As further evidence that PtK has the ear of the higher spirits - or at least of NYTimes columnists - none other than David Brooks hops on the "gee I wish Barry were a bolder bastard" bandwagon:

David Brooks in NYTimes wrote:The Perot Option

There is a specter haunting America: the specter of a saner, updated version of Ross Perot....He is large of ego, full of money and cranky in mien....

When he enters the arena, he’ll say that Washingtonians, all of them, are a bunch of failures....He’ll point out that Washingtonians, all of them, breed selfishness....When he comes, he’ll present himself warts and all. Yes, I’m an obnoxious S.O.B., he’ll say. But you need me right now....When he comes...he will change the political landscape, at least for a time.

If I were one of those fellows advising Barack Obama, I would tell him that you can either get run over by that saner Ross Perot or you can be the saner Ross Perot....

Apparently Obama's visit to the House Republican caucustoday was pretty interesting. It was on C-SPAN and is available online. Probably will take a look later on.

dajafi wrote:Apparently Obama's visit to the House Republican caucustoday was pretty interesting. It was on C-SPAN and is available online. Probably will take a look later on.

He apparently owned them. A GOP official that it was a mistake to let him take cameras in.

kopphanatic wrote:

dajafi wrote:Apparently Obama's visit to the House Republican caucustoday was pretty interesting. It was on C-SPAN and is available online. Probably will take a look later on.

He apparently owned them. A GOP official that it was a mistake to let him take cameras in.

No idea if this is true, but I heard that Fox News cut away when the direction of the session became clear

dajafi wrote:Apparently Obama's visit to the House Republican caucustoday was pretty interesting. It was on C-SPAN and is available online. Probably will take a look later on.

My wife told me that she watch some of it and Obama absolutely rocked 'em. I am hoping C-SPAN replays it later tonight (I get a headache watching stuff online for extended periods).

They are replaying it on C-SPAN right now if anybody is interested.

TenuredVulture wrote:

traderdave wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Posted for Pacino

The one thing that scares me about mass transit, high-speed trains in particular, is the whole notion of "If you build it they will come". With the cost of mass transit to the rider recently, I am not so sure.

My main reference point is PATCO but fares from Westmont to Philly are nearly $5.00 now (they'd be a bit higher than that but the DRPA but a hold on a planned 10% increase later this year) and the DRPA is projecting 100,000 LESS riders in 2010. I think Amtrak is still a fairly reasonable ride, especially when I travel to "secondary" stations, but they have a long history of problems, both operational and financial, with Acela.

Even with those problems, I believe the NE Corridor is the only profitable part of Amtrak--and I think the fundamental problem with speed and operational issues are the tracks, not the trains.

One problem with Amtrak is that it is subject to a lot of political interference. As far as I know, there really is no reason for a government subsidy for a train that goes from New York to Chicago. However, in places like California, Texas, and Florida, regional high speed rail does make sense, much like the Northeast corridor. To fly from Dallas to Houston, if you count the time getting to and from the airport and the time standing on line is probably 4 hour trip, even if only an hour is spent in the air. A train that could go 120 mph could make the trip in 2 hours.

A lot of people are pretty stupid about mass transit. People in SE Pa often say dumb stuff like "why should I pay for trains when I don't use them? I drive." This statement is stupid on two levels--first, if all the passengers of trains got on the highways, traffic would be much worse. Second, of course, your road that you use mostly for free don't exactly pay for themselves (though of course a gas tax does account for a substantial proportion of the highway budget.

One of the dumbest things ever decided as a collective mass in the US was that driving doesn't have to be profitable for the state, but mass transport does. This is infrastructure, helping our society move and work (and get to work). It's just ridiculous to me on its face that we would expect a big revenue stream out of railways, subways and buses.

You make a good point, but one practical reason you don't mention is the high volume of employees required to operate each mile of mass transit vs. the highway system. I agree that we (the collective public) are gouged when trying to use mass transit, but at the same time, the majority of people don't use it and couldn't if they wanted to. If you were to say that we should've never done it this way in the first place (i.e. it always should have been a tax burden vs. for pay), I couldn't argue, but that's just Monday morning quarterbacking. I'm not really up for spreading that tax burden on everyone just because.

