Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure..."

[Redfish]

the train crash was not the result of not spending money on infrastructure. it was the result of the engineer not doing his job.

If you libtards want to spend money, how about spending it on doing a sobriety check on all train drivers before their shift starts?

 

[Wry Catcher]

the train crash was not the result of not spending money on infrastructure. it was the result of the engineer not doing his job.

If you libtards want to spend money, how about spending it on doing a sobriety check on all train drivers before their shift starts?

"On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee passed a bill to reduce grants to Amtrak in fiscal year 2016 to more than $250 million below spending levels for fiscal year 2015. Proponents of the measure say the cuts are made not to Federal Railroad Administration operating costs or safety, but rather “entirely” to Amtrak capital -- such as infrastructure improvements."

LINK: House Speaker John Boehner Rejects Stupid Question Griping About Amtrak Cuts - ABC News

 

[Redfish]

the train crash was not the result of not spending money on infrastructure. it was the result of the engineer not doing his job.

If you libtards want to spend money, how about spending it on doing a sobriety check on all train drivers before their shift starts?

"On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee passed a bill to reduce grants to Amtrak in fiscal year 2016 to more than $250 million below spending levels for fiscal year 2015. Proponents of the measure say the cuts are made not to Federal Railroad Administration operating costs or safety, but rather “entirely” to Amtrak capital -- such as infrastructure improvements."

LINK: House Speaker John Boehner Rejects Stupid Question Griping About Amtrak Cuts - ABC News

the funding for the automatic speed override system has already been approved. Your question should be: why hasn't amtrack installed the system on this section of track?

 

[TooTall]

In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just ******* brilliant.

Over 65,000 bridges in America are in urgent need of repair
Report Over 65 000 U.S. bridges in need of repair
...then there's the interstate highway system. 46,876 miles. How you gonna get your food, gas and everything else if the roads are so bad trucks can't deliver?
None of that matters if the cons spend everything on WWIII.

We all pay the gasoline tax to State and Federal governments to build and maintain the roads. Trucking companies pay permit and user fees as well.
Next!

 

[TooTall]

Whenever you hear "cut spending to the bone" from the GOP...just know there are consequences.

What would be the consequences to cutting ........ the care and support of illegal immigrants, building mosques on foreign soil, supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, most of the foreign aid given to foreign governments, exploring the far reaches of the universe, stupid projects such as the fence along our southern border, no-bid government contracts, unnecessary military spending, subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, bribes paid to North Korea and Iran, unnecessary government travel, the ridiculous perks and benefits given to members of Congress, lavish White House vacations, studying the sex habits of cockroaches, looking for water on the surface of Mars, and giving tax refunds to dead people?

Well Sonny...

I see you're back to your gloom and doom mindset. I'll take the first and last.

When I worked in public health, we had a refugee program that provided medications to refugees that were anti-parasite, anti-fungal, and anti-bacterial. The thought was that if you are going to have these people in the community since we didn't build that "stupid fence", it was better to have them without tapeworms. Not sure how many lives we saved but I would put it in the hundreds.

And the tax refunds to dead people. When you hear about the GOP talking about "cutting spending to the bone", usually this means the guy who does such things as removing the dead from tax rolls is furloughed to avoid paying her/him a salary.

Typical government logic. They should have furloughed the guy spending all the money.

 

[OKTexas]

So you're all in favor of keeping outdated laws and agencies to waste taxpayer money, typical lib.

No...didn't say that. Just pointing out that the "Lets do less, lets be less" campaign the GOP nominee will have to run is not going to resonate. That is what you're prescribing basically--that idiotic meet once every 2 years "government" Texas has.

We could and should get rid of a lot of wasteful, obsolete, redundant programs and make other decisions about what we no longer can afford (PBS as I mentioned above through the NEA). The way it needs to work however is via the scalpel, not the cleaver

No where did I say congress should meet every two years, I said it could take a year or two of budget negotiations to eliminate duplicate and obsolete programs, that would be using the scalpel method. I wouldn't have a problem if that's all they got done in that time, just because government is, doesn't mean it has to grow year over year.

you're delusional if you think Congress is every going to eliminate programs.

You mean as long as there is a dem president? I think the republican congress would be very open to it.

I'll bet you would be surprised by what a Republican Congress does even when a Republican is in the White House. The theory that reversing the damage caused by the federal government can be accomplished by electing the right politicians has proved to be a delusion. A politician has nothing to gain by eliminating government programs, which guarantees that it will never happen.

