CSX, John Snow and Dubya
Bill Gustason
secretary. Surely he could have done better. Then again, maybe he wanted
someone just like him.
Snow's CSX Was An Also-Ran
Dan Ackman, 12.10.02, 9:00 AM ET
NEW YORK - President George W. Bush appointed John Snow as Treasury
secretary for his political acumen, not because he was a great railroad
executive. But in his years as chief executive of CSX, the company's
performance was middling at best. Nevertheless, Snow was by far the
highest-paid chief in the industry.
In 1995, seven years ago, CSX, one of five leading railroad companies in the
U.S., reported sales of $10.3 billion and profits of $1.1 billion. For 2001,
sales were $8.1 billion and profits were $293 million.
Over the past six years, Snow was paid $29.3 million in salary and other
cash compensation . This pay package was nearly twice as large as the
second-best paid railroad CEO, Norfolk Southern's (nyse: NSC - news -
people ) David Goode, who earned $16.8 million over that time.
Not surprisingly, given his appointment, many on Wall Street give Snow a
pass. "He has been a strong, decisive leader," says Jill Evans, a railroad
stock analyst for J.P. Morgan Chase (nyse: JPM - news - people ). As for the
company's falling earnings and declining revenue, Evans notes it has been a
tough economy, especially for manufacturing and coal--both areas that affect
CSX. J.P. Morgan Chase has recently done investment banking work for CSX.
Other railroads have managed to grow, however. Kansas City Southern, Norfolk
Southern and Union Pacific have all increased revenue slightly in the last
three years (see chart below). CSX has never returned to profit levels of
the mid-1990s despite the fact that its asset base has increased to $20.8
billion, from $16.9 billion, since 1996 .
Perhaps for that reason, CSX shares trade for 47% less than they did five
years ago. Over that period, CSX shares trailed three of the four other
major railroad stocks, beating only Kansas City Southern. Over the past
year, CSX is dead last in terms of share-price performance. In that year,
the company paid its CEO $10.1 million.
CSX VS. The Competition
Railroad Revenue in millions for 2001, 2000 1999
CSX $8,110 $8,191 $10,811
Burlington Northern Santa Fe $9,208 $9,205 $9,100
Kansas City Southern $577 $572, $1,813
Norfolk Southern $6,170 $6,159 $5,195
Union Pacific $11,973 $11,878 $11,273
Railroad Income in millions for 2001, 2000, 1999
CSX $293 $565 $2
Burlington Northern Santa Fe $731 $980 $1,137
Kansas City Southern $31 $381 $323
Norfolk Southern $375 $172 $239
Union Pacific $966 $842 $810
Evans credits Snow with leading CSX through a difficult three-way merger in
which it and Norfolk Southern bought Conrail and split it between the two
railroads. That deal closed in 1999. Since then, Norfolk Southern has
increased both earnings and revenue. CSX has failed to do likewise.
Though many had kind words for the nominee, noting his experience leading
the Business Roundtable, an association of big-company chief executives, his
communication skills, his work in government during the Ford Administration
and his integrity, Wall Street's attitude towards his company is hardly "all
aboard." Of the ten sell-side analysts who cover the company, eight rate it
a "hold," two say "buy" and none call it a "strong buy."
One analyst who recommends the stock is Rick Paterson of UBS Warburg. He
notes that "CSX in terms of profits and stock performance has lagged its
peer group." Recent efforts to restore profitability and fully integrate
Conrail have been a "slow and frustrating process," he says. But he argues
that the stock is worth buying because when CSX starts to equal the profit
margins of other railroads, as he expects it will, the shares should rise.
Paterson likes Snow personally, calling him genuine, a straight shooter, a
nice guy and a consensus builder. Now his job will be to soothe members of
Congress--many of whom are said to dislike Paul O'Neill, the ousted Treasury
secretary--and to sell the President's new tax-cut plan, details of which
should emerge in the next month. Good thing tax cuts are rarely a tough
sell.
railroadman
wrote:
John Snow is a good manager, and I believe he will do well as Sec. of
the treasury. His main problem at CSX, as employees see it was too
much of a case of overactive testosterone when dealing with the
beginnings of th e Conrail Acquisition.
The price of CRR was bid up way past what it was worth, and this
reduced the earnings abilities of both CSX and NS considerably, as
well as mortgaging the future of both companies for the next 20 years
or more -- and making both of them prime takeover candidates if
another company is willing to assume the debt load.
Now we are seeing the beginnings of a shedding off of redundant CRR
lines by both companies, which will be necessary to pay the cost of
keeping the rest running and reasonably profitable.
Railroadman
Merritt Mullen
jhsu...@attbi.com (railroadman) wrote:
> The price of CRR was bid up way past what it was worth, and this
> reduced the earnings abilities of both CSX and NS considerably, as
> well as mortgaging the future of both companies for the next 20 years
> or more -- and making both of them prime takeover candidates if
> another company is willing to assume the debt load.
Well, he should fit right in with the current administration, which is
operating the country by mortgaging the future (ie. operating on borrowed
money and running up the national debt, rather than operating on actual
revenues).
I hope the USA doesn't become a "prime takeover candidate."
Merritt
Carl Zwanzig
>Well, he should fit right in with the current administration, which is
>operating the country by mortgaging the future (ie. operating on borrowed
>money and running up the national debt, rather than operating on actual
>revenues).
I've always failed to understand why "tax and spend", a label usually
applied to Democrats, is worst than "borrow and spend" which is what
recent Republican administrations have been doing.
z!
Joe
The nation is at war, tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
attacks, and the economy is slow . Would you be happier if we slash spending
now, cutting every service until the budget is balanced? Amtrak subsidies
should be among the first to go. Sink or swim. Would you prefer high taxes
which would provide quick revenue in the very short term but would propel the
economy into a deeper recession/depression as Japan has done?
Let's not forget that the Reagan tax plan Doubled tax revenues while lowering
sky high interest rates that had the prime rate at 18% pre-Reagan.
Unfortunately the Congress spent $1.76 for every dollar of revenue.
Adam H. Kerman
>Here's an article from Forbes.com on the Dubya's nominee for treasury
>secretary. Surely he could have done better. Then again, maybe he wanted
>someone just like him.
>Snow's CSX Was An Also-Ran
>Dan Ackman, 12.10.02, 9:00 AM ET
>NEW YORK - President George W. Bush appointed John Snow as Treasury
>secretary for his political acumen, not because he was a great railroad
>executive. . . .
>Though many had kind words for the nominee, noting his experience leading
>the Business Roundtable, an association of big-company chief executives, his
>communication skills, his work in government during the Ford Administration
>and his integrity, Wall Street's attitude towards his company is hardly "all
>aboard." Of the ten sell-side analysts who cover the company, eight rate it
>a "hold," two say "buy" and none call it a "strong buy."
I don't recall him from the Ford administration. Can anyone think of anything
he's known for?
Adam H. Kerman
>The nation is at war, tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
>attacks, and the economy is slow .
Huh? Bush put us on the path to the budget deficit in the previous fiscal year
by pushing for those ridiculous tax cuts and then failing to cut spending. What
did you expect would happen?
Next year, we face the most expensive government reorganization in history
which is going to interfere with whatever changes are actually needed to
improve national security.
No, dude: We're not at war. Not yet. That'll really put us in the toilet.
>Would you be happier if we slash spending now, cutting every service until the
>budget is balanced?
Two years ago, Bush promised major cuts in defense spending. What the hell
happened to them? That's where to make the cuts.
>Amtrak subsidies should be among the first to go.
Dude, cuts in domestic spending will not balance the budget. Think about it.
>Let's not forget that the Reagan tax plan Doubled tax revenues while lowering
>sky high interest rates that had the prime rate at 18% pre-Reagan.
>Unfortunately the Congress spent $1.76 for every dollar of revenue.
Republicans have both houses. What do you think is going to happen to spending?
The appropriations bills haven't been passed. You're expecting frugality?
Joe
> Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>
> >The nation is at war, tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
> >attacks, and the economy is slow .
>
> Huh? Bush put us on the path to the budget deficit in the previous fiscal year
> by pushing for those ridiculous tax cuts and then failing to cut spending. What
> did you expect would happen?
First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the rebate.
So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small as they are, won't
even kick in for two more years from now. You can send yours back if you really
think that is a better idea. Tax cuts that are significant enough increase tax
revenue. It works every time it's been tried, starting with John F. Kennedy's tax
cuts.
> Next year, we face the most expensive government reorganization in history
> which is going to interfere with whatever changes are actually needed to
> improve national security.
Both sides of the aisle feel that this is the best thing to do. Where can I find
your plan?
>
>
> No, dude: We're not at war. Not yet.
Tell that to my son who is serving us in a combat zone in the war right now.
> That'll really put us in the toilet.
Another terrorist attack is what will "put us in the toilet."
> >Would you be happier if we slash spending now, cutting every service until the
> >budget is balanced?
>
> Two years ago, Bush promised major cuts in defense spending. What the hell
> happened to them? That's where to make the cuts.
What the hell happened? You missed what happend. On September 11, 2001 the nation
was attacked and 3000+ people were murdered by savages with promises by the same
savage groups to attack again. Clearly this was unnoticed by you.
> >Amtrak subsidies should be among the first to go.
>
> Dude, cuts in domestic spending will not balance the budget. Think about it.
So what is your proposal? Stop homeland defense? Increase our vulnerability to
more terrorist attacks? Slash the military? What will another terrorist attack
do for the economy?
>
>
> >Let's not forget that the Reagan tax plan Doubled tax revenues while lowering
> >sky high interest rates that had the prime rate at 18% pre-Reagan.
> >Unfortunately the Congress spent $1.76 for every dollar of revenue.
>
> Republicans have both houses. What do you think is going to happen to spending?
> The appropriations bills haven't been passed. You're expecting frugality?
Being cheap right now will cost us more, far more, in the long run.
Merritt Mullen
> Carl Zwanzig wrote:
>
> > Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >Well, he should fit right in with the current administration, which is
> > >operating the country by mortgaging the future (ie. operating on borrowed
> > >money and running up the national debt, rather than operating on actual
> > >revenues).
> >
> > I've always failed to understand why "tax and spend", a label usually
> > applied to Democrats, is worst than "borrow and spend" which is what
> > recent Republican administrations have been doing.
>
> The nation is at war,
If you think the nation is at war, then you probably haven't been around
when the nation was really at war, and its citizens were expected to
sacrifice in behalf of the war effort.
> tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
> attacks, and the economy is slow.
Tax revenues are way down, not because of terrorist attacks, but because
Bush intentionally cut tax rates, and the econony is slow.
> Would you be happier if we slash spending
> now, cutting every service until the budget is balanced? Amtrak subsidies
> should be among the first to go. Sink or swim. Would you prefer high taxes
> which would provide quick revenue in the very short term but would propel the
> economy into a deeper recession/depression as Japan has done?
The latter. We are grossly undertaxed for the services we demand. But
the real issue is not the amount of government spending the where the
money should be spent. Both Democrat and Republican congesspersons want
to spend more money, they just disagree on what the money should be spent,
and whether the revenues should come from taxes or borrowing.
> Let's not forget that the Reagan tax plan Doubled tax revenues while lowering
> sky high interest rates that had the prime rate at 18% pre-Reagan.
Reagan's tax plan doubled tax revenues? How come the national debt rose
faster than at any time in our history. You may be thinking of when
Kennedy reduced taxes and revenues went up, but Kennedy was reducing rates
that went up to 90%, if I remember correctly.
I agree Reagan's policies lowered the sky-high interest rates, but that is
easy to do if you induce a recession as Reagan did. Hoover's policies
also managed to cause interest rates to decline in the 1930s.
> Unfortunately the Congress spent $1.76 for every dollar of revenue.
During the Reagan years, Congress actually reduced every Reagan budget
proposal. If they has passed the Reagan budgets, the deficits would have
been worse.
Merritt
Joe
> In article <3DF6A26B...@joe.joe>, Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>
> > Carl Zwanzig wrote:
> >
> > > Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > >Well, he should fit right in with the current administration, which is
> > > >operating the country by mortgaging the future (ie. operating on borrowed
> > > >money and running up the national debt, rather than operating on actual
> > > >revenues).
> > >
> > > I've always failed to understand why "tax and spend", a label usually
> > > applied to Democrats, is worst than "borrow and spend" which is what
> > > recent Republican administrations have been doing.
> >
> > The nation is at war,
>
> If you think the nation is at war, then you probably haven't been around
> when the nation was really at war, and its citizens were expected to
> sacrifice in behalf of the war effort.
You're wrong. I am a veteran of the US Marine Corps. My son is serving as we
speak. Assuredly, we are at war.
>
>
> > tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
> > attacks, and the economy is slow.
>
> Tax revenues are way down, not because of terrorist attacks, but because
> Bush intentionally cut tax rates, and the econony is slow.
The reduced tax rates have not even kicked in, and they won't for two more years.
So much for that theory of reducing tax revenues. BTW: No president can cut tax
cuts rates by himself. Every state is also facing massively declining revenues as
well. Surely we cannot falsely blame Bush for reducing state tax rates in each
state government too.
> > Would you be happier if we slash spending
> > now, cutting every service until the budget is balanced? Amtrak subsidies
> > should be among the first to go. Sink or swim. Would you prefer high taxes
> > which would provide quick revenue in the very short term but would propel the
> > economy into a deeper recession/depression as Japan has done?
>
> The latter. We are grossly undertaxed for the services we demand.
Undertaxed?
> But
> the real issue is not the amount of government spending the where the
> money should be spent. Both Democrat and Republican congesspersons want
> to spend more money, they just disagree on what the money should be spent,
> and whether the revenues should come from taxes or borrowing.
Investing in our future is the best place to spend money. Unfortunately so much
federal spending is wasted. The United States spends far more on education than
any other country in the world, but the more we spend, the worse the education
product gets. D.C. schools now spend more per pupil than any school in the nation,
yet it has performance among America's worst.
>
>
> > Let's not forget that the Reagan tax plan Doubled tax revenues while lowering
> > sky high interest rates that had the prime rate at 18% pre-Reagan.
>
> Reagan's tax plan doubled tax revenues? How come the national debt rose
> faster than at any time in our history.
The debt rose because Congress spent $1.76 for every dollar of revenue that came
in. If I double your salary, but you nearly triple your spending, you will find
yourself in trouble too. And actually debt rose faster in 1993 than at any point
in the 1980s.
> You may be thinking of when
> Kennedy reduced taxes and revenues went up, but Kennedy was reducing rates
> that went up to 90%, if I remember correctly.
>
> I agree Reagan's policies lowered the sky-high interest rates, but that is
> easy to do if you induce a recession as Reagan did. Hoover's policies
> also managed to cause interest rates to decline in the 1930s.
The nation was was in recession while the previous administration's policies were
still in effect. As for Hoover, FDR renamed them, but continued many of Hoover's
Keynesian Economic policies, including the government spending programs.
> > Unfortunately the Congress spent $1.76 for every dollar of revenue.
>
> During the Reagan years, Congress actually reduced every Reagan budget
> proposal. If they has passed the Reagan budgets, the deficits would have
> been worse.
This statement is simply not even remotely close to true. The facts may easily be
verified with Office of Management and Budget documents that list White House
proposed budgets and Congress outlays for the past 50 years and more. The budget
that Congress passed was GREATER than what Reagan requested for every year but one
(1984). If they had passed the Reagan budgets the deficits would have been much
smaller by the time Reagan left office. In fact, Congress even overrode Reagan
spending vetoes (such as Boston's Big Dig, now $15 Billion and climbing fast). and
took him to court to spend more money.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>>>The nation is at war, tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
>>>attacks, and the economy is slow .
>>Huh? Bush put us on the path to the budget deficit in the previous fiscal
>>year by pushing for those ridiculous tax cuts and then failing to cut
>>spending. What did you expect would happen?
>First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the
>rebate. So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small as
>they are, won't even kick in for two more years from now.
I said "put us on the path". Regardless, FY 2002 was hardly prudent. One
year after Clinton, no more surplus.
>You can send yours back if you really think that is a better idea.
I've decided not to die in 2009, so my estate will pay the big tax.
>>Next year, we face the most expensive government reorganization in history
>>which is going to interfere with whatever changes are actually needed to
>>improve national security.
>Both sides of the aisle feel that this is the best thing to do. Where
>can I find your plan?
Step 1: Don't reorganize.
>>No, dude: We're not at war. Not yet.
>Tell that to my son who is serving us in a combat zone in the war right now.
Which zone? We're still not at war.
>>That'll really put us in the toilet.
>Another terrorist attack is what will "put us in the toilet."
War on Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Don't you want your son to
come home?
>>>Would you be happier if we slash spending now, cutting every service
>>>until the budget is balanced?
>>Two years ago, Bush promised major cuts in defense spending. What the hell
>>happened to them? That's where to make the cuts.
>What the hell happened? You missed what happend. On September 11, 2001
>the nation was attacked and 3000+ people were murdered by savages with
>promises by the same savage groups to attack again. Clearly this was
>unnoticed by you.
I missed the bit that giving the military a massive budget increase is any way
to deal with terrorists armed with box cutters. The terrorists are not
attacking us with a highly mechanized army that our defense department is
preparing to fight a war against. We aren't under attack from the Soviet
Union, Germany, or Japan. The first no longer exists; the latter two are our
allies, for the moment. Iraq isn't going to invade us, nor is Iran.
The defense budget gets a phenominal increase, yet we remain unprepared to
deal with more terrorism incidents. I vote: Fight terrorism with old-fashioned
police work. Let the FBI go anywhere in the world to follow the money trail.
The military cannot track these people down.
>>>Amtrak subsidies should be among the first to go.
>>Dude, cuts in domestic spending will not balance the budget. Think about it.
>So what is your proposal? Stop homeland defense?
What have I been saying? No, I would not reorganize government. It's that
simple.
>Increase our vulnerability to more terrorist attacks?
More bureaucracy is no threat to terrorists.
>Slash the military?
What does a huge increase in the military budget have to do with terrorists
armed with no-tech weapons? Try a bit of common sense, will you?
>>>Let's not forget that the Reagan tax plan Doubled tax revenues while
>>>lowering sky high interest rates that had the prime rate at 18% pre-Reagan.
>>>Unfortunately the Congress spent $1.76 for every dollar of revenue.
>>Republicans have both houses. What do you think is going to happen
>>to spending? The appropriations bills haven't been passed. You're
>>expecting frugality?
>Being cheap right now will cost us more, far more, in the long run.
Yes, I expect the Republicans to pork it up, too.
Adam H. Kerman
>Merritt Mullen wrote:
>>We are grossly undertaxed for the services we demand.
>Undertaxed?
Yes, dude. When Party A receives significant benefit from government services
that Party B pays for, Party A is grossly undertaxed.
Jackie
Excellent point. The top 50% of tax payers pay 96.09% of tax revenues to the
IRS, according to the IRS. The people who receive the welfare, medicaid, social
services, subsidized housing, free housing, etc. are the people that don't pay
any taxes. They, most assuredly, are quite undertaxed.
Joe
> Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
> >>Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>
> >>>The nation is at war, tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
> >>>attacks, and the economy is slow .
>
> >>Huh? Bush put us on the path to the budget deficit in the previous fiscal
> >>year by pushing for those ridiculous tax cuts and then failing to cut
> >>spending. What did you expect would happen?
>
> >First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the
> >rebate. So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small as
> >they are, won't even kick in for two more years from now.
>
> I said "put us on the path". Regardless, FY 2002 was hardly prudent. One
> year after Clinton, no more surplus.
The "surplus" was a myth to begin with, because it entailed generating a surplus
by moving social security funds into the general budget. Regardless, the
terrorists struck 8 months after Clinton.
>
>
> >You can send yours back if you really think that is a better idea.
>
> I've decided not to die in 2009, so my estate will pay the big tax.
Why wait? I mean if you don't think you are taxed enough, you can happily send
much more into the Department of the Treasury. Mark your check "Debt Reduction."
>
>
> >>Next year, we face the most expensive government reorganization in history
> >>which is going to interfere with whatever changes are actually needed to
> >>improve national security.
>
> >Both sides of the aisle feel that this is the best thing to do. Where
> >can I find your plan?
>
> Step 1: Don't reorganize.
You already made that point. What's the real rest of your plan?
>
>
> >>No, dude: We're not at war. Not yet.
>
> >Tell that to my son who is serving us in a combat zone in the war right now.
>
> Which zone? We're still not at war.
Wrong again.
> >>That'll really put us in the toilet.
>
> >Another terrorist attack is what will "put us in the toilet."
>
> War on Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
Wrong. 1.) Iraq has had numerous ties to terrorism and has been funding
terrorists for years. 2.) For more than a decade we have tried
everything--diplomacy, sanctions, inspections, limited military action--except
war to convince Saddam to keep the promises he made, and the U.N. endorsed, to end
the Gulf War. 3.) Remember that Iraq under Saddam is one of only seven nations in
the world to be designated by our State Department as a state sponsor of
terrorism, providing aid and training to terrorists who have killed Americans and
others. 4.) We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored
in Iraq.
Saddam's is the only regime that combines growing stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons and a record of using them with regional hegemonic ambitions
and a record of supporting terrorists. If we remove his influence from the Middle
East and free the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny, we will transform
the politics of the region. That will only advance the war against terrorism, not
set it back.
> Don't you want your son to
> come home?
Neither of us want him to come down with his share unfinished.
>
>
> >>>Would you be happier if we slash spending now, cutting every service
> >>>until the budget is balanced?
>
> >>Two years ago, Bush promised major cuts in defense spending. What the hell
> >>happened to them? That's where to make the cuts.
>
> >What the hell happened? You missed what happend. On September 11, 2001
> >the nation was attacked and 3000+ people were murdered by savages with
> >promises by the same savage groups to attack again. Clearly this was
> >unnoticed by you.
>
> I missed the bit that giving the military a massive budget increase is any way
> to deal with terrorists armed with box cutters. The terrorists are not
> attacking us with a highly mechanized army that our defense department is
> preparing to fight a war against. We aren't under attack from the Soviet
> Union, Germany, or Japan. The first no longer exists; the latter two are our
> allies, for the moment. Iraq isn't going to invade us, nor is Iran.
We're not at war with tthe terrorists armed with box cutters. The terrorists
armed with box cutters died on September 11, 2001. We are at war with massive
well funded terrorist cells and groups. We have been engaged in an ongoing
conflict with Saddam's regime ever since the Gulf War began. Every day, British
and American aircraft and personnel are enforcing no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq; the ongoing force of about 7,500 American men and women in uniform
costs our taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. Saddam's air defense forces have
shot at U.S. and British planes 415 times (and counting) in 2002 alone.
>
>
> The defense budget gets a phenominal increase, yet we remain unprepared to
> deal with more terrorism incidents. I vote: Fight terrorism with old-fashioned
> police work. Let the FBI go anywhere in the world to follow the money trail.
> The military cannot track these people down.
The FBI is smarter and has more capabilities abroad than the military? The FBI
can't even find Whitey Bulger, who was one of their own.
> >>>Amtrak subsidies should be among the first to go.
>
> >>Dude, cuts in domestic spending will not balance the budget. Think about it.
>
> >So what is your proposal? Stop homeland defense?
>
> What have I been saying? No, I would not reorganize government. It's that
> simple.
That's the only suggestion you have to make on the issue. Keeping everything the
same as it was before Sept 11 2001 does not protect us in the future. Taking
strategic action to realign the government to meet the needs of the current
situation does.
>
>
> >Increase our vulnerability to more terrorist attacks?
>
> More bureaucracy is no threat to terrorists.
Homeland defense defends us from terrorism.
>
>
> >Slash the military?
>
> What does a huge increase in the military budget have to do with terrorists
> armed with no-tech weapons? Try a bit of common sense, will you?
The only thing that has ever worked against terrorism is to NEVER NEGOTIATE and
always strike back. It worked in the 1980s and it will work again today. Each of
our presidents has tried diplomacy, but when it failed, they unleashed America's
military forces across the globe to confront tyranny, to stop aggression, and to
prevent any more damage to America or Americans.
Joe
The people who get everything free from the government courtesy of the taxpayers
and don't pay any taxes themselves are undertaxed, yes.
Merritt Mullen
> >First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the
> >rebate. So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small as
> >they are, won't even kick in for two more years from now.
That is not true. Most of us received in 2001 an advance of $300 or $600
on the tax reduction that was effective in that year (the taxes that were
due on 15 Apr 2002). The Bush tax reductions have been effective for
almost two years now.
Unless you are unusually well-to-do, you probably didn't even notice your
"tax cut" and it didn't affect your standard of living. And if you think
something wonderful in terms of tax cuts is coming in two years, you have
another think coming.
But you are correct about the cuts being small--small for us average
middle-class taxpayers. The intent was to benefit the big taxpayers and
corporations, on the theory that if the rich benefit, the benefits will
trickle down to us ordinary slobs.
Of course, it is the small taxpayer who tends to spend all his disposible
income. If the small guy gets some to keep some extra money, he is going
to spend it on goods and services, invigorating the economy. The wealthy
taxpayer is already spending at a rate he is comfortable with, and a
larger than usual tax refund (or the extra disposable income from a lower
tax rate) is more likely to go into his estate, rather than being
immediately spent on goods and services.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>
> > I said "put us on the path". Regardless, FY 2002 was hardly prudent. One
> > year after Clinton, no more surplus.
>
> The "surplus" was a myth to begin with, because it entailed generating a
> surplus by moving social security funds into the general budget.
Sorry, guy. That was done under Reagan to cover up his irresponsable
fiscal policy.
The surplus under Clinton was real. The US took in more revenue than it
spent.
> Regardless, the terrorists struck 8 months after Clinton.
Which has almost nothing to do with our deficit problem. Hell, even New
York City, which was hit the hardest, admitted the economic impact of the
attacks was relatively small, given the overall level of city's economy.
> Why wait? I mean if you don't think you are taxed enough, you can happily
> send
> much more into the Department of the Treasury. Mark your check "Debt
> Reduction."
One could do that, but as you know, it wouldn't make any difference.
> > >>Next year, we face the most expensive government reorganization in
> > >>history
> > >>which is going to interfere with whatever changes are actually needed to
> > >>improve national security.
> >
> > >Both sides of the aisle feel that this is the best thing to do. Where
> > >can I find your plan?
Well, the Republicans had to be dragged into the idea. It was proposed by
the Democrats. Bush said there was no need for a reorganization. Only
when they realized they could use the reorganization to implement some
favorite ideas (like gutting the civil service and breaking unions).
> > >>No, dude: We're not at war. Not yet.
> >
> > >Tell that to my son who is serving us in a combat zone in the war right
> > >now.
The existance of a combat zone does mean the country is at war (although I
agree that those involved in the particular combat are at war). The
country is at war when the citizenry and the manufacturing plants are on
war footing. We wouldn't be worried about the economy if we were at
war--there would be full employment and the factories would working around
the clock. The main concern would be inflation caused by too many dollars
in consumers' pockets chasing too few consumer goods. Instead of worrying
about our trains and planes running with too few passengers, the
government would ask you to consider "is this trip really necessary."
That's war.
> > >Another terrorist attack is what will "put us in the toilet."
You have very little trust in the underlying strength of the American
economy, it you think terrorist attacks will undermine our economy.
What will undermine our economy is irresponsible fiscal policy, that says
just as the government is breaking even we should cut taxes with no
thought for tomorrow. Well, Bush cut taxes thinking the Clinton party
would never end, and what happens, we are unexpectedly (unexpected by the
Bush administration, anyway) attacked by terrorists, putting the federal
government in a situation of needing to spend extra dollars to meet that
unexpected situation. If you think the deficit is bad this year, wait
until next year.
By the way, have you ever thought about what it means to finance our
government with Treasury bonds? Who is paying interest on those bonds?
You and me and all the other average taxpayers, that's who. Who is
earning the interest on those bonds? The bond holders of course, who tend
to be the wealthier Americans, as well as a lot of foreigners, who buy the
bonds with US dollars they earn by exporting goods (such as oil) to the US.
As the deficit goes up, more and more of our tax dollars go to pay the
interest on the national debt and less and less of our tax dollars are
available to defend the country and provide for domestic programs.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
> > If you think the nation is at war, then you probably haven't been around
> > when the nation was really at war, and its citizens were expected to
> > sacrifice in behalf of the war effort.
>
> You're wrong. I am a veteran of the US Marine Corps. My son is serving as
> we speak. Assuredly, we are at war.
Well, I'm a retired Navy Commander (aviator) and I don't consider the
country to be at war, even though we have a few troop engaged in combat
operations. To be at war involves every one, including all civilians, not
just a few who happen to be on active duty.
Of course, the Marines would say, "It's not much of a war, but it's the
only one we have."
But we both know what the actual situation is, we just have a different
definition of what it means to say "the country is at war."
> > > tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
> > > attacks, and the economy is slow.
> >
> > Tax revenues are way down, not because of terrorist attacks, but because
> > Bush intentionally cut tax rates, and the econony is slow.
>
> The reduced tax rates have not even kicked in, and they won't for two more
> years.
How can you say that? The cut in in calendar year 2001, with the advance
payments mailed out by the Treasury. The rates in the tax table for 2001
stayed the same, but that was because the reduction was reflected in the
advance payment.
For this calendar year (2002) we have been paying (in our withholding) at
a reduced rate since January 1st.
> So much for that theory of reducing tax revenues. BTW: No president can cut
> tax cuts rates by himself. Every state is also facing massively declining
> revenues as well. Surely we cannot falsely blame Bush for reducing state tax
> rates in each state government too.
Of course not. But it started with Reagan saying all government is
wasteful and evil and convincing people that taxes are bad. The states
cut taxes as well, but unlike the federal government (except for one
state), the states must balance their budget each year. The only way to
do that (and continue to provide services such as police, fire, highways,
education, etc) is to raise taxes. So if you federal taxes are reduced,
and the federal government is downsized, more and more the states will
have to pick up the slack. That means the states will be raising taxes.
So it is a fantasy to think that by the federal government cutting taxes,
you will end up with more money in your pocket.
That said, I think it is good for the tax burden to be shifted back to the
states, as the closer the tax policy is to the tax payer, the better. But
states have gotten use to building their budgets on federal money. When
that dries up, there is going to be a painful adjustment.
Enough said (by me, anyway) on this subject. It is not appropriate for
this group, and people are going to start complaining.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>>>>>The nation is at war, tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
>>>>>attacks, and the economy is slow .
>>>>Huh? Bush put us on the path to the budget deficit in the previous fiscal
>>>>year by pushing for those ridiculous tax cuts and then failing to cut
>>>>spending. What did you expect would happen?
>>>First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the
>>>rebate. So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small as
>>>they are, won't even kick in for two more years from now.
>>I said "put us on the path". Regardless, FY 2002 was hardly prudent. One
>>year after Clinton, no more surplus.
>The "surplus" was a myth to begin with, because it entailed generating a
>surplus by moving social security funds into the general budget. Regardless,
>the terrorists struck 8 months after Clinton.
Dude, I cannot help put notice that you post to Usenet anonymously, even
trying to hide your domain in your Message-ID.
I should have ignored you, but I didn't. I should post to this newsgroup to
discuss railroads, only. Instead, I'm following up to some guy who doesn't
even stand behind the comments he makes.
>>>>Next year, we face the most expensive government reorganization in history
>>>>which is going to interfere with whatever changes are actually needed to
>>>>improve national security.
>>>Both sides of the aisle feel that this is the best thing to do. Where
>>>can I find your plan?
>>Step 1: Don't reorganize.
>You already made that point. What's the real rest of your plan?
Step 2: Take some of the resources that would have been spent to reorganize,
and use it to devote the necessary police personnel to pursue the terrorists.
>>>>No, dude: We're not at war. Not yet.
>>>Tell that to my son who is serving us in a combat zone in the war right now.
>>Which zone? We're still not at war.
>Wrong again.
You don't want to tell us where he is? Up to you.
>>>>That'll really put us in the toilet.
>>>Another terrorist attack is what will "put us in the toilet."
>>War on Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
>Wrong. 1.) Iraq has had numerous ties to terrorism and has been funding
>terrorists for years.
Believe what you want; that's not why we'd go to war with them. Iraq
undoubtably has terrorist ties, but they aren't behind THESE terrorists, who
certainly don't want a regime that represses religion in Iraq.
>2.) For more than a decade we have tried everything--diplomacy, sanctions,
>inspections, limited military action--except war to convince Saddam to
>keep the promises he made, and the U.N. endorsed, to end the Gulf War.
I suppose that as long as we went to war 10 years ago, we should have
invaded and occupied Iraq. There's no point in doing it now, if only because
we regret mistakes of the past.
>4.) We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored
>in Iraq.
I'm not privvy to such intelligence.
>Saddam's is the only regime that combines growing stockpiles of chemical
>and biological weapons and a record of using them with regional hegemonic
>ambitions and a record of supporting terrorists. If we remove his influence
>from the Middle East and free the Iraqi people to determine their own
>destiny, we will transform the politics of the region. That will only
>advance the war against terrorism, not set it back.
You mean, exactly what we didn't do 10 years ago. If there was no compelling
reason to do it when we had defeated him, why now?
>>I missed the bit that giving the military a massive budget increase is any
>>way to deal with terrorists armed with box cutters. The terrorists are not
>>attacking us with a highly mechanized army that our defense department is
>>preparing to fight a war against. We aren't under attack from the Soviet
>>Union, Germany, or Japan. The first no longer exists; the latter two are
>>our allies, for the moment. Iraq isn't going to invade us, nor is Iran.
>We're not at war with tthe terrorists armed with box cutters. The terrorists
>armed with box cutters died on September 11, 2001. We are at war with massive
>well funded terrorist cells and groups.
Exactly what the funding increase going to the military IS NOT DESIGNED TO
DEAL WITH.
>>The defense budget gets a phenominal increase, yet we remain unprepared
>>to deal with more terrorism incidents. I vote: Fight terrorism with
>>old-fashioned police work. Let the FBI go anywhere in the world to follow
>>the money trail. The military cannot track these people down.
>The FBI is smarter and has more capabilities abroad than the military?
No; the FBI has been absolutely incompetent. They had one man, John O'Neill,
who led a team to investigate the earlier incidents. Bureaucracy and petty
jealously among higher ups at the FBI, and the State Department during
investigation of the U.S.S. Cole incident, thwarted the very competent
investigation being conducted by O'Neill. Frontline did a documentary a few
months back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
Nevertheless, we still need real police work performed. The military cannot
really do this.
>>>So what is your proposal? Stop homeland defense?
>>What have I been saying? No, I would not reorganize government. It's that
>>simple.
>That's the only suggestion you have to make on the issue. Keeping everything
>the same as it was before Sept 11 2001 does not protect us in the future.
While I agree, that does not lead me to conclude that establishing a massive
bureaucracy will protect us either.
>Taking strategic action to realign the government to meet the needs of the
>current situation does.
It's not what we are doing!
>>>Slash the military?
>>What does a huge increase in the military budget have to do with terrorists
>>armed with no-tech weapons? Try a bit of common sense, will you?
>The only thing that has ever worked against terrorism is to NEVER NEGOTIATE
>and always strike back.
If the terrorists would kindly tell us where they are at this moment, the
military is perfectly capable of wiping them out, even within their original
FY 2002 budget. We have the largest defense in the world. It didn't intimidate
the terrorists. Making it larger still won't intimidate them.
>It worked in the 1980s and it will work again today. Each of our presidents
>has tried diplomacy, but when it failed, they unleashed America's military
>forces across the globe to confront tyranny, to stop aggression, and to
>prevent any more damage to America or Americans.
Perhaps we shouldn't have intervened in the Afghan War 20 years ago to give
assistance to those who would become our enemy. Perhaps we shouldn't have
allied ourselves with Saddam at any time. Today's awkward alliances always
seem to become tomorrow's problems.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Undertaxed?
What has cause this invasion of our newsgroup by people who have only first
names? Are you both relatives of Cher, Madonna, and Roseanne?
Dude or dudette, you forgot to add those on Social Security pensions (usually
about 1/4 of government spending) and Medicare and unemployment to your list.
Old-fashioned welfare has been cut dramatically; it's a rather small share of
spending. It's there because, to some extent, society as a whole benefits
from it, just like Social Security pensions. At least that's how it was sold
to the taxpayers. Starving and homeless people aren't good for the economy.
I'll grant you that our welfare system never worked all that well.
John Albert
<< Well, he should fit right in with the current administration, which is
operating the country by mortgaging the future (ie. operating on borrowed
money and running up the national debt, rather than operating on actual
revenues).>>
Gee, Merritt, if ever a statement you have made has been apropos to
something, your statement _above_ is a perfect summation of the way that
AMTRAK has been managed over the past decade, particularly regarding the
Acela Express project....
And that's exactly why Amtrak is where it is today!
<grinning>,
- John
Bill Gustason
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:uvd94v7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I don't recall him from the Ford administration. Can anyone think of
anything
> he's known for?
I think he was an undersecretary in the Dept. of Transportation. There's no
truth to the rumor that his pseudonym is "Joe".
Here are some later developments: he belongs to the golf club that sponsors
the Masters tournament (it excludes women), his $15 million dollar golden
parachute (including $3.3 million in salaries and bonuses) has a clause
saying that he gets it all if he leaves the company to go into public
service (under pressure, he has renounced it), and now the latest bit: in
1996, CSX helped Snow obtain about $25 million in loans to buy company stock
but when the stock plunged, the company forgave the debt and accepted the
stock in payment. These loans are now illegal under the recently passed
legislation but were legal in 1996. But the point is, how would you like to
borrow 25 mil and have to pay back only a fraction of it (and of course no
interest payments)?
Here's a guy who headed a Class1 railroad that has underperformed 5 of the
other 6 Class 1's for 5 years running, and during that time received salary
and benefits averaging $5 million a year--far more than the other RR CEO's
were making. Nice work if you can get it. And where are those people who
are always complaining that UTU and BLE employees are overpaid?
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>I don't recall him from the Ford administration. Can anyone think of
>>anything he's known for?
>I think he was an undersecretary in the Dept. of Transportation.
Chicago Tribune gave his public office positions Tuesday:
1973-74: deputy assistant secretary: policy, plans, international affairs
1974-75: assistant secretary for governmental affairs
1975-76: deputy assistant undersecretary (doesn't say what portfolio)
1976-77: administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
After the Ford administration, he went right to work for the railroad,
apparently on the CEO track immediately.
I suppose NHTSA did something controverial, but I don't know what. Usually,
government affairs means you're the guy that deals with lower-ranking
congressional staffers and elected officials in various parts of the country.
The pre-NHTSA titles sound like places to park patronage.
From media reports, he doesn't sound like the type of guy who let concerns for
his personal integrity stand in the way of taking a buck.
Merritt Mullen
wrote:
You are absolutely correct. But what is even scarier, is that when Gunn
tried to get a loan guarantee or cash grant from the DoT earlier this
year, he was told by that department that the "business-like" way of
handling his cash shortage would be to mortgage more of Amtrak's property.
That indicates the either (1) the current administration doesn't
understand basic good business practices, or (2) they were deliberately
trying to get Amtrak to dig themselves a deeper hole, with the hope of
expediting Amtrak's demise. Fortunately, Gunn is no sucker and did not
fall for DoT's suggestion. I fear Warrington would have.
But in any case, I worry more about the failure of the US economy, than I
do about the failure of Amtrak. I could live with an Amtrak collapse, but
I wouldn't want to live through another great depression and worldwide
chaos.
Merritt
Jeff Nor Lisa
complimentary. Apparently, he made a lot of promises with regard
to how Conrail would appear after a CSX takeover with an HQ in
Philadelphia and did not deliver. Also of course is the bad mess
CSX found itself in after the takeover (as did NS), when it promised
it would be smooth.
Joe
It was pretty much a given that there would be snags when the Conrail
racket was broken up, especially into two pieces at once. But the big
picture for the long term is a very positive one. Rail competition is
restored to the northeast. Conrail seemed to be in the scrap metal
business more than the railroad business at times. Freight travel has
increased significantly since Conrail and they are using some tracks
that haven't been used in years. The break up effectively finally
reversed the disastrous Pennsylvania/New York Central merger, and
generally aligned the former PRR with Norfolk Southern and the former
NYC with CSX (with exceptions of course). This was a huge deal. No
matter who was picked to be the treasurer, there would have been a lot
of complaints/criticism from sudden economics experts. Also, the policy
making function of any US treasurer is extremely limited. Monetary
policy is conducted by the FOMC, while fiscal policy begins in the
Congress.
Joe
> > Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>
> > >First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the
> > >rebate. So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small as
> > >they are, won't even kick in for two more years from now.
>
> That is not true. Most of us received in 2001 an advance of $300 or $600
> on the tax reduction that was effective in that year (the taxes that were
> due on 15 Apr 2002). The Bush tax reductions have been effective for
> almost two years now.
I noted earlier that the $300 per taxpayer rebate checks are the ONLY tax
reduction that is already in effect. The tax rate reductions are time delayed
by statue and will not effective for two more years. The tax reductions cannot
possibly be causing any deficits because they are not even in place yet! That
delay is unfortunate because the economy needs the boost now.
> Unless you are unusually well-to-do, you probably didn't even notice your
> "tax cut" and it didn't affect your standard of living. And if you think
> something wonderful in terms of tax cuts is coming in two years, you have
> another think coming.
Everybody got the same $300 check.
> But you are correct about the cuts being small--small for us average
> middle-class taxpayers. The intent was to benefit the big taxpayers and
> corporations, on the theory that if the rich benefit, the benefits will
> trickle down to us ordinary slobs.
$300 is $300. $300 does not benefit any "big taxpayers" and "corporations" more
than $300 benefits you and I. In fact I submit that $300 back is much more
useful for the lower income tax Payers when it comes time to pay the heating
bill, to pay the food bill, to pay the electricity bill, etc. Everyone was also
entitled to send their check back to the treasury or to the charity of their
choice. Where did you send yours?
> Of course, it is the small taxpayer who tends to spend all his disposible
> income. If the small guy gets some to keep some extra money, he is going
> to spend it on goods and services, invigorating the economy. The wealthy
> taxpayer is already spending at a rate he is comfortable with, and a
> larger than usual tax refund (or the extra disposable income from a lower
> tax rate) is more likely to go into his estate, rather than being
> immediately spent on goods and services.
The top 50% of tax payers pay 96.09% of Income Taxes, according to the Internal
Revenue Service. Every year fewer and fewer people at the top end of the scale
pay a greater and greater share of the total tax burden. So much for your
theory.
Joe
> In article <3DF6C9F4...@joe.joe>, Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>
> > "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
> >
> > > I said "put us on the path". Regardless, FY 2002 was hardly prudent. One
> > > year after Clinton, no more surplus.
> >
> > The "surplus" was a myth to begin with, because it entailed generating a
> > surplus by moving social security funds into the general budget.
>
> Sorry, guy. That was done under Reagan
Why did you single out Reagan? Your bias is showing. It was done under Clinton.
It was done under Bush. It was done under Carter. It's been done for many
decades.
> to cover up his irresponsable
> fiscal policy.
Doubling tax revenue while leading the country through the greatest economic
expansion the United States had ever seen is not irresponsible. Unfortunately
Congress spent $1.76 for every dollar of revenue, a fact you conveniently snipped
below. Reagan only becomes "irresponsible" when you revise history and then
pretend that tax revenue did not nearly double under his policies too. You
conveniently forget that Reagan's budget was much less than what Congress actually
spent for every year save one.
>
>
> The surplus under Clinton was real. The US took in more revenue than it
> spent.
For a few years yes. But don't forget what happened in January 1995. Under
Clinton and a Democratic Congress, annual deficits were higher than anything that
happened under Reagan with a Democratic Congress.
>
>
> > Regardless, the terrorists struck 8 months after Clinton.
>
> Which has almost nothing to do with our deficit problem. Hell, even New
> York City, which was hit the hardest, admitted the economic impact of the
> attacks was relatively small, given the overall level of city's economy.
It has everything to do with the deficit problem. The economy went into a nose
dive after those attacks. The economic impact of the attacks was relatively small
after the attacks? What on earth are you talking about? Have you even been
within 1000 miles of New York in the months after the attack? Tourism was
destroyed. The cities businesses left or were destroyed completely.
>
>
> > Why wait? I mean if you don't think you are taxed enough, you can happily
> > send
> > much more into the Department of the Treasury. Mark your check "Debt
> > Reduction."
>
> One could do that, but as you know, it wouldn't make any difference.
Of course it would. To start, you would stop being a hypocrite, lashing out at
tax cuts while spending your own. If the tax cut was so small you would hardly
miss it. If it was large, well wouldn't the government spend that money better
than you can?
>
>
> > > >>Next year, we face the most expensive government reorganization in
> > > >>history
> > > >>which is going to interfere with whatever changes are actually needed to
> > > >>improve national security.
> > >
> > > >Both sides of the aisle feel that this is the best thing to do. Where
> > > >can I find your plan?
>
> Well, the Republicans had to be dragged into the idea. It was proposed by
> the Democrats. Bush said there was no need for a reorganization. Only
> when they realized they could use the reorganization to implement some
> favorite ideas (like gutting the civil service and breaking unions).
Nobody was dragged into anything. Relax. Not one union was broken. Civil
service has not been gutted.
>
>
> > > >>No, dude: We're not at war. Not yet.
> > >
> > > >Tell that to my son who is serving us in a combat zone in the war right
> > > >now.
>
> The existance of a combat zone does mean the country is at war (although I
> agree that those involved in the particular combat are at war). The
> country is at war when the citizenry and the manufacturing plants are on
> war footing.
The country is at war.
> We wouldn't be worried about the economy if we were at
> war--there would be full employment and the factories would working around
> the clock.
The definition of war has nothing to do with full employment. One moment you're
complaining about that the government is running a high deficit (it's actually
much lower than it was during the Carter years at 1.5% of the GDP) the next you're
stating that we can't be at war because there isn't full employment. Full
employment on the government dole?
> The main concern would be inflation caused by too many dollars
> in consumers' pockets chasing too few consumer goods. Instead of worrying
> about our trains and planes running with too few passengers, the
> government would ask you to consider "is this trip really necessary."
> That's war.
You have an interesting notion of war. I noticed it all involves the poor
terrible sacrifices you have to tolerate like taking a trip for you. Perhaps one
less soaking in the hottub and latté too? Meanwhile soldiers, airmen, marines,
and sailors know what real war is like.
> > > >Another terrorist attack is what will "put us in the toilet."
>
> You have very little trust in the underlying strength of the American
> economy, it you think terrorist attacks will undermine our economy.
It's not what I think. It is what happens. Look at what happened to New York
alone. Look at what has happened to the travel industry, the hospitality
industries, the tourism industry, etc. etc.
> What will undermine our economy is irresponsible fiscal policy, that says
> just as the government is breaking even we should cut taxes with no
> thought for tomorrow.
Cutting taxes increases revenue. It works every time it has been tried. It's
been tested, it works.
> Well, Bush cut taxes thinking the Clinton party
> would never end, and what happens, we are unexpectedly (unexpected by the
> Bush administration, anyway)
The Democratic led Senate approved those same tax changes.
> attacked by terrorists, putting the federal
> government in a situation of needing to spend extra dollars to meet that
> unexpected situation. If you think the deficit is bad this year, wait
> until next year.
Again, you're not dealing with facts. Read the actual tax law. The rates are
exactly the same as they were before and will not decrease for two years still.
The only reduction was the $300 that EVERY taxpayer received.
>
>
> By the way, have you ever thought about what it means to finance our
> government with Treasury bonds? Who is paying interest on those bonds?
> You and me and all the other average taxpayers, that's who. Who is
> earning the interest on those bonds? The bond holders of course, who tend
> to be the wealthier Americans, as well as a lot of foreigners, who buy the
> bonds with US dollars they earn by exporting goods (such as oil) to the US.
Bond holders need not been wealthy. You may purchase savings bonds in
denominations as low as $25.
>
> As the deficit goes up, more and more of our tax dollars go to pay the
> interest on the national debt and less and less of our tax dollars are
> available to defend the country and provide for domestic programs.
That's true, which is why tax rates need to be lowered so that tax revenue
increases. Again, it's worked every time it's been tried. It's not an American
phenomenon either. Consider Japan who INCREASED taxes during their recession,
plunging their economy into a severe depression. Consider Russia who has
DECREASED their tax rates and implemented a flat tax under Putin. Their
government is not taking in more money and their economy is expanding.
Joe
Merritt Mullen wrote:
> In article <3DF6BED0...@joe.joe>, Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>
> > Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
> > > If you think the nation is at war, then you probably haven't been around
> > > when the nation was really at war, and its citizens were expected to
> > > sacrifice in behalf of the war effort.
> >
> > You're wrong. I am a veteran of the US Marine Corps. My son is serving as
> > we speak. Assuredly, we are at war.
>
> Well, I'm a retired Navy Commander (aviator) and I don't consider the
> country to be at war, even though we have a few troop engaged in combat
> operations. To be at war involves every one, including all civilians, not
> just a few who happen to be on active duty.
>
> Of course, the Marines would say, "It's not much of a war, but it's the
> only one we have."
>
> But we both know what the actual situation is, we just have a different
> definition of what it means to say "the country is at war."
My definition includes troop deployments to combat zones and fighting for extended
periods of time on a large scale. By your definition, there was no Vietnam war.
>
>
> > > > tax revenues are way down as a result of terrorist
> > > > attacks, and the economy is slow.
> > >
> > > Tax revenues are way down, not because of terrorist attacks, but because
> > > Bush intentionally cut tax rates, and the econony is slow.
> >
> > The reduced tax rates have not even kicked in, and they won't for two more
> > years.
>
> How can you say that? The cut in in calendar year 2001, with the advance
> payments mailed out by the Treasury. The rates in the tax table for 2001
> stayed the same, but that was because the reduction was reflected in the
> advance payment.
>
> For this calendar year (2002) we have been paying (in our withholding) at
> a reduced rate since January 1st.
What rate?
>
>
> > So much for that theory of reducing tax revenues. BTW: No president can cut
> > tax cuts rates by himself. Every state is also facing massively declining
> > revenues as well. Surely we cannot falsely blame Bush for reducing state tax
> > rates in each state government too.
>
> Of course not. But it started with Reagan saying all government is
> wasteful and evil and convincing people that taxes are bad.
Reagan never said all government is wasteful. He said that too much government was
the problem. He didn't convince people that taxes were bad. He made the case
that overtaxing is bad. Today fewer and fewer people (concentrated at the top of
the scale) are paying a greater and greater share of the total tax burden. The top
50% pay 96.09 % of taxes.
> The states cut taxes as well,
I sure missed that in my state. Of course then we have California who is charging
taxpayers massive amounts of money to pay electric bills on behalf of electric
customers, instead of just raising the ates thereby encouraging conservation. All
due to a phony deregulation and terrible policies of mandating generating sell offs
and preventing any significant generating capability until recently. (And of course
they tried to weasal out of environmental rules to do that.)
> but unlike the federal government (except for one
> state), the states must balance their budget each year. The only way to
> do that (and continue to provide services such as police, fire, highways,
> education, etc) is to raise taxes. So if you federal taxes are reduced,
> and the federal government is downsized, more and more the states will
> have to pick up the slack. That means the states will be raising taxes.
> So it is a fantasy to think that by the federal government cutting taxes,
> you will end up with more money in your pocket.
The only "slack" that states might have to pick up from the government is the
federal teat. As you noted below, states should not be dependent on that in the
first place.
Joe
> Here are some later developments: he belongs to the golf club that sponsors
> the Masters tournament (it excludes women),
Oh no! A private club that is men's only! Gosh how terrible! Next we will
learn that males can't join the girl scouts. I sure hope that there aren't any
women only clubs in existance out there!!
Bill Gustason
Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote in message news:3DF81BCF...@joe.joe...
One thing about Snow--he has more sense than you. He has since resigned
from the club.
Merritt Mullen
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
> > > Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
> >
> > > >First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the
> > > >rebate. So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small
> > > >as
> > > >they are, won't even kick in for two more years from now.
> >
> > That is not true. Most of us received in 2001 an advance of $300 or $600
> > on the tax reduction that was effective in that year (the taxes that were
> > due on 15 Apr 2002). The Bush tax reductions have been effective for
> > almost two years now.
>
> I noted earlier that the $300 per taxpayer rebate checks are the ONLY tax
> reduction that is already in effect. The tax rate reductions are time
> delayed
> by statue and will not effective for two more years. The tax reductions
> cannot
> possibly be causing any deficits because they are not even in place yet!
> That
> delay is unfortunate because the economy needs the boost now.
And I am saying you are mistaken. We are paying less taxes right now.
>
> > Unless you are unusually well-to-do, you probably didn't even notice your
> > "tax cut" and it didn't affect your standard of living. And if you think
> > something wonderful in terms of tax cuts is coming in two years, you have
> > another think coming.
>
> Everybody got the same $300 check.
The check was not your tax reduction. It just reflected that withholding
rates were too high, given the real tax reduction, so without the $300
check, the average person would be overpaying by about that amount and
getting an addition $300 back after filing in April 2002.
> > But you are correct about the cuts being small--small for us average
> > middle-class taxpayers. The intent was to benefit the big taxpayers and
> > corporations, on the theory that if the rich benefit, the benefits will
> > trickle down to us ordinary slobs.
>
> $300 is $300. $300 does not benefit any "big taxpayers" and "corporations"
> more
> than $300 benefits you and I. In fact I submit that $300 back is much more
> useful for the lower income tax Payers when it comes time to pay the heating
> bill, to pay the food bill, to pay the electricity bill, etc.
You don't understand. The $300 was not a gift from the government, it was
just a refund on your over-withholding. The actual taxes you paid for
2001 had nothing to do with the $300. For the poor taxpayer, it just
meant they had to pay $300 more when they filed there taxes in April. A
lot of people didn't get the $300 check. When April came, they found, on
the average, there tax bill was about $300 less. The federal government
is not Santa Claus, and the $300 checks did not change the tax laws or
affect your tax liability.
> Everyone was also
> entitled to send their check back to the treasury or to the charity of their
> choice. Where did you send yours?
I sent plenty of checks to my favorite charities (but the Treasury
Department is not one of them).
Anyway, sending back your check would be unpatriotic given the purpose of
the gimmicky advance $300 payment, which Bush thought would "kick-start"
the economy. Guess what, it didn't work, as anyone with any sense would
know. No one got any extra money. The just got it in the Fall of 2001
instead of in the summer of 2002. All they got was maybe 9 months of
interest on $300 (about $10). It was a gimmick!
Merritt
Mark Mathu
> My definition includes troop deployments to combat zones and fighting for
> extended periods of time on a large scale. By your definition, there was
> no Vietnam war.
No, we had a draft back then. Many people were getting shipped out to serve
against their desires. There's sacrifice from civilians in that. I agree
with Merritt, it's really not a war if it doesn't involve citizens to
sacrifice for the effort.
Jeff Nor Lisa
> racket was broken up, especially into two pieces at once.
Not true.
There were front page newspaper articles of NS and CSX claiming
they would most certainly not be another snafu like the western
railroad mergers turned out to be, or the Penn Central merger before.
It turned out to be the exact opposite of what they promised,
and the business community that depending on rail freight
was outraged.
As mentioned, the new railroad has promised to have certain
operations kept in the Philadelphia area, which they did not deliver.
Wiliam F. Welner
appointed to Treasury that he did not believe in tax cuts, and was told to
shut up by Dubya. As I understand O'Neil did a good job managing Alcoa,
while Snow did a poor job running CSX.
From what I hear about Snow he will fit in with Dubya and will run up the
national debt following the Administration's supply side economic policy of
just tax cuts and no money for infrastructure.
"Carl Zwanzig" <zb...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:at6571$rjl$1...@news1.radix.net...
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >Well, he should fit right in with the current administration, which is
> >operating the country by mortgaging the future (ie. operating on borrowed
> >money and running up the national debt, rather than operating on actual
> >revenues).
>
> I've always failed to understand why "tax and spend", a label usually
> applied to Democrats, is worst than "borrow and spend" which is what
> recent Republican administrations have been doing.
>
> z!
>
Merritt Mullen
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
> > But we both know what the actual situation is, we just have a different
> > definition of what it means to say "the country is at war."
>
> My definition includes troop deployments to combat zones and fighting for
> extended
> periods of time on a large scale. By your definition, there was no Vietnam
> war.
Well, it wasn't WWII, of course, but it did involve sacrifice by a large
percentage of the American citizenry because of the fact of the draft.
> > For this calendar year (2002) we have been paying (in our withholding) at
> > a reduced rate since January 1st.
>
> What rate?
The answer is that in 2001, tax rates were lowered by 1% on all rates
above 15%, and a new 10% was created for the lowest tax bracket, instead
of 15% (these new rates were in effect for the second half of 2001, but
for all of this year).
That means someone paying taxes on an income of $10,000 saves about $500 a
year (granted, significant for those persons, but how many are below the
15% bracket?). A person with a $1,000,000 taxable income got a 1%
savings, or $10,000 a year. Those are just rough calculations, to give
you and idea, as you know, taxes are very complex (too complex).
That is public information, of course, and you can find it as easily as I
can, but I suggest the IRS web site. For example if you go to
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/index.html
and click on "Advance Payment Info" in the left column, you will get a PDF
document that explains all about the $300/500/600 advance payment in 2001.
To give you an idea, the first two paragraphs say:
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 lowered the
tax rates above the 15 percent level by one percentage point, but this
reduction did not take effect until mid-year. As a result, the tax rate
schedules use "blended rates" of 27.5%, 30.5%, 35.5% and 39.1% for all of
2001. Taxpayers saw the effects of this change through reductions in the
tax withheld from their pay in the second half of the year.
The law also created a new 10% tax rate on the first $6,000 of taxable
income ($10,000 for a head of household; $12,000 for a married couple). To
give people this tax cut more quickly, the law directed that most
taxpayers would receive this benefit as an Advance Payment check in the
summer or fall of 2001. The checks were based on the taxpayers' 2000 tax
returns. Thus, most people have received the full benefit of this change,
and it will not affect how they complete their 2001 tax returns.
---------------------------------------------------------------
> I sure missed that in my state. Of course then we have California who is
> charging
> taxpayers massive amounts of money to pay electric bills on behalf of
> electric
> customers, instead of just raising the ates thereby encouraging conservation.
Where did you get that idea? Taxes were not increased to pay the
electricity bill. As to passing on the rate increases, how do you pass on
an increase of 70 times the previous year's rates. People used to paying
$100 a month would have to pay $7000 a month. Of course, they simply
wouldn't do it.
> All
> due to a phony deregulation and terrible policies of mandating generating
> sell offs
> and preventing any significant generating capability until recently. (And of
> course
> they tried to weasal out of environmental rules to do that.)
The concept of privatizing the electric utility business and making the
electrical distribution companies sell off their generating plants to
private companies was a Republican concept (clearly--can you conceive of
Democrats doing such a thing?) and was developed under Republican Governor
Pete Wilson. Stupid Democrats in the state legislature went along with it
(not all stupidity is limited to Republican politicians), but if the state
were under Democratic governorship, it would never have happened.
> The only "slack" that states might have to pick up from the government is the
> federal teat. As you noted below, states should not be dependent on that in
> the first place.
That's true (although there are some things that only work on a federal
level, that the states could never take over, such as the national postal
service, and national interstate transportation policy).
The point is, people talk as if federal tax cuts are going to put more
disposible income in people's pockets. Generally not true, as the states
will have to pick up the costs of providing services now coming from the
federal government (such as building highways and transit systems, to keep
this on a transportation note).
What puts more money in people's pockets is not lower tax rates, but
higher economic productivity, leading to greater prosperity.
Running a deficit federal budget means running up the federal debt, the
interest on which must be paid by the average taxpayer (and much of the
revenue resulting from that interest is paid to overseas holders of US
Treasury Bonds). As the debt increase, the percentage of our taxes going
to pay interest on the debt increases (I think is is currently about 10%,
so if you pay say, $20,000 a year is federal taxes, you are paying about
$2000 a year to the bond holders), and less taxes are available for
necessary government programs. In the long run, that means HIGHER taxes,
not lower.
> > Enough said (by me, anyway) on this subject. It is not appropriate for
> > this group, and people are going to start complaining.
Sorry for violating my promise in the paragraph above, but you asked some
questions that I thought were worth answering.
Merritt
Ed Light
"genius" of the CEO.
--
Ed Light
Merritt Mullen
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
> > > The "surplus" was a myth to begin with, because it entailed generating a
> > > surplus by moving social security funds into the general budget.
> >
> > Sorry, guy. That was done under Reagan
>
> Why did you single out Reagan? Your bias is showing. It was done under
> Clinton.
> It was done under Bush. It was done under Carter. It's been done for many
> decades.
I certainly hope my bias is showing. I work hard at that.
Trust funds had been "off-budget". That is, their revenues and expenses
were accounted for separately from the overall federal budget. But
because the federal budget was running a deficit, while the trust funds
were running a surplus, they were put back into the budget, to give the
appearence of a smaller annual deficit.
I think that happened during the Reagan years, but I could be wrong. It
was a singular event (as far as recent history goes), so it couldn't have
happened under all the presidents you mentioned.
No offense intended, but I am not going to respond to the rest of your
message, as I promised to get off this subject, as not being appropriate
for this newsgroup.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>In article <3DF81947...@joe.joe>, Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>>Why did you single out Reagan? Your bias is showing. It was done under
>>Clinton.
>>It was done under Bush. It was done under Carter. It's been done for many
>>decades.
>I certainly hope my bias is showing. I work hard at that.
You're biased against fiscal shenanigans? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.
>Trust funds had been "off-budget". That is, their revenues and expenses
>were accounted for separately from the overall federal budget. But
>because the federal budget was running a deficit, while the trust funds
>were running a surplus, they were put back into the budget, to give the
>appearence of a smaller annual deficit.
There have been years in which games were played with the postal service
budget, too. When the post office has run a surplus, it's on budget.
That hasn't been a temptation of late.
>I think that happened during the Reagan years, but I could be wrong.
You're not wrong. Reagan years were years of whopping big peacetime deficits;
they had to do something to disguise them. I don't think it was done under
Carter; certainly not under Clinton.
Adam H. Kerman
>O'Neil was too outspoken, as remember he mentioned when he was first
>appointed to Treasury that he did not believe in tax cuts, and was told to
>shut up by Dubya. As I understand O'Neil did a good job managing Alcoa,
>while Snow did a poor job running CSX.
Is there a CEO-designate at CSX?
David Chui
: Merritt Mullen wrote:
:
:> > Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
:>
:> > >First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the
:> > >rebate. So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small as
:> > >they are, won't even kick in for two more years from now.
:>
:> That is not true. Most of us received in 2001 an advance of $300 or $600
:> on the tax reduction that was effective in that year (the taxes that were
:> due on 15 Apr 2002). The Bush tax reductions have been effective for
:> almost two years now.
:
: I noted earlier that the $300 per taxpayer rebate checks are the ONLY tax
: reduction that is already in effect. The tax rate reductions are time delayed
: by statue and will not effective for two more years. The tax reductions cannot
: possibly be causing any deficits because they are not even in place yet! That
: delay is unfortunate because the economy needs the boost now.
Page 16 of the 2002 form 1040 instructions, as available on the IRS web
site, says:
"What's New for 2002?
...
Tax Rates Reduced. Most of the tax rates have decreased by 1/2% and
a new 10% tax rate applies to all filers. The new rates are reflected
in the Tax Table that begins on page 63 and the Tax Rate Schedules on
page 75."
- David
Joe
Exactly! Next we will hear that the tax cut doesn't benefit lower income tax PAYERS.
Joe
> In article <3DF81441...@joe.joe>, Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>
> > Merritt Mullen wrote:
> >
> > > > Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >First of all, the tax cuts have not even taken place yet, except for the
> > > > >rebate. So that's hardly causing any deficits. The tax cuts, as small
> > > > >as
> > > > >they are, won't even kick in for two more years from now.
> > >
> > > That is not true. Most of us received in 2001 an advance of $300 or $600
> > > on the tax reduction that was effective in that year (the taxes that were
> > > due on 15 Apr 2002). The Bush tax reductions have been effective for
> > > almost two years now.
> >
> > I noted earlier that the $300 per taxpayer rebate checks are the ONLY tax
> > reduction that is already in effect. The tax rate reductions are time
> > delayed
> > by statue and will not effective for two more years. The tax reductions
> > cannot
> > possibly be causing any deficits because they are not even in place yet!
> > That
> > delay is unfortunate because the economy needs the boost now.
>
> And I am saying you are mistaken. We are paying less taxes right now.
And how much less? The main cuts haven't even kicked in yet. From 2001 to 2011,
the tax cut will total $1.9 trillion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. This exceeds the official $1.35 trillion figure, because
it assumes that Congress won't let the tax cut lapse at the end of 2010 (as the law
now provides). Before the tax cut, the CBO estimated federal tax revenue at $30
trillion from 2001 to 2011. The average tax cut is 6 percent, rising from about 2
percent in 2001 to 9.4 percent in 2011.
>
> >
> > > Unless you are unusually well-to-do, you probably didn't even notice your
> > > "tax cut" and it didn't affect your standard of living. And if you think
> > > something wonderful in terms of tax cuts is coming in two years, you have
> > > another think coming.
> >
> > Everybody got the same $300 check.
>
> The check was not your tax reduction. It just reflected that withholding
> rates were too high, given the real tax reduction, so without the $300
> check, the average person would be overpaying by about that amount and
> getting an addition $300 back after filing in April 2002.
It wasn't a reduction like you say. It was a rebate.
>
>
> > > But you are correct about the cuts being small--small for us average
> > > middle-class taxpayers. The intent was to benefit the big taxpayers and
> > > corporations, on the theory that if the rich benefit, the benefits will
> > > trickle down to us ordinary slobs.
> >
> > $300 is $300. $300 does not benefit any "big taxpayers" and "corporations"
> > more
> > than $300 benefits you and I. In fact I submit that $300 back is much more
> > useful for the lower income tax Payers when it comes time to pay the heating
> > bill, to pay the food bill, to pay the electricity bill, etc.
>
> You don't understand. The $300 was not a gift from the government, it was
> just a refund on your over-withholding. The actual taxes you paid for
> 2001 had nothing to do with the $300. For the poor taxpayer, it just
> meant they had to pay $300 more when they filed there taxes in April. A
> lot of people didn't get the $300 check. When April came, they found, on
> the average, there tax bill was about $300 less. The federal government
> is not Santa Claus, and the $300 checks did not change the tax laws or
> affect your tax liability.
The federal government is not Santa Claus if you pay taxes. Many people don't pay
any taxes, yet they are still clamoring for "tax cuts."
>
>
> > Everyone was also
> > entitled to send their check back to the treasury or to the charity of their
> > choice. Where did you send yours?
>
> I sent plenty of checks to my favorite charities (but the Treasury
> Department is not one of them).
It's not one of mine either. See, we agree. You cashed your tax cut check and
felt that you could spend it better as you wished, rather than returning it to the
treasury. Americans can spend their own money better than a government can.
>
>
> Anyway, sending back your check would be unpatriotic given the purpose of
> the gimmicky advance $300 payment, which Bush thought would "kick-start"
> the economy.
It kept the economy from deteriorating any more than it did. One can fault some of
its content--the silly rebate, the lack of a capital gains tax cut (which would be
the best thing for the sagging economy) and the weird phase-out program.
> Guess what, it didn't work, as anyone with any sense would
> know. No one got any extra money. The just got it in the Fall of 2001
> instead of in the summer of 2002. All they got was maybe 9 months of
> interest on $300 (about $10). It was a gimmick!
One moment you're telling us that the tax cut was so large it gave us a huge
deficit. (Which is wrong to begin with, federal tax cuts have INCREASED revenue
every time they've been tried.) The next moment you are saying that it was too
tiny and we'd have to give it back anyway.....
And According to you, nearly doubling tax revenue in the 1980s was
"irresponsible...."
Bill Gustason
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:uvi5nrn...@corp.supernews.com...
Word is that Snow will be replaced by Michael Ward, currently CSX president.
Ward succeeded a former Conrail exec and improved operations somewhat. Most
analysts I've looked at think he'll be an improvement.
Joe
> You're not wrong. Reagan years were years of whopping big peacetime deficits;
> they had to do something to disguise them. I don't think it was done under
> Carter; certainly not under Clinton.
Disguise? Reagan's tax cut nearly doubled tax revenues, Congress spent over
$1.70 for each dollar of revenue that came in, which was significantly more than
Reagan's budget asked for. Facts are facts.
The Reagan tax cut was a grand-slam home run. As the performance of the American
economy between 1982 and 1988 demonstrated, the tax cut stimulated economic
growth, created jobs, created wealth across the income spectrum, and increased
tax revenues. Inflation and interest rates also went sharply down.
Economic prosperity was the most important legacy of that tax cut. Real growth
averaged 3% in the following eight years (which included the recession year of
1982) compared with a growth rate of 2.1% in the previous eight years. By
1985 economic output was two to three percentage points higher than it would
have been. That growth led to 18 million net new jobs and the unemployment rate
dropping to 5.5% from 11%. From 1982 to 1990 exports almost doubled,manufacturing
output rose by almost half; the poverty rate declined, and the "misery index"
(the sum of inflation and unemployment rates) dropped to 9.6 from 20.6. The tax
cut was a smashing success.
Joe
> In article <3DF81947...@joe.joe>, Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
>
> > Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
> > > > The "surplus" was a myth to begin with, because it entailed generating a
> > > > surplus by moving social security funds into the general budget.
> > >
> > > Sorry, guy. That was done under Reagan
> >
> > Why did you single out Reagan? Your bias is showing. It was done under
> > Clinton.
> > It was done under Bush. It was done under Carter. It's been done for many
> > decades.
>
> I certainly hope my bias is showing. I work hard at that.
>
> Trust funds had been "off-budget". That is, their revenues and expenses
> were accounted for separately from the overall federal budget. But
> because the federal budget was running a deficit, while the trust funds
> were running a surplus, they were put back into the budget, to give the
> appearence of a smaller annual deficit.
>
> I think that happened during the Reagan years, but I could be wrong. It
> was a singular event (as far as recent history goes), so it couldn't have
> happened under all the presidents you mentioned.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. The trust funds were not "off budget." Later in the
mid to late 90's, Congress would take the airport & airway as well as the highway
trust funds off budget. Social security has been used to balance the budget on
some government hard drive for many years and long before Reagan was president.
>
>
> No offense intended, but I am not going to respond to the rest of your
> message, as I promised to get off this subject, as not being appropriate
> for this newsgroup.
If you were truly concerned about the subject you would not have posted at all, as
you indicated yesterday. But I can completely understand why you avoid the facts
of tax revenues doubling during the 1980s among the greatest economic expansion
the nation had ever seen. No offense taken.
Joe
Good point, except that the previous poster didn't feel it necessary to include
a draft in his list of "sacrifices."
Joe
Merritt Mullen wrote:
Excellent. Thank you.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > I sure missed that in my state. Of course then we have California who is
> > charging
> > taxpayers massive amounts of money to pay electric bills on behalf of
> > electric
> > customers, instead of just raising the ates thereby encouraging conservation.
>
> Where did you get that idea? Taxes were not increased to pay the
> electricity bill. As to passing on the rate increases, how do you pass on
> an increase of 70 times the previous year's rates. People used to paying
> $100 a month would have to pay $7000 a month. Of course, they simply
> wouldn't do it.
The electrity bill was effectively mortaged through billions of dollars of state
bonds that need to be repaid. The taxpayers will inevitably be paying down those
bonds.
>
>
> > All
> > due to a phony deregulation and terrible policies of mandating generating
> > sell offs
> > and preventing any significant generating capability until recently. (And of
> > course
> > they tried to weasal out of environmental rules to do that.)
>
> The concept of privatizing the electric utility business and making the
> electrical distribution companies sell off their generating plants to
> private companies was a Republican concept (clearly--can you conceive of
> Democrats doing such a thing?)
They did do such a thing as you note below.
> and was developed under Republican Governor
> Pete Wilson. Stupid Democrats in the state legislature went along with it
> (not all stupidity is limited to Republican politicians), but if the state
> were under Democratic governorship, it would never have happened.
I'm not so convinced. Yes it was a dumb plan, and yes it was stupid for Wilson to
sign off on it. But the story doesn't end there. It was stupid to block new
generating plants for "environmental" reasons. (California would later ask for
exemptions to federal environmental requirements to build plants quick. So much
for the environment. Fortunately the federal government didn't let that happen).
What was most stupid of all was to deregulate only the wholesale rates while
downstream rates were still regulated. That's not true deregulation, that's just
blatant stupidity. And it was just ludicrous for the state to rack up date buying
electricity, and in effect subsidizing consumers to use even more, instead of just
letting the price rise so people start using less. Fortunatley for California, the
phony dot com bubble broke and electricity demand plummeted to where it could match
it with supply again.
The legacy of regulation is to average everything. A porch light left burning in
the daytime is given the same priority for energy as people riding in elevators.
Relief for the utility companies will not be had in the political arena: The only
way out now is to begin to rationalize costs in a way that naturally affects
customers' behavior. Plus, California just assumed that northwestern states would
keep supplying its needs. When those states needed their own power for
themeselves, California got the feds to order the northwestern states to keeping
sending it power. Too bad those states didn't have fixed rates for consumers,
those states' consumers saw their rates spike.
>
>
> > The only "slack" that states might have to pick up from the government is the
> > federal teat. As you noted below, states should not be dependent on that in
> > the first place.
>
> That's true (although there are some things that only work on a federal
> level, that the states could never take over, such as the national postal
> service, and national interstate transportation policy).
>
> The point is, people talk as if federal tax cuts are going to put more
> disposible income in people's pockets. Generally not true, as the states
> will have to pick up the costs of providing services now coming from the
> federal government (such as building highways and transit systems, to keep
> this on a transportation note).
I think that's fine. And I don't even mind subsidizing transit + long distance
trains to a point with highway taxes and/or user fees. Economically that is often
the most efficient thing to do.
>
>
> What puts more money in people's pockets is not lower tax rates, but
> higher economic productivity, leading to greater prosperity.
The last part is true, and the way to start getting there is to lower taxes. It
worked under John F. Kennedy. It worked under Ronald Reagan with productivity
exceeding anything the country had ever seen, and tax revenues nearly doubling to
boot. And it will work again.
>
>
> Running a deficit federal budget means running up the federal debt, the
> interest on which must be paid by the average taxpayer (and much of the
> revenue resulting from that interest is paid to overseas holders of US
> Treasury Bonds). As the debt increase, the percentage of our taxes going
> to pay interest on the debt increases (I think is is currently about 10%,
> so if you pay say, $20,000 a year is federal taxes, you are paying about
> $2000 a year to the bond holders), and less taxes are available for
> necessary government programs. In the long run, that means HIGHER taxes,
> not lower.
That's true when you consider the debt as a function of the GDP. Even in the
weakened economy and deficits that are curently happening, the deficit is only 1.5%
of the GDP! Treasurer Rubin stated that lower deficits would lower interest
rates. That theory has been proven quite incorrect.
Joe
Since I have never been a member of the club, your comment is nonsensical.
But I'm curious, do you oppose people forming groups among themselves as they
feel fit and having private groups make their own membership decisions? Is
the Girl Scouts wrong to exclude males? Should Wellesley College be forced to
accept men? Should be the Junior League be stopped?
Joe
> > It was pretty much a given that there would be snags when the Conrail
> > racket was broken up, especially into two pieces at once.
>
> Not true.
>
> There were front page newspaper articles of NS and CSX claiming
> they would most certainly not be another snafu like the western
> railroad mergers turned out to be, or the Penn Central merger before.
It was a given to anyone familiar with the logistics of such a large break
up, not to someone who relied on newspaper articles.
> It turned out to be the exact opposite of what they promised,
> and the business community that depending on rail freight
> was outraged.
There were a lot of problems, but they weren't anything like the horror
show during the large mergers out west such as the BN-SF merger or anything
remotely close to the devastating longshoreman action a few months ago.
> As mentioned, the new railroad has promised to have certain
> operations kept in the Philadelphia area, which they did not deliver.
Conrail was split into and taken over by two major railroads, so I'm not
sure which you are discussing. What operations?
Bill Gustason
> But I'm curious, do you oppose people forming groups among themselves as
they
> feel fit and having private groups make their own membership decisions?
Is
> the Girl Scouts wrong to exclude males? Should Wellesley College be
forced to
> accept men? Should be the Junior League be stopped?
>
the rest of this thread, it is inappropriate for this group. Raising the
issue with respect to a RR exec nominated for a high position is OK, but a
general discussion of when discrimination is legally acceptable is not.
There are other discussion groups where this sort of topic is more
appropriately covered.
Jeff Nor Lisa
> > they would most certainly not be another snafu like the western
> > railroad mergers turned out to be, or the Penn Central merger before.
>
> It was a given to anyone familiar with the logistics of such a large break
> up, not to someone who relied on newspaper articles.
Sorry, but that's flat out wrong.
When Conrail took over its railroads, everything went smoothly.
Conrail planned a phased in approach, in which divisions and
units were gradually merged together. Conrail was only a short
time after the disasterous Penn Central merger, and they
learned from that experience.
The shippers who depended on Conrail were not "relying on
newspaper articles". They were relying on promises made
directly by the managements of CSX and NS, who pledged
specifically the merger would go smoothly.
> > It turned out to be the exact opposite of what they promised,
> > and the business community that depending on rail freight
> > was outraged.
>
> There were a lot of problems, but they weren't anything like the horror
> show during the large mergers out west such as the BN-SF merger or anything
> remotely close to the devastating longshoreman action a few months ago.
I don't know the extent of the mess in the west, but it was a mess
in the east. Local governments were furious because instead
of reducing truck traffic as promised, truck traffic grew
dramtically as shippers took stuff off rails and onto trucks.
Stockholders were made and IIRC, the stock price dropped
significantly. Amtrak trains were delayed since mainline
tracks with clogged with trains waiting space to get into a yard.
> > As mentioned, the new railroad has promised to have certain
> > operations kept in the Philadelphia area, which they did not deliver.
>
> Conrail was split into and taken over by two major railroads, so I'm not
> sure which you are discussing. What operations?
I'm not sure which specific groups of staff, but CSX promised
Philadelphia would continue to keep Conrail employees based
in Philadelphia. They did not deliver on that.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>You're not wrong. Reagan years were years of whopping big peacetime deficits;
>>they had to do something to disguise them. I don't think it was done under
>>Carter; certainly not under Clinton.
>Disguise? Reagan's tax cut nearly doubled tax revenues, Congress spent
>over $1.70 for each dollar of revenue that came in, which was significantly
>more than Reagan's budget asked for. Facts are facts.
Anonymous dude, you would DISPUTE that Reagan dramatically increased the
defense budget? That's where the money went, not to domestic programs.
Merritt Mullen
Very few would object to the golf club being men only, if it were not for
the fact that the golf club expects to make money by selling entertainment
to the general public.
Shouldn't I have a choice of how I want to spend my money? Or to put it
another way, if a private entity (such as the golf club) wants my money,
don't I have a right to object to their policies?
It is not so much the golf club that comes in for criticism, but the
public figures who endorse the club's policy. Very few people object to
private groups setting their own rules for membership. It is when they
want to become public services (in the sense of being financially
supported in one way or the other by the general public) that the public
gets concerned about their policies.
Merritt Mullen
If you are talking about me, I am pretty sure I did give that as an
example of public sacrifice. I haven't gone back to review my postings,
but I know I had that in mind as the MAIN sacrifice, and if I didn't
mention it, it was an error on my part.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
David Chui <dc...@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Page 16 of the 2002 form 1040 instructions, as available on the IRS web
> site, says:
>
> "What's New for 2002?
> ...
> Tax Rates Reduced. Most of the tax rates have decreased by 1/2% and
> a new 10% tax rate applies to all filers. The new rates are reflected
> in the Tax Table that begins on page 63 and the Tax Rate Schedules on
> page 75."
And that is referring to the taxes on 2001 income, payable in April 2002.
Reduced tax rates have been in effect since the middle of 2001.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
> David Chui wrote:
>
> > Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
> > : I noted earlier that the $300 per taxpayer rebate checks are the ONLY tax
> > : reduction that is already in effect. The tax rate reductions are time
> > : delayed
> > : by statue and will not effective for two more years.
> > Page 16 of the 2002 form 1040 instructions, as available on the IRS web
> > site, says:
> >
> > "What's New for 2002?
> > ...
> > Tax Rates Reduced. Most of the tax rates have decreased by 1/2% and
> > a new 10% tax rate applies to all filers. The new rates are reflected
> > in the Tax Table that begins on page 63 and the Tax Rate Schedules on
> > page 75."
>
> Exactly! Next we will hear that the tax cut doesn't benefit lower income tax
> PAYERS.
Exactly? When the truth is "exactly" in contradiction to your statement
quoted above ($300 rebate ONLY tax reduction; others not effective for two
more years). Why not just admit you were wrong? The tax reductions were
put in effect beginning the second half of 2001 and continue in 2002 (and
beyond).
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
> Reagan's tax cut nearly doubled tax revenues, Congress spent over
> $1.70 for each dollar of revenue that came in, which was significantly more
> than Reagan's budget asked for. Facts are facts.
It is amazing how your facts can be so consistantly wrong. No wonder you
come to wrong conclusions about what is wrong with our government's fiscal
policy.
The fact is, that in every year of the Reagan presidency (expect for one,
I believe), the budget passed by Congress was LESS than the budget
proposed by Reagan.
Do a little research and check it out. We are talking about recorded
history here, not predictions for the future.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"Ed Light" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> I heard on the internet radio that CSX doesn't pay taxes at all, due to the
> "genius" of the CEO.
CSX paid federal corporate taxes in only 2 of the past 4 years.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
> The last part is true, and the way to start getting there is to lower taxes.
> It
> worked under John F. Kennedy. It worked under Ronald Reagan with
> productivity
> exceeding anything the country had ever seen, and tax revenues nearly
> doubling to
> boot. And it will work again.
Ever hear of the "Laffer curve" If you plot government tax revenues
against tax rates, you will find that if you have a zero tax rate, the
revenue on that rate is zero (duh!). But if you have a 100% tax rate, the
revenue is also zero, as no one is going to generate income just to pay it
all to the government (another "duh!").
Given that the curve falls to zero on each end, it follows that there is
some rate in the middle that will maximize tax revenues.
If existing rates are above the rate that maximizes revenues, then cutting
rates will increase revenues. If rates are already below that maximum,
then cutting rates will REDUCE revenues, and raising rates will INCREASE
revenues.
When Kennedy was in office, rates on higher-income taxpayers were
ridiculously high (because of prior ill-conceived "soak the rich"
policies). That is why when Kennedy reduced the rates, tax revenues went
up.
It is hard to say at what rate tax revenues are actually maximized, but my
guess is we are now about in that area, and reducing rates further are
about as likely to reduce tax revenues as to increase them. Clearly,
since Bush reduced rates starting in the second half of 2001, tax revenues
have fallen, not risen, but the reasons for that are more complex than
just the tax rates.
Merritt
Joe
Ok, so maybe we're on the same page after all. Of course I've heard of Arthur
Laffer's economic theories. Maximizing revenue is certainly a good goal. If
taxes are too high, (and they are for many folks, especially as the AMT hits more
and more of us in the coming years) reducing them naturally increases tax
revenue. And in times of economic trouble (eg. now) reducing taxes also offers
the benefit of boosting the economy. Keynesian economics has a much more limited
effect and it takes a much longer time to do anything, while tax revenue
decreases. (Since keynesian economics brings less revenue AND more spenidng of
course it brings deficits too)
The terrible recession the country was in (with an 18% prime rate to boot) in the
late 70's/early 80's was lifted and morphed into the greatest economic expansion
the country had seen, while nearly doubling tax revenues, and while tighter money
brought interest rates way down.
Joe
I'm with you until your last points. Just as you should have the choice on how you
spend YOUR money, people should have the choice of the groups they wish to form with
other groups. According to the WSJ 11/12/02 a national poll showed that over 70% of
Americans, both men and women, support the club's right to make its own membership
decisions.
Joe
You bring up the topic of the Mr. Snow's club admitting women only. You make
the interesting comment, "One thing about Snow--he has more sense than you.
He has since resigned from the club." --- which is nonsensical considering I
never belonged to the club in the first place. Then after I point out that in
a free society people should have the right to organize themselves in the
manner they decide, and give other examples of people doing just that, you
realize that you cannot defend condemming free choice. So you suddenly and
conveniently claim that the same item you brought up (Mr. Snow's private club
choosing not to admit women) has now become off topic. So yes, if you'd like
to discuss why private organizations, such as golf clubs, the Junior League,
and the girl scouts should somehow not be able to restrict their membership,
that would be fine. Which group would you like to move the discussion to?
Joe
Dear Mr. "Dude" -- Reagan increased the defense budget so that we could win the
cold war. It worked, mission accomplished. The cold war was won, the iron curtain
fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed without firing a single shot. This led to
much less defense spending years later, which was the future peace dividend.
Reagan wanted to spend much less money, but unfortunatley Congress had other ideas
and never followed through on their promises to cut spending in exchange for the
improved tax policies. In fact, Reagan even vetoed spending such as the Big Dig
($15 billion and climbing) but Congress used its veto override powers. Congress
even took Reagan to court so that even more money was spent.
Joe
I earlier remarked that the tax reduction reflected by the $300 was in effect. The
rest of the reductions are time delayed and have not taken place yet. So if this
was not clear in earlier posts, than yes those posts were wrong. Now, will you
admit that you were wrong when you made false statements, to wit: "During the
Reagan years, Congress actually reduced every Reagan budget proposal. If they has
passed the Reagan budgets, the deficits would have been worse." In fact the
opposite was true and I've posted the actual Reagan budget numbers versus what
Congress actually passed (which was greater than Reagan's budget every year except
FY 1984) in another post, for your convenience.
Joe
I've done the research. I've checked it out. I know the numbers and I'll post
them below for your convenience. You're right it is recorded history; it's easy
to verify. You claim that my facts are "consisantly [sic] wrong" and then you go
on to post incorrect statements with no numbers to back them. You tell me to do
research when it is obvious that you have not done any. I'll provide my
research below. In fact you even say that the budget passed by Congress was less
than the budget proposed by Reagan except for one year, when in fact the exact
OPPOSITE was true. The budget passed by the Democratic Congress was greater than
Reagan's budget every year, except one year. That one year was FY 1984, and I"ve
marked it with an asterisk below, just for your convenience. These numbers come
directly from the Office of Management and Budget which tracks this information
for many decades of fiscal history.
President Budget and Congress's passed budget FY 1982-89
Source: United States Office of Management and Budget
Fiscal Year REAGAN's budget CONGRESS passed (billions $)
1982 695.3 745.8
1983 773.3 808.4
1984 862.5 851.8 *
1985 940.3 946.4
1986 973.7 990.3
1987 994.0 1003.9
1988 1024.3 1064.1
1989 1094.2 1144.2
Merritt Mullen
I'll check that out and get back to you. Obviously, if you are right (and
I have no reason to doubt your figures), then I am wrong and have be
laboring under a misconception for some years now (probably brainwashed by
Democrat propaganda).
The disconnect may have to do with entitlements and trust funds. Clearly,
neither Reagan nor Congress have any control over actual entitlement
expenditures (Medicare, Social Security, Retirement, etc).
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
> I earlier remarked that the tax reduction reflected by the $300 was in
> effect. The
> rest of the reductions are time delayed and have not taken place yet. So if
> this
> was not clear in earlier posts, than yes those posts were wrong. Now, will
> you
> admit that you were wrong when you made false statements, to wit: "During the
> Reagan years, Congress actually reduced every Reagan budget proposal. If
> they has
> passed the Reagan budgets, the deficits would have been worse." In fact the
> opposite was true and I've posted the actual Reagan budget numbers versus
> what
> Congress actually passed (which was greater than Reagan's budget every year
> except
> FY 1984) in another post, for your convenience.
Yes, I am happy to admit I may be wrong on the budget statement (see my
other post). But give me some time to look it for myself to be sure. As
a lifelong scientist and engineer, I am obligated to search for truth.
When I am wrong, I appreciate being corrected.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>CSX paid federal corporate taxes in only 2 of the past 4 years.
So, you are saying that Snow doesn't have the real world experience to be
Treasury secretary.
Merritt Mullen
> I'm with you until your last points. Just as you should have the choice on
> how you
> spend YOUR money, people should have the choice of the groups they wish to
> form with
> other groups. According to the WSJ 11/12/02 a national poll showed that over
> 70% of
> Americans, both men and women, support the club's right to make its own
> membership
> decisions
Of course it has that right, and it obviously exercises it. I'm surprised
that poll wasn't closer to 100%. All that others are saying is that they
have the right to object to the club's policy. I don't know of any legal
action that is being considered to change the club policy (or how any such
legal action would be possible). It is all moral suasion, and it is
directed more against the sponsors and broadcaster of the tournament that
against the club itself.
I'm sure the ACLU objects to Nazism, but they will defend in court a
Nazi's right to express his opinions.
Merritt
Joe
> > > There were front page newspaper articles of NS and CSX claiming
> > > they would most certainly not be another snafu like the western
> > > railroad mergers turned out to be, or the Penn Central merger before.
> >
> > It was a given to anyone familiar with the logistics of such a large break
> > up, not to someone who relied on newspaper articles.
>
> Sorry, but that's flat out wrong.
>
> When Conrail took over its railroads, everything went smoothly.
> Conrail planned a phased in approach, in which divisions and
> units were gradually merged together. Conrail was only a short
> time after the disasterous Penn Central merger, and they
> learned from that experience.
Not wrong at all, let stick with real facts here. The Penn Central merger finally
took place in 1968 after 10 years of negotiations and planning. Conrail did not
begin operations until 1976. It began as a government owned monopoly long known
for poor service and disposing of both track and customers. Its early years were
especially known for chaotic service.
> The shippers who depended on Conrail were not "relying on
> newspaper articles". They were relying on promises made
> directly by the managements of CSX and NS, who pledged
> specifically the merger would go smoothly.
Smoothly it did not go at first. There were a lot of problems at first, not
unlike any large merger. These are predictable to those who do not rely on
newspapers and press releases. Of course it should have been
smoother. But the merger was only a few years ago and things are running smooth
today at Norfolk Southern and CSX.
Let's take a look at what a 1999 newspaper article (WSJ) said:
<< Norfolk Southern Corp. and CSX Corp. have avoided major service disruptions
but are working out kinks in their operations.
The carve-up of Conrail , whose tracks blanket the Northeast and upper Midwest,
carries high stakes for everyone involved. Norfolk Southern and CSX paid $10
billion for Conrail , the most expensive rail acquisition in history. And the
breakup is particularly complex, because it involves splitting a major railroad
and integrating its pieces with two others.
Rail customers still remember the massive service failures and freight tie-ups in
1997 and 1998 that followed Union Pacific Corp.'s takeover of Southern Pacific
Rail Corp. Those problems, which started in Houston, led to higher shipping
costs for hundreds of rail customers.
So far, the Conrail takeover has been accompanied by some computer snags,
operating glitches and backups at terminals in various parts of the new system.
Shipments have been delayed, and freight trains in the Conrail territory have
been running several hours late. "They wanted it to go perfectly, but so far it
has fallen short of the mark," said Larry DeYoung, a railroad consultant in
Flemington, N.J. >>
So, no it wasn't perfect but it wasn't exactly a disaster either.
<<CSX, Richmond, Va., said it had enough locomotives and train crews to run
trains during the first week of its Conrail operations. Computer systems are
working but need additional fine-tuning. But CSX suffered a setback when its
operations center in Jacksonville, Fla., was hit by lightning last Thursday,
knocking out signals and disrupting trains for about three hours. "That clearly
set us back," said Michael Ward, an executive vice president of the CSX rail unit
>> .
> > > It turned out to be the exact opposite of what they promised,
> > > and the business community that depending on rail freight
> > > was outraged.
> >
> > There were a lot of problems, but they weren't anything like the horror
> > show during the large mergers out west such as the BN-SF merger or anything
> > remotely close to the devastating longshoreman action a few months ago.
>
> I don't know the extent of the mess in the west, but it was a mess
> in the east. Local governments were furious because instead
> of reducing truck traffic as promised, truck traffic grew
> dramtically as shippers took stuff off rails and onto trucks.
> Stockholders were made and IIRC, the stock price dropped
> significantly. Amtrak trains were delayed since mainline
> tracks with clogged with trains waiting space to get into a yard.
From the same article:
<<Still, customers said they were impressed that Conrail 's acquirers worked out
agreements with labor in advance of their new operations, while retaining Conrail
employees familiar with the territory. "They took all
the steps necessary to make the launch successful," said Ed Emmett, president of
the National Industrial Transportation League, which represents 1,400 rail and
truck customers.
Norfolk Southern and CSX also enjoy significant goodwill among Conrail customers,
who have long wanted to see an end to Conrail 's rail monopoly in the Northeast.
Conrail was created by the federal government in 1976 from the ruins of the Penn
Central and other failing railroads to preserve
rail service. Mike Smith, president of Finger Lakes Railway Corp., a short-line
railroad in Geneva, N.Y., said for years he had only one connection to the
nationwide rail system: Conrail . But since the Conrail breakup on June 1, he now
connects with two railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern.
"This is what we should have had years ago," Mr. Smith said. "We are finally just
getting it. >>
> > > As mentioned, the new railroad has promised to have certain
> > > operations kept in the Philadelphia area, which they did not deliver.
> >
> > Conrail was split into and taken over by two major railroads, so I'm not
> > sure which you are discussing. What operations?
>
> I'm not sure which specific groups of staff, but CSX promised
> Philadelphia would continue to keep Conrail employees based
> in Philadelphia. They did not deliver on that.
I'm sorry, but how do you know this if you're not sure what staff you are
discussing?
To sum up, yes there some teething problems during the split. But the long term
benefits were and are more than worth a few temporary glitches.
Philip Nasadowski
> Not wrong at all, let stick with real facts here. The Penn Central merger
> finally took place in 1968 after 10 years of negotiations and planning.
And was a total flop. Wasn't the PC the ones who invented sending a
boxcar NY to Boston via Chicago? Not to mention the total disaster the
passenger side was.
> Conrail did not begin operations until 1976. It began as a government owned
> monopoly long known for poor service and disposing of both track and
> customers.
Might have had a rough start, but ultimately was a good investment by
the government, as it turned into a pretty sucessful operation in the
end.
> Its early years were especially known for chaotic service.
Ahh, and for being the last holdout of electric freights until Amtrak
kicked them off the NEC. Which sucks, because had that not happened
(though it was probbably what broke the camel's back, not the sole
reason), you might still be seeing freight under the wire in the US.
The E-44s weren't even close to the ends of their useful lives when they
were retired. They probbably don't fare too bad agaist today's diesels
(4,400 hp, up to 5 something thousand with the silicon rects and
upgrades), though the starting TE is a tad low (75,000 lbs?) and they're
a dinosaur traction (but built in the 60's). There were a few E-33s
that held on into the 70's too.
> Smoothly it did not go at first.
Conrail had to deal with a physical plant and equipment that was falling
apart, too.
> So, no it wasn't perfect but it wasn't exactly a disaster either.
Unless you happeed to be an Amtrak rider. Boxcars don't care if they're
a few hours/days late (though the shippers apparently do). People sure
do. Or, if you lived in a town along an ex conrail line. regardless of
who was there first, blocking a grade crossing for an hour because you
can't manage your traffic (or yourself) is just plain dumb. I can't
blame towns for fining the RR or feel sorry for CSX/NS for getting the
heat.
> Mike Smith, president of Finger Lakes Railway Corp., a
> short-line railroad in Geneva, N.Y., said for years he had only one connection to the
> nationwide rail system: Conrail . But since the Conrail breakup on June 1, he
> now connects with two railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern.
Oh goody. Breakup's for breakup's sake! Just like we broke up AT&T.
Telecomunications has been a royal mess in the US ever since. Local
phone service is expensive, service SUCKS, I'm pelted with calls at all
hours of the day* to switch, my cellphone won't work in my house (but my
friend's does), I have to dial a number that's almost the length of Pi
to call anywhere, heaven forbid I don't dial 1 or dial 1 at the wrong
time - the computer's smart enough to yell at me, too dumb to just patch
the $%&$% call through. Try getting an operator. Try getting a human
one.
> To sum up, yes there some teething problems during the split. But the long
> term benefits were and are more than worth a few temporary glitches.
Tell that to the US, re: telecomunnications. And now, your electric
utility!
* And having served as a telemarketer for a while, I can firmly assure
you the person making the calls really doesn't give a crap what do not
call list your on.
--
To email me, change 'usermale' to 'usermail'
Joe
> In article <3DFAC7B1...@joe.yy>, Joe <j...@joe.yy> wrote:
>
> > Not wrong at all, let stick with real facts here. The Penn Central merger
> > finally took place in 1968 after 10 years of negotiations and planning.
>
> And was a total flop. Wasn't the PC the ones who invented sending a
> boxcar NY to Boston via Chicago? Not to mention the total disaster the
> passenger side was.
A total flop. One of the worst mergers in history for numerous reasons, starting with the
wrong companies merged.
>
>
> > Conrail did not begin operations until 1976. It began as a government owned
> > monopoly long known for poor service and disposing of both track and
> > customers.
>
> Might have had a rough start, but ultimately was a good investment by
> the government, as it turned into a pretty sucessful operation in the
> end.
It did eventually turn a profit, and then make quite a bit of money, with the government
spinning it off. It also had a monopoly on northeast freight railroad traffic, and had
little interest in north-south shipping.
>
>
> > Its early years were especially known for chaotic service.
>
> Ahh, and for being the last holdout of electric freights until Amtrak
> kicked them off the NEC. Which sucks, because had that not happened
> (though it was probbably what broke the camel's back, not the sole
> reason), you might still be seeing freight under the wire in the US.
> The E-44s weren't even close to the ends of their useful lives when they
> were retired. They probbably don't fare too bad agaist today's diesels
> (4,400 hp, up to 5 something thousand with the silicon rects and
> upgrades), though the starting TE is a tad low (75,000 lbs?) and they're
> a dinosaur traction (but built in the 60's). There were a few E-33s
> that held on into the 70's too.
How would electric freights provide better freight service to the customers? Acela trains
have enough problems getting power in the Newark NJ area as it is during peak hours with
heavy demand from commuter trains. I don't see how electric freight trains would improve
things.
>
>
> > Smoothly it did not go at first.
>
> Conrail had to deal with a physical plant and equipment that was falling
> apart, too.
>
> > So, no it wasn't perfect but it wasn't exactly a disaster either.
>
> Unless you happeed to be an Amtrak rider. Boxcars don't care if they're
> a few hours/days late (though the shippers apparently do). People sure
> do. Or, if you lived in a town along an ex conrail line. regardless of
> who was there first, blocking a grade crossing for an hour because you
> can't manage your traffic (or yourself) is just plain dumb. I can't
> blame towns for fining the RR or feel sorry for CSX/NS for getting the
> heat.
>
> > Mike Smith, president of Finger Lakes Railway Corp., a
> > short-line railroad in Geneva, N.Y., said for years he had only one connection to the
> > nationwide rail system: Conrail . But since the Conrail breakup on June 1, he
> > now connects with two railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern.
>
> Oh goody. Breakup's for breakup's sake!
No breakup for choice, innovation, more service and lower prices.
> Just like we broke up AT&T.
> Telecomunications has been a royal mess in the US ever since. Local
> phone service is expensive, service SUCKS, I'm pelted with calls at all
> hours of the day* to switch, my cellphone won't work in my house (but my
> friend's does), I have to dial a number that's almost the length of Pi
> to call anywhere, heaven forbid I don't dial 1 or dial 1 at the wrong
> time - the computer's smart enough to yell at me, too dumb to just patch
> the $%&$% call through. Try getting an operator. Try getting a human
> one.
I'm not sure which planet you're on regarding this issue. It used to cost around 30 cents
a minute just for a simple long distance call during the day. That's 1980 dollars. We
used to sit around and wait until the rates would drop (albeit slightly) and then use a
timer during the phone call to avoid huge bills. I pay $19 something a month for
unlimited local service, and I get good customer service from my local competing local
carrier. I pay 2.5 cents per minute for long distance. I regularly call UK and France for
5-8 cents per minute(!) I rarely get telemarketing calls, but I don't put my number on
warrany cards, sweepstakes, etc either and I restricted all of the financial institutions
from sharing my number and/or address. While the length of pi is unlimited, our phone
numbers are 10 digits.
>
>
> > To sum up, yes there some teething problems during the split. But the long
> > term benefits were and are more than worth a few temporary glitches.
>
> Tell that to the US, re: telecomunnications. And now, your electric
> utility!
Well let's see, today we can choose between a cable company and a phone company to get
broadband network access. We have a wide variety of long distance plans to choose from,
even unlimited plans. Long distance is dirt cheap. I didn't like the service I got from
Ma Bell so I switched to a local company which treats me well, gives me better prices, and
even allows billing by credit card.
Norfolk Southern has reactivated lines that haven't been used in years. They are actively
working with local railroads and shippers. They are building yards. They will gladly work
to ship freight from the northeast to the south. That's something that Conrail never
really cared about, and if you wanted service, tough for you.
Merritt Mullen
No, I can't say that. In fact, he may be a better Treasury secretary that
he was a RR executive, for all I know.
Merritt
Jerry Leslie
:
: * And having served as a telemarketer for a while, I can firmly assure
: call list your on.
Especially with more and more telemarketers calling from offshore,
such as from India:
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-277506.html
India becoming world's back office - Tech News - CNET.com
"...India's latest export: IT-enabled services.
These include telemarketing, helpdesk support, medical transcription,
back-office accounting, payroll management, maintaining legal
databases, insurance claim and credit-card processing, animation, and
higher-end engineering design--all of which can be delivered by phone,
computer and the Internet..."
Here's an example such a telemarketer calling the U.S.:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4310500.htm
Mercury News | 10/17/2002 |
Stanley Accrington: Job Migration Is Draining Silicon Valley
"My phone rang a couple of weeks ago. I was home to answer it because I
have been laid off from my job as a software quality assurance
manager. The call was from a polite lady who offered me the chance to
have my home repainted by a San Ramon company. The very slight pops
and hisses on the line suggested that the junk call was actually
coming from overseas, and from curiosity I pressed the lady to tell me
where. She eventually informed me she was in New Delhi, India!
The hourly pay rate for phone solicitors in the United States isn't
much. But it's so much lower still in India that it more than offsets
the increased phone costs. So some phone solicitation jobs have moved
overseas.
These are not the only jobs that used to be done in America but are
now done in India, Russia or Ireland..."
Many unemployed Americans on welfare now have their welfare hotlines
answered in India:
http://newstribune.com/stories/101602/sta_1016020924.asp
News Tribune - Missouri welfare hot line calls go to India 10/16/02
You can check to see if your state uses the eFunds Corporation, like
Missouri, Alabama, Delaware, Kansas...
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/EBT/ebt_status_report.htm
FSP - EBT Status Report
--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: les...@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
Adam H. Kerman
>I'm sure the ACLU objects to Nazism, but they will defend in court a
>Nazi's right to express his opinions.
That's a point of debate.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>CSX paid federal corporate taxes in only 2 of the past 4 years.
>>So, you are saying that Snow doesn't have the real world experience to be
>>Treasury secretary.
>No, I can't say that.
Sarcasm. Treasury's job is tax collection; Snow has no experience paying any.
Josh Rosenbluth
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
> > In article <3DF955A1...@joe.joe>, Joe <j...@joe.joe> wrote:
> >
> > > Reagan's tax cut nearly doubled tax revenues, Congress spent over
> > > $1.70 for each dollar of revenue that came in, which was significantly more
> > > than Reagan's budget asked for. Facts are facts.
>
> them below for your convenience.
> These numbers come
> directly from the Office of Management and Budget which tracks this information
> for many decades of fiscal history.
>
> President Budget and Congress's passed budget FY 1982-89
> Source: United States Office of Management and Budget
>
> Fiscal Year REAGAN's budget CONGRESS passed (billions $)
> 1982 695.3 745.8
> 1983 773.3 808.4
> 1984 862.5 851.8 *
> 1985 940.3 946.4
> 1986 973.7 990.3
> 1987 994.0 1003.9
> 1988 1024.3 1064.1
> 1989 1094.2 1144.2
These numbers are not quite correct. Here are the correct ones:
Fiscal Year Reagan's budget Congress passes Actual spending
1982 $695.3 $695.5 $745.8
1983 $757.6 $769.8 $808.4
1984 $848.5 $849.5 $851.8
1985 $925.5 $932.0 $946.4
1986 $973.7 $967.6 $990.3
1987 $994.0 $995.0 $1003.9
1988 $1024.3 $1040.8 $1064.1
1989 $1094.2 $1099.7 $1144.2
Total $7313.1 $7349.9 $7554.9
Sources: Reagan's budget, the 1982-89 OMB budget submissions
(available in paper only), Congress passes, 1981-88 Congressional
Quarterly Almanac (paper only), actuals, either OMB or CBO online.
Notes:
1) Reagan proposes a budget, Congress then passes a budget. Those two
steps are reflected in the first two collumns. Congress then passes,
and the President signs into law, the individual appropriations bills
(not reflected anywhere above). Finally, actual spending as
authorized by the appropriations bills is done, mostly by the
Executive branch. The actuals are the third collumn.
2) For 1982-85, the budgets (Reagan and Congress) are not an
"apples-to-apples" comparison with the actuals. Prior to 1986,
funding underwritten by the Federal Financing Bank (FFB), was not
counted in the budget. Starting in 1986, it was. Moreover, actuals
prior to 1986 were after-the-fact adjusted upward to reflect FFB
spending. Thus, FFB is included in 1982-85 actuals (because they are
taken from current online sources), but the 1982-85 budgets do not
include FFB (because they are taken from the source budgets as written
in 1982-85). When we adjust the above table for 1982-85 (and also
adjust the totals), we get:
Fiscal Year Reagan's budget Congress passes Actual spending
1982 $712.0 $712.2 $745.8
1983 $773.3 $785.5 $808.4
1984 $862.5 $863.5 $851.8
1985 $940.3 $946.8 $946.4
1986 $973.7 $967.6 $990.3
1987 $994.0 $995.0 $1003.9
1988 $1024.3 $1040.8 $1064.1
1989 $1094.2 $1099.7 $1144.2
Total $7374.3 $7411.1 $7554.9
Note that the Reagan figures for 1983-89 now match the poster's, but
his 1982 numbers did not include FFB funding. The above table
properly includes all spending.
Analysis:
Interestingly, Congress passed a budget that was higher than Reagan's
in all but one year. But that year was not 1984 as the poster
claimed. It was 1986. Yet, the total amount of money in the
Congressional budgets above the Reagan budgets is only $37B (0.5%)
over 8 years. Bottom line: the Congressional budgets are a viritual
match (in net spending) to the Reagan budgets.
The poster chose to compare actuals, rather than the Congressional
budget, to Reagan's budget. Now, if those actuals were higher because
extra pork, above the budgets, were snuck into the appropriations
bills, he'd have a point. But, that isn't what happened. The reason
that actuals were higher than either budget was that the economic
assumptions in the budgets proved to be too optimistic (except for
1984 when we had 7.8% GDP growth).
In particular, three line items account for the lion's share of why
actuals were higher: unemployment compensation, interest on the debt
and farm price supports. The actuals for all three items are based on
economic conditions. For example, when interest rates did not fall as
fast as assumed in the budgets, interest payment actuals were higher.
The budgets aren't really budgets for these line items. They are
estimates/guesses. Those guesses were often lousy (do you remember
"Rosy Scenario").
Thus, had Reagan got everything passed he wanted to, and only what he
wanted to (a rubber-stamp Congress), the actuals would have been very,
very close to what they were (only about 0.5% less).
Conclusion:
The expanding deficits of the Reagan years, and associated debt, was a
direct result of Reagan's fiscal policies: a tax cut at the same time
as a military build-up. Any notion that it was Congress who was
responsible because they didn't stay within Reagan's budgets is
revionist garbage.
Josh Rosenbluth
Philip Nasadowski
> How would electric freights provide better freight service to the customers?
Cheaper, faster. When you only need one loco to pull a train Vs 4, and
achive better speeds, you improve things via lower maintenance costs
ands lower equipment costs.
> Acela trains have enough problems getting power in the Newark NJ area as it is during peak
> hours with heavy demand from commuter trains.
That's Amtrak's fault for never bothering to upgrade the power system
like they were supposed to 20 years ago.
> I don't see how electric freight trains would improve
> things.
More with less, not to mention the longer life of electrics in general,
I bet if Conrail kept running electric, the E-44s would still be out
there today. in any case, how did dropping an in place system for more
locomotives and higher maintenance costs and less performance improve
things?
> No breakup for choice, innovation, more service and lower prices.
Innovation? In railroading? You want that, look elsewhere. The Class
Is are still not sure they want to ditch DC traction, letalone innovate.
For such an inovative industry, they're the sole holdout for DC motors,
besides small tossaway appliances. Not to mention obsolete locomotive
costruction (cast trucks and body on frame? That's so...30's...),
acient prime mover technology, an inability to properly maintain track
(wait, is THAT an innovation?), 1800's braking systems (and distances),
piss poor track utilization, low speeds....
> It used to cost around 30 cents a minute just for a simple long distance
> call during the day.
So what? i don't call long distance all the time, i make local calls.
And AT&T's local service was better and cheaper.
> numbers are 10 digits.
And years ago, I could make calls by dialing 7. Now, there's talk of
requiring 1+area code for *all* calls, meaning i have to dial 11 digits
just to order a freaking pizza. Plus the wonderful bugs in the system -
I once tried calling a203 number from 860, got a recording that I didn't
need the area code to call it, didn't use it, got a recording I *needed*
the area code to call it (curiusly, the computer knows what area code I
needed and didn't need, but is too stupid to patch the call through).
Well, after playing area code ping pong for a while, I tried leaving out
the 1, the call goes through. The phone company (SNET) couldn't explain
this one other than 'it happens'.
Not to mention, after 9/11, I couldn't call from CT to long Ialand
unless I jumped through various hoops (try other LD carriers, TRY to get
an operator, pray they knew what the hell they were doing...) This
lasted weeks.
> Well let's see, today we can choose between a cable company and a phone
> company to get broadband network access.
So what? life doesn't revolve around broadfband and who's to say AT&T
wouldn't have offered those anyway? And having been trying to get DSL
here (Glen Cove, NY, 18 miles from midtown Manhattan), the phone company
(Verizon) can't give me a yes or no answer, can't tell me when they'll
know, can't tell me if I'll ever be able to.
> We have a wide variety of long distance plans to
> choose from, even unlimited plans. Long distance is dirt cheap.
Who the hell cares? I don't make 10 zillion LD calls a day, I make 10
zillion local cals, and local service here sucks ass.
The breakup of AT&T gave us cheap LD service and nothing more. Local is
getting more and more expensive, thanks to a variety of bizzare
surcharges that are 'required' (Number portability surcharge of a buck a
month?), service quality is in the gutter, wireless is a clusterfuck at
best, try finding a coin phone out there. Try finding one that won't
rip you off. Area codes have become a mess, with 1/2 being overlays 1/2
being splits, there's talk of *four digit* area codes, and when anything
breaks, I can't get a human being at the end of the line.
And they want to do this to my electric utility? I remember in the
Lilco days, you had a problem, you dialed them, got a voice, explained
it, and it was fixed fast. Now, if the lights go out, I can't get a
real person on the line to tell me when the hell they'll be back on. To
top it off, NY state, to encourage 'competition', prohibits the gas
utility from relighting pilot lights for free, so now I can save money
by having a serviceman come here ("Yeah, we'll be there some time this
week...") and charge me $20 to do what the utility did for free (and
even went around door to door asking for it after any gas work in the
area...)
Adam H. Kerman
>Joe <j...@joe.yy> wrote:
>>Conrail did not begin operations until 1976. It began as a government owned
>>monopoly long known for poor service and disposing of both track and
>>customers.
>Might have had a rough start, but ultimately was a good investment by
>the government, as it turned into a pretty sucessful operation in the end.
If one measures "success" by dramatically reducing infrastructure.
Adam H. Kerman
>These numbers are not quite correct. Here are the correct ones:
Thanks for posting this.
>Fiscal Year Reagan's budget Congress passes Actual spending
>1982 $695.3 $695.5 $745.8
>1983 $757.6 $769.8 $808.4
>1984 $848.5 $849.5 $851.8
Man! How'd they do that?
>1985 $925.5 $932.0 $946.4
>1986 $973.7 $967.6 $990.3
>1987 $994.0 $995.0 $1003.9
>1988 $1024.3 $1040.8 $1064.1
>1989 $1094.2 $1099.7 $1144.2
>Total $7313.1 $7349.9 $7554.9
>Sources: Reagan's budget, the 1982-89 OMB budget submissions
>(available in paper only), Congress passes, 1981-88 Congressional
>Quarterly Almanac (paper only), actuals, either OMB or CBO online.
>Notes:
>1) Reagan proposes a budget, Congress then passes a budget.
Right; the budget passed by Congress is symbolic.
>Those two steps are reflected in the first two collumns. Congress then
>passes, and the President signs into law, the individual appropriations
>bills (not reflected anywhere above).
The budget passed by Congress doesn't actually equal the total appropriated
plus the estimated spending via entitlements plus estimated interest on debt.
>The poster chose to compare actuals, rather than the Congressional
>budget, to Reagan's budget. Now, if those actuals were higher because
>extra pork, above the budgets, were snuck into the appropriations
>bills, he'd have a point. But, that isn't what happened. The reason
>that actuals were higher than either budget was that the economic
>assumptions in the budgets proved to be too optimistic (except for
>1984 when we had 7.8% GDP growth).
Right. Here, it's reasonable to remember that both OMB and CBO make economic
assumptions based on different criteria, so one should also see if the
administration or Congress made the more reasonable forcast.
>Conclusion:
>The expanding deficits of the Reagan years, and associated debt, was a
>direct result of Reagan's fiscal policies: a tax cut at the same time
>as a military build-up. Any notion that it was Congress who was
>responsible because they didn't stay within Reagan's budgets is
>revionist garbage.
I really want to thank you for taking the time to back up the argument,
as I was too lazy to do it. But this is contrary to the best tradition of
Usenet, you know.
Is there a chance that Anonymous Dude will concede?
Joe
> Conclusion:
>
> The expanding deficits of the Reagan years, and associated debt, was a
> direct result of Reagan's fiscal policies: a tax cut at the same time
> as a military build-up. Any notion that it was Congress who was
> responsible because they didn't stay within Reagan's budgets is
> revionist garbage.
1.) Reagan did push more higher military spending which directly led to the end of
the long term costly colde war, the fall of the iron curtain, and the termination of
the Soviet Union. all without firing a shot. This led to much less military spending
in the years afterward, resulting in long term economic expansion.
2.) The tax cut led to the greatest economic expansion that the nation had ever seen,
and also nearly DOUBLED tax revenue, while setting the stage for the next economic
expansion in the 1990's. (tax rates would later be raised slightly by the Bush
administration and then the Clinton administration years but never anywhere near
where they were before Reagan's tax policies kicked in. It is hard to claim that the
huge INCREASE in tax REVENUE was irresponsible. And Reagan or no Reagan, the
Congress never reduced spending, instead over $1.70 was spent for every tax dollar
that came in, even those incoming tax dollars had nearly doubled.
3.) Congress routinely spent more money than even Reagan had called for. In fact,
they took him to court to spend even more. Congress overrode vetoes, such as
Boston's Big Dig. Senator Kennedy even pushed for massive federal tobacco subsidies
in exchnage for the $15 billion, 5 mile highway project. Rail was not included.
4.) I will have to examine FFB funding as I did not have that available earlier.
Josh Rosenbluth
Joe wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
> > Conclusion:
> >
> > The expanding deficits of the Reagan years, and associated debt, was a
> > direct result of Reagan's fiscal policies: a tax cut at the same time
> > as a military build-up. Any notion that it was Congress who was
> > responsible because they didn't stay within Reagan's budgets is
> > revionist garbage.
>
> 1.) Reagan did push more higher military spending which directly led to the end of
> the long term costly colde war, the fall of the iron curtain, and the termination of
> the Soviet Union. all without firing a shot. This led to much less military spending
> in the years afterward, resulting in long term economic expansion.
> 2.) The tax cut led to the greatest economic expansion that the nation had ever seen,
> and also nearly DOUBLED tax revenue, while setting the stage for the next economic
> expansion in the 1990's. (tax rates would later be raised slightly by the Bush
> administration and then the Clinton administration years but never anywhere near
> where they were before Reagan's tax policies kicked in. It is hard to claim that the
> huge INCREASE in tax REVENUE was irresponsible.
The growth in GDP since the Reagan tax cut (the 2 complete business cycles from 3Q1982
through 3Q2001) is 3.3%. That virtually matches the post-WWII historical growth rate of
3.5% prior to the tax cuts. Moreover, the GDP growth rate in the last full business
cycle just prior to the tax cut (1Q75 to 3Q80) was 3.4%. And as if you didn't need more,
Reagan forecast 4.5% growth thanks to his tax cut. It didn't happen. Supply side was a
failure.
Yes, revenue increased a little bit after the tax cut. But only if you wait long enough
(income tax revenues did not recover to pre-tax cut levels until 1987) and don't include
that portion of the increase caused by the 1986 Tax Reform Act authored by Bill Bradley.
But even allowing you to credit the increase to the 1981 cut, revenue would have
increased a WHOLE LOT MORE without the tax cut, because the slight economic stimulus
provided by the tax cut did not come anywhere close to the direct loss in revenue as a %
of GDP.
Reagan had a plan to expand the military. He also wanted to cut taxes. He submitted a
balanced budget with both items in it. It took that 4.5% assumed GDP growth to get
there. Sorry, didn't happen. The combination of increased spending as Reagan called for
and a tax cut was the height of irresponsibility.
> And Reagan or no Reagan, the
> Congress never reduced spending, instead over $1.70 was spent for every tax dollar
> that came in, even those incoming tax dollars had nearly doubled.
>
> 3.) Congress routinely spent more money than even Reagan had called for. In fact,
> they took him to court to spend even more. Congress overrode vetoes, such as
> Boston's Big Dig. Senator Kennedy even pushed for massive federal tobacco subsidies
> in exchnage for the $15 billion, 5 mile highway project. Rail was not included.
Didn't you read my post? Overall, net spending was what Reagan asked for when you
account for the lousy economic assumptions in his budget. In his first year, Reagan got
virtually everything he asked for line for line (the election mandate). Every other
year, the sum-total Congressional budget was what Reagan asked for. Congress just
increased the military less than Reagan called for and substituted domestic spending
instead (as in the example you gave). But, the NET TOTAL was what Reagan wanted.
Moreover, military spending greatly expanded during this time while non-military spending
(excluding Social Security and Medicare) greatly contracted. That's Reagan policy, not
Congress. Or try this thought experiment: re-compute the deficits assuming that Reagan
gets what he asked for, and only what he asks for. Since the result is virtually the
same deficits, you see it was Reagan policy.
[Aside: Social Security and Medicare 1) are self-funding through payroll taxes and had a
growing surplus during the 80's and 2) spending only increased because the number of old
people increased and medical-industry inflation greatly out-stripped the rest odf the
economy. Per-capita benefits were flat.]
Josh Rosenbluth
Joe
> In article <3DFAD82E...@joe.yy>, Joe <j...@joe.yy> wrote:
>
> > How would electric freights provide better freight service to the customers?
>
> Cheaper, faster. When you only need one loco to pull a train Vs 4, and
> achive better speeds, you improve things via lower maintenance costs
> ands lower equipment costs.
What are the costs between electric freight trains and diesels? Last time I checked, there
aren't any catenaries besides the northeast corridor (mostly passenger) main line, the (mostly
passenger) main line between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, and a few commuter rail lines.
>
> > Acela trains have enough problems getting power in the Newark NJ area as it is during peak
> > hours with heavy demand from commuter trains.
>
> That's Amtrak's fault for never bothering to upgrade the power system
> like they were supposed to 20 years ago.
And yet you propose that we would be better off today if there were electric freight trains
running around.
> > I don't see how electric freight trains would improve
> > things.
>
> More with less, not to mention the longer life of electrics in general,
> I bet if Conrail kept running electric, the E-44s would still be out
> there today. in any case, how did dropping an in place system for more
> locomotives and higher maintenance costs and less performance improve
> things?
Show us these maintenance cost differences that you claim.
> > No breakup for choice, innovation, more service and lower prices.
>
> Innovation? In railroading? You want that, look elsewhere. The Class
> Is are still not sure they want to ditch DC traction, letalone innovate.
> For such an inovative industry, they're the sole holdout for DC motors,
> besides small tossaway appliances. Not to mention obsolete locomotive
> costruction (cast trucks and body on frame? That's so...30's...),
> acient prime mover technology, an inability to properly maintain track
> (wait, is THAT an innovation?), 1800's braking systems (and distances),
> piss poor track utilization, low speeds....
The issue is Conrail vs post-Conrail. Post Conrail, we have railroads working with shippers to
focus on previously ignored major routes, such as northeast US to the south. We have improved
signals between north Jersey, Philadelphia, and Chicago. We have expanded intermodal facilities
and services. We have over a 30% increase in intermodal traffic in the northeast. We have new
yards being built.
>
>
>
> > It used to cost around 30 cents a minute just for a simple long distance
> > call during the day.
>
> So what? i don't call long distance all the time, i make local calls.
> And AT&T's local service was better and cheaper.
>
> > numbers are 10 digits.
>
> And years ago, I could make calls by dialing 7. Now, there's talk of
> requiring 1+area code for *all* calls, meaning i have to dial 11 digits
> just to order a freaking pizza. Plus the wonderful bugs in the system -
> I once tried calling a203 number from 860, got a recording that I didn't
> need the area code to call it, didn't use it, got a recording I *needed*
> the area code to call it (curiusly, the computer knows what area code I
> needed and didn't need, but is too stupid to patch the call through).
> Well, after playing area code ping pong for a while, I tried leaving out
> the 1, the call goes through. The phone company (SNET) couldn't explain
> this one other than 'it happens'.
I'm sorry you're having so much trouble operating your telephone. You don't make the case that
all of us would be better with having a single choice, AT&T monopoly to make phone calls.
> Not to mention, after 9/11, I couldn't call from CT to long Ialand
> unless I jumped through various hoops (try other LD carriers, TRY to get
> an operator, pray they knew what the hell they were doing...) This
> lasted weeks.
And you had the option to use other LD carriers.
> > Well let's see, today we can choose between a cable company and a phone
> > company to get broadband network access.
>
> So what? life doesn't revolve around broadfband and who's to say AT&T
> wouldn't have offered those anyway? And having been trying to get DSL
> here (Glen Cove, NY, 18 miles from midtown Manhattan), the phone company
> (Verizon) can't give me a yes or no answer, can't tell me when they'll
> know, can't tell me if I'll ever be able to.
So there are no benefits to consumers at large because your personal needs don't include
broadband. And we'd all be better off paying the high monopoly rates we did 25 years ago.
> > We have a wide variety of long distance plans to
> > choose from, even unlimited plans. Long distance is dirt cheap.
>
> Who the hell cares? I don't make 10 zillion LD calls a day, I make 10
> zillion local cals, and local service here sucks ass.
Because you don't use the service much, the rest of the country shouldn't care to get choices
and cheaper service that better meets their needs?
> The breakup of AT&T gave us cheap LD service and nothing more. Local is
> getting more and more expensive, thanks to a variety of bizzare
> surcharges that are 'required' (Number portability surcharge of a buck a
> month?), service quality is in the gutter, wireless is a clusterfuck at
> best, try finding a coin phone out there. Try finding one that won't
> rip you off. Area codes have become a mess, with 1/2 being overlays 1/2
> being splits, there's talk of *four digit* area codes, and when anything
> breaks, I can't get a human being at the end of the line.
Sorry you're having so many problems operating your telephone and being presented with options.
Interesting how most of your problems revolve around your incumbent monopoly local company (SNET
in Connecticut and Verizon in New York) not with consumer choice options, yet you are protesting
the areas where you have a choice.
>
>
> And they want to do this to my electric utility? I remember in the
> Lilco days, you had a problem, you dialed them, got a voice, explained
> it, and it was fixed fast. Now, if the lights go out, I can't get a
> real person on the line to tell me when the hell they'll be back on. To
> top it off, NY state, to encourage 'competition', prohibits the gas
> utility from relighting pilot lights for free, so now I can save money
> by having a serviceman come here ("Yeah, we'll be there some time this
> week...") and charge me $20 to do what the utility did for free (and
> even went around door to door asking for it after any gas work in the
> area...)
I'm sorry but someone must be truly helpless if they cannot light a simple pilot light. It takes
the ability to read simple directions on the boiler plate, a little common sense, and a match
book. You'd be better off with modern appliances and boilers that don't require pilot lights.
And, gee all of this really proves that Conrail was better in the long term.
Josh Rosenbluth
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@att.com> wrote:
>
> >These numbers are not quite correct. Here are the correct ones:
>
> Thanks for posting this.
>
> >Fiscal Year Reagan's budget Congress passes Actual spending
> >1982 $695.3 $695.5 $745.8
> >1983 $757.6 $769.8 $808.4
> >1984 $848.5 $849.5 $851.8
>
> Man! How'd they do that?
>
> >1985 $925.5 $932.0 $946.4
> >1986 $973.7 $967.6 $990.3
> >1987 $994.0 $995.0 $1003.9
> >1988 $1024.3 $1040.8 $1064.1
> >1989 $1094.2 $1099.7 $1144.2
>
> >Total $7313.1 $7349.9 $7554.9
>
> >Sources: Reagan's budget, the 1982-89 OMB budget submissions
> >(available in paper only), Congress passes, 1981-88 Congressional
> >Quarterly Almanac (paper only), actuals, either OMB or CBO online.
>
> >Notes:
>
> >1) Reagan proposes a budget, Congress then passes a budget.
>
> Right; the budget passed by Congress is symbolic.
Not exactly. Appropriations that stay within the budget cannot be fillibustered
in the Senate. Appropriations beyond the budget can (and thus require a
super-majority of 60 to pass).
Joe
Sorry, it would not have and that is wrong. Before the tax cuts the economy was floundering,
and was suffocating under high taxes. Unemployment was rampant. Inflation was high. The
tax cuts were what led to the enormous economic expansion (the greatest expansion the nation
had ever seen, in fact, and led to the increased tax revenues. No, an entire economy
doesn't expand overnight, the multiplier effect does take time.
>
>
> Reagan had a plan to expand the military. He also wanted to cut taxes. He submitted a
> balanced budget with both items in it. It took that 4.5% assumed GDP growth to get
> there. Sorry, didn't happen. The combination of increased spending as Reagan called for
> and a tax cut was the height of irresponsibility.
Prior to Reagan we had an 18% prime interest rate! The economy was in shambles. Inflation
was sky-high, destroying the value of savings. Unemployment was quite high as well. After
Reagan was elected, Tax REVENUES almost doubled under Reagan's tax policies that Congress
implemented. It is intersting how you consider what was the greatest economic in the
countries history and massively increased tax revenues as "irresponsible."
> > And Reagan or no Reagan, the
> > Congress never reduced spending, instead over $1.70 was spent for every tax dollar
> > that came in, even those incoming tax dollars had nearly doubled.
>
> >
> > 3.) Congress routinely spent more money than even Reagan had called for. In fact,
> > they took him to court to spend even more. Congress overrode vetoes, such as
> > Boston's Big Dig. Senator Kennedy even pushed for massive federal tobacco subsidies
> > in exchnage for the $15 billion, 5 mile highway project. Rail was not included.
>
> Didn't you read my post? Overall, net spending was what Reagan asked for when you
> account for the lousy economic assumptions in his budget. In his first year, Reagan got
> virtually everything he asked for line for line (the election mandate). Every other
> year, the sum-total Congressional budget was what Reagan asked for. Congress just
> increased the military less than Reagan called for and substituted domestic spending
> instead (as in the example you gave).
The increased Domestic spending had little long term benefits for the economy, although
poverty did decrease some during the 80s. The increased defense spending had large logn term
benefits for the economy.
> But, the NET TOTAL was what Reagan wanted.
> Moreover, military spending greatly expanded during this time while non-military spending
> (excluding Social Security and Medicare) greatly contracted. That's Reagan policy, not
> Congress. Or try this thought experiment: re-compute the deficits assuming that Reagan
> gets what he asked for, and only what he asks for. Since the result is virtually the
> same deficits, you see it was Reagan policy.
The president proposes a draft budget to Congress. Congress actually passes the budget. Not
one dollar was spent without the Democrat Congress's approval. It was the military spending
that led to the tremendous savings in the 90's after the cold war was won, the iron curtain
fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Mission accomplished. And a tremendous economic
expansion to boot. The notion of a "rubber stamp" Congress is a very interesting tale,
considering the massive amount of Gridlock that Congress prided itself on during this time.
Reagan's superb job as president was applauded by the people en masse, and 49 out of 50
states reelected him.
Josh Rosenbluth
Joe wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > >
> > > > Conclusion:
> > > >
> > > > The expanding deficits of the Reagan years, and associated debt, was a
> > > > direct result of Reagan's fiscal policies: a tax cut at the same time
> > > > as a military build-up. Any notion that it was Congress who was
> > > > responsible because they didn't stay within Reagan's budgets is
> > > > revionist garbage.
> > >
> > > 2.) The tax cut led to the greatest economic expansion that the nation had ever seen,
> > > and also nearly DOUBLED tax revenue, while setting the stage for the next economic
> > > expansion in the 1990's. (tax rates would later be raised slightly by the Bush
> > > administration and then the Clinton administration years but never anywhere near
> > > where they were before Reagan's tax policies kicked in. It is hard to claim that the
> > > huge INCREASE in tax REVENUE was irresponsible.
> >
> > The growth in GDP since the Reagan tax cut (the 2 complete business cycles from 3Q1982
> > through 3Q2001) is 3.3%. That virtually matches the post-WWII historical growth rate of
> > 3.5% prior to the tax cuts. Moreover, the GDP growth rate in the last full business
> > cycle just prior to the tax cut (1Q75 to 3Q80) was 3.4%. And as if you didn't need more,
> > Reagan forecast 4.5% growth thanks to his tax cut. It didn't happen. Supply side was a
> > failure.
> >
> > Yes, revenue increased a little bit after the tax cut. But only if you wait long enough
> > (income tax revenues did not recover to pre-tax cut levels until 1987) and don't include
> > that portion of the increase caused by the 1986 Tax Reform Act authored by Bill Bradley.
> > But even allowing you to credit the increase to the 1981 cut, revenue would have
> > increased a WHOLE LOT MORE without the tax cut, because the slight economic stimulus
> > provided by the tax cut did not come anywhere close to the direct loss in revenue as a %
> > of GDP.
>
> Sorry, it would not have and that is wrong. Before the tax cuts the economy was floundering,
> and was suffocating under high taxes. Unemployment was rampant. Inflation was high. The
> tax cuts were what led to the enormous economic expansion (the greatest expansion the nation
> had ever seen, in fact, and led to the increased tax revenues. No, an entire economy
> doesn't expand overnight, the multiplier effect does take time.
You totally ignored my data about economic growth being virtually the same before and after he
tax cut. And the data about how Reagan assumed 4.5% growth. Your so-called greatest expansion
was of the same magintude as it had always been since WWII (it was the greatest in length, not in
strength), nowhere near the 4.5% needed by the supply-side Koolaid drinkers.
If you are so sure that the economy would have stunk without the tax cut, then by all means
*quantify based on primary and/or secondary research* about how much the economy would have grown
without the tax cut. Once we know that figure, we can somewhat trivially calculate the revenue
take without the tax cut and see who is right.
> > > 3.) Congress routinely spent more money than even Reagan had called for. In fact,
> > > they took him to court to spend even more. Congress overrode vetoes, such as
> > > Boston's Big Dig. Senator Kennedy even pushed for massive federal tobacco subsidies
> > > in exchnage for the $15 billion, 5 mile highway project. Rail was not included.
> >
> > Didn't you read my post? Overall, net spending was what Reagan asked for when you
> > account for the lousy economic assumptions in his budget. In his first year, Reagan got
> > virtually everything he asked for line for line (the election mandate). Every other
> > year, the sum-total Congressional budget was what Reagan asked for. Congress just
> > increased the military less than Reagan called for and substituted domestic spending
> > instead (as in the example you gave).
>
> The increased Domestic spending had little long term benefits for the economy, although
> poverty did decrease some during the 80s. The increased defense spending had large logn term
> benefits for the economy.
We are in the realm of pure opinion, without the possibility of fact-based opinion (where debate
always breaksdown). Namely, you claim that without the Reagan military build-up, we don't win
the Cold War, we get no peace dividend, etc. Of course, there is no way to argue that one with
facts because we cannot do the controlled experiment of what would have happened without the
military build-up, nor can we even do a reasonable thought experiment.
But, you must admit then that had Reagan been honest, he wouldn't have said he could balance the
budget. But rather, he would have said that deficits and debt were necessary for a higher goal
that would, over a very long time, prove to be fiscally sound. And that the deficits and debt
which actually resulted were in fact a direct *intentional* result of Reagan fiscal policy, not
some creation by the Congressional boogey-man. My data showing that Congress did not outspend
Reagan cements that one.
Josh Rosenbluth
Becky James
In 1974, the per capita GDP was hovering around $15,000. In 1982, the beginning of the Reagan
economic era, per capita GDP was flirting with $16,000, an increase of about a $1000. By comparsion
that $16,000 figure increased to $19,500 by 1989. These numbers are real dollar amounts (adjusted
for inflation), in constant 1987 dollars. There was no greater uninterrupted expansion earlier.
>
>
> If you are so sure that the economy would have stunk without the tax cut, then by all means
> *quantify based on primary and/or secondary research* about how much the economy would have grown
> without the tax cut. Once we know that figure, we can somewhat trivially calculate the revenue
> take without the tax cut and see who is right.
We KNOW what the economy was before the tax cut. We know that the country was strangled, that there
was a 18% prime rate, high inflation, low employment, and low growth. We also know that the GDP grew
an average rate of 4.3% during the Reagan economic years. There was no extended growth during the
Carter era, in fact there were two recessions. As the Reagan economic policies took effect, the
nation saw not only the largest but the longest expansion in peacetime history.
>
>
> > > > 3.) Congress routinely spent more money than even Reagan had called for. In fact,
> > > > they took him to court to spend even more. Congress overrode vetoes, such as
> > > > Boston's Big Dig. Senator Kennedy even pushed for massive federal tobacco subsidies
> > > > in exchnage for the $15 billion, 5 mile highway project. Rail was not included.
> > >
> > > Didn't you read my post? Overall, net spending was what Reagan asked for when you
> > > account for the lousy economic assumptions in his budget. In his first year, Reagan got
> > > virtually everything he asked for line for line (the election mandate). Every other
> > > year, the sum-total Congressional budget was what Reagan asked for. Congress just
> > > increased the military less than Reagan called for and substituted domestic spending
> > > instead (as in the example you gave).
> >
> > The increased Domestic spending had little long term benefits for the economy, although
> > poverty did decrease some during the 80s. The increased defense spending had large logn term
> > benefits for the economy.
>
> We are in the realm of pure opinion, without the possibility of fact-based opinion (where debate
> always breaksdown). Namely, you claim that without the Reagan military build-up, we don't win
> the Cold War, we get no peace dividend, etc. Of course, there is no way to argue that one with
> facts because we cannot do the controlled experiment of what would have happened without the
> military build-up, nor can we even do a reasonable thought experiment.
Well let's deal with facts. The Soviet Union was going strong when Reagan took office. There was no
end in site for the cold war, and the soviet block iron curtain countries. Yet the cold war was won,
the Soviet empire collapsed and the iron curtain fell.
>
>
> But, you must admit then that had Reagan been honest, he wouldn't have said he could balance the
> budget. But rather, he would have said that deficits and debt were necessary for a higher goal
> that would, over a very long time, prove to be fiscally sound. And that the deficits and debt
> which actually resulted were in fact a direct *intentional* result of Reagan fiscal policy, not
> some creation by the Congressional boogey-man. My data showing that Congress did not outspend
> Reagan cements that one.
Sorry. You cannot claim that Reagan mysteriously spent all of this money without approval from
Congress's approved spending.
James Robinson
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > How would electric freights provide better freight service
> > to the customers?
>
> Cheaper, faster. When you only need one loco to pull a train Vs 4,
> and achive better speeds, you improve things via lower maintenance
> costs ands lower equipment costs.
That doesn't hold together. All major electric freight operations
(Conrail, Milwaukee, Virginian) were abandoned specifically because it
was cheaper to use diesel-electric locomotives. They even had the
necessary infrastructure already in place, and the only costs were
ongoing maintenance and power, yet they still chose to abandon the
operations. If anybody should have known the true benefit, it would
have been those railroads.
In addition, the modern operations on the Nationales de Mexico and BC
Rail were also recently abandoned due to the high cost. Diesel-electrics
now handle the trains on those lines.
You are also dreaming if you think that one electric locomotive will
replace four diesel-electrics. Locomotives not only provide horsepower,
they also provide tractive effort for the brute force pull over steep
gradients. If the tractive effort from four diesel-electrics is
required for the ruling grade, you can bet that four, more expensive,
electric locomotives will also be required to perform the same task.
The result - zero savings in the number of locomotives, but higher cost
in the purchase of the electrics, and the need to provide and maintain
catenary.
There will actually be additional locomotives required on a mixed
operation, because of the need to provide non-productive pools of
locomotives where electric and diesel-electric locomotives are swapped.
> More with less, not to mention the longer life of electrics in general,
> I bet if Conrail kept running electric, the E-44s would still be out
> there today.
Longer life is also a myth. The Black Mesa and Lake Powell has begun to
replace their 25 year old electrics with ones from Mexico that had never
been used, because BM&LP's original locomotives are worn out. That's
about the same age as when diesel-electrics would be replaced.
> in any case, how did dropping an in place system for more
> locomotives and higher maintenance costs and less performance
> improve things?
They ended up with fewer locomotives and maintenance costs dropped
without the catenary to worry about on their freight-only lines. Not to
mention the reduced cost from avoiding Amtrak's usurious rates no the
NEC.
> Innovation? In railroading? You want that, look elsewhere. The Class
> Is are still not sure they want to ditch DC traction, letalone innovate.
> For such an inovative industry, they're the sole holdout for DC motors,
> besides small tossaway appliances.
We've been through this discussion before, and you continue to
demonstrate your lack of understanding of the economics. The railroads
use AC traction in the places where they make economic sense, and
continue to use DC traction in other places because it is still
cost-effective. Without a reduction in the price gap between the two
designs, there aren't too many more places where they will be introduced
in the future, as pretty well all applications where AC make sense have
been filled. The railroads are trying to run a business, not embark on
a technological adventure to satisfy people who want to have the
"latest" for the sake of being called modern.
> Not to mention obsolete locomotive costruction (cast trucks and
> body on frame? That's so...30's...),
Lord save us from the fatigue problems associated with fabricated
trucks. Give me cast truck frames any day for durability.
And why on earth would the railroads want to revert to monocoque designs
like the E and F units? They were a nightmare to maintain, and didn't
add anything to the functionality of the locomotive. It's not as though
they are attempting to lighten a freight locomotive, since weight is a
virtue in freight operations.
> acient prime mover technology,
That's an odd comment, considering that most freight railroads around
the world prefer "American Iron" for serious heavy-haul operations. I
refer to operations all over North America, South America, Australia,
and South Africa. There have been recent sales in Estonia, and I
wouldn't be surprised to see more sales in other parts of the CIS.
The latest in a long line of attempts to use European diesel engines has
also been disappointing. I'm referring to the use of the Deutz engine
by GE, which has never worked properly, an spite of many engineering
revisions. Previous attempts were made to use diesel engines made by
Rolls Royce, Sulzer, MAN, Maybach, Ruston, and others. They all were
inferior in the applications and the standard US technology has
prevailed. It isn't a NIH problem, since they have repeatedly tried
other designs.
> 1800's braking systems (and distances),
Saying that it is 1800's braking technology is the same as saying
automobiles are 1800's technology because they still run on rubber
tires. The air brake systems in use today might have the same basic
principle, but they are also significantly faster, less prone to false
signals, will operate on much longer trains, and are far more durable
than those available when air brakes were first introduced. In short,
they are completely different systems. And again, as the systems have
evolved, they economically fulfill the railroads needs. No replacement
technology has proven to beat the simple air brake system.
> piss poor track utilization, low speeds....
Utilization is actually quite good, if you only understood what it
really means. As far as speeds, they are adequate for the marketplace.
I'm sure the railroads would like to have higher speeds in some places,
but like the old New Haven line, it just costs too much to straighten
out the curves for the resulting time savings. Local communities also
love to try to lower speeds through towns, which affects the ability of
railroads to make time in much of the eastern part of the country.
> i don't call long distance all the time, i make local calls.
> And AT&T's local service was better and cheaper.
It's about time that local service was forced to pay for itself and not
rely on the long distance users to cross-subsidize them. The
deregulation of the long lines has significantly helped the economy of
the country through lower communication charges. Innovation has led to
such things as affordable internet, which never would have happened with
the old, staid, AT&T in control. It's funny to see you criticize the
railroads for being set in their ways, but in the same breath defending
the dinosaur that was AT&T.
> And years ago, I could make calls by dialing 7. Now, there's talk of
> requiring 1+area code for *all* calls, meaning i have to dial 11 digits
> just to order a freaking pizza.
An you think that AT&T would somehow have stopped that from happening?
Get Real. There are a few more people living in New York than when the
Dutch conned it out of the natives. There are just too many demands for
new phone numbers with the added population, and people wanting separate
lines for their kids, fax, and computers.
> So what? life doesn't revolve around broadfband and who's to say AT&T
> wouldn't have offered those anyway?
You're dreaming, aren't you? AT&T offer a competitive service at an
affordable rate? And yes, the world does revolve around broadband. The
revolution in communications that accompanied telephone deregulation has
had a tremendous benefit on the competitiveness of businesses. That
pays salaries, and makes the economy tick. Who cares about a simple
phone line into a house? How does that add to the competitiveness of the
economy?
> And having been trying to get DSL here (Glen Cove, NY, 18 miles
> from midtown Manhattan), the phone company (Verizon) can't give
> me a yes or no answer, can't tell me when they'll know, can't tell
> me if I'll ever be able to.
Yeah, and I remember dealing with AT&T when they wanted you to stay home
all day for a service call, because they wouldn't bother to tell you
when they might appear. Then they wouldn't even show up at all - no
call, no apology, just another day lost waiting for them. Ah, the good
old days of their monopoly.
> And they want to do this to my electric utility? I remember in the
> Lilco days, you had a problem, you dialed them, got a voice, explained
> it, and it was fixed fast. Now, if the lights go out, I can't get a
> real person on the line to tell me when the hell they'll be back on.
You haven't been talking to anyone in North Carolina lately, have you?
No voice, no projected service restoration, and the utility has been
anything but fast with restoration.
Jeff Nor Lisa
IS RIGHT about how the decline in telephone service qualtiy since
the breakup of AT&T.
People forget that AT&T was dropping its long distance rates all
along, and would've continued to do so. Also, they dropped the
all rental policy, allowing customers to own their own equipment.
Off course, many customers have junk that doesn't work now, but
that's another story.
My employer and myself are always running into finger pointing
between the local company and the long distance company over
problems. We're at a LATA boundary, so it makes things difficult
as nearly everything crosses that boundary.
As to rates, short distance toll rates are way up. It's great if you
call coast-to-coast all the time, but if you're calling 10 miles
away across a LATA, you're paying much more than what AT&T used
to charge. Just before divesture, they charged me 5c a minute to
call interstate 20 miles away. No plan, no monthly charges, no
nonsense, just 5c a minute. Not true today.
The telephone solicitors are a big problem today. I do not give
out my number, but that doesn't matter since they use sequential
dialers.
Critics of the old Bell System seem to think technology would
stayed frozen and we'd still be using early 1980s technology.
They forget it was the old Bell System that had the resources to
develop the technology and push the envelope for the rest of industry.
Remember, allowing multiple local companies--who skim the cream off
leaving the regulated company with the junk--is what caused the
area code explosion.
John Mara
"James Robinson" <was...@mailcircuit.com> wrote in message
news:3DFBB9CD...@mailcircuit.com...
> Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> > And years ago, I could make calls by dialing 7. Now, there's talk of
> > requiring 1+area code for *all* calls, meaning i have to dial 11 digits
> > just to order a freaking pizza.
>
> An you think that AT&T would somehow have stopped that from happening?
> Get Real. There are a few more people living in New York than when the
> Dutch conned it out of the natives. There are just too many demands for
> new phone numbers with the added population, and people wanting separate
> lines for their kids, fax, and computers.
I don't understand why they (whoever "they" might be) didn't just add one
digit to phone numbers in larger cities. At one time small towns had four
digit phone numbers, small cities had five digit phone numbers and big
cities had five digit phone numbers with a two letter prefix. All of this
was handled with electo-mechanical switching.
John Mara
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
> In 1974, the per capita GDP was hovering around $15,000. In 1982, the beginning of the Reagan
> economic era, per capita GDP was flirting with $16,000, an increase of about a $1000. By comparsion
> that $16,000 figure increased to $19,500 by 1989. These numbers are real dollar amounts (adjusted
> for inflation), in constant 1987 dollars. There was no greater uninterrupted expansion earlier.
>
> > If you are so sure that the economy would have stunk without the tax cut, then by all means
> > *quantify based on primary and/or secondary research* about how much the economy would have grown
> > without the tax cut. Once we know that figure, we can somewhat trivially calculate the revenue
> > take without the tax cut and see who is right.
>
> We KNOW what the economy was before the tax cut. We know that the country was strangled, that there
> was a 18% prime rate, high inflation, low employment, and low growth. We also know that the GDP grew
> an average rate of 4.3% during the Reagan economic years. There was no extended growth during the
> Carter era, in fact there were two recessions. As the Reagan economic policies took effect, the
> nation saw not only the largest but the longest expansion in peacetime history.
Firstly, you didn't answer the question: what would the growth rate
have been without the tax cut? Secondly, you just used a trick (and
used it above with the per-capita figures as well) I've seen before by
some supply-side defenders (only those who are ignorant or purposely
deceptive). They count as the baseline (i.e., last pre-Reagan year)
1982, and the end of the Reagan era as 1989. Thus Reagan is measured
on 1983-89.
Not coincidently, this is a period without a recession. Hell, anybody
can make their record look good if they just ignore the recessions and
counted the expansion (and you couldn't even get that right - the
Reagan expansion ran from 4Q82 through 2Q90, a period of 4.0% growth,
not 4.3%). But unless you are arguing that Reagan's policies put an
end to the business cycle, then you *must* measure economic
performance over whole business cycles (quick aside for you math
junkies: periodic functions can only be evaluated over whole
periods).
Putting it another way, you are absolutely right that 4.3% growth into
perpetuity, over repeated full business cycles, would be something
great. As I said before, Reagan assumed there would be 4.5% such
growth, and if 4.3% resulted, he was right and I am wrong.
But alas, that is not the case. The Reagan expansion (4.0% growth)
was topped by 1Q50 through 2Q53 (6.2%) and 1Q61 through 3Q69 (4.7%).
The average expansion of the eight since 1949 is 4.2%. If you exclude
the outlier of the early 50's, you get 3.8%. The strength of the
Reagan expansion was ordinary. Heck, the Ford-Carter expansion (2Q75
through 1Q80) was 3.9%.
