Bush or Kerry?

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
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.
Well, Bush's so-called "plan" for Amtrak is nothing more than putting the burden for funding on the already-broke states. Such a plan is guaranteed to spell the end of every single long-distance train in this country.

Kerry at least ostensibly supports Amtrak.

You decide.
 
That happened at railforum.com, every oone was really mad at each other and everything, but since, things have calmed down

My choice would be Kerry.
 
Another case of the lesser of two evils. That said what executive experience does Kerry have, none. Legislative experience is one thing but the two branches operate so differently that it would be nice if he had some outside experience in an executive capacity to draw from. Not to mention the fatal mistake of having a trial lawyer as a running mate, since we all know what Americans think of trial lawyers. The modern trend is that generally a sitting Vice President or a Governor gets elevated to the White House.
 
Bush and/or Kerry can have a plan for Amtrak all they want to! It is actually up to Congress (who created that corporation in the first place) to initiate legislation for Amtrak in the form of renewing its very existince and how and what amount to fund it for each year. It is hopeful Congress will go with David Gunn's plan for the year and so on! Then it will be up to who ever is holding the office of the president at the time to sign it or veto that legislation! Kerry should know this for he is a U.S. Senator as well as Bush should know being he is the U.S. president! As far as I am concerned, their so called plans are nothing but a bunch of talk or better said, "politics!" Let's see how the incumbent (if he's still in office) or the new president (if on his watch) "acts" when it is time to sign or veto regarding legislation for Amtrak whatever it may contain within the bill "as proposed by Congress!"
 
Guest said:
Bush and/or Kerry can have a plan for Amtrak all they want to! It is actually up to Congress (who created that corporation in the first place) to initiate legislation for Amtrak in the form of renewing its very existince and how and what amount to fund it for each year. It is hopeful Congress will go with David Gunn's plan for the year and so on! Then it will be up to who ever is holding the office of the president at the time to sign it or veto that legislation! Kerry should know this for he is a U.S. Senator as well as Bush should know being he is the U.S. president! As far as I am concerned, their so called plans are nothing but a bunch of talk or better said, "politics!" Let's see how the incumbent (if he's still in office) or the new president (if on his watch) "acts" when it is time to sign or veto regarding legislation for Amtrak whatever it may contain within the bill "as proposed by Congress!"
Click to expand...
So what your saying is the president's plan for Amtrak is like only a suggestion to the Congress on what to include in say an Amtrak bill, then?

I am well aware of how government works, and know for someone to have that kind of power to sign a bill or veto a bill is a very big power to have!
 
Amtrak OBS Employee said:
So what your saying is the president's plan for Amtrak is like only a suggestion to the Congress on what to include in say an Amtrak bill, then?
Click to expand...
It's your basic case of seperation of powers, as dictated by the US Constitution. Thanks to the seperation he proposes what he wants done and either signs or vetoes the laws but Congress does the actual enacting.

I am well aware of how government works, and know for someone to have that kind of power to sign a bill or veto a bill is a very big power to have!
Click to expand...
It's 1/3rd of the power, but it's still a huge power. To put that in perspective, with one swipe of the pen he can kill the entire federal budget to get rid of one section that he doesn't like. If he wanted he can kill the Omnibus Bill(IIRC that's where Amtrak's subsidies are buried), killing every other program, subsidy, and agency's funding that is in the bill in addition to Amtrak's subsidies and send it back to Congress to enact again. That won't happen(it's political suicide) but it's a measure of the power that the President holds.
 
I think we have to see if more dems get into congress; they, ultimately (congress) have to decide what to do with Amtrak. Certainly, Bush being in power will be dangerous for Amtrak since the Republican led Congress rubber stamps everything he wants. Whether you like Bush or not, you have to see he is hostile to passenger rail service in the USA.
 
sutton said:
I think we have to see if more dems get into congress; they, ultimately (congress) have to decide what to do with Amtrak. Certainly, Bush being in power will be dangerous for Amtrak since the Republican led Congress rubber stamps everything he wants. Whether you like Bush or not, you have to see he is hostile to passenger rail service in the USA.
Click to expand...
Rubber stamps what the President wants? If that was true then Amtrak would have been dead between January of 2001 and June of 2002 or any time after January 1, 2003 when both houses were in Republican control.

In most cases the party of the President does what he wants him to do but the Amtrak issue in Congress is a blatant example of that not being always true. How many Senators have crossed party lines to support Amtrak's requested funding? There has to be more than a few, the Republicans control the Senate and the votes were a majority in favor of the requested funding so there had to have been many who crossed. How many Democratic Representatives have crossed party lines to approve the Presidentially requested funding? There seems like more than a few of them who crossed party lines to vote for what the President reqested the last two or so years.
 
Ed is correct, there are several Republicans who not only did not follow the President's lead they voted against him. Additionally there are a few Congresional Republicans who came out with their own plan for Amtrak that is completely the opposite of what the President wants. Mind you their plan has no chance of passing, but they did make a statement with it.

Next, a few years back, we did have a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. They approved less funding than the current Republican Congress.

So bottom line, life holds no guarentees. That's why we have to keep screaming loud and clear to all politicians, Democratic and Republican, that this country needs Amtrak.
 
Next, a few years back, we did have a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. They approved less funding than the current Republican Congress.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was in the Warrington era of lies saying that they could break even. I also remember that little money coming with strings attached saying they they weren't going to get anymore money after a certain date. It's interesting to wonder what could have happened with Gunn's "tell it like it is" style and a Democratic president and congress. Maybe we'll get to see that someday.

-Firebert
 
Firebert said:
Next, a few years back, we did have a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. They approved less funding than the current Republican Congress.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was in the Warrington era of lies saying that they could break even. I also remember that little money coming with strings attached saying they they weren't going to get anymore money after a certain date. It's interesting to wonder what could have happened with Gunn's "tell it like it is" style and a Democratic president and congress. Maybe we'll get to see that someday.

-Firebert
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Did Clinton ever have both houses of congress on his side? I think he had one house (don't remember which) until 1994. In any event, Warrington didn't come around until 1998, at which time both houses were firmly in Republican hands.

Also, according to NARP, Amtrak received over $900 million in both 1994 and 1995, which, adjusted for inflation, would be between $1.1 and $1.2 billion today (in other words, funding at the same level as we have today). So, it would be stretching it a bit to say that Amtrak today is receiving anything more than a nominal increase in funding vs. a decade ago.
 
Aloha

What is more important than the make up or republican, democrate ie what we the traveling publick accept. Most of us need to get off our butt's and make noise about what we want , and not accept second class service.
 
GG-1 said:
Aloha
What is more important than the make up or republican, democrate ie what we the traveling publick accept. Most of us need to get off our butt's and make noise about what we want , and not accept second class service.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, GG-1. We, the People of the US, has power to protest or override if something in the White House do something really ugly, like death blow to Amtrak or other public programs. Remember we vote the policticians. If he/she is lousy, we can kick their butts out or not to vote on next election.
 
Firebert said:
Next, a few years back, we did have a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. They approved less funding than the current Republican Congress.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was in the Warrington era of lies saying that they could break even. I also remember that little money coming with strings attached saying they they weren't going to get anymore money after a certain date. It's interesting to wonder what could have happened with Gunn's "tell it like it is" style and a Democratic president and congress. Maybe we'll get to see that someday.

-Firebert
Click to expand...
Between January 20, 1993 and January 4, 1995 the Democratic Party held the positions of the Presidency, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader. That was well before Warrington came around and two full budge votes that they did not increase the funding for Amtrak to a level it needed. If the Democrats couldn't or didn't get Amtrak what it needed then, what makes it certain that they will do it this time if/when they should take over control of both houses and the Presidency?
 
After watching the national news tonight, I am afraid of what is happening in this country.

All 3 networks carried a story of a young man being paid 5$ for every person that registered as a republican. His employer would not pay for people who registered as democrats and the forms were thrown away. This business was in various states and had closed shop before the reporters could get there. The reporters are trying to determine who funded this business, but fake names and addresses were used.

Many states are now suffering from the same problems that put Florida in the "spotlight". Colorado is dealing with fake identities, stolen identities and dead people voting. Colorado's looking into removing itself from the electorial college.

There are 3 companies that are authorized to sell electronic voting machines in the U.S. These 3 companies have contributed alot of money around the country thru lobbyists to various candidates. Yet, everyday we read about the the problems with programs and human error with these machines. And everyday, I read about lawsuits filed in many states that are demanding a "paper trail" for voter verification.

If there is no paper ballots to count in a recall, how do you know your vote will count?

Jimmy Carter said Florida was worse than it was 4 yrs ago and should have observers posted in the state. It's becoming more evident that this country needs the same attention that many third world countries need to avoid corruption.

There are ballots still being found in Florida that were lost and never counted.

Just like hackers have stayed ahead of the programmers, the electronic election process can be altered and there is a great possibility that this election will not show the the voter's choice. With no physical forms to count in a recall, it makes me wonder if the "chad" was a way to promote electronic voting and remove the the ability of verification.

MJ

B)
 
Miami Joe said:
After watching the national news tonight, I am afraid of what is happening in this country.
All 3 networks carried a story of a young man being paid 5$ for every person that registered as a republican. His employer would not pay for people who registered as democrats and the forms were thrown away. This business was in various states and had closed shop before the reporters could get there. The reporters are trying to determine who funded this business, but  fake names and addresses were used.

Many states are now suffering from the same problems that put Florida in the "spotlight". Colorado is dealing with fake identities, stolen identities and dead people voting. Colorado's looking into removing itself from the electorial college.

There are 3 companies that are authorized to sell electronic voting machines in the U.S. These 3 companies have contributed alot of money around the country thru lobbyists to various candidates. Yet, everyday we read about the the problems with programs and human error with these machines. And everyday, I read about lawsuits filed in many states that are demanding a "paper trail" for voter verification.

If there is no paper ballots to count in a recall, how do you know your vote will count?

Jimmy Carter said Florida was worse than it was 4 yrs ago and should have observers posted in the state. It's becoming more evident that this country needs the same attention that many third world countries need to avoid corruption.

There are ballots still being found in Florida that were lost and never counted.

Just like hackers have stayed ahead of the programmers, the electronic  election process can be altered and there is a great possibility that this election will not show the the voter's choice. With no physical forms to count in a recall, it makes me wonder if the "chad" was a way to promote electronic voting and remove the the ability of verification.

MJ

B)
Click to expand...
Though I am not of voting age I am afraid too. Dead people have also been used on the petition for the state bullet train.

It was quoted somewhere that "election fraud is undermining the democracy". Although we are not a democracy (we are a democratic republic), our elected officials are not always representing us the way we want them too. If Bush steals the election the catalyst may be worse then we expect. The worst part is the government will do nothing to stop the fraud.
 
Guest said:
engine999 said:
If Bush steals the election the catalyst may be worse then we expect.
Click to expand...
What happens if Kerry "steals the election"?
Click to expand...
:eek: Never know, but here in florida that seems very unlikely. The secertary of state has told election supervisors not to accept registration forms where a box was not checked. The question was "are you a us citizen?". This was confusing and redundant because it already asks that on the form in another location.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top