Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on October 26, 2008, 02:20:05 PM
-
In the first paragraph are 3 item which sounds very socialistic to me. Helping with the infrastructure sounds somewhat like what governments should do, but what happened to the motor fuel taxes that were supposed to pay for these projects? In paragraghph 2 they want to cit military spending. F... you on this one.
Frank envisions post-election stimulus from Democrats
By Steve Urbon
Standard-Times senior correspondent
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081024/NEWS/810240332/-1/NEWS10
NEW BEDFORD — After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.
In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.
"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."
"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."
Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January.
And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over — likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting.
The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said.
"There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze."
States have many infrastructure projects — bridges, highways, etc. — that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go.
Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.
And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said.
Contact Steve Urbon at surbon@s-t.com
-
I am inclined to agree that the military is going to have to make some tough choices on what expensive weapons systems it wants to get rid of. There just is not enough money to fund everything at the levels the military wants.
Personally, I am generally in favor of cutting whole programs rather than cutting back on them. When you do that you end up with fewer expensive weapons that have a very expensive logistics pipeline and you don't have enough of them to do any good.
-
It's hard for me to imagine cutting the military budget given the global realities facing this nation right now, but I know this: I don't trust an Obama administration to make prudent cuts.
-
I am inclined to agree that the military is going to have to make some tough choices on what expensive weapons systems it wants to get rid of. There just is not enough money to fund everything at the levels the military wants.
Personally, I am generally in favor of cutting whole programs rather than cutting back on them. When you do that you end up with fewer expensive weapons that have a very expensive logistics pipeline and you don't have enough of them to do any good.
Oh, you know how that will work.
The Pentagon will still give more money to HK for vaporware magic high-tech weapons systems that never exist.
The "cuts" will mean the troops in the field get less essential stuff.
-
In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs
Yeah, because it is perfectly acceptable for the Marines to fly around in 40+ year old helicopters :mad: .
I find it rather irritating that the most important role for the Federal Govt to play, national defense, always seem to get cut first by one of our major political parties.
-
Yeah, because it is perfectly acceptable for the Marines to fly around in 40+ year old helicopters :mad: .
I find it rather irritating that the most important role for the Federal Govt to play, national defense, always seem to get cut first by one of our major political parties.
As long as they work whats wrong with them being 40 years old?
A fair number of very usable and useful weapons systems have been around that long. M16 and B52 come to mind.
-
We won't need much. The only wars we'll be fighting will be in places like Darfur, for "human rights," against the "skinnies." Slingshots will bring 'em down.
-
Fight? Silly. An Obama military isn't for fighting.
It's for slinging shovels. Building schools and mosques in the countries we in the evil US were "mean" to.
-
Elaborate for me, why is excessive military spending better than any other excessive government spending?
-
Elaborate for me, why is excessive military spending better than any other excessive government spending?
It isn't.
Btw, how many officers in charge of procurement are hired on as consultants after they retire? How is that not a conflict of interest?
-
Elaborate for me, why is excessive military spending better than any other excessive government spending?
Because when cuts are made, it's never to the pork or the pet projects, it's always cuts to essential equipment replacement for soldiers, base housing, all that sort of thing.
-
Because when cuts are made, it's never to the pork or the pet projects, it's always cuts to essential equipment replacement for soldiers, base housing, all that sort of thing.
Fine. I'll play.
You guys have far too many aircraft carriers.
-
you never have too many carriers.... you can have too few though
-
you never have too many carriers.... you can have too few though
After you have a sufficient naval power to *take on every other warship currently afloat at once, and win*, building two more carriers is... eh.
-
Fine. I'll play.
You guys have far too many aircraft carriers.
What?
An aircraft carrier is a mobile piece of US sovereign territory than can go anywhere, to any area of crisis.
You might just be glad for our carriers someday, if push comes to shove. They can be used for massive air superiority efforts, relief, everything. They can even power a mid-sized city.
They also only need to be refueled every few decades.
