Politics: Homo abortionists vs the born again gun nuts

by **Werthless** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:16:56

But before embarking on Stimulus III, note that only about 10 percent of Stimulus II has yet been injected into the economy in 2009. This is not the administration's fault, the administration's defenders say, because government is cumbersome, sluggish and inefficient. But this sunburst of insight comes as the administration toils to enlarge governmental control of health care, energy, finance, education, etc. The administration guesses that these government projects will do better than the Postal Service (its second-quarter loss, $1.9 billion, was 68 percent of its losses for all of 2008) and the government's railroad (Amtrak has had 38 money-losing years and this year's losses are on pace to set a record).
...
Before he became an economic adviser in the Obama White House, where wit can be dangerous, Larry Summers said: Liberals oppose a VAT because it is regressive and conservatives oppose it because it is a money machine, but a VAT might come when liberals realize it is a money machine and conservatives realize it is regressive.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 97416.html

by **pacino** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:23:38

why exactly should either the Postal Service or Amtrak make money? And who says they're inefficient at what they've been given?

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:26:20

jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not sure the Democrats successfully passing health care reform will cripple the GOP politically in any way. It'll hurt for a cycle or two, but a decade seems like a reach and several generations is insane. The concern I've heard more is that once something like this is enacted, there's no turning back. Sure maybe you can reform it a bit around the edges, but once people get "free" health care, it won't be politically feasible to reel it back in even if it turns out to be crappy and such. Or as Reagan put it: "The nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on the earth is a government program."

But if Republicans were serious about all this, wouldn't they be offering real alternatives that might get passed, or done something other than spend the last 12 years saying nothing other than "The US healthcare system is the best in the world!"? It seems that Republicans have made a political calculation that the only way they win this thing is by preventing anything from being passed. Long term, it's tough to see how that wins.

Anyway, as far as how long the Republicans remain in the wilderness--if Obama's reform is deemed a success, and the economy comes back, I think you've got a really weak party for at least a generation. Not simply because of health care, but for all the reasons why the Republicans are in big trouble anyway. There's the demographic issue--in a decade, Texas is purple unless Texas Hispanics start voting Republican. And there's the reality that the party is increasingly identified with Southern conservatism, which isn't even really all that strong in the South.

I could see a centrist party of blue dog Dems and moderate Republicans emerging, but then I'd be wrong about my whole populist v. elite hypothesis, so I'm not gonna elaborate on that.

I'm far more open to hearing about how the GOP is effed anyway for the next 20 years than hearing about how health care is likely to consign us to minority status. I think that's back patting bs at its finest.

Well, sure. Passing a healthcare program that people like isn't by itself going to be a problem for the Republican party, but it sure doesn't help a party with some serious problems.

In 2006 and 2008, Dems won mostly because they weren't Republicans. They ran against Bush, and won. But that isn't going to work in 2010 or 2012. Dems will have to give people a reason to continue their support. Though Republicans may oblige them by becoming more frothing and unhinged, it's probably not a good strategy to hope the other team keeps shanking their punts. The Dems will need policy success to build upon what is right now in my opinion rather capricious support.

by **Werthless** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:27:24

pacino wrote:why exactly should either the Postal Service or Amtrak make money? And who says they're inefficient at what they've been given?

Why shouldn't the postal service or a railroad make money? And what exactly "have they been given?"

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:32:27

pacino wrote:why exactly should either the Postal Service or Amtrak make money? And who says they're inefficient at what they've been given?

The problem with the postal service, as I understand it, is that your .42 letter is subsidizing commercial bulk mail. Their pricing model is all out of whack.

As far as Amtrak, it's hindered by a number of handicaps--much has to do with the fact that they don't own much of their track, so trains are slowed up by freight in many cases.

It does seem the emphasis on rail is shifting to a more regional approach. Around here, some people really seem to want this Texas rail thing, which would, we hope, extend to Little Rock. If a train from Texarkana to Dallas could go 200 mph, then that would make trip time 1.5 hours, and it would be something people might do. If similar trains connect Dallas to Austin and San Antonio, then all of a sudden the train might be faster than air travel. It won't happen, of course, without some public investment in infrastructure.

by **pacino** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:33:42

Amtrak's infrastructure is crap in comparison to most other nations' high-speed rail. They do what they can with what little they have.

We don't make highways attempt to make money. We build them so people get places. rail should be looked at the same way. It's not a business where massive cuts (which is what you'd want, obviously) should be made simply because it's losing money. It brings so much more to society.

by **dajafi** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:34:36

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm far more open to hearing about how the GOP is effed anyway for the next 20 years than hearing about how health care is likely to consign us to minority status. I think that's back patting bs at its finest.

Are you suggesting that Bill Kristol might have been wrong, ever?

Seriously, Paul's right that the Democrats won the last two times because the Republicans failed to govern well. But this didn't lock anything in; it only gave the Democrats a chance to do better. Really solving health care, one of the most intractable problems in American politics for more than half a century, would qualify as doing better.

This wouldn't lock out the Republicans at the state level; I think they're going to get back to about half the governorships after 2010 pretty much whatever happens. But between a big win for the Democrats on health care and the demographic factors, their fundamental problems would go from very bad to even worse.

by **pacino** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:37:52

Republicans have lost social issues. There's not enough people out there to gather votes on these things on a national level. The national consensus has moved on most of these, and politicians are simply slow to keep up. What Republicans can do is try to make a coherent message about economic concerns. I'm not sure they've done that, though. It's not like Democrats are anything special. Individually a Democrat may be a liberal with a clear outlook on how to vote/govern. But get a pack of Democrats together and they're pussies.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:42:46

pacino wrote:Amtrak's infrastructure is crap in comparison to most other nations' high-speed rail. They do what they can with what little they have.

