House Republicans vote to cut Amtrak funding one day after deadly crash

Embers84

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
210
Reaction score
44
One day after the deadly Amtrak crash, right wingers in the House decided to cut the funds for Amtrak. Really nice for all the families of the people who died and were injured on the train to hear about that. These same right wingers had no problem sending billions of our American Dollars over to Iraq to build up their infrastructure. But when it comes to keeping America #1 and safe riding on our roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, and trains, right wingers tell Americans to "go to hell". Investing into our infrastructure means more jobs for Americans and safer roads and transportation with a stronger economy. Thanks to the right wingers in the House, Americans will now be less safe riding the railways. Deregulation and defunding is what right wingers do best while giving corporate welfare to their cronies instead. Yeah, the GOP is sure looking out for you. What a disgrace!





House Republicans vote to cut Amtrak funding one day after crash


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-and-republicans-debate-amtrak-cuts-day-after-crash




The deadly derailment of an Amtrak train Tuesday hovered over an ongoing infrastructure debate the next day on Capitol Hill, where a bill to slash rail subsidies came under fire from Democrats who cited the disaster in opposing the cuts, while Republicans bristled at efforts to link the incident to Amtrak spending. The measure passed along partisan lines after the House committee repeatedly voted down Democratic amendments aimed at boosting funding for Amtrak.

At least seven people were killed and more than 200 injured when Northeast Regional Train 188, which travels between Washington, D.C., and New York, fell off the tracks on a curve while passing through Philadelphia.

At a previously scheduled House Appropriations markup of a Transportation, Housing and Urban Development funding bill, Democratic members demanded more spending for capital investments in rail service and for agencies that oversee safety. The bill, which covers a variety of infrastructure and housing agencies and programs, would cut Amtrak funding to $1.13 billion from $1.4 billion.

At times the debate grew heated as Democrats, especially members from New York whose constituents are served by the Amtrak line that crashed, brought up the victims of the disaster in making their case for increased spending.


After Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) told the committee that Congress had “failed to invest in their safety,” an irate Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) accused him of exploiting the incident.

“You tied it directly to an accident and a tragedy and suggested because we hadn't funded it that caused that accident and you have no idea what caused it – and that’s a shame,” Simpson said.

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who noted that he’s ridden Amtrak exclusively to his Bronx district over his 25 years in the House, said that Congress should be open to the possibility that inadequate funding had contributed to the crash.

“We cut their budgets, we reduced their spending,” he said. “Maybe last night, while not mixing one tragedy with our local or in-House politics, maybe last night is something we should look at to see what if any of that is caused by infrastructure deficiencies.”

The cause of the crash remains unknown, making it impossible to determine for now what, if any, regulations or improvements might have prevented it. The National Transportation Safety Board, which is leading an investigation into the accident, dispatched 20 officials to the scene on Tuesday night.

Congressman Mario Diaz Balart (R-Fla.), chair of the THUD Subcommittee, counseled patience while the House waited for more details about the crash before discussing funding changes.

“We do not know the circumstances, there will be an investigation,” he said. “The concept that it is always, no matter what, more money is the solution is not always the case.”

Republican members joined Democrats in supporting the NTSB investigation, but told colleagues their hands were tied by sequestration limits Congress had previously passed with bipartisan support that limited their ability to increase spending on transportation and housing across the board.

“Yes these numbers are tough to live with,” House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) acknowledged. “The Budget Control Act, the law of the land now, dictates what we can and can’t do.”

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) urged colleagues to consider not only Tuesday’s Amtrak disaster but a February Metro North Crash in New York that killed six people, in opposing the proposed cuts. While she acknowledged the cause of the crash was undetermined, she added that it was “very clear that cutting the funding drastically does not help improve services at Amtrak.”

As Democratic members pointed out in their remarks, President Obama included a major increase in Amtrak spending to $2.45 billion next year in his February budget as part of a proposed six-year $28.5 billion investment that would include safety upgrades for commuter rail routes and repairs to the Northeast corridor that included NE Regional 188. Rep. Chaka Fattah (R-Pa.) filed an amendment in Wednesday’s hearing to increase funding to the level outlined in Obama’s budget, but it failed on a 21-30 vote. On the other end of the spectrum, the House shot down an amendment in March to eliminate Amtrak subsidies entirely on a bipartisan 272-147 vote.

House and Senate leaders sidestepped the funding issue with more neutral statements mourning the victims of the crash. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Harry Reid each took to the floor to praise first responders who treated the wounded at the site.

“We will make sure that we follow through on the difficulties that caused this,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters at a weekly GOP leadership press conference.

By coincidence, the crash occurred during “Infrastructure Week,” which brought a host of trade groups, labor unions, and mayors to Capitol Hill to lobby for expanded infrastructure spending. Former Obama administration Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who co-chairs an alliance of pro-infrastructure groups called Building America’s Future, opened a previously scheduled press conference on their efforts with an acknowledgment of the crash and its victims.

LaHood was hesitant to link the accident to the Amtrak funding debate on Wednesday, telling reporters he wanted the NTSB to investigate the accident before drawing conclusions. But he did lament Congress’ tendency to pass bills in response to disasters rather than investing in repairs and safety ahead of time.

“People in that building right there [need to] show a little vision and leadership and pass a transportation bill before another bridge falls down, before a road collapses,” he said. “Let’s not wait until there’s a crisis that causes them to take action.”
 

speed dawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,766
Reaction score
1,235
Location
The Dirty South
It is true that Democrats are better for people in the transportation business. But in this case, it just so happens that Embers84's indoctrinated opinion lines up with something correct.

You're still a nimrod.
 

backseatjuan

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
1,657
Age
43
Location
Россия
Two reasons:

1) mojority of American railway is not electrified
2) people don't travel by rail that much

Your trains have to burn fuel, so does the highly competitive trucking industry. Prices on fuel are always changing. Besides you have open access by sea pretty much everywhere. Your rail industry can not compete and stay afloat, yet it is a major strategic infrastructure that your country needs to carry cargo. This is why you need to fund it, other industries rely on it.

If your railway was electrified and people would travel by rail a lot, then it could stay afloat by itself. But herein is the evil, your country does not have a lot of cheap electrisity sources, you mostly coal burning or nuclear. It would be impractical to electrify your rail to the level it's done in Russia. Thus the never ending collapse of rail industry in America,.
 

Tictac

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
3,689
Reaction score
1,256
Location
North America, probably an airport
Is there any evidence that infrastructure 'under-investment' had anything to do with the AMTRAK crash? No there is not. Running into the curve at double the posted speed limit is what likely caused the crash (at least from the preliminary news reports).

And BSJ - all of the track from at least Washington, DC to Boston has been electric for at least 25 years.

For decades, politicians have diverted infrastructure operating, maintenance and modernization funds built into laws and regulation into new 'programs' to mollify voters and reward donors. That is the source of infrastructure 'underinvestment'.

Now, 'progressives' want higher taxes and/or more debt to replace the stolen funds. If public infrastructure entities simply 'booked' depreciation expense (as every nation in Europe does) and used those funds for maintenance, there would be no infrastructure 'crisis'. But the funding for all spending that comes from diversion would not be there anymore.

Public officials look at any 'crisis' as a way to justify more spending (financed with tax and/or debt) without ever once trying to use the funds they have efficiently. And they hope that taxpayers are too dumb to see what they are doing.
 

Never try to read a woman's mind. It is a scary place. Ignore her confusing signals and mixed messages. Assume she is interested in you and act accordingly.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

logicallefty

Moderator
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,054
Reaction score
5,236
Age
50
Location
Northeast Florida, USA
I don't side with the Republicans on this one even though I do on a lot of stuff. The timing of these proposed cuts was not cool at all. Republicans, have some darn compassion for what just happened!
 

Stagger Lee

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
138
But before going all partisan, how will we have the revenue to fully fund Amtrak and infrastructure with Obama's TPP and Clinton's NAFTA and providing services and benefits to excessive immigration? Let's be honest and say both Democrats and Republicans are gutting America .and turning it into a 3rd world.
 

Francisco d'Anconia

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
15,502
Reaction score
63
Location
Galt's Gulch
Mike32ct said:
The Republicans have been wanting to destroy Amtrak for many years now.
Too late, the Feds beat them to it decades ago. It should be sold to the corporation with the best turnaround plan like the Brits did with their railway.
 

Mike32ct

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,105
Reaction score
4,715
Location
Eastern Time Zone where it's always really late
Francisco d'Anconia said:
Too late, the Feds beat them to it decades ago. It should be sold to the corporation with the best turnaround plan like the Brits did with their railway.
Privatizing Amtrak would slash its coverage area. Only the busiest routes such as the Northeast Corridor and maybe the Auto Train service to Florida are profitable. There is no way that a nationwide system could be sustained privately without subsidies in the US. A private system would only cover some VERY limited routes.
 

