Obama starts slashing

[Eikon]

High speed rail is a joke, europe's geography lends to the success of high speed rail there. Here in america, its not a good fit, it would not be used nearly as much as some claim, and it would be a huge front-end cost at time when we dont really need to be forking out excess capital.

QFT

a stebo post no less.

mark those calendars. the champ got one right

What is he right about? Europe's geography or spending money at a bad time? I'm still waiting for an answer on this..

[heliochrome85]

What is he right about? Europe's geography or spending money at a bad time? I'm still waiting for an answer on this..

the reason why rail works in europe is that cities are much closer together and the topography is alot more manageable. here in the US, with cities much more spread apart, its difficult to see the value of a small car or mass transit if you dont live in NYC, LA, Chicago. Those cities all have high demand for small cars, and high demand/usage for public transport. would you drive a smart car on I-80 through western PA? no, one would rather have something larger. yet, the distance between most major cities in europe is significantly smaller. I drove two weekends ago, 800 miles from home to Brooklyn. if i was to do the same in europe, i could have gone from rome to paris. the difference is that the vast majority of that road would have been populated by large cities, rather than tiny villages.

[IBCoupe]

Traffic will be nill when cars can drive along at 80, 10 inches apart, controlled by silicone (not titties mind you) it'll be nice, and by then they should be electric cars.

Sounds kinda like this, only slower and delayed by technological availability:

[Eikon]

What is he right about? Europe's geography or spending money at a bad time? I'm still waiting for an answer on this..

the reason why rail works in europe is that cities are much closer together and the topography is alot more manageable. here in the US, with cities much more spread apart, its difficult to see the value of a small car or mass transit if you dont live in NYC, LA, Chicago. Those cities all have high demand for small cars, and high demand/usage for public transport. would you drive a smart car on I-80 through western PA? no, one would rather have something larger. yet, the distance between most major cities in europe is significantly smaller. I drove two weekends ago, 800 miles from home to Brooklyn. if i was to do the same in europe, i could have gone from rome to paris. the difference is that the vast majority of that road would have been populated by large cities, rather than tiny villages.

Hate to disagree.. but I disagree.
I'm not talking about high speed rail connecting every city in America on a single network.. They don't even have that in Europe. I'm talking about getting high speed rail on the most heavily driven routes. I95 from Boston to DC. Florida from Miami to Orlando. Lake Erie South shore from Buffalo to Cleveland to Toledo to Detroit. I71 from Cleveland through Columbus to Cincinnati then down to Louisville. Lake Michigan Southwest shore from Gary to Milwaukee and then over to Madison. Texas from Dallas to Austin to San Antonio and over to Houston. California.. SD to LA to SF and Sacramento with a run to Vegas and maybe to Phoenix.

Here is the high speed rail in Europe: Note that it is not comprehensive and it is not completely interconnected. Red, orange and yellow are high speed.



I would even go so far as to say that the high speed rail may be more effective in the US. Too many stops on too many short runs defeats the gains you get from high speed. What's the point in high speed rail if you have to stop every 30 miles?

Imagine living in Philadelphia. It's about 95 miles to NY and about 95 miles the other way to Baltimore.. On a 150mph train you could commute to work in either city in about 40 minutes. Plus time from station to office... You could keep your commute to an hour. There are people now who can't cover 15 miles in that time period.

[heliochrome85]

we already have this. its called acela. and is part of amtrak. many many many people here in nyc use it to commute to and from work.


iom just saying that we are not a nation of mass transit. in certain situations such as the north east corridor, it works, but that doesnt mean we have a national rail system akin to europe or asia.

[Eikon]

Technically Acela is high speed.. but it's weak.. it rarely goes over 100mph.

[stebo0728]

Traffic will be nill when cars can drive along at 80, 10 inches apart, controlled by silicone (not titties mind you) it'll be nice, and by then they should be electric cars.

Sounds kinda like this, only slower and delayed by technological availability:

Ya only except its alot different.

[stebo0728]

Thanks T for summing up whats basically my same position against high speed rail. I will also add, the quasi high speed rail we have here has yet to even break even fiscally, so I can only assume that we would be creating even more monetary black holes by putting up more lines in other areas. Some good solid financial research needs to be done before embarking on this, as well as some solid research into just how much use we could expect once they are available. You have a solid argument Eikon, we are just in disagreement, but we both stand to be right. If the lines are indeed brokered, then I can only hope your position is the correct one.

Another thing, and perhaps everyone realizes this and just deals with it, but this plan will cost at least triple the advertised price. Every proposed government plan (at least almost every) ends up way exceeding the budget its given. So with that in mind, this really isnt the time to be spending like this.

[Eikon]

I know things are different in today's economic world than they were in the 30's.. But the last time we were in a deep dark recession, FDR had this slick idea called "The New Deal". He spent (yes spent) government money on public works and infrastructure. It gave a ton of people jobs, it poured a ton of money into the economy on the local and personal level. It also made huge, massive, improvements to our nation's ability to transport our people and goods and power our industry. Seems like it went over pretty well.