I think you have it a bit backwards, it's not the politician, it's the constituents that hold his feet to the fire that will make a difference. How often do you contact your congresscritters and tell them what you expect from them? Voting is only the first small step in getting the government you want.

 

[TooTall]

The US should be subsidizing rail transportation,

The nature of a subsidy should be, in my view, one that gets smaller every year as the business model wins over the public. We do this with emerging energy supplies like wind and solar. As there are more buyers of the output and the number of suppliers lowers the costs, the subsidy goes away. Amtrak lives and dies by it's subsidy all the while sending it's trains to such places as Tyrone PA, Truckee, CA, and Tomah WI. I suppose it is a good idea to try to expand your business out of the Northeast but putting stations in towns that aren't even on most maps is a waste of money.

public radio and television,

When there was no cable television, there was a need for PBS. It was an outlet for the documentaries that can't find time on network television and radio. As cable has proliferated, these documentaries and other programming such as cooking shows and craft shows have found their audience.

There is no reason the American taxpayers should be funding television that nobody wants to watch. The ratings prove this over and over again.

and closing embassies is just the worst idea of all of them.

You'd be further ahead to close overseas military bases than embassies. It would save more money. You want to cut the peacemakers and say nothing about the warriors. Dumb, dumb and dumber.

Well, in the first place, the reason for the cuts isn't just about saving money. It's about putting the resources where they do the most good.

In the second place, strategically hampering our response/deterrence is long-term more expensive than keeping the base open. It does cost money to move an armored division ya know.

Thirdly, and this is my fault, I also meant many consulates, diplomatic missions, consulate generals, etc....

Here is why. The network of embassies and consulates that we have now is based on some outdated concepts. Chief among these is promoting US interests in the host country. Let Microsoft take care of laying their own groundwork. Or send a diplomat based in Washington along. Other concepts were that they act as an agency for Americans abroad. Did you know that Europeans can go to any EU country's diplomatic mission and enjoy the same treatment as if they showed up at their nation's embassy? Surely we could join that circle of nations and pare down the costs. Finally, the supposed "oversight" to make sure that we're not buying goods like conflict diamonds or stuff made in sweatshops has long since been dispelled. Given the choice between high standards and low prices, Americans opt for low prices.

I may have to commit suicide since I agree with almost every one of your positions. Thank you!

 

[kaz]

In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just ******* brilliant.

Having lived the bulk of my career in the Northeast corridor, I love riding the Acela over flying when I can. Usually I few for time, but I did take the Acela many times.

However, government funding it is ridiculous. If it isn't economically viable, it should go away

OK fine... let's look at that from a different angle. The NE corridor parallels I95 which - as anyone who has to drive that road can tell you - has too many cars for too little road surface. On top of that, US Census data shows that every year we can expect the number of vehicles using that road to increase by around 2% due to population growth alone. Since it's a major route, more businesses have been placed in areas with quick access - which further congests it, especially in and around metro areas and burns millions of gallons of fuel every year just waiting for the traffic ahead to clear. I95 is a federal road, which means that when it falls into disrepair it's the government which funds it - and with more traffic than every hitting that roadway, it will fall into disrepair with greater regularity. There's a limit as to how wide you can make the road and the cost of widening will also fall on the government to fund. So, either way you look at it, the government is going to spend money... lots of it.

I think, if you look at it, transportation is in the national interest. Commuter rails have been proven not only to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads (if you don't believe that, try commuting from Oakland to San Francisco during a BART strike), but reduces oil consumption. And, if we're going to have to pay for transportation anyway, we should actually be looking to be efficient as possible and develop ways of getting around that has a much longer limit timeline.

LOL, this is the classic argument, you make it sound like you've come up with an angle no one has thought of.

Yes, the I-95 corridor is hell. I lived a bunch of time in the DC area and a bunch of time in the NY area. I used to go up and down 95 quite a bit. At least a decade ago, it just got so painful I stopped and when I was driving I started driving up through Pennsylvania. Further but faster.

However, here's what's wrong with your argument. Look at the # of people who travel on the train versus by car on those roads. It's a pittance, they add almost nothing to the roads. Then you look at the cost of keeping the train running. It's a feel good argument with no substance.

That isn't the argument's fault at all. The average speed of an AMTRAK train is 57mph in the NE corridor - and much slower going through congested areas with lots of crossings. When the road is clear, you can drive 65-70 mph with far fewer stops. This gets you where you want to be in much less time than taking a train. Our train system was designed in the 1800s and the layout really hasn't changed much. But if you could commute between DC and NY in a couple of hours or less (trains that reach a speed of 200+mph already exist), do you think there might be more riders? How about if there was a fast and easy connection to and from more suburbs?

BART in SF is not a high speed rail, but there is really no other way I could find to ease the commute into and out of the city. Even with delays, my travel time was cut significantly. And I knew quite a folks who left a junker parked in the city for when they got off the train so they could get around town and parked it overnight when they went home again. It saved hours of inching (literally) over a 5 lane bridge.

On 95, hell yeah if they could do 200 mph there would be more riders. That was what held me back from using it. The 5 hour train trip was just too long with constant shuttles flying. You get it down to a couple hours and then you're in the game with the time to get in and out of airports and avoid the endless weather delays.

I lived in the bay area also, San Jose. The whole area is a parking lot, yes, BART as miserable as it can be is a good option if it's viable on your travel route. I consider BART and Amtrak entirely different discussions though. Regional transportation makes a lot more sense for government involvement than traveling between cities

However, again, on Amtrak, if people won't pay for it on their own, why would it make sense for government to do it?

 

[kaz]

In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just ******* brilliant.

Having lived the bulk of my career in the Northeast corridor, I love riding the Acela over flying when I can. Usually I few for time, but I did take the Acela many times.

However, government funding it is ridiculous. If it isn't economically viable, it should go away

OK fine... let's look at that from a different angle. The NE corridor parallels I95 which - as anyone who has to drive that road can tell you - has too many cars for too little road surface. On top of that, US Census data shows that every year we can expect the number of vehicles using that road to increase by around 2% due to population growth alone. Since it's a major route, more businesses have been placed in areas with quick access - which further congests it, especially in and around metro areas and burns millions of gallons of fuel every year just waiting for the traffic ahead to clear. I95 is a federal road, which means that when it falls into disrepair it's the government which funds it - and with more traffic than every hitting that roadway, it will fall into disrepair with greater regularity. There's a limit as to how wide you can make the road and the cost of widening will also fall on the government to fund. So, either way you look at it, the government is going to spend money... lots of it.

I think, if you look at it, transportation is in the national interest. Commuter rails have been proven not only to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads (if you don't believe that, try commuting from Oakland to San Francisco during a BART strike), but reduces oil consumption. And, if we're going to have to pay for transportation anyway, we should actually be looking to be efficient as possible and develop ways of getting around that has a much longer limit timeline.

LOL, this is the classic argument, you make it sound like you've come up with an angle no one has thought of.

Yes, the I-95 corridor is hell. I lived a bunch of time in the DC area and a bunch of time in the NY area. I used to go up and down 95 quite a bit. At least a decade ago, it just got so painful I stopped and when I was driving I started driving up through Pennsylvania. Further but faster.

However, here's what's wrong with your argument. Look at the # of people who travel on the train versus by car on those roads. It's a pittance, they add almost nothing to the roads. Then you look at the cost of keeping the train running. It's a feel good argument with no substance.

That isn't the argument's fault at all. The average speed of an AMTRAK train is 57mph in the NE corridor - and much slower going through congested areas with lots of crossings. When the road is clear, you can drive 65-70 mph with far fewer stops. This gets you where you want to be in much less time than taking a train. Our train system was designed in the 1800s and the layout really hasn't changed much. But if you could commute between DC and NY in a couple of hours or less (trains that reach a speed of 200+mph already exist), do you think there might be more riders? How about if there was a fast and easy connection to and from more suburbs?

BART in SF is not a high speed rail, but there is really no other way I could find to ease the commute into and out of the city. Even with delays, my travel time was cut significantly. And I knew quite a folks who left a junker parked in the city for when they got off the train so they could get around town and parked it overnight when they went home again. It saved hours of inching (literally) over a 5 lane bridge.

Parking a car in San Francisco is going to cost you about $20/day, so I find that claim rather incredible.

Since I lived and worked in San Jose, I can't vouch for older nor contradict him. San Jose is at the bottom of the bay. I went to San Francisco more on weekends. But I can say I don't have a problem believing that. There is so much money there and the traffic is unbelievable. And I say that as someone who has lived in some of the most expensive counties on the east cost, New York, including Fairfield, New York, Montgomery and Fairfax

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I spent none until GW Bush took office. GH Bush never invaded Iraq.

