Goodbye Federal Subsidy For Amtrak?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
$1,400 million Amtrak subsidy

$442 million Corporation for Public Broadcasting subsidy (cut public radio, too)

$161 million National Endowment for the Arts

$146 million National Endowment for the Humanities

$2,149,000,000 total cuts.

2011 federal budget $3.834 trillion

Romney's proposed cuts would equal 0.06% of the budget, if I did my math correctly.
 
Has anyone looked at the "Big Picture" here?? He was elected governor of Massachusetts which has voted Democrat since 1988, and originally from Michigan which has voted Democrat since 1992. These two states have Amtrak running right through them. While I rarely watch the news due to work. But I did see he was in Florida. A Toss up. Currently getting ripped out of HSR due to it's governor.

How much did Bush Jr. talk about cutting funding for Amtrak, and Privatizing the NEC. Never happened.

But seriously How many president's say "If elected I'll changed this" and never do. Think about it.

I'm not much into politics but this is my politics pet peeve.
 
What is necessary is cost-containment and control and re-prioritizing our national transportation subsidies. As a nation (and almost any state) we cannot afford to spend more money. Our national debt clock (at almost $16 Trillion) is climbing at the rate of almost $2 Million every minute of every day! Source usdebtclock.org
Disagree. Please explain your reasoning. Running an economy that is the world's currency of record bears no resemblance to a household checkbook.

I'm not following what you are disagreeing with. I just stated an opinion on the necessity of controlling costs and resetting priorities and two facts on the national debt and its rate of growth.

Please explain your reasoning for the disagreement.
 
You made the claim that "What is necessary is cost-containment and control" and "As a nation (and almost any state) we cannot afford to spend more money."

I'm curious why you beleive that to be true.
 
You made the claim that "What is necessary is cost-containment and control" and "As a nation (and almost any state) we cannot afford to spend more money."

I'm curious why you beleive that to be true.

Mr. Ryan, you have challenged my statements. I'm curious as to why you think they are not true? If you are going to challenge my statements, we need to hear your opinion.
 
You made the claim that "What is necessary is cost-containment and control" and "As a nation (and almost any state) we cannot afford to spend more money."

I'm curious why you beleive that to be true.

Mr. Ryan, you have challenged my statements. I'm curious as to why you think they are not true? If you are going to challenge my statements, we need to hear your opinion.
I'm not going to play this game.
You made a claim, you can either back it up or retract it.

Why is cost control necessary? Why can't we afford to spend more money?

(Read this and learn)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Read this and learn)
That is an excellent article. Thanks for sharing! It is hard to explain some of these realities to people who work using a closed world assumption. What that phrase means is a matter to discuss another day, suffice it to say that it is generally inconsistent with Capitalism. :) But this is way OT, we can carry on privately if you wish.
 
$1,400 million Amtrak subsidy

$442 million Corporation for Public Broadcasting subsidy (cut public radio, too)

$161 million National Endowment for the Arts

$146 million National Endowment for the Humanities

$2,149,000,000 total cuts.

2011 federal budget $3.834 trillion

Romney's proposed cuts would equal 0.06% of the budget, if I did my math correctly.
Thank you for taking the time to dig these numbers out.
 
You made the claim that "What is necessary is cost-containment and control" and "As a nation (and almost any state) we cannot afford to spend more money."

I'm curious why you beleive that to be true.

Mr. Ryan, you have challenged my statements. I'm curious as to why you think they are not true? If you are going to challenge my statements, we need to hear your opinion.
I'm not going to play this game.
You made a claim, you can either back it up or retract it.

Why is cost control necessary? Why can't we afford to spend more money?

(Read this and learn)
I believe it to be true because you cannot ignore the law of math. Here is more reading and learning opportunity that defines my beliefs. Now back to trains, yes Amtrak would make a very small dent in a very large problem.
 
Get rid of the post office first.
FYI - I ordered 2 items recently over the Internet. One was sent by USPS from CA to RI, the other was sent by FedEx from Dallas. Both were the regular shipping option. I ordered the one from CA on Friday - it was in my box on Monday! The one shipped by FedEx took a week to go from TX to RI!
ohmy.gif


So don't knock the Post Office!
The USPO can't go just yet. A lot of "hard copy" govt. issued docs are still delivered by the PO (e.g. US Passports, etc.), unlike driver's licenses/State ID, which, increasingly, require a visit to the Motor Vehicle agency to have a photo taken and to do the "ID Dance." :rolleyes: Having the USCIS set up "Motor Vehicle" style agency offices (or even contracting for them) would probably invoke a severe "anti-govt" spending response.

I have, successfully, been able to convert almost all of my bills to "electronic delivery" now. So that's no longer an issue. But until things like the above are resolved, unless a lot of hard copy things are converted to "electronic delivery" (eg. "Sample election ballots delivered by web), and an effective alternative for PO boxes comes to fruition (e.g. expansion of UPS Stores or some such thing), I think we still need the USPO.
 
You made the claim that "What is necessary is cost-containment and control" and "As a nation (and almost any state) we cannot afford to spend more money."

I'm curious why you beleive that to be true.

Mr. Ryan, you have challenged my statements. I'm curious as to why you think they are not true? If you are going to challenge my statements, we need to hear your opinion.
I'm not going to play this game.
You made a claim, you can either back it up or retract it.

Why is cost control necessary? Why can't we afford to spend more money?

(Read this and learn)
Oh for Pete's sake, I "claimed" nothing. I stated an opinion, in response to concerns that Romney, if elected, is going to cut Amtrak subsidies immediately. An opinion by definition is a personal view based on beliefs, experience, emotions and analysis, laced with a few uncertainties. My opinions stand as I wrote; there is no need for a retraction.

You have expressed your disagreement with my opinions and you certainly have the right to do so. By disagreeing, one would conclude you are OK with uncontrolled costs and adding more debt (spending more money). I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thank you for the posting the link to the article by Cullen Roche. I have read 3 or 4 paragraphs and will finish it when my schedule permits.

I have no further comment lest this post drift way off-topic into discussions of domestic and international monetary, fiscal and economic policies. :hi:
 
1994, Congress and the Clinton Administration demanded that Amtrak become self-sufficient and off subsidies by 2002.

I just rode a subsidized Amtrak train a decade later.
 
You made the claim that "What is necessary is cost-containment and control" and "As a nation (and almost any state) we cannot afford to spend more money."

I'm curious why you beleive that to be true.

Mr. Ryan, you have challenged my statements. I'm curious as to why you think they are not true? If you are going to challenge my statements, we need to hear your opinion.
I'm not going to play this game.
You made a claim, you can either back it up or retract it.

Why is cost control necessary? Why can't we afford to spend more money?

(Read this and learn)
Oh for Pete's sake, I "claimed" nothing. I stated an opinion, in response to concerns that Romney, if elected, is going to cut Amtrak subsidies immediately. An opinion by definition is a personal view based on beliefs, experience, emotions and analysis, laced with a few uncertainties. My opinions stand as I wrote; there is no need for a retraction.

You have expressed your disagreement with my opinions and you certainly have the right to do so. By disagreeing, one would conclude you are OK with uncontrolled costs and adding more debt (spending more money). I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thank you for the posting the link to the article by Cullen Roche. I have read 3 or 4 paragraphs and will finish it when my schedule permits.

I have no further comment lest this post drift way off-topic into discussions of domestic and international monetary, fiscal and economic policies. :hi:
Yeah - anyone who knows anything knows that USPS get -zero- federal funding.

Anyone who knows anything about recent presidential camaigns know that the candidate is only allowed to say what the pit crew (the 300 or so people who analyze possible voter response in the swing states) allow the candidate to say.

Whoever wins the election will have to deal with what the electorate wants -- whatever campaign nonsense they may say to sway the most gullible voters who may determine the elections results.

And then -- it will come down to what works to get votes in the next election. --

And possibly - considering recent actions -- vs -- rhetoric -- possibly - there will be a more rational policy for national transportation priorities. or possibly not.

Maybe -- that will be a nearly rational transportation policy -

Election year rhetoric is no guide whatsoever to future policy .

Remember the "Campaign promise" = total lie

If you want or need rail transport -- work locally. -- and complain to your congress-crittur when you don't get what you want.
 
Candidates for political office will say anything they think will help get them elected. Practicality, reality, and logic are irrelevant. This tendency has become much worse since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987 under Reagan paving the way for the current media system which simply reports what people say with almost no effort to check the statements against reality or against what they've said and done previously. Then there's the question of whether candidates, once elected, pay any attention at all to their campaign promises -- even the realistic promises. But, still, it's good to publicize Romney's statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Campainging and governing are two wildly different things as we've seen from the current administration.
 
For those who remain convinced that Mitt Romney will leave Amtrak alone once he is actually in office, can you please fill me in on your reasoning? If Romney says that ending funding for Amtrak is not only within his sights but is in fact near the top of his list of wasteful government programs then I'm inclined to take the man at his word, at least on this point. That is to say, if Romney receives a budget which includes the elimination of most or all funding for Amtrak I would expect him to have few if any qualms with signing such a budget. Conversely, I have a hard time coming up with politically significant motivations for going back on his word and refusing to eliminate Amtrak. I do not dispute that Romney's administration would only be but one cog in a much larger machine. I also understand that approving a budget which eliminated most or all of Amtrak's federal funding could be difficult unless the GOP retains control over the House and regains control over the Senate. However, such an outcome is by no means an impossibility and if it did occur I am at a loss for seeing how or why Amtrak would be protected in the face of growing political opposition.
 
It is always true that people will keep dreaming whatever makes them feel good and rationalize the inherent contradictions that they face, until reality drives in to resolve matters once and for all.
 
It is always true that people will keep dreaming whatever makes them feel good and rationalize the inherent contradictions that they face, until reality drives in to resolve matters once and for all.
I don't think seeing Amtrak's future under renewed attack makes any of us feel good. Nor do I see how the issue of how to fund or defund Amtrak in the future can be considered "resolved" in any realistic sense.
 
It is always true that people will keep dreaming whatever makes them feel good and rationalize the inherent contradictions that they face, until reality drives in to resolve matters once and for all.
I don't think seeing Amtrak's future under renewed attack makes any of us feel good. Nor do I see how the issue of how to fund or defund Amtrak in the future can be considered "resolved" in any realistic sense.
Who says it is resolved? I was merely observing obliquely that thinking that at least one of the possible outcomes in the upcoming election will not cause at least Amtrak LD to cease to exist takes considerable amount of dreaming. It is very likely to get resolved by the election results this way or that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top