posted
Could the banking crisis affect Amtrak? Don't banks have something to do with Capital Improvements? If the government has to spend $700 billion to bail out the banks, might it be more inclined to cutting Amtrak out of the next budget altogether? After a huge bail out and the ongoing costs of war, it sounds like money is going to be tight on Capitol Hill!
-David Sommer
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
This financial crisis is going to affect every last person, business enterprise, and government agency before it is over.
Dream last night; My RRTA annuity was cut off, my portfolio and resulting investment income was tanked.....
Volks, this is real.
Finally, I realize the Bush administration is not held in any great esteem around here, but when one considers that they started governing and now are completing governing with likely two of the worst domestic crises in our history, that will, for better or worse, be a key point in their legacy.
Ocala Mike Member # 4657
posted
Amazing to me that this bailout of investment banks which produce no tangible goods or services (just money making money) will likely cost us a trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000, folks).
Imagine the tangible results that would accrue to the Average American if we merely took 10 billion of that ($10,000,000,000, or 1%) and dedicated it to Amtrak or any other transportation improvement that could benefit Joe Taxpayer.
McCain will have to divorce himself from the Bush administration big-time, for him to have any chance now.
dnsommer Member # 2825
posted
I would guess that in the event the economy "came to a grinding halt", business travel especially would plummet, seemingly "overnight".
Maybe some airlines would close, and more people would turn to Amtrak, which is said to be stretched to capacity already.
A lot of people would become unemployed. Some are saying it would be just like The Great Depression.
Iran's president says the American Empire has come to an end.
Shiver me timbers?
-Dave S
rresor Member # 128
posted
Actually, I think Mr. Norman needn't worry about his RRTA annuity, nor his portfolio (mine is down about 10% so far -- I didn't invest in collateralized debt obligations).
The "bailout" (so called) will not cost one trillion dollars or even 700 billion -- at least, if you're talking about net cost to the government. I work with a bunch of Ph.D. economists, and while they're transport economists, they're pretty smart guys with some knowledge of the national economy.
Best guess (and it is, after all, a guess) is that the $700 billion will serve to stabilize the market, and that many of the CDOs that the government buys at, say, 10 cents on the dollar will end up being resellable for considerably more than that as calm returns to the market.
After all, each CDO is a bundle of mortgages, some in default, some not, but all secured by real property.
So, as an opinion piece in today's WSJ says, the government may actually end up *making money* on the "bailout", to the tune of $1.5 to $2 trillion, net, when all is said and done.
Not such a bad deal for taxpayers, methinks.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Today's Wall Street Journal Online reports that the House-Senate Amtrak bill is being blocked:
posted
If we have been following ALL of the info we will note that this all began with the altrustic idea that American citizens (and some undocumented) should be permitted a mortage with less than 20% down. It then became less than 10% and eventually nothing at all. The lending institutions were BLACKMAILED to make these loans and APPRAISERS who could not, or would not, furnish the desired results were not hired again. It began in the CARTER adminstration and has continued until now. Those who attempted to control or more closely regulate this mess were voted down, including the CURRENT President. Look closely at the FREDDY MAC and FREDDIE MAE executives (with CLINTON administration ties) were able to enrich themselves and are large contributors to current election candidates.
However, as mentioned in the WSJ, this may be much less expensive than the $700B the taxpayers are to use in solving the problem because there will be tangible assets that are purchased with that money which may be sold to repay some or all of the $700B.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: If we have been following ALL of the info we will note that this all began with the altrustic idea that American citizens (and some undocumented) should be permitted a mortage with less than 20% down. It then became less than 10% and eventually nothing at all. The lending institutions were BLACKMAILED to make these loans and APPRAISERS who could not, or would not, furnish the desired results were not hired again. It began in the CARTER adminstration and has continued until now. Those who attempted to control or more closely regulate this mess were voted down, including the CURRENT President. Look closely at the FREDDY MAC and FREDDIE MAE executives (with CLINTON administration ties) were able to enrich themselves and are large contributors to current election candidates.
However, as mentioned in the WSJ, this may be much less expensive than the $700B the taxpayers are to use in solving the problem because there will be tangible assets that are purchased with that money which may be sold to repay some or all of the $700B.
Which is to say, all in all, a rather typical situation with a lot of the "feel good" programs. Those creating them know they will be a financial disaster, but also know, "the disaster will fall on the next or next after next administration, so if we play it right we can blame them and smell like roses ourselves rather than skunks like we ought to be smelling."
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
This is corporate welfare, which is immoral. We are writing a blank check to the clowns that caused the crisis to begin with. There will be no trickle down effect. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. There will be no trickle down effect to the consumer. We need to bail out Main Street, not Wall Street.
