independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Florida says no to High Speed Rail
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 02/16/11 11:43am

rudedog

avatar

Florida says no to High Speed Rail

Ahh, Republicans playing politics! If it was Bush that proposed this, Gov Scott would be completely on board. Even his fellow republicans are disappointed in his decision! This would bring much needed jobs to the state, but who wants that, Boehner doesn't? Why because the worse the economy looks in 2012, the easier for Republicans to win more seats and maybe the Presidency. What a corrupt party the Republicans are. They look out for THEIR own interest over the interest of America. Similar programs like this is what got us out of the Great Depression and gets Private Businesses involved too! Who want jobs?? Obviously not Republicans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...speed_rail

"This project could have supported thousands of good-paying jobs for Floridians and helped grow Florida businesses, all while alleviating congestion on Florida's highways," LaHood said. "Nevertheless, there is overwhelming demand for high speed rail in other states that are enthusiastic to receive Florida's funding and the economic benefits it can deliver."

Scott's decision was immediately criticized by politicians from both major parties who support the project.

"I am deeply disappointed," said U.S. Rep. John Mica, a Republican whose district reaches from Orlando to the Atlantic Coast, where the rail service could have been expanded. "This is a huge setback for the state of Florida, our transportation, economic development, and important tourism industry."

Democratic U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, who represents the Tampa area, shared his disappointment.

"Governor Scott's decision demonstrates a devastating lack of vision for Florida and a lack of understanding of our economic situation," she said. "The governor's campaign slogan was 'let's get to work,' but his refusal to accept vital investment dollars eliminates the opportunity to put thousands of Floridians to work in construction, engineering, architecture and most all areas of Florida's economy."

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 02/16/11 1:36pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

many Republicans were opposed to the Trans-national Corridor. So there is really no reason to assume that a train would be seen any differently.

I think the fact that the US people are not big fans of trains to begin with is enough to give ANYONE pause.

And it is almost never smart to spend money just to make jobs.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 02/16/11 3:06pm

rudedog

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I think the fact that the US people are not big fans of trains to begin with is enough to give ANYONE pause.

Again, we're not talking Amtrak. Those trains don't nearly go as fast as a high speed rail go, but whatever. If Americans are too dumb to see that, they don't deserve one. I'll go to Europe and Japan then, where they don't live in the bronze age.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 02/16/11 3:21pm

DarlingDiana

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 02/16/11 3:45pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

rudedog said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I think the fact that the US people are not big fans of trains to begin with is enough to give ANYONE pause.

Again, we're not talking Amtrak. Those trains don't nearly go as fast as a high speed rail go, but whatever. If Americans are too dumb to see that, they don't deserve one. I'll go to Europe and Japan then, where they don't live in the bronze age.

oh if they do not see it the way you do they must be dumb.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 02/16/11 4:01pm

rudedog

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

HA! That's a joke, Amtrak does suck. I've said it a million times THIS ISN'T AMTRAK!! That's all Conservatives have, AMTRAK SUCKS, SO WILL BULLET TRAINS! When you get down to it, airports are congested, so are roads. You have a faster way of getting ppl who live in rural towns to work in the city, not only will that increase jobs, but housing markets will go up. In the Bay Area, the market value for houses went up when BART added stations to different cities, now look at that on a state level, imagine!

As in for environmental impact, dude is right. It won't be green energy. BUT Since high-speed trains (based on fossil electricity generation) use one-third the energy of airplanes (per person) and a fifth of that used by cars (with one person),California High-Speed Rail will also eliminate 12 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year by off-setting passenger car and airplane use. This is the equivalent of removing more than one million vehicles from the state's roads and freeways. It will also lessen California's dependence on foreign oil by up to 12.7 million barrels per year. smile Interesting how ReasonTV left that part out. But who wants to cut down on foreign oil or reduce gas emissions, its not like Climate Change is real or anything.

As for modernizing roads and highways (speaking of California), according to the 2009 California Transportation Commission report, it would cost US$6 billion annually year over 10 years to maintain existing roads in California, which is more than the estimated cost of the entire project here, which is US$43 billion. I know, strange huh?! ReasonTV didn't say that either!