Do you even know what carriers are used for? Apparently not, since the primary use is to launch air superiority and bombing strikes AGAINST LAND. How would you get all those fighters there without carriers? Hello?
Carriers are not used against other ships. No other nation has a bluewater navy to match ours. That's why we mothballed the Iowas and built more carriers, for use against land targets.
You need to read more.
-
our carriers bring more hurt to landbased targets than other ships. has been that way your whole life.
-
"You guys have far too many aircraft carriers."
Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:
When Obama cuts Israel loose, and Syria and Iran decide it's fine time to start rattling sabers again, guess who will be screaming bloodly murder for assistance from American airpower.
AGAIN.
-
"You guys have far too many aircraft carriers."
Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:
When Obama cuts Israel loose, and Syria and Iran decide it's fine time to start rattling sabers again, guess who will be screaming bloodly murder for assistance from American airpower.
AGAIN.
Not to mention that a minimum of three carriers is needed for any attack operation now. Two to launch planes, one just for recovery in case one of the others is unable to be used for landing if someone goes wrong, a crash on the flight deck, any of that. Those planes need to land somewhere. They learned THAT back in WWII.
When you consider all the areas we might need to be in coming years, we don't have enough.
We have ten active, and Enterprise is getting old. The George H. W. Bush will be entering service soon, making it 11.
-
So Syria, whose ground forces the IDF outnumbers 2-1 is going to attack Israel?
Syria, over whose Presidential palace the IAF does routine overflights, and whose AA troops are completely unable to detect our planes, much less HIT them with anything, is going to attack Israel?
Iran, whose air force consists of 180 fighters, is going to help Syria?
You do realize that even if every single Syrian and Iranian fighter aircraft is scrambled, including F-4's and MIG-21, Israel *still* outnumbers both of these nations in the air, combined? And our planes have been made later than 1975, thank you very much.
-
guess who will be screaming bloodly murder for assistance from American airpower.
AGAIN.
You do realize that I am for cessation of all American aid to Israel, yes?
-
You do realize that I am for cessation of all American aid to Israel, yes?
You would be crushed like a goddamned bug in weeks. Don't be arrogant.
Israel NEEDS the US backing it up to survive.
-
You would be crushed like a goddamned bug in weeks. Don't be arrogant.
With what? Waves of Iranian ten-year-olds tied together with ropes?
That didn't work out so well for them against Saddam, did it?
-
Quite frankly, defense spending is one of the very few federal money sinks that is, you know, actually constitutional. While I'd love for the military to be more efficient in the manner they spend money, I'd rather have my money go there than say, welfare.
-
I'm sure Obama believes we have too many aircraft carriers, too many Trident submarines, too many Tomahawk cruise missiles, too many ABMs, too many everything except U.S. Marines doing construction work that foreigners ought to be doing for themselves.
You mean Israel wouldn't like to have a few aircraft carriers? Please.
-
I'm sure Obama believes we have too many aircraft carriers, too many Trident submarines, too many Tomahawk cruise missiles, too many ABMs, too many everything except U.S. Marines doing construction work that foreigners ought to be doing for themselves.
I fully expect his administration would try to cancel the Ford-class carriers with the new electromagnetic catapult, needed to replace our carriers built in the 1970's.
-
I'm sure Obama believes we have too many aircraft carriers, too many Trident submarines, too many Tomahawk cruise missiles, too many ABMs, too many everything except U.S. Marines doing construction work that foreigners ought to be doing for themselves.
You mean Israel wouldn't like to have a few aircraft carriers? Please.
What the hell would Israel use a carrier for?
Carriers are for nations that need to project power all over the world. Russia. Britain. France. America. Not Israel.
[Mind, Thailand has a carrier. But it's tiny and worthless and is mostly there for the pride factor]
-
Brazil has a carrier as well.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F74%2FSao_Paulo_carrier.jpg%2F300px-Sao_Paulo_carrier.jpg&hash=0dd630b6a0f2e43df8b8b172ea667eb5c587bdc7)
With Chavez so close, I don't blame them.
-
Brazil has a carrier as well.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F74%2FSao_Paulo_carrier.jpg%2F300px-Sao_Paulo_carrier.jpg&hash=0dd630b6a0f2e43df8b8b172ea667eb5c587bdc7)
With Chavez so close, I don't blame them.
That's shiny.
-
Funny, you must never have heard of the Yom Kippur War..
Israel's vaunted Air Force was savaged in a way that made its leaders scratch their heads and wet their pants. The losses in the Isralie armored forces were even worse.
Israeli ground forces were also savaged in a way never before thought possible by the Israeli high command. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU'VE LOST NEARLY 75% OF YOUR TANK FORCE TO EGYPTIAN FORCES??? WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE'VE LOST 30 JET AIRCRAFT IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS??? WHAT DO YOU MEAN SYRIAN COMMANDOS HAVE TAKEN MT. HEMRON??? WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE EGYPTIANS ARE ACROSS THE SUEZ AND HAVE SEIZED THE BORDER FORTIFICATIONS???"
The previous three conflicts had left a lot of people with a serious case of "Our balls are so big we can't get them in our pants."
Isralie leaders knew of the massing of Syrian and Egyptian troops, and chose to do nothing, expecting that if the Arab forces did attack that the IDF would simply deploy and destroy them as it had in years past.
They made the mistake of believing their own cult of invincibility.
And that led to that inevitable call...
Hi, Dickie Poo? This is Golda. Yeah, Golda Mier. Yeah, we seem to have made a teeny, tiny miscalculation, and those pesky Arabs are giving us some trouble. Yeah, yeah, I know, we've kicked them all over the place before. What do we need? Oh, nothing much... just tanks. LOTS of tanks. Artillery. Aircraft....
Yeah, nothing much.
Goldie? This is Henry. Dickie just gave me the phone because he wants to change the tape in his tape deck. The President has agreed - and let me repeat this formally - that all your aircraft and tank losses will be replaced."
Oh well, it's a new and more wonderful world. Maybe the Isralies have too many fighter jets and tanks. After all, it's just a bunch of Arabs you're facing, right? :rolleyes:
-
all that happened before he was born and before the internet. it has no meaning
-
all that happened before he was born and before the internet. it has no meaning
ROTFLMAO!
Wikipedia has no answer, eh? :D
Chris
-
apparently no ones provided a white paper either. it appears not knowing own history is not a usa phenomenom
-
GA has laws which prohibit acceptance of money for votes.
As to the stalled infrastructure, that doesn't make much sense, either. Wait to build up the roads in a good economy, when people actually have reasons to ship goods over them. =(
-
Yeah, I was thinking of the YKW, too, during this thread.
Israel may have 2X the hardware of Syria, but they have had a difficult time putting the material to good use the last few conventional warfare outings. (YKW, Lebanon I, Lebanon II). OTOH, their use of things like Hellfire missiles to do in terrorist leaders has been outstanding.
A floating airfield that changes position, so cheap ballistic missiles can't hit it and that is perpetually out of arty & mortar fire range has its advantages. Also allows for a little "standoff range" for a country that has no standoff.
-
Holy thread drift batman...
Running with the drift though... for Israel to have a carrier they would also need to seriously beef up the rest of their navy. As far as I can tell they have little or no ASW capability nor any sort of naval area air defense capability. It sure would suck to have this shiny new aircraft carrier and some old Egyptian Romeo class sub from the 50's torpedoed it. For air defense if something got past the fighter screen the closest thing they have an AAW ship is the Sa'ar V corvettes that have a decent but very short range SAM system.
Or even more likely, Iran decides to go for a propaganda victory and sneaks one of their Kilo class boats into the med and sinks the carrier.
-
Holy thread drift batman...
Running with the drift though... for Israel to have a carrier they would also need to seriously beef up the rest of their navy. As far as I can tell they have little or no ASW capability nor any sort of naval area air defense capability. It sure would suck to have this shiny new aircraft carrier and some old Egyptian Romeo class sub from the 50's torpedoed it. For air defense if something got past the fighter screen the closest thing they have an AAW ship is the Sa'ar V corvettes that have a decent but very short range SAM system.
Or even more likely, Iran decides to go for a propaganda victory and sneaks one of their Kilo class boats into the med and sinks the carrier.
True.
But, compared to the cost of even pocket carriers like the UK's, ASW frigates are pretty cheap. If you can swing the carrier, you can swing its escorts. And ASW frigates are about the cheapest frigates around. Toss in the USMC AV-8 Harriers when they are replaced by the F35, for good measure.
Add few Aegis frigates and you have mobile, standoff theater missile defense for Israel, in addition to their anti-aircraft capabilities.
I'd go for it, as long as the tamper-resistant measures (on the software & some hardware) are stout enough. Don't want it sold to the Chinese or whomever the Israeli intel types like to sell US tech & secrets to.
-
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank envisions post-election stimulus from Democrats
Coming from Barney Frank, that sentence makes me nervous in many, many ways.... :O
-
I tell you what I'd really like to see the .fedgov do. Cut every present program it now has on the books by 10-15% except for military and port and border security. Then push for a national project constructing elevated, high speed, electric powered trains using the interestate rights of way. Upgrade feeder lines and terminals. Build 48 nuclear power plants to gen them all up. Divide the nation up into regions for bid by private contractors. Make it a capital offense (summary death penalty by hanging after a 30 day appeal) for the senior officers of any bidder company to cook the books or use crappy material. Pay for the project by issuing corporate bonds to We The Serfs that pay a reasonable return, say 6%. A project of that scope would create 100% able bodied employment, move the population around, and end welfare for many years as well as secure a safe investment for those willing to get involved.
-
Then push for a national project constructing elevated, high speed, electric powered trains using the interestate rights of way.
Yay. Amtrak money suck X10000000. :P
You are aware that NO passenger rail is profitable and all are massive toilet-flushes of subsidized funds, right?
That would become the porkbarrel to end all porkbarrel, and end up with half-constructed abandoned tracks and a lot of rich people walking away with big grins.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhdtd.typepad.com%2Fhdtd%2Fimages%2F2008%2F05%2F19%2Fspringfield_monorail.jpg&hash=0dd6477be825e39b26eea523879bc10228782338)
-
True.
But, compared to the cost of even pocket carriers like the UK's, ASW frigates are pretty cheap. If you can swing the carrier, you can swing its escorts. And ASW frigates are about the cheapest frigates around. Toss in the USMC AV-8 Harriers when they are replaced by the F35, for good measure.
Add few Aegis frigates and you have mobile, standoff theater missile defense for Israel, in addition to their anti-aircraft capabilities.
I'd go for it, as long as the tamper-resistant measures (on the software & some hardware) are stout enough. Don't want it sold to the Chinese or whomever the Israeli intel types like to sell US tech & secrets to.
What would the point of all that be? Better to get an equivalent radar to Aegis and put four or five covering all of Israel - which they probably / certainly have already.
As for a field thats able to move, I think the IDF prefers to have things the way they are - one imagines nothing concentrates the mind like being the first and last line of defence.
-
First off, the point is an exercise in the utility of carriers. The practicality of paying for all that hardware is not evident.
Second, when Israel's opponents get missiles accurate enough to actually target something the size of an airfield, I suspect airfields will be the prime target. Enough missiles lobbed means buh-bye airfields and sayonara air cover, missile defense or no missile defense. See China vs Taiwan on that equation.
With an aircraft carrier, they would have a chance to respond once the airfields are a charred ruin.
Same thing with static radar facilities: if it is based in one spot on land, it is vulnerable to short-ranged but moderately acurate missiles and suicide bombers.
