Since we need jobs why not?

[Gideonprime]

How many people are going to use a coast to coast bullet train?

Compare that to how many of us will be paying for it.

The cost benefit analysis doesn't favor the project

Have you ever been out of the United States?

I suggest you go to Europe (or Japan).

Yes I have and European countries are much much smaller than the US. Try factoring that into your equations.

The fact is that very very few people in this country will ever use a bullet train for travel but all of us will be expected to pay for it.

The trillions of dollars it will cost will never be recouped by ticket sales alone which means that people who will never ever ride the train will be paying for it.

That is not a prudent use of taxpayer money.

True about ticket sales however, the real benefit of a train system is not in the train itself but from all the businesses that pop up around the stops.

Businesses which create jobs and grow the ecconomy, Some service oriented but some manufacturing and whie collar work as well.

Though the fly over states might not see as much bennefit which is why I suggested the coasts.

To include the gulf coast actually which could be great for tourism and all the associated businesses that go with it.

 

[candycorn]

Why not do what the previous administrations did and work on US infrastructure? Start up a project that would employ people that connects major cities and towns with data, shipping, and people traveling.

You could make a project to put High speed rail across the US, and couple large data and even power conduits along it. The present power system could be redone and made better.

Basically what i see is a web of high speed rail connections running between big cities. Along the rail system you would also run your power and data lines. This would create a lot of jobs and really make the US infrastructure so much better. It is the next generation of transportation systems, and it would really be great if they started this project.

Apparently, if I understand Conservatism correctly, a job isn't a job unless it is created by someone using their own money to open a business.

If I understand common sense directly, the impact of a government job isn't as beneficial to the collective since tax monies pay the salary of said government worker. Though that is true, it ignores that the government-funded worker spends her monies on stuff like rent, food, clothing, cell phone bills, Netflix accounts, gasoline, electricity, tours of the Grand Canyon, mailing letters, shipping packages, Diet Pepsi, cable television subscriptions, tithing to the church, donating to the Red Cross, contributing to political campaigns, and gym memberships paying a Yoga Master for a 65 minute session that lasts 63 minutes; not that I'm bitter about that.

If I understand biology correctly, the human stomach cries out for nutrients and doesn't give a good gosh damn where the food came from that feeds it. Scientist tell us that nearly 101% of the nation's unemployed have these stomachs. A lot of the owners of these stomachs are de facto responsible for other, smaller stomachs as well. But for some reason; government isn't supposed to worry about them unless they can fill those stomachs using a more impactful vocation.

 

[Gideonprime]

I guess we are paying the price for socialized union based education. How many times do you have to tell lefties that there is a zero sum gain in transferring confiscated taxpayer funds from one segment of society to another? Government funded jobs do not grow the economy.

See my post about where the real benefit from roads and trains come from. It is a means to the end we are looking for which is more long term real job growth for then nation.

Money used fpor building these projects is no different than money spent on weapons research. A means to an end.

 

[candycorn]

Have you ever been out of the United States?

I suggest you go to Europe (or Japan).

Yes I have and European countries are much much smaller than the US. Try factoring that into your equations.

The fact is that very very few people in this country will ever use a bullet train for travel but all of us will be expected to pay for it.

The trillions of dollars it will cost will never be recouped by ticket sales alone which means that people who will never ever ride the train will be paying for it.

That is not a prudent use of taxpayer money.

True about ticket sales however, the real benefit of a train system is not in the train itself but from all the businesses that pop up around the stops.

Businesses which create jobs and grow the ecconomy, Some service oriented but some manufacturing and whie collar work as well.

Though the fly over states might not see as much bennefit which is why I suggested the coasts.

To include the gulf coast actually which could be great for tourism and all the associated businesses that go with it.

I hear you but the idea that businesses will spring up due to a "tent pole" of a business in the area is overblown. Almost in every case, the same pitch was made to build new stadiums for professional sports teams. In a great many of these cities that have done so, growth has been sporadic if even evident.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Have you ever been out of the United States?

I suggest you go to Europe (or Japan).

Yes I have and European countries are much much smaller than the US. Try factoring that into your equations.

The fact is that very very few people in this country will ever use a bullet train for travel but all of us will be expected to pay for it.

The trillions of dollars it will cost will never be recouped by ticket sales alone which means that people who will never ever ride the train will be paying for it.

That is not a prudent use of taxpayer money.

True about ticket sales however, the real benefit of a train system is not in the train itself but from all the businesses that pop up around the stops.

Businesses which create jobs and grow the ecconomy, Some service oriented but some manufacturing and whie collar work as well.

Though the fly over states might not see as much bennefit which is why I suggested the coasts.

To include the gulf coast actually which could be great for tourism and all the associated businesses that go with it.

If there was money to be made in trillion dollar bullet trains then we would already have them.

We're talking trillions of dollars being taken out of the economy via taxes. The businesses that may or may not pop up as you say will not put that money back into the economy.

The return on investment just isn't there.

It's the broken window fallacy on steroids.

 

[Gideonprime]

Yes I have and European countries are much much smaller than the US. Try factoring that into your equations.

The fact is that very very few people in this country will ever use a bullet train for travel but all of us will be expected to pay for it.

The trillions of dollars it will cost will never be recouped by ticket sales alone which means that people who will never ever ride the train will be paying for it.

That is not a prudent use of taxpayer money.

True about ticket sales however, the real benefit of a train system is not in the train itself but from all the businesses that pop up around the stops.

Businesses which create jobs and grow the ecconomy, Some service oriented but some manufacturing and whie collar work as well.

Though the fly over states might not see as much bennefit which is why I suggested the coasts.

To include the gulf coast actually which could be great for tourism and all the associated businesses that go with it.

I hear you but the idea that businesses will spring up due to a "tent pole" of a business in the area is overblown. Almost in every case, the same pitch was made to build new stadiums for professional sports teams. In a great many of these cities that have done so, growth has been sporadic if even evident.

Actually the data I am discussing is based on train routes and highway stystem off ramp/on ramp construction being places to start a business due to traffic. As I said that is why I am not suggest a coast to coast bullet train across the flyover states with littel or no attractions but high population areas that could support a large enough amount of traffic to help support said businesses.

However, I see you point and agree that any investment is a gamble. So do we do nothing and let the infrastucture rot? Or do we try something a gamble that it will work?

I am for trying something as doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Gideonprime]

Yes I have and European countries are much much smaller than the US. Try factoring that into your equations.

The fact is that very very few people in this country will ever use a bullet train for travel but all of us will be expected to pay for it.

The trillions of dollars it will cost will never be recouped by ticket sales alone which means that people who will never ever ride the train will be paying for it.

That is not a prudent use of taxpayer money.

True about ticket sales however, the real benefit of a train system is not in the train itself but from all the businesses that pop up around the stops.

Businesses which create jobs and grow the ecconomy, Some service oriented but some manufacturing and whie collar work as well.

Though the fly over states might not see as much bennefit which is why I suggested the coasts.

To include the gulf coast actually which could be great for tourism and all the associated businesses that go with it.

If there was money to be made in trillion dollar bullet trains then we would already have them.

We're talking trillions of dollars being taken out of the economy via taxes. The businesses that may or may not pop up as you say will not put that money back into the economy.

The return on investment just isn't there.

It's the broken window fallacy on steroids.

Where was the return on investment for going to the moon when it started? Where was the return on investment when the highway system was first started?

What do you suggest as a solution? Let me guess free unfettered capitalism will make it all better.

 

[whitehall]

I guess we are paying the price for socialized union based education. How many times do you have to tell lefties that there is a zero sum gain in transferring confiscated taxpayer funds from one segment of society to another? Government funded jobs do not grow the economy.

See my post about where the real benefit from roads and trains come from. It is a means to the end we are looking for which is more long term real job growth for then nation.

Money used fpor building these projects is no different than money spent on weapons research. A means to an end.

Personally I think the elimination of one or two or a dozen of the Military's favorite toys would not hurt the defense system at all but it ain't about weapons research or the infrastructure. Only the private sector builds the economy. As long as left wing politicians keep telling us that oil is bad for us while we are mortgaging our grand kids future to oil producing countries we will continue to be on the decline. As long as left wing radicals keep telling themselves that corporations are evil and banks are the enemy we will continue to drift down the road to 3rd world status.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How many people are going to use a coast to coast bullet train?

Compare that to how many of us will be paying for it.

The cost benefit analysis doesn't favor the project

Have you ever been out of the United States?

I suggest you go to Europe (or Japan).

Yes I have and European countries are much much smaller than the US. Try factoring that into your equations.

The fact is that very very few people in this country will ever use a bullet train for travel but all of us will be expected to pay for it. That is not a prudent use of taxpayer money.

The trillions of dollars it will cost will never be recouped by ticket sales alone which means that people who will never ever ride the train will be paying for it unless of course the fucking government mandates that we ride the train once a month or be taxed.

Think beyond the obvious. A train stops (briefly) in communities all across the county. Not all travel will be from Coast to Coast and not all trains will carry passengers. Think of the trucks now crossing the nation moving goods from point to point, polluting the air with diesel and using tires destined for our landfills.

Building a heavy rail system will include feeder lines - heavy and light rail - and create jobs for decades to come; the OP was spot on. I simply cannot understand how we get our economy moving again by cutting jobs, jobs which will employ workers who will buy products and services creating more jobs.