The high-speed rail system is also projected to be half the cost of building new airport runways, gates, and expanded highways necessary to handle the same capacity of travelers, to accommodate future demand due to California's increasing population.

Shocker! More facts ReasonTV left out! ReasonTV has been sufficiently debunked.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 02/16/11 4:05pm

rudedog

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

Again, we're not talking Amtrak. Those trains don't nearly go as fast as a high speed rail go, but whatever. If Americans are too dumb to see that, they don't deserve one. I'll go to Europe and Japan then, where they don't live in the bronze age.

oh if they do not see it the way you do they must be dumb.

Well, not in California, they voted for the measure to fund a high speed rail, so 'US people are not big fans of trains' is not a true statement, Californians see the difference, can't speak for other states.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 02/17/11 12:13am

DarlingDiana

rudedog said:

DarlingDiana said:

HA! That's a joke, Amtrak does suck. I've said it a million times THIS ISN'T AMTRAK!! That's all Conservatives have, AMTRAK SUCKS, SO WILL BULLET TRAINS! When you get down to it, airports are congested, so are roads. You have a faster way of getting ppl who live in rural towns to work in the city, not only will that increase jobs, but housing markets will go up. In the Bay Area, the market value for houses went up when BART added stations to different cities, now look at that on a state level, imagine!

That's not what Gillespie was arguing by bringing up Amtrak. It was about cost not how good it will be.

As in for environmental impact, dude is right. It won't be green energy. BUT Since high-speed trains (based on fossil electricity generation) use one-third the energy of airplanes (per person) and a fifth of that used by cars (with one person),California High-Speed Rail will also eliminate 12 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year by off-setting passenger car and airplane use. This is the equivalent of removing more than one million vehicles from the state's roads and freeways. It will also lessen California's dependence on foreign oil by up to 12.7 million barrels per year. smile Interesting how ReasonTV left that part out. But who wants to cut down on foreign oil or reduce gas emissions, its not like Climate Change is real or anything.

We all want to cut carbon emissions. But I think you're being naive if you think high speed rail will do it. Your figures are only correct if the train is packed full every time it makes a trip. You're not taking into account those times not during rush hour when maybe only a few people will catch the train. You're not taking into account empty trains that have to go to a certain city to pick up people. Every trip burns fuel no matter how many people are on it. So this theory that you are reducing car emissions by letting people catch the train isn't always true.

As for modernizing roads and highways (speaking of California), according to the 2009 California Transportation Commission report, it would cost US$6 billion annually year over 10 years to maintain existing roads in California, which is more than the estimated cost of the entire project here, which is US$43 billion. I know, strange huh?! ReasonTV didn't say that either!

Funny how you are criticizing Reason for leaving things out while doing the same thing yourself. You are omitting the point that almost every proposed government spending program ends up costing a lot more than projected. You say $43 billion, other reports say upwards of $500 billion. Road maintenance costs can also be reduced by leasing that work out to private contractors or even privatizing the roads themselves. You could turn it into a money making project instead. Which you could also do with high speed rail. That would making it any more environmentally friendly (although it could do) but it would definitely cost less, especially in the long term.

The high-speed rail system is also projected to be half the cost of building new airport runways, gates, and expanded highways necessary to handle the same capacity of travelers, to accommodate future demand due to California's increasing population.

Shocker! More facts ReasonTV left out! ReasonTV has been sufficiently debunked.

LOL, the entire Reason organization has been debunked because they omitted one claim about the cost of high-speed rail. So did you, remember the $500 billion? I guess you are entirely and utterly debunked too.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 02/17/11 7:52am

NoVideo

avatar

Here is a nice summary of the Teabagger Governor's BS on this issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/17/945778/-Rick-Scotts-7-Biggest-LIES-on-RAIL-%28Before-Killing-It%29

What a tool and a fool he is. California or another state will happily take the federal $$$, and the increase in jobs and revenue that will come with the completed project.

* * *

Prince's Classic Finally Expanded
The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue

http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 02/17/11 9:03am

rudedog

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

rudedog said:

Funny how you are criticizing Reason for leaving things out while doing the same thing yourself. You are omitting the point that almost every proposed government spending program ends up costing a lot more than projected. You say $43 billion, other reports say upwards of $500 billion. Road maintenance costs can also be reduced by leasing that work out to private contractors or even privatizing the roads themselves. You could turn it into a money making project instead. Which you could also do with high speed rail. That would making it any more environmentally friendly (although it could do) but it would definitely cost less, especially in the long term.

The high-speed rail system is also projected to be half the cost of building new airport runways, gates, and expanded highways necessary to handle the same capacity of travelers, to accommodate future demand due to California's increasing population.

Shocker! More facts ReasonTV left out! ReasonTV has been sufficiently debunked.

LOL, the entire Reason organization has been debunked because they omitted one claim about the cost of high-speed rail. So did you, remember the $500 billion? I guess you are entirely and utterly debunked too.

All your evidence and ReasonTV is PURE speculation, there are only assumptions and opinions based on 'what ifs'. What if the sky fell? No hardcore facts, my post had them. Feel free to ignore them, they are there none the less. The facts are, the high speed rail will more than pay for itself and its called 'progress' not leaving everything the same like you want.

[Edited 2/17/11 9:04am]

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 02/17/11 9:05am

rudedog

avatar

NoVideo said:

Here is a nice summary of the Teabagger Governor's BS on this issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/17/945778/-Rick-Scotts-7-Biggest-LIES-on-RAIL-%28Before-Killing-It%29

What a tool and a fool he is. California or another state will happily take the federal $$$, and the increase in jobs and revenue that will come with the completed project.

Republicans choose politics over progress every time! To them, everything is just 'a pipe dream'. Ya, so was NASA.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 02/17/11 9:46am

PurpleJedi

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

Again, we're not talking Amtrak. Those trains don't nearly go as fast as a high speed rail go, but whatever. If Americans are too dumb to see that, they don't deserve one. I'll go to Europe and Japan then, where they don't live in the bronze age.

oh if they do not see it the way you do they must be dumb.

I would rather say..."if they don't see past their political allegiance for the improvement of society, then they must be dumb."

Come on now...we're supposed to be the freakin' leaders of the free world (European Orgers, please bite your tongue for the sake of argument!)...and our infrastructure is quickly falling behind the rest of the First World.

Why can't you take a 300mph train ride from Orlando to Miami? I would think that a state that depends on tourism as their main source of income would try to alleviate those horrifically long drives that prevent, me for example, from visiting Miami or Tampa when I'm in Orlando.

shrug

...but if Bush had proposed this, I'm certain the Rep's would be ALL FOR IT.

By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 02/17/11 11:29am

rudedog

avatar

PurpleJedi said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

oh if they do not see it the way you do they must be dumb.

I would rather say..."if they don't see past their political allegiance for the improvement of society, then they must be dumb."

Come on now...we're supposed to be the freakin' leaders of the free world (European Orgers, please bite your tongue for the sake of argument!)...and our infrastructure is quickly falling behind the rest of the First World.

Why can't you take a 300mph train ride from Orlando to Miami? I would think that a state that depends on tourism as their main source of income would try to alleviate those horrifically long drives that prevent, me for example, from visiting Miami or Tampa when I'm in Orlando.

shrug

...but if Bush had proposed this, I'm certain the Rep's would be ALL FOR IT.

What it comes down to is 'gov spending' which conservatives hate (to put it mildly). They see the short term, same with healthcare, yes its spending money and it's a lot, but the added revenue to states, added jobs and businesses to the private sector will be a huge boost to the economy and pay off state and fed deficits. Its the long term, the right isn't willing to see. This is where tax money should go towards, not wars in other countries. That's the difference between the right and left in this country.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 02/17/11 5:31pm

DarlingDiana

rudedog said:

All your evidence and ReasonTV is PURE speculation, there are only assumptions and opinions based on 'what ifs'. What if the sky fell? No hardcore facts, my post had them. Feel free to ignore them, they are there none the less. The facts are, the high speed rail will more than pay for itself and its called 'progress' not leaving everything the same like you want.

"Facts do not speak for themselves. They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theories or visions are mere isolated curiosities." - Thomas Sowell

That is the fundamental flaw in left-wing thinking and it is illustrate every time an illiberal harps on about "the facts". Facts are not the bottom line. You have to apply logic and reason to them. A perfect example is x number of jobs being shipped overseas. You can repeat that fact as much you like and it'll anger a lot of people who hear. But intelligent people will ask "yeah but how many jobs are being created here by foreign companies?". Illiberals don't think that way. They don't think beyond step one, they don't apply reason and logic, they just hear a fact and that represents the truth to them.

