I suppose that the $4/gallon gasoline and the jet fuel in excess of $3 per gallon is good for the economy, then, and that no airline is parking jets and truckers are delighted with diesel fuel around $5.50 per gallon, too. Must be nice to be insulated from the ill effects of poor economic policies. Too worried about the Libertarian ideal of "competition", that is, selectively, and of course "accountability" is absolutely not for all.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Monday threatened to veto legislation funding Amtrak for the next five years, saying House members did not include language in the bill making the railroad more accountable for its decisions.
House legislation would authorize more than $14 billion and set up a program of federal matching grants that states could use to set up or expand rail service.
The bill "authorizes an unprecedented level of funding but does not include basic measures to hold Amtrak accountable to taxpayers for its spending decisions," the Bush administration said in a statement.
For example, the measure "provides scant opportunity for competition on existing Amtrak routes and does not include provisions that would condition Amtrak's funding based on progress on reforms," the White House said.
Amtrak funding has been an annual sticking point between the Bush administration, which has pushed for ending Amtrak subsidies and eliminating unprofitable lines, and supporters in Congress who argue that there's no major national railway in the world operating without government subsidies.
The bill is expected to come before the full House soon.
Shocking, Shocking. Gambling at Rick's. Send for the usual suspects.
If it's not defense or NCLB, Mr Bush has threatened vetoes. The next magic question is does Lautenberg have 305+67 to override the veto?
I'd hope it does...
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Volks, I'm sure that the Financial community has a say and lobby regarding how far the PRIIA legislation is "going".
The Act calls for retirement of some $345M of long term debt by means of an appropriation.
According to the 2007 Annual Report $227.5M of such is Mortgage Obligations with interest rate of 9.5%.
If you were the holder of these "government guaranteed' (to the same extent as paper of Fannie Freddy and Ginny) obligations that are paying 9.5% at a time when the 10 year Treasury is less than 4%, how would you feel about having that paper being "called'.
If I held such, I'd be less than happy.
Be assured the holders are "institutions" and not "individuals'; the former have teiir lobby.
NUFF SAID?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Well, while we continue in our own morass, Germany, who is experiencing $9/gallon gasoline prices, has its conservatives advocating a return to nuclear energy. Their relations with Putin's Russia are rather precarious, never mind the problems with oil supply from OPEC that they share in common with the US (and where Bush did not succeed when it came to convincing the Saudis to increase their oil output significantly).
The USA used to take the route of energy independence, and of all times to return to it, this should have been it. Those parked planes won't get unparked too soon.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I will stick up the lightening rod in the thunderstom and say that if we started building new nuclear power plants tomorrow, it would not be one day too soon. It is absolute insanity to be burning petroleum products to generate electricity. Then and only then will massive electrification of railroads truly make sense. Right now all electrification changes is where the fuel is burned.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Not much of a lightening rod, George...
Although common sense isn't that common, it does seem like it is completely non-existent in Washington DC.
What are those idiots "thinking" {term used loosely}.
I've written the President and my 3 congress critters about the lack of drilling and building last week, so it is time to write another letter to the Pres about his ridiculous statements about Amtrak...
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: Not much of a lightening rod, George...
The last time I said something pro Nuclear power it was.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
That was before we were paying $.2112 per KWH! Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Bush has threaten to veto Amtrak funding 7 years. Why not go 8. It'll pass.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: It is absolute insanity to be burning petroleum products to generate electricity.
George, according to this petroleum accounts for less than 2% of electrical generation in the USA. Coal is the most common fuel for powering electrical power plants, accounting for almost half of the country's generating capacity. Natural gas and nuclear are tied for second at about 20% each, while hydropower accounts for 7%. The rest are renewables and "other."
Of course, this all has about as much to do with Amtrak as bagpipes do with zebras.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Bagpipes??? Are there going to be bagpipes on the new Coast Starlight?????
Who knew?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by gp35: Bush has threaten to veto Amtrak funding 7 years. Why not go 8. It'll pass.
Meanwhile back to the topic; while I believe some kind of toothless "rah rah Amtrak' Bill will emerge from Conference Committee and be passed by both Houses, there is no assurance that it will be enacted, i.e. signed by either POTUS XLIII or XLIV. I believe the provisions regarding retirement of Amtrak's Long Term Debt by means of an appropriation will be more of an issue than is foreseen at a discussion board comprised in large part of railfans, rail travelers, and passenger train advocates.
Either those provisions regarding debt retirement (it's only common sense to do so, but then common sense is a rather uncommon virtue in Wash) will be removed in Conference Committee or PRIIA '08 will never have the term "enacted legislation" attached to it.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
HR 6003 passed the house floor vote by a whopping 311-104 score.
Isn't it interesting how Amtrak manages to get such strong bipartisan support while at the same time is subject to every conceivable political attack. It really is a paradox.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
As I read the posts it occurred to me that Washington is just about the only city where the buildings talk to each other and make decisions...The white house threatens veto, the pentagon says.. the capitol feels that...
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
The buildings are the only things in Washington that still have a chance at acting in a non-partisan manner.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
My representative voted against HR 6003. He also voted Yea on the airline bailouts post 9/11 and opposes any federal measure to tax oil industry profits. Go figure.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by train lady: As I read the posts it occurred to me that Washington is just about the only city where the buildings talk to each other and make decisions...The white house threatens veto, the pentagon says.. the capitol feels that...
That doesn't bug near as much as desks that write memos.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: My representative voted against HR 6003. He also voted Yea on the airline bailouts post 9/11 and opposes any federal measure to tax oil industry profits. Go figure.
You should be grateful he voted against the oil taxes. YOU would be paying those taxes, because corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers pay the taxes.
However, write a letter chastising him for voting against energy efficient transportation.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Mr Smith, obviously not ALL of the costs connected with the price of oil go to overhead as evident by their record profits. So I don't buy passing the tax onto the consumers. What we are seing in the oil industry is sheer corporate greed. Those taxes COULD be paid for through cutting expenses: starting with the executives' exhorbinant salaries.
BTW-all a tax would mean is transferring the gas tax responsibilites from consumers to the RECORD PROFITS of the producer. These are PROFITS, NOT EXPENSES.
I admit, my assessment is along a certain party line. I'm an admitted tax and spend liberal. But, I digress...
I can respect and appreciate that MOST in here are pro passenger rail and specifically pro Amtrak. We all have different opinions regarding the conditions necessitating its existance and how it should be paid for.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I'm so disappointed in this administration. I just don't get it. I've tried to be supportive, but it's getting harder and harder. We need nuclear (or "nuculear" as he calls it), we need to drill for our own oil because WE HAVE IT, and we need to stop BURNING THE WORLD'S FOOD SUPPLY (ethanol)!! This is so upsetting to me.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
And beyond those suggestions, we need a forward looking energy policy, which would include serious support and research for solar energy. Oil AIN'T going to last forever, and we are just beginning to feel the pain of competitive demand from Asia.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
RR4, sorry to disagree but it seems to me that the white house and friends are very partisan depending on who lives there.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
Good point. Does that mean it's all hopeless?
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: Mr Smith, obviously not ALL of the costs connected with the price of oil go to overhead as evident by their record profits. So I don't buy passing the tax onto the consumers. What we are seing in the oil industry is sheer corporate greed. Those taxes COULD be paid for through cutting expenses: starting with the executives' exhorbinant salaries.
BTW-all a tax would mean is transferring the gas tax responsibilites from consumers to the RECORD PROFITS of the producer. These are PROFITS, NOT EXPENSES.
I admit, my assessment is along a certain party line. I'm an admitted tax and spend liberal. But, I digress...
I can respect and appreciate that MOST in here are pro passenger rail and specifically pro Amtrak. We all have different opinions regarding the conditions necessitating its existance and how it should be paid for.
You can believe what you want to believe , but any and all corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer. This is the largest hidden tax we face, thanks to our Congress. Also, the "profit" goes to the stock holders. If you have a 401K or any retirement account, you probably receive some of that profit. Be envious of the CEOs if you must, but they are not the problem.
If Congress imposes a "windfall" profits tax, you {and the rest of us} will see it at the pump.
And Smitty, I could not agree with you more! It is almost to the point where I might believe some of the conspiracy theories floating around out there...
Like this one: Lindsey Williams Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:any and all corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer
I was not aware that corporate taxes had seen such great increases over the past few months?
quote:Be envious of the CEOs if you must, but they are not the problem
Are you sure about that? The percentage of average employee salary that CEOs get has gone up 15 to 20 times in the past two decades, perhaps higher than that. The stockholders, I think, apart from the majority holders, see very little of that by comparison. Plus, CEOs still get paid when they fail.
Theodore Roosevelt would have an absolute fit if he saw how businesses in the USA were conducting themselves these days (never mind the outsourcing, which has hollowed out the manufacturing and self-sufficiency that used to be the hallmark of this nation's strength).
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain:
quote:any and all corporate taxes are passed onto the consumer
I was not aware that corporate taxes had seen such great increases over the past few months?
Apples and oranges. ALL increases in the cost of doing business are paid by the consumer, whether it is increases in taxes or increases in the cost of the product {like corn}.
[QB]
quote:Be envious of the CEOs if you must, but they are not the problem
Are you sure about that? The percentage of average employee salary that CEOs get has gone up 15 to 20 times in the past two decades, perhaps higher than that. The stockholders, I think, apart from the majority holders, see very little of that by comparison. Plus, CEOs still get paid when they fail. [/QUOTE]
That is not our decision, it is the corporation's decision. {It's called capitalism, as opposed to socialism} Besides, oil execs receive chump change when compared to Bill Gates' $50 billion...
Democrats in Congress are the problem. They have become the party of "NO!". No drilling, no refining, no nuclear; let's rely on people that want to kill us to provide us with their oil... Oh, and raise taxes on the poor and middle income people of the USA.
Congressional Democrats make no sense!
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Apples and oranges. ALL increases in the cost of doing business are paid by the consumer, whether it is increases in taxes or increases in the cost of the product (like corn)
Please tell us where all this increase in crude oil price fits into the "cost of doing business", then. To a layman such as myself, record profits, no matter who is the recipient (but this does matter) is too much like an unethical business practice of the past: price-fixing. US politicians used to put their foot down on that, and that was the era when the USA was truly great.
Unless you are saying that the oil supply is running out in earnest? What happened to Saudi Arabia's 206-billion-barrel reserve?
quote:That is not our decision, it is the corporation's decision. (It's called capitalism, as opposed to socialism) Besides, oil execs receive chump change when compared to Bill Gates' $50 billion
Sorry, but you cannot redefine business ethics (or lack thereof) using terms that apply to political systems.
Are you actually calling Theodore Roosevelt a socialist?
Capitalism is not about ethical autonomy of corporate officers, thus insulated from accountability to the public they do business with. Nor is it about unrestricted gain.
Speaking of socialism, how do you feel about all the outsourcing we do to Red China? Our supposedly-capitalistic corporate officers are doing quite a bit to advance socialism (which I personally despise; socialism, that is, not necessarily corporations). It would be the province of another forum to outline all the expansion that China has engaged in on the African and South American continents, as well as the threat that poses to the security of the USA. Are corporations immune to guilt thereof?
quote:Democrats in Congress are the problem. They have become the party of "NO!". No drilling, no refining, no nuclear; let's rely on people that want to kill us to provide us with their oil... Oh, and raise taxes on the poor and middle income people of the USA.
Congressional Democrats make no sense
These are talking points. I advise you not to use them, because they kinda undermine your credibility.
My position is that the poor fiscal policy of late (and going back further than that) is very much bipartisan. Of course, the GOP has been more or less Libertarian since the days of Goldwater's influence and merely panders to true conservatives.
If the GOP, when they had the majority in the federal government, wanted to give us actual energy independence, they would have not worried about the whims of the undemocratic EU and we would have been in Iran and Saudi Arabia already (Iran especially, to wipe out the most extreme form of terrorism, and Saudi Arabia, to wipe out the Wahabism). And yes, ANWR would have oil derricks in it already, as well as us having more oil rigs off our coastlines. But I digress...therefore, I will close by saying that the warning shot of 9/11 should have then resulted in a greater expansion of Amtrak, and high-speed at that.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: I will close by saying that the warning shot of 9/11 should have then resulted in a greater expansion of Amtrak, and high-speed at that.