-
all that happened before he was born and before the internet. it has no meaning
I submitted an off-curriculum school assignment on the Yom-Kippur war when I was about 17. I read Kissinger's book in the process, and a few others.
But previously Irwin mentioned American air power, which implies something completely different from an airlift of goods, namely American planes actively shooting at the Arabs or whoever to help us. His insistence on US carriers also lead me to that conclusion. That has not occured in Yom-Kippur.
Further, every single analysis of what happened at Yom-Kippur, ascribes the fault squarely to an error of AMAN for not predicting a coming attack (everybody knew one was coming, but AMAN assured everybody it wasn't soon).
More importantly, it is in fact a new and wonderful world. Out of the three main Arab combatants of the Yom-Kippur war, one is now at peace with Israel (and their police actually fight Hamas on a semi-regular basis), one is in no shape to fight anyone (Iraq), and one is in terrible economic shape and actually has LESS troops than they had back then.
Yet more importantly, US monetary aid to ISrael is actually detrimental to both countries - to Israel, because it protects wastefulness in its military structure far greater than the amount of goods bought by the aid money ($4 to each $1 given by America), and screws over the Israeli defense industry.
Finally, the US military's purpose is to defend... wait for it, I'm going to name the country... AMERICA.
Not Israel.
-
No, American combat aircraft did not take part in the Yom Kippur war. I never said they did.
However, American aircraft carriers (Roosevelt and Independence and the amphibious assault craft Guadalcanal) moved into the region in large part to thwart saber rattling by the Soviet Union, which demanded that: A) the United States reign in Israel, B) demanded a US-Soviet "peace keeping" force in the region, and C) threatened to unilaterally send in combat troops if the United States refused A and B.
At the time Israel finally stopped ignoring the cease fire accord and ceased combat operations, around October 26, IIRC, the United States was moving at least two more carriers towards the region.
American carrier assets, as well as very strong statements from the US, forced the Soviet Union to back down on its threat to send combat troops into the Middle East in support of Egypt and Syria.
In essence, it's likely US naval strength prevented a whole new world of hurt from coming down on the already stunned Isralie military.
"one is now at peace with Israel."
Wow! I didn't know that! That means, of course, that since there's PEACE between Israel and Egypt that there will ALWAYS be peace between Israle and Egypt, that absolutely NOTHING will ever change that! Amazing how that works, isn't it? What is ever shall be without end, Amen!
"Finally, the US military's purpose is to defend... wait for it, I'm going to name the country... AMERICA."
On that we actually agree. I've never thought Israle to be: A) particularly worth aiding militarily or monetarily, B) worth the hassle with the Arab states, C) a friend.
As for the "defending America" bit, I happen to agree with the concept that defense isn't limited to the 200 mile coastal zone around the US continental shelf. Adequate national defense IS a global proposition, more so today than it was in 1973.
-
First off, the point is an exercise in the utility of carriers. The practicality of paying for all that hardware is not evident.
Second, when Israel's opponents get missiles accurate enough to actually target something the size of an airfield, I suspect airfields will be the prime target. Enough missiles lobbed means buh-bye airfields and sayonara air cover, missile defense or no missile defense. See China vs Taiwan on that equation.
With an aircraft carrier, they would have a chance to respond once the airfields are a charred ruin.
Same thing with static radar facilities: if it is based in one spot on land, it is vulnerable to short-ranged but moderately acurate missiles and suicide bombers.
Much the same criticisms can be levelled against the expense and usefulness of a carrier to the Israelis.
For it to be of any use, it would have to be within range of Israel and most of its enemies - both the Eastern Med and the Red Sea are not that big and are extremely busy shipping areas, so that a carrier and its escorts would probably be reasonably easy to locate. They would probably be vulnerable to both shore-based and small boat based missiles (which most of Israel's enemies have already, as Hezbollah showed in 2006) as well as mines, and suicide craft. This, together with the lack of any real geopolitical need for one, is why they do not have one.
Besides, if the Israelis ever got to the stage where they had no air power I think we all realise that what their response would be.
-
Any of the surrounding nations being at "peace" with Israel are using Will Rogers' definition of diplomacy.
That it's the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
-
that since there's PEACE between Israel and Egypt that there will ALWAYS be peace between Israle and Egypt, tha
So, on your argument, France should remain perennially braced for a German invasion of Alsace-Lorrain.
On that we actually agree. I've never thought Israle to be: A) particularly worth aiding militarily or monetarily, B) worth the hassle with the Arab states, C) a friend.
We are in agreement. That, and I don't think the current aid system helps any of the countries involved.
. Adequate national defense IS a global proposition, more so today than it was in 1973.
Let me remind you of your own post (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=7473) on a completely different forum.
The fact America's defenses are not limited to her physical borders does not mean the military budget must perrenially increase, that no warship is unnecessary, and no bomber unneeded.
-
So, on your argument, France should remain perennially braced for a German invasion of Alsace-Lorrain.
yes
-
when Israel's opponents get missiles accurate enough to actually target something the size of an airfield, I suspect airfields will be the prime target. Enough missiles lobbed means buh-bye airfields and sayonara air cover, missile defense or no missile defense
I would think some STOL jets that could land/TO on roads would be a better investment than a carrier and a fleet of ships to protect it. :|
(doesn't Finland or somebody have jets parked in old barns ready to take off on a nearby road ??? )
-
Back to the original topic-
When the Dems start handing out the post-halloween "candy", I'm buying another gun.
Somehow, all the Obama supporters assuring me that "He believes in the Second Amendment" doesn't ease my fears.
Here's to a new AR-15 for my wife!
-
I would think some STOL jets that could land/TO on roads would be a better investment than a carrier and a fleet of ships to protect it.
The Swedes have a plane like that. The Saab Gripen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen#Expeditionary_capabilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen#Expeditionary_capabilities)
STOL video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJQKCUjcslM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJQKCUjcslM&feature=related)
I think a few of those and a ship with a some Harriers would a great help in a war.
-
Back to the original topic-
When the Dems start handing out the post-halloween "candy", I'm buying another gun.
Somehow, all the Obama supporters assuring me that "He believes in the Second Amendment" doesn't ease my fears.
Here's to a new AR-15 for my wife!
Indeed. "He believes in the Second Amendment" probably just means that he recognizes that it exists.
-
Indeed. "He believes in the Second Amendment" probably just means that he recognizes that it exists.
And that its intent is to allow hunters to have single-shot long guns to shoot at ducks.
-
And that its intent is to allow hunters to have single-shot long guns to shoot at ducks.
Would this qualify as a single-shot duck rifle (http://serbu.com/top/bfg50.php), all Clinton-style?
-
I would think some STOL jets that could land/TO on roads would be a better investment than a carrier and a fleet of ships to protect it. :|
(doesn't Finland or somebody have jets parked in old barns ready to take off on a nearby road ??? )
Good point. Hopefully, the Israeli ABM radar are also mobile.
-
If anyone knows about selling stimulus, it's Barney Frank. :lol:
-
And that its intent is to allow hunters to have single-shot long guns to shoot at ducks.
...but not hit them....that would make the animal-rights people cry.... :rolleyes:
If anyone knows about selling stimulus, it's Barney Frank. :lol:
It's AB for the win..... :laugh:
-
Yay. Amtrak money suck X10000000. :P
You are aware that NO passenger rail is profitable and all are massive toilet-flushes of subsidized funds, right?
I'm pretty certain Japan does. But that's because they pack their trains like cattle cars.
-
I'm pretty certain Japan does. But that's because they pack their trains like cattle cars.
Actually the British rail network was profitable up until the tail end of the 1950s, and would probably have continued to be had the Government not intervened in order to score political points by forcing BR to fix fares.
