Florida Governor sued over refusing high-speed rail

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GPK

Has he given his reasoning for refusing the high speed rail?

Sorry, I didn't post the link - here it is. Good article, lots of detail.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_829981.html

His primary reason he gives is what it will cost out of the state's pocket, a number that others in the state say is false. There's lots of talking back and forth between other elected officials in his state and Washington.

Other elected officials suing a governor. Pretty shocking stuff.

Certainly, politics would suggest that Scott should refine his approach. A recent Harris Interactive poll showed 67 percent of Floridians support state or federal funding for high-speed rail, with 17 percent opposed.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sorry, I didn't post the link - here it is. Good article, lots of detail.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_829981.html

His primary reason he gives is what it will cost out of the state's pocket, a number that others in the state say is false. There's lots of talking back and forth between other elected officials in his state and Washington.

Other elected officials suing a governor. Pretty shocking stuff.

one of them lies and you swear to it
ever think about just applying for MSNBC or some other super DNC branch office job

yada yada yada

"pull my sting"

so predictable you are

[SOREHOOF]

Doesn't anyone see the hypocrisy in this? Is Obama building high speed rail for the poor? Do you plan on using high speed rail in the near future? Guess what. You've peen played! Hello! It's that nasty rich that's gonna be sucking up those high speed rides!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Doesn't anyone see the hypocrisy in this? Is Obama building high speed rail for the poor? Do you plan on using high speed rail in the near future? Guess what. You've peen played! Hello! It's that nasty rich that's gonna be sucking up those high speed rides!

what I dont understand, if it such a good thing to do and invest the taxpayers money into... then why doesnt a private corporation want to build these high speed rail lines?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

what I dont understand, if it such a good thing to do and invest the taxpayers money into... then why doesnt a private corporation want to build these high speed rail lines?

Warren Buffett looked at it and walked away faster than T. Boone Pickens did from his wind mills.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Warren Buffett looked at it and walked away faster than T. Boone Pickens did from his wind mills.

Buffett loves rail. Thinks it's the future of the country. Bought Burlington Northern to transport coal. "It's an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States," said Buffett in a statement. "I love these bets."

Read Buffetts current shareholder letter this past weekend (you can find it on the Berkshire Hathaway website):

"The highlight of 2010 was our acquisition of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, a purchase that's working out even better than I expected.

"Railroads have major cost and environmental advantages over trucking. … Last year BNSF moved each ton of freight it carried a record 500 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. That's three times more fuel-efficient than trucking is, which means our railroad owns an important advantage in operating costs. Concurrently, our country gains because of reduced greenhouse emissions and a much smaller need for imported oil. When traffic travels by rail, society benefits."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

what I dont understand, if it such a good thing to do and invest the taxpayers money into... then why doesnt a private corporation want to build these high speed rail lines?

Because infrastructure costs big money. The good thing will be the states that benefit from the income once built. The economic development corridor opportunities. Tourism, travel, increased access to other towns for job opportunities, construction and manufacturing jobs created by the thousands during building, permanent jobs associated with it afterwards.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because infrastructure costs big money. The good thing will be the states that benefit from the income once built. The economic development corridor opportunities. Tourism, travel, increased access to other towns for job opportunities, construction and manufacturing jobs created by the thousands during building, permanent jobs associated with it afterwards.

Then let Disney and the Development Bureau of Miami pitch in and with private equity investors, start with Orlando to Miami as a prototype. Since the line is predicted to be such a success they couldn't afford not to do it. You could be the pitch-woman.

There's no way people say in N. Dakota should pay for a train in Florida. Just as Floridians shouldn't pay for a Milwaukee Madison line.

I suggest you look up the name Henry Flagler who built his railway over ocean in the late 1890's. If he could do it then, Buffett can do it now. Government belongs in the governing and defense business not the rail business, post office, health care administrator/provider, hospitals, banking, mortgage, auto manufacturing etc etc ad nausea.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

There's no way people say in N. Dakota should pay for a train in Florida. Just as Floridians shouldn't pay for a Milwaukee Madison line.

Then you need to get off the interstate highway system. And stop supporting our defense systems and troops. NASA. Everything federal.

And do you run the toll booths, refusing to pay tolls, when you come to Illinois?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

what I dont understand, if it such a good thing to do and invest the taxpayers money into... then why doesnt a private corporation want to build these high speed rail lines?

Think of it like stem cells, if there were money/real results in it big pharma would be all over it. Just like most government ideas forced down the throats of people it is a money pit. Our country is too big for this to grow legs and really work.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Think of it like stem cells, if there were money/real results in it big pharma would be all over it. Just like most government ideas forced down the throats of people it is a money pit. Our country is too big for this to grow legs and really work.

except stem cell research is EXTREMELY important. a railroad not so much, we already have ways of transportation.

I work in the horse business.. and its incredible how much stem cells have done for certain industries.. that is not a waste of money, and GW Bush was an idiot for cutting funding for stem cells.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

except stem cell research is EXTREMELY important. a railroad not so much, we already have ways of transportation.

I work in the horse business.. and its incredible how much stem cells have done for certain industries.. that is not a waste of money, and GW Bush was an idiot for cutting funding for stem cells.

While important, there is nothing stopping Merck, Novartis or Pfizer from exploring this option with their own funding and they choose not to despite the enormous potential it might have, this is based on projections.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

one of them lies and you swear to it
ever think about just applying for MSNBC or some other super DNC branch office job

yada yada yada

"pull my sting"

so predictable you are

No, Wing, I didn't "swear" to anything. Nor did I offer any opinion at all on this. I just posted the article. What I find most interesting about it are elected officials suing each other. I find that shocking and untoward.

So go back to looking for your black helicopters, flying monkeys and illegal Kenyan Muslim Presidents. Conspiracy theorists don't have alot of bonafides regarding lecturing others on what their reality is.