From: pschleif@speakeasy.org   
      
   On Mon, 18 May 2015 09:59:19 -0500, Larry Sheldon   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 5/17/2015 15:52, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:   
   >> Larry Sheldon   wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> The closest I can find is "The welfare queens riding in Amtrak luxury at   
   >>> the benefit of the American taxpayers are mostly not the poor.   
   >>> Nevertheless, you and I and future generations are subsidizing every   
   >>> ticket purchased by those who can afford to pay the fare required to   
   >>> make Amtrak profitable."   
   >>   
   >> The problem is the assumption that Amtrak should be profitable,   
   >> without subsidy.   
   >>   
   >> All major forms of transportation are subsidized, and always have   
   >> been, in all the rich countries.  Amtrak cannot compete without   
   >> subsidy against other modes that are heavily subsidized.   
   >   
   >That holds up to careful thought.  The problem here is the fantasy that   
   >somehow highways, paid-for partly (should be entirely) by taxes and   
   >tolls, built to specifications mandated by the Defense Department and   
   >the insurance companies, used by heavily taxed trucks to haul foods and   
   >good is comparable to fancy short-line trains for people who could pay   
   >more of their share of the costs of their cushy rides.   
      
   Consumers of the goods which move by road can certainly afford to pay   
   a little more for their steaks or whatever. And evening out the   
   subsidies (or eliminating them) would shift traffic to the mode that   
   does it most efficiently.   
      
   If you are going to tell people they have to pay more, expect to hear   
   the same in response.   
   --   
   Peter Schleifer   
   "Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)