The warning shots of gas lines circa 1973 and 1979 should have, too. If we'd paid attention then, and worked to get off of foreign oil as Nixon thought we should do, not only would we have decent trains, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: [QB]
quote:Apples and oranges. ALL increases in the cost of doing business are paid by the consumer, whether it is increases in taxes or increases in the cost of the product (like corn)
Please tell us where all this increase in crude oil price fits into the "cost of doing business", then.
Those that control the oil, control the price. The more oil available, the less they control.
quote: Unless you are saying that the oil supply is running out in earnest? What happened to Saudi Arabia's 206-billion-barrel reserve?
Not by a long shot. We have a trillion and a half barrels under ground we control. We cannot drill it, due to the Democrats in Congress saying NO... NO.... No....
quote:That is not our decision, it is the corporation's decision. (It's called capitalism, as opposed to socialism) Besides, oil execs receive chump change when compared to Bill Gates' $50 billion
Sorry, but you cannot redefine business ethics (or lack thereof) using terms that apply to political systems.
Are you actually calling Theodore Roosevelt a socialist?
Capitalism is not about ethical autonomy of corporate officers, thus insulated from accountability to the public they do business with. Nor is it about unrestricted gain.[/QUOTE]
OK, that statement tells me something...
quote: Speaking of socialism, how do you feel about all the outsourcing we do to Red China? Our supposedly-capitalistic corporate officers are doing quite a bit to advance socialism (which I personally despise; socialism, that is, not necessarily corporations). It would be the province of another forum to outline all the expansion that China has engaged in on the African and South American continents, as well as the threat that poses to the security of the USA. Are corporations immune to guilt thereof?
quote:Democrats in Congress are the problem. They have become the party of "NO!". No drilling, no refining, no nuclear; let's rely on people that want to kill us to provide us with their oil... Oh, and raise taxes on the poor and middle income people of the USA.
Congressional Democrats make no sense
These are talking points. I advise you not to use them, because they kinda undermine your credibility.
Truth is the truth.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Those that control the oil, control the price. The more oil available, the less they control
That is very true. So you acknowledge the possibility of the existence of price manipulation, then? None of the oil companies are hurting due to the actions of OPEC. Far from it. Otherwise, they would be clamoring for retaliation with (possibly) military force behind it.
quote:We have a trillion and a half barrels under ground we control. We cannot drill it, due to the Democrats in Congress saying NO... NO.... No
Where do you get that estimate from? Maybe combining ANWR with offshore drilling would push things up to a trillion barrels; but remember, we've got to increase our coast guard a great deal to protect those from growing enemies such as China and the European Union (yes, they are our enemies).
Incidentally, it's not so universal across party lines. Mel Martinez (R-FL) said back in 2006 that he would oppose any bill that would not protect the shoreline of his state. John McCain (R-AZ) is dead against any ANWR drilling or drilling elsewhere. It was a group of 25 Republican Congressmen that blocked a measure on ANWR back in 2005. There are about 30 Dems that support ANWR as a standalone measure. Plenty of Democrats in the south that support offshore drilling, too. I do not disagree that there is a majority of Democrats (especially in the Senate) thus opposed, though; the party is not monolithic, any more than the GOP is.
There's also the matter of refining capacity. Some economists try and blame high fuel prices on lack of same. However, we all see the direct link between crude price and retail fuel price.
quote:OK, that statement tells me something
Think carefully. Especially on the word "ethics". I can throw in "scruples" if that helps. Maybe "trust-busting"? which is a cause that the EU seems to have taken up, but only when it applies to non-EU companies, whereas the USA put such restrictions on its own companies.
You seem to wish to evade talking about Theodore Roosevelt. Care to be forthcoming?
I do not know your stance on "globalization", but it looses a lot of ethical and moral fetters on business. They literally do shed their accountability, or at least try to. Globalization actually increases slavery around the world, as well as increasing authoritarianism and human-rights violations. To say otherwise is a left-wing viewpoint.
quote:Truth is the truth
And talking points are talking points. Was I mistaken when I spoke of the bipartisan measures that have hurt the USA?
Ah, who knows. Maybe things will come up rosy if, thanks to "globalization", Deutsche Bahn buys Amtrak just like they bought EWS in Britain...right?
PS. Happy (belated) Flag Day (Google forgot about it; I had to take my flag down due to severe thunderstorms), and happy Father's Day to the fathers (something I need to catch up on; I'm going to be 40 next year).
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Price manipulation or "future" supply & demand? It's the latter, based on our insane energy policy. The oil speculators are counting on our Congress continuing to restrict our oil companies from drilling.
If you do some research, you would find estimates of 1.5 trillion+ barrels in ANWR, shale oil, and off our coast, all on land we control. That's 150 to 250 years worth of oil.
A handful of GOP RINOs and all of the hard Left Democrats are blocking our ability to harvest our resources. They are directly to blame for the high price of gas, right now. These are not "talking points", these are facts. Seeing that the Democrats control Congress, and just recently voted 9-6 against drilling {partisan vote}, the Democrats get the blame. IF this happened 3 years ago, I'd be blaming the Republicans.
Also, the "big oil" companies are at the mercy of the oil producers. They pay what they have to and pass the costs onto us. Trying to tax their {buzz word alert} windfall profits is absurd.
We have the ability to build the cleanest refineries on this planet. The rules that Congress passed and the enviro-whackos that tie any refinery up in court for decades are the two reasons we have no new refineries. It is too cost prohibitive to build here. Congress has the ability to ease those onerous restrictions and limit the actions available to the enviro-whackos. They have failed, again, at our expense.
Roosevelt has no bearing on our current situation and globalization is going to happen, whether we like it or not. The bottom line is: We have the ability to lower oil prices right now. Democrats {The party of "NO"} are blocking that ability.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
That's exactly it, Mike. You hit the nail on the head. It's so simple and clear that it's almost funny.......almost. I think many liberals have gotten so emotional and somewhat brainwashed over the years about "destroying the planet" that those emotions trump the true facts in what is going on. I wish it weren't this way. Drilling in ANWR to save our freedom will not kill the polar bears (or whatever the latest endangered animal rumor is). How about endangered Americans? That's pretty important to me.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Mike Smith wrote:
Price manipulation or "future" supply & demand? It's the latter, based on our insane energy policy. The oil speculators are counting on our Congress continuing to restrict our oil companies from drilling
I've heard the speculator news, too. The level of damage they have done has not yet been quantified.
However, it looks like the UN secretary general (whatever little credibility is left to him, that is, never mind the whole organization he represents) believes that the Saudi King has the power to "restore (the price of crude oil)" to what he calls "appropriate levels".
What or whom, then, has the greater influence?
quote:If you do some research, you would find estimates of 1.5 trillion+ barrels in ANWR, shale oil, and off our coast, all on land we control. That's 150 to 250 years worth of oil
Estimates vary wildly. Oil shale alone has estimates ranging from 800 billion to 2 trillion barrels. I absolutely agree that it's a lot, but the actual amount does remain in question.
Also, it's not only oil that we have great resources in. The USA still has the largest estimated recoverable reserves of coal in the world (about 273 billion tons). We also need to engage in more exploration for minerals...oh, hold on, we sent almost all of our manufacturing overseas and now it's less than 5 percent of all US production.
quote:A handful of GOP RINOs and all of the hard Left Democrats are blocking our ability to harvest our resources. They are directly to blame for the high price of gas, right now
I have read the Communist Manifesto, so I do have a sense of what constitutes "hard left"; it seems to me that most of the left-leaning Democrats are, socially as well as fiscally, in the social-democrat range rather than the totalitarian sphere (perhaps with a smidgeon of pie-in-the-sky Trotskyite "democratic communism"). As far as the resistance to expanded drilling (which I personally disagree with), that certainly is not a "hard-left" characteristic, especially if it constitutes expanding the means of production. These selfsame politicians claim to be champions of "alternative" energy sources, but so far no progress has been made at any time, not even within the bipartisan arena. (Interestingly enough, such "green politics", whose origin is in Germany, have been described with the words "eco-fascism", which strangely implies a right-wing bias.)
Most Republicans are of the so-called "RINO" variety. If they were not, they would not have encouraged and/or allowed the flight of manufacturing so enthusiastically (a bipartisan trend). Manufacturing creates wealth. China knows this; the European Union knows this.
