HELLBLAZER
Did you hear your hero Michele Bachmann wants to ban porn? You know, like it is in China?
You're beginning to sound more desperate. Tell your boss Soros to give you a bigger check, cause this really can't be worth it.
Why do we have one of the WORST Railway systems in the world?
- Thread starter avatar33
- Start date
You're beginning to sound more desperate. Tell your boss Soros to give you a bigger check, cause this really can't be worth it.
George Soros? The billionaire who criticizes China and who is good friends with your other hero, Donald Trump?
(O_o)
H̨̼̩͐̑͆̀̚&
China now spends about $100 billion a year on creating high speed rail. The US has started to spend around $3 billion a year.
Different countries have different priorities, lol
sad depressing and pathetic :C
We should be spending that $ on Education and Science.
What?!? But then how would the defense manufacture and security sector corporations all land their ultra-lucrative contracts off the US government?
In fact, you're asking quite a lot of ANY corporation just to let americans be educated any more than they are... Then ppl here might stop obeying so much and running up so much debt for them!
I'm glad California is still moving forward with our high speed rail. I'll probably die before it ever becomes a reality, but it is nice to see California leading the way in this regard. They've already started work up in the bay transit areas and some central cal areas in preparation.
Southern California is a nightmare to drive around in for the most part IMO, they need this bad.
Southern California is a nightmare to drive around in for the most part IMO, they need this bad.
Freight... That's the thing... Public transportation, including rail roads is waaay underdeveloped, even comparing to some third world countries. As far as I know, Detroit auto industry, back when it was powerful, did all it could to prevent having a good public transportation system in the US.
Why are stupid people so obsessed with fast trains? It makes me think that Ayn Rand was more right than we could ever have expected.
^ Ha, as opposed to the geniuses who managed to run up a 14 trillion dollar debt because they were so obsessed with spending on all those other things?
Or the brain wizards obsessed with getting tougher on drugs, resulting in $70 billion a year on prisons?
Or the brain wizards obsessed with getting tougher on drugs, resulting in $70 billion a year on prisons?
What a limited view. Like I said. If not US then who? How about we pull out of Korea? Maybe if we were not in Cuba then the Soviets wouldv'e eventually put their missiles there and the Cold War would still be on? How about we pull out of Europe when the Warsaw pact was strong?
Do you understand how fast an army can plow through a country before the US can get there to help?
Grow up.
Now who is guilty of the Red Herring. My point was that 700 million is less than the economic cost of 1 attack. And if you do not think the massive lowering of interest rates to keep the economy going to did not start the housing boom which then led to the housing crisis then you once again are not paying attention.
Yes it is. The point was that at least the military has a dual purpose. Rail is not used. The people do not want rail. They want better freeways. Better flight options. Rail is archaic unless you are carrying freight which is inefficient to fly.
As testimonials earlier in this thread state. Rail is not that great in th countries that have it.
By the way, as a good liberal, why do you want everyone working in concentrated cities? Why not spend all the rail money on telecommuting technology and dispersed manufacturing. There is no reason everyone needs to work in a dense area. That is old urban economic thinking. Everything can be centralized in zones where you live near work etc. Now there is no need to pile everyone into a rail and get them into cities like NY or Tokyo.
Testimonials above seem to say differently. Plus, if we had more and more efficient highways, auto travel would be faster. Put that into your poll. $2 billion for rail or better freeways. You will never poll that because you know the answer. At least in Southern CA.
By the way, the proposed high speed rail. Where does it go in CA? Is it along a nice fault line? I guess they are good with Rail and Earthquakes in Japan so I should not worry eh? But a Southwest flight is a mere $39. How much for rail?
You are guilty of the Red Herring above also. My point was that NPR & Rail are not worth funding. The war is another argument. I do not agree with the wars either. But I still do not agree with Rail and NPR.
Your statement that NPR is 85% private funded is inaccurate. If I have to endure everyone telling me that Oil Companies are subsidized because the government gives them leases then you should understand that no on, NO ONE, is contributing to NPR without the tax break. And all of those contributions, many are from public funds once removed. Such as university grants.
NPR is bullshit. A great idea to advance culture that was taken over by ideology and has turned into overall propaganda.
If there was a huge demand for it, it would happen. Nobody wants to take a train anywhere though.
Aren't the "high speed rails" the politicians keep talking about, the kind that only go 65 mph?
Also, would these trains go from point A to B or would they stop at every train station along the way?
