What would the founding fathers think about this.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zapp


I must agree, why should the general public pay for somehting,that the vast majority of the populas will never utilize?
When and where did the American people begin to assume that the federal goverment should pay for all local projects? Was it the Transcontinental railroad or was it the projects that were created during the Depression of the 1930's?
Either way we have become dependent on our federal goverment to pave our driveway.
The small town I live in has really grown in the past few years. New business' have been popping up left and right,but the city fathers have done nothing about our infastructure,why,because they are waiting for the state and federal goverments to come up and do their part, then see how much the city will have to ante up with.
We all have the power to stop pork barrel spending: VOTE!

[zapp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The Anti Gates

Swindles are the result of people not being able to differentiate between between style and substance. If all the younger people I know had such a cynical attitude, I would be looking for a nice third world country.

Jay

I can't help but to think your post was intended as a polite slap in the face of sorts. Which is fine, I won't be ~shamed~ into accepting the nonsense that I've seen the proponents trying to force down the throat of the gullible and the forlorn

I could go on and on with a rant about my misgivings on the discussion I've seen to date.

But it would only aggravate the sheep .

Foremost among my reservations would be the way the private parties willing to enter into the proposed "partnership" are not willing to quantify their own level of (monetary) contribution to the plan, Nor are they even willing to identify who they really are, they just time and again troll some big juicy worm through the pond, trying to see how many fools (mooneyed taxpayers) might be ready to "bite".

When the topic passes through the local media, the response tends to inspire the impressionable into making starry eyed "water cooler" talk along the lines of "hey did you hear? we might be getting HSR!" with all the analytical prowess if a drunken sailor on shore leave.... No thought. as to where it will be going, whether it will be able to support itself, or what actual public good it will serve, they just get giddy with the joy of "getting something" like kids waiting for Santa to come sliding down the chimney.

Ebeneezer Scrouge said it best "Bah HUMBUG!! [;)][;)]
I must agree, why should the general public pay for somehting,that the vast majority of the populas will never utilize?
When and where did the American people begin to assume that the federal goverment should pay for all local projects? Was it the Transcontinental railroad or was it the projects that were created during the Depression of the 1930's?
Either way we have become dependent on our federal goverment to pave our driveway.
The small town I live in has really grown in the past few years. New business' have been popping up left and right,but the city fathers have done nothing about our infastructure,why,because they are waiting for the state and federal goverments to come up and do their part, then see how much the city will have to ante up with.
We all have the power to stop pork barrel spending: VOTE!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The Anti Gates

Swindles are the result of people not being able to differentiate between between style and substance. If all the younger people I know had such a cynical attitude, I would be looking for a nice third world country.

Jay

I can't help but to think your post was intended as a polite slap in the face of sorts. Which is fine, I won't be ~shamed~ into accepting the nonsense that I've seen the proponents trying to force down the throat of the gullible and the forlorn

I could go on and on with a rant about my misgivings on the discussion I've seen to date.

But it would only aggravate the sheep .

Foremost among my reservations would be the way the private parties willing to enter into the proposed "partnership" are not willing to quantify their own level of (monetary) contribution to the plan, Nor are they even willing to identify who they really are, they just time and again troll some big juicy worm through the pond, trying to see how many fools (mooneyed taxpayers) might be ready to "bite".

When the topic passes through the local media, the response tends to inspire the impressionable into making starry eyed "water cooler" talk along the lines of "hey did you hear? we might be getting HSR!" with all the analytical prowess if a drunken sailor on shore leave.... No thought. as to where it will be going, whether it will be able to support itself, or what actual public good it will serve, they just get giddy with the joy of "getting something" like kids waiting for Santa to come sliding down the chimney.

Ebeneezer Scrouge said it best "Bah HUMBUG!! [;)][;)]

[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.

Ericthered makes that very point.

The old toll roads were mentioned. It would be an interesting study, forecasting where transportation would be today if its development had been left entirely to the private sector...