Mike32ct

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,105
Reaction score
4,715
Location
Eastern Time Zone where it's always really late
Tictac said:
And BSJ - all of the track from at least Washington, DC to Boston has been electric for at least 25 years.

Yes, and a subset of that, the New Haven Line, has been electrified for nearly 100 years. However, it is unfortunate that we don't have electrification of other routes.

For decades, politicians have diverted infrastructure operating, maintenance and modernization funds built into laws and regulation into new 'programs'

to mollify voters and reward donors. That is the source of infrastructure 'underinvestment'.

Now, 'progressives' want higher taxes and/or more debt to replace the stolen funds. If public infrastructure entities simply 'booked' depreciation expense (as every nation in Europe does) and used those funds for maintenance, there would be no infrastructure 'crisis'. But the funding for all spending that comes from diversion would not be there anymore.

Public officials look at any 'crisis' as a way to justify more spending (financed with tax and/or debt) without ever once trying to use the funds they have efficiently. And they hope that taxpayers are too dumb to see what they are doing.
No doubt. When I hear about Highway Fund being short of funds, it's obvious that the money ended up somewhere else.
 

Channel your excited feelings into positive thoughts and behaviors. You will attract women by being enthusiastic, radiating energy, and becoming someone who is fun to be around.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

Mike32ct

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,105
Reaction score
4,715
Location
Eastern Time Zone where it's always really late
Stagger Lee said:
But before going all partisan, how will we have the revenue to fully fund Amtrak and infrastructure with Obama's TPP and Clinton's NAFTA and providing services and benefits to excessive immigration? Let's be honest and say both Democrats and Republicans are gutting America .and turning it into a 3rd world.
Understood. Our priorities are screwed up. While I lean to the right on most issues, I'm not against ALL subsidies. I also don't think that privatization is always the best answer.

I'm also not convinced that Obamacare is self-funding and "deficit neutral" either, but that's another topic for another day. I don't want to go there right now.
 

Francisco d'Anconia

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
15,502
Reaction score
63
Location
Galt's Gulch
Mike32ct said:
Privatizing Amtrak would slash its coverage area. Only the busiest routes such as the Northeast Corridor and maybe the Auto Train service to Florida are profitable. There is no way that a nationwide system could be sustained privately without subsidies in the US. A private system would only cover some VERY limited routes.
People aren't riding cross country any more, it's too expensive. Besides, who is better suited to repair the rails, update the trains and increase ridership even if it's just regionally with a hubs in Chicago and Dallas?
 

Mike32ct

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,105
Reaction score
4,715
Location
Eastern Time Zone where it's always really late
Francisco d'Anconia said:
Who is better suited to repair the rails, update the trains and increase ridership even if it's just regionally with a hubs in Chicago and Dallas?
For a limited regional system, private would work ok. I could maybe see that. My point is that idea is not feasible for a national system.
 

Stagger Lee

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
138
Mike32ct said:
Understood. Our priorities are screwed up. While I lean to the right on most issues, I'm not against ALL subsidies. I also don't think that privatization is always the best answer.

I'm also not convinced that Obamacare is self-funding and "deficit neutral" either, but that's another topic for another day. I don't want to go there right now.
I'm not much for socialist policies but I'm not for all defunding, deregulating utilities, privatized monopolies and road and railways, and union busting private sector unions, while outsourcing industry and insourcing workers. But I'm a "right winger", Embers says so :cheer:.

I think the problem with healthcare is, you have an industry act as if it were free market and can maximize seeking profit, while being basically funded publically. Obamacare is a tax. Many physician make $200k-500k a year and they grumble about insurance payment rate http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/11/15/364064088/they-paid-how-much-how-negotiated-deals-hide-health-cares-cost. Have they seen where most Americans' wages are going? We can't support those costs.
 

Francisco d'Anconia

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
15,502
Reaction score
63
Location
Galt's Gulch
Mike32ct said:
For a limited regional system, private would work ok. I could maybe see that. My point is that idea is not feasible for a national system.
Who uses Amtrak nationally nowadays? Those who can afford it don't want to waste the time traveling coast to coast. Besides, it costs less to fly. Some routes that costs hundreds of dollars for a one way ticket can be driven in the same amount of time for less than half the cost and if you'd really want to save you can always take the bus.

