| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
northchucky
Senior Member
481 Posts |
 Posted - 03/02/2012 : 11:04:16 PM
|
ill go ahead and say i am a moderate. middle of the road on many issues
but i will vote for any canidate that will embrace this. we are woefully behind europe and other areas when it comes to high speed rail and other applicable technology
i really feel like that our country is expanding at an exponential rate but our infrastructure is stagnant. the end result will be pain for us all. when our country was in dire straits in the 20's FDR implemented the new deal which forever changed the destiny of our republic. can we please do this again?
i feel like i am preaching to deaf ears! please let me know if you agree or not...
we need to upgrade |
|
|
Reelly Old
Senior Member
1348 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 01:09:54 AM
|
The 'new' deal was in the '30s, and involved a 'stimulus' that makes the latest one pale in comparison. In fact, it was such a huge deal involving such unheard of government action that FDR tried to overthrow the Supreme Court to make it happen as he wished. And he surely changed the destiny of the country, witness the entitlement programs and government regulations currently strangling the nation (any correlation with current political machinations is purely intentional).
With that said, I agree we need infrastructure enhancements, but something along the lines of what Eisenhower spawned in the '50s. While the interstate system effectively killed a meaningful bus and rail network, it did so because the highway system (built over about 25 years and not yet finished) made transportation cheaper, and not because it made rail and bus more expensive. Had that not been the case, it's very doubtful the economy would have continued to expand as it did.
Granted, Infrastructure should be enhanced to keep pace with a changing nation, but not as a consequence to destroying the structure already in place. One need only to understand our current national energy 'policy' to know there's a difference ...
Ill-Conceived Change Probably Doesn't Mean Better.
__________________________ |
 |
|
|
PalmerScott
Senior Member
785 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 09:08:54 AM
|
I don't agree with any increase (preferably, fail to decrease) gov't spending. Gov't revenues have remained fairly consistent over the decades with some ups and downs. In the past 2 presidents we've (we - a people with a gov't) have lost our minds. We're taking out credit cards as fast as we can get them and max'ing them out.
Everyone thinks Greece is in such a bad way. They are literally having to cede a real portion of their sovereignty to the Germans in order to get more loans that will not save them, but, only forestall the inevitable. Well... we're worse off that the Greeks, per capita, and most of our ignorant population has absolutely no idea. From http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chart-america-s-capita-government-debt-worse-greece_631797.html,
"The office of Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sends along this chart, showing that 'Americas Per Capita Government Debt Worse Than Greece,' as well as Ireland, Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain:"
$44K for every person in the US. And, that number is climbing rapidly. Each of our children is born into the natural citizenship with their own mortgage on the benefits their parents and grandparents took out of the system.
That is down right immoral, unethical, wrong, and mean.
I say we drive on the roads we have. Fix only the absolute worst ones.... until we get our overall spending and debt level under control.
/soapbox
---------------------------
17' Henry O Hornet
26' Palmer Scott
|
|
|
|
Fishb8
Senior Member
6164 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 09:11:46 AM
|
Did the government pass the stimulus and give tons of money to shovel ready projects including infrastructure. They have spent Trillions for very little. Lots of people agree with this approach, but not when the government is paying for political favors and piss poor management.
There have been several bills brought up in states to have the people on public assistance(unemployment, welfare, ect) actually do work for the states. This is the same principle. But it will take very good management to work.
Fishb8 (Fish Bait)
23 Sea Hunt "My Last Boat V"
If you can't stand behind our soldiers, try standing in front of them. |
|
|
|
joeboo
Senior Member
321 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 09:25:26 AM
|
Not sure about the high speed rail, but I sure would like S.C. to step up to the plate and do something with I26 & I95.
working hard and playing harder |
|
|
|
hhi angler
Senior Member
2158 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 11:12:33 AM
|
| The interstate highway system was set up by Ike after he saw how the Germans had built a system to move there forces across there nation. It was not designed to replace other modes of public transportation. There has never been a light rail system set up that even comes near breaking even and if one was built people would rather get in a Chevy Dolt. |
|
|
|
Reelly Old
Senior Member
1348 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 2:13:05 PM
|
It was not designed to replace other modes of public transportation.
But it did, by making road transportation less expensive than rail, thus facilitating the current mobility we enjoy. What's happening now is a move to make personal transportation more expensive so the public will gravitate to mass transport, except that system doesn't yet exist. Wonder who will support those poor the UAW when personal autos are a thing of the past?
__________________________ |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 8:16:45 PM
|
I'm not for spending any more money until they can get the existing budget under control. Not sure about high speed rail. Seems like a gimmick. Nobody uses trains now, what makes you think that they will use high speed rail? Maybe some true analysis should be done to see what the true cost savings would be before just blindly supporting something that sounds like a good idea on the surface.
If they can make a good case for how it will TRULY save me money in the long run and show me how I will pay less taxes in the future, I could support it, but there are too many "good ideas" out there right now that keep asking for more money. |
Edited by - skinneej on 03/03/2012 8:19:25 PM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18374 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2012 : 9:59:16 PM
|
Why would it matter so much to our country when it's primarily for passenger transporation and when we already have trains (and planes) for that and for cargo? Despite the theoretical positives, the country simply can't afford to keep coming up with more and more ways to spend new money, and right now is the worst time in over 50 years to implement dream programs. If Liberals still can't see the wisdom in cutting back on new spending even in times like THIS, we might as well give up on them ever understanding any sort of fiscal-responsibility. They keep talking about FDR. Maybe they'd like to take us back to the 100% tax bracket and have the government confiscate gold? Nevermind. There's probably no sense in trying to reason with people who think that spending another trillion bucks or so right now on ANOTHER new government program is a good idea. I mean, how many new spending programs are they going to propose without cutting any spending to speak of? Will they want to finance an undersea tunnel to Europe next?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 03/03/2012 10:06:12 PM |
|
|
|
Reelly Old
Senior Member
1348 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 12:05:48 AM
|
Nobody uses trains now, what makes you think that they will use high speed rail?
Few use rail now because there are few systems outside of major population centers. If extensive mass transit (high speed rail or whatever) should become reality again, it will most likely be the only transportation with economic viability for the huddled masses. The idea is to make it prohibitively expensive to use anything but mass transit, the process to eliminate personal transportation only begins with gas. And follow-on administrations like the current one one won't care what it costs, like the current one doesn't seem to ... 
If It Begins With 'So You're Saying', I'm Probably Not.
__________________________ |
|
|
|
jstrange
Senior Member
3167 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 02:14:55 AM
|
Good posting RO!!
Umm, you gonna eat that?
Thousands have died to save my freedom. Only one has died to save my soul! |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18374 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 11:01:15 AM
|
They'll start out building the rail to "save" us money. Then, they'll make other transportation too expensive. Then, they'll tax us for the rails and charge a fare. The bottom line is that dependence on government will increase.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
hhi angler
Senior Member
2158 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 12:23:14 PM
|
| Just look at the boondoggle in the CA central valley a light rail that would serve no one it runs through agriculture fields and ends at a huge state prison with no eligible riders. Nothing but right of way and operating costs. |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18374 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 12:34:48 PM
|
I'll have to look up the article again, but I think Obama pledged like 3.5 billion dollars to fund California's high-speed passenger train. OK, so California--the loss leader of the country--is going to show us how to improve our economy by spending more money when we are on borrowed coin already. Nice.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 1:42:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reelly Old
Nobody uses trains now, what makes you think that they will use high speed rail?
Few use rail now because there are few systems outside of major population centers. If extensive mass transit (high speed rail or whatever) should become reality again, it will most likely be the only transportation with economic viability for the huddled masses. The idea is to make it prohibitively expensive to use anything but mass transit, the process to eliminate personal transportation only begins with gas. And follow-on administrations like the current one one won't care what it costs, like the current one doesn't seem to ...
If It Begins With 'So You're Saying', I'm Probably Not.
__________________________
Oh, so you want to build these multi-million dollar rails in non-populated areas? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense... Have you heard about a project called the "Bridge to Nowhere"? What exactly is the ROI for spending millions to move a few rural people in and out of the city? I'll give you a hint... It's a negative number... You also need to think about all of the land purchased, all of the employees needed to run it, and the upkeep\maintenance of such a large project.
Just for the record, I had a couple come visit us in Miami a few months ago and they traveled by train. They saved like $150 by selecting a train over airplane. I think that their total trip was around 13 hours. Charleston to Miami is a 9 hour drive and if they would have driven, they would have probably actually saved a few more dollars. They said that the benefit was having someone else drive, but it was a long trip and they would not do it again.
Also, from your post, it almost sounds like you are in favor of making it prohibitively expensive to drive yourself around in favor of building mass public transit. Please tell me that is not true... |
Edited by - skinneej on 03/04/2012 1:43:50 PM |
|
|
|
Reelly Old
Senior Member
1348 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 5:30:49 PM
|
Wow, Skinnee, You got all that from four sentences? Jeez, you have to start at the beginning, not jump in at the end.
No, I don't want to build multi-million dollar rails in non-populated area. It's what used to exist until the advent of cheaper transportation, though I believe it's what we may return to when (operative word, when) driving yourself becomes prohibitively expensive. We'll either not have access to affordable petroleum products, we'll use 'em up, or both. Only the time frame is in question.
No, I didn't even insinuate I favored making driving prohibitively expensive, I insinuated it's the first step in a progressive movement to force us to go 'green' and then into mass transit. Anyone who doesn't believe it's happening now hasn't been listening to our President.
I'm glad your friends were able to travel by acceptable and affordable means. I see a day in my children's lifetime when that may not be so for most of the 99%...
Add "So You Want' and 'It Almost Sounds Like' To The List Of 'Probably Not".
__________________________ |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2012 : 5:45:42 PM
|
When did this exist? I don't think that it will happen in our lifetimes that mass transit takes over personal automobiles. I'm pretty confident that your prediction is WAY OFF...
Don't ignore the fact that Americans can still scale way down. We don't all need to drive Tahoes that get 14-16 mpg. We might be talking about electric or natural gas vehicles in the next 20 years. Or electric vehicles that recharge themselves on natural gas. There is a company out there right now making electrics for 15K. Also, I spent a month in India and natural gas vehicles were all over the place as well as motorcycles, mopeds, and the like. If a 3rd world country can afford to drive themselves around, then I think we have a ton of wiggle room.
The trend is going to be that people first start getting smaller, more fuel efficient cars when gas climbs above 5-6\gallon. After that, there will be a better market for electric and natural gas. Those technologies will never take off when gasoline is < 5 a gallon.
Also, don't forget that there is a lot of inflation built into gas prices. Meaning that gas is probably technically only twice as expensive as it was in the 1970's if you adjust for inflation. Short term spikes are what kill people. But paying $10 a gallon for gas won't be as bad in 2050 when you salary is 3 times what it is today either... |
Edited by - skinneej on 03/04/2012 5:50:52 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
updating our infrastructure