[ndbprr]

I am in complete agreement with the founding fathers but there is a fine line between the role of the government and private enterprise. The Trancontinental railroad opened up the west. No conmpany existed that coulkd have done that. The electronics and computers we have today are a direct result of the space program and the need for weight reduction to get capsules into outer space so there is benefit beyond the initial effort. I draw the line if the government needs to take away private citizens holdings for right of way and not compensate them and builds bridges to Alaskan islands nobody wants, etc.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

I think you're a bit wide of the mark here about the Roman Empire. It was not on the brink of an industrial revolution in the 5th century; if anything it had been in decline for the last century. The Germanictribes who conquered the Roman empire in Western Europe in the 5th century AD (and gave their names to the countries we now now, eg Angle-land = England, Franks - France) were able to do so because they had better swords than the Romans! Equally important though, they also had better ploughs. This meant the Angles and Saxons were able to farm areas of Britain that the Romano-Briton had not. Consequently the population of Britain increased in the 5th and 6th centuries whereas it had declined in the 4th. In due course the Vikings came too - they also had better swords (and ploughs!). Meanwhile in the Arab world lots of developments took place in sciences (astronomy, algebra and chemistry all come from Arabic words!). Even before the Crusades these sevelopments were starting to filter thru to the Christian world. As for the myth that people thought the world was flat - well the 13 th century English scholar Francis Bacon describes how to calculate the curvature of the Earth (and he refers to how a 3rd century AD Greek mathematician Ptolemy did so).

In the book mentioned early, he refers to this need to conquer as the Roman Disease, but you have to admit, Rome could not have expanded a vast empire like she did, had she not first formed the Roman Republic. Merely an analogy between the two countries, admittedly the idea of an industrial revolution, is just speculation on the part of the author. The ancient Greeks and the Romans were surprisingly advanced, they had water clocks, which told time, and may have figured the position of the stars, accurate odometers for roads, and other advanced mechanisms, like flame throwers. Things that wouldn’t be rediscovered for nearly 2000 years. Also the Catholic church persecuted anyone who said the world was flat, in fact it took until 1923, to admit that Aristotle was wrong, and the earth was round. But, I am getting farther of topic than a bloodhound with a bad cold...

QUOTE: 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?

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered


By the way, early roads in the USA were, in many cases, privately owned- the owners paid for upkeep by charging tolls- thus the beginning of "toll roads".

Erik

This is quite true but the Federal Government built the National Highway from Tidewater to the Ohio River, the state of New York financed the Erie Canal and the state of Maryland invested heavily in the Baltimore and Ohio at its start up. Many other states and cities financed internal improvements well before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1860s.

[Anonymous]

I think the founding fathers were a group of fairly rich farmers and traders who were interested in conducting business without government interference. Consider for a moment that most of the colonial citizens were loyal subjects of the King- not fire breathing revolutionaries.

When railroads first developed, it was the wealthy miners, industrialists, and farmers who realized what the potential was of a new transportation system in the USA. Most railroads were built not for passenger service- but to carry freight. They have been doing that well for over a century and a half. Then, as now, early railroads wanted government support in terms of land grants (for right of way) and bonds (for capital to lay rails.)

As railroads grew, so too did government regulation. When it became apparent that railroads were fast becoming the haven for con artists, press agents, and speculators, the government moved in with a vengeance. The regulation was not so much over passenger service, but freight rates and trust combinations.

The business of America is concerned with producing goods, and moving them. Moving people is far and away a secondary consideration.

By the way, early roads in the USA were, in many cases, privately owned- the owners paid for upkeep by charging tolls- thus the beginning of "toll roads".