In terms of Amtrak, as long as energy prices are what they are, both houses are raping the American public by blocking Amtrak legislation. There is no legitamate argument against fully funding Amtrak. It is a needed and in demand public service that requires such a small percentage of the budget to maintain; much less than the federal government invests in air travel (facilities, ATC, TSA). Unfortunately, the crisis will affect Amtrak, albeight unjustly. When crisis hits, this president protects those that have protected him; big business. He has never been concerned with Main Street issues like energy and transportation. Expect more of the same if Bush The Third...oh, I mean McCain is in the White House.
posted
On the bright side, in the shadow of a $700 billion bailout for fat cats, nobody will be able to argue that $1.3 billion is too much for a national passenger rail system. In defending the bailout, politicians won't even have time to complain about Amtrak.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I agree with Mr. Toy; it will be a "give 'em their $1.3B and let's move on".
I've been "clipped" myself; positions in AIG and a Lehman Note; the former worthless, the latter at best "fifty cents on the dollar".
But my "annoyance" is minor when this past week I learned of a mid-level fiftysomething Lehman employee (never a client) based here who had a $700K 401K, apparently there was a covenant (yes this is legal) that stipulates that the plan assets must be invested in Lehman securities. This couple is now "illiquid" beyond what equity, if any, they have in their home.
How many times over the years did I advise clients employed by Fortune 500's and that made employer "matches" into their employees' 401K's with company stock to "lighten up" as soon as you could. The company stock is just another Plan Asset, and should be viewed towards expectation of performance and that the Plan has not become overweighted with such.
Evidently mid-level Lehman employees (and apparently the bigs as well) were barred from accepting my advice, which be assured any competent CPA would have given to his client.
Oh and finally to Patrick; if your agency offers an elective retirement plan, it is in all likelihood a 403B - and since not-for-profits do not issue stock, no one can require your personal Plan Assets be invested and locked into such - and its absolutely forbidden by law that your elective contributions become some sort of, say, "Individual Contribution" to the agency..
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
quote:Mr. Toy wrote:
In defending the bailout, politicians won't even have time to complain about Amtrak
Perhaps not, but there will continue to be a hue and cry over the depleted highway trust fund, which our "user fees" (I despise that misnomer) have seemingly (?) failed to cover for the first time since its institution.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: There is no legitamate argument against fully funding Amtrak.
Patrick, ignoring most of your rant, doesn't Amtrak seem to get pretty much what they ask for?
Don't they seem to ask for about $1.5B - and get appropriated about $1.3B. That's a pretty good batting average.
Even the Defense Dept doesn't get everything they want.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
Correctly stated, this is 'ok, you can shut up now' money to Amtrak. Its' about time. I still stand firm though that this corporate welfa..I mean bailout plan is fraudulent, but that's another topic.
posted
LOL-moving back to the topic of Amtrak (I take responsibility and blame)...
Hopefully Amtrak can invest some of that on additional rolling stock, which is desparately needed now. The money is there. I'm wondering though. It could be years before we see a single coach come off the assembly line, so where might Amtrak look for additional rolling stock for lease? With soaring gas prices, capacity is the issue (or appears to be the issue). I wonder if Amtrak can do what the airlines sometimes do and simply ADD SEATS to existing stock. A few less inches of leg room per row may be a sacrifice that needs to be made.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Reportedly, Patrick, there is consideration being given to strip the Acela Cafe's of their existing Food Service configuration and replace such with revenue seating.
Acela Coach (whoops Business) passengers would be served with trolley carts such as is now offered on the Chi-Milw Hiawathas.
Such would definitely represent an amenity downgrade, but austerity is going to be our name of the game for quite some time to come. (DJIA down 777 points today)
MDRR Member # 2992
posted
Not totally correct Mr Norman, the Acela cafe would be retained, however the galley would be downsized (as there is a lot of wasted space back there), the stools and bar area would be removed and I think the plan is either 24 or 36 seats would be added in the space that would be opened up. It will leave the car without an eating area, which some people don't like the current space anyway. The plans have been drawn up, just waiting on Capital funding to be budgeted to do the work.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Today the Senate brought out of committee the Amtrak bill and plan (supposedly) to vote on it Tuesday or Wednesday.
The media reporting on the bill focuses on the new safety measures rather than the Amtrak reauthorization.
Ocala Mike Member # 4657
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Such would definitely represent an amenity downgrade, but austerity is going to be our name of the game for quite some time to come. (DJIA down 777 points today)
Don't fret, Gil, markets go up and down. All you have to do is try and call the bottom (but if you're not careful, you might have to trade in that Lexus for a Corolla). I'm waiting for money market funds to "break the buck" for some real suffering.
posted