An important distinction. Too bad his brilliance didn't rub off on his idiot children.

 

[Camp]

Does anyone know of a nation on the planet earth that has a rail system and a government that does not subsidize it? Perhaps if we could find that nation we could use their system for a model. Also, has their ever been a time in the history of America since railroads appeared that the government has not subsidized them?

 

[Wildman]

hummmmm, seem

In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure...

someone please tell these libertards that crash was due to speeding, the engineer is most likely another libertard who has lawyered up and is 100% the one who should be charged with MURDER !

seems a lot has changed since the above post.., see what "jumping the gun" does ?

the engineer was possibly shot or a rock was thrown into the windshield.

let us all wait for the investigation to be completed. OK ?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Having lived the bulk of my career in the Northeast corridor, I love riding the Acela over flying when I can. Usually I few for time, but I did take the Acela many times.

However, government funding it is ridiculous. If it isn't economically viable, it should go away

OK fine... let's look at that from a different angle. The NE corridor parallels I95 which - as anyone who has to drive that road can tell you - has too many cars for too little road surface. On top of that, US Census data shows that every year we can expect the number of vehicles using that road to increase by around 2% due to population growth alone. Since it's a major route, more businesses have been placed in areas with quick access - which further congests it, especially in and around metro areas and burns millions of gallons of fuel every year just waiting for the traffic ahead to clear. I95 is a federal road, which means that when it falls into disrepair it's the government which funds it - and with more traffic than every hitting that roadway, it will fall into disrepair with greater regularity. There's a limit as to how wide you can make the road and the cost of widening will also fall on the government to fund. So, either way you look at it, the government is going to spend money... lots of it.

I think, if you look at it, transportation is in the national interest. Commuter rails have been proven not only to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads (if you don't believe that, try commuting from Oakland to San Francisco during a BART strike), but reduces oil consumption. And, if we're going to have to pay for transportation anyway, we should actually be looking to be efficient as possible and develop ways of getting around that has a much longer limit timeline.

LOL, this is the classic argument, you make it sound like you've come up with an angle no one has thought of.

Yes, the I-95 corridor is hell. I lived a bunch of time in the DC area and a bunch of time in the NY area. I used to go up and down 95 quite a bit. At least a decade ago, it just got so painful I stopped and when I was driving I started driving up through Pennsylvania. Further but faster.

However, here's what's wrong with your argument. Look at the # of people who travel on the train versus by car on those roads. It's a pittance, they add almost nothing to the roads. Then you look at the cost of keeping the train running. It's a feel good argument with no substance.

That isn't the argument's fault at all. The average speed of an AMTRAK train is 57mph in the NE corridor - and much slower going through congested areas with lots of crossings. When the road is clear, you can drive 65-70 mph with far fewer stops. This gets you where you want to be in much less time than taking a train. Our train system was designed in the 1800s and the layout really hasn't changed much. But if you could commute between DC and NY in a couple of hours or less (trains that reach a speed of 200+mph already exist), do you think there might be more riders? How about if there was a fast and easy connection to and from more suburbs?

BART in SF is not a high speed rail, but there is really no other way I could find to ease the commute into and out of the city. Even with delays, my travel time was cut significantly. And I knew quite a folks who left a junker parked in the city for when they got off the train so they could get around town and parked it overnight when they went home again. It saved hours of inching (literally) over a 5 lane bridge.

Parking a car in San Francisco is going to cost you about $20/day, so I find that claim rather incredible.

Since I lived and worked in San Jose, I can't vouch for older nor contradict him. San Jose is at the bottom of the bay. I went to San Francisco more on weekends. But I can say I don't have a problem believing that. There is so much money there and the traffic is unbelievable. And I say that as someone who has lived in some of the most expensive counties on the east cost, New York, including Fairfield, New York, Montgomery and Fairfax

Parking in SF is horrrible and expensive, and was when I last lived in The City nearly 40 years ago. However, one can park at Daly City*** BART overnight for free, or a dollar if they now charge to park. This way someone can have a junker and park without fear of tows or tickets as long as they don't leave the are longer than 24 hours.

*** Daly City is the most northern city in San Mateo Co. and its BART Station is less than half a mile from the SF City line.

 

[kaz]

Parking in SF is horrrible and expensive, and was when I last lived in The City nearly 40 years ago. However, one can park at Daly City*** BART overnight for free, or a dollar if they now charge to park. This way someone can have a junker and park without fear of tows or tickets as long as they don't leave the are longer than 24 hours.

