As a resident of a state whose Republican governor rejected high speed rail stimulus funds... Wha?
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.
Well public roads also run at a loss.
The point's more to facilitate fast travel for relatively cheap, not make money.
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
As a resident of a state whose Republican governor rejected high speed rail stimulus funds... Wha?
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.
Well public roads also run at a loss.
The point's more to facilitate fast travel for relatively cheap, not make money.
That doesn't mean paying for it to be built and keeping it running isn't a huge deal. If the dang thing can't pay it's bills, those trains aren't going anywhere.
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited August 2012
Don't muck about with rail for commuting. Build interstate mag-lev for freight transport.
As a resident of a state whose Republican governor rejected high speed rail stimulus funds... Wha?
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.
Well public roads also run at a loss.
The point's more to facilitate fast travel for relatively cheap, not make money.
I think it was Ron Paul who said that he thought interstate roads were unconstitutional but lets them pass because of military use
That's not to say anything one way or the other on high-speed rails, it is just funny.
LOL at people complaining about the debt in this thread. Almost two-thirds of the national debt is either held by intragovernmental offices or the Fed. Minus those are national debt is only about $6.1T.
As a resident of a state whose Republican governor rejected high speed rail stimulus funds... Wha?
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I was speaking to the idea that Ryan called it an unfulfilled promise
Of course it is, if the governors reject the funding... That had nothing to do with Obama
That's like refusing to eat your dinner and them blaming your mom when you get hungry
As a resident of a state whose Republican governor rejected high speed rail stimulus funds... Wha?
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I was speaking to the idea that Ryan called it an unfulfilled promise
Of course it is, if the governors reject the funding... That had nothing to do with Obama
That's like refusing to eat your dinner and them blaming your mom when you get hungry
Exactly the same, it's a technically true statement that is actually just a childish claim to make.
As a resident of a state whose Republican governor rejected high speed rail stimulus funds... Wha?
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.
so are roads
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
LOL at people complaining about the debt in this thread. Almost two-thirds of the national debt is either held by intragovernmental offices or the Fed. Minus those are national debt is only about $6.1T.
Well I mean, our debt is largely imaginary considering the dollar has been the world standard for a while
But when we get too deep in debt or we argue about our debt (like when S&P downgraded us) then shit gets very fucked very fast
So I'm listening to Gary Johnson respond to questions asked in presidential debates he wasn't invited to.
I disagree with almost everything this man is saying, but I feel no particular vitriol because of his answers, I simply find his conclusions reasonable but erroneous. (That is to say, I think he has addressed the questions and makes assertions that have foundation but I disagree with the conclusions he reaches and what his suggestions will result in)
This is refreshing, I like this. Who is his political opposite so I can make a youtube mashup where they have a debate.
naknaknaknaknak
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
As a resident of a state whose Republican governor rejected high speed rail stimulus funds... Wha?
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.
Well public roads also run at a loss.
The point's more to facilitate fast travel for relatively cheap, not make money.
That doesn't mean paying for it to be built and keeping it running isn't a huge deal. If the dang thing can't pay it's bills, those trains aren't going anywhere.
The main benefit of a HS rail service isn't in the actual service itself; whether or not the rail service turns a profit or not is almost irrelevant. What's important is the abundant positive externalities related to the existence of a high speed service - it facilitates better transport for goods and services, allows firms to access a broader pool of labour (and vice versa), has potentially beneficial effects on house prices and affordability, and facilitates economies of scale by expanding the size of a market (an example - if a hairdresser you like is 2 hours each way, you're not likely to go there, but if a HS service cuts than in half or a third, it'll look more attractive).
Of course, two caveats; it's possible that the service may operate at an accounting loss, but still actually be in profit in terms of wider economic impact. In these cases there's a role for the state to subsidize a loss making service up until the point where it's loss is equal to the positive externality. But of course, socialism.
Second, it doesn't always work - I believe America already has examples of ill-conceived HS services.
But these shouldn't deter one from the pursuit of such services wholesale, since improved transport infrastructure is a vital part of the continued wealth and prosperity of a nation.
There was an email on all things considered responding to a story they did on paul ryan, where the woman was like
"I'm a liberal and I am so mad about Ryan using ayn rand in such a horrible way. Atlas shrugeed is a wonderful discourse about libertarianism and rand would be so mad to see her work used in such a way"
that's not what it's suggesting
it's suggesting that successful businesses built this country's infrastructure with all the taxes they pay and implying that all us citizen schlubs are basically getting a free ride
which is even dumber
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
This entire cartoon is stupid. Corporate taxes only account for about 9% of federal tax revenue. Wow, they paid for 9% of our infrastructure?
LOL at people complaining about the debt in this thread. Almost two-thirds of the national debt is either held by intragovernmental offices or the Fed. Minus those are national debt is only about $6.1T.
Indeed. Notice how the debt, and debt ceiling, never was a problem before the GOP vowed to make their only issue not helping the country, but driving Obama from office.
The GOP needs to lose, so hard. I hope enough people are rightfully scared by the teahadists and Quantum Mitt to get their ass to vote
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
a vote for mitt romney is a vote for the apocalypse
I seriously wonder what the Republican party is going to do when Romney loses
Seems like the atmosphere in the party is too toxic to allow any moderate conservatism
I'd hope for a split which leaves moderates and people able to compromise on one side, and the crazies in the looney bin.
Then hopefully the crazies die out because they're too stupid for politics.