VoxOrion wrote:You make a good point, but one practical reason you don't mention is the high volume of employees required to operate each mile of mass transit vs. the highway system. I agree that we (the collective public) are gouged when trying to use mass transit, but at the same time, the majority of people don't use it and couldn't if they wanted to. If you were to say that we should've never done it this way in the first place (i.e. it always should have been a tax burden vs. for pay), I couldn't argue, but that's just Monday morning quarterbacking. I'm not really up for spreading that tax burden on everyone just because.

My second point though is that drivers who don't use mass transit benefit from its existence, because it decreases congestion. Mass transit riders, by contrast, generally don't benefit in the same way from highways.

The Power Broker, the story of Robert Moses goes in great detail about how in NY Moses (NYC, West Chester, and Long Island) systematically deprived mass transit of necessary funding and built ever more highways. Building more roads, it turns out, does not alleviate congestion. Only mass transit does.

TenuredVulture wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:You make a good point, but one practical reason you don't mention is the high volume of employees required to operate each mile of mass transit vs. the highway system. I agree that we (the collective public) are gouged when trying to use mass transit, but at the same time, the majority of people don't use it and couldn't if they wanted to. If you were to say that we should've never done it this way in the first place (i.e. it always should have been a tax burden vs. for pay), I couldn't argue, but that's just Monday morning quarterbacking. I'm not really up for spreading that tax burden on everyone just because.

My second point though is that drivers who don't use mass transit benefit from its existence, because it decreases congestion. Mass transit riders, by contrast, generally don't benefit in the same way from highways.

The Power Broker, the story of Robert Moses goes in great detail about how in NY Moses (NYC, West Chester, and Long Island) systematically deprived mass transit of necessary funding and built ever more highways. Building more roads, it turns out, does not alleviate congestion. Only mass transit does.

The largest reason we have interstates and developed a radical car culture, is that GM built trucks and crushed the railroads after WWII. As well, selling cars so that Americans could still fantasize and re-enact the pioneer spirit of go wherever whenever... now, we live in a much more crowded world, much of urban and sub-urban planning has been built on car dependency.

Who should pay for what? It's not that simple. We'd need some massive changes in behavior and thinking for a generation or two to really develop new ways of thinking about how we get around and how we are living. Energy (oil) issues have re-surfaced so people are at least talking a bit about it.

Public trans, doesn't have to be a boon-doggle. It can be done and people can change how they move around and how they live. I'd encourage a move in that direction, but doubt the will is there, and when people say, "Hey, that stuff won't serve me, I don't want to pay for it..." well, that's the end of that. Most of you have rejected my notions of subsidizing air travel and nationalizing, on various grounds -- from not being practical to costs, to being too socialist or whatever -- I'd assume the same with regards to public trans, and re-developing new better rail and light rail --

These things are easily paid for btw, if we stop the militarism. See the link I posted above regarding that. No one here wants to challenge privatization and private enterprise -- there seems to be reticence of public stuff that is govt funded. Public trans is almost a bad word for many. Gouged? I don't know what reasonable costs should be for trains, planes, buses, trollery, light rail, subways - etc... but it can be done better. Look at many cities and rural areas of Europe to see more effective rail stuff. The Metro in Paris is great, easy, not insanely expensive.

Philly the Kid wrote:The largest reason we have interstates and developed a radical car culture, is that GM built trucks and crushed the railroads after WWII

No.

I watched parts of the Q&A on CNN and read the transcript. Obama did well, obviously a setting for him to shine in. I like the whole idea, although when Jeb Hensarling and Jason Chaffetz get to talk it sort of ruins the mood from our angle. Next time Paul Ryan should be the only Republican allowed to talk. My love for the Wisconsin Rep was only deepened today. Well Cantor and Pence and whoever can talk too I guess, but the party needs more Ryan.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:The largest reason we have interstates and developed a radical car culture, is that GM built trucks and crushed the railroads after WWII

No.

