Obama Specifically Supports Amtrak

[PerRock]

It saddens me to come on here and see all of you single-issue voters. I love pax rail just as much as everyone else here, but we cannot afford much of any of the "change" Mr. Obama talks about. So, he's all about Amtrak. That and providing crappy government health care to everyone are the only positions I know of his.
The Federal government should not be in the rail business, the airline business, or the road building business. They should be state responibilities at the very least. Instead if subsidizing all of these things, we should let the free market prevail. No more handouts to airlines, road builders, or rail. That being said, I realize the benefits of pax rail and would like to see it improved with a good plan and realistic transition. Maybe if Obama wouldn't have voted to refund the war in Iraq and re-up the Patriot Act we could afford to throw a bone to Amtrak. It would be nice if I didn't have to call my Chicago customers all winter to reschedule due to frozen brakes on the Hiawatha (happened again yesterday).

A vote for Obama is another step towards socialism. I hope you all like your nanny state here. You've done such a good job with Amtrak, I just cant wait to see how AmHealth works out.

This is coming from someone seriously considering relocating out of the US. I wont pay my taxes into a system of secret socialism, which is what you Dems and Republicans alike are turning this country into. If I am going to be part of a Marxist-like society I'll move to a country that at least admits it's true political leanings.

I'm not going to comment on why I support who I support (Obama, FYI). I just want to politely ask you to please turn down tone of your comment. I personally find your last statement VERY Offensive. I am not a commie, nor have I seen a SINGLE flame post in this thread until yours. please take the time to be open to everyones views and do NOT go name-calling because they are different.

peter

 

[Torgo90]

High taxes are not automatically bad. I will admit, out front, that I have socialist leanings. Additionally, I believe Karl Marx was largely correct in his predictions, as well as believe in his system of government. I don't think the world is ready for it, but I believe in it. If you think Stalin-and-later USSR was an example of Marx's theory, try reading even a basic summary of it.

Here is where we part ways. I have read Karl Marx and agree in theory, how could you not agree with this in theory. Greed and corruption are not considered, though, and so the centralized socialist system is doomed form the start. Socialism in the future may work - ala Star Trek Next Generation, but not in our lifetime or our childrens. Conquer greed and you can have your socialism.

Personally, I don't want to be beholden to anyone - mainly creditors or the IRS. To me high taxes are bad, I cite Denmark as an example - 40% of their best and brightest are leaving for places like Ireland, for good. These Danes cite a crippling income tax rate as their reason to ditch their homeland.

But alas, this is a train board, and we should not dirty it up with a political sidetrack. I apologize to the board for straying off topic and am done now.

 

[dan72]

With any politician, I'm taking a "I'll believe it when I see it approach." While it is heartening to see that some are speaking favorably of Amtrak, I also recall Clinton/Gore talking up investing in high-sped rail, etc, etc, etc when all was said and done, the net result in cuts to service in 1995 and the legislation that created the 'glide path to self-sufficiency' debacle that pretty much bankrupted Amtrak by 2002. :angry: Sorry to be pessimistic here, but it is also based on historical fact.

Probably the best legislation that has come up for Amtrak was the Lott/Lautner bill which I don't think is going anywhere (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). With Trent Lott retiring, the senate is losing a big Amtrak advocate.

One thing we need to keep in mind is that in spite of terms with presidents who were hostile to Amtrak, it has manged to survive. Hopefully, somebody can bring it to the next level from limping along to survive.

 

[the_traveler]

It saddens me to come on here and see all of you single-issue voters.

Reading back, I don't see anyone who has said this is the ONLY factor in their decision.

Well here is one that made me post: If this means no more of the "Zero Funding" of the past, he's got my vote!

I'll admit, that was my post. But I never said that was the only reason I would vote for him!

But then there is your post:

It saddens me to come on here and see all of you single-issue voters. I love pax rail just as much as everyone else here, but we cannot afford much of any of the "change" Mr. Obama talks about. So, he's all about Amtrak. That and providing crappy government health care to everyone are the only positions I know of his.
The Federal government should not be in the rail business, the airline business, or the road building business. They should be state responibilities at the very least. Instead if subsidizing all of these things, we should let the free market prevail. No more handouts to airlines, road builders, or rail.

Since there should not be any federal subsidies for roads, don't forget to submit the $2,000,000 for your trip to the grocery store 2 miles from your home to pick up bread, milk or whatever you're going to have for dinner. (I assume you would be driving on the roads that the federal government paid 90% of the cost for!)

