RSSJoe Biden Says, “I don’t deserve’ Amtrak station honor” … Actually It’s a Perfect Honor
Joe Biden … a fitting honor and loads of irony.
Earlier this week it was reported that VP Joe Biden was going to have the honor bestowed upon him of having the Wilmington, DE Amtrak train station renamed after him. But wait, Joe Biden is being humble and states that he does not deserve the Amtrak station honor. Come on Joe, say it ain’t so, of course you do.
Are you joking, as aptly stated at the Jawa Report, if there is anyone who ever deserved an Amtrak railway station named after them it would be Biden ”just for riding the dag nabbed thing for 36 years” … and commuting 200+ miles a day so he can see his kids.
However, Biden should not only have his name attached to Amtrak train station just for the fact that he is a constant passenger, it should also be so for the more important facts like Amtrak costing tax payers in subsidies. How ironic that this very Amtrak train station received stimulus money and came in $5.3 million over budget. However, that irony was outdone when the Amtrak CEO had to arrive by car to the ribbon cutting ceremony because the train broke down he was taking to attend the event … you just can’t make this stuff up. Update, so sorry, the Amtrak train was delayed and the CEO got off the train and used a car to make the ceremony on time. Further proving the point as to why Amtrack is not a timely means of transportation when even the CEO abaondons t
Naturally this particular station came in $5.3 million over budget. That, however, was a small price to pay to add another piece to the puzzle of cost-effective reliable mass transit, as those in attendance at the ribbon cutting would find out as soon as the Amtrak CEO got there… by car. The train on which he was going to arrive at the ceremony for the Conductor of America’s Train to the Future broke down.
Posted March 20, 2011 by Scared Monkeys Joseph Biden, Tax & Spend Liberals, Taxes, Travel, WTF | 16 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
16 Responses to “Joe Biden Says, “I don’t deserve’ Amtrak station honor” … Actually It’s a Perfect Honor”
Leave a Reply
Attaching THIS VP’s name to ANYTHING is making it suspect to incompetency…Ok..CERTAINTY of it!!!
The train that Joseph Boardman was on didn’t break down.
The 100 year old electrical system that Congress saddled Amtrak with over 20 years ago broke down. That meant that every train on the Northeast Corridor between DC & NY City stopped moving. That included New Jersey Transit commuter trains, Philly’s SEPTA commuter trains, Amtrak’s Regional trains, and every Acela train between those two points stopped moving.
____________
Exactly what part about this post did you not understand that it was the Amtrak CEO when it plainly states it?
ABC News Deputy Political Director & Political Reporter Michael Falcone tweeted at approximately 10 a.m. that the Acela train he was riding had been “delayed” in Baltimore and that he was sitting next to Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman.
Falcone tweeted, “Acela to NY delayed for ‘unknown period’ Should I feel better that the Amtrak CEO is sitting next to me?”
It quickly became apparent that the CEO’s presence wouldn’t fix the train. A subsequent tweet from Falcone noted, “BAD sign: Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman just got OFF the train to take a car to Wilmington.”
“Amtrak CEO abandoned his own train to make ribbon cutting ceremony for Joe Biden station in Wilmington,” Falcone reported. “When I told Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman it was a bad sign he was ditching the stranded Acela, he chuckled.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/19/amtrak-ceo-ditches-broken-train-to-travel-by-car-to-ribbon-cutting-of-wilmingtons-joe-biden-station/#ixzz1HAPVJOB1
Yes, I agree, Mr. Boardman was on that train. I’m not arguing that. But it is false to say that the train he was on broke down. It didn’t!
The train itself was fine. It couldn’t move because there was a low voltage condition on the corridor. The 100 year old electrical system built by the Pennsylvania RR broke down. Not the train! There were dozens of trains that couldn’t move yesterday; I was on one going south to DC.
