Implications of a Republican sweep.....

[Modelcar]

....All the above mentioned train off's were certainly not what most of us on this foum wanted to see and most of us would condem those Presidents for doing what they did but we sure don't see any attempt by this administration to even fund what skeleton shadow is left of Amtrak and each fiscal year they've been in charge...tried to reduce or eliminate the Amtrak operation altogether. They simply want nothing to do with passenger rail, except sometimes climb on the back of one to campaign for office.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

Before you go bashing alleged Republican hatred of Amtrak, remember the infamous "Carter Cuts" of 1979. We lost the North Coast Hiawatha the second Seattle Chicago train,the Floridian,from Chicago to Florida,and the National Limited between St Louis and New York.We also lost the Inter American,sucessor to the Texas Chief.Under Clinton, we lost the Pioneer, the Desert Wind,and the Texas Eagle which was later restored.Both of these Presidents were Democrats[:(!].

Personally I dont think Bush cares one way or the other on Amtrack, I forsee a loss of routes simply due to budget cuts that will be necessary to fund the war spending in Iraq. You cant go around cutting taxes and still spend like a drunken sailor. Alot of federal programs are going to get cut or scaled back across the board unless new income sources are found. Thats why I see a loss of routes, or at least they might shift to state or local control. Here in Kalifoonia the three main commuter agencies could conceivably take over the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and San Luis Obispo, and the Coast Starlight between LA and SF/Sacramento. Long Distance haulers would be the biggest loosers since they are the least profitable. Sad but it could come to be.

[gabe]

I think that argument is a bit circular. The Saudis hate the Royal Family because it allows American troops in the Muslim Holy Land, ergo, American troops need to be there to keep the government from being toppled.

That is not why American troops were there. We were concerned about possible aggression by Iraq or Iran and we needed a quick response option. I know that you claim that Royal family corruption is another reason for the dislike, but from every source that I have seen, it is allowing the infidels (AKA us) in the Holy Land that is the major problem.

I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi.

The soldiers have now been largely removed from Saudi Arabi and have either been repositioned in Iraq or Qutar. Hopefully that will ease tensions.

Gabe

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I have to answer the question about the Saudis. Yes, there are some very fine Saudi people, a lot of them are doctors and engineers and scientists who have worked with Christian and Jewish colleagues (and possibly secular humanists and Budhists and Hindus and whatever) outside Saudi Arabia. But the country itself from all descriptions, and I think the February 2003 issue of National Review's article on Saudi domestic help (hope I got the date right) hit the nail on the head, is an example of exactly what Nazi Germany would have been with zero Jews, and Slavs and Galls used as slaves, and peace of course. In other words, only ONE ideology and ONE form of prayer is permitted and the ethos is that in the future that is the way the whole world should be. It is basically an extremist society. (it happened to be created by British Imperialism coupled with thirst for oil profits, but that is another story.) So even though the Royal Family and most of the Imams who are the educators tell people to keep it cool and not provoke foreign countries, the extremists become very extreme indeed. That is why some, most of the 11.09.01 terrorists, Saudis, became terrorists and that is why others fund them. But there is hope because some members of the Royal Family do understand that they do need to coexist in the modern world, that Israelis are not about to nuckle under terrorism and "go back to Europe" or Iraq or America, and possibly we will see a future where Saudi children are taken to a synagogue and Protestant and Catholic churches, possibly on a USA military base, a Post Chapel, to learn what other people are like. Then, there will be a hope for a future free of terrorism, eventually. Meanwhile, I think the USA should take all steps possible to insure that energy independence is a possibility, if only reserved for emergencies, and a strong passenger and freight rail system is essential for that kind of preparedness.
Incidentally, all Vienese Children are taken on a tour of the city's major functioning synagogue at least once during their education. As you know, Hitler lived in Vienna and worked there as a house painter and started writing Mein Kampf there. Sure there is a "skinhead" Nazi group in Vienna, but the average Austrian is pretty free from that kind of prejudice today, and many different religious groups get along there. The city has a terrific streetcar system, by the way, one of the most interesting in the World and they run museum tramcars for tourists regularly. The ride up to Semering Pass isn't far and is spectacular, and there is the interurban line to Baden.

