Because a good poll discussion was pre-maturely shut down

[HeirofSalvation]

Suppose a few congressmen wanted to start a high speed AMTRAK line from Washington, DC to Los Angeles. The only stops would be Charleston, WV; Louisville, Ky; St. Louis,MO; Oklahoma City; Amarillo, Tx; Albuquerque, NM, Phoenix,AZ and LA.

If this was approved - only residents in nine States/Commonwealths would be affected. For arguments sake, lets say that would be 12% of the US population.

On the positive side - the defenders would say we need a national rail line in the event that planes are again grounded ( either mechanical or another "11 Sep), trains can be more cost efficient, thousands of jobs will be created for the building of the rails, as well as the impact on the local community, and then the employment of those to work on the train, ect, ect, ect.....

Lets say the only disadvantage is that this train would only be of value to a small number of people.

So, how should a congressman vote?
( as listed in the poll)

For the sake of argument, this question is posted to assume it is Constitutional. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to explain. I am just trying to find a good example about the reasoning behind the way a congressman should vote.

 

[Revmitchell]

How is the question of whether or not it is constitutional not a good reasoning behind how one should vote?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

How is the question of whether or not it is constitutional not a good reasoning behind how one should vote?

It is, of course a good reason...please feel free to vote other and suggest whether or not you believe it to be Constitutional. I don't personally think it to be un-constitutional, but I'm open to someone explaining otherwise. This thread is essentially based upon the assumption that it is...But if you feel it isn't, than feel free to suggest as much. I changed the text of the OP...

 

[LadyEagle]

Dear Heir: The other poll was shut down at the request of the person who posted the original post.

Now on your poll, I cannot vote in your poll. You have not provided a choice that I can click, just as I could not vote in the previous poll. But, in case you haven't heard, our nation is broke. There is no money for a high speed railroad. They tried that out west. It was a waste of money. A total waste of tax dollars. Besides the fact that we are broke and the high speed rail is a waste of tax dollars, there are other considerations. You know we have an EPA that is out of control and the environmentalists are out of hand. By the time all of the environmental impact studies are done, it will be years, if not decades, to get approved (more waste of tax dollars) and your high speed rail of today will be yesterday's technology by the time it is built. This is akin to a bridge to nowhere and the pork laden Sandy bill.

 

[Don]

Error #1 - job creation. In the long view, the jobs created to build such a railway are "temporary"; it may take them years to build it, but once it's done, those jobs go away, and the workers will have to search out new jobs.

Error #2 - spending the money, man-power, and resources of an entire nation for something that will only benefit a few ... how will this benefit the entire group in the long view? If it doesn't, then how can it be of any real benefit to the nation?

Error #3 - Using a justification like "we need a national rail line in case planes are grounded" would indicate that the rail system will have more than just a few terminal stops ... which we already know, from your description, that it doesn't; it would also indicate that the rail would be of use to many, many people in such a case ... but the description indicates it's only of benefit to a few.

Before I say "Error #4", someone educate me: Is AMTRAK in the business of hauling cargo? I thought they were primarily passenger-based? In which case, I'd have to say the current railroads are quite capable of taking over should the planes stop flying. I mean, there's at least one cargo train a night passing practically through my backyard.

And with that many errors sticking out to me right off the bat, I'd have to say a resounding NO. If it's paid for by ALL of us, then it needs to be of benefit to ALL of us.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Dear Heir: The other poll was shut down at the request of the person who posted the original post.

Yes...I know. I wish he hadn't requested as much so I posed a new thread in it's stead.

Now on your poll, I cannot vote in your poll. You have not provided a choice that I can click, just as I could not vote in the previous poll. But, in case you haven't heard, our nation is broke. There is no money for a high speed railroad. They tried that out west. It was a waste of money. A total waste of tax dollars. Besides the fact that we are broke and the high speed rail is a waste of tax dollars, there are other considerations. You know we have an EPA that is out of control and the environmentalists are out of hand. By the time all of the environmental impact studies are done, it will be years, if not decades, to get approved (more waste of tax dollars) and your high speed rail of today will be yesterday's technology by the time it is built. This is akin to a bridge to nowhere and the pork laden Sandy bill.