It is not a fact that high speed rail will more than pay for itself. That's absurd. What other government spending program pays for itself? Medicare was supposed to cost $12 billion, it now costs ten times that. What your citing is a claim. Whoever you got that figure from is making a claim, he's claiming that high speed rail will pay for itself. He doesn't know that. How can he? It hasn't been built yet. It's not in operation. At this point he can only guess and speculate that it will pay for itself. So I don't know who came up with the numbers you're referencing but if it was Obama or Biden or any other politician, then of course they would lowball the costs. How are they going to get support for something that they admit could cost more than they estimate? They can't be honest about it. That's politics.

Furthermore, these things don't usually pay for themselves. So what makes you think Obama's high speed rail will be any different? Every other high speed rail around the world requires lots of ongoing government funding every year. It's never ending. What makes Obama's high speed rail any different? You are being naive, believing exactly what the politicians who are proposing the high speed rail are telling you about it. You have to be a little bit skeptical about these things. Skepticism is rational. Though has to be rooted in reason and logic. Not blind trust.

And I don't want things to "stay the same", you have no idea. I'm more progressive (in terms of wanting things to change and being forward-thinking) than anyone around here. I'm not the one championing one of the oldest forms of mass transport, the train.

[Edited 2/17/11 17:48pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 02/17/11 5:46pm

DarlingDiana

rudedog said:

NoVideo said:

Here is a nice summary of the Teabagger Governor's BS on this issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/17/945778/-Rick-Scotts-7-Biggest-LIES-on-RAIL-%28Before-Killing-It%29

What a tool and a fool he is. California or another state will happily take the federal $$$, and the increase in jobs and revenue that will come with the completed project.

Republicans choose politics over progress every time! To them, everything is just 'a pipe dream'. Ya, so was NASA.

and so is Virgin Galactic apparently

The fact that you bring up NASA as the best example of government achieving real progress, a moonwalk than happened decades ago, shows just how much you aren't a real progressive at all. Like most people who call themselves "liberals" or "progressives" in America today, you are really neither. NASA is an old government program that was successful for a little while but lately has been about failure and disaster, exploding rockets, ballooning costs etc.

The future now is in private space exploration, like what's being done by Virgin Galactic. Taking ordinary people, not astronauts, but you and I into space. That's something NASA has never been able to achieve and never would think to achieve. What would be NASA's incentive for taking people into space? But a private company can sell tickets, make a profit, and in return you and I get the opportunity to see things that up until now only trained astronauts have witnessed. It's incredible and it's being done for profit, that evil profit.

NASA is even investing in Virgin Galactic. They know where the future of space travel is. NASA is trained astronauts going into space while you and I watch on TV. Private enterprise is you and I actually going into space and seeing it for ourselves. It's exciting, it's inspirational. You are living in the past. The future is in private enterprise. It used to be, because of limitations due to technology and stuff like that, that there were certain things that only government could do. That's not the case anymore. Military used to be the one thing that even fundamentalist free market people conceded that only the government could do. That's not even true anymore. Big government is so old school. Get with the times. Move forward.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 02/17/11 5:56pm

NoVideo

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

rudedog said:

All your evidence and ReasonTV is PURE speculation, there are only assumptions and opinions based on 'what ifs'. What if the sky fell? No hardcore facts, my post had them. Feel free to ignore them, they are there none the less. The facts are, the high speed rail will more than pay for itself and its called 'progress' not leaving everything the same like you want.

"Facts do not speak for themselves. They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theories or visions are mere isolated curiosities." - Thomas Sowell

That is the fundamental flaw in left-wing thinking and it is illustrate every time an illiberal harps on about "the facts". Facts are not the bottom line. You have to apply logic and reason to them. A perfect example is x number of jobs being shipped overseas. You can repeat that fact as much you like and it'll anger a lot of people who hear. But intelligent people will ask "yeah but how many jobs are being created here by foreign companies?". Illiberals don't think that way. They don't think beyond step one, they don't apply reason and logic, they just hear a fact and that represents the truth to them.

