Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 182

Thread: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

  1. #51
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Why is Amtrak losing so much money? Because they run lines that will never make a profit. There is no concept of efficiency with government-run agencies.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  2. #52
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I hate to break to you, but the purpose of Government is not to provide for the welfare of the citizens either.
    Who said it was?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    You may want to READ the Constitution if you do not believe me. This is not a debate about profitability
    Did you, or did you not rant that "no Government run entity in history has been profitable?"

    I merely pointed out the fact that making profits has never been the duty nor the function of government. You can whine about the constitution all you like, and you can complain till the cows come home that your panties are all jammed up between your buttcheeks about the "profit-making" aspect of government agencies, but the facts remain the same: OUR GOVERNMENT WAS NOT CREATED WITH THE INTENT, NOR GIVEN THE MANDATE, TO MAKE PROFITS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I am never surprised when raging pinhead conservatives show an inability [to what?], or display willful ignorance, as to what these debates actually are about.
    Fixed that for ya.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Who said it was?



    Did you, or did you not rant that "no Government run entity in history has been profitable?"

    I merely pointed out the fact that making profits has never been the duty nor the function of government. You can whine about the constitution all you like, and you can complain till the cows come home that your panties are all jammed up between your buttcheeks about the "profit-making" aspect of government agencies, but the facts remain the same: OUR GOVERNMENT WAS NOT CREATED WITH THE INTENT, NOR GIVEN THE MANDATE, TO MAKE PROFITS.



    Fixed that for ya.
    I see the debate topic and relevance of my comments continues to elude you; I cannot say I am surprised by this. Having a coherent debate has never been your forte'. You are more inclined to spew "raging pinhead liberal" talking points.

  4. #54
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I see the debate topic and relevance of my comments continues to elude you
    Did you, or did you not rant that "no Government run entity in history has been profitable?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Having a coherent debate has never been your forte'.
    This is pretty effin' funny, coming from you, dude.
    Last edited by Glinda; 10-28-09 at 03:41 PM.

  5. #55
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I would love to hear those arguments. I am at a loss as to why we would fund losing enterprises that only serve a select few.

    People riding on trains are not the only ones who benefit. People on the roads also benefit b/c of reduced congestion, which leads to less road maintenance, etc. Also, businesses and communities benefit from transportation infrastructure that facilitates and encourages activity.

    Infrastructure is what underlies a community and allows it to prosper, it does not benefit only those who directly use it.

  6. #56
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Did anyone even read the article?

    Oh wait. I forgot. Most people here can't read.

    Basically, slower (read: older) trains lost money.

    But high speed, new trains made money.

    Furthermore, this dude makes an excellent summary:
    Trains.com - Trains Magazine - Online Community - Amtrak's FY 2008 Key Performance Numbers

    Lesson to learn? Focus on high traffic, high speed. Ditch low traffic, low speed.
    IA, high speed trains make more sense. Thx for link, clicking to check it out.

  7. #57
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    People riding on trains are not the only ones who benefit. People on the roads also benefit b/c of reduced congestion, which leads to less road maintenance, etc. Also, businesses and communities benefit from transportation infrastructure that facilitates and encourages activity.

    Infrastructure is what underlies a community and allows it to prosper, it does not benefit only those who directly use it.
    Private companies can build infrastructure.

    And of note, rail actually increases traffic. Look it up, no lie.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Did you, or did you not rant that "no Government run entity in history has been profitable?"

    This is pretty effin' funny, coming from you, dude.
    What part of the thread topic are you not getting?

    Amtrak Loses $32 Per PassengerWASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. taxpayers spent about $32 subsidizing the cost of the typical Amtrak passenger in 2008, about four times the rail operator's estimate, according to a private study.

    Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008, said the study by Subsidyscope, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.


    Clue: Government is LOSING money; in other words not paying for itself or making a return on its money.

    For Liberals who are economically challenged, this would mean that there are not enough people who find the rail service viable and therefore choose OTHER more efficient forms of transportation and that continuing to run them is perhaps a BAD deal for the American taxpayer.

    The simplest and most obvious answer which continues to elude you is that the Government should not be in the business of providing transportation services, should not be in the business of providing health services and perhaps should stick to what the Constitution states is really the Governments business, which was inherently more intelligent than the best Liberal thinkers to date, which is to merely provide for the nations defense and administer its laws.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    People riding on trains are not the only ones who benefit. People on the roads also benefit b/c of reduced congestion, which leads to less road maintenance, etc. Also, businesses and communities benefit from transportation infrastructure that facilitates and encourages activity.
    There are no facts to support this hypothetical OPINION. If this were remotely true, rail services would be highly profitable and New York City, Baltimore, Washington DC, Philadelphia and Chicago would not have traffic jams. But alas, we all know that they suffer from the same traffic congestion that Los Angeles does.

    The notion that citizens benefit from something they rarely are inclined to use lacks any credible support.

    FACT: The Federal Government should not be in the transportation business as it costs great sums of taxpayer funds with little to zero benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Infrastructure is what underlies a community and allows it to prosper, it does not benefit only those who directly use it.
    Rail systems were built through private enterprise; when those endeavors started becoming unprofitable, the private rail services started disappearing then Government stepped in to subsidize it eventually taking over.

    If rail systems were beneficial, people would still be using them instead of driving their own cars. Unfortunately, for the vast majority, there were much better alternatives and therefore it made no sense to continue paying for, riding on or subsidizing rail systems.

    The Canadian Government has already figured that one out and gotten out of the business of transportation services; stunning how we continue to arrogantly think that we can do it where others have not.

    Again, instead of providing FACTS to support your assertions as I asked, you come up with more theoretical feel good opinions rather than factual evidence.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    IA, high speed trains make more sense. Thx for link, clicking to check it out.
    I guess the article still had no effect on your opinions:

    The net system loss from consolidated operations decreased from $1.12 billion in FY 2007 to $1.01 billion, a decrease of 9.6 per cent. The increase in revenues was offset partially by significant increases in fuel, power, and utilities, casualty and other claims, depreciation, and miscellaneous items.

    A passenger traveling from Los Angeles to New Orleans on the Sunset Limited in FY 2008 received an average federal subsidy of $947.63 before interest and depreciation. A business class seat on AirTrans would have cost approximately $539. Amtrak could have bought the passenger a business class ticket on AirTrans and saved the taxpayers more than $408.63 per LA to NO passenger by discontinuing the train.

Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •