>>283472>In spite of the bailouts
There isn't really any data for this, so I guess we will never know if they actually helped or hurt. The only real fact is that the downturn ended after the bailouts were enacted.
>Isn't the non-issue
Who has that vested interest?
I am still asking you
>In what sense
I dont actually have the data to support that, so I will rescend it. At least half of our taxes goes to the military, though. It's not all that money is making my life better any more than reducing the number of hobos walking around for a fraction of that cost
>There is a reason they donate to both sides
But we are discussing why someone has to vote republican now. them donating to both sides means the whole investor class argument doesn't apply
See my response to Starshine >>283464
And your response to it is silly. The point of the argument against trump's wall is entirely that it is wasting money in the desert
700 miles of fence
=/= 2100 miles of tall concrete wall, which is exactly what he was proposing. 700 miles of fence did not require 5 billion dollars. Saying the two are the same is inane.
The thing that you said she said is something she never actually said, see Starshine's response. >>283462
Let's break this down.
Your number is actually ok if you were driving on roads, but new rail lines would have to be built at $1-2 millon per mile and having near-direct lines between every city would be impractical. The I-80 route is near direct, but let's say that the train route would have to actually go through Chicago and Cleveland, adding ~220 miles to the route to make an easy number to play with.
That would mean that the track alone, without any of the other infrastructure to go along with the lines or labor/etc would cost between $200 and $400 million dollars.http://www.acwr.com/economic-development/railroads-101/rail-siding-costs
Now, the number of people being transported. If I look at NY to Denver on 10/08/2019 there are 3 direct flights. Same number going the other direction. Let's say that the average domestic ariplane would be a 737, so 143 seats per plane. This is a very conservative estimate, as the flights would be between two major cities and probably larger.
So, at minimum, not including anyone traveling through connections, you would have to transport 858 people per day between the two cities.
Are you going to do that all packed into one 11 hour train ride or space it out, but add more weight to the train by including aminities, meaning that people will have to be ok with leaving at ungodly hours in the night or arriving at ungodly hours in the morning.
Now, when it comes to fuel economy, according to the two links below, a 737 is between 65 and 103 mpg per person, depending on model.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Commuter_flights
This one says that the passenger trains have an average of 71 mpg per person with a maximum of 189.https://truecostblog.com/2010/05/27/fuel-efficiency-modes-of-transportation-ranked-by-mpg/
Both are actually pretty comparable, but you have to take into account that an airplane will be taking the shorter straight-line distance.
Tracks cost a lot, would probably have to actually link cities, making traveling distance longer.
Lots of people move between the cities, have to choose between less comfort for better times or more comfort for lower fuel economy per person and shittier times for some.
Per person fuel economy is not all that different when comparing trains to planes, and planes don't have to go as far.