ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
And highways, don't forget the highways Anderson.
That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into.
Rome knew that much, and they lasted centuries longer than we have.That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into.
A robust transportation network is necessary for interstate commerce and is clearly within the Federal government's purview.
Actually transport is highly profitable and our freight railroads prove it every day inspite of their subsidized competition. Passenger rail was once profitable until the Feds decided to build an interstate highway system and offer it up virtually free to use. The costs are hidden in the fed gasoline excise tax so people don't even realize they are paying for it. But now even that tax is inadequate. Had the system been set up as a privately run toll supported system the results would have been far different. Similarly, the airline industry was thought to need help getting itself established hence the Fed subsidies and local subsidies building airports, paying for the traffic controllers, etc. that are still with us today. The idea that these things can't be fixed without throwing the economy into a tailspin is what got us where we are today. Socialism or the 'nanny state' is not free as Europeans find out every day. If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into.
A robust transportation network is necessary for interstate commerce and is clearly within the Federal government's purview.
The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.
You are wrong.There is so much "Pork" and "Political Favors" engrained in our Federal Government,
I believe we can cut 20% in our domestic spending and not reduce any subsidies to Amtrak.
The first step would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it was a sensible healthcare system
without the "Louisana Purchase," the "Cornhusker Bribe" and the other bribes in Montana, Connecticut,
Arkansas, Nevada and several other states.
Percentage does not matter. Given the chance, Republicans would ditch AMTRAK in a heartbeat. IN A HEARTBEAT.To add to that, the USDOT is a small part of the Federal budget. So Amtrak is a miniscule portion of a small part.The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.
I think there's a fair point to be made on what, exactly, the gas tax should be, and whether certain roads should be tolled. As I understand it in New Jersey, the big network of turnpikes they have actually makes a profit for their whole expressway system most years.Actually transport is highly profitable and our freight railroads prove it every day inspite of their subsidized competition. Passenger rail was once profitable until the Feds decided to build an interstate highway system and offer it up virtually free to use. The costs are hidden in the fed gasoline excise tax so people don't even realize they are paying for it. But now even that tax is inadequate. Had the system been set up as a privately run toll supported system the results would have been far different. Similarly, the airline industry was thought to need help getting itself established hence the Fed subsidies and local subsidies building airports, paying for the traffic controllers, etc. that are still with us today. The idea that these things can't be fixed without throwing the economy into a tailspin is what got us where we are today. Socialism or the 'nanny state' is not free as Europeans find out every day. If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.That's a ridiculous fairy tale. Transport isn't profitable. Can't be without raising the cost for goods and services across the board and throwing the economy into even more of a tailspin.Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into.
A robust transportation network is necessary for interstate commerce and is clearly within the Federal government's purview.
Only because it's an easy target.Percentage does not matter. Given the chance, Republicans would ditch AMTRAK in a heartbeat. IN A HEARTBEAT.To add to that, the USDOT is a small part of the Federal budget. So Amtrak is a miniscule portion of a small part.The deficit spending must be brought under control otherwise bankruptcy of the USA is imminent. However, Amtrak is but a miniscule portion (2-3%) of the Federal Transportation budget. You don't cure run-a-way spending by cutting pennies. If you closed Amtrak completely it wouldn't make a noticable difference in the deficit. The cuts must be massive to make a difference.
(1) Transportation is one of the few federal programs which covers a significant portion of it expenditures by fuel taxes (paid into the Highway Trust Fund), ticket taxes for air passengers and cargo (paid into the Airways Trust Fund to fund FAA operations (including controllers) just to name two. Airlines (and general aviation) pay landing fees (or other monies) to support airport operations - they are not fully funded by your tax dollars.Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into. But it has evolved into a huge taxpayer supported series of programs of which Amtrak is but a small player. We subsidize airlines, barges, ocean going vessels, trucks, cars, highways, and finally rail. We are now even afraid to raise the fuel exise tax so that the highway budget is having to take from the general fund to make ends meet. Where does it all stop. When bankruptcy looms, that is when. The whole interestate highway system should be toll supported, not taxpayer supported. Airlines should pay for the air traffic controllers, not the feds. Airports should not be tax supported, but paid for by the airlines themselves.
Bush TARP funds in 2008 were spent and never paid back -- a net loss of approx $700 BILLION... To be fair, I think there's a lot of consternation over the spike in spending over the last few years (and how it's been used...TARP leaps to mind). The problem is that the only way to vote against TARP and the like effectively was, in many seats, to vote for a tea party type.
Uh, that's the way it was pre-9/11. TSA airport screening is paid by the passenger via the $2.50 September 11 Security Fee per enplanement. Want to shift that to the airlines, then guaranteed it will go to a low bidder but cost way more than $2.50........ One thing I'll say is that with a little bit of luck, someone will take a lightsaber (an axe being insufficient for the job) to support for the airlines and airports and tell them to pay for their own security while meeting certain standards. That's ten times as much money as Amtrak gets annually from the federal government and somewhere close to that for federal and state support combined (I think it came out to about $5 billion and change).
The ones chanting such things have no specifics, no ideas, nothing positive -- just chanting....Just wondering if you could specify the "pork, pork, pork" that was in that bill.
I was talking about the moving of people, not goods in the first paragraph, so the freight RRs don't count. The genie isn't going to go back in the battle, people expect to be able to move about cheaply.Actually transport is highly profitable and our freight railroads prove it every day inspite of their subsidized competition. Passenger rail was once profitable until the Feds decided to build an interstate highway system and offer it up virtually free to use.