Dave
I agree. My worry about the Saudi family and US troop involvement there is that it is a double edged sword. US troop stationing is Saudi Arabia is what triggered a lot of the vemonent anti-US extremist, however, if the mere presence of those troops were not there, the Saudi family could have been toppled by now or at least the country could be in civil war, either way, where would that scenario have left us today.

The Saudi royal family is not loved by the majority populace who view them as corrupt. The general lack of a comprehensive education in the arab world is also another huge problem, for many, all the education they ever recieve in their lifetime is at religious schools and they are thought one viewpoint only. Pluralism or secular education principles are considered abhorant to the operators of these schools. But as long as the masses are kept under the thumbs of the government nothing changes, JOdom mentions some of the crimes commited by Saddam's regime, unfortunatley the Saudi security forces are not much kinder. Thats another part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Time to roll out those shackle cars.

[espeefoamer]

Before you go bashing alleged Republican hatred of Amtrak, remember the infamous "Carter Cuts" of 1979. We lost the North Coast Hiawatha the second Seattle Chicago train,the Floridian,from Chicago to Florida,and the National Limited between St Louis and New York.We also lost the Inter American,sucessor to the Texas Chief.Under Clinton, we lost the Pioneer, the Desert Wind,and the Texas Eagle which was later restored.Both of these Presidents were Democrats[:(!].

[daveklepper]

I have to answer the question about the Saudis. Yes, there are some very fine Saudi people, a lot of them are doctors and engineers and scientists who have worked with Christian and Jewish colleagues (and possibly secular humanists and Budhists and Hindus and whatever) outside Saudi Arabia. But the country itself from all descriptions, and I think the February 2003 issue of National Review's article on Saudi domestic help (hope I got the date right) hit the nail on the head, is an example of exactly what Nazi Germany would have been with zero Jews, and Slavs and Galls used as slaves, and peace of course. In other words, only ONE ideology and ONE form of prayer is permitted and the ethos is that in the future that is the way the whole world should be. It is basically an extremist society. (it happened to be created by British Imperialism coupled with thirst for oil profits, but that is another story.) So even though the Royal Family and most of the Imams who are the educators tell people to keep it cool and not provoke foreign countries, the extremists become very extreme indeed. That is why some, most of the 11.09.01 terrorists, Saudis, became terrorists and that is why others fund them. But there is hope because some members of the Royal Family do understand that they do need to coexist in the modern world, that Israelis are not about to nuckle under terrorism and "go back to Europe" or Iraq or America, and possibly we will see a future where Saudi children are taken to a synagogue and Protestant and Catholic churches, possibly on a USA military base, a Post Chapel, to learn what other people are like. Then, there will be a hope for a future free of terrorism, eventually. Meanwhile, I think the USA should take all steps possible to insure that energy independence is a possibility, if only reserved for emergencies, and a strong passenger and freight rail system is essential for that kind of preparedness.
Incidentally, all Vienese Children are taken on a tour of the city's major functioning synagogue at least once during their education. As you know, Hitler lived in Vienna and worked there as a house painter and started writing Mein Kampf there. Sure there is a "skinhead" Nazi group in Vienna, but the average Austrian is pretty free from that kind of prejudice today, and many different religious groups get along there. The city has a terrific streetcar system, by the way, one of the most interesting in the World and they run museum tramcars for tourists regularly. The ride up to Semering Pass isn't far and is spectacular, and there is the interurban line to Baden.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

The problem with passenger rail service is that many of the benefits accrue to others besides the operator and rider. For example, reduced air polution and noise pollution are societal benefits. Reduction in asthma attacks reduces heath care costs but none of that money saved winds up in the operator's pockets.

Avoided capital expenditures for highway and airports reduces tax burden paying construction bonds and keeps private property on the tax rolls.

Reduced highway patrols or avoidance of hiring and equipping more is another benefit that accrues elsewhere.

Reduced oil consuption improves national security and the federal budget.

Reduced carbon emissions may slow global warming.

Reduced highway canage and property damage., etc, etc,

Its never as simple as simple "free marketers" make it sound! Free markets are a great tool, not a "be all - end all", nor are they some sort of devine gift.

To me "external costs" and "external beinifits" are part of a game played by groups seeking to spend other people's money. Avoiding an airport capital expenditure by making a railroad capital expenditure sure doesn't save the capital expenditure.

The game involves just ticing off a list of "code word benifits" such as reduced polution, reduced "highway carnage" etc. and using them to justify spending other people's money on project you want. The "benifits" can't be quantified and the people receiving them can't be identified.

The worst offenses seem to be with sports standiums. If people want to go watch a football game, fine. They can pay the cost of the stadium. But since that won't happen there has to be a way to force other people to pay for the statium. This is justified by citing "externalities". For example, think of the prestige the city will get when its team is on national TV. Think of all the food/alcohol sales/ made by bars and restaurants as people flood into the city to watch the football game in the stadium they wouldn't pay for.

Well, if they weren't doing a shot and a beer in a tavern near the stadium, they'd be doing it somewhere else. And nobody can quantify these benifits honestly although the costs are very real.

The Free Market is the best method of allocating scarce economic resources. It represents a continuous voting process of the general population who continually and feely decide, as individuals, how to spend their money.

Elitist groups often do not like the decisions made in this continuous process. "Everybody knows" that "we" "need" passenger trains/sports stadiums/Public Radio etc. Even if the public refuses to freely buy what the elites "know" the public needs. So the people have to be forced to spend their cash on what is presented to be in their own best interest.

Citing unquntifiable "externalities" and saying "it's not that simple" are just part of the game.

As to the "Big Dig" in Boston which somebody else mentioned - that's just corruption. It was a way to divert people's money into politically connected pockets .

[Anonymous]

Colin wrote:

"I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. "

I did. "Radical Right" is better than Radical Left/Michael Moore/Barbra Streisand/George Soros types. Sen. Kerry wanted to return those making $200,000+ to a higher tax rate. This would hurt small businesses (some rail users?) since their owners report their business's income on their personal tax returns. A tax increase would reduce buying power which would affect working people like you and me. A reduction in buying power would slow the growth in (or possibly reduce) rail freight traffic. The economy would slow as well. Remember the Clinton tax increases of 1993? Why did it take the economy (and the stock market?) until about 1995 to boom (Ironically when Rep's took control of Congress)? Why did frequent announcements of corporate downsizing continue as late as 1996?

Amtrak is at its best and most efficient when it has to fight for its life (1980's under Graham Claytor) and at its worst and most inefficient when it does not (late 1990's/early 2000's under George Warrington). I would rather see Amtrak not have to fight for its life and most members of Congress are supporters of the nation's intercity passenger rail system.

If the Bush Administration wanted to kill Amtrak they should have appointed Jimmy Carter as its president rather than David Gunn!

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc

QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin

I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress.

It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy.

Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person.

Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support.

I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam

I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions.

You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population?

What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy?

Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt

I wish Osama were in prison too; I am hopeful he will be either in prison or dead soon. If I had to choose, and if both were equally easy to attain, I'd prefer it were Osama in prison.

No, I don't know how many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq. I'm sorry that even one has lost his/her life. However, our objective was to get rid of a bloodthirsty tyrant who gave aid and comfort to the terrorists AND who every intelligence service in the world thought had and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Our aim as I understand it is to leave some sort of democratic gov't in place when we exit (its exact form to be determined by the Iraqis themselves). Is it a tragedy that even one innocent Iraqi civilian was killed? Of course. Given our objectives for going into Iraq, was the death of some civilians an acceptable price to pay? I think so. Compare our aims to those of the terrorists; I know which ones I'd choose to get behind.

As to Abu Ghraib, it's not a lot worse than some fraternity initiations. It's certainly one hell of a lot less than Saddam did to his own people. As far as I am aware, no Americans pitched people off second-story roofs onto concrete, applied cattle prods to sensitive parts of the detainees anatomy, or used chemical weapons on them, like Saddam did to his own people. Humiliation isn't fatal and doesn't leave permanent physical harm.

People who didn't want their tax dollars going into a war in Iraq, and didn't want a large deficit created had their chance to change things on Nov. 2. Would you feel that way about large and useless social programs? I do.

Again as I said earlier, no comprehension of our actions...your thinking like a westerner, not an arab...

I'll try to be an precise as I can. To understand what I said you HAVE to take yourself OUT of your western mind and look at it thru the eyes of those we are fighting. Since 9/11 I try to consider why we are hated around the world, and what we as a country have been doing so wrong to bring about the anger.

Tsu Sun in "The Art of War" says to defeat your enemy you must think like your enemy, only then will you see why they are fighting and understand thier motivation.

We in the west have not done this, we just call them "blood thirsty killers" but they have what to them are serious and to them legitamite reasons for fighting US involvement in the middle east, this go back as far the CIA back overthrow of the Iranian Shah back in the 50's, with US support for Isreal and no support for the Palastinians, and for supporting Governments that were (Iraq) and still are (Saudi Arabia) oppresive. When the US does get involved they come in like the calvary, say here we are aint ya glad to see us, and then wonder why no one is glad to se them. This is part of why we will fail in the middle east because we cant get out of this damn cowboy mentality when it comes to dealing with other cultures. I should have posted my previous comments that I deleated, it was much clearer.

To say Abu Grab was no worse than a College prank shows what I already knew, that most Americans simply DO NOT get what an unbeleiveable insult that was to the arab world. You say "Humiliation isn't fatal and doesn't leave permanent physical harm" maybe no physical harm, but the psychological scars are PERMANANT, and those scars are also cultural scars across the Muslim world. THAT is what will be remembered, the arab world has a LONG memory, they still fight over disagreements thats are centuries old, we now have added ourselves to that list. In the Arab world it doesnt matter what Saddam did to them, those crimes will be delt with there own way, (This usually involves a sword and a large block of wood) What happened at Abu Grab is considered SEPERATE and a crime in its OWN right, outside of Saddams crimes. Its THAT, that we will be paying for over the next several years.

You said "Given our objectives for going into Iraq, was the death of some civilians an acceptable price to pay? I think so. " Consider that the latest estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq is at 100,000 civilians killed. Not Insurgents, not Iraqi soldiers, civilians. Men, women, and children caught in the crossfire or bombings from both sides. We will get the blame directly and indirectly as being resposible simply because we are there. Our leaders completely failed to comprehend that the Iraqi and insurgent resistance would be so vemonent. Why did they fail to consider this as a real possibility? it simply didnt fit there one-sided western view of the world. The neo-cons that talkied Bush into this war were so sure that they knew what would happen they didnt even bother to develop a post war plan. We know this because we are dealing with it on a daily basis there.

I dont see anyway out of the box we are now in. With a change in leadership it might have been possible to find a way out, but with the hatred Bush has generated in the arab populace towards the US, (Dont think for a minute that just because an arab government is freindly towards the US, the whole country is. Go visit Pakastan if you believe that) I see a never ending supply of insurgents ready to die for there cause (the aversion to comprehend the suicide/soldier is another western mind-set we must get of to fight this war)

Dont get me wrong, I'm in no way trying to defend the actions of these terrorist. But it is CRUCIAL that we as Americans understand WHY it is happening. Everything has a reason, whether or not you agree with that reason is irrelevant, it is THIER reason and that is what we must combat, and not, in their viewpoint, to ride in like the calvary, blow the crap out of everything and then set up residence in what they consider Holy Ground.

The PRIMARY reason bin Laden turned against the US was the fact that after the 1st Gulf War, instead of pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia like we said we would, we set up permanent military bases in what for them is considered Holy Ground, to them it is a tremendous sacralig to have foriegn non-muslim soldiers stationed in the heart of thier religious center. Again it does not matter that the government agreed to it, the population, and the radicals see it as a great affront to their beliefs. Again something that has gone completely over the heads of most westerners. That very presence was the spark that lit the fuse to 9/11. If we had left, and based our troops outside of the Arab penisula how different would things be today? but the first Bush admin had a vested interest in protecting and supporting the Saudi royal family, which was one of the reasons the troops remained.

We are now in this war for the long haul. But I cant help but remember that a relatively small group of people with rich backing was able to defeat the full military might of the US and force them out of a nation. Of course I'm refering to the Viet Cong, with the backing of the Soviet Union. We KNEW who they were, where they were getting funding, and we still could not defeat an enemy that could simply dissapeared into the jungle. Now we are fighting a shadow war where literally anyone could be the enemy, can now be anywhere in the world, and we are fighting it with a flamethrower when we should be using a knife.