In addition to lobbying by automakers, Eisenhower saw how useful the Autobahn was in Germany, and how it could contribute to national defense, providing easy transportation of equipment and supplies. Unlike European and most Asian countries, the US is immense, and 50 years ago congestion wasn't an issue. It wasn't radical, it was logical. And what is wrong with being able to go wherever, whenever? Trains have their place (urban areas), but in a country this size, it doesn't make sense for transportation across long distances (freight is obviously a different story).

Why should I be okay with the president having a line-item veto? I'm unsure of how I feel at the moment.

cshort wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:The largest reason we have interstates and developed a radical car culture, is that GM built trucks and crushed the railroads after WWII

No.

In addition to lobbying by automakers, Eisenhower saw how useful the Autobahn was in Germany, and how it could contribute to national defense, providing easy transportation of equipment and supplies. Unlike European and most Asian countries, the US is immense, and 50 years ago congestion wasn't an issue. It wasn't radical, it was logical. And what is wrong with being able to go wherever, whenever? Trains have their place (urban areas), but in a country this size, it doesn't make sense for transportation across long distances (freight is obviously a different story).

I won't get in to the wherever whenever -- but GM made trucks, and railroads needed serious infrastructure renewal. They lost. Instead of having world class rail, and continuing the culture of rail travel, it got thinner and thinner -- as trucking blew up. Along with it, fuel consumption,, pollution and inefficiency. Imagine if the R&D had gone in to new rail? With light-rail for inner cities being more efficient, safe, etc...

Here in the Bay Area, we have CalTrain and BART and Muni-buses. But we are still overloaded on the freeways. One accident, or storm and its a mess. LA is impossible.

But don't think the auto-makers (truck makers/bus makers) did not have a big hand in killing viable rail. And only in America are we so arrogant to think that we have an inalienable right to just drive a big mf cadillac all over the open hiway at 10mph one person to a box.

Philly the Kid wrote:

cshort wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:The largest reason we have interstates and developed a radical car culture, is that GM built trucks and crushed the railroads after WWII

No.

In addition to lobbying by automakers, Eisenhower saw how useful the Autobahn was in Germany, and how it could contribute to national defense, providing easy transportation of equipment and supplies. Unlike European and most Asian countries, the US is immense, and 50 years ago congestion wasn't an issue. It wasn't radical, it was logical. And what is wrong with being able to go wherever, whenever? Trains have their place (urban areas), but in a country this size, it doesn't make sense for transportation across long distances (freight is obviously a different story).

I won't get in to the wherever whenever -- but GM made trucks, and railroads needed serious infrastructure renewal. They lost. Instead of having world class rail, and continuing the culture of rail travel, it got thinner and thinner -- as trucking blew up. Along with it, fuel consumption,, pollution and inefficiency. Imagine if the R&D had gone in to new rail? With light-rail for inner cities being more efficient, safe, etc...

Here in the Bay Area, we have CalTrain and BART and Muni-buses. But we are still overloaded on the freeways. One accident, or storm and its a mess. LA is impossible.

But don't think the auto-makers (truck makers/bus makers) did not have a big hand in killing viable rail. And only in America are we so arrogant to think that we have an inalienable right to just drive a big mf cadillac all over the open hiway at 10mph one person to a box.

no... there is no whatever, whenever. cshort is clearly a historian of the facts at the time. granted wikepedia is one of the last sources i would ever recommend to reference regarding facts... but never the less, take a minute or two to read up on the information provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

Wiki was an easy source - but it's fairly obvious why this was driven by Eisenhower. I get the concern in urban areas PTK, but tell someone outside the coasts they can't have the flexibility.

I'm not anti-train, I just find that there are more viable options. Air travel is still cheaper and quicker (especially from small regional airports), and for shorter commutes outside urban areas, cars are just as fast, probably more reliable, and much more flexible.

Doesn't "Bowling Alone" provide a pretty good historical perspective on the highway system? I know it was some significant book that wasn't exactly about that, but covered it anyway. My understanding is that lobbying had a lot to do with it, and that the highway makers and auto-manufacturers simply won the battle.

Rev_Beezer wrote:Why should I be okay with the president having a line-item veto? I'm unsure of how I feel at the moment.

You shouldn't be okay with it.