# Sad days acoming?



## BrokeCurmudgeon (Feb 8, 2016)

No more intercontinental long trains?
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...Amtrak-s-long-run-trains-11264619.php:ohwell:


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

BrokeCurmudgeon said:


> No more intercontinental long trains?
> http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...Amtrak-s-long-run-trains-11264619.php:ohwell:


The way I've heard it, most of the cuts will be in the little local podunk town trains, because those bring in less money than the big city commuters. The problem being those podunk towns rather need those trains, since they're far from airports and such.


----------



## slammin (Mar 25, 2016)

I fear with the current climate in DC, the only Amtrak trains will be those running along the commuter corridors. The budget cutters have been eyeing Amtrak for decades. Maybe if Amtrak would add some Lionel style missile launchers in their consists the coming military build up will save the trains!


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

My understanding is that the Northeast Corridor is profitable but it can't offset the costs of the rest of Amtrak.


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

It's not the administration's fault, it's not Amtrak's fault...it's the fault (if you want to call it that) of the riders. People don't want to take the time to travel anymore, they just want to get to their destination, hence profitable airlines.

To adequately serve the people, trains have to stop at just about every town along the route, so it takes forever to go long distance. People don't want to take the time to do that anymore. 

Riding leisurely along on a train, seeing America the Beautiful flow past is no longer the desire of the people. We are all in a hurry and want to get where we're going as fast as possible. When trains were the only mode of long-distance travel, it was the way to go. Cars and airplanes replaced trains decades ago, and no-one has been, or ever will be able to restore trains in America to the prominence they once had.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Fire21 said:


> It's not the administration's fault, it's not Amtrak's fault...it's the fault (if you want to call it that) of the riders. People don't want to take the time to travel anymore, they just want to get to their destination, hence profitable airlines.
> 
> To adequately serve the people, trains have to stop at just about every town along the route, so it takes forever to go long distance. People don't want to take the time to do that anymore.
> 
> Riding leisurely along on a train, seeing America the Beautiful flow past is no longer the desire of the people. We are all in a hurry and want to get where we're going as fast as possible. When trains were the only mode of long-distance travel, it was the way to go. Cars and airplanes replaced trains decades ago, and no-one has been, or ever will be able to restore trains in America to the prominence they once had.


That's part of it, but I also think that it's due to the direct subsidy of Amtrak being more obvious and less palatable than the indirect ones for other forms of transportation.

We have also lost sight of what it means to be fiscally responsible. Instead of spending money wisely, it's easier just to decide not to spend money at all. Avoids hard choices that way.


----------



## BrokeCurmudgeon (Feb 8, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> That's part of it, but I also think that it's due to the direct subsidy of Amtrak being more obvious and less palatable than the indirect ones for other forms of transportation.
> 
> We have also lost sight of what it means to be fiscally responsible. Instead of spending money wisely, it's easier just to decide not to spend money at all. Avoids hard choices that way.


Both points of view are reasonable. Let's avoid hard choices and rush to go nowhere. Truly sad days! In some respects, I am glad to be old and to not see much more of what I cherish disappear. hwell:


----------



## slammin (Mar 25, 2016)

Ko Improbable said:


> The way I've heard it, most of the cuts will be in the little local podunk town trains,


For the California Zephyr those "podunk towns" include Sacramento Ca, Reno, NV, Salt Lake City UT, Denver, CO, Omaha NE. Many of the smaller served cities out west are tourist destinations, Truckee CA, Grand Junction Glenwood Springs and Winter Park in Colorado, and you'll go thru scenery that you can't see any other way. The train has 33 stops in approx 2000 miles.


----------



## BrokeCurmudgeon (Feb 8, 2016)

slammin said:


> For the California Zephyr those "podunk towns" include Sacramento Ca, Reno, NV, Salt Lake City UT, Denver, CO, Omaha NE. Many of the smaller served cities out west are tourist destinations, Truckee CA, Grand Junction Glenwood Springs and Winter Park in Colorado, and you'll go thru scenery that you can't see any other way. The train has 33 stops in approx 2000 miles.


