In the Streetsblog link, it says Obama wants to "provide long-term federal support for Amtrak and 'increase the availability of rail transportation options for residents of rural communities.'"
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Right on!! Obama in 2008!!! Finaly a politician with the cajones to take a stand for Amtrak funding...not just the idea of Amtrak, but ACTUAL FUNDING!!!
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
If he gets elected and follows-through with a campaign promise, that would be great. But then again, it's just a campaign promise. Very difficult to believe these types of things.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
At least it is a step forward to hear a candidate even mention Amtrak. It might indicate an increase in funding proposals over those of President Bush, and that if Congress passes an increase there would be no veto threat.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Just remember that it isn't the president who supplies the funding, it's congress so a candidate can say anything he/she wants but that doesn't mean we will get it. Obama also said he wants tax cuts for the middle class. So do we but it is the House that decides that.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
The presidency is MUCH more powerful than people believe. The president holds one VERY powerful tool: THE VETO. A simple majority in Congress could pass a bill, yet it takes ONE person to veto it....then Congress must musser up a supermajority (two thirds) to override. SO, it doesn't matter who controls the House or Senate, the president has the power to veto. We have seen this current administration exercise more veto's than his predecessors. Vetos seem to be the trend when it comes to spending (in both parties) So in terms of Amtrak funding, who's in the White House will matter a lot. McCain would likely veto any significant increase in funding for Amtrak, while Obama would sign any such bill into law.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
True but a veto can be overridden with enough votes. It has been done. Also we have to assume,for the sake of arguement that Congress wants to fund Amtrak and passes such a bil to begin with.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:The president holds one VERY powerful tool: THE VETO
That's not the most powerful tool in his possession. The executive order can have the same force as a royal decree.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
that's very true. But can an executive order apply to funding?
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Originally posted by amtraxmaniac:
<<<The presidency is MUCH more powerful than people believe.>>>
With all due respect, I do not agree with your statement at all. The position is casually (and sometimes formally) referred to as "the most powerful man in the world". It has been that way for many years. I don't think many people believe that it is not a powerful position, unless they've been living under a rock.
<<<it doesn't matter who controls the House or Senate>>>
Again, I must disagree. It matters very much who is in control of the House and Senate. This is one of the very basic building blocks of the USA by our forefathers, and is an important part of our checks and balances.
<<<We have seen this current administration exercise more veto's than his predecessors.>>>
I'm not so sure this is a factual statement. I don't have the data in front of me at the moment, but I don't think the current president's use of the veto is above and beyond that of other presidents. In fact, off the top of my head I think it is significantly less overall than most previous administrations.
<<<So in terms of Amtrak funding, who's in the White House will matter a lot. McCain would likely veto any significant increase in funding for Amtrak, while Obama would sign any such bill into law.>>>
Again, I don't think you are correct in your assumptions. Politicians say many things, and get people excited around election time. This is their job---they are supposed to get you excited about these things. From my viewpoint, the Obama campaign has been run like a well oiled machine. There were Obama offices set up all across the USA, and he has been quietly building momentum over time (well, not so quietly now). This includes talking to as many groups as he can to cover the bases, and this would include Amtrak. I'm happy to see a politician who is running for President take the initiative to make a statement about Amtrak funding. Usually, the elections come and go and we never hear a peep about it. But again, what a person says and what they DO are two totally different things. It may give people hope, but beyond that, it doesn't do much.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
For its entire life, Amtrak has been primarily a creature of congress. In the early days, the congresscritters that wanted trains in thier home are backyard did not fund studies, they funded trains. For example, Mr. Staggers' "Harley's Hornet" across West Virginia.
The white house has at best been unenthusiastically cooperative, and at worst hypocritical train cutters (Carter for one and Clinton's phoney glidepath to sufficiency - that one does not all belong to Warrington.
As for Mr. Obama, many of the things he says and seems to think on other matters scares me to death, and I will leave it at that.
Posted by Dixie Flyer (Member # 4640) on :
Amtraxmaniac wrote
quote: We have seen this current administration exercise more veto's than his predecessors.
This is simply not true. President Bush 43 hasn't used the veto at all for the first six years and a good part of the seventh year of his administration. Check your facts!
I believe President Ford may hold the record for the most vetoes, certainly for the roughly two year period that he was president.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
That's correct. People may be confused by the number of veto threats he has issued down the years, though (forty times in his first term, IIRC). His first actual veto occurred on 07/19/2006, which was the first year of the Democratic majority. Only eight vetoes so far for Bush (seven regular and one pocket), with one override so far by Congress.
The president that issued the most vetoes was FDR, at 635 (rough average of 40 vetoes per term). Gerald R. Ford squeezed 66 vetoes into his brief term.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
The power of the Presidential executive order is going to slam us all right in the face within the next 3-4 years.
After 2010, you will no longer be able to buy an R-22 AC system; you will be forced to buy an R-410a system, courtesy of one of President Bill's executive orders, outlawing R-22 freon.
This means you cannot "just" replace a compressor or evaporator coil for around $600, you will be forced to replace your entire system. {Entire MEANS entire!} The cost will be between $4,000 and $6,000 per system. Your condenser {outside part}, your copper lines {running through your walls in your house}, and your evaporator will all need to be replaced.
Never underestimate the power of an executive order. I'll be switching to window units, when my AC craters
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I had forgotten about the upcoming nightmare and expenses when freon is illegal. Wonderful. Next is the ridiculous upcoming mandate to buy those silly fluorescent light bulbs. Don't dare drop one in your house! The instructions for cleaning up the broken glass and the HazMat inside those stupid things is insane. I could go off on a huge rant about this ridiculous light bulb thing, but I suppose I better not.
Posted by Amtrak207 (Member # 1307) on :
Mike, Not to get off topic here, but are you referring to the most common AC refrigerant systems? Those would be R12 (freon, complete with CFCs) and R134a (substitute) unless something has changed recently. The groundwork for outlawing R12 refrigerant was laid a long time before Prez Bill showed up. For instance, as part of a group trip in 1992 I noticed that there was a shortage of Sightseer Lounge cars with ex-Santa Fe hi-levels being used as substitutes. According to numerous crew members, this was because the Grove was behind schedule in converting their refrigeration systems away from R12. Prez Bill made quite a few campaign promises that he did not or could not keep. Now, depending on which state they're in, the new people are doing the same thing. I don't want cheezy promises to appeal to your party-registered membership, I WANT FACTS!!!
By the way, both of my cars and my house don't have AC. I sleep in the basement and drink lots of water when it's hot out here. It's a heck of a lot easier to work on my car (which is 85 pounds lighter now) with the air con gear ripped out of it.
I still like my signature idea for a candidate....
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Amtrak207, BJ executed his executive order in April 1993. This took out R-22 and saddled us with R410a.
Google R-410a and see what it takes to put that system in place. It is a complete new install, no retrofitting allowed.
And being on topic, this is a wonderful example of just how much power a President has, and how he can keep screwing us, long after he is gone. I'm nervous that an executive order can take Amtrak out!
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amtrak207: By the way, both of my cars and my house don't have AC. I sleep in the basement and drink lots of water when it's hot out here. It's a heck of a lot easier to work on my car (which is 85 pounds lighter now) with the air con gear ripped out of it.
How reasonable this is depends a lot on where you live. Works nicely in San Francisco where, so far as I am concerned, you have a 12 months a year heating season. Would not want to be that way in the Deep South and Gulf Coast which is my preferred geographical reference - where we don't even have basements. Yes, I grew up with no AC, but then my parents spent their early years without electricity at all. Don't wnat to go back to that aspect of the "good ole days."
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
The DC area is high humiity and oppressively hot during the summer. After all the city was built on a drained swamp. Often the city opens cooling shelters for the less fortunate among us because of the dangers of the situation. The gov't would shut down when the temp got to a certain place and I can remember teaching or trying to in Oct.It was so hot that the kids arms and papers were sticking to the desks. I would finally take the bunch out under the trees where we could get some minor relief. So it definiely depends on where you live.
Posted by 4021North (Member # 4081) on :
Another thing that makes a difference in keeping buildings cool is shade. Trees shading houses from the sunlight keep them cooler. Also, houses that used to be made of brick or stone would stay a lot cooler than wood frame houses. More of the heat would be absorbed by the walls and transferred into the ground. These types of buildings would stay cool inside without air conditioning, even in very hot and humid climates.
As for compact fluorescent bulbs, Smitty has a point. I mostly use incandescent, and have a stockpile in case availability becomes a problem. If you want to rant about this or any of the numerous other aspects of poor lighting (not to say CFs are always a bad choice), go ahead. I will be supportive.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
How the heck did we get so off topic? WHile we are off topic though...there appears to be an overwhelming proportion of conservatives in here over liberals.....ehhh...nevermind.....LOL
Obama has been the only one that's made any mention of Amtrak, we know how McCain feels about it, and God knows what Billary thinks.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
Well, since the tangents have been established, I'm going on record as being a happy compact fluorescent user. We've had 'em in our house for fifteen years and they're perfectly fine once you get used to them. The only places we don't use them is in lamps that are on dimmers or that we rarely use. We have one in our living room that is still burning bright after more than nine years!
I think the mercury concerns are overblown. The amount is tiny. A lot of people have full size flourescents in their kitchens, and they have more mercury than the little ones. I've broken flourescent tubes a few times in my life and never got poisoned. The compact fluorescents are durable enough that they probably won't break if they fall on carpet, and on a hard floor they're easy to sweep up safely. There's nothing to be afraid of, except fear itself.
But saving energy is a good thing. I remember all too well the energy shortages of the '70s. I'm surprised so many conservatives have a problem with conserving.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. Here is what was in the Boston Globe last Tuesday (regarding the cleanup procedure if you drop and break a CFL bulb):
-Keep people and pets away. Open windows, and leave the area for 15 minutes before beginning the cleanup. -Do not use a vacuum cleaner, even on a carpet. This will spread the mercury vapor and dust and potentially contaminate the vacuum. -Wear rubber gloves. -Carefully remove the larger pieces and place them in a secure closed container, preferably a glass jar with a metal screw top lid and seal like a canning jar. -Next, scoop up the smaller pieces and dust using two stiff pieces of paper such as index cards or playing cards. -Pick up fine particles with duct tape, packing tape, or masking tape, and then use a wet wipe or damp paper towel. -Put all waste into the glass container, including all material used in the cleanup. Remove the container from your home and call your local solid waste district or municipality for disposal instructions. -Continue ventilating the room for several hours. -Wash your hands and face. -As a precaution, consider discarding throw rugs or the area of carpet where the breakage occurred, particularly if the rug is in an area frequented by infants, small children or pregnant women. Otherwise, open windows during the next several times you vacuum the carpet to provide good ventilation.
The Globe's source was the Maine Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management/Mercury Policy Project
I'm all for saving energy (like taking the train!), but we are allowing ourselves to get so carried away with this silliness that it just boggles my mind.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
A mercury thermometer contains 100 times as much mercury as a CFL. If you're afraid of CFLs you should find thermometers downright horrifying. On the other hand, if you're not afraid of a thermometer, there's no need to fear a CFL.
Mr Toy has nailed it! Fluorescents save money; lots of money! They cost you 1/4 as much as an incandescent bulb. I started using them for my house's exterior lighting back in 1986.
Everyone must remember, journalism has devolved into the dumbest profession on this planet. If there is no emotional impact, the story will not be aired. When they whine about the mercury in the bulb, they are doing everything they can to feed the emotional impact of the story.
If you are worried about the minuscule amount of mercury in these bulbs, then you should be horrified about concrete and silicosis.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The search for the risk-free existance is doomed to failure because it is impossible.
You can also save a lot of money just by turning off lights and other things that use electricity when you don't need them. This works better for incandescents becasue there is no start-up process.
Talking of waste: I am amazed at the number of people that leave the water running while they brush their teeth or shave. After you wet the tootbrush or razor, turn it off until you need it again. It doesn't take that much extra effort.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
My wife and I are cutting back, too:
We put the Odyssey minivan (12 mpg in town) into the garage for use only when we need it and are sharing the Civic for routine around-town driving (24-25 mpg).
We have replaced most of our incandescent bulbs with the newfangled ones.
And we are imbibing Two-Buck Chuck merlot (actually Charles Shaw, $2.26 a bottle at Trader Joe's) for our everyday plonk. It's surprisingly drinkable.
We won't, however, ride coach on our Amtrak long-distance trips. Too old.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: My wife and I are cutting back, too:
We put the Odyssey minivan (12 mpg in town) into the garage for use only when we need it and are sharing the Civic for routine around-town driving (24-25 mpg).
We have replaced most of our incandescent bulbs with the newfangled ones.
And we are imbibing Two-Buck Chuck merlot (actually Charles Shaw, $2.26 a bottle at Trader Joe's) for our everyday plonk. It's surprisingly drinkable.
We won't, however, ride coach on our Amtrak long-distance trips. Too old.
Try Corbett Canyon Merlot in a box. It is pretty good! {3 liters, roughly 4 bottles, for $9.35}
Posted by 4021North (Member # 4081) on :
Why I like incandescent bulbs:
1)The environmental impact of household light bulbs is grossly exaggerated. Indoor light bulbs don't cost that much to operate, whichever variety they are. When fluorescent lights became standard people started leaving them on more of the time because they were cheaper to operate. How much energy can be saved simply by turning lights off when they're not in use? I suspect it is more than 75%. I see people leave building lights on all the time when they only use them for a few minutes a day. One might spend $50 on lighting during a year, but how much would they spend on heating and air conditioning? How many poorly designed homes are there wasting energy? How much does the average household spend on gas for commuting to work that could be done by train, bus, carpool, bicycle, for a fraction of the cost and (in the case of trains) in greater safety? It makes light bulbs look pathetic.
2)Many people consider the quality of light from CF bulbs to be poor, and they should have the liberty to make those decisions for themselves. At best the light from CF bulbs can look similar to incandescents, but it's still not the same . They flicker with the power cycle, even the new ones, and the effects range from memory and concentration to provoking seizures in sensitive people. http://www.nursinglink.com/news/articles/2119-bright-lights-bad-headache
I don't want to say that the fluorescent campaign is a deliberate diversion, because that would be oversimplifying things -- but people should probably be paying attention to other matters. I try to conserve energy, but that should not mean accepting an inferior product. I don't blame anyone for choosing to use incandescents. They don't harm the environment to any significant degree, and the quality of light they produce is worth the extra penny.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
WHOAAAAAAA! Talk about getting off topic!!! While I find your discourses on fluorecscent bulbs fascinating, let's try and get back on track (hah! pun intended!)-- hmmmmmmmm-- how do you think Mr. Obama will get the vote from our bagpipers and ponies? (Hah!!)
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Actually, it has stayed close enough to "on topic".
If Obama wins, we can look forward to mandates about the bulbs we buy, the extreme cost increases for AC, and the rising cost of gasoline and Merlot.
Don't get me started on the global warming myth! Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
(Chuckle)...republicans....LOL
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well, Mr. Maniac, now that it appears the Democrats have taken a step back and resalized that they were on the verge of nominating an exciting young politician, a great public speaker, but at this time little else (2012 or '16 it could be a different story), all these concerns about flourescent bulbe (the only place they are in my house is where the bulb is difficult to get to for replacement), bagpipes, ponies, and whatever, are out the window as each party appears they want 'experience" in the Oval Office.
May the best candidate win!!!
Posted by Doc Brown (Member # 4724) on :
OK, I have to jump in and make my obligatory comment about CF bulbs. We've been using them long before it became "the thing to do".
Cost savings: When I replaced the ones that get the most use, I monitored and saw a reduced electric bill, about $10 a month after replacing 6 bulbs in the house. Most recently I replaced the incandescents in our outdoor, motion sensor "coach lights". My electric bill dropped by $10 a month on those alone. That paid for the bulbs in the first month. So no once can tell me that there isn't a savings.
Light quality: Unless you require special lighting for health or eyesight reasons, good qaulity CFs throw off very similar light to incandescents. The key is NOT to by the cheap bulbs from the end of the aisle at the grocery store. We really can't tell the difference between the ones we use in our living room and the old incandescents we had. I realize this is largely personal preference. But no one has ever walked into our house and commented that there was something odd about our lighting.
Instant on: Has never been an issue for us. I can deal with a short delay for the money we're saving.
Flicker effect: I get headaches at work from the overhead flourescents. At home I can't even tell. On rare occasion I can detect a flicker. But not enough to cause me problems. Again, this has a lot to do with the quality of the bulb. Thats not to say some people are exagerting the flicker issue. Some people are VERY sensitive to this. For those folks, all I can suggest is to wait a few more years, LED light bulbs will be replacing CFs.
Mercury: I agree, this is over blown. How many light bulbs do you break a year? 1 in ten years, maybe? Take burned out bulbs to the local recycler. Most municipal dumps will handle them. So if mecury is such a big deal with these, how come no one is screaming about the millions of full size flourescents being thrown in the trash each year? Treat CFs like any other household chemical. We all have a lot of poisonous stuff in our homes. I'm sure most people are not avoiding them because of thier dangers.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I prefer the D65 (daylight) fluorescents, myself. It mutes the reds that would be exaggerated by incandescent bulbs, and brings up the green wavelengths.
Posted by Robert L (Member # 3144) on :
HEY! HEY!
Off topic or not. This AC discussion may be important. If AC will hit a wall in 2010. What about Amtrak and AC? Is the current lack of rebuild money/new funds available for rolling stock purchases at Amtrak really a bright management move to be able to retrofit older coaches/sleepers/etc. to post 2010 AC standards, and then find new funds for new car purchases?
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
The R-410a refrigerant fiasco probably will not affect Amtrak for a decade or more.
If Superliners use R-22 freon {I don't know what they use}, they will have to phase that out between now and 2020. 2020 is not a hard date because there will still be recoverable R-22 available {at a tremendous cost}, it just will not be manufactured anymore.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Good Grief!!!!
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
"Good Grief!!!" is not a reasoned and thoughtful response to those who may disagree with your politics.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
No: good grief that we have veered so ridiculously off topic. We have gone from Obama and Amtrak to lightbulbs! Don't ruin it for others by taking the subject so far off topic. If you want to talk about lightbulbs and politics start a different thread. Better yet, try a different forum. This is a TRAINS forum.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:We have gone from Obama and Amtrak to lightbulbs
They're about the same, to politicians.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Thank you. "Good grief that we have veered so ridiculously off topic." Now we know what you are talking about. We are dense, you see; we move our lips when we read, and we need signposts to what's in front of us. Meaningless interjections do not help.
Posted by TruckTrains (Member # 6938) on :
Heck yea! Thats great news, glad to see that
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
This laughs on me...the next one, I'll have to charge yall for it. LOL. Just Kidding. I think this thread has maybe run its course. Does anyone else have anything else to say about OBAMA AND AMTRAK?????
Posted by CoastStarlight99 (Member # 2734) on :
I miss MITT.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I wonder what Obama Girl's position on any issue of any substance.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
The last I looked, Obama Girl's position was, well, not quite within the bounds of good taste, but I don't think I would move to the next car if I encountered her on an Amtrak train.
(Trying to keep this thread relevant . . .)
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
quote:Originally posted by CoastStarlight99: I miss MITT.
We might just see him again as the VP on the McCain ticket.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Kisor, let the record show that I edited that posting "once or twice" in order to ensure best possible taste.
Of interest, somewhere I learned that there is a possibility "Obama Girl" is the first Republican "Swift Boat" of this campaign.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
"Obama Girl" is a Milli Vanilli-like artifice. One woman sings, and a model lip-synchs.
In spite of some of the media rumblings to the contrary, something tells me that Pastor Jeremiah Wright of the TUCC is a greater campaign liability.
Posted by 4021North (Member # 4081) on :
Getting back to the light bulb topic, anyone interested in energy conservation should know that people are encouraged to turn off their lights for one hour from 8:00PM to 9:00PM local time tonight. This is to heighten awareness that energy can be saved by turning off lights when they are not needed.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Well, since I'm out of the house taking son to a live theatre performance, that's a "too easy to do" kind of thing.
Posted by heyitsme_23 (Member # 7217) on :
lights are nothing in the energy world, considering 1 standard incandescent bulb is usually 60-90 watts, a fluorescent bulb is around 10 watts, and the new LED bulbs get an amazing 1 watt. A vacuum, microwave, or heater uses 500-1000 watts, and it goes up from there with other standard household appliances.
Now if you told everyone in Phoenix to turn off their AC for an hour, now were talking energy saving.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
I'm wondering how much energy could be saved by businesses being required to decrease there operating hours by 30 minutes per day...just a thought. Would it hurt businesses like 7-11 to be open 23 hours per day rather than 24? What if businesses would open at 9am rather than 8am? How much energy could be saved?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)