There is such an option...I agree with your contentions completely...It's the
this scenario would not be helpful for anyone option....I mentioned in the previous thread that we were broke...Feel free to vote that it is an inherently bad idea for "EVERYONE" and then give us your POV :wavey: because I agree with everything you state here.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Error #1 - job creation. In the long view, the jobs created to build such a railway are "temporary"; it may take them years to build it, but once it's done, those jobs go away, and the workers will have to search out new jobs.

Agreed...but the problem isn't so much that they are "temporary" jobs...since the job of maintaining such a monstrosity WILL create permanent jobs as well. And similarly, there are always good and necessarry jobs which are by definition "temporary" such as every construction "job" extant. The problem is more that it would be an economically zero-to-negative-sum gain for the economy as a whole since any "jobs" are essentially "created" by the tax-payer and filtered through government...Ultimately, it results in merely the re-allocation of actual wealth FROM one sector TO another...that does not increase the over-all Gross Domestic Product at all.

Error #2 - spending the money, man-power, and resources of an entire nation for something that will only benefit a few ... how will this benefit the entire group in the long view? If it doesn't, then how can it be of any real benefit to the nation?

I agree...so vote option #6 ( as I did) it reads: Such a scenario would not be helpful for anyone in the country

Error #3 - Using a justification like "we need a national rail line in case planes are grounded" would indicate that the rail system will have more than just a few terminal stops ... which we already know, from your description, that it doesn't; it would also indicate that the rail would be of use to many, many people in such a case ... but the description indicates it's only of benefit to a few.

Agreed....hence option #6 Moreover...the inter-state high-way system (which already exists) was put in place for precisely that reason....that scenario is already covered.

Before I say "Error #4", someone educate me: Is AMTRAK in the business of hauling cargo? I thought they were primarily passenger-based? In which case, I'd have to say the current railroads are quite capable of taking over should the planes stop flying. I mean, there's at least one cargo train a night passing practically through my backyard.

To my knowledge....AMTRAK does not haul cargo...yet one more reason for their insolvency...Hence, the transportation of individuals in a "National Emergency" is not critical.

Similarly, the vast
And with that many errors sticking out to me right off the bat, I'd have to say a resounding NO. If it's paid for by ALL of us, then it needs to be of benefit to ALL of us.

That's why there is option 6...you have not "clicked" it.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not constitutional. Nothing in the constitution provides for this. The more laws we pass, the less money and freedom we have.

 

[blackbird]

Error #3 - Using a justification like "we need a national rail line in case planes are grounded" would indicate that the rail system will have more than just a few terminal stops ...

Just as easy to bomb a rail line as it would be to ground the airlines!! Ask the Germans!!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As i noted on the other thread:

Folks, please remember, the transcontinental railroad was built with massive federal subsidies in both money and land. Today it's not a whole lot different.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

As i noted on the other thread:

Folks, please remember, the transcontinental railroad was built with massive federal subsidies in both money and land. Today it's not a whole lot different.

True...but we don't derive an "ought" from an "is"..

It is true that the "Trans-continental Railroad" was fashioned thus...but that doesn't mean they were "right" to do so...or that they "ought" to have done so.

REV...believes it is un-constitutional wholesale...

I don't..but, at the same time, I know that Abe Lincoln signed the "Trans-Continental Railroad" into law, and "HONEST ABE" may have been the MOST un-constitutional president to date...in his era. Whatever Abe was. being overly constitutional is NOT something he gets regularly accused of.

So...we don't derive "oughts" from any "is"..

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Two things I would LOVE to see discussed here:
1.) Squire (I assume) not only thinks that this is a Constitutionally viable idea...but, also a presumably positive one

I would like to hear what he has to say about it

2.) While I am of the opinion that this is NOT a "wise" idea...or a good one for the country writ large...I don't claim that it is strictly "un-Constitutional"...as Rev contends.

I would love to hear BOTH Squire's arguments about how it is a practical and good thing for the country.

I would also like to hear Rev's position about why it would be strictly "Un-Constitutional:applause: