Obama's Address

[MickeyFinn]

Anybody watch this? My favorite part was some of the choices for the stimulus money.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/high.speed.trains/index.html?hpt=P1



Finally, a GOOD use of government money imo. Heck, there are only a few things that gov't should ever spend money on and infrastructure is one of them. I truly believe that airplanes are a fad of the 20th century. They are too expensive and the airports are a big money sink. Trains are where it's at!

[Kegg OBeer]

Trains are where it's at!

Wouldn't those be considered a fad of the 19th century?

[MickeyFinn]

Use of trains has only gone up over the years, for freight of course. I would bet my left testicle it will be a major source of public transportation by the end of this century. They're very energy efficient and last much longer than an airplane. Hell, look at D.C.'s metro system. they move more people per hour at a fraction of the price.


Edit- Source of public transportation over distances greater than say 50 miles :P

[]LoL[Harm]

That's pretty bad ass. I definitely like trains over planes. I rode to work in one in Seattle on a daily basis. My father still uses it (he lives south of Olympia and works in Seattle from time to time).

[Noleader]

Yay for more government owned train companies!

^ is that what we really mean to say?

I am all for trains if they can make it profitable but so far we are in debt in Amtrak because they can't. What makes government think that this will be any better then the current money hole we already invested in (mind you when we did Nixon promised it would be paid back in no time and return to private control).

[Post]

So... Are you against public transportation in general? Or just for trains?

[MickeyFinn]

I'm not sure that public transportation is necessarily something that needs to be profitable. I'd bet you they're less expensive than maintaining massive airports all over the country, going through security checks galore, and as a bonus a train will never crash into a national icon.

The feds will get a small stipend I am sure just like the district of columbia does by charging for tokens, but it'd only be to reduce the cost. Infrastructure is necessary for a growing country!

[]LoL[Harm]

I'm about to choke the next person that uses the term profit as some limiter of our abilities, as if all mans works in life need to come down to that fucking pathetic shitwaste concept.

Profit is not the damn Jesus Christ of America.

Get over profit.

I can't wait for capitalism to change into something more meaningful than the ol'mighty dollar and how we all need to bow down and worship the greenbacks.

My local fire department isn't very profitable, nor is my local public transportation, or my local city branch library. And I could give a rats ass if any of them ever are, because the elderly and poor can't always drive, I can't afford a fire engine and the staff to run it to be parked out front of my house in case it catches on fire, and I just downright like the idea of a public place where you can go and get books.

Now that I'm done ranting and frothing at the mouth. I took a week to go visit my folks down in Florida, and me and the significant other are going. To fly down there it would cost us over $600 for a one lay-over flight. I can drop that down to $400 if we take 3 lay-overs. I can drive down there for $150 in gas. I would gladly pay $300 to ride a train, hell I'd even pay the $400.

So I don't care about if it's profitable, I just want more than two damn choices, especially one that is headed in the direction of requiring me to act like I'm a scolded child in a classroom where I can't even get up from my seat that I paid $300 to sit in.

[Slicks]

Does any one on these boards who hates the concept of Profit go to work?

Why do you go to work?

Is it to make a "profit"?

You go to work to make a "profit" so you can have a nicer life right?

The same concept applies for everything. You dont have to make a profit to be successful in America. You strive to make a profit to be better in America. That is the point of profit. If your guaranteed something your not going to work harder to be better you just going to do the same thing over and over no matter what. That is why government run things never make a profit and are never as good as if a single businessman runs it.


If you hate profit so bad quit your job....get on welfare and move into government housing and sit on your front porch and watch are the really people go to work and make a profit so they can be taxed and pay for your life.



PS. that is all i am going to say in this post so flame me away for being right and you being a sheep to the progressives.

[Hollus]

Without Profit, infrastructure fails. Without profit, there is no revenue to support federally funded anything. Without profit, there is no defense, offense, or sustainability in a country.

Capitalism won't change. Socialism will take over.

[Post]

"That is why government run things never make a profit and are never as good as if a single businessman runs it."

Like all the stuff he said? You know, firemen, policemen, libraries, schools, etc? Heck, why stop there? Why not defense? Wow, I never took you as someone against the military; yet here you are, inferring it's a task better run privately.

Look, here is the simple truth that everyone on these boards agrees with: there are some things necessary in society that shouldn't be measured by profit as to its success. Whether its defense, schools, making sure we have clean drinking water, public transportation, whatever.

