ivan Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 shelbyville has a monorail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Massively negative ROI no matter what label is put on it. The revenues that these projects generate won't even come close to covering the costs of construction plus operating expenses at 0% interest. Not sure why using government as a mechanism to funnel money to private economic interests that will profit from constructing and operating an enterprise that will lose money year in and year out, and drain resources away from other social priorities is considered "progressive." yah, public subsidies of rail networks have been retarded. Look how well the Western US developed without them. lulz. Now back to plowing billions into roads with a negative ROI! The difference being that rail use in the infancy of this country was a private endeavor. I don't think there are any cost neutral commuter train systems in the US, Amtrac being another example. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to spending the money but I'm not willing to do so under the pretense that we're going make/save money and certainly not if we just have to borrow more from the Chinese. One isn't entitled to one's own facts: Oops - history of the pacific railroad "the bill authorizing the construction of the Pacific Railroad which was adopted by Congress in 1862" Between land grants, lax labor and immigration policies, and helpfully clearing indians out of the way, the Pacific Railroad was almost completely paid for by public money. It took all of two minutes to send that Nitrox gem down the shitter. Next.... As with most historically and analytically challenged tea party parrots, Nitrox seems stumped by even the simplest 'real' question. Edited February 9, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Next up on the Tea Party Hour: The Sacred Infallibility of the Founding Fathers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Things were AWESOME in the 18th century!!! Let's go back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Like Scalia, I'm a strict constitutional originalist. That's why I think the second ammendment absolutely guarantees that every citizen can own a flintlock musket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Massively negative ROI no matter what label is put on it. The revenues that these projects generate won't even come close to covering the costs of construction plus operating expenses at 0% interest. Not sure why using government as a mechanism to funnel money to private economic interests that will profit from constructing and operating an enterprise that will lose money year in and year out, and drain resources away from other social priorities is considered "progressive." yah, public subsidies of rail networks have been retarded. Look how well the Western US developed without them. lulz. Now back to plowing billions into roads with a negative ROI! The difference being that rail use in the infancy of this country was a private endeavor. I don't think there are any cost neutral commuter train systems in the US, Amtrac being another example. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to spending the money but I'm not willing to do so under the pretense that we're going make/save money and certainly not if we just have to borrow more from the Chinese. One isn't entitled to one's own facts: Oops - history of the pacific railroad "the bill authorizing the construction of the Pacific Railroad which was adopted by Congress in 1862" Between land grants, lax labor and immigration policies, and helpfully clearing indians out of the way, the Pacific Railroad was almost completely paid for by public money. It took all of two minutes to send that Nitrox gem down the shitter. Next.... As with most historically and analytically challenged tea party parrots, Nitrox seems stumped by even the simplest 'real' question. Yep, a bill authorizing the Pacific Railroad. The Union Pacific Railroad Co. was still a privately held company and a private endeavor. The bill granted land and subsidies, it didn't provide that the government owned the railroad or paid for its operations and maintenance. The Union Pacific Railroad was also used for *gasp* commerce and generated income. When it became obsolete it was removed or reset, not propped up by the government and turned into a massive sucking black hole of spending (AMTRAC). Also, the Pacific Railroad was within our means, we didn't need to borrow money from China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Union Pacific Railroad was also used for *gasp* commerce and generated income. When it became obsolete it was removed or reset, not propped up by the government and turned into a massive sucking black hole of spending (AMTRAC). uh-huh http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F2091EFB345D10738DDDAA0994DA405B8684F0D3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Sucks to argue against libruls. We check our facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 To argue that the government has never executed a successful large scale infrastructure program requires a lot of make believe, given evidence to the contrary. When the mythical free market solution doesn't appear, this leaves its proponents groping for the nearest silver sound byte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 IMO - the bottom line is that there always have been and always will be selected subsidy of transportation. But it seems we should be moving to those elements that result in the best return for transportation, business, energy/greenhouse gas, and community benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Sucks to argue against libruls. We check our facts. You seam to check facts but not actually read them. But, I think that's just you, not all liberals. Edited February 9, 2011 by Nitrox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 To argue that the government has never executed a successful large scale infrastructure program requires a lot of make believe, given evidence to the contrary. When the mythical free market solution doesn't appear, this leaves its proponents groping for the nearest silver sound byte. I can't speak for anyone else but I haven't argued that the government hasn't or shouldn't pay for infrastructure just that we should be able to actually pay for it. Somewhere along the way that didn't jive with your make-believe plan so now you're just talking louder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Great! Let's start with our biggest expenditure (hint: it's not trains.) Are you expecting me to disagree with you at this point? We coulkd afford all kinds of things if we reduced our spending. I'd be a lot more receptive to a new mass transportation program if we weren't under water from the last ten years of spending. Except that you have no credibility when you insinuate that you want to cut the bloated war budget. Right wingers like you claim to have suddenly discovered that we shouldn't spend what we don't have but your good word isn't just good enough. When you actually make the proposal to seriously cut the war budget, call for ending unnecessary wars for control of resources, hike taxes on the wealthy to what they were under Reagan and indicate you want to get rid of the $400 billion charity given out to the pharmaceutical industry by Bush, then I'll personally think you may be talking in good faith. In the meantime, you sound like an opportunist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Tea-bagging hypocrites in congress actually just indicated they wanted to cut subsidies for AMTRAK amounting to getting rid of it, but they certainly did not say they wanted to cut road subsidies. Same old BS from the dead-enders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 ...you sound like an opportunist. And you sound like a whiny bitch, I guess that makes us even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Your silly dodge is prima facie evidence of what I am talking about. No credibility whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Your silly dodge is prima facie evidence of what I am talking about. No credibility whatsoever. Yep, whiny bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 stop projecting, moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 stop projecting, moron. AD HOMINEM! AD HOMINEM! JACKBOOT THUG! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 am I also supposed to bend over while the fucker calls me a whiny bitch? fuckwit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 if aliens read this thread i fear they might skip right on by ourneck of the woods the lack of a decent, well funded spaceport might be part of their consideration as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 if aliens read this thread i fear they might skip right on by ourneck of the woods the lack of a decent, well funded spaceport might be part of their consideration as well... What if hypothetically the new space port would rapidly pay for itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 am I also supposed to bend over while the fucker calls me a whiny bitch? fuckwit! YOu know what's weird? Politically, you and I are basically the same. Nitrox, FW, et.al. disagree with me just as much as you. And yet, they don't call me a whiny bitch. Why do you think taht is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 because I always call them on their bullshit, like I just did viz the "reducing the deficit" drivel. the "whiny", "angry", "shrill" and other descriptives say more about those who write these words than about me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) because I always call them on their bullshit, like I just did viz the "reducing the deficit" drivel. the "whiny", "angry", "shrill" and other descriptives say more about those who write these words than about me. USE OF OFFENSIVE MISOGYNIST TERMS ARE GROUNDS FOR BANNING AT CC.COM, A STANDARD SET BY THE OWNERS OF THIS BOARD AND SUPPORTED BY THE MODERATORS. READ YOUR USER AGREEMENT IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS. NITROX IS BANNED FOR 24 HOURS, NEXT TIME HE'S GONE FOR GOOD OTHERS INCLINED TO BANDY ABOUT THE TERM "CUNT" SHOULD TAKE NOTICE: YOU'RE NEXT off white spray mod Edited February 10, 2011 by Off_White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.