But again, the train did not break down. My train didn’t break down. Everything physically on the train was fine, it just doesn’t move without power. That’s like saying every elevator & escalator in NY City broke down during the last blackout. They didn’t, they stopped functioning because of a lack of power. But they were not physically broken. There was nothing wrong with them that a few amps of electricity couldn’t fix; just like there was nothing wrong with the train that electricity couldn’t fix.
__________
SM: The point is that the train could not get to its destination. And the irony being that he had to take a car instead. If it was an electric car and the grid failed, that is still a failure on the part of an electric car.
SM,
Yes, I agree that train, as well as at least 50 other trains couldn’t get to their destinations. Although once power was restored, that train did indeed get to its destination.
As for failure again, if you were driving your car and forgot to pay attention to the gas gauge and you ran out of gas, you wouldn’t say “my car broke down.” You’d say “my car ran out of gas.” Unless of course you didn’t want to admit the truth to whomever you were telling the story to. But regardless, the car didn’t break down.
Like I said earlier, no one said “the elevator I was in broke down” when there was a blackout. They didn’t blame the builder of the elevator or the maintenance people caring for the elevator. They blamed the power company!
___________
SM: Dude, the update was made in the story … READ!!!
The fact of the matter is that AMTRAK is an abject, tax payer money pit. Funny how you dwell on a non-issue but fail to comment on the $5.3 million over budget train station. But then again, it was just hard earned tax payer stimulus dollars that Biden appropriated to Amtrak.
How come the LEFT is not crying foul? Imagine if Cheney did such a thing? Oh that’s right, their is hypocrisy on the LEFT.
“But then again, it was just hard earned tax payer stimulus dollars that Biden appropriated to Amtrak.”
(What is wrong with the Libtards on the left and why are they so ignorant and obtuse as to not be able to see the BIG PICTURE? You know, like—-looking outside of the box and understanding the facts behind the crux of the situation(s) at hand?
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
SM,
Yeah, nice update. Actually I wasn’t even looking at the story, just responding to your comments to my posts.
And while Amtrak may be a money pit, it’s a much smaller money pit than our other forms of transit. Just in the last 3 years the Fed has borrowed more than $62 Billion for our highways. That’s more that Amtrak has gotten in its entire existence.
Here’s another interesting tidbit; every rider on Amtrak last year got a subsidy of 31%. Every driver on our roads got a 49% subsidy. Talk about a money pit.
Finally, Biden didn’t catch any flack for the stimulus monies to Amtrak for 2 reasons. One, Congress appropriated the money. Two, Mr. Biden isn’t a stockholder who will profit from it.
Mr. Cheney caught flack because he steered a contract to Haliburton, Congress didn’t direct him to send that contract to Haliburton.
___________
SM: Sorry dude, but Amtrak is a money pit, want to compare the # of peopel who travek Amtrak vs US highways?
You might also want to develop a sense of humor and irony. Sorry, but the comparison was that an individual in charge of tracking stimulus money, appointed by Obama, and was lobbied by Biden is given an Amtrak station in his name.
Like I have said … an AMTRAK station being named after Anvil Joe Biden is perfect and well deserved.
NGBoston,
Yeah, we’ve got to watch out for those liberals. Men like Andrew H Card, Jr. who as Sec Trans on the behalf of President George H W Bush authorized and designated the first 5 high speed rail corridors in the US in 1992. In fact, one of those HSR corridors, was in Florida where the current Gov just rejected the funding.
We best watch out for that Republican controlled Congress that in 1998 passed TEA-21, the Transit Equity Act, which then authorized the Clinton White House to designate 6 more HSR corridors.
And then there was former President Ronald Reagan, a man whom I voted for twice by the way, who created the Mass Transit Fund to help fund bus, commuter rail, light rail, and heavy rail projects in our cities.
Returning to Florida, there were 14 Conservative Republican State Senators who joined with 10 Democrats to publicly rebuke Governor Scott for his foolish decision. They formed a veto proof majority in fact.
I’ve got a news flash for you, Conservatives ride trains. In fact, conservatives are far more likely to get on a train than a bus. There was an interesting study done by the late Mr. Paul Weyrich, conservative and Mr. William Lind, conservative. I quote:
“Except that we are riding it, in growing numbers. Studies of passengers on rail-transit systems across the country indicate many conservatives are on board. Chicago’s excellent METRA commuter trains offer one example. A recent survey revealed that in the six-county area METRA serves, 11 percent of commuters with incomes of $75,000 or more commuted by train. In Lake County, the mean earnings of rail commuters were more than $76,000. (The figure for bus riders was less than $14,000.) Not surprisingly, the area METRA serves regularly sends Republicans to Congress.”
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00023/
______________
SM: Trains … a path to the future … sure they are.
Sm,
Sorry, but the money pit remains the roads. How many people use something is not relevant when you get your tax bill at the end of the year from the IRS; unless you’re not concerned with hanging on to your money.
If you were a banker contemplating a loan for a couple with 2 kids wanting to buy a mansion with 20 rooms who’s income is shaky, would you deny them? I would expect so and hope so.
But what you’re saying in your example is that if a couple showed up that had 10 kids, you would grant the loan, because at least there are more people living in the house. That fact that you might lose your money would seem to be irrelevant to you in that case.
By the way, want to know why we have to invest in Amtrak? Because the Government interfered in the Free Market by subsidizing roads & planes. Would you expect Wendy’s to survive in your town if the town subsidized McDonald’s and Burger King?
Collectively this country since 1956 has subsidized our roads & highways by more than $600 Billion. That’s almost 1/14th of our national debt. Now I will grant you that number includes city, county, and state subsidies as well as Federal. We could run Amtrak for about 400 years with that $600 Billion.
Of course if we hadn’t interfered with the free market, not to mention making it worse by taxing the RR’s at a rate of 4.3 cents per gallon of fuel and dumping that into the Highway Trust Fund, we wouldn’t need to subsidize Amtrak at all. It wouldn’t exist; the freight RR’s would still be running intercity passenger rail.
______________
SM: How many who use them is irrelevant … HAHAHAHA … LOLOLOLOLOLO. Good grief I cant even begin to understand your example.
You just lost all “street” cred.
Yeah, lets pay $53 million for something used by 5 million passenger rides vs the the billions that would use highways. Dude, there is a reason why why use the phrase per capita.
Your theory is nonsensical. Comparing Amtrak to highways is like comparing a highschool football team to an NFL one. Give it up and move on.
SM,
People don’t care about per capita, they care about how much money is in their pay check. And their pay check is far smaller thanks to highways than it is thanks to Amtrak.
According to the Taxpayer’s receipt for 2010, a married couple with 2 kids and income of $80K paid $110.06 towards the highways via their income tax. If they actually own a car and drove it, then they paid considerably more. That same couple paid $3.83 to Amtrak.
A retired, married couple with income of $100K paid $89.38 towards the highways, even if they can’t drive anymore. They paid $3.11 to Amtrak.
Now unless you like less money in your pocket, those highways are your worst enemy.
The worst part of all this is that had we not started subsidizing the highways and interfering in the free market, we wouldn’t even have an Amtrak to worry about subsidizing! And our national debt would be lower since the Federal fuel tax would never have been taken away from its original purpose; paying down the national debt.
_______________
SM: No sir, they care about their tax $’s going toward something they use, like roads … not trains.
No sir, they care most about high taxes and then the National debt. The problem is that most don’t realize just how high their taxes are thanks to roads. Three to four bucks a year to Amtrak barely buys a gallon of gas, no one is even going to notice that. Take away $100 and people will notice that.