Or.. they get a really charismatic leader and we're fucked
Charisma is really difficult to maintain when you have to pander to a base like the worst of the GOP, especially since they seem to active despise personality
Well the hope is that they don't. 'Ryan's plan for Medicare is the dumbest bullshit in a long time' is one of the few bipartisan statements to come out of our congress in four years.
LOL at people complaining about the debt in this thread. Almost two-thirds of the national debt is either held by intragovernmental offices or the Fed. Minus those are national debt is only about $6.1T.
Well I mean, our debt is largely imaginary considering the dollar has been the world standard for a while
But when we get too deep in debt or we argue about our debt (like when S&P downgraded us) then shit gets very fucked very fast
So there is a balance to be struck
Well the S&P downgrade had nothing to do with the amount of debt we had and everything to do with market confidence in the US's ability to not be run by silly geese. The downgrade happened because Congress tried to eat its own asshole instead of raising the debt limit.
Posts
Well public roads also run at a loss.
The point's more to facilitate fast travel for relatively cheap, not make money.
yeah i am totally getting into it
the doctor has a heart as big as his ears
That doesn't mean paying for it to be built and keeping it running isn't a huge deal. If the dang thing can't pay it's bills, those trains aren't going anywhere.
I think it was Ron Paul who said that he thought interstate roads were unconstitutional but lets them pass because of military use
That's not to say anything one way or the other on high-speed rails, it is just funny.
well, he sure is a guy.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I was speaking to the idea that Ryan called it an unfulfilled promise
Of course it is, if the governors reject the funding... That had nothing to do with Obama
That's like refusing to eat your dinner and them blaming your mom when you get hungry
Exactly the same, it's a technically true statement that is actually just a childish claim to make.
so are roads
seattle has one of those
it is a silly boondoggle for tourists
Well I mean, our debt is largely imaginary considering the dollar has been the world standard for a while
But when we get too deep in debt or we argue about our debt (like when S&P downgraded us) then shit gets very fucked very fast
So there is a balance to be struck
I disagree with almost everything this man is saying, but I feel no particular vitriol because of his answers, I simply find his conclusions reasonable but erroneous. (That is to say, I think he has addressed the questions and makes assertions that have foundation but I disagree with the conclusions he reaches and what his suggestions will result in)
This is refreshing, I like this. Who is his political opposite so I can make a youtube mashup where they have a debate.
naknaknaknaknak
We're also connecting the downtown tunnel system up to the Hill, and putting a 1st/Cap Hill streetcar.
Gotta spend money to build shit.
This whole idea of not spending money but still building things can eat my ass.
also Butters of course a high speed rail doesn't make money that's not the point
the point is to spend money on infrastructure, money that is then recouped in other parts of the economy. It's investment.
but main street's still all cracked and broken
The main benefit of a HS rail service isn't in the actual service itself; whether or not the rail service turns a profit or not is almost irrelevant. What's important is the abundant positive externalities related to the existence of a high speed service - it facilitates better transport for goods and services, allows firms to access a broader pool of labour (and vice versa), has potentially beneficial effects on house prices and affordability, and facilitates economies of scale by expanding the size of a market (an example - if a hairdresser you like is 2 hours each way, you're not likely to go there, but if a HS service cuts than in half or a third, it'll look more attractive).
Of course, two caveats; it's possible that the service may operate at an accounting loss, but still actually be in profit in terms of wider economic impact. In these cases there's a role for the state to subsidize a loss making service up until the point where it's loss is equal to the positive externality. But of course, socialism.
Second, it doesn't always work - I believe America already has examples of ill-conceived HS services.
But these shouldn't deter one from the pursuit of such services wholesale, since improved transport infrastructure is a vital part of the continued wealth and prosperity of a nation.
"I'm a liberal and I am so mad about Ryan using ayn rand in such a horrible way. Atlas shrugeed is a wonderful discourse about libertarianism and rand would be so mad to see her work used in such a way"
And my eyes nearly rolled out of my head
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
This entire cartoon is stupid. Corporate taxes only account for about 9% of federal tax revenue. Wow, they paid for 9% of our infrastructure?
Here's a gold star.
Yeah but that's mainly because it's just over a mile long and was built 50 years ago.
It's great.
The GOP needs to lose, so hard. I hope enough people are rightfully scared by the teahadists and Quantum Mitt to get their ass to vote
Not quite, but he's a horrible candidate in pretty much every regard. He's bad at delegating, bad at foreign policy, bad for the middle class..
If you're voting got Romney when you're not part of the few percent of people directly profiting from his policies, you're objectively stupid as hell.
Because all the "social conservatism" is nothing but a front to get stupid people to vote for them.
Seems like the atmosphere in the party is too toxic to allow any moderate conservatism
I'd hope for a split which leaves moderates and people able to compromise on one side, and the crazies in the looney bin.
Then hopefully the crazies die out because they're too stupid for politics.
Or.. they get a really charismatic leader and we're fucked
Charisma is really difficult to maintain when you have to pander to a base like the worst of the GOP, especially since they seem to active despise personality
"Protect & Strengthen Medicare"
How can people be this stupid to believe this?
Well the hope is that they don't. 'Ryan's plan for Medicare is the dumbest bullshit in a long time' is one of the few bipartisan statements to come out of our congress in four years.
Well the S&P downgrade had nothing to do with the amount of debt we had and everything to do with market confidence in the US's ability to not be run by silly geese. The downgrade happened because Congress tried to eat its own asshole instead of raising the debt limit.