 

[Gideonprime]

I guess we are paying the price for socialized union based education. How many times do you have to tell lefties that there is a zero sum gain in transferring confiscated taxpayer funds from one segment of society to another? Government funded jobs do not grow the economy.

See my post about where the real benefit from roads and trains come from. It is a means to the end we are looking for which is more long term real job growth for then nation.

Money used fpor building these projects is no different than money spent on weapons research. A means to an end.

Personally I think the elimination of one or two or a dozen of the Military's favorite toys would not hurt the defense system at all but it ain't about weapons research or the infrastructure. Only the private sector builds the economy. As long as left wing politicians keep telling us that oil is bad for us while we are mortgaging our grand kids future to oil producing countries we will continue to be on the decline. As long as left wing radicals keep telling themselves that corporations are evil and banks are the enemy we will continue to drift down the road to 3rd world status.

We are involved in those nations because of the mistake WE made in them years and years ago. Oil is bad for us but so is tryong to maintain the empire we have grown and trying to force our will upon the rest of the world.

Some corporations are bad (note not evil) and some banks are the enemy. If the right would stop thinking of the government as the fall guy for all problems thenwe mioght actually eb able to find some ground on which to build and move forward. Now al we get is nothing happening but head butting which bennefits no one.

 

[candycorn]

True about ticket sales however, the real benefit of a train system is not in the train itself but from all the businesses that pop up around the stops.

Businesses which create jobs and grow the ecconomy, Some service oriented but some manufacturing and whie collar work as well.

Though the fly over states might not see as much bennefit which is why I suggested the coasts.

To include the gulf coast actually which could be great for tourism and all the associated businesses that go with it.

I hear you but the idea that businesses will spring up due to a "tent pole" of a business in the area is overblown. Almost in every case, the same pitch was made to build new stadiums for professional sports teams. In a great many of these cities that have done so, growth has been sporadic if even evident.

Actually the data I am discussing is based on train routes and highway stystem off ramp/on ramp construction being places to start a business due to traffic. As I said that is why I am not suggest a coast to coast bullet train across the flyover states with littel or no attractions but high population areas that could support a large enough amount of traffic to help support said businesses.

However, I see you point and agree that any investment is a gamble. So do we do nothing and let the infrastucture rot? Or do we try something a gamble that it will work?

I am for trying something as doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.

I was there a while ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/226929-how-often-do-you-take-the-train-2.html#post5391407

 

[Katzndogz]

The wars are miniscule expenditures. We have given Egypt 30 million a year for nothing. Hillary Clinton just gave the UN 2 billion as a downpayment on a 100 billion to support paying 3rd world countries not to improve their economies.

In order to support infrastructure projects, there has to be some base that can provide the tax funds to support government infrastructure. If you BOTH destroy the tax base AND build infrastructure you will end up with no tax base and no infrastructure either.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I fully support the idea of reinvesting into infrastructure, but not the high speed rail idea. Fixing roads and bridges, fine. But americans love their cars way too much to ride a train. It may work in other countries, but I've never seen any data that suggests an american high speed rail system would be widely used.

 

[Skull Pilot]

True about ticket sales however, the real benefit of a train system is not in the train itself but from all the businesses that pop up around the stops.

Businesses which create jobs and grow the ecconomy, Some service oriented but some manufacturing and whie collar work as well.

Though the fly over states might not see as much bennefit which is why I suggested the coasts.

To include the gulf coast actually which could be great for tourism and all the associated businesses that go with it.

If there was money to be made in trillion dollar bullet trains then we would already have them.

We're talking trillions of dollars being taken out of the economy via taxes. The businesses that may or may not pop up as you say will not put that money back into the economy.

The return on investment just isn't there.

It's the broken window fallacy on steroids.

Where was the return on investment for going to the moon when it started? Where was the return on investment when the highway system was first started?

What do you suggest as a solution? Let me guess free unfettered capitalism will make it all better.

NASA was nothing but a political venture meant to intimate the perceived enemies of the USA. There never was an lntended economic return

The original intent of the highway system was not economic but rather defense

I don't think that the government can artificially manufacture economic opportunities. The best thing to do is to let people decide where to invest their money not to force them to invest via confiscatory taxes in extremely expensive wasteful government projects with the promise of dubious returns.

 

[Skull Pilot]

True about ticket sales however, the real benefit of a train system is not in the train itself but from all the businesses that pop up around the stops.

Businesses which create jobs and grow the ecconomy, Some service oriented but some manufacturing and whie collar work as well.

Though the fly over states might not see as much bennefit which is why I suggested the coasts.

To include the gulf coast actually which could be great for tourism and all the associated businesses that go with it.

I hear you but the idea that businesses will spring up due to a "tent pole" of a business in the area is overblown. Almost in every case, the same pitch was made to build new stadiums for professional sports teams. In a great many of these cities that have done so, growth has been sporadic if even evident.