It is not a fact that high speed rail will more than pay for itself. That's absurd. What other government spending program pays for itself? Medicare was supposed to cost $12 billion, it now costs ten times that. What your citing is a claim. Whoever you got that figure from is making a claim, he's claiming that high speed rail will pay for itself. He doesn't know that. How can he? It hasn't been built yet. It's not in operation. At this point he can only guess and speculate that it will pay for itself. So I don't know who came up with the numbers you're referencing but if it was Obama or Biden or any other politician, then of course they would lowball the costs. How are they going to get support for something that they admit could cost more than they estimate? They can't be honest about it. That's politics.

Furthermore, these things don't usually pay for themselves. So what makes you think Obama's high speed rail will be any different? Every other high speed rail around the world requires lots of ongoing government funding every year. It's never ending. What makes Obama's high speed rail any different? You are being naive, believing exactly what the politicians who are proposing the high speed rail are telling you about it. You have to be a little bit skeptical about these things. Skepticism is rational. Though has to be rooted in reason and logic. Not blind trust.

And I don't want things to "stay the same", you have no idea. I'm more progressive (in terms of wanting things to change and being forward-thinking) than anyone around here. I'm not the one championing one of the oldest forms of mass transport, the train.

[Edited 2/17/11 17:48pm]

Every time you post, you make it more evident that you have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about. lol Maybe you should actually read about the rail project and some of the details behind it, and the funding and private international companies involved. Maybe you should heed the words of all of the Republicans in Florida who are aghast at the Teabagger Governor's decision.

Between the Wisconsin and Florida fiascos, hopefully reasonable Americans are finally seeing what Teabagger rule means for the country.

* * *

Prince's Classic Finally Expanded
The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue

http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 02/17/11 6:07pm

babynoz

Unfortunately Florida is a state where a lot of the population is still quite backward.

Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 02/17/11 7:14pm

DarlingDiana

NoVideo said:

Every time you post, you make it more evident that you have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about. lol Maybe you should actually read about the rail project and some of the details behind it, and the funding and private international companies involved. Maybe you should heed the words of all of the Republicans in Florida who are aghast at the Teabagger Governor's decision.

I've read enough about the high speed rail proposal to know it will cost a lot more than you think, it will never make money unless they sell it off and it wont do a whole lot to reduce carbon emissions. I'm not even totally against the high speed rail. It's one of the government's better ideas actually. I'm just being a contrarian for the purpose of getting you guys to think a little deeper about this. Don't take the government's estimated costs as set in stone. Think, just a little bit, about it. Of course it wont "more than pay for itself". That's absurd and so naive. Shouldn't the government be spending less money right now instead of coming up with new ways to spend money they don't have?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 02/18/11 6:09am

PurpleJedi

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

NoVideo said:

Every time you post, you make it more evident that you have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about. lol Maybe you should actually read about the rail project and some of the details behind it, and the funding and private international companies involved. Maybe you should heed the words of all of the Republicans in Florida who are aghast at the Teabagger Governor's decision.

I've read enough about the high speed rail proposal to know it will cost a lot more than you think, it will never make money unless they sell it off and it wont do a whole lot to reduce carbon emissions. I'm not even totally against the high speed rail. It's one of the government's better ideas actually. I'm just being a contrarian for the purpose of getting you guys to think a little deeper about this. Don't take the government's estimated costs as set in stone. Think, just a little bit, about it. Of course it wont "more than pay for itself". That's absurd and so naive. Shouldn't the government be spending less money right now instead of coming up with new ways to spend money they don't have?

OK...so then if we weren't in a recession...you'd be FOR it???

By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 02/18/11 6:11am

Heiress

avatar

I love trains. I'd love to be in FL and not deal with driving.

I know it's not aurora borealis... that makes the sky this way.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 02/18/11 6:15am

DarlingDiana

PurpleJedi said:

DarlingDiana said:

I've read enough about the high speed rail proposal to know it will cost a lot more than you think, it will never make money unless they sell it off and it wont do a whole lot to reduce carbon emissions. I'm not even totally against the high speed rail. It's one of the government's better ideas actually. I'm just being a contrarian for the purpose of getting you guys to think a little deeper about this. Don't take the government's estimated costs as set in stone. Think, just a little bit, about it. Of course it wont "more than pay for itself". That's absurd and so naive. Shouldn't the government be spending less money right now instead of coming up with new ways to spend money they don't have?

