General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHouse defeats conservative effort to defund Amtrak
The House rejected a conservative proposal late Wednesday night to eliminate $1.1 billion in federal subsidies for Amtrak.
An amendment offered by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) to a government spending package for the next fiscal year failed on a 128-293 vote with a bipartisan coalition uniting in opposition.
Brooks, a member of the House Freedom Caucus who failed to advance in the Alabama Senate GOP primary last month, argued that Amtrak subsidies were unnecessary.
Stated differently, what policy justification is there for forcing Americans who dont use Amtrak to subsidize the travel of Americans who do use Amtrak? I know of none, Brooks said during House floor debate.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/railroads/349573-house-defeats-conservative-effort-to-defund-amtrak
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)freddyvh
(276 posts)RKP5637
(67,108 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...who don't get hit by hurricanes to subsidize rebuilding your states every couple of years.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)America would have never been what it is today if we had more like this idiot. No moon landing, no leadership of the Free World (that is gone now thanks to Trump and Republicans), no innovation, none of the medical break-throughs, nothing!
We need high speed rail powered by solar and wind. We need more big thinking! The wealthy who can do those things only know to hoard and take advantage of the Wall Street casino where they have the advantage over the small investors.
turbinetree
(24,695 posts)wanted this country to go further into a failed third rate state, while the other industrialized countries are putting billions and millions into public train service.
Why is this POS still in office?
And as for his f*cking logic:
Stated differently, what policy justification is there for forcing Americans who dont use Amtrak to subsidize the travel of Americans who do use Amtrak? I know of none, Brooks said during House floor debate."
Well ass**** it's because we are in this "all" together, like the framers intended, so the question that needs to be asked and, "stated differently" why are taxpayers paying for a $174,000 a year by forcing Americans to subsidize a ...........F*CKING IDIOT?
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . what policy justification is there for forcing Americans who dont want to fight useless, wasteful and deadly wars to subsidize the corporations who think these useless, wasteful and deadly wars are necessary? I know of none.
Wow, Mo . . . I can do that too.
machoneman
(4,007 posts)Why, oh why should I subsidize them?