Did anyone notice that in the Iraqi Railroad Artical in TRAINS that there RR got 200,000,000US$.

[Anonymous]

From the US taxapayer to upgrade there railroad.and Amtrak gets....[#ditto] for its Empire Service? I am not going to take this anymore[soapbox]

[Anonymous]

For years Amtrak has been under funded. Amtrak was created by an act of Congress, yet, we have to beg for proper funding. Our gov't. seems to always have plenty of $$$$ for every other country on this planet - except for inside of its own country! Think of all the foreign aid we hand out, and, most other countries` railroads are funded by their gov't. So, in an indirect manner, the U.S. is funding all of those other countries` railroads!! I just can't stand it anymore!!!!!! [V]

[Anonymous]

I could buy a few packs of gum with that money-

Maybe they figure amtrak will never run on time, so why invest in it?

Would you pay for a pizza that the delivery boy ate 3/4 of?

[jeaton]

Don't be smart Kevin. We are looking for ways to cut you out of your share. LOL

Jay

[Modelcar]

....Yes, the Iraq article did not make me too happy either....Glad Saddam is out of power and the whole works but really not happy we had to just about do it all [major help from the British], and then spending big bucks of Uncle Sam's money to overhaul their railroads really turned me off....Disgusting. And our leader continues to ramp down funding for our own passenger rail transportation each fical year.........No wonder it doesn't run on time Kevin.

[BaltACD]

In the amounts of monies that the US is spending on the Iraq issue....200 Million is chump change. Yes Amtrak or any other railroad could use it, but 200 Million is just a drop in the ocean of US railroads monetary needs.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

In the amounts of monies that the US is spending on the Iraq issue....200 Million is chump change. Yes Amtrak or any other railroad could use it, but 200 Million is just a drop in the ocean of US railroads monetary needs.

It may be a drop in the bucket--but I would rather we start trying to fill our buckets instead of someone elses.

[Anonymous]

Wonder what would happen if Airlines and Highways got as much funding as Amtrak?

[Modelcar]

200 million [chump change], here and 200 million somewhere else over there in that country you say is nothing....Well, pretty soon the "chump change" starts adding up to "real money"....and we and our children and grand children will be paying for it...That is, paying for something for someone else and we're still left here holding the [empty] bag......It must be adding up to something, look at the national debt rise as it's totalled up currently.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dougal

Wonder what would happen if Airlines and Highways got as much funding as Amtrak?

I'm assuming you mean that their funding would be reduced substantially....

If airlines had to pay directly for ATC and airports, and every road was a toll road (or at least all users paid an equitable share based on miles travelled/wear & tear) it would be a different world indeed.

[Anonymous]

If the airlines and highwayd received the kind of funding Amtrak receives, we would all be walking! As far as the comment regarding on-time performance, one must remember that outside of the Northeast Corridor, the California Corridor, and, a line in Niles, Michigan, Amtrak does not own the tracks. So, the Amtrak trains are at the whim of the freight lines that their passenger trains on operating on.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I read that article and it mad me puke!! Although we (Amtrak) barely own any of our own track(s), does any airline own their own airport or does any bus companies own their own highways?? NO!!!!!!!!!! So don't make excuses for out on-time performances. The main issue is...OUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT US!!! It equates to giving birth to a child and then slowly starving that child to death!! As morbid as that might sound, it's exactly what our government is doing to the US railroads and the industry as a whole!!


PEACE
Glenn
A R E A L RAILROADER...A TRUER AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gabe]

I know this isn't going to be a very popular statement, but I think--as a country--we will get a much better return on our investment in putting the $200M in Iraqi railroads rather than Amtrak. If Iraq does not flourish as an economy (and I think we will all agree that railroads help a nation do as much), our national position and world security will be very hampered and cost us exponentially more that $200 million in the long run.

Like it or not, Amtrak is just not that important. If it were, tax payers/voters would make more noise about it and Congress would fund it better.

Now if you want to talk about air-line bail outs and subsidies compared to Amtrak funding, I am with you there. I never hear public cries for airline bail outs yet Congress is always there for the airlines. I think the reason for that is private-sector airline lobbies. Amtrak is not in the private sector, so it does not have that advantage. But then again, I think the future of 96% of American railroading lies in freight anyway.

Gabe

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
Congress is always there for the airlines. Gabe

Not always...United Air Lines (UAL) was turned down recently. And I don't expect Congress to do much for US Airways, which is quickly approaching financial crunch-time. {Not complaining about either of these, just noting recent news items I've seen}

As for Iraq, some of that money is flowing to employees of US companies over there helping the Iraq rebuilding effort. So it's not all being "flushed away".

But I generally agree with some of the other comments. It is puzzling why a "wise investment overseas" is a "poor use of taxpayer dollars at home" for the same types of expenditures. Looks like we are still in the nation-building business after all.

[Modelcar]

.....An oil rich country and we [Uncle Sam], have to dump our tax dollars into their railroads so they can prosper....Is that reality or somehow twisted to make believers out of we...the tax payers in this country.

[gabe]

So are all of you saying that Bush is either stupid or just hell bent on giving American money to the Iraqis? I am not suggesting that either contention is wrong, but Iraq needs to get its infrastructure going before it can take advantage of its petrolium wealth that you speak of. If that doesn't happen, the Iraqi government will never be able to get back on its feet, Iraq will be an example for the rest of the Arab world of what America does to Arab countries, and we will need to go back there ten years from now.

If on the other hand, we build its infrastructure to the point of allowing the government to to take advantage of its oil reserves, the Iraqi economy will florish, we will be able to leave the country sooner, we will be less likely to have to come back, and Arab countries will only hate us 78% of the time as opposed to 100%.

[Modelcar]

...Yea, your correct about the hate issue. No, I'm not trying to make this discussion political. It is our present government that involved us in Iraq so if the above situation existis as I mentioned above...I suppose that has to mean the Bush Adminstration...They are the ones in power now. I'm not saying Bush is stupid. But I do question much of the action in Iraq does seem to come under Nation building and that is what was not supposed to happen....and for the most part we are paying for it. That part I personally, as an American who defended this country in a previous war, don't care to be singled out to pay all the bills....The bad side of Iraq effected much of the world and they should be helping to pay the bills as well....

[Anonymous]

A return on investment (ROI) in Iraq??? I can't see it.....too many American deaths, too much $$$$ spent already, and, gee, looks like Pres. Bush is admitting to a "miscalculation of a post war Iraq". "Miscalculation", now, there's a term! We've "miscalculated" every way possible with the Arab nations. We didn't like Iran, so, we supported Iraq during that war. Then, later, we don't like Iraq, so, lets change their government. Ooops, damn, sorry, got "off track" on this [xx(].

Anyways, it seems to have always been like this: plenty of funding can be found for everyone oustside of our borders, but, inside of our borders - we have to cut the budget. [:(]

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by dougal

Wonder what would happen if Airlines and Highways got as much funding as Amtrak?

I'm assuming you mean that their funding would be reduced substantially....

If airlines had to pay directly for ATC and airports, and every road was a toll road (or at least all users paid an equitable share based on miles travelled/wear & tear) it would be a different world indeed.

Actually the road users do pay fees that are based on their travel and the size of vehicle. While there are variations between States, they pay taxes on gas, lisence fees and commercial vehicles pay weight fees. There are also Federal taxes. Until the politications started misappropiationg tthe money for other uses, they more than covered the costs of Highways.

The freeways are not free, the users pay for them.