How much more blasted proof do you need, a mushroom cloud over your home town? He use the gosh-darn things ten time before we invaded. All of those people could see the proof, man since those people aren't very smart you must even less smart.
WARNING BIG FACT AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998. HERE IS YOUR PROOF! http://www.sundayherald.com/39252
[I]



Oh, I don't know. Maybe since we've occupied the country for a few years, if we FOUND SOME.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy