[Alberta's Child]

Why in the hell should a person in Alaska or Idaho give a shit if a bunch of eletist punks from the north east get any of their money.

Maybe because the typical resident of Alaska or Idaho receives more in the form of Federal spending than he pays in taxes. In the Northeast, it's the other way around.

If it weren't for taxpayers in the eastern U.S., sled dogs and stage coaches would still be the dominant forms of transportation in Alaska and Idaho, respectively.

[Protagoras]

Maybe because the typical resident of Alaska or Idaho receives more in the form of Federal spending than he pays in taxes. In the Northeast, it's the other way around.

Sadly that's what this country has become. A nation of people trying to suck the government teat fast enough to get thier share of the milk. They have bought into the notion that wealth is going to be redistributed anyway so why fight it? Suck harder and make youself well instead of reclaiming our heritage of freedom. It's a sell out that almost no one recognises anymore. Sad

[cincinnati_Steve]

Actually, the Midwest gets a poorer return on tax dollars than the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. So, those folks aren't shouldering the weight of the world, and they are not solely responsible for everything that gets done elsewhere.

Back to the argument of Amtrak...using this guy's whining logic, we should bust loose with a nationwide system of horse paths and bike paths. Dude, there's a reason why Amtrak cannot be self-sustaining, and it ain't because the government doesn't kick in enough cash...it's because nobody wants to ride a damned train. It takes you forever to get anywhere. Ergo, simply because it is a transportation alternative doesn't make it viable.

Let's build a coast-to-coast canal system while we're at it so all of the raft-riders can get around.