I know I sound cynical as hell, but thats the way it is kiddies, better educate yourselves as to WHY we got where we are and what needs to be done. I still fail to see why we didnt encircle Tora Bora and turn it into a gravel pit. This is my chief beef with Bush, he failed to deliver.

Oh an Amtrack will survive, although I fear that many routes will get cut in order to save the rest of thh system.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin

I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress.

Maybe Amtrak and the NEC might broken up into Train operating companies ala the British Privatization scheme. The Bushies might tout the fact that UK railridership is up over 40% since privatization. to sell it the Frosk?Delay Congress.

Are you too young to remember 1992? Clinton promise all kinds of pass rail investment and delivered ZERO, except for polishing off the north end of the NEC, in 8, count'em, 8 years.

If you vote based on espoused policies, you will be disappointed every time - particularly if you are concerned only with a narrow range of issues. We're better off, I think, when we look at values and then become active advocates of the policies we'd like to see.

[rrnut282]

On the whole, not much will change in railroading due to the results of Nov 02. Why? Because railroading is glacial when it comes to change. Four more years still isn't enough time to do anything serious to railroading as we know and love. Just my opinion, no crystal ball was involved.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc

QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin

I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress.

It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy.

Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person.

Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support.

I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam

I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions.

You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population?

What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy?

Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt

I wish Osama were in prison too; I am hopeful he will be either in prison or dead soon. If I had to choose, and if both were equally easy to attain, I'd prefer it were Osama in prison.

No, I don't know how many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq. I'm sorry that even one has lost his/her life. However, our objective was to get rid of a bloodthirsty tyrant who gave aid and comfort to the terrorists AND who every intelligence service in the world thought had and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Our aim as I understand it is to leave some sort of democratic gov't in place when we exit (its exact form to be determined by the Iraqis themselves). Is it a tragedy that even one innocent Iraqi civilian was killed? Of course. Given our objectives for going into Iraq, was the death of some civilians an acceptable price to pay? I think so. Compare our aims to those of the terrorists; I know which ones I'd choose to get behind.

As to Abu Ghraib, it's not a lot worse than some fraternity initiations. It's certainly one hell of a lot less than Saddam did to his own people. As far as I am aware, no Americans pitched people off second-story roofs onto concrete, applied cattle prods to sensitive parts of the detainees anatomy, or used chemical weapons on them, like Saddam did to his own people. Humiliation isn't fatal and doesn't leave permanent physical harm.

People who didn't want their tax dollars going into a war in Iraq, and didn't want a large deficit created had their chance to change things on Nov. 2. Would you feel that way about large and useless social programs? I do.

[Anonymous]

Mark,
Is the end you're thinking of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Exactly. The free market is a means to an end. It isn't the end.

Unless your a neo-con, then it becomes treated like religion.

[oltmannd]

The problem with passenger rail service is that many of the benefits accrue to others besides the operator and rider. For example, reduced air polution and noise pollution are societal benefits. Reduction in asthma attacks reduces heath care costs but none of that money saved winds up in the operator's pockets.

Avoided capital expenditures for highway and airports reduces tax burden paying construction bonds and keeps private property on the tax rolls.

Reduced highway patrols or avoidance of hiring and equipping more is another benefit that accrues elsewhere.

Reduced oil consuption improves national security and the federal budget.

Reduced carbon emissions may slow global warming.

Reduced highway canage and property damage., etc, etc,

Its never as simple as simple "free marketers" make it sound! Free markets are a great tool, not a "be all - end all", nor are they some sort of devine gift.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals?

Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans.

Interesting; I guess they truly are unlawful combatants then.

[vsmith]

Just a couple of thoughts as to why the demise of those loser modes of transit like Amtrack and Greyhound are so vital to the country...

How soon we forget....Just what happened to this country on 9-11 and the days after when all air traffic was grounded. This country ground to a halt! In the days after there were only three ways to get around.

1. Amtrack-which after being halted for a day went on to carry record passenger loads.
2. Greyhound-ditto
3. Rent a Car, which quickly was not an option as the lots were emptied by stranded air passengers.

Its stratigicly wrong not to have a viable passenger rail system in this country. A HSR system between major hubs would be even more intellegent, but rational intellegent desicions is the absolute LAST thing I've come to expect from on our government and business leaders minds. In Government its all about ploitical ideology and in business its all about making as much cash as you can, whether or not you provide a viable system is beside the point.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals?

Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans.

[Anonymous]

For those that think Amtrak has "gotten too much fed money" - look at this chart, which shows how many BILLIONS have been dumped into AIR and HIGHWAYS - which lose TONS of money.

http://www.narprail.org/fund2.htm

Yet Amtrak has only gotten less and less over the years.

Amtrak is constantly derided by so-called "railfans" and "railforaders" - right - they disgrace their profession by hating trains - on this board by people who think less means more. I'm not going to let them continue to lie about Amtrak.

"Since we've given so much money to Amtrak, why, it should have a larger market share," etc.

They actually think a skeletal system should be improving its market share.
How can THAT happen when it isn't given proper resources to do the job?

Let's stiff highways and airports the same way we've cheated Amtrak.
Let's consistently gut funding for road building and air traffic systems over the next three decades. Let's then see how good the roads become and how crappy air service deterioriates.

You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
[ss not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump.

Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not.

Not so fast there buddy.

Money given to Amtrak isn't STOLEN out of people's paychecks anymore than money dumped into the overly subsidized air and highways systems are.

The gas tax "user fee" is a myth, since those taxes hardly pay HALF of what it costs to build the roads.

They don't even come close to paying for these things...

-Law enforcement
-Court costs (DUIs, etc).
-pollution
-original construction of the Interstate highway system. Paid entirely by federal funds - not user fees.

That "Big Dig" in Boston - that freeway project has cost about $30 billion - what Amtrak has received in its 30 years. I guarentee you very little of that money paid to build that monster freeway program came out of the gas tax.

Even if it WAS paid for by so-called "user fees" - a majority of the funding would have been "stolen" out of the pockets of taxpayers who do or don't own cars in Oklahoma, California, Oregon, Colorado, and many other places that one might ignorantly think won't benefit from such a highway project.

Ditto for Denver International Airport - which cost as much if not more.

I-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City needs to be rebuilt.
Estimated cost: $3 biliion.

Missouri's senators say they have no idea WHERE that money will come from.

Oh I forgot. Those "user fees" are supposed to pay for that money-losing highway that is totally irrelevant to anyone on the East or West coast.

[Junctionfan]

I think the OPEC nations should realize that the U.S and other large oil consuming nations, should be treated like a customer and as such should becareful on the prices otherwise their customers will look elsewhere for fuel. U.S has plenty of coal to fire up power plants. Natural gas is somewhat plentiful too.

I don't think we North Americans should depend on so much foreign oil but if the oil companies don't want to price themselves into being obsolete, they may want to rethink their strategy.

[broncoman]

Since the government deeply subsidises the airline industry and there would need to be a big reason why the government would change this, does anyone know what the breakdown is of the cost of fuel per person for flight is versus the cost of fuel per high speed rail travel. This would probably be the only thing that may force the current establishment to change their thinking as the price of oil continues to rise.

[Modelcar]

....The Saudi regime should treat this country with as much fairness in supporting decent oil prices as possible......How much oil might they have to control and sell if it wasn't for good old Uncle Sam that came to the region and removed Sadam H. from his overbearing actions of invading Kawait and probably would have headed for them next back in 90-91 era.....

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I still believe that National Defense is the best argument passenger rail supporters have. Suppose that in the event of some emergency, and it could happen, like the wrong people taking control in Saudi Arabia (pardon me, I gues I should say even worse people!) that North America had to rely entirely on North Amereican energy sources. This argument must be raised now, so USA interests need not be submerged in keeping a bunch of foreign despots happy. Canada is much better prepared than the USA, because it funds passenger trains better (and does some other things better as well). Too long, energy and transportation policy in the USA has been based on: What is good for Sauid Arabia is good for GM.

It costs money to mothball a neede passenger train fleet. And then who would man them instantly when needed for mass movement of either civilians or troops?

A good passenger rail system is a very vital part of National Defense and this is the argument that can win Bush and conservatives over.

It is the same kind of thinking that good railroad management has when for example the UP keeps the Tennesse Pass line and won't sell it or rip it up. This prudence MUST be practiced on a national level or America may some day be blackmailed.

Two comments:

(1) I think your argument is very valid and is why even long distance hauls will be around throughout at least the first two years of Bush's term.

