posted
Hey -- the election season is starting up. And since this is railforum, lets throw out our political leanings - and decide who is best for Amtrak!
My Opinion: Despite republican and hence less government regulation policies of the president, #43 (george w) has been very faithful to Amtrak, gauranteeing that it would remain open despite a couple of summers ago (whe things looked really bad). But then again my guess is that a more pro goverment control leaning Democrat (any of 7) would probably be very supportive of Amtrak also. So ill just defer to my favorite debater: AL SHARPTON - AMTRAKS CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT IN 04!
posted
One way to make sure that Amtrak continues to get support is to make certain that your Congress critters pass a budget that is waht Amtrak needs. Remember, it is Congress, NOT the President, who give final say and approval of the Federal Budget. It is Congress who decides how much to spend, and what to spend it upon. The President may veto, but Congress can override the vetoes.
IOW, Congress is the body to be concerned with when one wants to see that Amtrak gets the capital funding it needs to operate, and return to a state of good condition. "The President may propose, but Congress disposes."
posted
So in that case can Newt and "contract" republicans credit for the economic growth of the 1990's??? Obviously Congress has the power of the purse; but the president is has the power of the media and is the head of his party. If you have ever studied US gov you will know that there is something called the OBM - the presidents own office for a budget proprosal, which he then has a memeber of his own party introduce in Congress. Also the president is usually granted a honeymoon grace period after being elected, in which he can introduce his own policies. Thus strong support for Amtrak could easily emminate from the President!
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak needs more long term funding -to replace the annual drama about whether they get enough money to keep the current route system alive.
To my knowledge, no president has ever taken the initiative to lead us in this direction. As voters, we should ask the candidates where they stand on a long term commitment to a national (hopefully expanded) system.
My opinion is, that since Republicans will have majorities in both houses of Congress, and Republicans have been the majority of Amtrak opponents, we need a President who is supportive of Amtrak for it to survive.
Given our current President's ill-advised proposal to explore the idea of having states take over passenger rail, and the deep doo-doo he is in over spending so much money, we will be much safer with a Democrat.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, we won't. Our Nation will be at a much greater risk of terrorists with any of the democrat dwarves that are in the race right now. Our National security MUST come first.
Having stated that, Senator Hutchison is our senior Senator, from the same State as our President. She has, and will continue to, influence President Bush. She is slowly converting Senator Cornyn to see that Amtrak is needed as a transportation alternative.
We need to stress the National security issue in our letters to our congress critters. Trains are a quick, non-stop way of transporting needed military and humanitarian equipment across our Nation, in order to help thwart any future attacks on our nation. The "National defense" scenario is a tried and true way to convince congressmen of the need to expand and enhance Amtrak.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, kudos to Sen. Hutchinson for her efforts to keep Amtrak. I admire her greatly for that. However,in the past both Republican and Democratic leadership have not managed to foresee, introduce, or bring to the forefront the viability and necessity of a dedicated funding plan for Amtrak. Especially these days when tax cutting is the norm. Unfortunately the voters fail to see that eventually they will be taxed more through their local governments. Which has happened in the past 3 years. The middle/working class suffers. I think we would be better off with Democratic leadership, or a much more bi partisan leadership. Our national security is a priority, to defending/protect all the people of our nation ( I hope.) Therefore, it is important that there is Federal Govt. involvement to preserve crucial programs and defend/protect all voters from the inequities desired by interest groups who promote them as wolves in sheeps' clothing. Even if its not obvious to themselves. Otherwise who are we defending? OMG, I think I got a little carried away today. But yes we need a good national rail passenger system...and Amtrak is a good base to keep and NOURISH.
Posts: 498 | From: New Hope, PA, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey guys lets try to keep this board free of partisan politics. its ok to state who individually you think will be the best candidate, but please dont use name calling and the like (i am thinking of democratic dwarfs here). remember this is a amtrak message board, and sometimes political comments get under the skin of those who disagree with you. i have a lot i would like to say about politics (ill be working on capitol hill starting in about 10 days) but this forum isnt the place to do it. state who you support but dont use denegrating comments about those you dont like.
Posts: 416 | From: St. Albans, Vermont | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, John Kerry is the only candidate whose web site mentions Amtrak, and then confusingly enough, it's under "Agriculture":
quote:John Kerry understands that revitalizing rural communities requires capital, infrastructure, and technology. Kerry has boosted small business assistance available to rural entrepreneurs. He has supported rural transportation initiatives that would expand Amtrak’s serve to more of America’s rural cities and towns.
Looks like there are a couple of letters missing, and that should be "...expand Amtrak's service..."
But I do agree with 20th Century: through 33 years of both Republican and Democratic presidents, and both Republican and Democratic-controlled Congresses and Senates, not much has changed about Amtrak's status quo. The biggest train service cutbacks occurred under Democratic presidential administrations (a bunch of long-distance trains disappeared under Carter, and a few others disappeared under Clinton), but the biggest on-board service cutbacks occurred when a Republican was president (during the Reagan administration, when dining cars switched to microwaves and paper plates as an economy measure).
Posts: 112 | From: North Hollywood, California | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also have GREAT respect for Sen. Hutchison, and not just because she is in Amtrak's corner. I wish I lived in a state where I could vote for her. But, to borrow a phrase from another Texas Senator, the President "is no Kay Bailey Hutchison". He has never displayed a grasp of transportation issues. Hopefully, it will come up in the campaign and we can see where he stands, without a lot of patronizing double-speak.
I would love to put forth a convincing argument why I also think the President is weaker than then some Democrats on National Security (which I agree is a priority issue), but this IS a forum about RAIL issues. And I am not a Democrat (nor a dwarf, unless I am standing near Sen. Kerry). I am even a fan of Sen. McCain who is an Amtrak opponent (but I would like to set him straight on that one thing).
The main point I would like to make is that if the Presidency and Congress are controlled by one party (that has most of the anti-Amtrak crowd), and the inevitable push comes to cut government spending to get out of this deficit mess (a conservative issue), Amtrak could be in for a mess of trouble.
One last thing: Could we please make this a respectful and friendly exchange of ideas and opinions.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Trainman, I also noted John Kerry's item of Amtrak under "agriculture." It is encouraging that he supports rural (in effect long-distance) service.
I also saw him on C-SPAN the other day and he made mention of promoting high-speed rail while discussing ways to create jobs.
I believe Dennis Kucinich has openly advicated expanding Amtrak, but he hasn't got a chance.
Personally, I'm rooting for Kerry. For reasons not related to Amtrak, I think he is the strongest of the bunch. But I think any of the Democrats will have a better plan for Amtrak than Bush's idea to have the states fund it.
posted
I'm surprised that a few people took offense at my 7 dwarves reference. Have y'all listened to what those dwarves have said about our President? Talk about hate speech! Geez.....
About all those 7 are qualified for is UP dispatchers..... They will not be strong on defending our Nation.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
mike smith, please cut out the political comments, you are starting to make my blood boil...........
Posts: 416 | From: St. Albans, Vermont | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
shanghaiamtrak, why would you let me have that type of power over you?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"They will not be strong on defending our Nation" is an opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. The President's military service, in his own words, "was to defended Texas in case of an air war with Oklahoma" (when he showed up). The 'dwarves' include a highly decorated war hero and a general, both of whom have considerably more experience in international relations than Bush had when he took office.
And Al Sharpton could probably whip those UP dispatchers into shape in a jif!
The "hate speeches" are as prevalent on the right as the left (remember how respectfully the right treated Clinton). It's a strategy called "energizing the base', used quite successfully by Bush in 2000.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unsubstantiated by facts? How about their own words? Do you consider what the dwarves have publically stated to be "facts"? They, with the exception of Liebermann, would still be negotiating with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban, based on their stated positions about our war on terrorism.
If you need me to direct you to numerous websites that will verify what they have stated, I'll be more than happy to provide those for you.
As far as Al whipping the UP dispatchers into shape, they really need the whipping.... Hire him!
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mikesmith, As an American working in the Middle East, let me assure you that in the long term, Bush is creating more danger for the USA with his policies. THAT said, I will only say that as a big supporter of Amtrak, I think we need to continue writing members of the Senate/Congress of BOTH parties who support Amtrak. The Bush admin. has proved to be hostile to Amtrak, so don't waste your time. And one other poster had it right: if we continue with the present politics, we will be facing a national crisis that will likely force Amtrak to close due to lack of funding. The neo con dream of remaking the Middle East will cost 100's of billions and ultimately fail. I'll just add: Amtrak could use a lot of positive PR. I think Amtrak needs to desperately get rid of a lot of dead weight, in management and in lazy workers. Posts: 171 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
THIS IS AN AMTRAK TRAINS MESSAGE BOARD. PLEASE KEEP ALL COMMENTS REGARDING AMTRAK. WE CAN ARGUE POLITICS ON SOME OTHER FORUM. OK?
Mike smith, you dont have power over me. only if i knew you were right would you do so. But yes, you are getting under my skin because this is an AMTRAK message board, not a message board for the reelect bush campaign!
at any rate, this is the last post i will make about the topic. lets move onto something else, ok?
Posts: 416 | From: St. Albans, Vermont | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also took notice of the recent post that stated to the effect that if we continue with current policies, Amtrak will close sooner than we may like. It made me think: The Superliner and Amfleet cars were first built in the 1970s, so they will be nearing the end of their designed service life in a couple of years. When they will need replacement, the bill will be huge, as we are looking at a fleet of a couple hundred cars. In the current political climate, I think there would be a massive struggle for money in order to get any new cars of any kind. I mean, the replacement bill wouold be a political football, and those who believe the myths about Amtrak are going to put up a real fuss. I would encourage folks to let their congress member know their thoughts on the necessity of Amtrak. Another option would be to join the local rail passenger association.
Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sutton, I disagree with you on the middle east and I agree with you and CG96 about writing our congress people. This is a rare opportunity to produce a bipartisan issue that can be exploited to Amtrak's benefit.
I believe the citizens of our Nation are extremely displeased with the partisan bickering going on in Congress. We can use that displeasure to get our congress critters to show everyone they can "come together" for the good of our Nation, and pass a bipartisan bill to properly fund Amtrak. It's waiting on us to come up with a real snappy "sound bite" for why we need rail in the USA.
Any ideas?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Amtrak should be a bipartisan issue. The idea of providing competitive transportation choices should appeal to conservative and liberal alike. It is cost-effective, and would become more cost-effective if expanded.
Mikesmith got me thinking that the most effective letters we, as rail advocates, could write would be to our Congress-critters that have not supported Amtrak, but otherwise share your political views. When I write, I get replies in my location that indicate they already strongly support Amtrak. But those of you out there that live in districts with anti-Amtrak critters could influence them or at least hold them accountable if you are a voter they depend on.
I apologize for getting into other political issues on an Amtrak forum. I just realized the point I was trying to make has already been better stated many times in Mr. Toy's signature: "never mistake opinion for the truth". That includes mine and Mike's.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
CG96 says "The Superliner and Amfleet cars were first built in the 1970s, so they will be nearing the end of their designed service life in a couple of years." Really? Are railroad cars really only designed to survive 30 years? Seems like a low expectancy to me.... How about locomotives? How long do they traditionally last?
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Locomotive life varies. Most of Amtrak's SDP40F's from the early-mid 70s are long gone (there might be 1 or 2 on display somewhere). The FP40s are pretty much retired or sold to commuter lines.
Back to the topic: I don't think either major party seems all that keen on Amtrak so it will take continued support and letters to congresspeople (critters?) and PACs...
Even if one lives in an area with Senators and Representatives who support Amtrak, you should keep up the fight by writing letters to them...
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that every president, democrat or republican, has underfunded Amtrak or tried to kill it outright. Campaign promises seem meaningless. Clinton, if I recall correctly, said that the USA needed a high-speed rail system and then did nothing to make it happen. Again, if memory serves, both democratic and republican platforms in 2000 spoke positively of intercity rail, but Bush's performance has been lackluster at best, and based on our experience with other presidents, I don't think Gore would have been any different. Now, David Gunn as president (of the United States) would probably do the trick.
------------------ Steve Dunham Literalman@aol.com http://www.stevedunham.50megs.com/
posted
I am afraid Steve is right. Every candidate is for passenger rail, but when budget time comes, Amtrak is a favorite target for cutting spending (also known in the business world as investment).
As a group we could make it a campaign issue, at least forcing them to break their promises. The best outcome, of course, would be Mr.Toy for president!!
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that during Mr. Bush's Presidency, we have lost the Lake County (Wisconsin Train), Kentucky Cardinal, International, and also the Vermonter-MOntreal bus connection, I would vote for the other guy/gal. Bush only wants us to drive and buy more gas so he and Chaney can get more dough for their escape. I voted for him, and I am really ashamed to say I did now.
posted
bush is a loser al sharpton will win, its time for a black president so all u white supremacists can go away.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we did lose most of our long distance trains under Clinton and Carter. That is why we need to make Amtrak an issue during campaigns. We need candidates to state their positions when they are running and hold them to their promises when elected. Polls show a large majority favor Amtrak, yet highway, oil, and airline lobbies manage to get more $.
I went to caucuses in 1976 and brought up rail issues. Most people's reaction was 'huh?', 'ok, we agree with that, now lets get on to the real issues'. I never went back. There needs to be more of us. And we need to make it an issue in both parties. When we are informed, the argument for rail is overwhelming and convincing.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
