oltmannd John WR I don't see how either Social Security or Medicare have an impact on Amtrak, Don. Social Security and Medicare A (the largest part by far of Medicare) are funded by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and really should not be considered as part of the Federal budget as all. I'm not sure of where Amtrak's funding comes from, whether it is part of general revenues or the Federal excise tax on motor fuels. But it has little to do with Social Security or Medicare. I suspect that many or most who ride long distance trains get Social Security and that program helps them to afford to ride Amtrak trains. John Have you not heard of the Federal deficit? Does it really matter what pocket in Uncle Sam's suit he keeps his money? FWIW, Uncle Sam has been "borrowing" money from his "retirement" pocket to fund his "weekly food" spending. He's also been borrowing money from his buddies to buy gas for his car.
John WR I don't see how either Social Security or Medicare have an impact on Amtrak, Don. Social Security and Medicare A (the largest part by far of Medicare) are funded by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and really should not be considered as part of the Federal budget as all. I'm not sure of where Amtrak's funding comes from, whether it is part of general revenues or the Federal excise tax on motor fuels. But it has little to do with Social Security or Medicare. I suspect that many or most who ride long distance trains get Social Security and that program helps them to afford to ride Amtrak trains. John
I don't see how either Social Security or Medicare have an impact on Amtrak, Don. Social Security and Medicare A (the largest part by far of Medicare) are funded by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and really should not be considered as part of the Federal budget as all.
I'm not sure of where Amtrak's funding comes from, whether it is part of general revenues or the Federal excise tax on motor fuels. But it has little to do with Social Security or Medicare.
I suspect that many or most who ride long distance trains get Social Security and that program helps them to afford to ride Amtrak trains.
John
Have you not heard of the Federal deficit? Does it really matter what pocket in Uncle Sam's suit he keeps his money?
FWIW, Uncle Sam has been "borrowing" money from his "retirement" pocket to fund his "weekly food" spending. He's also been borrowing money from his buddies to buy gas for his car.
Heavens to Betsy, John WR! Could you strive to be better informed on passenger rail funding arrangements to be aware that transit heavy and light rail receives gas tax Trust Fund monies through UMTA, that Amtrak subsidies are solely through General Revenue, and that this mode of support makes Amtrak vulnerable to the political winds has received extensive discussion on this Web site?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
John WR I suspect that many or most who ride long distance trains get Social Security and that program helps them to afford to ride Amtrak trains. John
This is an astounding admission from someone who generally speaking supports passenger train.
By that reasoning, the Amtrak long-distance trains are foremost a program to benefit seniors, not that there is anything wrong with benefiting seniors as a group!
But that the majority of long-distance train patrons are seniors does not mean that the majority of seniors ride the trains. Instead of subsidizing Amtrak, maybe we should increase the payments to seniors so every senior gets a benefit? And those seniors who choose to spend the money on train rides can then afford the full cost of that train trip? And other seniors can spend the extra money, say, on the gap between Medicare and their health care expenses or on a long-term-care policy or on airplane trips if that is what they want?
Paul Milenkovic By that reasoning, the Amtrak long-distance trains are foremost a program to benefit seniors, not that there is anything wrong with benefiting seniors as a group! But that the majority of long-distance train patrons are seniors does not mean that the majority of seniors ride the trains. Instead of subsidizing Amtrak, maybe we should increase the payments to seniors so every senior gets a benefit?
But that the majority of long-distance train patrons are seniors does not mean that the majority of seniors ride the trains. Instead of subsidizing Amtrak, maybe we should increase the payments to seniors so every senior gets a benefit?
Not a bad idea, at all, if the premise is largely true. [He says, with a portion of tongue-in-cheek.]
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Paul,
When I spoke about seniors, Social Security and Amtrak I spoke with my tongue in my cheek. I didn't intend to be taken seriously. However, you (and others) do not know me personally. I apologize; I should have been clear.
I think you know me well enough to know that I believe there should be a place in America for passenger rail transportation but I believe that because I think it really serves all of us in a variety of ways. I don't really believe that seniors are the only group Amtrak serves.
But I am only one guy with one opinion and in the broad scheme of things my opinion carries little if any weight.
"The "debt crisis" was created by a number of forces, but not by Social Security or Medicare entitlements, which do not contribute one penny to the debt."
Whatever it is you're smoking and/or drinking sure must be good stuff. Apparently you haven't been paying attention for the past several decades, or you would know the House and Senate and President (it requires all three to spend money, not just Republicans or Democrats) have taken every dime of surplus Social Security tax income (there is no such thing as the Social Security trust fund) and replaced it with government bonds. Bonds are debt. Period. Yes, right now social security taxes exceed obligations, but not for much longer. In a few years that will be reversed, and SS will be adding to the debt even if the gov't doesn't raid one more dollar from the coffers.
Likewise, Medicare is not, as you erroneously claim, completely funded by premiums and payroll taxes. Not even close. I don't know how you come up with the math that shows otherwise, but please provide us with some of those numbers. Don't forget that premiums are subsidized by payroll taxes on those who are not enrolled in Medicare.
And "The deficit has dropped as a percentage of GNP" only means that the rate of increase in the national debt slowed SLIGHTLY. It's the same thing as saying "My salary went up 10% last year and my spending only went up 9%". It conveniently ignores the fact you're still deficit spending, and you were deficit spending the year before (and the year before that, ad infinitum).
A budget deficit is, by definition, an INCREASE in debt. That it's increasing at a slightly slower pace is NOT good, but rather only a little less bad. And much of that "decrease" comes from ever more creative government accounting. Increasing the national debt at a slightly slower rate is meaningless when the total debt is $16 trillion or more. We need a budget that has a TRUE surplus, rather than a smaller deficit.
And let's not try to gloss over that this President has personally added over $10 trillion to the total U.S. debt. And yes, I mean HE added it. His nonsensically named Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable, having added over $1 trillion of new spending BEFORE any of its so-called benefits took effect in 2014. That's quite a bit more than the $800 billion TOTAL Mr. Obama said it would cost over 10 years.
And he personally added to it because he refused to submit an annual budget proposal to the House each of his first five years in office, as required by the Constitution. This allowed he and his cronies to claim any budgets were not his doing. It helped, of course, that Harry Reid refused to let the Senate debate ANY of the multiple budgets the House sent to the Senate the past five years.
Mr. Obama stated point-blank that he would not negotiate with Republicans on a budget, yet also claimed it's the Republicans fault there's been no progress.
The President has refused to submit annual budgets to the House, Harry Reid has refused to let the Senate debate budgets sent from the House, and the president refuses to negotiate with House Republicans. Please explain how the House Republicans are at fault for this mess.
.
Maybe I haven't had the same experiences as the rest, but every time I ride the City I see a pretty good mix of people, it looks like the crowd at the mall. Perhaps the eastern trains are different.
As to the plan, I would prefer to see the funding provided as a set amount by say mile of running track on the infrastructure side and passenger mile on the operating side. This would encourage infrastructure projects to be rationalized and value engineered during design and it would encourage operations (everything above the rail) to minimize overhead, so that money is put into producing transportation product.
V.Payne As to the plan, I would prefer to see the funding provided as a set amount by say mile of running track on the infrastructure side and passenger mile on the operating side.
As to the plan, I would prefer to see the funding provided as a set amount by say mile of running track on the infrastructure side and passenger mile on the operating side.
Ignoring the politics a plan just for the NEC would ---
1 .Build for operating efficiencies. Slow sections waste energy and cost passenger minutes.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
My comment that I suspect many people who ride Amtrak get Social Security was serious. But it is simply an observation, not "reasoning" or anything like that.
While it is true that the Social Security trust funds are loaned out at interest to the Department of the Treasury never the less the trust funds are real. For SSA to simply take the money it collects and put that cash in a lock box would make no sense at all. No private insurance company would take the money it collects and put it in a lock box; it would invest those funds.
John WR While it is true that the Social Security trust funds are loaned out at interest to the Department of the Treasury never the less the trust funds are real. For SSA to simply take the money it collects and put that cash in a lock box would make no sense at all. No private insurance company would take the money it collects and put it in a lock box; it would invest those funds.
For the treasury to repay the borrowings, which have been spent on current consumption, Federal tax rates will have to be raised substantially to redeem the Treasury debt stuffed into the "lock box"..
If social security had been run like a private insurance company, the vaults would today contain claims on real assets which could be sold to raise cash.
Social security is THE GREATEST Ponzi scheme on earth. It will collapse. The only questions are when and what kind of paper overing will the Feds try to get the incumbents past the next election.
Mac
Would like to drop into this conversation with the following fact. Most Commercial Airline flights in this country either lose money or are only very marginally profitable. That the Airline Industry makes money at all is based on sheer volume of flights and the fact that we as a country grant them both subsidies and cost breaks in several areas. I think National Geographic did a special on American Airlines on NYC to CA flights and on some of them the profit was just a few hundred dollars above break even. Had it not been for the cargo or mail carried the flight would have lost money. Some of the flights were close to break even but still did not make the threshold. This was using both 757 and 767 equipment. NYC to CA is one of the most lucrative routes and is highly competitive for the business traveler.
Would be curious to see what their financial performance was on Dallas to Chicago and other city pairs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.