Actually the data I am discussing is based on train routes and highway stystem off ramp/on ramp construction being places to start a business due to traffic. As I said that is why I am not suggest a coast to coast bullet train across the flyover states with littel or no attractions but high population areas that could support a large enough amount of traffic to help support said businesses.

However, I see you point and agree that any investment is a gamble. So do we do nothing and let the infrastucture rot? Or do we try something a gamble that it will work?

I am for trying something as doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.

You mean you're for the government gambling with our money.

If you want to try something then do it with your own money.

 

[Gideonprime]

The wars are miniscule expenditures. We have given Egypt 30 million a year for nothing. Hillary Clinton just gave the UN 2 billion as a downpayment on a 100 billion to support paying 3rd world countries not to improve their economies.

In order to support infrastructure projects, there has to be some base that can provide the tax funds to support government infrastructure. If you BOTH destroy the tax base AND build infrastructure you will end up with no tax base and no infrastructure either.

Excellent point!

 

[Gideonprime]

I hear you but the idea that businesses will spring up due to a "tent pole" of a business in the area is overblown. Almost in every case, the same pitch was made to build new stadiums for professional sports teams. In a great many of these cities that have done so, growth has been sporadic if even evident.

Actually the data I am discussing is based on train routes and highway stystem off ramp/on ramp construction being places to start a business due to traffic. As I said that is why I am not suggest a coast to coast bullet train across the flyover states with littel or no attractions but high population areas that could support a large enough amount of traffic to help support said businesses.

However, I see you point and agree that any investment is a gamble. So do we do nothing and let the infrastucture rot? Or do we try something a gamble that it will work?

I am for trying something as doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.

You mean you're for the government gambling with our money.

If you want to try something then do it with your own money.

As I've already said they gambled with NASA and with the Highways both have been huge winners.

When you are talking about projects of this scope no one person can do it. Of course you're bright enough to know that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Have you ever been out of the United States?

I suggest you go to Europe (or Japan).

Yes I have and European countries are much much smaller than the US. Try factoring that into your equations.

The fact is that very very few people in this country will ever use a bullet train for travel but all of us will be expected to pay for it. That is not a prudent use of taxpayer money.

The trillions of dollars it will cost will never be recouped by ticket sales alone which means that people who will never ever ride the train will be paying for it unless of course the fucking government mandates that we ride the train once a month or be taxed.

Think beyond the obvious. A train stops (briefly) in communities all across the county. Not all travel will be from Coast to Coast and not all trains will carry passengers. Think of the trucks now crossing the nation moving goods from point to point, polluting the air with diesel and using tires destined for our landfills.

Building a heavy rail system will include feeder lines - heavy and light rail - and create jobs for decades to come; the OP was spot on. I simply cannot understand how we get our economy moving again by cutting jobs, jobs which will employ workers who will buy products and services creating more jobs.

If there were money to be had in building more railroads it would be done.

What don't you understand about that?

The fact that private industry is not willing to take on the cost of doing so should be a red flag to people that these projects will cost more than they return.

 

[Gideonprime]

If there was money to be made in trillion dollar bullet trains then we would already have them.

We're talking trillions of dollars being taken out of the economy via taxes. The businesses that may or may not pop up as you say will not put that money back into the economy.

The return on investment just isn't there.

It's the broken window fallacy on steroids.

Where was the return on investment for going to the moon when it started? Where was the return on investment when the highway system was first started?

What do you suggest as a solution? Let me guess free unfettered capitalism will make it all better.

NASA was nothing but a political venture meant to intimate the perceived enemies of the USA. There never was an lntended economic return

The original intent of the highway system was not economic but rather defense

I don't think that the government can artificially manufacture economic opportunities. The best thing to do is to let people decide where to invest their money not to force them to invest via confiscatory taxes in extremely expensive wasteful government projects with the promise of dubious returns.

Clearly you are worng because they have and they do.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually the data I am discussing is based on train routes and highway stystem off ramp/on ramp construction being places to start a business due to traffic. As I said that is why I am not suggest a coast to coast bullet train across the flyover states with littel or no attractions but high population areas that could support a large enough amount of traffic to help support said businesses.

However, I see you point and agree that any investment is a gamble. So do we do nothing and let the infrastucture rot? Or do we try something a gamble that it will work?

I am for trying something as doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.

You mean you're for the government gambling with our money.

If you want to try something then do it with your own money.

As I've already said they gambled with NASA and with the Highways both have been huge winners.

When you are talking about projects of this scope no one person can do it. Of course you're bright enough to know that.

And I've already told you that neither of those were intended to be economic in nature.

It just worked out that way.

Doing it again does not guarantee the same result.