I made the mistake of going to NYC one time on the train, because I figured it would be faster than driving (and wouldn't have to worry about traffic and parking). It took 4 hours because the train stops at every single town along the way.
Driving would have taken less than an hour, the time I would have saved from sitting on the train would have more than compensated for the trouble of finding parking and whatever traffic I got into.
Also not all airports have insane security lines and long waits. Last time I went to Vegas, we flew from Stewart to Detroit, and then to Vegas. There was no line at Stewart (small airport), and really the only thing that slowed us down was the layover in Detroit. If it were a direct flight, would have been pretty quick.
I would love to see a train match that, but I doubt it would happen.
The main incentive for railways and upgrading them would be for commercial shipping, but since Semi-trucks have that cornered, its more efficient to use Trucking. When gas gets too expensive, our railway system will definitely improve in leaps and bounds. Assuming we let private companies do it. :1bluewinky:
Aren't the "high speed rails" the politicians keep talking about, the kind that only go 65 mph?
Also, would these trains go from point A to B or would they stop at every train station along the way?
I made the mistake of going to NYC one time on the train, because I figured it would be faster than driving (and wouldn't have to worry about traffic and parking). It took 4 hours because the train stops at every single town along the way.
Driving would have taken less than an hour, the time I would have saved from sitting on the train would have more than compensated for the trouble of finding parking and whatever traffic I got into.
Also not all airports have insane security lines and long waits. Last time I went to Vegas, we flew from Stewart to Detroit, and then to Vegas. There was no line at Stewart (small airport), and really the only thing that slowed us down was the layover in Detroit. If it were a direct flight, would have been pretty quick.
I would love to see a train match that, but I doubt it would happen.
The main incentive for railways and upgrading them would be for commercial shipping, but since Semi-trucks have that cornered, its more efficient to use Trucking. When gas gets too expensive, our railway system will definitely improve in leaps and bounds. Assuming we let private companies do it. :1bluewinky:
Can you not see what you are saying is completely illogical and irrational.
Lets put it this way, the chance of you dying in a car crash is much much much much much higher than dying in a plane crash, taking frequency of travel into account.
Also, think of it this way, of all of those people who have had car crashes and subsequently died, how many do you think didn't die straight away and suffered in agony. Now think about the same for planes. With planes chances are that you will die instantly as well.
There is no logic in being afraid of air travel, it is an irrational fear that people try to rationalize. In fact statistically you are actually safer in a plane than you are staying at home.
in Japan at the moment, love the train system. Would be good for some cities in America and Canada but I don't see it for long distance travel. Building the tracks would be super expensive. Ontario alone is bigger than all of japan.
You obviously never tried a bullet train. Of course no one wants to take Amtrak trains, they're slow as fuck and they stop everywhere. The purpose of bullet trains is to connect major hubs. (think NYC to Washington DC straight). No stop in small country-ass towns, that's not the point. A bullet train improves business relationships and tourism between cities. It makes the ride more enjoyable, more comfortable (you can barely feel the friction on such trains) and like I said before, HS train stations are usually always located downtown.
A few of you would do well to read this:
Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises - - Mises Institute
It was written long ago, but remains true (economic law is funny that way).
Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises - - Mises Institute
It was written long ago, but remains true (economic law is funny that way).
Good read. Almost too much logic for my brain, having been subjected to a public school education.
Someone's been watching too many movies. Why is the US obligated to act as world police?
I was directly addressing this point. Part of the 700 million is being spent in a way that provokes attacks. This is according to the terrorists themselves. They make it clear why they would rather attack the US than Hong Kong or Sweden.
What does that have to do with anything in here?
There are high speed rail lines now making profits in Europe. Also, the Chinese would not pour that kind of money into it if they weren't sure that it had a strategic purpose.
Anyways, rail is just one option that part of the military budget could be spent on. Ron Paul has said he would rather see some of the money go to health care, for example.
Are Ron and Rand Paul also good liberals? How about Gary Johnson?
"Congress and the President can, next week, mandate immediate spending reductions of $300 billion. If they need help figuring out how to do that, I’m available. One place to start might be the wars and nation-building we don’t need to be fighting or doing."
Gary Johnson sends Washington a Jobs Plan — On a Postcard
Sounds like it would take some communist style planning to achieve this.
I haven't said NPR or rail should be publicly funded. The main question was why do we not have better rail. The answer is not because we are such conservative spenders. The military budget is a prime example of that.
