Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

Nobody is saying he doesn't have the authority to spend taxpayer dollars... It's just that he says the state is broke when, say, education needs to be addressed, or tunnels need to be built, but not so broke when casinos need money...

We understand... Really. We do

---

I'm just playing the role of fact checker.

My point exactly Ex!! When Dems do it=bad when Repubs do it=good. I get it now.

How do you think those teachers are going to get paid if the state has no revenue?

Hello again, Steve:

The state should collect taxes, instead of doing GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS of private business's.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

The state should collect taxes, instead of doing GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS of private business's.

excon

---

Then let them collect taxes from this industry. They will make the money back in no time.

Atlantic City casino revenue down by 12.3 percent in past year | NJ.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Then let them collect taxes from this industry. They will make the money back in no time.

---

Hello again, dad:

Just like WE did with our investment in General Motors...

I don't doubt that THIS private industry makes money and pays taxes... It's just that, like spit noticed, when Obama invests, it's reckless spending, but when a Republican invests, they'll make the money back, "in no time".

Let's cut to the chase.. The Obama budget "invests" in bullet trains. Why is that reckless spending, but when your guy spends, it's a smart investment??

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

Just like WE did with our investment in General Motors...

I don't doubt that THIS private industry makes money and pays taxes... It's just that, like spit noticed, when Obama invests, it's reckless spending, but when a Republican invests, they'll make the money back, "in no time".

Let's cut to the chase.. The Obama budget "invests" in bullet trains. Why is that reckless spending, but when your guy spends, it's a smart investment???

excon

---

Maybe its because of the track record we have with trains in this country?

Lets look at our current model AmTrack.

(quote)
The new Senate bill would provide $11.4 billion for Amtrak over six years and would junk the decade-old goal that the rail line make enough money to cover operating costs, a longtime goal of fiscal conservatives.

Amtrak carried 25.8 million passengers last year, the highest ridership level ever, and recorded a 20 percent increase in the use of its high-speed Acela service between Washington and Boston. Still, the company needed $1.3 billion from Congress to cover its operating costs and capital losses last year on its 21,000-mile, coast-to-coast network.

(source)

Senate votes to increase funding for Amtrak service - The Boston Globe

Created by Congress in 1971 to provide intercity train travel, Amtrak has never recorded a profit while receiving more than $40 billion in federal funding since its inception.

Hello again, dad:

Many government investments don't pay off in dollars. If we simply measured them by the bottom line, we'd have to get rid of our interstate highway system, our national parks, our museums, our airports, and most of our bridges and tunnels, and this just names a few. These are things that make this country just a tad batter than others.

We really don't want to eat our seed corn.

excon

I put it out there to show the difference between the "investments" made by the persons in question. I realize infrastructure is a losing proposition but its also a nessescity.

While looking around I found this rather disturbing and something you might be interested in reading. I had no idea.

(off topic)
Amtrak Snitches On Riders for Profits

Bullet trains ? Sounds like he's catering to a single constituent... Joe Biden.

He thinks bullet trains are cool because the Chinese are building high speed rail to transport their troops (and colonists )to the Tibet and Indian borders .

What you guys don't get is the difference between private enterprise, government enterprise and the national interest. Government enterprise is not socialism. In the national interest a rail system must be maintained, if private enterprise cannot provide such a system, government enterprise must. Someone is just trying to stave off this becoming a government enterprise when it fails. Best way for this to be run is if government takes over the track system, rents it out on a milage base to private enterprise, then profitable services will be provided by private enterprise or else not exist unless government provides them

Clete ,would your country build a rail system if everything indicates it would not be self sustaining ?
We are not Europe and Japan. The areas of Europe covered by highspeed rail and connecting local rail and subway systems would fit in Texas. Our cities are spread out except on the coastal areas . To extend high speed rail along corridors it would be needed would required extensive "eminent domain" land grabs . It would be a funding sieve .
We have AMTRACK already serving the corridors of the country that need rail connections.I believe that with the exception of the Northeast corridor between Boston and DC ,the rest of the system is a loser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

Many government investments don't pay off in dollars. If we simply measured them by the bottom line, we'd have to get rid of our interstate highway system, our national parks, our museums, our airports, and most of our bridges and tunnels, and this just names a few. These are things that make this country just a tad batter than others.

We really don't want to eat our seed corn.

excon

---

Dr . Krugman... we don't eat our seed corn ,we turn it into bio-fuels ;creating artificial shortages that have had huge impacts inside and outside our borders .

What was only a decade ago our total Federal budget is now the amt of our deficit . Yet Krugman continues to advocate more and more spending.

Hello again, spit:

It becomes clear that when Republicans spend, it's investment... But, when Democrats do it, it's reckless...

excon

If the State of Washingon wants to waste money on bullet trains ,knock yourselves out. If New Jersey wants to invest in the casino business it's their concern. I oppose such spending in NY for reasons I've already cited .

At least when you talk about a national rail service it falls under established Federal spending going back to the 1st Congresses of the country . I oppose it on a national level for reasons I've already mentioned... and I would if a Republican President proposed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

The state should collect taxes, instead of doing GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS of private business's.

---

Again, allow me to play the role of fact checker. He's not taking over anything, he's not putting a penny of cash out for this casino, and he's not allowing the casinos to police themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clete ,would your country build a rail system if everything indicates it would not be self sustaining ?
We are not Europe and Japan. The areas of Europe covered by highspeed rail and connecting local rail and subway systems would fit in Texas. Our cities are spread out except on the coastal areas . To extend high speed rail along corridors it would be needed would required extensive "eminent domain" land grabs . It would be a funding sieve .
We have AMTRACK already serving the corridors of the country that need rail connections.I believe that with the exception of the Northeast corridor between Boston and DC ,the rest of the system is a loser.

---

Interesting question, Tom, my country has a huge rail system, 41,000 Km, and with the exception of the mining industry in remote areas, none of it was provided by private enterprise. Many parts of this system lie idle with passanger traffic only a distant memory because it never could be self sustaining with a population of our size, but government had the responsibility to provide transport if the nation was to develop. The latest projects are to build an inland railway from Melbourne to Brisbane for freight traffic, that's about fifteen hundred miles and obviously sustainability is a real question, and high speed links on the eastern sea board, again sustainability is the question and so is the economic benefit of taking that traffic off the highways. We don't have the same preoccupation with eminent domain as you do because of Consititutional protections

The Compost editorial today suggests that high speed rail is a subsidized money pit everywhere it's tried .
A lost cause: The high-speed rail race

Quote:

---

Every dollar spent to subsidize high-speed rail is a dollar that cannot be spent modernizing highways, expanding the freight rail system or creating private-sector jobs.

---

Hello again, tom:

Couple things...

The term, "subsidized money pit" says all I need to know about the writers position... Indeed, what subsidy ISN'T a money pit? That's what subsidy's are - gifts of taxpayer money which PROMOTE particular goals somebody in government thinks are worthwhile.

Just yesterday, somebody in government thought that we should STOP subsidizing the most profitable industry there ever was in the history of the world... but it got defeated. So, one persons money pit, is another persons good idea.

Particularly, choosing to subsidize highways, which promote driving, or choosing to subsidize a bullet train, which promotes energy savings, I'd choose the train.

excon

The train will not replace the fact that Americans prefer to move by auto. The bullet train will be populated by the few ,not the many . Therefore it is subsidy money misplaced .