If things had been done different, of course things would have ended differently. But they weren't, so we have to live in the world where people expect a free ride. The gas tax should be increased to cover expenses of maintaining roads, AND levy it as a percentage (not a flat dollar value).The costs are hidden in the fed gasoline excise tax so people don't even realize they are paying for it. But now even that tax is inadequate. Had the system been set up as a privately run toll supported system the results would have been far different.
Sure thing, how do you propose to do that?If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.
Don't go confusing the issue with facts and stuff.Bush TARP funds in 2008 were spent and never paid back -- a net loss of approx $700 BILLION... To be fair, I think there's a lot of consternation over the spike in spending over the last few years (and how it's been used...TARP leaps to mind). The problem is that the only way to vote against TARP and the like effectively was, in many seats, to vote for a tea party type.
Obama TARP funds in 2009 were spent and PAID BACK, at a profit to taxpayers --- a net gain of ~$25 BILLION
I think, Davey, that you are forgetting that railroads pay property and income taxes on every thing they own and make. Interstate highways, state operated toll roads, etc. make no such contribution nor do city owned airports. There is much to change if you want to level the playing field. Otherwise then Amtrak will just have to compete for those Federal tax dollars along with everyone else. But someone will still have to pay the bill eventually.Perhaps we should stop thinking in terms of 'programs' and concentrate on self supporting, that is without taxpayer money, operations. Transportation is one area that the Feds should not even be into. But it has evolved into a huge taxpayer supported series of programs of which Amtrak is but a small player. We subsidize airlines, barges, ocean going vessels, trucks, cars, highways, and finally rail. We are now even afraid to raise the fuel exise tax so that the highway budget is having to take from the general fund to make ends meet. Where does it all stop. When bankruptcy looms, that is when. The whole interestate highway system should be toll supported, not taxpayer supported. Airlines should pay for the air traffic controllers, not the feds. Airports should not be tax supported, but paid for by the airlines themselves.
(1) Transportation is one of the few federal programs which covers a significant portion of it expenditures by fuel taxes (paid into the Highway Trust Fund), ticket taxes for air passengers and cargo (paid into the Airways Trust Fund to fund FAA operations (including controllers) just to name two. Airlines (and general aviation) pay landing fees (or other monies) to support airport operations - they are not fully funded by your tax dollars.
No one is ready to raise the fuels tax (for fear of being called a Tax Hike Supporter), and since cost of materials goes up, the funding gap must be made up from general revenues --- TRUE. But how do you oppose that since dang near everything goes over a road somewhere.
(2) The "Interstate Highway System" is not a transportation project, it was a defense project (see National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956). States which "TOLL" an interstate pay federal fuel tax but do not get monies back as they get tolls instead. So their citizens are paying twice, in effect.
Are you saying Highways and Airports - owned by governmental bodies - should pay property taxes to - themselves ??I think, Davey, that you are forgetting that railroads pay property and income taxes on every thing they own and make. Interstate highways, state operated toll roads, etc. make no such contribution nor do city owned airports. There is much to change if you want to level the playing field.
Well I don't think either party will have the guts to raise taxes as it would be political suicide. Neither will they be able to cut spending enough to do any real good. So I think the inevitable result will be eventual bankruptcy of the country. When it reaches crises levels then something will be done simply because it has too as in Greece or we will end up like Zimbabwe. Expect riots in the streets.The genie isn't going to go back in the battle, people expect to be able to move about cheaply.
Not really. They will accept whatever is offered to them.
But they weren't, so we have to live in the world where people expect a free ride. The gas tax should be increased to cover expenses of maintaining roads, AND levy it as a percentage (not a flat dollar value).
Apparently no one has the guts to do even that. In fact McCain proposed suspending the gasoline tax to stimulate the economy even as the system is falling apart from lack of funds.
Sure thing, how do you propose to do that?If we want to continue this road then taxes are inevitably going to go up and not just a little bit. What do you think that will do to the economy? You either quit spending or you bring in more revenue to support your spending.
*ahem*Don't go confusing the issue with facts and stuff.Bush TARP funds in 2008 were spent and never paid back -- a net loss of approx $700 BILLION... To be fair, I think there's a lot of consternation over the spike in spending over the last few years (and how it's been used...TARP leaps to mind). The problem is that the only way to vote against TARP and the like effectively was, in many seats, to vote for a tea party type.
Obama TARP funds in 2009 were spent and PAID BACK, at a profit to taxpayers --- a net gain of ~$25 BILLION
The Republican's have already had two chances under President George W Bush to kill Amtrak. Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak.Percentage does not matter. Given the chance, Republicans would ditch AMTRAK in a heartbeat. IN A HEARTBEAT.
Not this again. How many Republicans who supposedly support Amtrak at current or expanded funding levels are being sworn-in for the 112th Congress Alan? I want actual names, not just some vague unattributed quote.Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak. Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak."
I have no idea how many of the current Republican's support Amtrak or not, much less how many of them were in office during the Bush years. And I have neither the time nor the desire to go figure all of that out.Not this again. How many Republicans who supposedly support Amtrak at current or expanded funding levels are being sworn-in for the 112th Congress Alan? I want actual names, not just some vague unattributed quote.Two years running, Republican George W Bush allowed his White House to send over to Congress a budget with zero funding dollars for Amtrak. Both times the Republican Controlled Congress said "No, Mr. President, we're going to keep funding Amtrak."
And frankly the more that the Dem's repeat that nonsense, the more likely it is that more and more of the Republican voters might actually start to beleive it.However, the point of my entire post however was that, not all Republicans are opposed to Amtrak. And I'm tired of that insinuation that all Republicans hate Amtrak. It couldn't be further from the truth and it's time for people to stop saying that nonsense!
Enter your email address to join: