Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The argument is not national defense but your limited vision of what defense entails, and how it can be achieved. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean something can't exist.
And for your selectivity, the evidence is in your previous post. I would hate to reiterate your words on the subject.
Whether only military airports deserve taxpayer subsidies or not is a non-issue, considering that airports are receiving taxpayer assistance, and yet that has to be brought to light in discussions like these because people like you like to pick and choose until forced into the realities.
You don't make any sense at all. Show me where my selective subsidies are....You make claims about my writing and can't even back it up with my own words. You are being ridiculous here.
You certainly don't make any sense about airports. Plain and simple. Airports that exist for national security need taxpayer support. Airports that exist for passeneger service do not.
Having trouble understanding this? I yi yi....
At least the intelligent people here understand my writing.
I don't have any problem at all with the concept you lay out here although I think government does have a role to play in making sure the right of way exists and getting the track up and running. But if private companies can run it effectively, make a profit and the taxpayer gets a return in the form of fees for the right of way then that works for me.
I understand and I thought I made it clear the right of way is provided by the government. I could live with the trackage being provided by the government as well as the private comppany would lease the rights to the right of way and the trackage.. However, the maintenence would have to fall upon the user to be sure that they took responsiblity for the safety.
You don't make any sense at all. Show me where my selective subsidies are....You make claims about my writing and can't even back it up with my own words. You are being ridiculous here.
You certainly don't make any sense about airports. Plain and simple. Airports that exist for national security need taxpayer support. Airports that exist for passeneger service do not.
Having trouble understanding this? I yi yi....
At least the intelligent people here understand my writing.
Aah, thank you for not counting me among those who fall in your category of intelligence. Trust me, I would hate to be one of them.
Airport... national defense. Roads... national defense. Railways... not national defense.
Of course, you don't want to share what criteria you use to define "national defense". It would be questioning your intelligence?
Railroads made Chicago, and now a Chicago-rich White House wants to return the favor: remaking rail with a huge new federal investment in high-speed passenger trains.
The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.
boon·dog·gle a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation.
True high speed rail would cost one billion dollars per mile 8 billion plus one billion over 5 years isn't going to buy much.If they are going to put that into freight lines for passenger service it will only go 79 m.p.h.as mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration that tie top speeds to specific levels of track maintenance.To run at 90 m.p.h.requires higher levels of track maintenance plus special signals and train control systems...even if they started today it will take years to do....its not like going to Mac Donalds and ordering a Big Mac... two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese on a sesame seed bun...
Like many other government projects, such as the Wars all over the world, "the cost is the benefit" of projects like this. Besides building HSR leaves something left. War does not.
BTW - the government can force the sale of the property but it is paid for by the railroad company. Now if the HSR were completely owned and operated by the Feds it woulkd be a different matter.
Like many other government projects, such as the Wars all over the world, "the cost is the benefit" of projects like this. Besides building HSR leaves something left. War does not.
Aah, thank you for not counting me among those who fall in your category of intelligence. Trust me, I would hate to be one of them.
Airport... national defense. Roads... national defense. Railways... not national defense.
Of course, you don't want to share what criteria you use to define "national defense". It would be questioning your intelligence?
See you can't read. Never said RR wasn't national defense. I wrote passeneger service wasn't national defense. Learn to read and you may exhibit some intelligence.
Like many other government projects, such as the Wars all over the world, "the cost is the benefit" of projects like this. Besides building HSR leaves something left. War does not.
BTW - the government can force the sale of the property but it is paid for by the railroad company. Now if the HSR were completely owned and operated by the Feds it woulkd be a different matter.
Greg; What is AMTRAK? It loses billions per year and still takes taxpayer subsidies. The building of the right of way and the trackage can all be supplied by the government, but is should be leased out to private enterprise to run it since the government has already proved it can't do it successfully nor profitably in passenger service. I believe freight service is already profitable.
If it truly improves the economy it can be done by private organizations with private funding
You mean like the Hoover Dam or our bridges and highways
The US government spent around $49M on the Hoover Dam.
That would be around $577M today. The dam required the efforts of about 16,500 workers and took about five years to complete.
Greg; What is AMTRAK? It loses billions per year and still takes taxpayer subsidies. The building of the right of way and the trackage can all be supplied by the government, but is should be leased out to private enterprise to run it since the government has already proved it can't do it successfully nor profitably in passenger service. I believe freight service is already profitable.
Government should stay completely out of it... including right-of-way and trackage
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
