Candidate Positions on Amtrak/HSR

Admin note: retitled from "Romney (wants) to cut Amtrak funding if elected" on 1.5.2012

(Romney's) not the first to say so he would cut funding, but given the grave nature of the current budget provided to Amtrak, nothing good can come of it. I'm not so sure many politicians or citizens understand the dynamics of not having subsidized rail service in America.

He (Romney) would strip Amtrak of federal subsidies, which could threaten the survival of the popular rail network.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... rss_policy

Site Admin: changed topic title, with most humble apologies to original poster. This is valid news indeed (he's quoted as saying it, right?). However, Romney saying he'd strip funding and Congress going along are two different things. And that's all I want to point out.

I wouldn't worry about his statements. I'm a Romney supporter and an ardent passenger rail supporter. Saying "I'll zero out Amtrak" is just standard Republican candidate-speak to appeal to the conservative base. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all said that, but it won't happen (especially from Romney, who is probably the least ideological and least conservative of the current candidates).

I'd rather support a candidate that doesn't have to assumed to be lying about their non-support for passenger rail. If you support passenger rail then support candidates that actually says they support passenger rail.

I think it's fair to say that any of the current republican presidential candidates would support ending subsidies to Amtrak, Romney is the only one from a NEC state.

Politics is all about getting elected no matter what's good for the country, as both parties rather crudely demonstrate these days. Most American voters don't ride Amtrak, and those who do are largely concentrated in blue states that are likely to vote Democratic anyway. So it's a convenient way for Mitt to show that he will cut Federal spending in a way that will probably gain him more votes than it looses.

SouthernRailway wrote:Saying "I'll zero out Amtrak" is just standard Republican candidate-speak to appeal to the conservative base. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all said that, but it won't happen.

Not for a lack of trying. Their attempts to zero out funding were foiled by congress.

On a side note, I absolutely hate that politicians can make critical decisions in fields they know absolutely nothing about.

Yes, indeed. Let's leave all the "important decisions" to courts, unelected bureaucrats or, better yet, to machines.

To quote from Steely Dan's "IGY"

...Just machines to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We'll be free when their work is done,
Eternally free, yes, and eternally young...

That'll work.

As I've said before, support for Amtrak is not a right/left, red/blue issue. Mr. Obama has talked the talked, but certainly not walked the walk.

He was speaking to a Tea Party crowd, wasn't he? Mr. Romney is famous for tailoring his "convictions" to who is listening. Nobody knows what he would actually do to/for Amtrak if elected, not even him (which is why he won't be elected).

Didn't you hear Letterman's joke the other night?

"Times Square hookers are offering a 'Mitt Romney' special. For an extra $20, they'll change position."

Not this crap again for another year... Discuss the railroad, not the merits of a particular candidate and his allegiances!

Otto Vondrak wrote:Not this crap again for another year... Discuss the railroad, not the merits of a particular candidate and his allegiances!

or lack there of, as the case maybe.

sorry. running for cover...

Otto Vondrak wrote:Not this crap again for another year... Discuss the railroad, not the merits of a particular candidate and his allegiances!

Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between politics and " the railroad"?

Because it's pretty damn important that the republican frontrunner is jumping on the " trains suck" bus.

It's also important to discuss how serious he is about it. As others have pointed out, Romney has and will continue to flip on issues. It's relevant to discuss the likelihood that he would, if elected president, push on this campaign promise.

It's a "run away from the Massachusetts legacy" triangulation move for the base. He pumped a lot of money into the commuter rail and NEC service ramp-ups while Gov.; it was a no-brainer with the swing districts. While no doubt Amtrak funding's going to fare worse depending on whose ideology is in charge, he still has to get elected. And that can't be done by 'zeroing out' transit-dependent voters in NEC districts who he needs pulling the lever for him in a close-contested primary. And even if electoral votes are not going to come from those transit-heavy states he still has to be competitive across the board in the popular vote there to get any carryover in the states he does need to tip his way. There won't be any speeches like this to the non-firebreathers, and won't be any speeches like this at events that are general-public and not full of fundraising heavies. Certainly not in New Hampshire where the shovels are actively in the ground on the Downeaster upgrades providing a modicum of ongoing economic activity in a horrible economy. It's campaign season. Everyone custom-serves red meat for the audience sitting in front of them at that very second. And then custom-serves something completely different for the next audience. Romney maybe to the point where it's too obvious and starts hurting him...but that's more a matter-of-record even his advisers think is a flaw he needs to work on.

Nonsense. This must be discussed in depth and everyone's candidate slandered and discussed only in pejorative terms while mocking anyone here who agrees or disagrees with you. I think only the most vitriolic posts should be permitted.

After all, we know after that occurs, the poster will immediately change the reader's mind and cause them to vote the way they want them to.

I always find it amusing when presidential candidates say how they're going to spend--or in this case: not spend--money. Congress does that. Making promises like this are iffy, at best.

NellieBly wrote:Yes, indeed. Let's leave all the "important decisions" to courts, unelected bureaucrats or, better yet, to machines.

To quote from Steely Dan's "IGY"

...Just machines to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We'll be free when their work is done,
Eternally free, yes, and eternally young...

That'll work.

I never suggested that we should have anything (even metaphorically) like having decision making machines. I'm expressing frustration that these people are making decisions in areas where they don't have any expertise.