If one feels that the line should be drawn before or after this train program, that's where the debate lies. But just as it's just plain foolish to demonize profit, it's equally as arrogant to think that it answers everything.

[Hollus]

Firemen, Police, and Most libraries are local/county/city government..and most of them are borderline broke. Layoffs are massive. So instead of investing that money in some mass transit, wouldn't it be better to give the states the money so they can distribute that to the needed entities?

And public schools....I can honestly say the private ones are much better than government education, so I'll just consider that a typo.


Profit doesn't fix everything, but it is a motivation to do a job better. When government gets involved, people have a tendency to get lazy and let the tax payers fix their problems.

[Post]

"Firemen, Police, and Most libraries are local/county/city government..and most of them are borderline broke. Layoffs are massive. So instead of investing that money in some mass transit, wouldn't it be better to give the states the money so they can distribute that to the needed entities?"

Let's get past the "if it doesn't intend to make a profit then it shouldn't be done" taboo first. Then we'll go into its merits.

"And public schools....I can honestly say the private ones are much better than government education, so I'll just consider that a typo."

And if/when the train program rolls out, private jets will still be much better. So by that logic, we should eliminate public schools altogether? My point wasn't that it was the best. My point was that it was a necessity of running a civil society.

"Profit doesn't fix everything, but it is a motivation to do a job better. When government gets involved, people have a tendency to get lazy and let the tax payers fix their problems."

Let's make it clear: doing a job better is one of the many possible (even probable) side effects of the desire for profit. No one disagrees with that. The disagreement is things like when profit doesn't mean better (monopoly and price gouging laws), or when it's a necessity for civil society to flourish even if there isn't money to be made (firemen, clean drinking water, public transportation and health care).

If you agree that things like clean drinking water and firemen are necessities and good things for civil society, then you can't balk at this train program under the premise that not making a profit is inherently bad. You have to show that it isn't close-to-necessity levels of benefit for society.

How close? Well, there's the debate. Which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from simply debating the merits of profit.

[MickeyFinn]

Public transportation, police, fire, and many other entities have a million ways of reducing cost which absolutely can be considered similarly to profit. Having faster, more efficient, and higher volume transportation systems helps cities to grow, reduce unemployment (yes the bus is proven to help with that), and more importantly, cost less to ship everything in this country. Your milk will be two cents cheaper. The sulfuric acid (the most transported good in the United States) will be cheaper. The wear and tear on our shitty asphalt roads will be less! Fewer roads will have to go up because semis aren't clogging city arterials, etc etc.


Edit- And as a firefighter, there's no such thing as layoffs. Volunteer departments maybe, but firefighters don't lose their job in a municipality unless they shoot someone in the face. Sometimes not even then! The cost of police/fire is literally a drop in the bucket compared to the true cash cows like medicare. More than half of ALL tax dollars go to them. the department of transportation (yes firefighters are DoT employees) gets about 60 billion a year federally compared to social security's 800 billion. That covers all DoT spending. Gimme a break about libraries being the reason we're drowning. It's keeping old people on the teet that ruins this country.

[Hollus]

The wear and tear on our shitty asphalt roads will be less! Fewer roads will have to go up because semis aren't clogging city arterials, etc etc.


I'd like to see them pull a train into my loading dock so I can get my goods off of it...

[]LoL[Harm]

I do not want to and will try not to demonize profit, but I hold it for what it is, not as some golden calf I'm supposed bow down and worship. Because when something is first proposed, whether by the private industry, or by the government, the first thought I have never has to do with profit, and has everything to do with how it will impact the world I live in. I'm glad Post brought it up, but the military is truthfully the largest anti-profit beast in this country. Our two wars are nearing a trillion dollars in expenditures since 2001, what kind of ROI do you think we've been getting on that investment?

And profit is not a the sole reason man does things, and the greatest achievements by mankind had nothing at all to do with profit. When we discovered mathematics, the basic nature of our universe, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the creation of an atomic weapon, none of these things were driven by profit. The best motivator, the best innovator in mankind is its desire to make a mark on the world by overcoming a challenge that is either born of necessity or from personal drive.

The major accomplishments of capitalism of today come down to making things that are no longer necessarily better than their competitors but are better marketed, and to make them cheaper to produce which is not to aid in the cheapening of the product for the consumer, but to increase sales revenue. It is now about litigation, abusing pattens and copyrights and consolidation of your market into larger and larger conglomerates, in hopes of eliminating competition, which in itself is one of the things that actually improves capitalism. The way we use capitalism has turned it into a cannibal.