OK...so then if we weren't in a recession...you'd be FOR it???

Yes. If there was money in the budget for it and it paid for itself, then I think it would be a great idea. It's not the fact that we're in a recession but that we're in debt. Sort out the budget first.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 02/18/11 6:16am

NoVideo

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

NoVideo said:

Every time you post, you make it more evident that you have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about. lol Maybe you should actually read about the rail project and some of the details behind it, and the funding and private international companies involved. Maybe you should heed the words of all of the Republicans in Florida who are aghast at the Teabagger Governor's decision.

I've read enough about the high speed rail proposal to know it will cost a lot more than you think, it will never make money unless they sell it off and it wont do a whole lot to reduce carbon emissions. I'm not even totally against the high speed rail. It's one of the government's better ideas actually. I'm just being a contrarian for the purpose of getting you guys to think a little deeper about this. Don't take the government's estimated costs as set in stone. Think, just a little bit, about it. Of course it wont "more than pay for itself". That's absurd and so naive. Shouldn't the government be spending less money right now instead of coming up with new ways to spend money they don't have?

Again, you show you don't know anything about this project. Perhaps you should do some research and then, when you understand some facts about this project, come back and try and discuss it intelligently.

* * *

Prince's Classic Finally Expanded
The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue

http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 02/18/11 6:19am

DarlingDiana

NoVideo said:

DarlingDiana said:

I've read enough about the high speed rail proposal to know it will cost a lot more than you think, it will never make money unless they sell it off and it wont do a whole lot to reduce carbon emissions. I'm not even totally against the high speed rail. It's one of the government's better ideas actually. I'm just being a contrarian for the purpose of getting you guys to think a little deeper about this. Don't take the government's estimated costs as set in stone. Think, just a little bit, about it. Of course it wont "more than pay for itself". That's absurd and so naive. Shouldn't the government be spending less money right now instead of coming up with new ways to spend money they don't have?

Again, you show you don't know anything about this project. Perhaps you should do some research and then, when you understand some facts about this project, come back and try and discuss it intelligently.

I don't trust the projections. Can I make that any more clear for you? Maybe you should go away and study the projected costs versus real costs of big government spending programs in the past. I support the project by the way (kinda), I just don't support it right now. Infrastructure is one thing the government can do if it wants. I'm a fan of privatized highways and tunnels, and I would hope that this high speed rail would be privatized or at least partly privatized too. But infrastructure and public transport in general are things I'm OK with the government trying to do.

[Edited 2/18/11 6:25am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 02/18/11 6:26am

NoVideo

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

NoVideo said:

Again, you show you don't know anything about this project. Perhaps you should do some research and then, when you understand some facts about this project, come back and try and discuss it intelligently.

I don't trust the projections. Can I make that any more clear for you? Maybe you should go away and study the projected costs versus real costs of big government spending programs in the past.

lol YOU, in your infinite wisdom and understanding of the economics of this particular situation, don't trust the projections. lol

Okay well you've totally convinced me. Good thing there is an expert here to set everyone straight.

Errr, on second thought, maybe we should heed the words of folks who actually know what the hell they are talking about.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1152035.ece

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/17/MEOPINO1-scott-is-very-wrong-on-rail/news-opinion-editorials/


Just 2 of the many editorials in Florida newspapers slamming Gov. Teabagger for his short-sightedness and idiocy.

A bipartisan group is trying to figure out a way to get the project moving by bypassing the governor. You know - - folks actually involved with the project, and who are familiar with the numbers - including prominent lawmakers from both parties.

But *you* don't trust the projections. lol Well, you should have just said so, and saved all these folks the effort!