Of course, they then proceeded to deliberately (and in the teeth of severe public opposition) trash the system so severely it has taken forty years to recover (and a partial recovery at that, since the Tory privatization managed to combine the worst aspects of private ownership with the worst aspects of state ownership), all the while demonstrating the improved profitability of road travel by sinking (and continuing to sink) billions and billions of pounds of public money into it.
-
With flight being so expensive and time consuming now, I think a high-speed rail network, if it terminated near, say, airports, to take advantage of existing rental car infrastructure would work.
I'm wondering if the old "rail won't pay for itself" numbers might have changed in the past year or so with gas getting more expensive.
If I have a 3 hour flight with an hour of airport BS on both ends at $600, or a high speed rail that took a couple few hours more, with better, more comfortable, seats (you can fit more bodies on a train just by adding cars due to more efficient engines) fewer luggage restrictions (trains don't care about weight or cube as much) and Wi-Fi for half that price I can see a lot of travelers choosing that option.
-
If a true high speed rail system were ever built then TSA would be all over it to keep you safe thus turning the train stations into another example of government gone wrong.
Anygunanywhere
-
With flight being so expensive and time consuming now, I think a high-speed rail network, if it terminated near, say, airports, to take advantage of existing rental car infrastructure would work.
I'm wondering if the old "rail won't pay for itself" numbers might have changed in the past year or so with gas getting more expensive.
If I have a 3 hour flight with an hour of airport BS on both ends at $600, or a high speed rail that took a couple few hours more, with better, more comfortable, seats (you can fit more bodies on a train just by adding cars due to more efficient engines) fewer luggage restrictions (trains don't care about weight or cube as much) and Wi-Fi for half that price I can see a lot of travelers choosing that option.
If that were the case, Acela would be profitable.
It isn't.
-
Think about it for a moment. Have a little vision. Look at a map. Visualize elevated, high speed, passenger and freight trains powered by nuclear power plant created electricity criss crossing the country using the Interstate Highway system's r.o.w.'s. There is an interstate fairly close to just about everybody. Park and go. Trains are elevated, so no problem with collisions or impact with ground transportation or animals. System is one way like the interstates, so no traffic problems except in the timing of one way trains.
48 nuke plants would probably have all sorts of excess electricity to sell off. Freight would be able to be transported faster and cheaper. Trucking would not be impacted as faster freight delivered to short haul truckers would keep them busy and home more often. Rental car business would bloom if more people decided to move around cheaply and easily and comfortably.
The jobs created in the construction/maintenance/operation of a rail system like that boggle the mind. Rather than flying at a high cost, I suspect Americans could travel all around the country fairly reasonably (seasonal rail passes), fairly quickly and tourism might increase.
Funding for construction could be through the sale of stock or bonds that pay a reasonable return. The construction part would provide a unifying project for the citizenry. If done right, I'll be willing to bet that it would be more than self sustaining. Your ticket gets you a seat or a sleeper. You pay for food and drinks as you would in a restaurant. Done right, one might be able to cross the country in a day or day and half or however long you might want to spend doing it.
We need some vision in America, something to excite us as a country. There are so many nay sayers, gloom and doomers, nabobs of negativity inter alia. I think it's time for some excitement.
-
Think about it for a moment. Have a little vision. Look at a map. Visualize elevated, high speed, passenger and freight trains powered by nuclear power plant created electricity criss crossing the country using the Interstate Highway system's r.o.w.'s. There is an interstate fairly close to just about everybody. Park and go. Trains are elevated, so no problem with collisions or impact with ground transportation or animals. System is one way like the interstates, so no traffic problems except in the timing of one way trains.
Visualize a train with lots of useless bureaucrats in offices running it badly, a train that doesn't go anywhere near where I live or where I want to go, a train I never use...but have to pay HIGHER TAXES for anyway.
Did you know that Disney's elevated monorail, even, is 1 million dollars per mile of track?