Additionally most American’s naively believe that the gas tax actually pays for the roads, they don’t realize that they are getting a subsidy. Which in turn is why they’re upset about having to subsidize Amtrak; they think that others are getting a free ride while not realizing that they too are getting one. Especially when people like you throw around big numbers to scare them. Tell them that they paid 3 bucks and most aren’t going to care
And fully 90% or more of Americans believe that the Federal fuel tax was created in 1956 to fund the roads. They don’t realize that the Federal fuel tax was created to help pay down that national debt that many people are so concerned about now.
________________
SM: You are hopeless, obviously most people care about less taxes and paying down the debt; however, that does not mean no taxes. They want their money to go toward something productive and trust me, if you were to give Americans the option of where they would want tax $’s to go to what transportation … roads 90%, Amtrak 5%.
Thye do not want the national debt to go up due to subsidies to Amtrak.
Sm,
Not only do I not trust you, you’re wrong.
A recent poll by Harris International found that 2/3rds of American’s support state and/or Federal funding of High Speed Rail.
By the way, on that 90%/5% thing, we’re just about on target with that. In the last 3 years the roads got $62 Billion in subsidies and Amtrak got about $4.5 Billion for a total of $66.5B. Taking 5% of that total would yield $3.325B. So Amtrak is getting about 6.5% of the subsidy pot.
If we could account for local subsidies and add that in, Amtrak would probably be lucky if they’re still getting 5% of the pot. Plus, since you said tax dollars, technically I should be adding in the funds collected by the Federal gas taxes, which would drop Amtrak’s percentage to about 3%. I can’t even begin to account for the state fuel taxes.
So based upon your numbers, you’re here bad mouthing Amtrak for getting about an extra 1.5% in funding if we only count subsidies and less than what you’ve suggested if we count total tax dollars.
May I please respectfully suggest that it’s time for you to find something else to hate. Amtrak is right where you suggest it should be!
___________________
SM: Wrong eh?
New Poll Finds More Americans Against Obama’s High-Speed Rail Plan Than For It
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/new-poll-finds-more-americans-against-obamas-high-speed-rail-plan-it
The poll found 41 percent of those surveyed backed the plan with 46 percent against it. There is a partisan divide on the issue with 59 percent of Democrats behind it, 62 percent of Republicans against it and 55 percent of independents opposing it.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2011/41_favor_high_speed_rail_plan_46_oppose
What is most impoertant in this poll is that 55% if independents are against high speed rail.
@ ahblid-
And then there was former President Ronald Reagan, a man whom I voted for twice by the way, who created the Mass Transit Fund to help fund bus, commuter rail, light rail, and heavy rail projects in our cities.
So what, exactly is your point as it relates to this post? I’m sorry BUT I FAIL TO SEE THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING. You are correct about one thing, Sir- our ROADS nationwide are one big, huge money pit- that is for sure. Also US better look at our power/infrastructure and upgrading that as well as both that I mention are seriously antiquated in many regions across America. That is OT, however=so once again I do not particularly comprehend what your argument or point is as it relates to the topic thread.
It was Irony, at best with some satire thrown in, no?
NGBoston,
You made a comment about liberals, so I pointed out some conservatives who did things to advance passenger rail in this country to show that passenger rail isn’t a “liberal” thing.
If your post was purely in jest, then I apologize for misreading things.
Gee, it only took you 24+ hours to approve my last post while you were no doubt desperately searching for something to counter my post with. Can you say “abuse of moderator power?”
I also note that you totally ignored that fact that Amtrak is right in line with your 5% funding target.
Turning to the Rasmussen survey, there is a 3% margin of error, which essentially means that they found the population about evenly split on HSR.
One thing that I found interesting, and frankly it doesn’t make sense given the other results of the poll (not suggesting that it invalidates the poll, just that it is odd), is the following.
They state that 62% of Republicans were opposed to HSR. But then they say “Upper-income Americans are more supportive of the high-speed rail plan than those who earn less than $60,000 annually.” Typically a higher percentage of those earning more would be Republican’s, while those earning less would tend to be Democrats. So I’m not sure just how that makes sense in light of the other results.
Finally, one thing that I’ve noticed is that many people seem opposed to HSR simply because President Obama is pushing for it and he’s a Dem and they’re Republicans. I have to wonder how much the various results of the two polls might change if people knew that many of the HSR routes were designated and approved by the Republicans.
Either way, with semi-competing polls (1 in favor and 1 essentially tied), I propose that we call this a tie. It seems that the country is close to being split right down the middle on rail.
______________
SM: Make another accusation like that and you will be banned permanently. Either respect this house or leave. We cannot help when a post gets caught up in a spam filter. Something that has happened to many commenters. Normally they just ask to check the spam filter, not making insane LEFTWING, nutcase accusations.
Sorry, but you are 100% wrong on this. When 55% of independents do not favor, that is far beyond your lame excuse of 3% margin of error.
If more people were in favor of high speed trains as you claim, more people would use them. End of story.
As I earlier stated, be respectful while you are here, wipe your feet before you enter this house and do not put your feet on the coffee table. Failure to do so will cause you not to be invited back.
R
Independents don’t make up a majority of the voters in this country. Then there is the fact that the Rasmussen survey results are at best suspect, as again, you can’t have Republican’s opposed when most Republican’s tend to be wealthier and the poll found that those making more than $60K were supportive of HSR. Finally there is the Harris poll that I referred to which found that 66% of Independents favored HSR.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/700/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx
So clearly the two polls are at odds with one another, even without the doubt cast by the results from the Rasmussen poll. So again, I propose that we call this one a tie.
Next, you’ve just provided circular logic. How can people show their favor for HSR by using HSR when there is no HSR for them to use? Especially if HSR means speeds over 150 MPH.
However, if we use the HSR definition provided by the Fed (a definition not set by the Obama White House), then more people are indeed using HSR in this country. In 2000 total ridership on the NEC was 8.4 million rides between Regionals, Metroliners, and the then fledgling Acela service. In 2010 that number had increased by 2 million to 10.4 million rides taken.
Back in 2000 Amtrak owned 39% of the air/rail market between NY & DC. As of 2010 they now own 69% of that market, leaving the airlines to split the remaining 31%.
In 2003, before speeds in Michigan were raised to 95 MPH, ridership on the Wolverines was 326,367. As of 2010 it’s now up to 479,782 and only about 1/3rd of the run is actually at HSR levels as set by the FRA & the White House.
And train ridership in general, with or without HSR continues to grow in this country. Amtrak’s total ridership back in 2000 was 20.992 million, in 2010 it was 28.716 Million.
Total rides taken on all types of trains (subways, El’s, light rail,commuter) has nearly doubled in the last 30 years from 2.488 billion rides taken in 1979 to 4.473 billion rides taken in 2008.
While you personally may not be riding trains and may have no desire to do so, and I’m not trying to force you to do so either, it is clear that more and more American’s are riding trains in this country. Those numbers would be even higher if only it wasn’t so hard to get funding and get things built. Those numbers would be even higher if only we hadn’t interfered in the Free Market in the first place.
_____________
SM: No Independents do not make up a mjaority, they just usually decide the election. BTW, how come you did not question Rasmussen when he predicted Obama’s win over McCain? Hmm? Nice how you try and slime someone when it fits your agenda.
I will take a Rasmussen poll over a Harris one any day.
I’m not trying to slime Rasmussen at all. I’m simply saying that something in the results does not make sense. It could have been the way that the questions were asked, it could have been a simple error, it could have been the people surveyed, or it could just be an out and out oddity. I don’t know, but it does cast doubt over the results.
And while I don’t exactly like stereotyping people, I don’t think that even you would deny that as a general rule those with higher incomes would tend to be Republicans. In fact in this country the poorest neighborhoods within cities tend to vote Democratic.