The Wall

[GURPS]

Meangingless and misleading ....how about you look at what actually means something instead?: What percentage of the white population is collecting welfare benefits as compared to what percentage of black or hispanics?

well since African Americans only make up about 12 % of the population

 

[kwillia]

Walls works for the Vatican, Israel, Hollywood homeowners, etc.

 

[Grumpy]

Know “what” how?

Fine, I’ll address all my points, since you didn’t take the simple effort to include in your attack what point you had an issue with.

Welfare Queen was coined by reagan in the 70s about a black woman

https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...behind-the-lies-of-the-original-welfare-queen

Whites get the most welfare benefits

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-welfare-black-white-780252?amp=1


What else?

Please point out where Reagan stated that a welfare queen was black. The NPR piece is the opinion of the author and the audio clip(via Slate) does nothing but address the criminal actions of a woman. I believe others have chimed in with a factual answer to your assertion of whites getting the most welfare bennies..true, but look at the percentages.

 

[Gilligan]

Please point out where Reagan stated that a welfare queen was black. The NPR piece is the opinion of the author and the audio clip(via Slate) does nothing but address the criminal actions of a woman. I believe others have chimed in with a factual answer to your assertion of whites getting the most welfare bennies..true, but look at the percentages.

Truby has proven she's not real smart on this stuff...just another lefty parrot.

 

[Grumpy]

Truby has proven she's not real smart on this stuff...just another lefty parrot.

I wouldn't put her in the same category as MR, Sap, Tranny,etal.., usually she is pretty fair minded..or has been in the past. But I could be wrong..

 

[SamSpade]

I find it bizarre to compare the spending for a wall against infrastructure.

Infrastructure that has cost overruns and mismanagement and shows no chance at recovering its cost -
compared to a wall that can pay for itself very quickly if it can shut down the flow of illegal immigration.

A wall is cost effective - so far, high speed rail in this country has been a hole in the ground where
we throw billions with NO return on investment.

 

[Hijinx]

Infrastructure that has cost overruns and mismanagement and shows no chance at recovering its cost -
compared to a wall that can pay for itself very quickly if it can shut down the flow of illegal immigration.

A wall is cost effective - so far, high speed rail in this country has been a hole in the ground where
we throw billions with NO return on investment.

After High Speed rail is built , don't we have to continue to subsidize it?

 

[stgislander]

After High Speed rail is built , don't we have to continue to subsidize it?

So far, two high-speed rail projects (Miami-Orlando & LA-Las Vegas) are private ventures.

 

[SamSpade]

So far, two high-speed rail projects (Miami-Orlando & LA-Las Vegas) are private ventures.

Part of the confusion we have - is that when "high speed rail" is used to refer to trains in the United States -
they don't mean the speeds achieved abroad, and have so many stops that they never approach even
the top speeds they advertise. For example, the high speed rail in Florida CAN achieve speeds as high as 168 mph -
less than half the speeds of the much vaunted ones elsewhere - but it won't. Kind of like having a big sports car
and living downtown.

There are a LOT of reasons why high speed rail as done elsewhere isn't gaining traction here, but a lot of it is
a combination of WHERE people live in the U.S. and who will pay to use it. There are maybe four or five high
population areas in the U.S. - central Texas, the Northeast, the Midwest around Chicago and southern California -
and maybe southeastern Florida. Outside of that, population density isn't dense enough to make laying down
the track profitable.

Another is that building passenger rails in the U.S. now is like planning an abortion after your kid's children
graduate from college - it's way too late. Most of the trains abroad were being done decades ago, and the public
and public transit has been built around the alternatives of cars and planes. AS A RESULT OF *that*, most
train lines are designed for *freight*, which do NOT move at high speeds but must be accommodated when
running passenger lines.

 

[stgislander]

Part of the confusion we have - is that when "high speed rail" is used to refer to trains in the United States -
they don't mean the speeds achieved abroad, and have so many stops that they never approach even
the top speeds they advertise. For example, the high speed rail in Florida CAN achieve speeds as high as 168 mph -
less than half the speeds of the much vaunted ones elsewhere - but it won't. Kind of like having a big sports car
and living downtown.

There are a LOT of reasons why high speed rail as done elsewhere isn't gaining traction here, but a lot of it is
a combination of WHERE people live in the U.S. and who will pay to use it. There are maybe four or five high
population areas in the U.S. - central Texas, the Northeast, the Midwest around Chicago and southern California -
and maybe southeastern Florida. Outside of that, population density isn't dense enough to make laying down
the track profitable.

Another is that building passenger rails in the U.S. now is like planning an abortion after your kid's children
graduate from college - it's way too late. Most of the trains abroad were being done decades ago, and the public
and public transit has been built around the alternatives of cars and planes. AS A RESULT OF *that*, most
train lines are designed for *freight*, which do NOT move at high speeds but must be accommodated when
running passenger lines.

It's good to know someone else has studied the problem.

Multiple studies have concluded that passenger rail service is only viable for between destinations less than 500-600 miles. And like you said, that reduced speeds required with shared freight lines, and that the rail companies (UP, NS, CSX, and BNSF) own all the trackage. The Miami to Orlando service makes sense, although there are issues with the old FEC trackage. The LA to Las Vega route also makes sense and would likely justify laying new tracks.

 

[Hijinx]

It's good to know someone else has studied the problem.

Multiple studies have concluded that passenger rail service is only viable for between destinations less than 500-600 miles. And like you said, that reduced speeds required with shared freight lines, and that the rail companies (UP, NS, CSX, and BNSF) own all the trackage. The Miami to Orlando service makes sense, although there are issues with the old FEC trackage. The LA to Las Vega route also makes sense and would likely justify laying new tracks.

Who wants to ride the train when they can fly cheaper.

 

[stgislander]

Who wants to ride the train when they can fly cheaper.

Me. I HATE flying.

 

[Hijinx]

Me. I HATE flying.

I don't hate flying, it's the cramped seats and the long waits before the flight that get to me.

10 hrs. or less I drive.

 

[truby20]

I wouldn't put her in the same category as MR, Sap, Tranny,etal.., usually she is pretty fair minded..or has been in the past. But I could be wrong..

Thank you, I've honestly not been able to keep my cool with some of these posts...I'll work harder.

 

[truby20]

It's good to know someone else has studied the problem.

Multiple studies have concluded that passenger rail service is only viable for between destinations less than 500-600 miles. And like you said, that reduced speeds required with shared freight lines, and that the rail companies (UP, NS, CSX, and BNSF) own all the trackage. The Miami to Orlando service makes sense, although there are issues with the old FEC trackage. The LA to Las Vega route also makes sense and would likely justify laying new tracks.

I've read that pretty much the only place in the country where Amtrak actually makes money is the NE corridor. A lot of large cities relatively close together makes it viable, but like Sam said it's likely too late to add high speed rail to the infrastructure since the NIMBY crowd basically stops everything these days.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/072115/how-amtrak-works-makes-money.asp

It’s most profitable line runs along the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak’s Northeast service stretching from Washington, DC to Boston accounted for 37 % of its riders, 38% its annual revenues, and nearly all its operating profits,