As Mark said, economics and defense is very related. God willing, there will not be another terrorist attack on American soil or elsewhere. But if there is involving airliners, one does not need to guess what that will do to the immediate future of long distance airline travel. In short, the economy needs long distance transportation to function properly and needs long distance rail to back up airlines for at least a little while.

The counter argument is, if Israel can run a safe airline, so can we. So, I suspect, as time marches on, this argument will grow less persuasive.

(2) Why is everyone so much against the Saudis? I know people said that a lot of terrorist came from Saudi Arabi, but need I present a list of bad Americans to counter this argument? The Saudis let us fly over their territory during the second gulf war and allegedly helped us with some intelligence matters.

Is it because they pike us on oil prices? If so, we should pat them on the back for practicing what we preach--good capitalism.

I am not saying the Saudis are good people. I am however saying that they are good capitalists and know their success is linked to ours.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Greyhounds

Does that same arguement apply to gas taxes and the interstate highway system?

Jay

Well, I guess not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump.

Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not.

I don't directly use alot of the services the Govt pays for. That doesn't mean I want them to go away!! Would you like to start allocating where the Govt can spend your tax dollars? I'm sure the Dept of Defense and the CIA would love that policy!!

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Greyhounds

Does that same arguement apply to gas taxes and the interstate highway system?

Jay

Well, I guess not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump.

Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I think Bush would find it easier to try Al Quaida members as war criminals and not unlawful combatants. This way the international community won't have anything to nag at the U.S about plus it increases legitamacy when you execute the S.O.Bs.

Consider how much more difficult it would have been morally for other countries, if the *** were tried as unlawful combatants and not war criminals because lets face it; who really authorized World War 2 other than those who started it? How can you say that the *** asked legal killed civilians so techically you could have argued that the *** were unlawful combatants. Same thing, Al Quaida as far as I am concerned, was a partisan military group of the Taliban government therefore the U.S would have justification to label them as war criminals because their attack was a kind of Pearl Harbor. The fact that they attacked civilian targets (embassy, World Trade Center) doesn't mean they didn't start a war, it just means that it was a sneak attack and so the U.S responded by attacking Afghanistan.

Like in Europe, the *** are still being hunted all over the world to be "brought to justice" same thing except the location orginates from the middle east and its name is Al Quaida.

Just some friendly advise from an ally from the north.

Al Queda is not a partisan group or any part of the Taliban. The Taliban was the ruling party of Afghaistan led at least publically by the Mullah Omar. They rose from the ashes and tribal infighting following the meltdown of the Soviet backed regime that occurred when the pulled out, feeding on an extreme brand of Islamic Fundamentalism, that included a Quaker/Amish style rejection of all things modern and western. Al Queda, with strong anti-western rhetoric found refuge there, because they were 1) running out of friends...friends don't like you blowing up stuff in their country, or US retalitory strikes, and 2) they had money and lots of it. They co-existed, and fed on each other but are two distinct groups, both of which have little purpose on earth, other than perhaps to feed the worms.

So, technically speaking Al Queda are unlawful combatants, because they are stateless, like a mercenary, and very few actual Al Queda are Afghans. War Criminals implies that it was being done on behalf of a state. This was not the case, the fighting they have done together has been out of alliance against a common enemy.

I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals?

[daveklepper]

I still believe that National Defense is the best argument passenger rail supporters have. Suppose that in the event of some emergency, and it could happen, like the wrong people taking control in Saudi Arabia (pardon me, I gues I should say even worse people!) that North America had to rely entirely on North Amereican energy sources. This argument must be raised now, so USA interests need not be submerged in keeping a bunch of foreign despots happy. Canada is much better prepared than the USA, because it funds passenger trains better (and does some other things better as well). Too long, energy and transportation policy in the USA has been based on: What is good for Sauid Arabia is good for GM.

It costs money to mothball a neede passenger train fleet. And then who would man them instantly when needed for mass movement of either civilians or troops?

A good passenger rail system is a very vital part of National Defense and this is the argument that can win Bush and conservatives over.

It is the same kind of thinking that good railroad management has when for example the UP keeps the Tennesse Pass line and won't sell it or rip it up. This prudence MUST be practiced on a national level or America may some day be blackmailed.

[Anonymous]

Bush, Cheney, and Edwards are United Methodists.