quote: After years of caving in to the railroad's demands, state lawmakers finally have shown some backbone. Amtrak ought to be able to make this modest concession. It ought to be willing to adopt a policy with which state government is all too familiar - doing more with less.
Reducing the railroad's annual subsidy by $1 million is significant, but not devastating. It is a reasonable response to continued fiscal uncertainty.
Amtrak has enjoyed the state of Michigan's generosity. Now it's time the railroad gave a little bit back.
Anybody have any opinions about this article?
Posts: 30 | From: Colorado | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are full of S--t! The federal government has enough budget for funding the Iraq war at $1 billion a DAY! How about some of that for funding Amtrak which 25 million people used last year!?
Posts: 287 | From: Palatka, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pojon: You are full of S--t! The federal government has enough budget for funding the Iraq war at $1 billion a DAY! How about some of that for funding Amtrak which 25 million people used last year!?
YES, Exactly...I would like someone to address that to president Bush, how much were spending on a war and how that is enough for one year of Amtrak service.
Posts: 1082 | From: Los Angeles, CA. USA | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for, once again, being the voice of reason and for actually having read the article. The trend is troubling, however. Given the "State of the State" here in California I wonder when the legislature will start taking a closer look at trimming its contribution to Amtrak California.
Frank in Gorgeous Santa Barbara
Posts: 2160 | From: Santa Barbara, CA, USA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be more efficient if Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and VIA should be operating a regional train service If it is such a needed service that region should work to run it. Perhaps the next big check they get from the Transportation Dept they could put it into rail service instead of another highway.
How many people on this web site get up each morning and catch an Amtrak train to the office and catch Amtrak back home?
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets look at the whole history. Amtrak has never been funded like it should have been and if it was it would be a world class operation. Too bad our leaders have never realized what a true National system could do for America! Less we forget that after 9/11 Amtrak was the only thing moving in America.
quote:Originally posted by Pojon: You are full of S--t! The federal government has enough budget for funding the Iraq war at $1 billion a DAY! How about some of that for funding Amtrak which 25 million people used last year!?
quote:You are full of S--t! The federal government has enough budget for funding the Iraq war at $1 billion a DAY!
If you are going to quote numbers, you might want to quote accurate numbers so you don't look so mis-informed. Free clue: We are not spending $365 Billion a year in Iraq. {That is what a billion a day equals}
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
mikesmith you are wrong! I looked at the budget details in the Congressional Record for two weeks ago and with all the subsidiary war costs (food, logistical problems, transport of troops, payments to airlines to carry troops, mechanical innovations, repairs to equipment, payments to Iraquis for labor done, re-enforcing of the Iraq economy, infrstructure repairs to water, electrical supply, road and bridge re-construction done by the U. S. military and by federal government designated contrators, etc., etc.) the cost is $1 billion a day! Amtrak is asking for $1.9 billion for the year and won't get it! Where's the logic there!!!???
Posts: 287 | From: Palatka, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pojon, the democratic underground and moveon.org are not legitimate sources for information of any type.
The current cost is around $200 billion, substantially less that the $800+ billion you are claiming.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But even if it is $200 billion, wouldn't you rather have 100 years of national passenger rail than whatever the rebuilding of Iraq is doing for us?
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
MIKE SMITH I am talking about facts from the "Congressional Record" publication of the Congress printed by the U. S. Govt. Printing office in Washington, DC----what are YOU talking about??? Also, I said 1 Billion $ a day---comes to $365 billion for the war!
Posts: 287 | From: Palatka, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummmm... Pojon... The war started March 20, 2003. That is about 850 days ago....
TwinStarRocket... No, I'd rather have Saddam out of power, his two sons dead, a whole mess of al qaeda terrorists dead, and Iraq and Afghanistan as free countries.
In the long run, that will help our Nation. A fully funded Amtrak that gets blown up a few times a year is not what I want.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Cost of war thus far: $178.62 billion Duration of war thus far in months: 27 Cost per month: approximately $6.616 billion. Cost per day: approximately $0.2178 billion
That works out to $1 billion every 4.5 days.
8.26 days of Iraq war spending would fully fund Amtrak at $1.8 billion for 2006.
End of discussion.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
