Thursday, January 18, 2018

California Bullet Train Cost $2.8 Billion

Officials are raising the projected cost of the first phase of California's bullet train by 35 percent, to $10.6 billion. The extra $2.8 billion comes on a 199-mile segment in the Central Valley that is partly under construction. The California High Speed Rail Authority board discussed the increase Tuesday. It boosts the overall cost of the project to nearly $67 billion, which officials say they hope to recover later.

Comments

And what % complet are they? It will cost at least 20 billion by the time it is done.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-17 04:37 PM

It will cost at least 20 billion by the time it is done.

#1 | Posted by Sniper

Why do you care?

Does it pick your pockets or break your bones?

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-17 04:44 PM

-- nearly $67 billion, which officials say they hope to recover later.

"Recover" by taxing non-users instead of pricing fares adequately. That's assuming the MoonBeam Express is ever completed--doubtful.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-17 05:43 PM

Idk, numbers look pretty good when you ask state officials. www.latimes.com

I especially like the last bit..."But Thompson, the system's independent review panel chairman, said the uncertainty has become less relevant, now that the state is committed to building the system. 'We will not know until late in the game how everything will turn out,' he said."

#4 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-17 06:24 PM

That's the spirit. Jump first, ask questions later. Build it and they will come.

#5 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-17 06:25 PM

Germany, France, Japan, China are all building high speed rail, why would we want America to be the only modern nation that isn't? Instead waste billions on a wall? More military spending? Does anyone think that by waiting to build rail systems that they will be cheaper ten years from now or that the usage won't eventually make us wonder why we ever questioned the idea. Do you think everyone was on board with the Interstate Highway System or that it was inexpensive? American infrastructure is falling behind the rest of the world, we are foolish if we let that happen and at the same time give billionaires big tax cuts. This is our children's future we are laming out on, letting the 1% tell us they need tax cuts while we let our infrastructure deteriorate and not move forward. Our nation has been a leader but not today, now it seems that the backwards forces are taking over so that the billionaires can sock away more money than they will ever spend.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 07:21 PM

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI

Well, you see DANNI, the Wall and military spending will keep us safe. IOW, 'Muricans are just a bunch of pansies. At least that's what Republicans will have you believe.

#7 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-01-17 07:24 PM

--We will not know until late in the game how everything will turn out,' he said."

Great planning, genius.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-17 07:25 PM

#8

One party State, what do you expect...

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-17 08:14 PM

One party state, yeah I'll say, the land of Nixon, Reagan and Swartzenegger.

#10 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-01-17 08:35 PM

#6,

Americans are independent. They don't like being shoved into crowded spaces (at least everyone other than liberals dont like it). I dont know when you are going to get it in your thick head that we are not like Europe. I think you need to immigrate there since you like it so much instead of trying to CHANGE my homeland to be more like it there.

I dont want that and a majority of Americans are with me.

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 07:57 AM

"Americans are independent. They don't like being shoved into crowded spaces (at least everyone other than liberals dont like it). I dont know when you are going to get it in your thick head that we are not like Europe"

So much nonsense flows out of you Boaz. Americans don't want high speed rail because we are afraid of crowded spaces? Then how do you account for airliners moron?

#12 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 08:08 AM

The first winning Bid for California's High-Speed Rail (phase 1) was alleged to be completed for $1.2 billion, $800 million under the State's budget estimate. Just get the contract first and then change order the massive project to death. No better example of this behavior than Bechtel's "Big Dig". It is also the business plan of every defense contractor.

But, is there really any reason to differentiate between public support for rail transportation and air transportation? One difference, of course, is air transportation is completely privatized Government subsidization, with benefits flowing to the airlines. This is OK to Conservatives, but they are dead set against any subsidy which might flow to the user of public transportation services. This ideology is really hypocrisy and greed in full display.

The benefit/cost relationships of public transportation projects depend largely on population densities. San Francisco and the entire Bay Area are better off today than Los Angeles, because of those public investments. Investments which conservatives fought tooth and nail, leaving San Mateo County originally out of BART.

The EU and Scandinavia have public transportation services superior to ours, until Thatcher decided its better to let Richard Branson and a few others profit from those monopolies. They don't need school buses, they just provide all students with free bus passes. We pay for redundant systems because our public transportation system is inadequate for serving the general public. General Motors was historically instrumental in undermining public transportation, a real problem in congested cities.

#13 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-18 09:12 AM

Airliners are different. Americans are just too independent for the European model of thought.

