Suppose our current president suddenly did a 180, and decided there was no greater priority than to properly support, and expand Amtrak
Would you be willing to grant him an exception to the current presidential term limit, and allow him to serve a 3rd term as president, to implement the necessary changes? [|)]
What a silly “what if” question. Slow night?
If he did a complete 180, we’d have no train service at all. thisis considering Amtrak and a NAtional rail system are a priority in his comprehensive plan to unite all forms of public transportation into a unified network that can handle a similar situation like 9-11, where all planes were grounded and no way to transport millions of stranded citizens.
His current Plan is to overhaul Amtrak and national Bus servives to Hub systems that can, if needed, take over for Air travel to keep this country going in the event of massive air failures. Unfortunatly many on this forum see this as destroying Amtrak, since in order to do this, many excersion Lines would have to be scrapped in order for the system to function efficently.
Yes, Amtrak is going through rough times, but they are not Going away, as some thingk Just adjusting to the new century and the times we live in now.
I’m not sure it would be worth it…
Think of it in terms of ‘what price would you be willing to pay?’
Pointed at the belief held by some that everyone in america should pay into the pot, just to keep their special interest alive.
Some seem to think that ten additional dollars from every man woman and child in america, each and every year, isn’t asking too much. I was merely trying to determine if any of the people holding such opinion are completley detached from reality to the point where they would (using polite words here) “make extreme compromise” (ahem) to reach their objective.
I know, same here. I just see some who seem to hold the opinion that national passenger rail is worth any price. And it’s EASY to think that way when the majority of the expense is coming out of someone else’s pocket. Placing the contemplation in a frame of reference where the “cost” would be more immediate was my intention. [^]
In one way, the question is moot because no one is going to serve three terms; the question has been settled by constitutional amendment.
On the other hand, the question is valid in that demonizing President Bush and Secretary Mineta puts passenger-rail advocates into a circle-the-wagons posture and cuts out any debate on Amtrak reform, the roles of long-distance vs corridor trains, and so on.
Prior to President Bush dropping the Big One (the Amtrak reform proposal of giving the NEC 370 million and making states pony up 50 percent of every dollar to be spent on the rest of the system), back in those idylic David Gunn Amtrak days, my rail-advocate colleagues were exercised about the cancellation of the Three Rivers train. The cancellation of the Three Rivers was not something mandated from on high – it was something coming out of Amtrak management as a way to take the amount of subsidy dollar they had and figure out how to best allocate resources within the system. We had our pants all in a bunch about this and were firing off letters protesting all of this when Bush dropped the Big One and we had the entire Amtrak system to be worried about.
Many hold the view that Amtrak is underfunded and this underfunding accounts for everything from the sparse network to the overflow of toilet holding tanks. What is the proper level of Amtrak funding? The budget request from Amtrak? Some multiple of that to expand service? I fully accept the view that Amtrak like any other mode requires some degree of subsidy. But given a level of subsidy, one should be able to run a certain amount of service – is there an excuse to run trains and not empty the holding tanks to prevent toilet stoppage as discussed on an earlier thread?
Let’s look at a case study. There was discussion on the “who rides Amtrak?” thread of how the morning and evening Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha trains are crowded and that one has to board early to get a seat. What could one do about it? Well, why not
TheAntiGates is testing people in the sense that I believe TheAntiGates may be a rail foamer but not an Amtrak foamer and is testing Amtrak foamers in their earnestness if they would seek to amend the Consititution to give President Bush a 3rd term if in some alternate universe that would help Amtrak.
But that raises another important point. Among the Amtrak foamers I hang with, there is an implicit assumption that Bush is Bad and that the Iraq War is even worse, representing billions and billions that could give us a European-style train system in addition to many other social benefits.
It is probably fair to assume that many of the kind of people in the pro-Bush camp are the sorts that like their SUVs and that the sort of people who would support trains are naturally in the anti-Bush camp, and the fact that President Bush came out against Amtrak (some may argue that his Amtrak reform proposal was sincere, but I will accept that the 50 percent state participation is a poison pill) means that he knows his voters are the SUV crowd.
On the other hand, the pro-train fraction of Blue State America is far from 100 percent, and the only way the pro-train fraction is going to get a democratic majority is if you form a coalition with Red Staters who like trains. These are tough times for passenger rail advocates, and President Bush and Secretary Mineta are not on our side, and the billions spent in Iraq doesn’t help, but if you restrict your coaltion to people against the war and critical of the president, you are going to lose and be consigned to complaining that the voting public are all idiots because your cause is suffering.
C’mon now. Who in their right mind is going to vote yeah or nay based soley on a politico’s Amtrak stance?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh LAughing so hard my sides are hurting…Gotta getmy breath back Oh my…
3rd term??? Are you Insane???
OK just trying to point out that W has alot more issues dogging him than just whether he backs Amtrak…
Lets see, approval rating 36-38% one of the lowest in history
My grandkids will still be staggering under his national dept.
Iraq is FUBAR 4 years and mega billion$ later
N. Korea now has the bomb
Iran knows it would be insanity for us to bomb them
Croonie-ism works great! Just look how well Katrina was handled.
Secret prisons…illegal phone tapping… Paging Mr Orwell, paging Mr Orwell
Homeland security is STILL slack 4 years and Billions $ later.
His own Congress is ignoring him more and more, they cant wait to be rid of him
and bigget F-up in his Presidency, Osama’s still laughing at us…Unforgivable!!!
…and you think backing Amtrak will help him ???
1st off…Can’t do a third term without a joint act of Congress and the Senate with I believe a 2/3 majority and possibly a 2/3 statewide ratification, and the likelyhood of that happening is about as remote as Billy Graham converting to Scientology.
Please…3rd term thats all we need, give this knucklehead a chance to bomb Iran and send a million screaming-mad Iranians over the border into Iraq and Afganistan…
Oh Yeah but we’ll have Amtrak running, and he’ll need it to ship all those troops he’ll have to draft to fight the"new" war against Iran and to ship the whatever troops are left around the country to quell draft riots nationwide. Or maybe he can use “Guest Worker Troops”
This President arrogancy has put him completely out of touch with many in his own party, and I suspect that even some Repubs realize that the sooner there rid of him the better.
Well, since that is a law, that could be changed, either by popular consensus, or by some deft manipulation of the war power act. Perhaps they couldn’t officially call it a 3rd term. But maybe if another terrorist act happened in mid-late 2007, the gov’t might rationalize that it would be “unsafe to democracy” to hold an election during uncertain times, so they just postpone the 2008 election until, oh about2014 or so [V]
Well, you are a lot closer this time, I’ll give you credit for that. As far out into left field as my main premise sounds, so too do the fist pounding rants I’ve read here trying to rationalize why the American taxpayer should be forced to subsidize a network that only serves a small fraction of the country. Yeah, I’m a little bitter over Amtrak’s past decision to terminate service to my town, that is a political gamble they took when they so decided. And if they think i’m gonna willingly support their system serving their priorities, with my money, they can squeeze my sour grapes and make whine [}:)]
What you should REALLY see my post as symbolic of, is that there seems to be a nostalgia lobby who thinks riding the rails is keen entertainment, and they see no reason why all taxpayers should not be forced to pony up to keep their “hobby” alive. Well maybe they see no problem with
It’s a satirical question, designed in response to what seems to be an “Amtrak at any cost” mentality that I see expressed here often.
If they have no problem deciding to pick my pocket for their enjoyment, why can’t I return the misery?
You Amtrak supporters think I should have no choice but to be delighted paying more out of pocket to support an obsolete mode of transportation? Well, then I think you should be more than happy to spend another 4 years in the land of fire and pointy pitchforks… It’s not all that far fetched: DO THESE RABID PASSENGER RAIL NOSTALGISTS FEEL SO CAUGHT UP IN THEIR PASSION THAT THEY WOULD MAKE A DEAL WITH THE [}:)] HIMSELF? is one way to look at what I’m asking. [:I]
Heh heh, you must be cheating, you noticed,… [:D]
Not everyone takes any or all of those points as an axiomatic given. I suppose if I give you a point-by-point answer to each of the points you have advanced, you will think I am the same style of idiot as the Prez, and I am sure you have read each of the counterarguments on blogs and found them unpersuasive. But every last one of the points you have listed are matters that are hotly debated right now.
Putting the question another way, do you want to build your pro-passenger train movement by showing anyone who disagrees on President Bu***he door, or do you want to build a coalition to support passenger trains and tolerate people who you think are wrong-headed?
I suppose President Bush’s failures are so self evident (and we need to get help fast to that 36 percent who approve of the man) that we should link opposition to Amtrak to your points
TheAntiGates was trolling, but what he was trolling for was whether Amtrak advocates who indulged in anti-Bush politics valued more their Amtrak advocacy or their anti-Bush views. Because people are mixing the two – I say we declare a truce on anti-
I can’t say I don’t disagree with you Anti. But I couldn’t agree more with vsmith.
Anyone remember my policy on discussing politics?