Being that I live in Salt Lake City, my wife is from Sacramento and we have both traveled via rail between Berkeley California, Auburn California, Colfax California and Salt Lake City many times over the past 70 plus years, I find this most disturbing!:smilie_daumenneg: The term "podunk" smacks of Eastern bias. (However, what is new in the West?) :cheeky4:


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

BrokeCurmudgeon said:


> Being that I live in Salt Lake City, my wife is from Sacramento and we have both traveled via rail between Berkeley California, Auburn California, Colfax California and Salt Lake City many times over the past 70 plus years, I find this most disturbing!:smilie_daumenneg: The term "podunk" smacks of Eastern bias. (However, what is new in the West?) :cheeky4:


Well, in my case, what I meant are towns where the nearest airport, bus station, etc is 50 miles away, but they have a passenger train that stops by regularly. *That* is the majority of the service I've heard will be cut. A list of something like 200 towns, around the country, that will end up more isolated than before.

Addendum: I'm in the Midwest, and the "bias," if any, is basically that I'm a city boy and there's "nothing to do" in those little towns out there.


----------



## dinwitty (Oct 29, 2015)

The railroads will have to take back the trains. They didnt keep the trains because of profit mongering. The early days the passenger trains were big PR for the railroads, they wanted model manufacturers to make their line, now its in reverse. 

Trump does not understand whats going on here why public support is correct, the riders spend money where they go, so its only right to support the trains as it supports the economy, it is not about simple profit directly from the train, it has long reaching aspects that effect the whole economy that is beyond the railroad itself.

knock it off, Trump.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

dinwitty said:


> Trump does not understand whats going on here


At last....news that's not fake! :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## rdcfellow (Jan 10, 2014)

*Going by Amtrak*

We enjoy riding on Amtrak and this November we leave Yuma to Chicago via Texas, down to New Orleans and then going back home but we will be stopping along the way here and there. It would be sad if Amtrak was cut back but we understand the economics of profit or loss and somewhere costs on ALL government enterprises has to come to an end including Amtrak or a least made profitable-break even. Prestige is costly to say the least.##############


----------



## gnnpnut (Oct 19, 2016)

Took the train from Chicago to Portland on the 18th of June, arrived back to Chicago on the 28th. My wife and 26 YO son accompanied me, and we purchased two roomettes. 

Spent a tidy sum of money on hotels in Ellensburg, WA, and Portland OR, ate at local restaurants, and dropped a bit of money on five bottles on various Washington white wines. Not to mention the money spend on three tickets for the 4449 excursion. 

I'm rather conflicted about the need for long distance passenger trains. My family and I have taken four long distance train trips in the last 16 years, three to Portland / Seattle, and one to Williams, AZ to the grand canyon. All were in either family sleepers, roomettes, or deluxe bedrooms / roomettes (girls in the deluxe, guys in the roomette). 

It is an extremely relaxing way to travel. But, others are subsidizing my family's vacations. In light of the current budget discussions, I fail to see why eliminating an appx. US$800M item makes any sense when the current administration is talking about INCREASING military spending by *US$55 BILLION.* 

So, I'm all for eliminating Amtraksubsidies, as long as there is NO INCREASE in military spending, and for that matter, a slight REDUCTION in military spending (the JSF would be a good place to start, followed by reductions in Littoral Combat Ship purchases). As far as I'm concerned, both Amtrak and military spending are both pork. I'm tired of subsidizing the defense of Japan, South Korea, and Western Europe, and looking for trouble in the South China Sea. 

Can somebody explain to me why we need 11 active carrier groups? 

Regards, 
Jerry


----------



## milehighxr (Dec 22, 2012)

gnnpnut said:


> Can somebody explain to me why we need 11 active carrier groups?
> 
> Regards,
> Jerry


Because we have become the "World Police". The UN has no teeth, and no stomach for the hard choices. I say we kick the UN out of the US, and get the USA out of the UN. I don't recall the UN helping out with hurricane Katrina, or with any of the terrorist hunting that has been going on throughout the world for the last 40+yrs, let alone since 9-11. 

I personally would much rather see all of our military personnel brought home, and have them focused on homeland defense. Keep the borders secure, keep the drugs out, and focus on remove home grown terror groups like BLM, and ending homelessness, and fixing our infrastructure here at home. I would much rather subsidize trains, and space planes than policing the world. 

Then maybe when we have our poop in a group, we can go forth and help WHEN ASKED AND TRULY WANTED- at cost of course. No more handouts, only hand ups.

We've done enough, let someone else do it, and bear the hate that helping(or is that meddling) has brought us...


----------



## BrokeCurmudgeon (Feb 8, 2016)

Why bring politics into one of the few respites we have in today's world with our model trains? It serves no good as I see it. There has to be better forums to discuss the political ills of the world. I am sorry that I was lamenting the passing of the rail era with my first post. :smilie_daumenneg: Just my opinion. And we, of course, all have opinions.:smokin:


----------



## milehighxr (Dec 22, 2012)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to make it political. Just answering a question and stating where I would rather see money spent


----------



## BrokeCurmudgeon (Feb 8, 2016)

milehighxr said:


> Sorry, I wasn't trying to make it political. Just answering a question and stating where I would rather see money spent


Point taken. It is just that I am so sick of politics that I can't even watch the news and I avoid many internet sites that promote one view or another. (And here I go doing just that) Along with the demise of rail travel we have lost civility and respect for others viewpoints. I didn't mean to offend.:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## milehighxr (Dec 22, 2012)

I thoroughly enjoyed being totally out of touch for 12 solid days when my oldest and I were at Philmont 

IWTGBTP


----------



## BrokeCurmudgeon (Feb 8, 2016)

milehighxr said:


> I thoroughly enjoyed being totally out of touch for 12 solid days when my oldest and I were at Philmont
> 
> IWTGBTP


As an old Scouter, I had always wanted to go to Phimont! I am envious!:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## milehighxr (Dec 22, 2012)

BrokeCurmudgeon said:


> As an old Scouter, I had always wanted to go to Phimont! I am envious!:smilie_daumenpos:


As they say, it's the hardest thing I ever loved. 

Next year its Northern Tier, then Sea Base in 2019. That will be my 3rd time to Se Base. I got to go twice as a scout, in feb from MI.

My oldest is on his way to Jambo now, and IF my youngest could go to World Jambo in 2019, I'd be killing ourselves trying figure out how to go. Unfortunately, World Jambo has a 14 and up rule like the high adventure camps do. National Jambo is 12(my youngest is 11) I don't get the extra 2 yrs for world...:dunno:


----------



## BrokeCurmudgeon (Feb 8, 2016)

milehighxr said:


> As they say, it's the hardest thing I ever loved.
> 
> Next year its Northern Tier, then Sea Base in 2019. That will be my 3rd time to Se Base. I got to go twice as a scout, in feb from MI.
> 
> My oldest is on his way to Jambo now, and IF my youngest could go to World Jambo in 2019, I'd be killing ourselves trying figure out how to go. Unfortunately, World Jambo has a 14 and up rule like the high adventure camps do. National Jambo is 12(my youngest is 11) I don't get the extra 2 yrs for world...:dunno:


It sounds like Scouts is thoroughly embedded into yourself.:appl::laugh:


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

BrokeCurmudgeon said:


> As an old Scouter, I had always wanted to go to Phimont! I am envious!:smilie_daumenpos:


My youngest two are attending next summer. Unfortunately, there isn't enough mileage left on my aged body to go with them.


----------



## GansettII (Dec 2, 2016)

Amtrak built a new station in Wickford to serve people working in Providence,,roughly 15 miles away and those that work in Boston. They are now offering free rides for commuters to and from Mon -Fri to providence as no one is utilizing this train service. 292 riders last week. Cost to build 10 million, but it was 90% free gubmint money..

Amtrak just put plans on hold to straighten out a few curves here but that would entail taking property by imminent domain. Cost is unknown, or they aren't telling, but their big selling point is faster service that'll cut a minute, that's 60 seconds to you folks in Lorba Linda, off the travel time.

I am a firm believer that all the village idiots work in gubmint.


----------



## milehighxr (Dec 22, 2012)

BrokeCurmudgeon said:


> It sounds like Scouts is thoroughly embedded into yourself.:appl::laugh:


It's a hobby that seems to consume most of my time. I gotta make time for the other ones, especially the trains, and the XR...



CTValleyRR said:


> My youngest two are attending next summer. Unfortunately, there isn't enough mileage left on my aged body to go with them.


Start training _*now*_. They need to hike with their crews, and start getting used to the idea of "crew first". We had 2 scouts on our crew that had a "me first" mentality, and they didn't have as much fun as they could have. We had another scout on our other crew, that didn't train enough, and on the hardest day his crew carried everything but his pack and his water.

If you start training now, and figure out what your weak points are, you'll be fine. Just get your personal gear down as light as you can afford to, and train as hard as possible, between now and day one at Philmont. I didn't train as much as I would have liked to, but I didn't get hurt, or have any huge problems where I had to ask the boys to stop because I was falling behind. In fact, only fell a few yards behind whenever I raised my 4lb camera to snap some of the more than 600 photos I took:eyes:

I came across an old guy(had to be mid late 60s, may be 70 even) and it his 3rd trek, maybe 4th. It his first time back to Philmont in 50yrs IIRC His trek was anywhere from 80-107mi I think. Ours was 57mi, we had a lot of program on our trek. Feel free to hit me up with a pm and we can chat more over email.


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

BrokeCurmudgeon said:


> No more intercontinental long trains?
> http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...Amtrak-s-long-run-trains-11264619.php:ohwell:


I hope this isn't too political a quote, but to me it completely describes the government's view of our country:

“Government is not a solution to our problems, government IS the problem… Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” — Ronald Reagan

I think that shows what happened to railroads in the past...they essentially stopped moving. As for the present, it seems that maybe the govt is actually looking at it's spending and deciding to slow it down in some areas. It's a change in the way things have been done, and change often causes discomfort and pain. hwell:


----------



## BrokeCurmudgeon (Feb 8, 2016)

Fire21 said:


> I hope this isn't too political a quote, but to me it completely describes the government's view of our country:
> 
> “Government is not a solution to our problems, government IS the problem… Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” — Ronald Reagan
> 
> I think that shows what happened to railroads in the past...they essentially stopped moving. As for the present, it seems that maybe the govt is actually looking at it's spending and deciding to slow it down in some areas. It's a change in the way things have been done, and change often causes discomfort and pain. hwell:


I completely agree.


----------



## GNfan (Jun 3, 2016)

Here's a radical idea - what if Amtrak stations were near airports, at least out here in the west? That's where all of the supporting services (like rental cars) are. Somebody commented about Ellensburg, WA. They had to rent a car somewhere (like Seattle or Pasco) to get there . . . there hasn't been regular passenger rail service to Ellensburg in at least 25 years.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

milehighxr said:


> Start training _*now*_. They need to hike with their crews, and start getting used to the idea of "crew first". We had 2 scouts on our crew that had a "me first" mentality, and they didn't have as much fun as they could have. We had another scout on our other crew, that didn't train enough, and on the hardest day his crew carried everything but his pack and his water.
> 
> If you start training now, and figure out what your weak points are, you'll be fine. Just get your personal gear down as light as you can afford to, and train as hard as possible, between now and day one at Philmont. I didn't train as much as I would have liked to, but I didn't get hurt, or have any huge problems where I had to ask the boys to stop because I was falling behind. In fact, only fell a few yards behind whenever I raised my 4lb camera to snap some of the more than 600 photos I took:eyes:
> 
> I came across an old guy(had to be mid late 60s, may be 70 even) and it his 3rd trek, maybe 4th. It his first time back to Philmont in 50yrs IIRC His trek was anywhere from 80-107mi I think. Ours was 57mi, we had a lot of program on our trek. Feel free to hit me up with a pm and we can chat more over email.


The boys are training well, both individually and in crews. I have connective tissue and bone issues in my knees and feet, some of which would require surgery to correct, and rehab, etc. And my job and other activities don't allow for a massive training regimen without some significant life changes. No, I'll enjoy it vicariously through my boys. There are plenty of folks older than I am who successfully attend Philmont, but their situations are different.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

Fire21 said:


> I hope this isn't too political a quote, but to me it completely describes the government's view of our country:
> 
> “Government is not a solution to our problems, government IS the problem… Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” — Ronald Reagan
> 
> I think that shows what happened to railroads in the past...they essentially stopped moving. As for the present, it seems that maybe the govt is actually looking at it's spending and deciding to slow it down in some areas. It's a change in the way things have been done, and change often causes discomfort and pain. hwell:


That's not the correct quote. In his first inaugural address, talking about defecits and spending, he said "In this current crises, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem...." The rest of the quote is false.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

GansettII said:


> Amtrak built a new station in Wickford to serve people working in Providence,,roughly 15 miles away and those that work in Boston. They are now offering free rides for commuters to and from Mon -Fri to providence as no one is utilizing this train service. 292 riders last week. Cost to build 10 million, but it was 90% free gubmint money..
> 
> Amtrak just put plans on hold to straighten out a few curves here but that would entail taking property by imminent domain. Cost is unknown, or they aren't telling, but their big selling point is faster service that'll cut a minute, that's 60 seconds to you folks in Lorba Linda, off the travel time.
> 
> I am a firm believer that all the village idiots work in gubmint.


That's more true now than ever.


----------



## gnnpnut (Oct 19, 2016)

GNfan said:


> Here's a radical idea - what if Amtrak stations were near airports, at least out here in the west? That's where all of the supporting services (like rental cars) are. Somebody commented about Ellensburg, WA. They had to rent a car somewhere (like Seattle or Pasco) to get there . . . there hasn't been regular passenger rail service to Ellensburg in at least 25 years.


That would be me. Rented from Enterprise rental, who picks you up. Turned out I really didn't need to be picked up, it was only about five blocks away from the Portland Amtrak station, which is about the equivalent of the distance I have to walk from an airline gate, to the baggage counter, and then to the rental counter. 

Did the same on two trips to Seattle, booked Enterprise, and they picked me up at King Street Station. A little further drive, but hey, they picked me up and dropped me off. Better than an airport shuttle. 

Didn't mind the drive either. Beautiful part of the country. 

Really appreciated the ability not to have to fly. I have between 1-3 years before I pull the pin and retire. On that day, that will be the LAST time I fly anywhere. If I can't drive, or take the train, and rent a car, I don't need to go. 

Regards, 
Jerry


----------



## gnnpnut (Oct 19, 2016)

Fire21 said:


> I hope this isn't too political a quote, but to me it completely describes the government's view of our country:
> 
> “Government is not a solution to our problems, government IS the problem… Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” — Ronald Reagan
> 
> I think that shows what happened to railroads in the past...they essentially stopped moving. As for the present, it seems that maybe the govt is actually looking at it's spending and deciding to slow it down in some areas. It's a change in the way things have been done, and change often causes discomfort and pain. hwell:



As I've stated in my post, I have no problem eliminating my subsidized long distance train travel. But IF THIS COUNTRY IS SERIOUS ABOUT ELIMINATING DEFICITS, WHY IS THE MILITARY SPENDING INCREASING SIGNIFICANTLY, INSTEAD OF DECREASING?

F18s do a darn fine job, as did A-10s, F-16s, and Harriers. 

Those aircraft programs could have continued. And it would not have cost the forcasted US$1.1 TRILLION dollars that the JSF will cost. 

Littoral combat ships are not designed to operate off of the coastal United States, they are designed to operate in shallow water where the US may choose to project military power. 

Before killing Amtrak, which also provides jobs for the direct personnel, as well as for any equipment supplier, how about we inject some fiscal responsibility into military spending. Lets ensure that we have a Department of Defence, not a Department of Offense. 

Tell me why again why we are sailing past some piece of sand in the western Pacific ocean, antagonizing China? 