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 09:13 AM

They don't need school buses, they just provide all students with free bus passes.

I dont want my kids riding a bus with the general public.

I would rather my kids ride on a school bus with other kids than with bums and the homeless.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 09:15 AM

"I dont want my kids riding a bus with the general public. "

No comment from me, I'll just let the comic stupidity of that post speak for itself.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 09:30 AM

There aren't any homeless people in Scandinavia and many EU countries, like Germany. Just clean parks, devoid of graffiti, low crime rates, and gentle police officers. Cooperation transcends the hate and fear that permeates many parts of the US jungle.

#17 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-18 09:31 AM

Americans are independent. They don't like being shoved into crowded spaces
#11 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 07:57 AM

That must be why 62 percent of Americans are concentrated on 3.5% of the land. www.census.gov

#18 | Posted by censored at 2018-01-18 09:33 AM

I would rather my kids ride on a school bus with other kids than with bums and the homeless.

#15 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-01-18 09:15 AM | REPLY |

After I got t-boned by someone who ran a red light there was a gap of several weeks where I had no car. I used our bus system to get to and from work. I never saw homeless people pay $2.00 to ride the bus. The busses were often crowded mostly with students and other people like myself just trying to get to work. If you work downtown where parking is expensive and hard to find busses are both more economical and more efficient than everyone driving a personal vehicle. public parking downtown is hit or miss. If there is an event good luck finding a space at all. For the numerous employees of the shops and restaraunts it doesn't make sense to pay $350/month for a parking space when you can get a monthly bus pass for $75. It is especially true because of the low pay retail and restaraunt jobs bring with them.

Most people who oppose public transportation have their opinions formed by TV depictions that make their ratings by shock value and exaggerate or outright fabricate their depictions

#19 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-18 09:34 AM

I dont agree Hatter.

Hardly anyone here in the south rides the bus. If they do, it's because they cant afford a car. And that's ok.

No comment from me, I'll just let the comic stupidity of that post speak for itself.

#16 | Posted by danni

Ok, whatever. I dont want my kids riding a public bus with the general public. Maybe you do. Ok. On this, we disagree. And I shouldnt be forced for my kids to do as you would like. That's why we have separate and equal states, so you can live where you want and so can I.

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 10:04 AM

Jerry Brown's MoonBeam Express is the biggest vanity project since the pharoahs built themselves pyramids.

Building a bullet train through the sparsely populated Central valley might be the dumbest idea of all time. You need high population-density traffic corridors for these things to make any kind of practical and economic sense.

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-18 10:20 AM

#20 | Posted by boaz

This statement on ridership is based on what? It is based on the area you are familiar with for one. I don't disagree that most people that can afford cars don't ride the bus but the characterization of bus riders is simply based on your observation of the fact most people don't ride the bus if they can afford not to and NOT the actual economic situation of bus riders. Have you rode a bus in say the last 10 years?

#22 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-18 10:33 AM

You need high population-density traffic corridors for these things to make any kind of practical and economic sense.

#21 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Correct. Urban sprawl makes high-speed rail impractical.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 10:39 AM

Have you rode a bus in say the last 10 years?

Yes and I hated it. Reminded me of why I own cars.

#24 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 10:41 AM

#24 | Posted by boaz

I won't disagree with that comment because there are MANY things I greatly dislike about public transit. I have taken the bus several times in the past decade when I am out of town and I didn't find the ridership you describe. Of course I wasn't riding in particularly poor areas either...

#25 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-18 10:56 AM

Why do you care?

Does it pick your pockets or break your bones?

#2 | Posted by donnerboy

Because it is my tax dollars that will bail their broke butts out of the jamb. Why don't you care?

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 10:57 AM

Germany, France, Japan, China are all building high speed rail, why would we want America to be the only modern nation that isn't?

#6 | Posted by danni

All small countries with large populations. If you want to ride the train up and down the east coast don't let me stop you but don't ask me to pay for the damn train.

#27 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 11:00 AM

There aren't any homeless people in Scandinavia and many EU countries, like Germany. Just clean parks, devoid of graffiti, low crime rates, and gentle police officers. Cooperation transcends the hate and fear that permeates many parts of the US jungle.

#17 | Posted by bayviking

Damn, I didn't know that.

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 11:03 AM

That must be why 62 percent of Americans are concentrated on 3.5% of the land. www.census.gov

#18 | Posted by censored

They are the nation of sheep under the care of the big bad sheep dog.