[Noleader]

Nice to see other people getting involved in the topic. Was getting stale when it was just Post and I.

Firstly as far as profits go I will have to agree with Slicks and Hollus, but I would like to add one thing. Profit is also a great indicator as to how capital should be allocated. In the private sector we seldom see useless inventions/services waste a lot of capital because the profit aspects of business tell us if there is a true demand for it.

When ever I hear something first proposed in the private sector my thoughts on it normally go along the lines of 'neat I hope they can make it work' if I like it, and 'that is stupid' if I don't. Profit does not really play a role in it for me since I am not planning to nor making any investment in their project. Now when the government plans something my first thought is profit because lets face it... we are flat broke and are planning on opening new credit cards (debt limit vote today).

Yes in a perfect world we should all be able to do what we want without regard to profit. In that same perfect world everyone would work just as hard at what they do. The fact of the matter we do not live in such a world and human nature requires that there be motivating factors to make the majority of people reach for their full potential; Capitialism does that better then any other system.

One thing I see a lot of people mistaking is Crony Capitalism for Capitalism. Lots of well off business men/women go to Washington and worship at the alter of goverment for a while and get the rules changed to make it harder for others to gain entry into the market place. Free entry is one of the pillers of Capitalism and we have seen it eroded over the course of the last century. When the government passes acts like Sarbanes-Oxley that make it almost impossible for a small business to go public and raise capital it almost promises that compeition fill dry up. Government is the problem right now in Capitalism not the players (though they do share blame for abusing their power to influence goverment).

As for the military, yes it is a anti-profit beast and that is because our leadership has this stupid idea that we should be empire building and policing the world. We could cut our military budget by huge amounts if we minded our own business and only used our force in direct defense of our nation. The problem is (and I don't think this applies to you Harm) a lot of people that raise the military budget issue also are the same people that claim we need to stop the genocide in Sudan or take part in UN peacekeeping missions. They use the budget issue has a pawn to argue support for their projects while at the same time would be unwilling to truly address our foreign policy if they had a chance to.

Back to the issue at hand though. If there was a real demand for this rail system why then has no one else but government decided to construct it? This rail system thing is nothing more then a political ploy so Obama can claim he is putting people to work and so he can say 'Look how the Recovery Act is rebuilding America's infastructure.' If we have to use the money why not use it repair or replace all the decaying infastructure that is used daily by a large volume of people... or do we just like to see bridges fall?

[Hollus]

I just cringe everytime the gov'ment gets involved in business period. It has never had a good ending.

At&t & Bell in the 80's was a big indication of that.
Amtrak has not improved since the government involvement.
The two american Car companies (GM & Chrysler) that took bail out money are sold to foreign companies or still floundering while the one that didn't take the money (Ford) is turning profit and increasing the value of it's shares.

I would consider minimum wage increases (and mw in general) a horrible concept of government involvement in business. You increase minimum wage, Joe Bottomofthetotempole now makes more money, while somebody that's been there for several years is making his standard. Companies will increase the cost of their goods to cover the new compensation, while most of the populace that wasn't affected by the increase has to pay for it. It's covered over re-distribution....

Sorry...bit of a skew there...

If a business is going to fail, let it fail. There will be somebody to come a long to do it to succeed eventually.

The comments of the questionability of the methods of gain for business applies to governent as well. In fact, I'd say they are even more corrupt than the big corps.

That's why I balk at gov't involvement in much of anything that is previously private.

[Post]

Advocating pure capitalism still ignores the fact that there are things that are both necessary in civil society and do not make a profit. Sure we should shrink the military - but get rid of it altogether? You ask:

"If there was a real demand for this rail system why then has no one else but government decided to construct it?"

As if that is a requirement - not just a good thing, but a requirement. If that were the case, then EVERYTHING has to fall under that. If that was made a fill-in-the-blank question:

If there was a real demand for ____________ why then has no one else but government decided to put money towards it?

Do you honestly feel that NOTHING could fill that blank? Military (as in, NO military, not just smaller military)? Policemen? The very functions of government are things that wouldn't make a profit. To advocate things shouldn't be done if they don't make a profit as an absolute, is to advocate no government at all. Not smaller government, no government at all.