Regards, 
Jerry


----------



## slammin (Mar 25, 2016)

It sure looks like this thread is getting out of hand! Amtrak stops in my town (well 8 miles away, close enough). We've taken the train to Denver on several occasions, a great ride. We purchased our current van in Glenwood Springs, about 90 miles east and took the train to pick it up. I hope to have time to take the California Zypher to Chicago or maybe the left coast while I still can. I've always found the equipment clean, the staff friendly and the food was decent as well. Some guys make up for their physical short comings by buying the loudest truck, fanciest car, or the biggest gun. Something to ponder.


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

gnnpnut said:


> Can somebody explain to me why we need 11 active carrier groups?
> 
> Regards,
> Jerry


There was a conference in France
where a number of international engineers were taking part,
including French and American.
During a break, one of the French engineers came back into
the room saying, "Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done?
He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims.
What does he intend to do, bomb them?"

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly:
"Our carriers have three hospitals on board
that can treat several hundred people;
they are nuclear powered and can supply
emergency electrical power to shore facilities;
they have three cafeterias with
the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day,
they can produce several thousand gallons of
fresh water from sea water each day,
and they carry half a dozen helicopters for
use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.
We have eleven such ships;
how many does France have?"


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

gnnpnut said:


> As I've stated in my post, I have no problem eliminating my subsidized long distance train travel. But IF THIS COUNTRY IS SERIOUS ABOUT ELIMINATING DEFICITS, WHY IS THE MILITARY SPENDING INCREASING SIGNIFICANTLY, INSTEAD OF DECREASING?
> 
> F18s do a darn fine job, as did A-10s, F-16s, and Harriers.
> 
> ...


All I can say, Jerry, is that you either believe in national defense or you don't.

If you do, then you try to stay a step or two ahead of potential and real enemies. As they improve their capabilities and equipment, so do you.

If you don't, then you just sit back and let yourself be taken over.

The Model T did a darn fine job...when it comes to getting me where I want to go, personally I prefer the cars we have today. For their time, the F-16s, A-10s and F-18s did a darn fine job...when it comes to defense of my country against those like Iran and North Korea, personally I prefer the capabilities of more modern aircraft.


----------



## Frisco Firefly (May 17, 2012)

Getting back to Amtrak

When we returned to Seattle from our Alaska cruise we took the train down to Portland where some friends picked us up to stay with them for 5 days. They live some place east of Mt Hood.

It was a beautiful train ride down the coast. Very comfortable and all kinds of leg room. Nothing like being crammed into the cattle car they call an airplane.


----------



## gnnpnut (Oct 19, 2016)

Fire21 said:


> There was a conference in France
> where a number of international engineers were taking part,
> including French and American.
> During a break, one of the French engineers came back into
> ...


So now the mission of our military is humanitarian? Is that why we need Littoral Combat ships too?

We can't find the money to take car of our own, and subsidize Amtrak, but we need to be the solution to all of the world's problems., and justify 11 carrier groups for that? 

9 or 10 carrier groups can't get the job done?
Jerry


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

Fire21 said:


> If you do, then you try to stay a step or two ahead of potential and real enemies. As they improve their capabilities and equipment, so do you.


Or, to put it another way, ask a WWII Sherman tank crewman how he felt about military technology keeping up with that of potential enemies. The figure I heard was that only when the Shermans outnumbered the Panzers 12 to 1 did they have a good chance of winning the fight. That, right there, is probably why there's so much focus on keeping US Military technology ahead of foreign military tech. It's probably a proverbial mental scar on the US Military mindset.


----------



## gnnpnut (Oct 19, 2016)

Fire21 said:


> All I can say, Jerry, is that you either believe in national defense or you don't.
> 
> If you do, then you try to stay a step or two ahead of potential and real enemies. As they improve their capabilities and equipment, so do you.
> 
> ...


I fully support, and have no problems with funding the finest manpower and equipment required for that task for NATIONAL DEFENSE. 

Fitted with modern avionics and weapons systems, the older aircraft would do a darn fine job of national defense, at a far lower price point. 