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 11:04 AM

Ok, whatever. I dont want my kids riding a public bus with the general public. Maybe you do. Ok. On this, we disagree. And I shouldnt be forced for my kids to do as you would like. That's why we have separate and equal states, so you can live where you want and so can I.

#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-01-18 10:04 AM | REPLY

Instead of paying a fare and riding a public bus system that is paid for by the fares you want to use my tax dollars to bus your kid separately.

Got it.

You are okay with spending tax dollars for you and yours just not for anyone else

#30 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-18 11:04 AM

Most people who oppose public transportation have their opinions formed by TV depictions that make their ratings by shock value and exaggerate or outright fabricate their depictions

#19 | Posted by hatter5183

Wrong lib breath. The people that oppose public transportation live in middle America where there isn't enough population to support such a system and where the towns are a long way apart. We don't want to pay for your subsided life style.

#31 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 11:08 AM

All small countries with large populations. If you want to ride the train up and down the east coast don't let me stop you but don't ask me to pay for the damn train.

#27 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-01-18 11:00 AM | REPLY

But you are okay with making me pay for your damn roads.

Got it.

And don't give me the gas tax covers it BS we all know it only covers a piece of it. You pay gas tax. I pay commuter fare.

Right wingers are usually fine with using other people's tax money for things that directly benefit them but get constipated at the thought of their tax money being used to benefit other people.

#32 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-18 11:09 AM

Because it is my tax dollars that will bail their broke butts out of the jamb. Why don't you care?

#26 | POSTED BY SNIPER

California has never been "bailed out" by your tax dollars.

The fact is California regularly bails out America.

Californians has bailed out the rest of America to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

That is why I could give a crap what you lazy bums from red states say.

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-18 11:19 AM

Ah California. The state that has the highest poverty level yet is full of people who love to say how bad Cons are at handling the economy.

"Californians has bailed out the rest of America to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. "

Rofl!!! That is one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard a Liberal make up. California has never been bailed out and they have never contributed to helping the rest of the country (other than what every other state has to pay in and receive from the Fed), just like every other state. Making things up to counter another statement that was made up just makes you the best imagination in the debate. Congratulations.

#34 | Posted by humtake at 2018-01-18 12:30 PM

--We will not know until late in the game how everything will turn out,' he said."
Great planning, genius.

#8 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

This is how construction goes. It's how building anything goes. There's a million little things you can't anticipate that slowly add up.

#35 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 12:36 PM

But you are okay with making me pay for your damn roads.

Got it.

And don't give me the gas tax covers it BS we all know it only covers a piece of it. You pay gas tax. I pay commuter fare.

Right wingers are usually fine with using other people's tax money for things that directly benefit them but get constipated at the thought of their tax money being used to benefit other people.

#32 | Posted by hatter5183

So, how do you pay for my roads? I thought the gasoline tax did that and I pay more than my fair share. You bus and amtrac riders are sucking of someone else.

#36 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 01:40 PM

Everybody is paying for roads. The tax makes about $28 billion. Just highway outlays in 2016 were $39 billion. They received $70 billion from the general fund.

#37 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 02:08 PM

Assuming one actually pays taxes.

#38 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 02:09 PM

"So, how do you pay for my roads? I thought the gasoline tax did that and I pay more than my fair share."

I agree. Using the gasoline tax to pay for roads is completely unfair to people who buy gas not for their cars but because they're gas huffers like Sniper.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 02:37 PM

"...because they're gas huffers like Sniper." - #39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 02:37 PM

Explains much.

#40 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-18 02:40 PM

Ah California. The state that has the highest poverty level yet is full of people who love to say how bad Cons are at handling the economy.

#34 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2018-01-18 12:30 PM

Wrong California's poverty rate is #16

#1 Mississippi
#2 New Mexico
#3 Louisiana
#4 Alabama
#5 Kentucky
#6 Arkansas
#7 Georgia
#8 West Virginia
#9 Arizona
#10 Tennessee
#11 South Carolina
#12 North Carolina
#13 Texas
#14 Florida
#15 Oklahoma

It does have the highest poverty level for a blue state

en.wikipedia.org

#41 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-18 02:58 PM

Morons like Boaz Nulli and sniper, complaining about this bullet train, are jumping for joy about a border wall. Which will easily cost more than the train.

Personally. I can't wait for a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-18 03:03 PM

Americans are independent. They don't like being shoved into crowded spaces (at least everyone other than liberals dont like it).

Yea! Americans hate subways, and busses, and planes, and bars and clubs and being indoors.

Americans are claustrophobic!!