[Noleader]

Advocating pure capitalism still ignores the fact that there are things that are both necessary in civil society and do not make a profit. Sure we should shrink the military - but get rid of it altogether? You ask:

"If there was a real demand for this rail system why then has no one else but government decided to construct it?"

As if that is a requirement - not just a good thing, but a requirement. If that were the case, then EVERYTHING has to fall under that. If that was made a fill-in-the-blank question:

If there was a real demand for ____________ why then has no one else but government decided to put money towards it?

Do you honestly feel that NOTHING could fill that blank? Military (as in, NO military, not just smaller military)? Policemen? The very functions of government are things that wouldn't make a profit. To advocate things shouldn't be done if they don't make a profit as an absolute, is to advocate no government at all. Not smaller government, no government at all.

Your statement above would be like me claiming because you/some like the railroad idea they must be for complete and total takeover of all private operations by the government.

Debating like that gets no were quick, all one is trying to do is deflect from the actual debate, because they choose not to address the point in the context it was intended... for what I would assume is due to no meaningful rebuttal.

[Hollus]

That's extremist and not what we're saying at all Post.

Let it be understood that there are some things that the governent should handle. Security, public service to a degree, education as far as funding but not influencing, etc, etc, etc...

However, there are somethings that they should just stay out of.

I can flip it on you and say "Well, why don't we just let the governent run everything?" By your statements, if somebody else isn't doing it, the government should be.

You tend to lend arguement to socialist/communist and a totalarianism/matriarcal society.

[Post]

"That's extremist and not what we're saying at all Post."

But that's the deal with you and Noleader's arguments. You're acting as if profit is an end-all indicator, when it isn't. I don't know the details of the train program, but if it helped ween us off of fossil and foreign fuels, gave us a better overall transportation structure, and made us less dependent on air travel as our sole source of rapid cross country transportation, then yeah, I absolutely think there should be some investment in it whether or not it creates a profit.

I think there are plenty of points against it, too. We have plenty to worry about in this country right now. Government bureaucracy does tend to send our money to the kickback and waste black hole. My concern, though, is tossing out "it doesn't make a profit!" as a rebuttal makes it sound as if, even if those issues were worked through, it still wouldn't be worthwhile. That is why it's an extremist view. It insinuates that profit can be worshiped as the almost-perfect indicator of it being worthwhile, when it isn't at all.

"By your statements, if somebody else isn't doing it, the government should be."

Look, here is the simple truth that everyone on these boards agrees with: there are some things necessary in society that shouldn't be measured by profit as to its success. Whether its defense, schools, making sure we have clean drinking water, public transportation, whatever.

If one feels that the line should be drawn before or after this train program, that's where the debate lies.

How can that be construed into simply government solves all? Doesn't "drawing a line" infer that there is some spot between absolute socialism and absolute capitalism?

[Noleader]

"That's extremist and not what we're saying at all Post."

But that's the deal with you and Noleader's arguments. You're acting as if profit is an end-all indicator, when it isn't. I don't know the details of the train program, but if it helped ween us off of fossil and foreign fuels, gave us a better overall transportation structure, and made us less dependent on air travel as our sole source of rapid cross country transportation, then yeah, I absolutely think there should be some investment in it whether or not it creates a profit.

Again when did I say profit is a end-all indicator? Are you going to continue to take my statements out of context? Please feel free to reference my statements but don't take liberties with them.

I think there are plenty of points against it, too. We have plenty to worry about in this country right now. Government bureaucracy does tend to send our money to the kickback and waste black hole. My concern, though, is tossing out "it doesn't make a profit!" as a rebuttal makes it sound as if, even if those issues were worked through, it still wouldn't be worthwhile.

My point is something like a train line, if it were a good idea or demanded, would be something that a business person would invest in because they know the chance for return would be good. The fact that no one seems interested in the idea except for Washington tends to make me think that this will just turn into a new Amtrak. We have Amtrak yet we still have planes flying every day... Do we really think speed of the train is the only reason people are taking planes?

It would be one thing if some group asked Washington to help clear up some red tape but this is not the case.

You made reference to all the good it could do but tell me this: How do you know it will be used by the masses?

That is why it's an extremist view. It insinuates that profit can be worshiped as the almost-perfect indicator of it being worthwhile, when it isn't at all.

Atleast I am taking the time to use an indicator, and I did not ever claim it was the end all of them, but it seems the only indicator you are using it is makes you feel good. What indicator are you using? Are you just assuming it will work? Should we just spend the money, we don't have, and see what happens?

