Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP Governors Admit Their Goal: Kill Jobs (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  hsr (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Israellyyours

    Sure, the federal money provides jobs while the HSR is being built.  The problem is that the state is then on the hook for running and maintaining it and there is no way that it will be self-sustaining.  When I go to Madison, I don't want to rent a car or use the bus, especially since it isn't going to run on my schedule or to my sister-in-law's place.  HSR may have a place in the densely populated portions of the country such as the northeast corridor, but is not the answer for most of the rest of us.

    •  Then don't use it. (4+ / 0-)

      Let the people who need it for commuting and business travel use it. HSR is faster and cheaper than air travel for these relatively short trips. It is the answer for a lot of people.

      Please don't tell us the construction jobs are temporary, because ALL construction jobs are temporary. That is the nature of construction. And do you have a link to data that shows the system will operate at a loss?

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 04:54:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  HSR only makes sense if you (0+ / 0-)

        have enough traffic to make it economically sustainable.

        In the Boston - New York - Washington DC corridor is probably does.

        Up in the mid-west?  Hard to believe.

        •  When gasoline is $10/gallon (4+ / 0-)

          (and it WILL get there and stay there eventually)  we will either be a nation with adequate rail or a nation that basically doesn't travel, except for the super elite.

          We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

          by bmcphail on Sat Nov 20, 2010 at 09:54:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or we will travel in electric cars (0+ / 0-)

            In actuality, gasoline is unlikely to reach $10/gallon any time within our current planning horizon unless we add major fuel taxes.

            1. Long before gas reaches $10 / gallon the American people will happily trample environmentalists to death in a mad rush to drill baby drill in every protected location you can imagine from Alaska to Yellowstone National Park if we fine oil there.
            1. Large scale syn fuels projects can produce gasoline from coal (which is in no danger of running out) for prices as low as $30 / barrel (and certainly for $60).  See http://en.wikipedia.org/....

            When gasoline does reach such prices (and we will eventually run out of fossil fuels) we will switch to nukes in preference to huddling around composters in the winter and those who object will be overridden.

            •  Yes that's what people assume. (0+ / 0-)
              1. The reason most of our oil comes from overseas is not because we lack the political will to drill but because despite mounting price incentives production has plateaud while demand has continued to increase: it is becoming depleted in the US.  You could drill in every possible asinine place up to and including the Capitol rotunda and it would not extend our local oil supplies for more than a few years.
              1. Even if we ignore the high environmental, climatological and social costs of synfuel.....which I concede we probably would...that $30 price depends on current pricing for the energy that must be used to extract and convert the synfuels.  As the cost of conventional fuels rises, all alternative sources including synfuels face the unpleasant choice of continuing to expend costly and increasingly rare petroleum on production, or attempting to transition to a alternatives-only fuel cycle which greatly reduces net energy yield.  Under either of these scenarios fuel becomes more expensive.
              1. Nukes have pretty bad net energy yield as well.  Transitioning to a pure fission economy that is sustainable over time is not going to happen unless we invoke some yet-unknown techonological advance. Don't forget that ores of fissionable elements are a finite resource as well.

              We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

              by bmcphail on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:24:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Disagree... (0+ / 0-)
                1. Recoverable fuel keeps increasing as technology improves.  Things like oil sands, etc. are dirty and unpleasant but they will work.
                1. $30 price is based on coal prices, and we're in no danger of running out of coal.
                1. We've got far more uranium than we need to run our industries for the next few hundred years.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site