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-18 03:07 PM

Jerry Brown's MoonBeam Express is the biggest vanity project since the pharoahs built themselves pyramids..
#21 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-01-18 10:20 AM | REPLY | FLAG: Can't wait to go take a picture in front of Trump's wall.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-18 03:13 PM

#41 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2018-01-18 02:58 PM | FLAG:

Use the full chart you linked. Go to "Supplemental Poverty Measure" and sort the highest. As your linked wiki article notes:

#1 Cali, #2 DC, #3 Nevada, #4 Florida, #5 Arizona, #6 Lousiana. Least measurable amounts? #47, 48, 49 are Wyoming, North Dakota, Iowa.

Here's why to use that column, per the Census office: "Beginning in 2011, the Census Bureau began publishing the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the official poverty measure."

It's simply more accurate and accounts for more economic variables.

#45 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 03:15 PM

Also, you don't want to live in a territory. They're in deep financial doo doo.

#46 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 03:15 PM

You are okay with spending tax dollars for you and yours just not for anyone else
#30 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2018-01-18 11:04 AM | FLAG:

Really cuts to the heart of the Republican and Libertarian mindset.

Wish I could give it more newsworthys.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-18 03:25 PM

"It's simply more accurate and accounts for more economic variables."

Variables like the existence of the programs themselves? Thus, a measure of the state legislature thinking there is a poverty problem to be addressed, which Republicans are less apt to think...

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 03:28 PM

It's simply more accurate and accounts for more economic variables.

#45 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2018-01-18 03:15 PM |

It's simply not official.

It also considers program benefits as income when determining poverty rates so a person getting food stamps and housing assistance and childcare vouchers in Alabama may not even be counted as in poverty while a person who has run out of state benefits in California but has a higher actual income from work may be counted as in poverty.

What we want to know is how people are doing BEFORE the government helps them.

#49 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-18 03:37 PM

--Morons like Boaz Nulli and sniper, complaining about this bullet train, are jumping for joy about a border wall. Which will easily cost more than the train.
Personally. I can't wait for a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

#42 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

You're going to be waiting a long time, assuming it's not cancelled due to escalating cost overruns. And in the unlikely event that it's completed, people smarter than you--most everyone--will realize they can drive to the airport just as quickly as to a train station, and get to frisco in one hour.

And the current bill for the Wall is 19 billion, not the now estimated 67 billion for the Moonbeam Express, which will certainly rise.

#50 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-18 03:41 PM

Rofl!!! That is one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard a Liberal make up. California has never been bailed out and they have never contributed to helping the rest of the country (other than what every other state has to pay in and receive from the Fed), just like every other state.

#34 | Posted by Dumtake

Ignorance is bliss I guess. Unlike Trump California pays it's taxes. California pays about 13 percent of all federal taxes and receives about 11 percent of federal expenditures. It's one of 11 states with a deficit between what it pays the feds and what it gets back.

The LAO (California Legislative Analyst's Office) also cites figures from a March 2016 report by the Pew Charitable Trusts. It found the federal government spent nearly $356 billion in California in fiscal year 2014, for salaries and wages, grants, contracts, retirement benefits and other benefits. That same year, California paid about $369 billion in total federal tax -- or about $13 billion more than it received -- according to the Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2014.

www.pewtrusts.org

#51 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-18 04:01 PM

McCreary County Kentucky is 97.99% White, voted 86.77% for Trump and the per capita income is $9,896. It is one of the youngest counties in America with only 10.6% of the population over 65. Over 50% of the residents receive government assistance and 52.46% of all reported income in the county comes from government programs

L.A. County California is only 50% white voted heavily for Clinton, and the per capita income is $27,954 only 16.6% of all reported income comes from government programs and just over 20% of the residents receive government assistance. LA is also a very young county with only 10.1% of the population over age 65

What is also very important to note is that Social security and Medicare are the source of government assistance for fully half of the LA residents who get government assistance while in McCreary County Only 20% of the government assistance recipients get it from Social Security and Medicare

www.nytimes.com

#52 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-18 04:26 PM

California has never been "bailed out" by your tax dollars.

#33 | Posted by donnerboy

Federal money to CA for the fires this summer. Only $44 billion.

And yet none of the $44 billion that the White House requested of Congress on Friday for supplemental disaster aid includes funding to rebuild California after the fires -- which killed 43 people and destroyed nearly 9,000 structures -- a move that's sparked an outcry from Thompson and his fellow lawmakers.