"By your statements, if somebody else isn't doing it, the government should be."

How can that be construed into simply government solves all? Doesn't "drawing a line" infer that there is some spot between absolute socialism and absolute capitalism?

Not by the way you speak. Appearently because they can run the Police and Water (which are local government opertions by the way) the Federal Government can handle all your problems.

[Hollus]

No, I'm acting as if Free market economy and businesses should fend for themselves and there should be as little government in business as possible.

As for fossil fuels, If you are talking cross country transit, it's either diesel or some other fossil fuel.

And I didn't miscontrue your statement in the least. By your arguement, If I am more in favor of business fending for it self, and they are allowed to make a profit, I want no military, public works, safe water, police officers, firemen, or government support what so ever.

I just took your arguement to the extreme much in the same way that you took mine. If there was misconstruing, it was on your end first cap'n.

I'm not anti government. I'm pro-structure, pro-government. However, I'm not into the goverment meddling in the affairs of business or wel-fare.

If anybody is worshing the dollar, it's the politicians that won't let businesses bomb, people be unemployed without government subsidies, or meddling in my retirement. They are the ones that are crushing the infrastructure, not helping rebuild it.

The only way to teach people is to let them fail if they are doing something stupid.

The notion that the mass transit system would be better in the goverment's hands is ludicrous at best. The government can't maintain roads, healthcare, diplomacy, public education as it is. they need to take care of what is wrong first before dumping more money, more research, and more man power into something completely new.

People are still getting from point a to point b.

"Mass transit helps jobs!!" was a statement earlier made.

So the government creates a system and undercuts Airlines. They shut down, whatever. Now you are talking about the government running private companies out of business and thus more job losses.



All that being said, I don't see any of it happening. Obama hasn't done one thing at all he said he was going to do other than smack people in the pocket to make their money fly out.

*As an aside, Our water is privately owned and pretty clean...tastes like flouride, but I haven't died from it yet.

[Post]

"Again when did I say profit is a end-all indicator? Are you going to continue to take my statements out of context? Please feel free to reference my statements but don't take liberties with them."

When you say, "I am all for trains if they can make it profitable but so far we are in debt in Amtrak because they can't." I take that as pretty much meaning profitable = ok, not profitable = not ok. Am I wrong?

"You made reference to all the good it could do but tell me this: How do you know it will be used by the masses?"

I don't. Hence why I stated, "I don't know the details of the train program, but if it helped ween us off of fossil and foreign fuels, gave us a better overall transportation structure, and made us less dependent on air travel as our sole source of rapid cross country transportation, then yeah, I absolutely think there should be some investment in it whether or not it creates a profit."

I don't know enough about the proposal to know if I'm for or against it. I do know that I won't make the judgment call all boil down to simply whether or not it makes a profit. As you've stated.

"What indicator are you using? Are you just assuming it will work? Should we just spend the money, we don't have, and see what happens?

Not by the way you speak. Appearently because they can run the Police and Water (which are local government opertions by the way) the Federal Government can handle all your problems."

Look, the closest thing you guys have to me advocating the train program is me stating I'm not sure and if it does a few things I outlined, there should be some investment in it. The entire reason things like the police and military were brought up was to rebut the idea that it should simply be boiled down to if it was profitable or not.

[Post]

"As for fossil fuels, If you are talking cross country transit, it's either diesel or some other fossil fuel."

As with all next-50-year solutions, fossil fuels will be required no matter what. But just like electric cars, making the generation of power centralized (a power plant for cars, a single engine for a train), will give a power saving benefit by orders of magnitude.

"By your arguement, If I am more in favor of business fending for it self, and they are allowed to make a profit, I want no military, public works, safe water, police officers, firemen, or government support what so ever."

No. It's not that you're simply in favor of business fending for itself. It's that you're against this public transportation because it doesn't make a profit, regardless of the other benefits of public transportation. Are you against subways and buses, too? Or is there some invisible line that says those aren't business, but trains are?

"However, I'm not into the goverment meddling in the affairs of business or wel-fare."

Exactly what are the requirements of a task that makes roads and schools not a business, but trains are?

"So the government creates a system and undercuts Airlines. They shut down, whatever. Now you are talking about the government running private companies out of business and thus more job losses."