Personally I'd rather take the train when traveling from coast to coast if time wasn't a factor. While I would never ride coach unless the trip was only a couple of hours but the cost for a sleeper doesn't justify the cost especially for as long as it takes.

Traveling nationally just isn't affordable for anyone who can't afford to have private sleeping car. People who are willing to sit up the entire trip will either fly or take the bus. You have to go to Germany, France or Japan if you want to get your money's worth when traveling nationally by train.
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
25
Reaction score
2
Ban all unions and eliminate most regulations as a condition for federal funding and then give the trains what's needed to keep them in a good state of repair. Even though he's a garbage human being I'm voting for Ted Cruz.
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
25
Reaction score
2
Tictac said:
Is there any evidence that infrastructure 'under-investment' had anything to do with the AMTRAK crash? No there is not. Running into the curve at double the posted speed limit is what likely caused the crash (at least from the preliminary news reports).

And BSJ - all of the track from at least Washington, DC to Boston has been electric for at least 25 years.

For decades, politicians have diverted infrastructure operating, maintenance and modernization funds built into laws and regulation into new 'programs' to mollify voters and reward donors. That is the source of infrastructure 'underinvestment'.

Now, 'progressives' want higher taxes and/or more debt to replace the stolen funds. If public infrastructure entities simply 'booked' depreciation expense (as every nation in Europe does) and used those funds for maintenance, there would be no infrastructure 'crisis'. But the funding for all spending that comes from diversion would not be there anymore.

Public officials look at any 'crisis' as a way to justify more spending (financed with tax and/or debt) without ever once trying to use the funds they have efficiently. And they hope that taxpayers are too dumb to see what they are doing.
The unions have caused this and the solution is banning all unions and curtailing work rules. The one candidate who's bold enough to do this is Ted Cruz even though he's a subhuman.
 

Mike32ct

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,105
Reaction score
4,715
Location
Eastern Time Zone where it's always really late
I understand your point. While I like a nationwide rail system, it is true that most people fly long distance trips. It's also true that the sleeper cars are prohibitively expensive for long trips.


Francisco d'Anconia said:
Who uses Amtrak nationally nowadays? Those who can afford it don't want to waste the time traveling coast to coast. Besides, it costs less to fly. Some routes that costs hundreds of dollars for a one way ticket can be driven in the same amount of time for less than half the cost and if you'd really want to save you can always take the bus.

Personally I'd rather take the train when traveling from coast to coast if time wasn't a factor. While I would never ride coach unless the trip was only a couple of hours but the cost for a sleeper doesn't justify the cost especially for as long as it takes.

Traveling nationally just isn't affordable for anyone who can't afford to have private sleeping car. People who are willing to sit up the entire trip will either fly or take the bus. You have to go to Germany, France or Japan if you want to get your money's worth when traveling nationally by train.
 

backseatjuan

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
1,657
Age
43
Location
Россия
Boston to D.C. is not much distance, the rest of it is diesel that means expensive.


Let me give you some numbers for Russia. Adler to Novosibirsk, distance equivalent from NY to LA, $140 3rd class, $300 2nd class. Air fare Adler Novosibirsk starts from $400. There is a difference, railway is cheaper because during Soviet times 95% of it was electrified.

Also railways is used as public transportation for short distances, let's say from Miami to Orlando, trip would cost you less then $5.

Railway has to carry people to be self sufficient, but it's primary reason for existance is cargo. For transportation, railway is one of the safest out there.
 

( . )( . )

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
177
Location
Cobra Kai dojo
I'm with the fellas at mpc on this one.

Another defective gayfaced faggot probably upset about last nights public toilet grinder hookup and latest bout of intestinal parasites crashes his train by travelling at 100mph around a 50mph bend.

As if on que:

*Puppet stringed low IQ sh!tlibs weaned on a steady diet of big chosenite media wave their weak arms at those "evil rethuglicans"...coz screw you dad*

*Mainstream leftoid media scrambles to close all comment sections for fear of narrative change*

*The poz continues*

Danger said:
I guess the question is, why does amtrak need funding in the first place?
Danger with the common sense logic trap once again. If it's so popular and "way of the future" like all these new york beta times sh!tlibs keep saying then why are they even "Mo Money Fo Dem Rail" in the first place?
 
Last edited:

Men frequently err by talking too much. They often monopolize conversations, droning on and on about topics that bore women to tears. They think they're impressing the women when, in reality, they're depressing the women.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

Top