And since - as you said - the state (usually) only pays 7% for the roads and the city/town/county pays 3%, that means you will pay the other 90% yourself! Thank you! Can I use the road too, or is it only for you?

I just wonder where the state gets their 7% and the city/town/county their 3%. (Could it be from the federal Government - or taxes from the residents? NO - that couldn't be!)

 

[Torgo90]

It saddens me to come on here and see all of you single-issue voters. I love pax rail just as much as everyone else here, but we cannot afford much of any of the "change" Mr. Obama talks about. So, he's all about Amtrak. That and providing crappy government health care to everyone are the only positions I know of his.
The Federal government should not be in the rail business, the airline business, or the road building business. They should be state responibilities at the very least. Instead if subsidizing all of these things, we should let the free market prevail. No more handouts to airlines, road builders, or rail. That being said, I realize the benefits of pax rail and would like to see it improved with a good plan and realistic transition. Maybe if Obama wouldn't have voted to refund the war in Iraq and re-up the Patriot Act we could afford to throw a bone to Amtrak. It would be nice if I didn't have to call my Chicago customers all winter to reschedule due to frozen brakes on the Hiawatha (happened again yesterday).

A vote for Obama is another step towards socialism. I hope you all like your nanny state here. You've done such a good job with Amtrak, I just cant wait to see how AmHealth works out.

This is coming from someone seriously considering relocating out of the US. I wont pay my taxes into a system of secret socialism, which is what you Dems and Republicans alike are turning this country into. If I am going to be part of a Marxist-like society I'll move to a country that at least admits it's true political leanings.

I'm not going to comment on why I support who I support (Obama, FYI). I just want to politely ask you to please turn down tone of your comment. I personally find your last statement VERY Offensive. I am not a commie, nor have I seen a SINGLE flame post in this thread until yours. please take the time to be open to everyones views and do NOT go name-calling because they are different.

peter

I guess I am not done.

Most on this board are very fiscally liberal. Being fiscally liberal IMHO equates to a centrally planned nanny-state. That to me is communism. I apologize if you take offense to that equation, it was a generalization written out of frustration.

Every Obama supporter, please PM me with meaningful reasons you support Obama. I've already said I like Ron Paul, but his chances are nil so I could be swayed. I have been looking for an answer to this question for a month, and all I get is a (generic) "he's for change" or "he's cool". I need more than that and perhaps you could be the one who gets me to vote for him. Mainly, how will he pay for his changes without raising the tax burden and keeping the young professionals like myself from abandoning ship?

 

[Torgo90]

It saddens me to come on here and see all of you single-issue voters.

Reading back, I don't see anyone who has said this is the ONLY factor in their decision.

Well here is one that made me post: If this means no more of the "Zero Funding" of the past, he's got my vote!

I'll admit, that was my post. But I never said that was the only reason I would vote for him!

But then there is your post:

It saddens me to come on here and see all of you single-issue voters. I love pax rail just as much as everyone else here, but we cannot afford much of any of the "change" Mr. Obama talks about. So, he's all about Amtrak. That and providing crappy government health care to everyone are the only positions I know of his.
The Federal government should not be in the rail business, the airline business, or the road building business. They should be state responibilities at the very least. Instead if subsidizing all of these things, we should let the free market prevail. No more handouts to airlines, road builders, or rail.

Since there should not be any federal subsidies for roads, don't forget to submit the $2,000,000 for your trip to the grocery store 2 miles from your home to pick up bread, milk or whatever you're going to have for dinner. (I assume you would be driving on the roads that the federal government paid 90% of the cost for!)

And since - as you said - the state (usually) only pays 7% for the roads and the city/town/county pays 3%, that means you will pay the other 90% yourself! Thank you! Can I use the road too, or is it only for you?

I just wonder where the state gets their 7% and the city/town/county their 3%. (Could it be from the federal Government - or taxes from the residents? NO - that couldn't be!)

I take city streets, one signed as a state highway to get groceries. They are full of potholes as I write. I will look into how much Washington sends the City of Milwaukee to maintain her streets and alleys. I can already guess the answer - $0 or nearly $0. Reread my post, I said the state governement should be responsible, not the Feds. I would not have any problem paying a higher Wisconsin fuel tax, or sending 25% income tax to Wisconsin to ensure a decent road bed to drive on, unfrozen train brakes, and an airport for planes to land at. Do you think anyone in Washington cares if my street is a mess? They will in Madison, cause they'll have to - we surround them.