* * *

Prince's Classic Finally Expanded
The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue

http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 02/18/11 6:31am

DarlingDiana

NoVideo said:

DarlingDiana said:

I don't trust the projections. Can I make that any more clear for you? Maybe you should go away and study the projected costs versus real costs of big government spending programs in the past.

lol YOU, in your infinite wisdom and understanding of the economics of this particular situation, don't trust the projections. lol

Yeah, it wasn't anyone important, anyone that would be in the know, who said the project could cost upwards of $500 billion. Just the Transport Secretary. It's actually going to $556 billion (including upgrading road and stuff so that the high speed rail system works with the roads system and everything as one big fluid transport network) according to Obama's budget. So I'm sorry if I don't believe the figures that have been referenced in this thread...

As for modernizing roads and highways (speaking of California), according to the 2009 California Transportation Commission report, it would costUS$6 billion annually year over 10 years to maintain existing roads in California, which is more than the estimated cost of the entire project here, which is US$43 billion. I know, strange huh?! ReasonTV didn't say that either!

[Edited 2/18/11 6:34am]

[Edited 2/18/11 6:37am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 02/18/11 6:58am

13cjk13

avatar

NoVideo said:

DarlingDiana said:

I've read enough about the high speed rail proposal to know it will cost a lot more than you think, it will never make money unless they sell it off and it wont do a whole lot to reduce carbon emissions. I'm not even totally against the high speed rail. It's one of the government's better ideas actually. I'm just being a contrarian for the purpose of getting you guys to think a little deeper about this. Don't take the government's estimated costs as set in stone. Think, just a little bit, about it. Of course it wont "more than pay for itself". That's absurd and so naive. Shouldn't the government be spending less money right now instead of coming up with new ways to spend money they don't have?

Again, you show you don't know anything about this project. Perhaps you should do some research and then, when you understand some facts about this project, come back and try and discuss it intelligently.

EVERYTHING in life is about COST, COST, COST and PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT. Dont you get it?

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"It is in fact #TRUTH.Mocha ObsidianˈN(y)o͞obēən Cocoa Noir...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 02/18/11 7:06am

babynoz

NoVideo said:

DarlingDiana said:

I don't trust the projections. Can I make that any more clear for you? Maybe you should go away and study the projected costs versus real costs of big government spending programs in the past.

lol YOU, in your infinite wisdom and understanding of the economics of this particular situation, don't trust the projections. lol

Okay well you've totally convinced me. Good thing there is an expert here to set everyone straight.

Errr, on second thought, maybe we should heed the words of folks who actually know what the hell they are talking about.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1152035.ece

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/17/MEOPINO1-scott-is-very-wrong-on-rail/news-opinion-editorials/


Just 2 of the many editorials in Florida newspapers slamming Gov. Teabagger for his short-sightedness and idiocy.

A bipartisan group is trying to figure out a way to get the project moving by bypassing the governor. You know - - folks actually involved with the project, and who are familiar with the numbers - including prominent lawmakers from both parties.

But *you* don't trust the projections. lol Well, you should have just said so, and saved all these folks the effort!

True, it was on the news yesterday. Sadly I have to come here to see any discussion about the issue because the average Floridian is clueless...as usual.

Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 02/18/11 1:36pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Very few people have ever ridden on a train, so how does anyone know that Americans don't like trains? We are talking about high speed trains, not slow ones.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 02/18/11 1:52pm

rudedog

avatar

The sad part is that Dems are the only progressive ones that want to IMPROVE America's long ignored failing infrastructure. Republicans or Conservatives never come up with counter proposals, they just say NO, ITS TOO EXPENSIVE. We'll never get anything out of it! But we need it, when it comes to civilized countries, we are behind on healthcare, education and infrastructure to name a few. How is that? When we are one of the richest countries in the world, yet they have all of these things and work to improve them. Instead, our country just sits back and says 'is fine', 'nothings wrong'. This is where our tax money SHOULD go to, we're all affected by America's infrastructure.

Comparing the high speed rail to something like medicare is asinine. Two completly different animals. Medicare is not meant for profit but for healthcare and well being of the elderly. The high speed rail will be used by ppl and will compensate for the extreme congestion on highways and airports. Revenue from riders will pay for maintenance and upgrades as well as give business a huge boost.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 02/18/11 1:53pm

rudedog

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Very few people have ever ridden on a train, so how does anyone know that Americans don't like trains? We are talking about high speed trains, not slow ones.

Exactly, I've ridden one ONCE in my life. They are slow and unorganized.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Florida says no to High Speed Rail