We don't make highways attempt to make money. We build them so people get places. rail should be looked at the same way. It's not a business where massive cuts (which is what you'd want, obviously) should be made simply because it's losing money. It brings so much more to society.

Though I think there are certain inefficiencies that come from stopping someplace like Arkadelphia because Rep. Ross wants them too, and there's probably not much justification in having direct train service from NY to Chicago. Rail needs to focus on doing a really good job on regional travel--Austin-Dallas, LA-SF, Phil-Harrisburg-Pitt, and so forth.

by **pacino** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:44:14

Phil-Harrisburg-Pitt would be nice and probably well-used from phl-hbg, but that route would be used so much less than dc-balty-philly-nyc

This side of the state really is removed from that other side. Are they even in PA?

by **Werthless** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:44:58

pacino wrote:Amtrak's infrastructure is crap in comparison to most other nations' high-speed rail. They do what they can with what little they have.

We don't make highways attempt to make money. We build them so people get places. rail should be looked at the same way. It's not a business where massive cuts (which is what you'd want, obviously) should be made simply because it's losing money. It brings so much more to society.

We shouldn't be subsidizing driving and pollution, and should not pay for roads with other tax money. This is what tolls and gas taxes are meant to accomplish, to pay for the roads that government provides. I wish more governments would lease the roads to private companies to relieve congestion.

What does Amtrak bring to society? It's not that cheap (compared to buses), yet it's still losing money. We're subsidizing college kids and business travelers so they can travel cheaper and quicker. Great. What value. They can take the bus if they want cheap travel, or they can pay more. Their choice.

This is the same reason that I dont like the USPS cheap rates that we subsidize. It's a giveaway to bulk mailers, slowing the transition to transition to electronic correspondence.

by **pacino** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:46:39

Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:Amtrak's infrastructure is crap in comparison to most other nations' high-speed rail. They do what they can with what little they have.

We don't make highways attempt to make money. We build them so people get places. rail should be looked at the same way. It's not a business where massive cuts (which is what you'd want, obviously) should be made simply because it's losing money. It brings so much more to society.

We shouldn't be subsidizing driving and pollution, and should not pay for roads with other tax money. This is what tolls and gas taxes are meant to accomplish, to pay for the roads that government provides. I wish more governments would lease the roads to private companies to relieve congestion.

What does Amtrak bring to society? It's not that cheap (compared to buses), yet it's still losing money. We're subsidizing college kids and business travelers so they can travel cheaper and quicker. Great. What value. They can take the bus if they want cheap travel, or they can pay more. Their choice.

You and I are definitely looking at things from a different perspective. You are looking at AMTRAK, and I am looking at high-speed rail. Society benefits tremendously from rail in so many ways. Congestion, environment, business, travel, mobile populous, cheaper than car travel, etc.

Your view on the roads differs greatly from everything other Republicans say and do, so get to work on most of that (except selling the roads, I don't like that).

by **Werthless** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:49:26

OK, what is the compelling reason to bring high speed rail? Our government is bankrupt, and now we're going to invest hugely in infrastructure that gets us from A to B faster?

by **pacino** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:49:57

Yes, we should. It's always cheaper to do it now than later. It has high sunken costs, but the benefits to society make it a necessity in my view.

by **Werthless** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:52:48

I was asking for the benefits... what are they? Quicker/more expensive transportation in a corridor that is already not a money-maker... I'm not seeing the multibillion dollar benefits.

by **pacino** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:54:05

jesus christ, i said it above. if you disagree, fine. i don't do back and forths, we both said what we had to say

by **allentown** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:01:54

pacino wrote:jesus christ, i said it above. if you disagree, fine. i don't do back and forths, we both said what we had to say

I went back half a dozen pages and didn't find any post where you listed what you thought the benefits to society of Amtrak/high speed rail are.

by **Werthless** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:03:23

Congestion, environment, business, travel, mobile populous, cheaper than car travel, etc.

Sorry I missed that.

If amtrak is such a social benefit, why don't we just provide the trains for $10? Or for free! If we wanted to pack the trains, lower pollution, and not worry about losing money, we should charge much less! We'd relieve congestion much more, lower pollution, subsidize travel, help business, make the populous more mobile, and make it cheaper than car travel. Do you agree? Why don't we do this?

by **pacino** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:06:46

We should lower the price, and we should raise the cost of driving as you've previously stated. I'm not sure if you think you're getting me on something?

edit: Dismantling the last 60 years of irresponsible growth will take a while. There'll be a lot of redevelopment of how our metro areas are laid out which will need to be facilitated through all levels of government. You probably disagree with urban and regional planning because it's the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy.

by **Werthless** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:19:41

pacino wrote:We should lower the price, and we should raise the cost of driving as you've previously stated. I'm not sure if you think you're getting me on something?

If you think that train rides should be given away for free (or super cheap), then I'm not sure how we can agree on many things. Sure, I'd like using free train rides, free schools, free roads, cheap mail, etc, but I think it's silly policy. It's silly for 3 reasons. One, when we give something away for free/cheap, we provide a huge barrier to innovation from private companies and inventors. Quality stagnates, as the incentives to provide a great service decrease. Two, we have non-users paying for others to use the service. So we have old people paying for their neighbor's education, you and I paying for junk mail we dont want to receive, and an urbanite who bikes everywhere paying for their travel-loving suburban neighbor to pollute their air. It removes people from the ramifications of their actions, and punishes people who make sacrifices to cut back. Three, well, we can't afford it. We can't continue spending like there's no tomorrow.

Or, as Eddie Vedder would say:

I don't want to take what you can give
I would rather starve than eat your bread
All the things that others want for me
Can't buy what I want because it's free

Archived

Politics: Homo abortionists vs the born again gun nuts