Did you know that for any new elevated track to be built, it HAS to have drip pans and a handicap accessible walkway along its ENTIRE LENGTH? Did you know that? Who is going to pay for that? Who would want something that ugly going near their home, ruining their property value with the ugliness and the clattering noise of a train above the greenbelts and noise abatement hills?
We need some vision in America, something to excite us as a country. There are so many nay sayers, gloom and doomers, nabobs of negativity inter alia. I think it's time for some excitement.
I think you need to stop wanting to spend MY money for useless World's Fair dream projects that are a waste of money and would become money-sucking eyesores that would fail within a couple of years. I get plenty excited when someone CUTS MY DAMNED TAXES INSTEAD OF RAISING THEM TO PAY FOR ASININE PROJECTS LIKE THIS.
France, 1959.
The promised dream:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzapatopi.net%2Fblog%2Fmonorailfahrenheit451.jpg&hash=2f2c5ce7ced464c18728f38905a9fc7085b7f67b)
The reality less than a decade later.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzapatopi.net%2Fblog%2Fmonorailtrash.jpg&hash=66cb62069890740ae3bcb0e7d22e6a5f2ef61d02)
Quit trying to waste my money. Live in the real world, please. Trains are good for freight when handled by private companies like CSX. THAT'S ALL.
If this was a good idea, private industry would already have done it!
-
There is not a single government run passenger train system or mass traisnt system anywhere in the world that is not heavily subsidized. Government is incapable of doing anything efifciently.
There is talk of using some existing tracks to extend rail service near where I live. They say it will only costs something like $200 million to improve the existing rail lines so they can be used for passenger service and buy the engines and cars. I think it is 30 miles of track we are talking about.
I was thinking about this the other day. $200 million in government bonds at 4% over say ten years is almost $21 million a year. This is for a 30 mile run that they estimate 500 people a day would use. Each passengers share would be over $100 per ride!
-
There is not a single government run passenger train system or mass traisnt system anywhere in the world that is not heavily subsidized. Government is incapable of doing anything efifciently.
There is talk of using some existing tracks to extend rail service near where I live. They say it will only costs something like $200 million to improve the existing rail lines so they can be used for passenger service and buy the engines and cars. I think it is 30 miles of track we are talking about.
I was thinking about this the other day. $200 million in government bonds at 4% over say ten years is almost $21 million a year. This is for a 30 mile run that they estimate 500 people a day would use. Each passengers share would be over $100 per ride!
Yeah, they were babbling about doing that here, too. Extending rail service from MA up to Manchester with a stop in Bedford.
Because, you know, people who live in an area with a median income of $80K want to ride a train. And have a train bringing up car thieves from Lawrence MA. Plus the track goes past some housing developments, who didn't mind it so much at present, as it's only used for a once-a-day slow gravel train now that hardly makes any sound. This would change that to a noisy passenger train with horns. All at taxpayer expense. And since when do trains go through nice areas? What do the areas that trains go through look like?
They already spent $50,000 on a study. I publically asked (and it was published) how they could spend $50,000 on a useless rail study when the street in front of the Verizon arena in Manchester was in such awful shape that it's like driving on the moon.
-
By the time this high-speed rail network is completed America's business class will be convening by holographic video. The rail system will be to transport the forthcoming waves of cheap labor from the less developed world that will have free entree to what was once the American nation.
-
By the time this high-speed rail network is completed America's business class will be convening by holographic video. The rail system will be to transport the forthcoming waves of cheap labor from the less developed world that will have free entree to what was once the American nation.
Saw one of those demoed a few years back, actually. It was a tech startup that had some seed money and was looking for some more to further develop the product.
Pretty impressive, BTW. Pretty impressive throughput and QOS requirements, too.
-
Saw one of those demoed a few years back, actually. It was a tech startup that had some seed money and was looking for some more to further develop the product.
Pretty impressive, BTW. Pretty impressive throughput and QOS requirements, too.
Huh? We use that all the time. We have a big screen at the end of the conference table. The European office has the same. We sit down, wave at each other, hold up stuff, and have meetings.