Again, I know things are different today.. especially in the way that our government (national, state, and local) manage (or should I say "mis-manage") our funds... But I'd have think there would still be benefit found in pubic works projects. High speed rail seems like a pretty damn good one!

[smockers83]

I hate it when DC says we're going to cut the deficit by $X trillion. They don't know that as they're all projections based on the administration's belief on the economy. If we look at the past few years, the administration has been terribly wrong in projecting and forecasting the economy, so we cannot believe these figures in any way.

Instead, tell Americans that we're reducing the budget by Y% from last year to $E trillion with expectations of tax revenues to be $TR trillion. Let's put some performance metrics on our government and hold them accountable to them. If we don't have transparency to how they're performing against these metrics, then it's hard for them to quantify to Main St how the budget and deficit is doing. Our government has to be taking in surpluses for years and needs to find ways in order to do so if it wants to tackle the deficit.

No one wants to touch SS. I know why, but I don't know why. I would almost like to see the government say we're going to end SS from this generation forward, whatever generation that is. I don't expect to have SS available by the time I retire, nor do I think I want it. Start giving the people the option to have SS and they only get what they put in. If I had the option, I would opt out and take my OASDI tax dollars and put them elsewhere and opt out of receiving SS benefits when I retire. I know I can make more money on that $3000+ annually elsewhere, actually invest it in the US and actually make it do something other than government red tape. Plus, I'll want to have more than $44,000 + inflation annually by the time I retire, and at that point, up to 85% of SS is taxable, so why even pay for it if I can't even keep it?

As for high speed rail, it could make sense regionally in the US. Someone pointed out that it would allow you to move further out from the city to cheaper land. That cheaper land will start becoming more expensive as people move further out from the city. We saw that with the proliferation of cars. And although that's possible, it wouldn't happen as building such a system wouldn't be viable. It does serve some economic benefits in that it can increase the mobility of the workforce as some have pointed out. It makes taking jobs further out where resources are needed easier. Many people may no longer have to relocate for jobs. But it all has to be able to be built in a way that makes economic sense. If the government can properly demonstrate it can build such a system that allows passengers to commute for even slightly more than what it costs to commute by car, it could be on to something. If faster transit times can be priced without setting up a market doomed to fail that are marginally more than operating a car, many people will pay the higher price for it as it would increase the quality of life.

[mattblancarte]

I know things are different in today's economic world than they were in the 30's.. But the last time we were in a deep dark recession, FDR had this slick idea called "The New Deal". He spent (yes spent) government money on public works and infrastructure. It gave a ton of people jobs, it poured a ton of money into the economy on the local and personal level. It also made huge, massive, improvements to our nation's ability to transport our people and goods and power our industry. Seems like it went over pretty well.

Perhaps I'm an ignorant a$$, but I've always attributed our strength in the global economy to our post-WW2 advantages. We snagged the best scientists, had virtually zero damage to homeland infrastructure, "hero's welcome" across the globe, campaigns of aggressive imperialism, etc.

To be honest, my understanding of The New Deal is superficial so I could be swayed either way and it's not like these two ideas are mutually exclusive.

Just thinkin' out loud. {goes back to lurking...}

[audtatious]

Start giving the people the option to have SS and they only get what they put in. If I had the option, I would opt out and take my OASDI tax dollars and put them elsewhere and opt out of receiving SS benefits when I retire.

Didn't Bush and the GOP propose a similar solution that was torn down via the other side? I seem to remember the GOP being accused of hating old people, supporting the big insurance companies, and such.

Regardless, to do such would require individuals to be responsible for themselves. We all know what would really happen in that case, people will spend it and not invest at all. When it comes time for retirement they will have nothing and whatever welfare system we have in place will have to take care of them anyway.

We are now in a catch-22. Prior to SS and other programs being initiated, people expected "life" to happen. Sure, sometimes it wasn't pretty. Families were also stronger "back then". Today? 60 years of the Gov promising they will be responsible for you when you grow old. 60 years worth of the "family" being busted to hell. 60 years of learning to be entitled.

What's the solution? I don't know. Continuing the path is certain failure.

[IBCoupe]

Prior to SS, people didn't expect "life" to happen, they expected "death" to happen. They expected that you would die before you were old enough not to be able to work anymore, or you would just go broke if you tried to retain any amount of independence upon failure to die.

[audtatious]

So? I expect death to happen, happens to everyone. I just don't expect someone else to pay for me when I get older "just because" I feel I deserve to retire. But, that's me.

But, yes, lifespans have been extended quite a bit more than the SS limits over the years.

[IBCoupe]

I expect it to happen, too, Aud. My point is that SS isn't about greedy old people, it's about society choosing not to have starving old people.