*** Daly City is the most northern city in San Mateo Co. and its BART Station is less than half a mile from the SF City line.

Yes, I remember Daly City. Driving up from San Jose as you say that was the last exit before going into SF. You look at the cost of housing in SF, is living somewhere else and renting a parking spot in SF really worse? And as oldernwiser pointed out, traffic there is unbelievable, and I lived in NY, DC and Atlanta areas as well. I've lived in eight states from coast to coast, I've never seen traffic like there

 

[Wry Catcher]

Parking in SF is horrrible and expensive, and was when I last lived in The City nearly 40 years ago. However, one can park at Daly City*** BART overnight for free, or a dollar if they now charge to park. This way someone can have a junker and park without fear of tows or tickets as long as they don't leave the are longer than 24 hours.

*** Daly City is the most northern city in San Mateo Co. and its BART Station is less than half a mile from the SF City line.

Yes, I remember Daly City. Driving up from San Jose as you say that was the last exit before going into SF. You look at the cost of housing in SF, is living somewhere else and renting a parking spot in SF really worse? And as oldernwiser pointed out, traffic there is unbelievable, and I lived in NY, DC and Atlanta areas as well. I've lived in eight states from coast to coast, I've never seen traffic like there

Well it's worse now. Even with all the recent improvements, the highways remain grid locked even outside of commute hours and whenever - which is many week ends, the Giants play and there is another event or two, parking and driving is ridiculous.

 

[kaz]

Parking in SF is horrrible and expensive, and was when I last lived in The City nearly 40 years ago. However, one can park at Daly City*** BART overnight for free, or a dollar if they now charge to park. This way someone can have a junker and park without fear of tows or tickets as long as they don't leave the are longer than 24 hours.

*** Daly City is the most northern city in San Mateo Co. and its BART Station is less than half a mile from the SF City line.

Yes, I remember Daly City. Driving up from San Jose as you say that was the last exit before going into SF. You look at the cost of housing in SF, is living somewhere else and renting a parking spot in SF really worse? And as oldernwiser pointed out, traffic there is unbelievable, and I lived in NY, DC and Atlanta areas as well. I've lived in eight states from coast to coast, I've never seen traffic like there

Well it's worse now. Even with all the recent improvements, the highways remain grid locked even outside of commute hours and whenever - which is many week ends, the Giants play and there is another event or two, parking and driving is ridiculous.

I have no problem believing that. I moved in 1999, it's been a while. My oldest daughter is working on her PhD at Berkeley now, but she doesn't have a car

 

[longknife]

Having driven a city bus and living in Europe for 12 years, my personal opinion is that the USA has the worst public transportation system in the world.

I remember growing up in Los Angeles in the 40's and 50's when it had an electric rail system. There were two; a long distance red car and a local yellow car. They were accompanied by buses. They were all paved over when oil and car companies talked the government into the believe that travel by private vehicles was the future.

So we got massive freeways and interstates and a dependancy that will probably never go away. They spend billions now and it never meets the efficiency of what was done so long ago.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure

Like the Keystone pipeline?

 

[bripat9643]

Does anyone know of a nation on the planet earth that has a rail system and a government that does not subsidize it? Perhaps if we could find that nation we could use their system for a model. Also, has their ever been a time in the history of America since railroads appeared that the government has not subsidized them?

Is there a dog on this planet that doesn't have fleas?

The "everybody does it argument" doesn't even fool small children.

 

[candycorn]

No...didn't say that. Just pointing out that the "Lets do less, lets be less" campaign the GOP nominee will have to run is not going to resonate. That is what you're prescribing basically--that idiotic meet once every 2 years "government" Texas has.

We could and should get rid of a lot of wasteful, obsolete, redundant programs and make other decisions about what we no longer can afford (PBS as I mentioned above through the NEA). The way it needs to work however is via the scalpel, not the cleaver

No where did I say congress should meet every two years, I said it could take a year or two of budget negotiations to eliminate duplicate and obsolete programs, that would be using the scalpel method. I wouldn't have a problem if that's all they got done in that time, just because government is, doesn't mean it has to grow year over year.

you're delusional if you think Congress is every going to eliminate programs.

You mean as long as there is a dem president? I think the republican congress would be very open to it.

Yes, GWB really limited government quite a bit...didn't he?

If you think I'm a big fan of GWB and his massive expansion of government, you're wrong.

Well, gee, who was the last Republican President to trim the size of government?