#53 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:40 PM

Wrong California's poverty rate is #16

#1 Mississippi
#2 New Mexico
#3 Louisiana
#4 Alabama
#5 Kentucky
#6 Arkansas
#7 Georgia
#8 West Virginia
#9 Arizona
#10 Tennessee
#11 South Carolina
#12 North Carolina
#13 Texas
#14 Florida
#15 Oklahoma

It does have the highest poverty level for a blue state

en.wikipedia.org

#41 | Posted by hatter5183

Your list is old.

#54 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:40 PM

Try searching for 2017.

www.ocregister.com

#55 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:42 PM

It's simply not official.

#49 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2018-01-18 03:37 PM | REPLY

Too funny. Obama appointees introduced the SPM in 2011 to fix the problems masked by the "official" numbers, and explained the deficiencies of the "official" numbers in detail.

You can read all about the problems the SPM fixes in this informative PDF from census.gov

#56 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 05:20 PM

That is why I could give a crap what you lazy bums from red states say.

This is no time to be quoting Hillary Clinton...

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 05:27 PM

Train costs less than Scott Walker's plan to "create"factory jobs in Wisconsin.

#58 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-18 05:34 PM

#58

Reading comprehension limited to the incorrect headline? The current cost estimate is $67B, the headline is merely talking about the latest (of many) cost overrun on the first section, which goes nowhere for a mere $10.6B.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 05:44 PM

Headline is "California Bullet Train Cost $2.8 Billion".

No, I did not see the subsequent information.

#60 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-18 05:55 PM

This is no time to be quoting Hillary Clinton...

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter

Why not? She is smarter and more popular than the Dotard.

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-18 06:12 PM

Wisconsin's Foxxcon bait is up to $4.5b. :p

#62 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-18 09:19 PM

Not only is this becoming a financial boondoggle, but I also believe that like AMTRAK, it will continue to need tax dollars to keep in operations as very doubtful that ridership will pay enough for annual operations.

#63 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-19 01:41 PM

Amtrak is profitable if they simply shutter a few routes. The NE is great for rail.

#64 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 01:43 PM

Why change my original title to one that isn't even true?

#65 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-19 01:58 PM

Not only is this becoming a financial boondoggle, but I also believe that like AMTRAK, it will continue to need tax dollars to keep in operations as very doubtful that ridership will pay enough for annual operations.

#63 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2018-01-19 01:41 PM |

So you think roads and bridges will operate without tax dollars?

Why do you oppose tax dollars for rail but ok with taxdollars for roads?

Oh thats right YOU use roads. OTHER people use rail

Selfish -----

#66 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-19 02:04 PM

The "Bullet Train" is going to make 10 stops from San Francisco to Burbank. Not really a bullet.
Once you go from San Fran to LA, how are you going to get around? Bus? Uber? Taxi?
Sorry, this isn't going to work in Cali.

#67 | Posted by homerj at 2018-01-19 02:15 PM

Selfish -----

#66 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2018-01-19 02:04 PM | FLAG: Guess I am if citing a fiscal opinion makes me one. Actually I could care less as it is the CA taxpayers who will be stuck with this, but no worries as the CA state govt can always raise taxes to offset operational losses.

Personally, I do own a RR stock [KSU] where the company maintains their own infrastructure like all the others, and even makes enough profit to pay a divvy :)

#68 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-19 02:17 PM

--Why do you oppose tax dollars for rail but ok with taxdollars for roads?

Why do you want non-riding taxpayers to subsidize a train that travels hundreds of miles through sparsely-populated mountains and desert?

#69 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-19 02:46 PM

"So much nonsense flows out of you Boaz. Americans don't want high speed rail because we are afraid of crowded spaces? Then how do you account for airliners moron?"

I was recently in Germany for work, down in Garmisch. When I went back to Kasierslautern, it was a six hour drive. It took my partner 12 hours to get to a location an hour away from KL.

The US has train service...Amtrak. But it's not a very popular form of transportation. It takes far more time than either air or car travel. And if nothing else, Americans lack the patience that seems common in our European cousins. Why spend four hours on a train when you can make the drive in it in two.

Additionally, the cost per liter of fuel in Europe is around 1.40E, or about $6.60 a gallon. Eurail isn't exactly cheap, either. a single pass from KL down to Garmisch is $420 for a family of four.

And I'm not knocking Eurail...I anticipate that I will be living in DEU soon, and I plan on buying the Eurail pass for my family. I just think it would be a pretty hard sell to most Americans.

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 05:39 PM

"I anticipate that I will be living in DEU soon"

You're... you're gonna get Socialism all over yourself and your family? I hope you got your shots!