[audtatious]

It's about a system that was implemented and the funds being utilized for something else. Both sides did it. No, those on SS who need it today should not have it removed. Again, it's a catch-22. Is it fair to remove what was promised and paid into? No. Is it fair to burden those with taxes who will never get anything from it? No. Can we sustain the system the way it is? No.

Something needs to change. Leaving it "as is" won't do anything but push the problem off on others until it busts, which is what most politicians probably want to do while they are still raiding the SS funds as they come in.

[IBCoupe]

You're absolutely right - we shouldn't have used SS as a credit card, but the problems with social security are being called minuscule by analysts. Raise the retirement age over the next twenty years to 70, and raise the cap on social security taxes from income under $106,000 to income under $110,000, and boop, problem solved for at least 75 years.

I can't figure out why we have a cap on social security taxes in the first place. Removing that would probably go a long way to solving the problem completely.

[stebo0728]

But didn't you get the memo? Black people dont live as long as white people, so raising the age limit is racist....

[IBCoupe]

No, I didn't get that memo. Was that distributed by Racist Caricatures Weekly?

[stebo0728]

Thats an argument I've heard alot when they start discussing the SS age. And statistically black people do live shorter lives. But its not like the age hike is MEANT to create the disparity, its just an unforseen side effect.

[IBCoupe]

I get it, but I don't consider it a serious argument. There are legal protections against facially-neutral discrimination, but I don't see that passing the basic test of, "Is there a good and obvious reason for the rule?"

That black people die younger on average doesn't mean they need social security sooner. How do those statistics stack up for black people that live past the age of 40?

[IBCoupe]

I realize, Stebo, that you're not making these arguments, I'm just trying to say: You don't need to offer them up as a strawman, because I'll readily agree that they're stupid arguments.

[audtatious]

You're absolutely right - we shouldn't have used SS as a credit card, but the problems with social security are being called minuscule by analysts. Raise the retirement age over the next twenty years to 70, and raise the cap on social security taxes from income under $106,000 to income under $110,000, and boop, problem solved for at least 75 years.

I can't figure out why we have a cap on social security taxes in the first place. Removing that would probably go a long way to solving the problem completely.

I agree, raise it. Also, limit SS payout to be no more than what has paid in. Also, starting immediately, all SS taxes go into an interest-bearing account of some sort. No more using it for discretionary spending.

Here's an interesting/informative overview of the cap itself: http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c ... e-cap.html.

[stebo0728]

Ill add one thing to your scenario Aud, establish a sliding scale of contribution/withdrawl based on age, the younger you are, the more privatized your retirement is, the older, the closer to retirement, the more SS you get. The goal of this being "weening" out the government controlled retirement, and putting it back in the jurisdiction of the individual. Place requirements on enrollment if you like, I disagree with requirements but whatever, but lets keep keep the funds private funds, owned by the individual, accessible ONLY BY the individual. This negates the ability for misappropriation of the funds by the silly leggies.

[audtatious]

Payouts are already on some form of scale based on retirement age. I assume you mean one that is more aggressive?

[stebo0728]

No, the current set up is not configured to scale SS out of the picture. Thats what I'm after. The younger you are, the less you pump into SS, and the more you pump into private accounts. Equally you would have less entitlement to withdrawl once you reach retirement age. The older you are, the more you pay into SS, and the more you are entitled to withdraw. The goal being eventually, perhaps the next generation will not even have SS to deal with, but rather will just deal with whatever of their private accounts they may have. I realize that current SS payout depends on current SS withholdings, but its not the responsibility of current taxpayers to pay off the debt the government ran up when they spent the SS funds in other places.

[IBCoupe]

I don't see privatization as necessary for the long-term viability of Social Security.

[stebo0728]

Well, it may not be an absolute requirement for the viability of SS, but it fits into the model I have for America, in pulling the government out of our lives, and keeping things such as retirement up to the individual, holding them responsible. Its part of my "Return to Personal Responsibility and Common Sense" platform.

Chuvote4memang? Plox?

[IBCoupe]

So, you're aiming to do away with SS altogether.

[EDIT: I'm not trying to politically tar and feather you, it just seems like this is where you want to be. Why bother with federally-mandated insurance plans at all? Seems to me, the ideal situation for your ideology would be to leave it all up to individuals. Not saying that's bad, I'm just following your position to its logical end. It seems somewhat odd to be both opposed to a federal system of providing a safe retirement for all and in favor of a federal retirement mandate.]

[stebo0728]

Woah....I said, have a requirement for participation if you MUST, but I disagree with any sort of federal mandate of that type. I merely concede that portion if it must be there to appease some folks. But yes the ultimate end of my scenario is individuals handling things for themselves. I dont detect any tar or feathers on me for this position. Its not an uncommon position. Will that mean some people will be stupid and not prepare? Sure, but its not nanny gubment's job to reach down and pick them up.