Playing both sides aren't we? "Government is incompetent, they don't do anything right," then stating, "Government does so well at this system the airlines go out of business" are mutually exclusive. Sorry, you can't have both. If they do a lousy job, there will be a market for airlines. If they do so well they run airlines out of business, then they're doing a pretty good job. Which is it?

[Hollus]

How would you feel if I said "Self sufficient" instead of profitable?

[Post]

If it still boiled down to profit, then I'd go see if roses smelled different if we called them something else.

[Hollus]

Not playing both sides. You're wall-eyeing my comments.

They were separate comments in the same body. One was factual statement, one was hypothesis.

And i never said goverment had to be profitable to the best of my knowledge. My initial response was to the attack on profit.

However, I do think the governement wastes more money than the combined masses of people could ever do. Instead of reigning in businesses, they need to reign in themselves.

[Post]

"They were separate comments in the same body. One was factual statement, one was hypothesis."

Actually, inferring that this train program will be lousily ran is a hypothesis as well. I realize that you only stated the facts that lead to the inference, but if that inference wasn't the point, then it has no point at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong: your hypothesis is that the train program will be lousily ran because it's government ran, and you have another hypothesis that it will be so well ran by the government that the airlines may go out of business. Where am I getting lost?

[Noleader]

Correct me if I'm wrong: your hypothesis is that the train program will be lousily ran because it's government ran, and you have another hypothesis that it will be so well ran by the government that the airlines may go out of business. Where am I getting lost?

Correct me if I am wrong: You think the train system would be a good idea and want to see more of the proposal based on nothing more then some indicator for which you have not expressed yet... Yet you make Hollus and I seem like we are some hard nose free market nut jobs because we review the track record of government in the markets.

You seem to think that they will get it right this time... disproving years and years of factual data showing things that the private sector does turns to shit when the government gets involved.

[Post]

Here's the correction from a few posts up:

I don't know the details of the train program, but if it helped ween us off of fossil and foreign fuels, gave us a better overall transportation structure, and made us less dependent on air travel as our sole source of rapid cross country transportation, then yeah, I absolutely think there should be some investment in it whether or not it creates a profit.

How is that me saying with absolute positivity that it's a good idea?

"disproving years and years of factual data showing things that the private sector does turns to shit when the government gets involved."

Look, there are plenty of things that aren't that great in government, but a net positive for society nonetheless. The postal service, roads (including interstate highways), and military are just a few things that could use some improvement, but have by no means "turned to shit."

Let's just get this out in the open now: my hope for a train program like this would be to ween us off of fossil and foreign fuel dependence and to bring more competition in the rapid cross-country travel and transportation market (not only people but goods as well). If, after more of it comes out and I bother to look more into it, it doesn't appear it will do that to me, then no, I probably won't support it. Inversely, if it does, I probably will.

Now, I can understand being pessimistic about that actually happening. What it appears to me so far, though, is the main concern is that it shouldn't be done even if it did do those things. If your disagreement with me is that I'm overly hopeful in that happening, fine. But if your disagreement is that it automatically shouldn't be a task done by the government in the first place because it should be the sole domain of private business, then I hope you can understand why you're being portrayed as "hard nose free market nut jobs."

[MickeyFinn]

Tell you what. The day a private company builds an interstate freeway or an airport, you can have your point. Until then, your argument is moot. Private companies have always relied on the government for initial investment on *huge* projects like railways- and they pay it back with interest.

[Noleader]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_the_United_States

During this period, Americans watched closely the development of railways in England. The main competition came from canals, many of which were in operation under state ownership, and from privately owned steamboats plying the nation's vast river system. The state of Massachusetts in 1829 prepared an elaborate plan. However private enterprise built nearly all the country's railroads, using charters from state government that created the business corporation and gave a limited right of eminent domain, allowing the railroad to buy needed land, even if the owner objected

There we go it has been done before. Like I said I have no issue with the government helping the builders clear red tape.

[]LoL[Harm]

Have any of you researched why Amtrak is failing? Or why many of it's longer routes are rarely on-time? Or why it is the only inter-city rail service? It's because of privatization. Freight makes more money than passengers. And at some point the private agencies that ran the trains convinced government to allow them to ditch their passenger service because it was dragging down their business. And now we have a single passenger service that gets I believe more than $1 billion in subsidies a year.

No public transportation turns a profit. Buses, highways, state roads, your city roads, airports, they are ALL subsidized. We can at least agree on this point correct?