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 05:44 PM

"You're... you're gonna get Socialism all over yourself and your family? I hope you got your shots!"

Huh?

The National Socialists lost the war...and the Soviets never made it that far west.

Where have you been?

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 06:02 PM

"You're... you're gonna get Socialism all over yourself and your family? I hope you got your shots!"
Huh?
The National Socialists lost the war...and the Soviets never made it that far west.
Where have you been?

#72 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

The social market economy (SOME; German: soziale Marktwirtschaft), also called Rhine capitalism, is a socioeconomic model combining a free market capitalist economic system alongside social policies which establish both fair competition within the market and a welfare state.[1] It is sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy.[2] The social market economy was originally promoted and implemented in West Germany by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1949.[3] Its origins can be traced to the interwar Freiburg school of economic thought.[4]

The social market economy was designed to be a third way between laissez-faire economic liberalism and socialist economics.[5] It was strongly inspired by ordoliberalism,[6] social democratic ideas, and the tradition of Catholic social teaching or, more generally, Christian ethics.[5] The social market economy refrains from attempts to plan and guide production, the workforce, or sales, but it does support planned efforts to influence the economy through the organic means of a comprehensive economic policy coupled with flexible adaptation to market studies. Effectively combining monetary, credit, trade, tax, customs, investment, and social policies, as well as other measures, this type of economic policy creates an economy that serves the welfare and needs of the entire population, thereby fulfilling its ultimate goal.[7en.wikipedia.org


Whatever you want to call it, I sure wish we had some of that!

#73 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-19 09:28 PM

You didn't include the next paragraph in the article:

"The "social" segment is OFTEN WRONGLY CONFUSED WITH SOCIALISM and democratic socialism, and although aspects were inspired by the latter, the social market approach REJECTS THE SOCIALIST IDEAS OF REPLACING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND MARKETS WITH SOCIAL OWNERSHIP and economic planning. The "social" element to the model instead refers to support for the provision of equal opportunity and protection of those unable to enter the free market labor force because of old-age, disability, or unemployment."

Have you been to Germany? Ever?

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 10:14 PM

I think that their system is preferable to ours. The word "social" is only a bugaboo for those on the right, frightened of "socialism". I don't know any liberals/progressives talking about "REPLACING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND MARKETS WITH SOCIAL OWNERSHIP", do you?

Nice strawman, though.

#75 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-20 02:03 AM

Why do you want non-riding taxpayers to subsidize a train that travels hundreds of miles through sparsely-populated mountains and desert?

#69 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-01-19 02:46 PM | REPLY |

Because you have to pass through them to get to the other side.

Just like the interstates that pass hundreds of miles through sparsely populated mountains and desert that my taxes pay for. Try getting to Vegas without taxpayer assistance.

#76 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-20 05:43 AM

#75

Then you're not promoting socialism. And that's OK. It's sort of a dead religion at this point.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-20 01:12 PM

It's sort of a dead religion at this point.

#77 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Socialism is a religion? What do they worship? Who does a Socialist pray to?

#78 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-20 01:45 PM

"I don't know any liberals/progressives talking about "REPLACING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND MARKETS WITH SOCIAL OWNERSHIP", do you?"

That's what we should do with oil.
Then we'd be more like Norway and less like a --------.

But in truth, we actually already own that oil, we just give it away for the benefit of a chosen few.
Because we are more like a -------- country, and less like Norway.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-20 03:04 PM

"That's what we should do with oil."

Yup

And it will turn out just like it did in Venezuela...

You should move there. Maybe you could wow them with your economic expertise.

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-20 09:27 PM

And it will turn out just like it did in Venezuela...

Why wouldn't it turn out just like it did in Norway (the country we were talking about)?

#81 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-20 09:36 PM

...Or Alaska, for that matter.

#82 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-20 09:43 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

13 Russian Nationals Indicted for Election Interference (316 comments)

Don't Look at the 300 Million Guns, it's the Crazy People (127 comments)

Trump's 'Russia Hoax' Turns Out to Be Very Real (98 comments)

The Trump Administration's Internal War Over Veteran's Health Care (52 comments)

Former Trump Campaign Adviser Close to Deal with Meuller (34 comments)

U.S. National Security Adviser Says Russia Meddling Now Undeniable (27 comments)

President's Personal Attorney Broke NDA, Stormy's Lawyer Says (26 comments)

A 'Mass Shooting Generation' Cries Out for Change (21 comments)