 

[sweet tea]

I am not confidant that a woman is capable of running a country- I think that women's different emotional structure might make for problems.

there are lots of good reasons to support obama. you do his campaign a great disservice when you make this one of them.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I do recall, sweet tea, qualifying my statement with "I can't put much weight on it". It is a reason, its not a big one. I could write a 10 page discourse detailing about the top 10% of reasons why I prefer Obama, but I think people already think my posts are too verbose

My biggest reason, as you might have read into that, is her stance on education.

 

[sweet tea]

i will try to be quick, since this is straying from the topic....

i did read your post, and i didn't mean that you couldn't or shouldn't support obama. i meant what i said, that you do his campaign a disservice, because such a comment tends to falsely associate his progressive candidacy with retrogressive ideas. there is also a pragmatic issue you may wish to consider: comments like that one tend, in my experience, to remind some of the people who disagree with your statement of reasons that it about time we had a woman president. those people, who might otherwise favor your candidate, may become more likely to vote for his opponent.

on a personal level, it disappoints me to hear such sentiments put forth, however weightlessly, by someone so young, well-educated, and generally logical. but that is neither here nor there.

i think obama is a terrific candidate, for many reasons. i am very pleased to hear of his support for amtrak.

 

[NapTown Jim]

The Federal government should not be in the rail business, the airline business, or the road building business. They should be state responibilities at the very least. Instead if subsidizing all of these things, we should let the free market prevail. No more handouts to airlines, road builders, or rail. That being said, I realize the benefits of pax rail and would like to see it improved with a good plan and realistic transition. Maybe if Obama wouldn't have voted to refund the war in Iraq and re-up the Patriot Act we could afford to throw a bone to Amtrak. It would be nice if I didn't have to call my Chicago customers all winter to reschedule due to frozen brakes on the Hiawatha (happened again yesterday).

Uhmm.....the Constitution grants the Federal Government power to regulate interstate commerce. That interstate commerce would include the 'rail buisness', 'airline buisness' and 'road building buisness' you speak of. Yes, the states do have and excercise their power over these things within their boundaries, but the feds do have authority over it. Decisions are not made in Washington on what projects are to be built in Wisconsin or Indiana. Those decisions are made in Madison and Indianapolis by our respective state DOT. Our state DOTs gets a portion of their budget from the USDOT and there's the occasional congressional pork barrel project that gets federal funding for local projects, but those are given by your congressional representative who (I hope) does very much have your best interests in mind.

I'm a 'small government is a good government' guy too....but the things you list as items the Feds ought to suspend all funding on are absolutely absurd. Our economy cannot thrive without an efficient interstate transportation network of roads, rails and airports. Somehow, the europeans and asians can build efficient high-speed passenger rail networks. Its embarrasing to me that we cannot.

 

[the_traveler]

The Federal government should not be in the rail business, the airline business, or the road building business. They should be state responibilities at the very least. Instead if subsidizing all of these things, we should let the free market prevail. No more handouts to airlines, road builders, or rail. That being said, I realize the benefits of pax rail and would like to see it improved with a good plan and realistic transition. Maybe if Obama wouldn't have voted to refund the war in Iraq and re-up the Patriot Act we could afford to throw a bone to Amtrak. It would be nice if I didn't have to call my Chicago customers all winter to reschedule due to frozen brakes on the Hiawatha (happened again yesterday).

Uhmm.....the Constitution grants the Federal Government power to regulate interstate commerce. That interstate commerce would include the 'rail buisness', 'airline buisness' and 'road building buisness' you speak of. Yes, the states do have and excercise their power over these things within their boundaries, but the feds do have authority over it. Decisions are not made in Washington on what projects are to be built in Wisconsin or Indiana. Those decisions are made in Madison and Indianapolis by our respective state DOT. Our state DOTs gets a portion of their budget from the USDOT and there's the occasional congressional pork barrel project that gets federal funding for local projects, but those are given by your congressional representative who (I hope) does very much have your best interests in mind.

I'm a 'small government is a good government' guy too....but the things you list as items the Feds ought to suspend all funding on are absolutely absurd. Our economy cannot thrive without an efficient interstate transportation network of roads, rails and airports. Somehow, the europeans and asians can build efficient high-speed passenger rail networks. Its embarrasing to me that we cannot.

I fully agree with you!

