They Aren’t Serious

This was recently added to Romney’s facebook page.

Apparently the way to promote a “stronger middle class” is to defund a convenient and efficient mode of transportation that millions of middle class people use every year.

As for cutting the deficit — eliminating $1.6 billion from Amtrak won’t amount to a hill of beans if Romney passes his $5 trillion tax cut.

And if you’re suggesting we should charge more for soda to reduce the deficit, I’m going to make the charge that you aren’t serious. Because that sounds like something the CEO of a restaurant chain would propose.

That’s how Romney would govern, isn’t it? America Inc.

By the way, if Amtrak actually has lost over $800 million over the last 10 years on food, that’s still less than 1 percent of the cost of the Bush Tax Cuts over the same period of time.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Epic Fail and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • GrafZeppelin127

    I don’t know if it’s me, but can anyone else make sense of this?

    So we cut the Amtrak subsidy because… Amtrak loses $1.40 on every $2 soda it sells? WTF? How does that work? Is Amtrak paying $3.40 per can/bottle of soda it buys in bulk from wholesalers to sell on board trains? Its food and beverage service operates at a loss, so we should take money away from it? And this produces a “stronger middle class” how, exactly?

    I can’t make head or tail of what this graphic is supposed to be saying. It makes no sense at all.

    • jewelbomb

      Agreed. I wasted about five minutes of my life trying to parse this thing out, and I’m still not sure I get it.

    • JMAshby

      I was going to make that point, but edited it out.

      It costs about 25 cents to produce a can of soda. Maybe 15 cents without the can.

      • nasani

        Does that mean that you have to bring your own can (container) to be served a beverage?

    • muselet

      My guess is the campaign took the $83.4 million/year and divided it by the number of sodas sold. In other words, they lied. (Although, to be fair, I’ve heard that nonsensical statistic before, so it’s possible the Romney campaign simply embraced a Righty myth.)

      –alopecia

    • 1933john

      Hell, everyone knows that the middle class drive new cars and the 47 percent
      ride trains, buses, and drive old cars! To lazy to walk, I may add.
      The one percent don’t have to be concerned with all this minor shit as they
      fly over and drop blue ice on the irresponsible assholes.

  • http://doran.pacifist.net/ Doran

    I bet it’s just because Biden loves Amtrak.

    • nasani

      WINNER!

  • agrazingmoose

    Day by day it seems clear that Romney is not the brilliant business man that people make him out to be.

    • mrbrink

      I was just going over his financial disclosure statement from 2007, and it’s not that he’s brilliant at all.

      He’s like a gambler playing with house money who drops chips on every number of a roulette table, but rather than one spinning ball, Mitt Romney gets 38.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    Just desperate people grasping at straws for any news headline or distraction.

  • muselet

    Has our political discourse—not to mention the English language—been so debased that cutting government funding for Amtrak qualifies as a policy?

    –alopecia

  • justintimeDS

    And how many jobs would that kill? And here we were told Romney was a “job creator”

    • nasani

      You must not be paying attention to Romney. For him if you fire teachers, cops firemen, Amtrak workers, and any other public employees, that will automatically result in job creation in the private sector. You don’t have to see any factual evidence to support his assertion. You just have to trust him that once he is elected President everything will turn out as he promised. All you need to know to re-assure you, is that he was a business man for 25 years and he knows how to create jobs. As for all the companies that went bust under his watch and laid of thousands of workers, Romney assures you that it’s all lies manufactured by that un-American Obama.

      • justintimeDS

        Oh and you forgot to mention that ” of course the math works” on his budget after all he’s got Paul Ryan the ” budget wonk” as his running mate. All I can tell you is all the middle class people who vote for him deserve to have their taxes raised and their Medicare turned into a voucher

  • bphoon

    My understanding is that the government subsidizes Amtrak because it deems Amtrak vital to the national interest. Unworkable math aside, does Mitt Romney want us to believe we no longer need passenger rail service? It’s proven to be one of the most efficient methods of moving people.

    • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

      It takes money directly from the Oil Company stockholders by keeping Murrkins from their God-Given Right To Drive Everywhere, and so it must be stopped.

    • D_C_Wilson

      We subsidize Amtrak because the railroad companies decided to dump passenger service onto the federal government in the early seventies. Apparently, moving people around isn’t as profitable than moving cargo.

      Ironically, Nixon agreed to the deal because he hoped it would go bankrupt in a few years and he could justify shutting it down entirely. Too bad for him there was just enough support for passenger rail to keep it limping along for the last forty years.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        I don’t know if they “decided to dump” it; I think they just ran themselves out of business. The Pennsy and the NY Central merged in the mid-60s, around the same time the former bastards were tearing down Penn Station in NYC, and became the Penn Central, which was pretty much broke by 1970. The “private sector” could no longer compete with airplanes for long-distance domestic travel, so the government took over this still-vital service.

        Personally, I love Amtrak. I much prefer to travel from NY to Boston or DC by train. No waiting in security lines, I can plug in and use my laptop all the way, there’s more room, dining cars, etc.

  • mrbrink

    88 miles per hour!

    Actually, it was 110 miles per hour.

    JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — For the first time on a key Midwestern route between Chicago and St. Louis, an Amtrak passenger train topped 110 mph Friday, ripping through fog-shrouded farm fields and blowing past cars on a parallel highway.

    Didn’t spill one drop of soda.

    Go, baby, go!

    Not only that, but 30 million passengers took a ride on Amtrak last year. A record! There is demand! And that means less pollution, less congestion, less dependence on foreign oil, more durable jobs, mobility, choice– ideas with obvious enemies.

    The president is promoting and providing for badly needed infrastructure in the national interest. The U.S. constitution encourages it. So, if Republicans are fighting against the president, who exactly are they fighting? And, oh by the way, if your leadership produces a passenger train that goes 110 miles per hour, you’re picking winners. The stimulus prevailed, yet again, in promoting American interests.

    • nasani

      Wow! Imagine taking a train traveling at 110miles per hour! It takes me about three hours to drive from San Diego to Los Angeles. If I rode an Amtrak train, traveling at 110 miles per hour, my trip would take only one hour. On top of that, I would avoid having to deal with crazy traffic and deranged drivers that may be on the verge of taking my life. What in the world is wrong with these Republicans who oppose this type of progress?

    • Draxiar

      I addition to that they: don’t crawl up your ass with a microscope looking for bombs, charge you for every bag you decide to bring, stop you from getting up for the bathroom, allow you to use electronic devices, move around from car to car to stretch your legs, have more room per seat, let you see the countryside, don’t require that you be there 3 hours ahead of time to check in, and pop your ears.

      Train>or= Airplanes

      While Airplanes won’t go away, nor should they, I think trains are the future of continental travel. I think they do need to go faster if they’re to build popularity though. The Acela train out of Boston (and pretty much any train in Europe or Japan) is an example of what high speed rail can achieve. All things considered it takes less time to travel from Boston to New York on the Acela than it does to fly.

  • Username1016

    The only thing wrong with Amtrak is it doesn’t go fast enough. Bring on the bullet trains!!!

  • justintimeDS

    Next thing he’s going to say is that he will get rid of the US postal service so republicans can have their dream of privatizing the mail
    In 3, 2, 1 …

  • http://www.aquariusmoon.info CarolDuhart

    Everytime I read an anti-rail rant like this, I’m reminded that gas right now is about $3.50 a gallon. It’s at the point where any major bump in the supply (don’t wonder why the Right is jonesing for an Iranian war that would both end Iranian oil exports and close off oil transport) would push the price past $5 bucks. Alternative ways of transport would end the lethal stranglehold and keep oil profits down.

    Not only that but rail provides jobs that can’t be outsourced at a good wage that lasts for years. Rail can also multiply these jobs as well: think of all of the local businesses that a good rail system could generate, from cleaning services and food services to security. Romneybots hate the possibility of the American worker perhaps getting real job security again.