Passenger Trains > NARP says"we're not broke"

In this time of political "failure", I suggest a look at the latest from the National Association of Railroad Passengers:

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/narpblog/more/suprcmte_rxn/

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

Yip, a 3% cut in discretionary spending would be tough.

To put it in perspective, the State Department would somehow have to
get by with spending only $494 million for the Kabul Embassy expansion, rather than the
$509 million proposed.

Also, If the Pentagon was required to reduce the price they pay no-bid vendors for
diesel fuel and jet fuel delivered to Afganistan, it would require them to quit paying $400 per gallon
and somehow reduce the the cost to only $388 per gallon.

I doubt that the procurement folks at either the State Department or the Pentagon could
make these cuts....

We better cut things like domestic healthcare, food stamps and vital domestic infrastructure.

War is very profitable unless your rear end is shot off; passenger trains rarely make money.

Ashkicker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yip, a 3% cut in discretionary spending would be
> tough.
>
Reread the article, it says a .3% cut, not 3%!
Even a .3% cut there will be a lot of money lost to
a lot of programs.

It is time for the PEOPLE of this country to tell
Congress and the White House to lose the Party First
NONSENSE and do what is required of them. Represent
the PEOPLE of this country and put the good of the
country FIRST!
Mike

At first glance, I thought the claim was that NARP was broke.

korotaj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> War is very profitable unless your rear end is
> shot off; passenger trains rarely make money.


Sad..but true