Erik

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE:

You have missed the point entirely; it was these very principles that allowed society to get as far as it did. Assuming that history too is not moot. Let us take a look back even father into antiquity; back to the old Roman Republic. In 500 B.C. the inhabitants of Britain lived in primitive log huts with dirt floors. Along cam those old principles of capitalism and freedom, in the form of the Roman Republic, which our founding fathers had the wisdom to base our society on the same ideals. By 200A.D Roman civilization brought large tile roofed buildings with mosaic floors, plumbing, baths, glass windows, and central heating. But corruption was at work, the principles of old were declared moot. And so, the infamous Roman Empire was born, it could not last as the scolism seeped into it began to crumble. By 500 A.D the people were back to their log huts, and unsanitary conditions, as they had one thousand years earlier. A great book called Ancient Rome How it Affects You Today, by Richard J. Maybury, a history, and economics teacher, explains how history is repeating between Rome and the US. Part of his premise is that the Romans were on the verge of a industrial revolution, the one we hit in 1776, freedom is what got us to where we are today; out of our mud huts, and into our cars. To achieve, liberty should be our goal, not to live with their technology, but to live with their God inspired ideas.

I think you're a bit wide of the mark here about the Roman Empire. It was not on the brink of an industrial revolution in the 5th century; if anything it had been in decline for the last century. The Germanictribes who conquered the Roman empire in Western Europe in the 5th century AD (and gave their names to the countries we now now, eg Angle-land = England, Franks - France) were able to do so because they had better swords than the Romans! Equally important though, they also had better ploughs. This meant the Angles and Saxons were able to farm areas of Britain that the Romano-Briton had not. Consequently the population of Britain increased in the 5th and 6th centuries whereas it had declined in the 4th. In due course the Vikings came too - they also had better swords (and ploughs!). Meanwhile in the Arab world lots of developments took place in sciences (astronomy, algebra and chemistry all come from Arabic words!). Even before the Crusades these sevelopments were starting to filter thru to the Christian world. As for the myth that people thought the world was flat - well the 13 th century English scholar Francis Bacon describes how to calculate the curvature of the Earth (and he refers to how a 3rd century AD Greek mathematician Ptolemy did so).

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.

[Jack_S]

There is a simple YES/NO choice regarding passenger rail, including High Speed Rail. Either

A - The US government funds passenger rail

or

B - The USA will have no passenger rail.

An easy choice, take your pick.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The Anti Gates

Swindles are the result of people not being able to differentiate between between style and substance. If all the younger people I know had such a cynical attitude, I would be looking for a nice third world country.

Jay

If every one belived what you just said, you would have one.[V]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

What is certain is that the changes that have occured over the last two centuries makes those views moot.

That is hardly the case. These are fundamental principles, with extreme bearing to today’s events. Why do you decide what views are moot, where does it stop, the Declaration of Impendence, the Constitution, our own Bill of Rights, The Bible, where I ask you? Indeed I say, that if these views are moot, then all wisdom of old is lost, and we are doomed; a fate worse than death at that, the fate of ignorance. If rejected what is to keep our country from going down the long slippery path of socialism France took; If the foundation of our country is allowed to crumble, and freedom becomes a myth, all the deaths of the Revolution, Civil war, and many others, were in vain.

"Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly."- Thomas Jefferson, 1816" To proclaim these views outdated is to make a mockery of all they worked so hard for! Is even Liberty outdated?

QUOTE: …Many will argue that were it not for government expenditures to build infrastructure and develope technology our society would not have advanced as far as we have…
… If you want to live in times like theirs, you are going to have to find a time machine or move to a present day third world country…

You have missed the point entirely; it was these very principles that allowed society to get as far as it did. Assuming that history too is not moot. Let us take a look back even father into antiquity; back to the old Roman Republic. In 500 B.C. the inhabitants of Britain lived in primitive log huts with dirt floors. Along cam those old principles of capitalism and freedom, in the form of the Roman Republic, which our founding fathers had the wisdom to base our society on the same ideals. By 200A.D Roman civilization brought large tile roofed buildings with mosaic floors, plumbing, baths, glass windows, and central heating. But corruption was at work, the principles of old were declared moot. And so, the infamous Roman Empire was born, it could not last as the scolism seeped into it began to crumble. By 500 A.D the people were back to their log huts, and unsanitary conditions, as they had one thousand years earlier. A great book called Ancient Rome How it Affects You Today, by Richard J. Maybury, a history, and economics teacher, explains how history is repeating between Rome and the US. Part of his premise is that the Romans were on the verge of a industrial revolution, the one we hit in 1776, freedom is what got us to where we are today; out of our mud huts, and into our cars. To achieve, liberty should be our goal, not to live with their technology, but to live with their God inspired ideas.