If we can agree on this point, then the question becomes, is inter-city rail service something that would benefit the public? If you want to argue that only some public transportation should be subsidized then you need to state where your line is, is the government in the right to subsidize any of it, or should we just privatize the whole damn mess?

As a note, the breaking up and privatization of Britains rail service did not go as expected, multiple accidents, line failures and other things occurred after it was privatized that had not been occurring when it was government owned and operated.

From Wiki:
One of the principal expectations from privatisation was that the railway service could be delivered more efficiently in the private sector because of the profit motive. The expectation that there were considerable costs that could be slashed from the system was not fulfilled; new operators found that BR had already done much of what could be done to improve efficiency. Staff wages under British Rail were low compared to the market rates, and have risen considerably since privatisation. In addition, the profit motive was diluted when some of the passenger franchises ran into financial trouble and entered into management contracts with the franchising authority, which reduced the incentive to innovate. With individual train operating companies unable to procure equipment to the volumes previously procured by British Rail, the unit costs to the privatised rail industry is significantly higher. In addition, new health and safety requirements and the complexity of the privatised structure has thrown up additional costs in the industry. In all, the subsidy to the railway from the Government is considerably larger now than it was for BR.Amtrak operates more efficiently on the lines that it owns, it operates poorly on the lines that it must share with privatized freight companies.

Here are some articles I was able to fish up:

Note in this article this line is especially funny, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/27/business/main2522531.shtml

"To further speed up improvements, the freight industry is lobbying for federal tax credits for investments in track and other infrastructure to expand capacity."

Like I said, the majority of larger corporations are not capitalistic in any real sense any more if they ever were, they are just another cog in whatever you want to call this machine that America is. The virtues of capitalism don't exist here, and through letters of Abraham Lincoln he inferred that their alteration may have started during his day.


And this, an interesting interview:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/march97/rails_3-31.html

[Noleader]

Harm you just expressed my cheif concern with this rail idea. As it stands the rail companies can make more money by moving freight then it can by moving people. As such they decided to close their passenger operations. That basically tells me that it is not cost effective to move people in that manner coupled with the fact that the only company that does it requires a $1 billion payment a year to keep their opertaion alive.

Also I can agree that most (not all) public transportation does not return a profit, but some does via tolls. I am not saying that all transportation methods should cost something because that would turn into a hiderance for commerce.

The thing is most of our current infastructure is managed by the state in which it is located; which is where it should be managed. It is kind of like the Big Dig operation that happened in Boston. I think that is the best example of how infastruture operations should be decided. The State saw a need, got a lot of money back from the Feds and made it happen (granted the operation had a crapload of issues).

If States want to have train service let them decide on it. Let them decide how to improve the infastruture in their region. They are closer to the people and normally have a better idea on what the people really need.

As I said above I do agree with you that Capitalism in its proper form is dead thanks to introduction of Crony Capitalism.

[]LoL[Harm]

I'm in agreement with you.

I would prefer the states find the need and then petition the feds for money to aid in capital investment. I love the system in Seattle, WA. It worked great for dodging what was normally an 1.5 to 2 hour drive to work into a pleasant 45 minute train ride.

[MickeyFinn]

However, I do think the governement wastes more money than the combined masses of people could ever do. Instead of reigning in businesses, they need to reign in themselves.

I guess that was my real thinking about this whole thing- instead of providing company bailouts, I prefer that the money they're going to spend goes to providing a nation's people the opportunity to succeed by giving them a leg up rather than handing them money

[Buki]

I'm curious as to why no one here mentioned whats going to happen down the road, and how our and where people live is going to change. I think looking 30-40 years down the road can justify any expense we may have now.
I cannot remember the exact numbers, but I know it was something upwards or over 50% of people will live in urban areas. Increasing congestion and the need for infustructure. I know the train going in here in florida will move from orlando to tampa. People will beable to board in the towns along the way. I myself live about 30 mins from where a station will be. And most of the better jobs in my area will be in Tampa or Orlando. I've actually driven and taken Amtrak to tampa and the train is a hell of alot cheaper and faster.
Things arn't necesarily being built for you or I and as the enviroment / availibility of fuel pushes gas back up in price. A train feels like the best way to go.
I also understand the general convo thus far has been on how we are going to foot the bill or justify the bill untill that time comes, And in this case I agree with the dude who said profits arn't whats important. If we do have this we might struggle now, In the future if we don't have this we don't have this, we might die?