Canada continues to place its bets on the F-18, Denmark has been asked to consider F-18s over the JSF. 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24012/canada-f-18-order/ 


Here is a comparison between the JSF and an A-10:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...er-vs-10-warthog-the-ultimate-close-air-16857

https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/09/f-35-never-as-a10-in-cas/


I grow weary of the arguments that you are either for National Defense and the explosive cost overruns or you are not. The defense "industry" is the fattest hog out there, but yet we have to cut Amtrak subsidie, and blindly accept what the DOD, and their contractors lobby down our throats. 

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Jerry


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Ko Improbable said:


> Or, to put it another way, ask a WWII Sherman tank crewman how he felt about military technology keeping up with that of potential enemies. The figure I heard was that only when the Shermans outnumbered the Panzers 12 to 1 did they have a good chance of winning the fight


Well, in WWII, Germany was more than just a "potential enemy".....however, the "mighty Panzers" were not all that they were cracked up to be....sure, they may have been better technically and had more firepower....if they made enough of them or could even keep them running....plus, Sherman tactics changed as the war went on, and that greatly reduced any advantages the German armour may have had...

The Germans were never going to win the way they did it.....they didn't make enough tanks to do the job....that, plus the fact that only 20% of the German army was ever mechanized in WWII.....the rest was pulled by horses.....

It's been said that the one country that shouldn't have gone to war when it did was Germany....a couple years of more production of war machines would have made a bigger difference....



Ko Improbable said:


> That, right there, is probably why there's so much focus on keeping US Military technology ahead of foreign military tech. It's probably a proverbial mental scar on the US Military mindset


"Foreign Military Tech"? ISIS has managed to do a lot of damage in the world.....I wonder what their military spending budget is....? hwell:


----------



## Overkast (Jan 16, 2015)

I am a train lover, so the idea of cutting Amtrak (or any rail) services is a heartbreaking thought. But in the context of simple economics, cutting something that is not profitable just makes sense, as tough of a pill as that is to swallow.

What doesn't make sense is the offsetting of that concept with a massive increase in military spending. In a time when the budget deficit is so important to everybody that it fuels heated debates about which services to cut and which people should / should not be affected by those cuts, those debates are all simply moot and irrelevant when a massive increase to military spend is in play still eating up our tax dollars. 

I'm convinced there really is no plan from either party to actually reduce our deficit - it is all just a game to keep the status quo (or increase) on massive tax income to the government, and just moving the "spend" to different sectors with different private interests that will yield the most returns for that particular party.

Our government now simply operates to ensure it is taking care of itself and not the people. Lobbyists put money in politicians' pockets, which makes being a politician a lucrative career where you can ensure your own family stays healthy and wealthy, and thus you ensure your power of control that way.

One can balance the books if they wanted to, but there's too much money and luxuries to be had and enjoyed by cooking the books instead.


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

Old_Hobo said:


> "Foreign Military Tech"? ISIS has managed to do a lot of damage in the world.....I wonder what their military spending budget is....? hwell:


That's true. And "goat herders with antiquated weapons" in Afghanistan have basically defeated modern militaries three times, now.

It's true that developing new tactics can help, but, we're approaching a tech level where being behind the curve means they can shoot at us while we can't shoot at them.

All this said, I think we'd be better of cutting a lot of military/defense funding and focusing on ceasing to give other countries reasons to want to pick fights with us. Especially with the insane practices that went on in Iraq and Afghanistan (such as buying a new truck, at a vastly inflated price, because the old one got a flat tire, and then destroying the old truck).
That may eventually mean sitting on the sidelines while Nation A destroys and annexes Nation B, but that seems to be what the global community wants us to do.


----------



## milehighxr (Dec 22, 2012)

Cutting foreign aid would pay for a lot of Amtrak:laugh:


----------



## gnnpnut (Oct 19, 2016)

milehighxr said:


> Cutting foreign aid would pay for a lot of Amtrak:laugh:


You got that right!

Here is a link that details foreign aid:

http://foreignassistance.gov/

I guess we can't find US$800M to carve out of the US$42.3 BILLION we spend overseas. 

Jerry


----------