[jeaton]

The Anti Gates

Swindles are the result of people not being able to differentiate between between style and substance. If all the younger people I know had such a cynical attitude, I would be looking for a nice third world country.

Jay

[jeaton]

Jefferson and Adams have been gone for a few years now and it is impossible to say that they would have retained their 18th Century views if they had lived to the present time. What is certain is that the changes that have occured over the last two centuries makes those views moot. Many will argue that were it not for government expenditures to build infrastructure and develope technology our society would not have advanced as far as we have. That may or may not be true, but the situation is not going to be reversed. If you want to live in times like theirs, you are going to have to find a time machine or move to a present day third world country.

You are entirely entitled to take the view that with cars and airplanes there is no need for rail passenger service. But given that these modes are supported by government expenditures, there is no way that rail passenger service will be a profitable. With no profit potential, there will be no private investment in the busines, and so, absent government money, there will be no rail passenger service. That's the choice.

Jay

[Anonymous]

Your prediction is one of my fears.

[Anonymous]

Just my opinion,but, I think that HSR is gonna be THE next big swindle. And I expect it to go over like this:

Peoples emotions will be played, offering to return passenger rail to a lot of communities that lost out as Amtral shrank and contracted over the decades.

Some crook will come up with the great idea that abandoned right of ways can be used, with taxpayer funded rehab to the roadbed..

Calls will be made for local level 'matching funds" just like the robber barons of the 19th century called ipon cities to pay for a route to their towns.

The game plan will suggest that building a 110-120 mile an hour "startup" operation makes the most sense, with the REAL hi speed to come "later"

'Later' will never come,...instead the construction companies that build phase one will pocket the federal and local level contributions, and it will be decided that demand/ridership is too weak to justify the full blown HSR...

So, the money spent will go a long way to enriching the principals of the plan, and the tax payers get handed a white elephant.


That is my prediction anyway..

[Anonymous]

Look at the Acela, it is falling apart...

[Anonymous]

Should the government pay for a high-speed rail system?
A high-speed rail lines have been proposed by some intelligent members of our great forum, I decided I might present a somewhat overlooked side of this issue.

Just to set things straight airline subsidies, and the roads being paid for by tax dollars are hardly an excuse to. I am not against a new passenger rail service, but should Uncle Sam be paying for it? Well, for the answer let us turn back the years and listen to what the founding fathers have said.


Before Uncle Sam was so fat on government pork.
…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring each one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of a good government.”- Thomas Jefferson, 1801
Building an expanded rail system with government money, is hardly keeping a wise and frugal government; sure our government may not be and wise or frugal as it once was, but we need to move in the right direction.

“The public money of this country is the toil and labor of the people, who are under many uncommon difficulties and distresses at this time, so that all reasonable frugality ought to be observed.” -John Adams, 1735-1826.
Should people be forced to toil to pay for it, which don’t want to, what kind of freedom would that be?
Surely taxes would have to be raised to pay for a rail system.
Avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”- George Washington.
I think the idea of the government paying for any thing like the suggested rail system should be shunned.

”Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left the most free to individual enterprise.”
- Thomas Jefferson, 1801.
We can’t risk upsetting a pillar of our prosperity, just to have a system of transportation; even I would love to see. I am not saying it shouldn’t be done, it just shouldn’t be done with government money, get some investors, it has been done before.

What do think? What lines might be workable, or are there none?
No flames please. Do we have jalapeno popcorn?