30% of their funding is from sponsors (i.e. advertising), and I doubt many people who donate $20 a year are remembering to declare it on their taxes.
Some of your talking points and obsession with George Soros is typical Glen Beck style propaganda, so you might be the pot calling the kettle black here as far as news sources go.
Not watching movies. Do you remember the cold war scenarios? Have you seen the projections for Korea?
They attack the US because of the Western culture hurts their culture. They do not like many things about us, including promiscuity.
I am sorry we have bases in misc places. But it is easier to prevent than to clean up afterward - remember Kuwait? (though I know we proked it via April Glaspie, but that is a different argument for a different year)
And who are they to say where we should be. If the Saudi's want us gone, we will leave. But we are going to destroy our underground airbases when we leave. But then again the we built the Saudi's, built there refineries, then allowed them to nationalize them and break all contracts. You are right, why do we give a shit. Oh, oil. That's right. I wish we would just dril our own.
We were discussing the overall economic impact of a single Terrorist attack. $1 trillion ++
OK - rail profits in Europe. and?
Chinese want rail for freight. People too - but they do not have the freight infrastructure we have - and ours is very good. So yes it has a strategic purpose and ours is in place.
If Ron Paul is advocating spending military money on health care he is not much the libertarian that I thought he was.
Gary Johnson is a problem, as I pointed out in the Gary Johnson thread a while back. He has some disturbing info on his web site. Some of what he says is good, but other stuff, not so much. Same for Ron Paul. Either way, neither of these guys are market system capitalists if they are saying what you are.
More rhetoric from the guy that loves to link to Wikipedia logical fallacies. It does not take central planning to allow companies to form where they want. With the proper infrastructure companies will locate near workers and/or distribution hubs. It is not economically efficient for companies to locate in large cities. That is an old style way of business where you literally had to physically go from office to office to do business.
Not central planning at all. The rail advocates want people in cities. Where do you think the trains are going?
The answer is because the people do not want better rail. They want wider freeways. Poll that.
65.6% of NPR funding is not from individuals. And yes, everyone writes the donation off on their taxes. People write off underwear they give to Goodwill (Bill & Hilary Clinton) - they write off the $20 to NPR
You cannot hang Beck on me. I have listened to beck maybe 3 times in the last 12 months - and even then I turned it off because of the whining and low brow antics.
I learned about Soros when studying international commodities and the currency markets - speculator manipulation. Then kept hearing and seeing his name as the backer behind many liberal causes.
1 thing for sure... ! May be you blame it on your Railway system, but after seeing these pictures you will find yourself in a much better position.
To summarize, you don't have the worst railway system in the world.
To summarize, you don't have the worst railway system in the world.
That's why I was asking if they would go from A to B or make every stop along the way.
The fastest train I just looked up only goes 361 mph though, passenger planes travel at 550 mph.
Under those circumstances I would choose the train over a plane then. It wouldn't take much longer (a layover on a plane would lengthen the plane trip), and it would be more comfy.
So, my only issue beyond that would be whether or not they let the free market take care of it.
If we were to bet if the government could do this efficiently without hemorrhaging money, I would have to bet on the government losing money. (Oooh, I should figure out what the spread would be and start taking those bets)
Under $300 billion a year used to be considered plenty to deal with all these scenarios.
At least five of the hijackers visited strip clubs and drank alcohol. Why are they more against the US than, say, Brazil or the Netherlands?
We already do and even if the US went full bore on oil drilling, we would still need to get the majority from other countries.
You were discussing that with yourself apparently.
A quick look at the link below is enough to learn that most of the new Chinese lines are for passengers only.
High-speed rail in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
His first choice is to let the people keep the money, but his point is if they are going to take X amount of dollars from us, then some of that money would be better spent on health care.
How is it anti-market to point out that the government takes and spends too much of our money on the military? A true free market would have a military where people are free to decide exactly how much they wish to donate to that cause.
You're saying that the reasons the jobs are located where they are is because the government forces companies to locate there? I've never heard that one before.
Commuting to work is not the purpose of high speed rail. Airports were built where they were because that is where the demand was expected to be, not because there was some government plot to confine people to cities.
I provided at least one set of facts about how people feel about rail, while you are just pulling speculation out of your ass. Creating and expanding roads has been ongoing since before there were cars. It's not like the US highway system lags way behind other countries like it does in high speed rail.
So? 100% of funding for Fox News or CNN does not come from individual donations.