How do you think the Europeans and Asians built the efficient high-speed passenger rail networks? (Government support!) And how do you think they can sustain these networks? (With Government support!) If they didn't receive the millions and billions of support from their Governments, I bet they would operate the same way as Amtrak does!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

i will try to be quick, since this is straying from the topic....
i did read your post, and i didn't mean that you couldn't or shouldn't support obama. i meant what i said, that you do his campaign a disservice, because such a comment tends to falsely associate his progressive candidacy with retrogressive ideas. there is also a pragmatic issue you may wish to consider: comments like that one tend, in my experience, to remind some of the people who disagree with your statement of reasons that it about time we had a woman president. those people, who might otherwise favor your candidate, may become more likely to vote for his opponent.

on a personal level, it disappoints me to hear such sentiments put forth, however weightlessly, by someone so young, well-educated, and generally logical. but that is neither here nor there.

i think obama is a terrific candidate, for many reasons. i am very pleased to hear of his support for amtrak.

Hillary Clinton reminds me, in far too many ways, of my own mother. I'd hate to have my mother be president, even though I'd never dispute that she has the brains or the (forgive me) balls for the job. Women are more emotional, and less predictable than males. I am not being sexist, thats a clearly documented chemical fact. I personally have reservations about the greater, and somewhat less consistent, emotionality in re to the female of the species. Its not a false concern, nor is it an indication of ignorance.

Also you are being contradictory, in a way. Being a woman, is either a relevant issue or it isn't. It is no more folly to consider it a reason not to elect than to consider it a reason to elect.

 

[lepearso]

I'm a fiscal conservative, a life-long Republican, and a firm believer in small government. I am pro-Amtrak because I fully embrace the federal government's constitutional role in interstate commerce. I believe that Amtrak's existence is completely justified and I also agree with tax dollars supporting highways, waterways, airways, and pipelines. I don't believe that any transportation deserves a blank check and that all tax dollar recipients should be spend efficiently and effectively.

If it comes down to a race between McCain and Obama, I'm tempted to go with Obama, though I'm still undecided. If it came down to a race between McCain and Hillary, I'd have to first flip a coin and then vote.

 

[capitalsfn]

i will try to be quick, since this is straying from the topic....
i did read your post, and i didn't mean that you couldn't or shouldn't support obama. i meant what i said, that you do his campaign a disservice, because such a comment tends to falsely associate his progressive candidacy with retrogressive ideas. there is also a pragmatic issue you may wish to consider: comments like that one tend, in my experience, to remind some of the people who disagree with your statement of reasons that it about time we had a woman president. those people, who might otherwise favor your candidate, may become more likely to vote for his opponent.

on a personal level, it disappoints me to hear such sentiments put forth, however weightlessly, by someone so young, well-educated, and generally logical. but that is neither here nor there.

i think obama is a terrific candidate, for many reasons. i am very pleased to hear of his support for amtrak.

Hillary Clinton reminds me, in far too many ways, of my own mother. I'd hate to have my mother be president, even though I'd never dispute that she has the brains or the (forgive me) balls for the job. Women are more emotional, and less predictable than males. I am not being sexist, thats a clearly documented chemical fact. I personally have reservations about the greater, and somewhat less consistent, emotionality in re to the female of the species. Its not a false concern, nor is it an indication of ignorance.

Also you are being contradictory, in a way. Being a woman, is either a relevant issue or it isn't. It is no more folly to consider it a reason not to elect than to consider it a reason to elect.

I have to disagree with quite a bit of what was said here - I don't believe that women are chemically more emotional and less predictable than men. If there is "documented facts" to support this, I question them and wonder if these scientific facts weren't come upon as a result of the scientist's preconceived notions about the matter. I'm a hardcore sociologist in these kind of matters.

Regardless, even if I grant that women in general more emotional, which I probably could be convinced to - though I reiterate, that I believe that to be rooted in society, not chemistry - that does not mean that Hillary Clinton is going to be more emotional than another candidate. She seems to have been rather non-emotional throughout her campaign, even to the point of people calling her cold and calculated - particularly about her crying incident in NH. Even in studies that show differences between men and women, most show a sizable overlap and usually just a difference in the average or median. Perhaps I'm trying to say that it should be viewed as correlation, not causation.

For full disclosure, I'm undecided, but leaning towards Obama, mostly because I believe we need someone to inspire people right now. I don't like his health care as much as Hillary's, and I think she is immensely qualified to be president.

 

[frj1983]

I'm slightly disturbed at the direction this discussion has gone in...the tone is just below nasty, and am hoping that we can all take a step back, take a deep breathe, and be a tad more civil with each other

 

[wayman]

I'm slightly disturbed at the direction this discussion has gone in...the tone is just below nasty, and am hoping that we can all take a step back, take a deep breathe, and be a tad more civil with each other

Likewise; I gather this is a fairly hands-off forum as far as moderation goes, but this is a thread (and a topic in general) where I'm becoming concerned self-policing may not be effective enough for keeping things Amtrak-focused and civil.... There are Amtrak-related things I could say related to political policies which I'm withholding, simply to avoid "fanning the flames" for those looking for any opportunity to jump in. It's disappointing to see this atmosphere here.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

For my part, not being a moderator or any such thing, I think its ok. Politics is a "hot" subject, and I find other peoples opinions interesting, especially the ones opposed to mine *shrugs* So long as we don't decline into name calling... were it my board, I'd leave it.

 

[Guest]

I keep praying this thread will die. Still going for now.

 

[printman2000]

out for his own interests with taxpayers to pay the bill.

That could be used as part of a definition for "politician".

 

[MStrain]

Folks, I will plead with you not to make this a partisan forum to trade jibes and half-researched accusations. The bottom line is, both Republican and Democrats have an equal share in running pax rail in the wrong direction. What can we do? We can not fight on forums to begin with, we can join rail advocacy groups (I'm in NARP and get a 10% discount on rail travel with Amtrak), we can start taking more train trips and take large groups of friends along, we can write, CALL and meet wtih government officials to tell them. Arguing on here accomplishes nothing. This country already has too many divisions......

So relax....smile....think about all the good things we have to be thankful for....and go ride a train!!!!



MStrain

 

[AKA]

Go ride a train sounded like a good idea, so I booked a CLE- NPN trip for Friday morning. 15 FEB. 08 Happy Valentine's day to me. YES I will take my wife along.

 

[the_traveler]

I personally am uncommitted politically (neither Republican or Democrat), so I have no loyalities to any party. (I never understood straight line voting - "(S)he is a _____. I don't agree with her/him on everything, but (s)he is a _____, so I'm going to vote for her/him.") Luckily, in the RI primary, you can choose which party's primary you want to vote in.

I'll vote for the best man or woman!

Personally, I'd rather take a train!

 

[JayPea]

Forgive me for beating a dead horse, but I haven't visited the boards in awhile and wanted to throw my $.02 in. Personally, I am glad to see Obama come out in favor of supporting Amtrak. It's a far cry from the current administration. That said, I don't know who I'll vote for come November. I tend toward the Republican side, have never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate (dating back as far as the Reagan era), but haven't always voted Republican, either. To be honest, I don't care tremendously for either Hillary nor Obama, but that doesn't mean I'd 100% rule them out, either. As for Hillary's fitness to be President based on gender: My state, Washington, has a female governor (Chris Gregoire); both senators are females (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell); and my district's representative is also female (Cathy McMorris-Rogers). That makes my Congressional district unique within the country in having four top leaders as women. And I haven't noticed any anarchy in the streets over it. Given the choice between Obama and Hillary, I'd take Obama, but gender has nothing to do with it.

I tend to believe the less government the better, though I believe in responsible government. To me, that means paying taxes for infrastructure. This is vital to our nation's growth and vitality, and I don't mind paying my share to keep it going. And that means Amtrak, roads, the airline industry, etc. I believe it ought to be done responsibly, though, and as much as is possible, make sure that spending is done with as little waste as possible.

Bottom line: I'll make my choice November 4th. Until then, I'll keep my mind open (I hope!) and keep an eye out on all available options.

 

[RailFanLNK]

I have no clue what all of you are talking about. You all must be delusional. We all know that the President of the United States is "WhoozOnFirst" , I am the Secretary of Transportation, and our cabinet meeting will be held in LAX on the second week of October with all of us attempting to attend our cabinet meeting via rail travel unless the damn route has been cut by the Republicans, The Democrats, The Independent Party, the Communist Party, the Greens, The Blues, The Reds or the Bolshevik parties. If someone can find the thread that was appointing all of us to Whooz's cabinet, please do. I know Had8ley was also a cabinet member. "Four score and 7 Long Distance Trains ago........." or "ask what not that Amtrak can do for me, but what can I do for Amtrak!"

Al

 

[Green Maned Lion]

ROFLMFAO