So by bolstering the economy of China, and subsequently strengthening the cause of Maoism around the globe (e.g. Zimbabwe, South Africa and other Communist countries in Africa, as well as South American countries like Venezuela; also, of late, Nepal, where the monarch recently abdicated), are the GOP "hard-left" (which I'd never accuse them of being from a social/moral standpoint) or are they merely "useful idiots"? Consider whom it was that granted permanent MFN status to Red China (yes, it was discussed prior to his administration, but the execution is all). Also consider what epochs have experienced the most rapid left-shifts of social conditions.
quote:the "big oil" companies are at the mercy of the oil producers. They pay what they have to and pass the costs onto us. Trying to tax their (buzz word alert) windfall profits is absurd
But is there any evidence that they are passing costs onto the consumer? Record profits imply something else altogether. If the cost of doing business had spiked sharply, then the income versus outgoing revenue would not have such a sharp discrepancy, and the stockholders would not be jumping for joy. Perhaps now these costs are catching up, thanks to the "economic jihad" of the Mullahs of Iran and of King Abdullah? (The May quarterly profits of ExxonMobil for example, although still substantial, have been "slightly lower" than Wall Street targets set for the company, after all. Is this greed? because after all, profit is profit.)
Also, how come tax reduction has led to capital flight when it ought to have led to domestic industrial reinvestment? That sounds counterintuitive, and even more so seven years down the road.
For the record, Red China still regards the USA as its number-one enemy. That is a position unwavered from since the days of Mao, whom Nixon crawled to in the weak-willed singular event that has led to the ultimate undermining of this nation's manufacturing base.
quote:We have the ability to build the cleanest refineries on this planet. The rules that Congress passed and the enviro-whackos that tie any refinery up in court for decades are the two reasons we have no new refineries. It is too cost prohibitive to build here. Congress has the ability to ease those onerous restrictions and limit the actions available to the enviro-whackos. They have failed, again, at our expense
I doubt that it's cost-prohibitive to build here. If truly necessary (I personally think it is), the oil companies can appeal to the President, who can issue executive orders on the grounds of both security and energy independence. The "deadlock" here has bipartisan roots, despite what is spoken in public on C-SPAN.
For the record, there are indeed new refineries being built on US soil, in South Dakota and Arizona. There are, apparently, more refineries planned, for North Dakota and Montana. However, the larger-scale refinery-building is being engaged in by China and India, on African soil (and in Kuwait, where China beat out not only the USA but also Royal Dutch Shell).
quote:Roosevelt has no bearing on our current situation and globalization is going to happen, whether we like it or not. The bottom line is: We have the ability to lower oil prices right now. Democrats (The party of "NO") are blocking that ability
Both parties are blocking it. Both of them. You need to realize this.
Also, don't say "Roosevelt" without indicating which one. Theodore Roosevelt cannot have a bearing on our present situation of course, because he has been dead for 89 years; however, I hold his style of leadership and statesmanship up as the example of what the USA needs to be taken out of its current morass. (Certainly, the Democratic intransigence of today would not have been able to withstand TR's personality.)
quote:smitty195 wrote:
I think many liberals have gotten so emotional and somewhat brainwashed over the years about "destroying the planet" that those emotions trump the true facts in what is going on
A lot of them have fallen for the EU "global warming" propaganda, as well as the "green/environmentalist" false-argument movements which originated in Germany (having their genesis in the more extreme forms of Luddism).
For the record (and to try to steer things back on topic), expansion of Amtrak, especially in a high speed electrified intercity form, is just one path to energy independence. Just one, mind you. And I regard that as the conservative viewpoint, not the liberal one. (Wasn't it Nixon that created Amtrak, after all? but the jury is out as to whether he himself was conservative.)
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Record profits = record income, due to record prices for oil.
8% of $200 billion is $16 billion. 8% of $400 billion is $32 billion, a record....
All it "implies" is simple math at work...
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Mr Toy,
Every Congresscritter needs a convenient whipping boy Federal program. Amtrak, being non-defense, non-Social Security, and relatively few local jobs, makes a great whipping boy Federal program.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)