High-Speed Rail? Over My Dead Body!

The interstates were not built solely for the purpose of use by private citizens. They were built for defense and the movement of troops.

So government spending is okay if it's for defense.

The similarities between your list and what most tea-party folks (and the politicians who appeal to them) want to do is striking.

when are you going to a tea party rally?


Oh, and while I'm posting...

Anyone stupid enough to wager that completing that line comes in on THAT budget?

Never, the unfortunate thing about the tea party is that while they follow fiscal conservatism, I have not once seen a tea party candidate denounce the Patriot Act, demand equal treatment for homosexuals under the 14th amendment, demand that Roe V. Wade be upheld, equalize men's rights, or avoid talking about their religion, and in general for government to GTFO out of everyone's lives. Instead I see TV demagogues and people playing the religion card to garner votes and popular support.

I don't throw my support behind any party halfheartedly.

I thought private industry was going to drive space exploration.

If you don't need federal dollars to build spaceships, I don't see why you would to build and operate a mass transit system.

Uh yes? Have you ever read the Constitution? Last I checked, defense is a clearly defined power of the US government.

First of all, yes. Defense is one of the few mandates the Constitution requires of the Federal gov't. Try reading the Constitution before posting shite.
Second, the interstates are not operated, owned or profit making (directly) for private industry. The rails would be.

It was both, which is exactly what high-speed rail lines can be used for.

Can and will are two different things. The interstates even today are used by the military.

You miss my point, as usual, because you're a stupid git. There's this perception that just because something is defense spending it's immune from criticism.

What?

Not above criticism. Just something that is an identified power for the fed. Versus something like this high speed rail being nothing short of just another federal boondoggle.

The government has the power to build routes/roads for postal transit, and the Congress and Supreme Court decided that 180 years ago that all roads and railroads fall under this category.

So...

Can't happen. Europe's TGV can only cover a little over 300 miles in 4 hours at a cost of $160. To cover the 1,863 miles between Chicago and San Francisco would take ball parking it here 24 hours and the would be at least double. And that's not even taking into account the massive rearrangement of the American landscape required to accommodate high speed rail. If high speed rail was in fact practical for American cross continent travel there'd be company's fighting with each other to establish routes. It's not so they're aren't.

Ok, obviously I was a bit off with the time vs distance - I didn't calculate it out.

Still, I'd rather have high speed trains for longer distances, if it's a short drive - chicago to detroit - I can drive that myself.

Still, if I could get to LA by train for $250 vs $800 or $900 for a plane - even if it takes twice as long - I'd rather take the train.

A couple of points. Most people can't afford the extra day of travel.
Second, if you actually look at long distance rail ticket costs, they are almost on par with air travel to the same destination. Combine that with the very significant extra money high speed rail would cost, and a high speed rail pass from Chicago to Cali would probably be a lot more than an airline ticket on the same route.

Economics of rail travel for people cannot compete with air travel over US distances and lifestyles.

Do the math, sweetie. Ain't going to happen.

They're 1800 miles apart and there's the little matter of the Rocky Mountains.

Or anything else for that matter.

well, all that is because those issues are devisive and delute the focus.

Sticking strictly to the small government/fiscal restraint area allows them to bring some real pressure to bear on the most critical subject without fracturing over things like abortion or gay rights.

it's not like they took the "wrong" side on those issues, they just prioritize.

Personally, i like it.

What tea party people are talking about religion besides Glenn Beck?

and even Beck is only saying "whatever YOUR faith is, let YOUR faith inform your politics" - he's not saying "you need to get smart and believe what I believe"

Yeah, except the plan is to build up regional infrastructure right now.

Whether or not the demand is there now, that's another matter entirely.

People criticizing the tea party movement for not being 100% politically correct really amuse me. In addition to the very good points you've already brought up here, it's still a very young movement. Keeping it decentralized, if that happens over the long term, is the way the bigger concerns get answered. I'm more concerned about those. You know, the ones where the reformers go to D.C. and get corrupted by becoming part of the problem rather than focusing on being part of the solution. Focus on small government and taking power back from Washington and eventually we get rid of the Tea Party altogether. Then we start making our states and communities better.

Good points. No matter how you cut it, the Tea Party and those who claim to be affiliated with one of the numerous areas that has an active tea party did quite well this year in the elections, especially considering the money and power they were up against.

Yep, that's what I expect from a union hack. Spend billions of taxpayer dollars on something we don't need, there is no demand for now and there might never be.

Ugh, I'm going to help derail this thread (no pun intended), but large parts of the Tea Party movement were financed by special interests.

It's called astroturf for a reason.

Which is why it is safe to classify it as a boondoggle. If there was a need for it, there would also be a demand for it. Unfortunately, the government is trying to tell us how they want us to travel. The funny thing, none of them are going to give up the SUV's, and air travel they currently use. All of which we are paying for.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Hate to burst your bubble, but a lot of Tea Party fundraising was done by the Koch Brothers who are notoriously NOT poor.

I actually haven't advocated anything yet.

I do wonder about the freight applications of this service, but given that the world only uses this as passenger rail, I doubt there are any.

Does anyone here know anything about freight rail?

Is that the smell of sour grapes? Seriously, man. Money follows success in this country. Who didn't know that?

Yes, virtually all politics is financed by special interest. Generally anyone who is providing money to a candidate, or a party are looking to have someone in office that they believe will act in their best interest.

Unions are special interest. They buy and own many politicians at both the federal and state levels. In fact one very large union was able to convince a President they own to purchase and take over a very large auto company. I can't remember which President it was, maybe you can help me out.

So, what is your point exactly posting the above?

I know that 90% of the goods that are in the stores get there by truck. Rail is limited in those areas because not many people want to hear the trains coming in at all hours of the day and night making deliveries to stores.