downgraded place settings?

[Green Maned Lion]

Amtrak is but a spec in the universe of government spending. And aside from the military, which remains ludicrously over funded, all of it is getting manhandled like this.

 

[William W.]

Amtrak is but a spec in the universe of government spending. And aside from the military, which remains ludicrously over funded, all of it is getting manhandled like this.

Actually, the military is less than 15% of the overall budget, and dropping, due to recent cuts. The social programs (in all of their various forms) are the vast majority of federal spending each year.

 

[jis]

Actually, quite a bit of the military seems to be a social program too, albeit for citizens not necessarily of the US. :lol:

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[gmushial]

Amtrak is but a spec in the universe of government spending. And aside from the military, which remains ludicrously over funded, all of it is getting manhandled like this.

Actually, the military is less than 15% of the overall budget, and dropping, due to recent cuts. The social programs (in all of their various forms) are the vast majority of federal spending each year.

Only if one conflates the SS and Medicare trust funds into the general revenue budget... which is really disingenuous. The SS fund is funded from payroll withholding and is a separate entity; the Medicare fund likewise. And yes, Congress has continued to expand the benefits for each without increasing the withholdings to support such [Medicare part D anyone???] - but that is only possible when the electorate is ignorant or believes in free-lunches. As I've posted here before - RDD has a huge dittohead population, which seem hopeless starved for facts and/or reality... but to have solid ground to stand on in arguing/educating them, I sat down and dug through the budget documents (this was for fy2011) and at that point the military was getting 56 cents of every tax dollar coming in [read that carefully - not 56% of the budget, 56% as a share of tax revenue](*). Yes since then revenue has increased and that number/percentage has fallen, but it is still the largest item in the budget [likewise the single largest source of corporate welfare]... though the interest on the debt is becoming an increasingly large budget item. Go read the actual documents, use a pencil and paper and do the math... I suspect you'll be quite unpleasantly surprised [especially if what you're quoting came from Fox etc]... that is unless you like being lied to and manipulated. (I guess there might be some lemmings and sheeple that like such.) ... now back to Amtrak discussions, and a micromanaging Congress and malfeasant CongressThingies.

(*) the importance and propriety of using "as a function of tax revenue" is twofold: a) at some point one would like to have a government which lives within its means, ie, spends no more than it takes in, ie, tax revenue is the honest denominator in figuring proportions; and b) one can make any program look smaller (as a percentage), by simply increasing the deficit spending - which generates convenient but disingenuous statistics.

 

[gmushial]

Actually, quite a bit of the military seems to be a social program too, albeit for citizens not necessarily of the US. :lol:

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

Quite so. And quite sadly there has become an increasingly large faction in this country, that once something is wrapped in the flag or declared to be in the name of national defense, look no further, or are unwilling or incapable of looking any further, hence we have the situation we find ourselves in.

I know that it has since been disproved, but the meaning is still important: Jefferson was given credit for saying: Democracy will only survive as long as the electorate is wise enough and educated enough to make the difficult decisions at the appropriate times [this was in justifying the creation of U Virginia]. The corollary to this is of course, in the absence of a knowledgeable electorate democracy is doomed... and hence the real crime of Fox et al.

 

[TraneMan]

On our recent trip on the EB. Going to SEA, we had China at dinner, and plastic for the rest.. The drink were all in glass.

On our trip home from SEA, we had China for the whole trip. I asked why all China on this train vs plastic, and he said we wouldn't have room for all the trash bag. We would have about 4 bags of trash with China, and if we had plastic on all, we would have about 11 bags!!

I wanted french toast, and he said it's no longer on the menu anymore. :-(

-Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum App.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I don't care what percentage of the budget our military takes up. Russia, China, Israel, India, Japan, and the European Union (the only countries with militaries sufficiently large to think about taking us on in a traditional military conflict) are tied to us economically way too firmly to consider attacking us. We don't need, for instance, 10 aircraft carriers. We need three or four to have full presence.

We don't need a huge army, a navy half it's size, or an air force a quarter it's size. I am all for a well funded military. I am against a military that can pick any three countries, eliminate their entire population, then bomb their buildings into rubble, and then the rubble into gravel, and then the gravel into dust... And still have enough might to simultaneously fight off every single ally of those three countries who object to our doing so.

That is the DEFINITION of wasteful spending.

 

[Bob Dylan]

The point about wasteful Military spending is valid and has been since President ( and 5 Star General of the Armies) Eisenhower warned us about the Military/Industrial Complex!

The new threat for overspending and outright fraud and theft is the Massive Dept. of Homeland Security which is growing like Topsy and has huge off the books slush funds hidden in other Federal Budgets!

This Super Agency is scary and the fact that there is really no oversight by Congress in the name of " National Security" is an open Invitation to Unlimited and Unaccountable Spending!

Amtrak's subsidy is pocket change in comparison, where's budget hawks like Mica when it comes to scams like this???

 

[montana mike]

I don't care what percentage of the budget our military takes up. Russia, China, Israel, India, Japan, and the European Union (the only countries with militaries sufficiently large to think about taking us on in a traditional military conflict) are tied to us economically way too firmly to consider attacking us. We don't need, for instance, 10 aircraft carriers. We need three or four to have full presence.

We don't need a huge army, a navy half it's size, or an air force a quarter it's size. I am all for a well funded military. I am against a military that can pick any three countries, eliminate their entire population, then bomb their buildings into rubble, and then the rubble into gravel, and then the gravel into dust... And still have enough might to simultaneously fight off every single ally of those three countries who object to our doing so.

That is the DEFINITION of wasteful spending.

Sorry but you don't haver a clue what you are talking about. Unless you have spent decades in military planing and have served in one of the armed services that actually does defend our nation and see the demands that are placed on ALL of our military people throughout the world you know NOTHING!!! As soon as you said we could make do with 3-4 carriers I knew you have never had to deal with deployments, training, operational contingencies, ship repairs, crew morale (ships deploy 6-9 months at a time, with 4 carriers no one would be willing to serve because the ships would be gone essentially all of the time until they completely broke down).

Stick to the things you know about.....

 

[montana mike]

PS--We now have an army (or will have by the end of FY 2016)--that will be smaller in size than just before WWII. We also now have half the "lift" capability we had just as recently as Desert Storm. When I retired from the USN we had a lithe over 350 active duty ships. By 2015 we will have around 220 ships, and many of those will be far less capable than what we had in the 1990's.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Sure, we wouldn't have the capability to use our military to run roughshod over the world for the sheer hell of it. It might take us a little more time to respond to a threat. Cutting the budget would weaken it considerably.

Let me use a farm analogy. If I have 500 acre farm, I could harvest my field using a 1900 vintage corn picker pulled by a tractor. It would take me weeks, and would be a royal pain in the tuchus. But I could do it. I could use a 1940s vintage Minneapolis-Moline, do the job in a week or so, and have some time to relax. Or I could buy brand new mega combine harvester, the type they use in huge agribusiness, and do the job in a day.

Now, obviously a mule pulling a corn picker is ludicrous. Even with a tractor pulling it, it's far too long and too much work. But it's also an insane waste of money to buy a million dollar combine to harvest 500 acres of corn just to avoid working more than a day on the project.

Our military is a million dollar combine attacking a 500 acre feild. And maybe if it wasn't so easy to do the devastating, collateral heavy attacks our military loves to mount, we might start being sufficiently humble, as the good lord intended, and stop fighting wars that aren't our business.

 

[Ryan]

I don't care what percentage of the budget our military takes up. Russia, China, Israel, India, Japan, and the European Union (the only countries with militaries sufficiently large to think about taking us on in a traditional military conflict) are tied to us economically way too firmly to consider attacking us. We don't need, for instance, 10 aircraft carriers. We need three or four to have full presence.

We don't need a huge army, a navy half it's size, or an air force a quarter it's size. I am all for a well funded military. I am against a military that can pick any three countries, eliminate their entire population, then bomb their buildings into rubble, and then the rubble into gravel, and then the gravel into dust... And still have enough might to simultaneously fight off every single ally of those three countries who object to our doing so.

That is the DEFINITION of wasteful spending.

Sorry but you don't haver a clue what you are talking about. Unless you have spent decades in military planing and have served in one of the armed services that actually does defend our nation and see the demands that are placed on ALL of our military people throughout the world you know NOTHING!!! As soon as you said we could make do with 3-4 carriers I knew you have never had to deal with deployments, training, operational contingencies, ship repairs, crew morale (ships deploy 6-9 months at a time, with 4 carriers no one would be willing to serve because the ships would be gone essentially all of the time until they completely broke down).Stick to the things you know about.....

<- Former Naval Surface Warfare Officer

We'd be just fine with 3-4 carriers. We wouldn't be able to maintain a 100% around the world, 24/7/365 presence, but that's a feature, not a bug.

The "if you haven't served, you can't possibly know what you're talking about" ad hom disgusts me. You're better than that.

 

[Silver Star rider]

Part of the reason to maintain a navy, army, other branches of the military around the world is to offer help in times of emergency. I don't have a problem with that. It is not something that can be done with 3 or 4 battle groups. I don't have a problem us playing the worlds cop either.

And when there is a international emergency, the first question the President asks... where are the carriers?? Should he be told in Norfolk or Persian Gulf?

Yes, we don't get respect in some places around the globe, but so be it.

Bruce-SSR

 

[gmushial]

Maybe we bring the discussion back to Amtrak... and let the citizens, at the ballot boxes, decide what the role and future of this country should be - what it is we want, and what it is we're willing to pay for: both financially (through taxes, and not borrowed monies), and with the lives of our youth - and the corporate profiteers be damned?

 

[yarrow]

iirc, a few years ago there was a fairly strictly enforced policy that all posts needed to be related to and mention "amtrak". ah, for the good old days

 

[Green Maned Lion]

And why is it a bad thing if we just talk and discuss things openly?

 

[gmushial]

iirc, a few years ago there was a fairly strictly enforced policy that all posts needed to be related to and mention "amtrak". ah, for the good old days

I suspect this tread will revert back to its roots, or will die... though in some ways the side trip was at least semi-cogent, in that with limited/finite funds, as the expression from about a half century ago was: is it going to be guns, or butter? Amtrak's reality and future is intimately involved in that question/choice.

 

[Ryan]

iirc, a few years ago there was a fairly strictly enforced policy that all posts needed to be related to and mention "amtrak". ah, for the good old days

Must have been before my time, which was a darn long time ago. The free flowing discussion is why I'm here and not other forums. There are plenty of strictly moderated Amtrak forums out there that may be more to your liking.

 

[gmushial]

And why is it a bad thing if we just talk and discuss things openly?

It rarely is. In fact such might be part of the path leading to recovery for this nation - with the tribalization there has been too little talk outside of the factions and as such a belief that "my" view is the correct, and only view; or my view is the only correct view and therefore it is appropriate to discount, disparage any with other views: after all, they're communist, socialist etc etc. I suspect that on the path to recovery, there will be many factions which are going to be quit surprised that their views are quite narrowly held (and maybe even lacking veracity). Suspect such will be tough for the corporate profiteers, but so be it.

So... maybe the nation can have a discussion w/re the real costs and real benefits of passenger rail service? That has a lot to do with the topic of this thread - the quality of the service has been cut, because some believe that there shouldn't be such: too expensive - about 30 cents per citizen per year, also possibly too expensive in terms of competition with the airlines and oil company's interest in private cars. Imagine if the discussion was: are people willing to pay one whole dollar per citizen per year for rail service, imagine what Amtrak might be able to do with such - maybe back to china, maybe back to a menu with choices, ie, back to the thread topic: the diminished quality of service, or, the improved quality service thus engendered? And maybe this discussion goes in parallel with: given the facts (not corporate spin), is the electorate willing to pay $3000 per citizen per year, or $12000 per tax payer per year, to be the world's cop?

But back to your point Lion - discussions are the essence of a democracy (though the skill of having civil ones has been lost over the last couple decades... but ever the optimist, I suspect such could be relearned).

 

[yarrow]

iirc, a few years ago there was a fairly strictly enforced policy that all posts needed to be related to and mention "amtrak". ah, for the good old days

Must have been before my time, which was a darn long time ago. The free flowing discussion is why I'm here and not other forums. There are plenty of strictly moderated Amtrak forums out there that may be more to your liking.

you've been a member since 2008. i've been around since 2006. as i said in the old days, iirc, there was much less non-amtrak talk, less pontificating and less social chit-chat. but, i am known as someone who paints the past as a rosy place

 

[crescent2]

I usually enjoy most of the open discussions unless they get ugly, but I will admit that lately politics seem to get thrown in for little or no discernible reason related to trains too often for my taste, and most of the jabs consistently go in one direction. However, I'm still hangin' around here, and the sheer volume of political posts indicates my taste for them is in the minority. The majority rules...

 

[JayPea]

I usually enjoy most of the open discussions unless they get ugly, but I will admit that lately politics seem to get thrown in for little or no discernible reason related to trains too often for my taste, and most of the jabs consistently go in one direction. However, I'm still hangin' around here, and the sheer volume of political posts indicates my taste for them is in the minority. The majority rules...

I don't mind the occasional drifting of topics. I too, though, am in the minority when it comes to my tastes in political posts that have nothing to do with Amtrak. Especially when such posts devolve into utter contempt and utter condescension from those on one side of the aisle towards those of another. But I still hang around too. I like Amtrak and like talking about it though my knowledge of it is miniscule compared to many here.

 

[crescent2]

I don't think there's a better forum anywhere for obtaining good information related to Amtrak. True experts on that here!

 

[andersone]

I think we are jealous. The defense department gets all the back up equipment it needs; Amtrak doesn't

 

[Ryan]

I usually enjoy most of the open discussions unless they get ugly, but I will admit that lately politics seem to get thrown in for little or no discernible reason related to trains too often for my taste, and most of the jabs consistently go in one direction. However, I'm still hangin' around here, and the sheer volume of political posts indicates my taste for them is in the minority. The majority rules...

I don't mind the occasional drifting of topics. I too, though, am in the minority when it comes to my tastes in political posts that have nothing to do with Amtrak. Especially when such posts devolve into utter contempt and utter condescension from those on one side of the aisle towards those of another. But I still hang around too. I like Amtrak and like talking about it though my knowledge of it is miniscule compared to many here.

Don't confuse contempt and condescension for low-information, poorly thought out positions for contempt and condescension to everyone on the other side of the aisle.

There's absolutely a place for a well thought out, logical conservative viewpoint that's built on actual facts, but that isn't what gets slammed around here.

There's also plenty of condescension and contempt for people on this side of the aisle that pull the same dumb stuff (enviro-whackos like the "no Purple line, think of the shrimp" crowd).

It's not a left-right thing, it's an "are you an *****" thing, and there's plenty of idiocy to go around.