Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Jan '11 01:04 / 1 edit
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039897,00html#ixzz19crlfygU

    The Obama admistration plans on building high speed rails in both Florida and California. He also planned to build them in Wisconsin and Ohio, however, those are now nixed thanks to Republicans who were voted in last electoin.

    So how about it? At a time of insolvency looming around every corner of municiple, state, and federal governments with a cost about $1 trillion, is this a wise thing to do?
  2. 01 Jan '11 02:00
    Originally posted by whodey
    So how about it? At a time of insolvency looming around every corner of municiple, state, and federal governments with a cost about $1 trillion, is this a wise thing to do?
    Indeed, maybe not. You favour the Republican Party's line, I note. As The Economist puts it, high-speed rail has become an ideological issue, supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans with little reference to the specifics of any given project. The left views it as a near-perfect form of stimulus: creating “unoutsourceable” jobs; reducing congestion; making life easier for business; trimming carbon emissions and laying the foundations for a bigger and thus even more beneficial train network to come. Republicans, meanwhile, consider high-speed rail the physical embodiment of runaway spending, imposed from Washington by an out-of-touch elite despite its whiff of European socialism.
  3. 01 Jan '11 03:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039897,00html#ixzz19crlfygU

    The Obama admistration plans on building high speed rails in both Florida and California. He also planned to build them in Wisconsin and Ohio, however, those are now nixed thanks to Republicans who were voted in last electoin.

    So how about it? At a time of insolvency looming a ...[text shortened]... ciple, state, and federal governments with a cost about $1 trillion, is this a wise thing to do?
    you run a business Whodey, dont you? If the project is financially viable why let a purely political perspective taint your view?
  4. 01 Jan '11 03:33
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you run a business Whodey, dont you? If the project is financially viable why let a purely political perspective taint your view?
    Well, it probably won't help his paper route that much.
  5. 01 Jan '11 03:49
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you run a business Whodey, dont you? If the project is financially viable why let a purely political perspective taint your view?
    Whodey - generally - doesn't "do" solutions and doesn't "do" proposals. But he has advocated investment in infrastructure and has talked of its effect as a more direct kind of stimulus. But here Obama has advocated investment in infrastructure and has talked of its effect as a stimulus - yep it's Obama - so whodey doesn't advocate investment in infrastructure and isn't talking of its effect as a stimulus. You might consider it a political perspective tainting his view, but I am sure whodey considers it evidence of his freethinking and independence.
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    01 Jan '11 04:27
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you run a business Whodey, dont you? If the project is financially viable why let a purely political perspective taint your view?
    If it were viable business would be doing it now.
  7. 01 Jan '11 04:50
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you run a business Whodey, dont you? If the project is financially viable why let a purely political perspective taint your view?
    No doubt, they want to build this so that it will take "X" number of dollars to keep it up and running. It should bolster government dependence. You know, kinda like what the government did with Amtrack. You know what Amtrack is don't you? It was created in 1970 by Congress. Despite receiving over $30 billion in federal subsidies (not including another $1.3 billion that they picked up as part of the 2009 stimulus bill), Amtrack has never quite figured out how to fulfill their mandated mission which was to make a profit since their inception in 1970.
  8. 01 Jan '11 04:52
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    Whodey - generally - doesn't "do" solutions and doesn't "do" proposals. But he has advocated investment in infrastructure and has talked of its effect as a more direct kind of stimulus. But here Obama has advocated investment in infrastructure and has talked of its effect as a stimulus - yep it's Obama - so whodey doesn't advocate investment in infrastr ...[text shortened]... view, but I am sure whodey considers it evidence of his freethinking and independence.
    I only want investments that pay off, not another source of continuing debt. Thus far, government has shown a propensity to not understand what making a profit means per say, or even caring.
  9. 01 Jan '11 04:59
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    If it were viable business would be doing it now.
    This is an interesting comment. Do you oppose governments initiating or investing in major infrastructure projects? If a rail construction company were to try to profit - in the short or medium term - from the wider/indirect benefits of a high speed rail link, they'd have to charge $1,000s of dollars for tickets which would mean it would not be viable - but not because the high speed link itself was not viable in terms of those wider benefits. If you do oppose governments initiating or investing in major infrastructure projects, what historical evidence do you have that the private sector can provide substantial infrastructure projects without government investment?
  10. 01 Jan '11 05:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    I only want investments that pay off...
    Propose a few major infrastructure projects that would "pay off" on the investment in a way that you would approve of. Explain how you would propose to make "profit" - or how you would calculate it - on major, basic infrastructure.
  11. 01 Jan '11 05:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    No doubt, they want to build this so that it will take "X" number of dollars to keep it up and running. It should bolster government dependence. You know, kinda like what the government did with Amtrack. You know what Amtrack is don't you? It was created in 1970 by Congress. Despite receiving over $30 billion in federal subsidies (not including another $ ...[text shortened]... w to fulfill their mandated mission which was to make a profit since their inception in 1970.
    That may be the case Whodey but it appeared to me that you had already decided, albeit tentatively, that it was a rather precarious undertaking, as all major investment is, on a purely political basis. When one considers what the United states government has spent on war and armaments, 30 billion, is nickel and dimes, and that since 1970 as well!
  12. 01 Jan '11 05:08
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039897,00html#ixzz19crlfygU

    The Obama admistration plans on building high speed rails in both Florida and California. He also planned to build them in Wisconsin and Ohio, however, those are now nixed thanks to Republicans who were voted in last electoin.

    So how about it? At a time of insolvency looming a ...[text shortened]... ciple, state, and federal governments with a cost about $1 trillion, is this a wise thing to do?
    More and more America resembles a third world, country. Particularly so in all manners of transportation from our airports to our rail lines. This makes whodey so very heppy as it does all right wingers.

    Some are happy in dispair and perfer not to hope and have the will to make anything better.
  13. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    01 Jan '11 05:26
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    This is an interesting comment. Do you oppose governments initiating or investing in major infrastructure projects? If a rail construction company were to try to profit - in the short or medium term - from the wider/indirect benefits of a high speed rail link, they'd have to charge $1,000s of dollars for tickets which would mean it would not be viable - ...[text shortened]... e private sector can provide substantial infrastructure projects without government investment?
    So the gummint is going to sell tickets worth $1000s of dollars for what? 10's of dollars, seems like a real good reason why the state shouldn't be doing it.
  14. 01 Jan '11 05:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    Thus far, government has shown a propensity to not understand what making a profit means per say, or even caring.
    You want governments to make "profit" on major infrastructure projects? Instantly? Within a financial year? Within five years?
  15. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    01 Jan '11 05:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    You want governments to make "profit" on major infrastructure projects? Instantly? Within a financial year? Within five years?
    Private investors regularly outlay billions on priojects that don't return for 10,15,20 years. Gummints regularly outlay billions on fug gin great white elephants.

    Edit: Recent example Desalination plant for Queensland Aus.