Massive Amtrak Crash....but who cares about our highways and trains?

[Papageorgio]

I really don't care about the 'politics' of closing non-profitable lines, the costs are wrong. Amtrack could easily sell off the profitable lines to private/non-subsidized.

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

If the private sector can do it, they should. Only the government would think it's a good idea to keep running those unprofitable lines for so many years, then complain they don't have enough money to do what they need to.

Get rid of the government in an area they have no business in.

On what do you base your claim that the government has no business in ensuring that there is public transportation available to the public?

That isn't what she said.

So why don't you try to explain what you believe she said?

Amtrak had been supported by the government. There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. Let them keep the profitable lines, from Boston to DC and San Diego to LA and cut funding for Amtrak and end all the support for Amtrak. The government doesn't need to support Amtrak.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government does a very poor job of running anything.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Amtrak is forced to keep the non profitable lines open by the government so no one should be complaining about it costing taxpayers money. If they allowed Amtrak to close those lines there wouldn't be any need for funding.

Then the only people who would be whining would the ones who no longer have any trains.

If the private sector can do it, they should. Only the government would think it's a good idea to keep running those unprofitable lines for so many years, then complain they don't have enough money to do what they need to.

Get rid of the government in an area they have no business in.

On what do you base your claim that the government has no business in ensuring that there is public transportation available to the public?

That isn't what she said.

So why don't you try to explain what you believe she said?

Amtrak had been supported by the government. There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. Let them keep the profitable lines, from Boston to DC and San Diego to LA and cut funding for Amtrak and end all the support for Amtrak. The government doesn't need to support Amtrak.

"There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. "

Such as?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The government does a very poor job of running anything.

The government is not running Amtrak!

 

[Papageorgio]

If the private sector can do it, they should. Only the government would think it's a good idea to keep running those unprofitable lines for so many years, then complain they don't have enough money to do what they need to.

Get rid of the government in an area they have no business in.

On what do you base your claim that the government has no business in ensuring that there is public transportation available to the public?

That isn't what she said.

So why don't you try to explain what you believe she said?

Amtrak had been supported by the government. There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. Let them keep the profitable lines, from Boston to DC and San Diego to LA and cut funding for Amtrak and end all the support for Amtrak. The government doesn't need to support Amtrak.

"There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. "

Such as?

Greyhound, Salt Lake Express, Jefferson Lines, Northwest Trailways to name a few. There are also airports, cars and so on. That is why Amtrak only carries 1/10 of 1% of passenger service. There are more alternatives that are faster than Amtrak.

 

[Derideo_Te]

On what do you base your claim that the government has no business in ensuring that there is public transportation available to the public?

That isn't what she said.

So why don't you try to explain what you believe she said?

Amtrak had been supported by the government. There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. Let them keep the profitable lines, from Boston to DC and San Diego to LA and cut funding for Amtrak and end all the support for Amtrak. The government doesn't need to support Amtrak.

"There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. "

Such as?

Greyhound, Salt Lake Express, Jefferson Lines, Northwest Trailways to name a few. There are also airports, cars and so on. That is why Amtrak only carries 1/10 of 1% of passenger service. There are more alternatives that are faster than Amtrak.

And you can document for a fact that all of these alternatives are price competitive with Amtrak?

 

[Papageorgio]

That isn't what she said.

So why don't you try to explain what you believe she said?

Amtrak had been supported by the government. There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. Let them keep the profitable lines, from Boston to DC and San Diego to LA and cut funding for Amtrak and end all the support for Amtrak. The government doesn't need to support Amtrak.

"There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. "

Such as?

Greyhound, Salt Lake Express, Jefferson Lines, Northwest Trailways to name a few. There are also airports, cars and so on. That is why Amtrak only carries 1/10 of 1% of passenger service. There are more alternatives that are faster than Amtrak.

And you can document for a fact that all of these alternatives are price competitive with Amtrak?

Amtrak has a competitive advantage against private carriers as they take govern,net money and don't need to make a profit. Even with that advantage, Amtrak usually costs more.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So why don't you try to explain what you believe she said?

Amtrak had been supported by the government. There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. Let them keep the profitable lines, from Boston to DC and San Diego to LA and cut funding for Amtrak and end all the support for Amtrak. The government doesn't need to support Amtrak.

"There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. "

Such as?

Greyhound, Salt Lake Express, Jefferson Lines, Northwest Trailways to name a few. There are also airports, cars and so on. That is why Amtrak only carries 1/10 of 1% of passenger service. There are more alternatives that are faster than Amtrak.

And you can document for a fact that all of these alternatives are price competitive with Amtrak?

Amtrak has a competitive advantage against private carriers as they take govern,net money and don't need to make a profit. Even with that advantage, Amtrak usually costs more.

Yet another claim without any substantiation.

 

[Papageorgio]

Amtrak had been supported by the government. There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. Let them keep the profitable lines, from Boston to DC and San Diego to LA and cut funding for Amtrak and end all the support for Amtrak. The government doesn't need to support Amtrak.

"There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. "

Such as?

Greyhound, Salt Lake Express, Jefferson Lines, Northwest Trailways to name a few. There are also airports, cars and so on. That is why Amtrak only carries 1/10 of 1% of passenger service. There are more alternatives that are faster than Amtrak.

And you can document for a fact that all of these alternatives are price competitive with Amtrak?

Amtrak has a competitive advantage against private carriers as they take govern,net money and don't need to make a profit. Even with that advantage, Amtrak usually costs more.

Yet another claim without any substantiation.

Fact, Amtrak carries 1/10 of 1% of all passenger traffic. Even with federal funding over the last 40 plus years, Amtrak has not showed a profit.

Fact two lines show a profit the rest are money losers. 90 % of the passengers are on those two lines.

What compelling reason is there to fund a service that is outdated and not profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

"There are other sources of reliable transportation in the areas Amtrak serves. "

Such as?

Greyhound, Salt Lake Express, Jefferson Lines, Northwest Trailways to name a few. There are also airports, cars and so on. That is why Amtrak only carries 1/10 of 1% of passenger service. There are more alternatives that are faster than Amtrak.

And you can document for a fact that all of these alternatives are price competitive with Amtrak?

Amtrak has a competitive advantage against private carriers as they take govern,net money and don't need to make a profit. Even with that advantage, Amtrak usually costs more.

Yet another claim without any substantiation.

Fact, Amtrak carries 1/10 of 1% of all passenger traffic. Even with federal funding over the last 40 plus years, Amtrak has not showed a profit.

Fact two lines show a profit the rest are money losers. 90 % of the passengers are on those two lines.

What compelling reason is there to fund a service that is outdated and not profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot substantiate your claims.

What you are not taking into account is that there are those who cannot travel by those alternative means and have to use the train. People with disabilities that prevent them from flying or spending long hours in a vehicle being unable to move around. Trains are their only option for long distance travel.

And yes, I am one of those people. I have a condition that prevents me from sitting in one place for long periods of time. I work with a standing desk. If I have to travel for work, and yes, I do, then I take Amtrak. It takes way too long to go by road and planes don't allow you to stand on flights.

So what alternative do you have people who have disabilities? I have a friend who cannot fly or drive long distances for an entirely different medical condition to mine.

Are we not allowed to travel because everything must be profitable in America? Is the Almighty Dollar more important than people's lives?

 

[Papageorgio]

Greyhound, Salt Lake Express, Jefferson Lines, Northwest Trailways to name a few. There are also airports, cars and so on. That is why Amtrak only carries 1/10 of 1% of passenger service. There are more alternatives that are faster than Amtrak.

And you can document for a fact that all of these alternatives are price competitive with Amtrak?

Amtrak has a competitive advantage against private carriers as they take govern,net money and don't need to make a profit. Even with that advantage, Amtrak usually costs more.

Yet another claim without any substantiation.

Fact, Amtrak carries 1/10 of 1% of all passenger traffic. Even with federal funding over the last 40 plus years, Amtrak has not showed a profit.

Fact two lines show a profit the rest are money losers. 90 % of the passengers are on those two lines.

What compelling reason is there to fund a service that is outdated and not profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot substantiate your claims.

What you are not taking into account is that there are those who cannot travel by those alternative means and have to use the train. People with disabilities that prevent them from flying or spending long hours in a vehicle being unable to move around. Trains are their only option for long distance travel.

And yes, I am one of those people. I have a condition that prevents me from sitting in one place for long periods of time. I work with a standing desk. If I have to travel for work, and yes, I do, then I take Amtrak. It takes way too long to go by road and planes don't allow you to stand on flights.

So what alternative do you have people who have disabilities? I have a friend who cannot fly or drive long distances for an entirely different medical condition to mine.

Are we not allowed to travel because everything must be profitable in America? Is the Almighty Dollar more important than people's lives?

I also have a disability that prevents me from sitting for long periods of time. I prefer driving. I can stop, get out when I need to. I will sometimes fly but I can drive easier, less costly and quicker than a bus or Amtrak. Plus driving gives me more freedom of going exactly and how I want.

What about the millions that don't live near a train how do they get around? Maybe you can learn from them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

And you can document for a fact that all of these alternatives are price competitive with Amtrak?

Amtrak has a competitive advantage against private carriers as they take govern,net money and don't need to make a profit. Even with that advantage, Amtrak usually costs more.

Yet another claim without any substantiation.

Fact, Amtrak carries 1/10 of 1% of all passenger traffic. Even with federal funding over the last 40 plus years, Amtrak has not showed a profit.

Fact two lines show a profit the rest are money losers. 90 % of the passengers are on those two lines.

What compelling reason is there to fund a service that is outdated and not profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot substantiate your claims.

What you are not taking into account is that there are those who cannot travel by those alternative means and have to use the train. People with disabilities that prevent them from flying or spending long hours in a vehicle being unable to move around. Trains are their only option for long distance travel.

And yes, I am one of those people. I have a condition that prevents me from sitting in one place for long periods of time. I work with a standing desk. If I have to travel for work, and yes, I do, then I take Amtrak. It takes way too long to go by road and planes don't allow you to stand on flights.

So what alternative do you have people who have disabilities? I have a friend who cannot fly or drive long distances for an entirely different medical condition to mine.

Are we not allowed to travel because everything must be profitable in America? Is the Almighty Dollar more important than people's lives?

I also have a disability that prevents me from sitting for long periods of time. I prefer driving. I can stop, get out when I need to. I will sometimes fly but I can drive easier, less costly and quicker than a bus or Amtrak. Plus driving gives me more freedom of going exactly and how I want.

What about the millions that don't live near a train how do they get around? Maybe you can learn from them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you drive for more than 20 minutes without being in excruciating pain?

If yes, then you don't have a medical condition that prevents you from driving long distances.

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a legitimate reason why Amtrak should not be providing services to those who have no other options for long distance travel.

 

[Papageorgio]

Amtrak has a competitive advantage against private carriers as they take govern,net money and don't need to make a profit. Even with that advantage, Amtrak usually costs more.

Yet another claim without any substantiation.

Fact, Amtrak carries 1/10 of 1% of all passenger traffic. Even with federal funding over the last 40 plus years, Amtrak has not showed a profit.

Fact two lines show a profit the rest are money losers. 90 % of the passengers are on those two lines.

What compelling reason is there to fund a service that is outdated and not profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot substantiate your claims.

What you are not taking into account is that there are those who cannot travel by those alternative means and have to use the train. People with disabilities that prevent them from flying or spending long hours in a vehicle being unable to move around. Trains are their only option for long distance travel.

And yes, I am one of those people. I have a condition that prevents me from sitting in one place for long periods of time. I work with a standing desk. If I have to travel for work, and yes, I do, then I take Amtrak. It takes way too long to go by road and planes don't allow you to stand on flights.

So what alternative do you have people who have disabilities? I have a friend who cannot fly or drive long distances for an entirely different medical condition to mine.

Are we not allowed to travel because everything must be profitable in America? Is the Almighty Dollar more important than people's lives?

I also have a disability that prevents me from sitting for long periods of time. I prefer driving. I can stop, get out when I need to. I will sometimes fly but I can drive easier, less costly and quicker than a bus or Amtrak. Plus driving gives me more freedom of going exactly and how I want.

What about the millions that don't live near a train how do they get around? Maybe you can learn from them.

Can you drive for more than 20 minutes without being in excruciating pain?

If yes, then you don't have a medical condition that prevents you from driving long distances.

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a legitimate reason why Amtrak should not be providing services to those who have no other options for long distance travel.

So you now define long distances and who has a disability or not, and what reasons are legitimate or not? LOL! You think pretty highly of yourself.

I told you my reasons and they are every bit legitimate as yours. So please spare me your tripe.

Fact is government isn't required to, nor should it subsidize any business. Farms, GE, General Motors, Solyndra, Bank of America, airlines, none should be subsidized.

Please spare me your judgements on me, that is childish nonsense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet another claim without any substantiation.

Fact, Amtrak carries 1/10 of 1% of all passenger traffic. Even with federal funding over the last 40 plus years, Amtrak has not showed a profit.

Fact two lines show a profit the rest are money losers. 90 % of the passengers are on those two lines.

What compelling reason is there to fund a service that is outdated and not profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot substantiate your claims.

What you are not taking into account is that there are those who cannot travel by those alternative means and have to use the train. People with disabilities that prevent them from flying or spending long hours in a vehicle being unable to move around. Trains are their only option for long distance travel.

And yes, I am one of those people. I have a condition that prevents me from sitting in one place for long periods of time. I work with a standing desk. If I have to travel for work, and yes, I do, then I take Amtrak. It takes way too long to go by road and planes don't allow you to stand on flights.

So what alternative do you have people who have disabilities? I have a friend who cannot fly or drive long distances for an entirely different medical condition to mine.

Are we not allowed to travel because everything must be profitable in America? Is the Almighty Dollar more important than people's lives?

I also have a disability that prevents me from sitting for long periods of time. I prefer driving. I can stop, get out when I need to. I will sometimes fly but I can drive easier, less costly and quicker than a bus or Amtrak. Plus driving gives me more freedom of going exactly and how I want.

What about the millions that don't live near a train how do they get around? Maybe you can learn from them.

Can you drive for more than 20 minutes without being in excruciating pain?

If yes, then you don't have a medical condition that prevents you from driving long distances.

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a legitimate reason why Amtrak should not be providing services to those who have no other options for long distance travel.

So you now define long distances and who has a disability or not, and what reasons are legitimate or not? LOL! You think pretty highly of yourself.

I told you my reasons and they are every bit legitimate as yours. So please spare me your tripe.

Fact is government isn't required to, nor should it subsidize any business. Farms, GE, General Motors, Solyndra, Bank of America, airlines, none should be subsidized.

Please spare me your judgements on me, that is childish nonsense.

Typical mindless RWKJ response when they can't actually deal with reality.

 

[Papageorgio]

Fact, Amtrak carries 1/10 of 1% of all passenger traffic. Even with federal funding over the last 40 plus years, Amtrak has not showed a profit.

Fact two lines show a profit the rest are money losers. 90 % of the passengers are on those two lines.

What compelling reason is there to fund a service that is outdated and not profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot substantiate your claims.

What you are not taking into account is that there are those who cannot travel by those alternative means and have to use the train. People with disabilities that prevent them from flying or spending long hours in a vehicle being unable to move around. Trains are their only option for long distance travel.

And yes, I am one of those people. I have a condition that prevents me from sitting in one place for long periods of time. I work with a standing desk. If I have to travel for work, and yes, I do, then I take Amtrak. It takes way too long to go by road and planes don't allow you to stand on flights.

So what alternative do you have people who have disabilities? I have a friend who cannot fly or drive long distances for an entirely different medical condition to mine.

Are we not allowed to travel because everything must be profitable in America? Is the Almighty Dollar more important than people's lives?

I also have a disability that prevents me from sitting for long periods of time. I prefer driving. I can stop, get out when I need to. I will sometimes fly but I can drive easier, less costly and quicker than a bus or Amtrak. Plus driving gives me more freedom of going exactly and how I want.

What about the millions that don't live near a train how do they get around? Maybe you can learn from them.

Can you drive for more than 20 minutes without being in excruciating pain?

If yes, then you don't have a medical condition that prevents you from driving long distances.

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a legitimate reason why Amtrak should not be providing services to those who have no other options for long distance travel.

So you now define long distances and who has a disability or not, and what reasons are legitimate or not? LOL! You think pretty highly of yourself.

I told you my reasons and they are every bit legitimate as yours. So please spare me your tripe.

Fact is government isn't required to, nor should it subsidize any business. Farms, GE, General Motors, Solyndra, Bank of America, airlines, none should be subsidized.

Please spare me your judgements on me, that is childish nonsense.

Typical mindless RWKJ response when they can't actually deal with reality.

When you lose, you resort to name calling. Interesting.

 

[tigerred59]

Every single time there's an issue in the country, I point to conservatives and this sorry ass congress we had and have currently. These bastards are so quick to save their sorry ass tax paying constituents a few dollars that they cut things that are crucial to our nations safety.....keep in mind, the conservative congress cut security funding that caused the Bengazi mess, that to this day, these morons still whine about. Our nations infatrustion in the worst in the world, the worst. And yet these morons continue to ignore it very foundation...safety.

My only wish is that those who suffered the most...all voted for the very cuts that may have cost lives or thiers.....CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA PERIOD!!

 

[Papageorgio]

Every single time there's an issue in the country, I point to conservatives and this sorry ass congress we had and have currently. These bastards are so quick to save their sorry ass tax paying constituents a few dollars that they cut things that are crucial to our nations safety.....keep in mind, the conservative congress cut security funding that caused the Bengazi mess, that to this day, these morons still whine about. Our nations infatrustion in the worst in the world, the worst. And yet these morons continue to ignore it very foundation...safety.

My only wish is that those who suffered the most...all voted for the very cuts that may have cost lives or thiers.....CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA PERIOD!!

This had nothing to do with funding, the FCC delayed in getting the wireless approved to activate the safety sensors.

Learn before you spout your propaganda. Lefty nutters just spew the democrats talking points. Sad nutters.

 

[tigerred59]

Cut public benefit programs.

Wonderful idea, lets start first with tax loopholes and breaks we give corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Next lets start with the billions we give to the oil companies and mega farmers like Tyson Foods. Then lets go after congress that gets paid a years salary for doing less than 5 months of work. Then lets go after pork...plenty to cut there, one example is the study of bee wings and how it effects our environment...nice pork there. Oh and while were at it, lets go after white folk who live and breath DISABILITY PAYCHECKS...starting with the state of Kentucky and working our way inward....and if we still got issues......then lets go after a family trying to eat on 200 bucks of public fucking benefits a damned month!!

Agreed???

 

[tigerred59]

Every single time there's an issue in the country, I point to conservatives and this sorry ass congress we had and have currently. These bastards are so quick to save their sorry ass tax paying constituents a few dollars that they cut things that are crucial to our nations safety.....keep in mind, the conservative congress cut security funding that caused the Bengazi mess, that to this day, these morons still whine about. Our nations infatrustion in the worst in the world, the worst. And yet these morons continue to ignore it very foundation...safety.

My only wish is that those who suffered the most...all voted for the very cuts that may have cost lives or thiers.....CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA PERIOD!!

This had nothing to do with funding, the FCC delayed in getting the wireless approved to activate the safety sensors.

Learn before you spout your propaganda. Lefty nutters just spew the democrats talking points. Sad nutters.

Hey moron, hours after this accident....CONGRESS STILL VOTED TO CUT FUNDING TO AMTRAC........GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT, MORON!!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Yet another claim without any substantiation.

Fact, Amtrak carries 1/10 of 1% of all passenger traffic. Even with federal funding over the last 40 plus years, Amtrak has not showed a profit.

Fact two lines show a profit the rest are money losers. 90 % of the passengers are on those two lines.

What compelling reason is there to fund a service that is outdated and not profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot substantiate your claims.

What you are not taking into account is that there are those who cannot travel by those alternative means and have to use the train. People with disabilities that prevent them from flying or spending long hours in a vehicle being unable to move around. Trains are their only option for long distance travel.

And yes, I am one of those people. I have a condition that prevents me from sitting in one place for long periods of time. I work with a standing desk. If I have to travel for work, and yes, I do, then I take Amtrak. It takes way too long to go by road and planes don't allow you to stand on flights.

So what alternative do you have people who have disabilities? I have a friend who cannot fly or drive long distances for an entirely different medical condition to mine.

Are we not allowed to travel because everything must be profitable in America? Is the Almighty Dollar more important than people's lives?

I also have a disability that prevents me from sitting for long periods of time. I prefer driving. I can stop, get out when I need to. I will sometimes fly but I can drive easier, less costly and quicker than a bus or Amtrak. Plus driving gives me more freedom of going exactly and how I want.

What about the millions that don't live near a train how do they get around? Maybe you can learn from them.

Can you drive for more than 20 minutes without being in excruciating pain?

If yes, then you don't have a medical condition that prevents you from driving long distances.

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a legitimate reason why Amtrak should not be providing services to those who have no other options for long distance travel.

So you now define long distances and who has a disability or not, and what reasons are legitimate or not? LOL! You think pretty highly of yourself.

I told you my reasons and they are every bit legitimate as yours. So please spare me your tripe.

"""Fact is government isn't required to, nor should it subsidize any business. Farms, GE, General Motors, Solyndra, Bank of America, airlines, none should be subsidized.""

But you should be. Because you can't sit for "long periods of time". What is a long period of time? Do you get SSDI for your "disability"?