• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

Oh, btw: LA County's Metrolink recently opened a six mile long extension to the Gold Line, at a cost of $148 million dollars per mile. What advantage does the driver who doesn't use the Gold Line see in having his taxes raised to pay for this?

None.

Incorrect. The benefit is obvious. More people using mass transit gets more cars off the road. Therefore, less congestion and less time sitting in traffic. Portland traffic was really bad before the MAX. Now, it's actually pretty good, especially if you are used to Seattle or LA traffic.
 
If they're profitable then private industry can buy the rights of with with investors' money, not taxpayers, and the shareholders can keep the profits.

Which they should. You are getting off subject. My point was largely that no one except ME read the article.
 
Ah, you're confusing Amtrak with generic "rail transit".

Not at all.

We're discussing Amtrak, not Metrolink.

No, we (meaning me and phattonez) were not. Here's what phattonez said:

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

I do not see anything in the above statement indicating a specific rail system. Do you?



BTW, I'm still hoping to see some sort of proof of this assertion by phattonez (but I won't hold my breath).
 
If it's not profitable, the government shouldn't be doing it.

Once again, the government was not created to make profits.

Using your yardstick, the government shouldn't be doing anything it currently does.

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

Liblady, allow me to give you an analogy to illustrate the point of the Gubmint take over of our Health systems.

Let's say you and I both own a coffee shop, on opposing corners of a well traveled intersection in town, ok?

You, and I make about the same types of coffee, and the quality is comparable.

Now, lets say that while you charge $2.00 for a large cup of 'joe', I can print my own money, and give away my coffee for free.

how long will you stay in business?


j-mac

Yeah except the coffee is a life giving substance and you may die from not having it.

Fabulous analogy.:roll:
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
And yet, there isn't one tiny shred of evidence any Government run entity in history has been profitable.

Damn facts why you always got to get in the way of TD's thinking?

JAL, JAS Expect Group Net Profit At $188Million

Ever hear of a thing called the "US Mint?"

You have got to be kidding me right; you think that JAL is owned by the Government?

I have to laugh at your nonsensical attempts to argue in a vacuum of reality or facts and your trite condescension that I am the one lacking in facts.

Here you go:

After over three decades of service and expansion, the airline was fully privatized on November 18, 1987. In 2002, Japan Airlines merged with Japan Air System, Japan's third-largest airline and became the sixth largest airline in the world by passengers carried.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_airlines]Japan Airlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

In addition, this airline even as a private entity is bleeding cash and desperately seeking a Government bailout; which if the lessons have been learned, will not be forthcoming from the Japanese Government as they are in trouble themselves.

I am fascinated how you think that article makes your case or suggests that I am the one lacking facts. :rofl

JAL, which lost more than one billion US dollars in the April-June quarter, has asked for another public bailout to boost its capital base, its president Haruka Nishimatsu told reporters after talks with the transport minister.

Japan Airlines requests government bailout

JAL lost about $1 billion last quarter and has been scrambling to put together a revival plan this month to submit to the transport ministry, which is supervising its restructuring after the state backed a 100 billion yen ($1.1 billion) loan.

JAL's Lenders Seek to Carve Out Profitable Operations - Japan * Asia * News * Story - CNBC.com
 
Last edited:
This is not breaking news.

Amtrak's been operating at a loss for years.

And the analogy to health care is a false one.

Amtrak provides cost effective and convenient transportation. How is that comparable to health care--the lives of children, families...

Stop being stupid.:cool:
 
Clearly, you didn't do your research. Several portions of the US rail system are more congested then the Acela line which made profit. There is clearly enough demand to sustain a train system. And as the high speed system proved, it is profitable. What isn't profitable are the low speed trains.

You are such a laughable charicature of the uninformed; the rail system as a whole LOSES money. I am not sure what part of that simple fact you cannot get your tiny little mind around or why you even desperately attempt to argue the obvious.

You clearly did not even bother to read the posted summary. This is how I know you don't have a finance degree of anything resembling a business education.

Considering the fact that you think JAL is a Government entity, the irony of such empty headed remarks probably escapes you.

The fact that you apparently haven't graduated from High School perhaps makes you envious of my degree. I guess I will have to scan it to make my case that you are nothing more than a whiney highly emotional little talking head that is more inclined to come to clueless conclusions based rather than anything credibly coherent.

I see you changed your statement from your earlier absolute. I can think of several government agencies, including several companies that have been profitable. JAL has been profitable in many years and is essentially an arm of the Japanese government.

I have to keep laughing that you think JAL is a Government owned airline.

Do you actually have the prices or are you just making it up as you go along which would be the usual?

I have no idea what this clueless rant is about.

The funny thing is, you haven't learned a single lesson, yet you try to lecture without researching anything.

This coming from the person who thinks JAL is a Government entity because it has "Japan" in its title. :rofl

Try look up JR group in Japan. Huh. Imagine that. A government run train system that makes money.

How funny, I guess you forgot to look them up yourself:

Japan Railway companies were born in 1987, when Japanese National Railways was privatized, and then divided into 6 regional companies and Japan Freight Railway Company

JAPAN RAILWAYS GROUP - WHAT IS JR?

I cannot find any financial data on them for now, but I am betting they aren't making money even in a small island country like Japan with very heavy population concentrations and a small geographic area.

The thing is TD, I don't actually disagree with most of your views. You are just so abrasive it is hard to go along with you.

So you go out of your way to look like a fool? How profound don’t you think OC? Frankly, I don’t come to DP to seek your or anyone else’s approval, I come her to debate FACTS; something that you still apparently find elusive.

Carry on.

:doh
 
This is not breaking news.

Amtrak's been operating at a loss for years.

And the analogy to health care is a false one.

Amtrak provides cost effective and convenient transportation. How is that comparable to health care--the lives of children, families...

Stop being stupid.:cool:

The analogy to the fascist usurpation of the health care industry is perfectly valid.

And yes, it was "breaking news", as defined in the ruuuules.
 
You keep saying this, but offer no proof. *shrug*

I'm sure you've heard of induced demand? That building another lane on the freeway will not reduce traffic in the long run because you'll get more development and people moving further out because of the new lane. Whatever relief was provided will be quickly wiped out.

Induced demand is theorized with freeways, and then people assume that it does not occur with rail? Sorry, but you can't assume that all other variables will remain the same. You will get more development around the train and more pedestrian activity. In the end, rail will increase traffic.

However, rail provides an alternative to auto congestion and is cheaper, so it's why I support building rail over new roads.

In the end, there's nothing you can do to stop auto congestion besides killing population growth in a city.

Your studies only show that cities with rail did not grow in auto congestion like the cities without rail. It does not prove that rail is the cause. I can easily make the claim that cities that invested in rail also had the money to invest in new wider roads. If that's the case, then it easily explains why cities with rail did not increase in congestion as quickly.
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

Oops - typo - I meant "shouldn't" not "should"

But you got the point. . . However, I meant that making money off of people's need for medical coverage is wrong.

Is making money off of people's need for food, water, and shelter wrong, too?

I think a minimal margin is sufficient - anything 'vastly profitable' and it's more like stealing rather than providing a service, imho.

How is it stealing if there is no coercion involved?
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of government has nothing to do with raking in profits. :roll:

It also has nothing to do with providing people with goods and services but that hasn't stopped you from trying to shove a public option down my throat, has it?
 
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

I love Amtrak. Great way to travel. I wish there was a more comprehensive system, with more lines, more trains. It would attract ridership and drive prices down.
 
I'm sure you've heard of induced demand? That building another lane on the freeway will not reduce traffic in the long run because you'll get more development and people moving further out because of the new lane. Whatever relief was provided will be quickly wiped out.

Strawman.

No one is arguing that traffic congestion won't continue to increase (so long as more people drive than use public transit). However, as the TTI study clearly shows, rail travel options dramatically reduce the growth of auto traffic congestion.

In the end, rail will increase traffic.

So.... no documentation? No studies? Nothing?
 
Strawman.

No one is arguing that traffic congestion won't continue to increase (so long as more people drive than use public transit). However, as the TTI study clearly shows, rail travel options dramatically reduce the growth of auto traffic congestion.

No it didn't, and I explained that! You just conveniently chose to ignore that.

And to expand on that point, rail seems to show no benefit over other traffic reducing measures. Actually, it's a lot less cost effective than other approaches.

http://www.heritage.org/research/urbanissues/bg1721es.cfm

Summary said:
"In contrast to TTI's contrived policy question, this paper asks the much more relevant question: Would increasing transit's share of travel by some significant amount (e.g., 50 percent) significantly relieve congestion?

Today, such an increase in market share would require at least tripling transit spending, from less than $35 billion to more than $110 billion per year. Yet, as this paper shows, such an improbable increase in market share would save the average peak-period commuter only 22 seconds each way (44 seconds per day) in lessened traffic. Moreover, the normal growth in traffic in most urban areas would offset that saved 22 seconds in a few months."

"Except in rare circumstances, transit has little chance of reducing congestion in U.S. urban areas. "

And I support building rail. However, we have to talk honestly. The point of rail is to give people options in congested areas. I'd rather take a train that can zip past traffic and where I can do something besides drive. Options are good. However, government builds these options too much on the assumption that it will decrease auto traffic.
 
Last edited:
No it didn't, and I explained that! You just conveniently chose to ignore that.

I afraid I'm far more inclined to believe a responsible and thoroughly documented study on this topic than I am your assurances that you're right and they're wrong.
 
I afraid I'm far more inclined to believe a responsible and thoroughly documented study on this topic than I am your assurances that you're right and they're wrong.

Read over my edited post now, and realize that your study and resulting opinion, if presented to a statistician, would be immediately laughed at for the reasons I tried to explain to you.
 
Read over my edited post now, and realize that your study and resulting opinion, if presented to a statistician, would be immediately laughed at for the reasons I tried to explain to you.

Wendell Cox? The gun-for-hire who's funded by the road-building industry to slam public transportation? The guy who says public transportation is a "welfare service?"

That's your proof that "rail actually increases traffic?" Really?

Wendell Cox, a self-employed privatization proponent who lives in the St. Louis area who has written attacks on transit and Amtrak for the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Highway Users Alliance and others. His work includes the Cato publication False Dreams and Broken Promises: The Wasteful Federal Investment in Mass Transit and has continued with numerous op-eds, seminars and radio and TV appearances in communities considering new transit investments. Cox has authored reports for the Wisconsin Policy Center and the James Madison Institute attacking the proposed Milwaukee rail system and the Florida Overland Express high speed rail project. Cox’s background as an expert is derived from his appointment to the old Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as a citizen member. He has been employed by various conservative and road building groups over the years. Cox is also known for his anti-Portland and transit-bashing website, (THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)).

I ask again, do you have any actual data (numbers, statistics, reports, documented studies/evidence) to support your assertion that "rail actually increases traffic," or are you sticking with the paid-for "opinion" of a hard-core conservative road-industry shill?

Sorry, but I'll put my trust in the 60-some years of focused research and objective study conducted by hundreds of transportation experts at a trusted state agency that also happens to be the largest transportation research organization in the nation.






Wendell Cox! :lamo
 
Wendell Cox? The gun-for-hire who's funded by the road-building industry to slam public transportation? The guy who says public transportation is a "welfare service?"

That's your proof that "rail actually increases traffic?" Really?

Ad hominem? The personal attack that really comes out to a logical fallacy? That's your proof that this study is wrong?

I ask again, do you have any actual data (numbers, statistics, reports, documented studies/evidence) to support your assertion that "rail actually increases traffic," or are you sticking with the paid-for "opinion" of a hard-core conservative road-industry shill?

Sorry, but I'll put my trust in the 60-some years of focused research and objective study conducted by hundreds of transportation experts at a trusted state agency that also happens to be the largest transportation research organization in the nation.






Wendell Cox! :lamo

What's funny is that you disregard all of this because of the person. Again, an argument was brought forth, and you just ignored it for no good reason.

Besides, I showed you what nonsense it was to base your conclusion off of that study. It was a leap of logic and it just doesn't work.
 
Again, an argument was brought forth...

The argument brought forth was this:

"Rail actually increases traffic."

You've yet to prove anything of the sort. All you've done is found someone (a very questionable someone) who agrees with your assertion, but who, like you, doesn't seem to have any numbers or detailed studies of his own to back it all up. This just isn't enough for me, I'm afraid.

I ask again, do you have any actual data (numbers, statistics, reports, documented studies/evidence) to support your assertion that "rail actually increases traffic?"
 
Last edited:
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?





WOAH! Back up the communist train for a moment.....So Glinda, you are saying that the Governments entire reason for being is to give us stuff?

Then why do you suppose that the founders came up with this?

Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

LII: Constitution


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

WOAH! Back up the communist train for a moment.....So Glinda, you are saying that the Governments entire reason for being is to give us stuff?

No. What I'm saying is the government's entire reason for being is to provide public services.

Like all the things listed in the Constitution. :doh
 
Last edited:
Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

No. What I'm saying is the government's entire reason for being is to provide public services.

Like all the things listed in the Constitution. :doh
No, the govt's reason for existence is to protect our rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom