[Cincinnatus.45-70]

So then,why don’t we have high speed rail, or even successful light rail projects? All of those are money losers, too. Light rail steals resources from better forms of transit, like buses, that poor people need, to cater to a hobby of the wealthy elite. Maybe not on the scale of high speed rail, but steals nonetheless.

Since this speed rail is so great, someone should easily be able to convince investors to build one with private money. Like light rail all over the country, it will never be a commercial success. The only way it can be built and operated is by stealing from taxpayers at gunpoint. That’s how they do it in China the way.

But if this idea is so great, it will be privately built and be successful any day now.

But it has no economic value.

Sadly, for all the moon-eyed rail enthusiast out there. I’m all for them, as long as they use their own money.

[vannrox]

Sadly that is also the reason why we have cities like Detroit, and hell-holes like LA and Baltimore.

The Constitution defines the role of government to be very limited. All these other "projects" that are "for the public good" are supposed to be at the State level. If the State cannot be able to improve (or at least) maintain the standard of living for it's citizens, the the State governments have failed.

You cite concerns about cost and pricing. This is a laughable argument. Look at all the money Obama threw away. look at all the money that is going on to wars all over the globe. hey bub! YOU are the one paying for this.

My argument is simple;

1. Government has as their very first duty to their citizens. If they are unable to do so, then they have FAILED, and a new government must be put in it's place.

2. You can compare governments all over the world and all over history. Once you can compare, you can see the good, and the bad in each one.

What the article says, and as I promote, is the idea that America is UNABLE to build HSR because it no longer has that ABILITY. Further, the crime, and corruption has reached a level that the American government barely functions at all.

I argue that instead of saying "nah, we don't need that, we don't want that" as justification and rationalization of our sloth and inability, we should say...

"You know what, we can do that. We can make that. We will build that, and we can do so quickly." But, you know, and I know that the government as it functions today does not have that ability.

[vannrox]

Sadly that is also the reason why we have cities like Detroit, and hell-holes like LA and Baltimore.

The Constitution defines the role of government to be very limited. All these other "projects" that are "for the public good" are supposed to be at the State level. If the State cannot be able to improve (or at least) maintain the standard of living for it's citizens, the the State governments have failed.

You cite concerns about cost and pricing. This is a laughable argument. Look at all the money Obama threw away. look at all the money that is going on to wars all over the globe. hey bub! YOU are the one paying for this.

My argument is simple;

1. Government has as their very first duty to their citizens. If they are unable to do so, then they have FAILED, and a new government must be put in it's place.

2. You can compare governments all over the world and all over history. Once you can compare, you can see the good, and the bad in each one.

What the article says, and as I promote, is the idea that America is UNABLE to build HSR because it no longer has that ABILITY. Further, the crime, and corruption has reached a level that the American government barely functions at all.

I argue that instead of saying "nah, we don't need that, we don't want that" as justification and rationalization of our sloth and inability, we should say...

"You know what, we can do that. We can make that. We will build that, and we can do so quickly." But, you know, and I know that the government as it functions today does not have that ability.