> > But, you must admit then that had Reagan been honest, he wouldn't have said he could balance the
> > budget. But rather, he would have said that deficits and debt were necessary for a higher goal
> > that would, over a very long time, prove to be fiscally sound. And that the deficits and debt
> > which actually resulted were in fact a direct *intentional* result of Reagan fiscal policy, not
> > some creation by the Congressional boogey-man. My data showing that Congress did not outspend
> > Reagan cements that one.
>
> Sorry. You cannot claim that Reagan mysteriously spent all of this money without approval from
> Congress's approved spending.
Congress essentially rubber-stamped. Reagan drove the agenda.
The crucial FACT you cannot escape: had Reagan got everything he
asked for and only what he asked for, the same deficits result. No
blaming Congress as the major force, or even anywhere near an equal
partner allowed in light if that FACT.
Josh Rosenbluth
Philip Nasadowski
James Robinson <was...@mailcircuit.com> wrote:
> We've been through this discussion before, and you continue to
> demonstrate your lack of understanding of the economics.
What's to understand? AC has a higher initial cost 9but only slightly
these days), and DC has higher m,aintenance costs. Go ask anyone who
does industrial drives for a living. The last two who I mentioned your
comments re: DC motors said a few things back that I won't repeat.
> The railroads
> use AC traction in the places where they make economic sense, and
> continue to use DC traction in other places because it is still
> cost-effective.
What's cost effective about cleaning contactors, checking brushes,
turning commutators, and fixing the results of flashovers, heavy dirt
ingestion, etc? Again, why if DC motors are so cost effective, is the
rest of the world desperate to get rid of them?
> Without a reduction in the price gap between the two
> designs, there aren't too many more places where they will be introduced
> in the future, as pretty well all applications where AC make sense have
> been filled.
Reduction? Nowhere but the Class Is are DC motors regarded as cost
effective. They're going or totally goe from any indudtrial drive of
any type, gone from elevators (one of the last holdouts - today, only a
total moron orders an elevator with a DC motor), gone from commuter
operations, and will be all but gone from the NYC subway by the end of
this decade.
Really, what is it that UP, BNSF, etc know that the rest of the world
doesn't?
> Lord save us from the fatigue problems associated with fabricated
> trucks. Give me cast truck frames any day for durability.
Uh, whatever.
> And why on earth would the railroads want to revert to monocoque designs
> like the E and F units?
Lighter. Duh.
> It's not as though
> they are attempting to lighten a freight locomotive, since weight is a
> virtue in freight operations.
No, it's a virtue in trying to make the biggest, longest, heaviest train
ever known to man. Otherwise, it's a liability. In the case of slow
speed US passenger operations, a liability. in the case of a real
passenger operation, a big liability. In the case of high speed rail,
high weight is prohibitive.
> As far as speeds, they are adequate for the marketplace.
Sure. The class Is are battering the trucking industry into submission.
Oh wait. They're not.
Dammit. Over highway trucking is alive and well in the US, as anyone
who's ever driven I-95, or I-anything else could tell you. In fact, for
anything but bulk loads (where nobody really cares when it gets there),
the trucking industry has the railroads beat hands down.
> An you think that AT&T would somehow have stopped that from happening?
> Get Real. There are a few more people living in New York than when the
> Dutch conned it out of the natives. There are just too many demands for
> new phone numbers with the added population, and people wanting separate
> lines for their kids, fax, and computers.
Ok, let's get real here:
NYC has two area codes, 212, and 718. Each area code can carry a
theoretical maximum of 9,999,999 lines. So, in NYC alone, there's
capacity for more than 18 million phone lines. If we add the 'new'
Manhattan area code (646), we get another 9 million or so, or about 27
million potential phone numbers in NYC. That's enough for 3 phone lines
for every man, woman and child in NYC. If we add Long Island, that's
another 18+million phone lines (516, 639) and another 2 million people.
CT has a population of (last I checked), roughly 3 million, but 2, soon
to be 3 area codes.
Something's wrong with this picture - and the something is that phone
numbers are assigned in the US in a system that was great back in 1940
when everyone had one phone, and sucks today.
> You're dreaming, aren't you? AT&T offer a competitive service at an
> affordable rate
Sure. Their long distance is a) reliable and b)relible and c)reliable.
Same reasons why a company will go out and spend 10X as much for a
gen-u-ine IBM mainframe than they would on a Win NT based system.
Because, when the computer dies, your bussiness dies. Ditto for a phone.
Stop measuring the worth of something in terms of absolute loest initial
cost, you might find the logic behind the way things run.
> You haven't been talking to anyone in North Carolina lately, have you?
> No voice, no projected service restoration, and the utility has been
> anything but fast with restoration.
You know, after years of the highest electric rates in the US, we were
promised this utopia of 'competition' on Long Island. We were promised
how everything would be better, cheaper, faster, cleaner. We were
promised how our bills would drop drastically*, we could choose our
'energy provider', and the 'local transmission' would be run by some
state agency and we'd all be in heaven.
Well...
Lilco is long gone.
Our electric rates are still pathetic, only now, I get bombarded by junk
mail from 'energy providers', system reliabillity is in the toilet
(we've been out a number of times this year for stupid shit), there's a
big generation gap, and everything is everyone else's fault.
Where's the utopia that competition was supposed to give us? It didn't
happen with our electricity, and it sure as hell didn't happen with our
phones.
* And seriously, where Californians whining about paying 9 or *gasp!* 10
cents a kwh for electricity the other year? Over here, that would be a
downright dream.
Philip Nasadowski
"John Mara" <john...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why they (whoever "they" might be) didn't just add one
> digit to phone numbers in larger cities.
Because, there's no 'they' anymore, there's a few hundred 'they's and
'they' all want it their way.
> At one time small towns had four
> digit phone numbers, small cities had five digit phone numbers and big
> cities had five digit phone numbers with a two letter prefix. All of this
> was handled with electo-mechanical switching.
Today, it's 'cheaper and easier' to just add another area code, since
'they's are given phone numbers in blocks of 10,000, even if 'they' have
only a few dozen customers. Of course, had AT&T still been around, with
fewer 'they's arguing over the system (even at it's height, AT&T was not
the sole phone company in the US), it would have been possible to go
ahead and rationalize the assignment of phone numbers, etc, to better
reflect the changes that have occurred over the last two decades. One
can't fault AT&T back in the 40's for the current system - assuming one
phone line per house, the area code->exchange->extension setup and it's
varients are amazingly logical and adaquate. But when you've got a
zillion 'phone companies', everyone climbing over each other to get the
most phone lines into their house, and blocks of numbers drying up like
water in the Sahara, it doesn't really work.
Something better is needed today, but with nobody really in charge of
anything anymore in the phone system, it's not going to happen.
Even more fun - the number of useable area codes is drying up, and
nobody's really sure what to do next. The speculation I've heard is 4
digit area codes.
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff Nor Lisa) wrote:
> As someone who disagrees with Mr. PN on just about everything, he
> IS RIGHT about how the decline in telephone service qualtiy since
> the breakup of AT&T.
Hey Jeff (Lisa? Either of you? Neither of you?), I think I saw a pig
flying outside a minute ago :)
> People forget that AT&T was dropping its long distance rates all
> along, and would've continued to do so. Also, they dropped the
> all rental policy, allowing customers to own their own equipment.
Yep. Long before the breakup of 'Bell', my parents replaced their old
Trimeline rotaries with TouchTone(tm). They even installed them
themselves. In fact, the AT&T Phone Center (remember those?) had a
small section on how to do it.
> Off course, many customers have junk that doesn't work now, but
> that's another story.
Yeah. As much as AT&T wanted for their phones, they are legendary for
reliability.
> Just before divesture, they charged me 5c a minute to
> call interstate 20 miles away. No plan, no monthly charges, no
> nonsense, just 5c a minute. Not true today.
Yeah. You paid for the call and that was that.
People also forget that there was a time when pay phones were on
virtually every street corner, and they all charged the same, worked,
and were there. Today, they're getting hard to find, even in NYC. And
then, if you find one, you might have to press your luck with a 'no
name' which might cost an arm and a leg, or just plain eat your coin.
> The telephone solicitors are a big problem today. I do not give
> out my number, but that doesn't matter since they use sequential
> dialers.
'Demon dialer'. Or, 'predictive dialer' They actually go off of lists
now, but will try the same number multiple times a week. The person
doing the sales pitch has ZERO control over this. They have a 'next'
button and that's it. They can't control who they call, and sometimes
can't even take you off the list (which is usless anyway, as the list
gets reset every few weeks anyway).
> Critics of the old Bell System seem to think technology would
> stayed frozen and we'd still be using early 1980s technology.
Which I never understood.
> They forget it was the old Bell System that had the resources to
> develop the technology and push the envelope for the rest of industry.
The innovations that Bell Labs came up with reads like a laundry list of
technology. Virtually all of it ultimately ended up being used for
telephone service, most of it spun off into other industries as well
(most noteably electronics). AT&T had the ability and resources to do a
careful, controlled, and well integrated expansion of the phone system.
Nobody does, today.
No, AT&T wasn't perfect, but it was a LOT better than what we have today.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > We've been through this discussion before, and you continue to
> > demonstrate your lack of understanding of the economics.
>
> What's to understand? AC has a higher initial cost 9but only slightly
> these days),
Sorry, $1/2 million is not slightly higher, it's a whole lot higher.
> and DC has higher m,aintenance costs.
Sorry, wrong again. DC traction has a lower maintenance cost.
> Go ask anyone who does industrial drives for a living.
It doesn't matter what people's opinions are, since the reality is that
DC traction is more expensive. More importantly, as I mentioned the
last time we discussed this, maintenance is a small part of the life
cycle costs of owning a locomotive. You could make the maintenance of
the AC motors zero, and the economics would still not shift over to AC
traction, because of the difference in initial cost.
> The last two who I mentioned your comments re: DC motors said a
> few things back that I won't repeat.
Who cares what they think? In the first place they likely aren't
dealing with a DC drive that is anything like what's on a locomotive.
In the second, they aren't operating in the railroad environment, which
is substantially more severe than pretty well anything else.
> What's cost effective about cleaning contactors, checking brushes,
> turning commutators, and fixing the results of flashovers, heavy dirt
> ingestion, etc? Again, why if DC motors are so cost effective, is the
> rest of the world desperate to get rid of them?
Who says they are? I don't disagree that AC traction is a better
technology, but I don't see people being desperate to get rid of what
they have. The initial cost is quite a hurdle to overcome.
As a parallel, one could argue that roller bearings are a better design
than friction bearings, yet pretty well every engine manufacturer still
uses plain bearings for crankshafts. Why? Because it's cost-effective,
and the more expensive roller bearings aren't necessary.
> Nowhere but the Class Is are DC motors regarded as cost
> effective. They're going or totally goe from any indudtrial drive of
> any type, gone from elevators (one of the last holdouts - today, only a
> total moron orders an elevator with a DC motor), gone from commuter
> operations, and will be all but gone from the NYC subway by the end of
> this decade.
Gone from commuter? Hardly. There are lots of commuter operators that
still run DC traction, and will continue to do so for quite a while. It
is also a totally different set of economics where you are drawing power
off of a grid rather than from a generator, as on a locomotive. With
both AC and DC controls you need to provide the full power electronics
to control the motors, but on a locomotive, there are no power
electronics, just lower voltage control of the main generator
excitation. It is a much simpler system, and explains the reason for
the price and maintenance difference.
> Really, what is it that UP, BNSF, etc know that the rest of the world
> doesn't?
They run efficient, cost-effective freight railroads, that's what. The
same can hardly be said of most government-run operations in the rest of
the world.
> > Lord save us from the fatigue problems associated with fabricated
> > trucks. Give me cast truck frames any day for durability.
>
> Uh, whatever.
Not whatever, reality. You are arguing lower maintenance cost for AC
motors, but want to dismiss exactly the same benefit for cast truck
frames, plus it's a safety benefit to boot.
> > And why on earth would the railroads want to revert to monocoque designs
> > like the E and F units?
>
> Lighter. Duh.
As noted below, they don't want lighter. We're talking about freight
locomotives here, not pansy passenger stuff. Note that GE's Genesis are
monocoque, though not particularly light.
> > It's not as though
> > they are attempting to lighten a freight locomotive, since weight is a
> > virtue in freight operations.
>
> No, it's a virtue in trying to make the biggest, longest, heaviest train
> ever known to man. Otherwise, it's a liability.
No, it's economically the right way to design a freight locomotive.
With heavy-haul operations, you want to use the fewest locomotives that
you can to just make it over the ruling gradient. That results in the
lowest overall cost, and the ability to offer the most competitive
price.
> In the case of slow speed US passenger operations, a liability. in the case of a real
> passenger operation, a big liability. In the case of high speed rail,
> high weight is prohibitive.
The discussion has been about freight locomotives. Passenger is a
different set of economics and requirements. Your points are out of
place.
> > As far as speeds, they are adequate for the marketplace.
>
> Sure. The class Is are battering the trucking industry into submission.
>
> Oh wait. They're not.
>
> Dammit. Over highway trucking is alive and well in the US, as anyone
> who's ever driven I-95, or I-anything else could tell you. In fact, for
> anything but bulk loads (where nobody really cares when it gets there),
> the trucking industry has the railroads beat hands down.
Not true for long hauls. Otherwise there wouldn't be several hundred
trains each day from the west coast to the midwest and east hauling full
loads of containers. Truckers are nowhere near competitive with that
business. For short hauls, the railroads will never be competitive with
the time and prices the truckers can charge, because of the extra
handling the railroads have to do. Buying more expensive AC locomotives
won't change that reality, only make it worse.
> Something's wrong with this picture - and the something is that phone
> numbers are assigned in the US in a system that was great back in 1940
> when everyone had one phone, and sucks today.
And you thing somehow that AT&T could do something about that? Hah.
> > You're dreaming, aren't you? AT&T offer a competitive service at an
> > affordable rate
>
> Sure. Their long distance is a) reliable and b)relible and c)reliable.
Yes, they used to be that way, since they overbuilt everything, and were
slow to bring new products to the marketplace. It was only after the
longline monopoly was broken that real progress started happening. New
switches were no longer built like tanks, but the marketplace demanded
the new features that came with updated designs, and were unwilling to
settle for the same old thing. In short, the money walked away from
AT&T.
> Same reasons why a company will go out and spend 10X as much for a
> gen-u-ine IBM mainframe than they would on a Win NT based system.
> Because, when the computer dies, your bussiness dies. Ditto for a phone.
IBM mainframes are dead except in areas where large amounts of data have
to be handled. Nobody buys an IBM to get only reliability, otherwise
aircraft would be using them for flight controls, and they aren't.
> Stop measuring the worth of something in terms of absolute loest initial
> cost, you might find the logic behind the way things run.
That's exactly what I've been trying to get you to do with the analysis
of locomotive value, but you are letting your emotions drive your
opinions rather than looking at the reality of how locomotives are
purchased and used. In the case of the phone company, AT&T was a
dinosaur. United shook them from their lethargy.
> Where's the utopia that competition was supposed to give us? It didn't
> happen with our electricity, and it sure as hell didn't happen with our
> phones.
It sure did happen with the phones. I was looking at a 50 year old
phone directory I found. The direct-dial rate between Texas and New
York at the time was $2.75 for the first three minutes. Adjusting for
inflation, that would be the equivalent of about $18.75 today. Let's
see, I can make that same call for $0.15, which is less than one percent
of the cost 50 years ago. That's what competition gave us.
The other thing competition gave us was a whole bunch of new features
that businesses could take advantage of. Those features have made a
tremendous difference in the reach and competitiveness of all business,
which has greatly helped the economy.
Jeff Nor Lisa
> > that's another story.
>
> Yeah. As much as AT&T wanted for their phones, they are legendary for
> reliability.
That is true. The old Bell System put everything rigorous
testing before putting it into regular service nationwide.
A study of the old Bell Laboratories Records indicates the
detail in which they engineered their products, both for
cosumers and stuff.
I have a Western Electric 302 set (designed in 1938, mine built
in 1948) on my desk at work. The ringer is distinctive and
pleasant, so I know its my phone from the other dead crickets chirping
used for other phone ringers. Also the phone works fine at all times.
> > Just before divesture, they charged me 5c a minute to
> > call interstate 20 miles away. No plan, no monthly charges, no
> > nonsense, just 5c a minute. Not true today.
>
> Yeah. You paid for the call and that was that.
People THINK they're getting a bargain in long distance, but
today the plans are so convoluted that most people don't have
the time to sit down and study their bills carefully. They add
fixed extra charges. There are the usual "certain exceptions and
exclusions" that apply. Plans expire periodically, and you must
re-register with a new plan, wasting time with the companies.
And of course let's not forget today's "slamming" where your
provider is changed without your consent, or mysterious high
priced overseas/collect charges show up. Yeah, if you fight
long enough and hard enough they'll cancel fraudulent calls,
but you must waste a lot of your own time to do so.
> People also forget that there was a time when pay phones were on
> virtually every street corner, and they all charged the same, worked,
> and were there. Today, they're getting hard to find, even in NYC. And
> then, if you find one, you might have to press your luck with a 'no
> name' which might cost an arm and a leg, or just plain eat your coin.
I can understand a premium charge for collect or credit card calls; or
station calls from a payphone. But the $5-10 surcharges are absurb.
I was in a hospital emergency room and called home--$10 charge for
a collect call. I was not exactly in a position to do anything about
it when I made the call being sick at the time.
> 'Demon dialer'. Or, 'predictive dialer' They actually go off of lists
> now, but will try the same number multiple times a week. The person
> doing the sales pitch has ZERO control over this. They have a 'next'
> button and that's it. They can't control who they call, and sometimes
> can't even take you off the list (which is usless anyway, as the list
> gets reset every few weeks anyway).
The "do not call" lists are meaningless. They passed a law about
this in Pennsylvania and its worthless. The solicitors know nothing
will be done, even if they get fined once, they'll write it off.
Of course no one cares that for some of us who are ill or caring
for someone who is ill that unsolicited phone calls are a major
nuisance.
> The innovations that Bell Labs came up with reads like a laundry list of
> technology. Virtually all of it ultimately ended up being used for
> telephone service, most of it spun off into other industries as well
> (most noteably electronics). AT&T had the ability and resources to do a
> careful, controlled, and well integrated expansion of the phone system.
> Nobody does, today.
>
> No, AT&T wasn't perfect, but it was a LOT better than what we have today.
You are absolutely right. The old Bell System had a lot of electro-
mechanical equipment in it, and that stuff was fare more maintenance
intensive that today's electronic boxes. Bell System employees back
then had to know what they were doing. Again, a reading of the Bell
Laboratories Record or the Bell System Technical Journal illustrates
the complexity and dedication of phone people in those days.
It wasn't a perfect system, and NYC had some serious problems at one
point.
But, absolutely AT&T/Bell System looked at the nationwide phone system
as one big picture, with the objective of providing excellent low-cost
service through all of it. They launched satellites, microwave towers,
laid ocean cables, and built fibre optics. They developed electronic
switching. (I don't think any AT&T switch failed on account of bad
programming, but I recall when another makers switches were failing
all over the country--I forget the name, but they were from Texas
Plano?)
Today, new exchanges and area codes go up, but you can't even call them
because other places haven't bothered to program them yet into their
systems. Everybody and their brother put out PBXs, which process
calls SLOWER than older Bell System stepper boxes did. No one really
understands how to work their business phone system because every
one is different and has so many worthless whistles on them (I'd
say bells, but real ringing bells are gone now).
Let's not forget that companies like MCI (now bankrupt) got in
the game by skimming the cream off the best routes, leaving AT&T
with the expensive stuff. That is, MCI offer service on high
volume routes, where there was enough to make money for them.
AT&T charged the same toll rates nationwide, averaged between
high and low costs. MCI never bothered with places like Butte
and Bismark because there wasn't profit for them.
Today, the new local carriers want the same thing--the profits
without the costs. They didn't have to dig up streets to lay
cable--a not so easy task--yet they want cheap access to those
lines in affluent areas.
Merritt Mullen
jrose...@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:
> These numbers are not quite correct. Here are the correct ones:
>
> Fiscal Year Reagan's budget Congress passes Actual spending
> 1982 $695.3 $695.5 $745.8
> 1983 $757.6 $769.8 $808.4
> 1984 $848.5 $849.5 $851.8
> 1985 $925.5 $932.0 $946.4
> 1986 $973.7 $967.6 $990.3
> 1987 $994.0 $995.0 $1003.9
> 1988 $1024.3 $1040.8 $1064.1
> 1989 $1094.2 $1099.7 $1144.2
>
> Total $7313.1 $7349.9 $7554.9
Josh: Thanks so much for posting that. It is refreshing to get
information from someone who is actually competent to comment on the
subject. So much discussion on these newsgroups comes from people (like
me) who often comment on subjects they have little expertise in, and whose
opinions are influenced by political bias.
First, let be concede that my statement about Congress actually reducing
Reagan's budget requests in all years save one was wrong. I am glad to
have that misconception out of my head. As your data show, there is no
significant difference in Reagan and Congressional budget totals (of
course, there is some difference in how the money is allocated within the
budget).
I did make an attempt to come up with the numbers, but had no luck finding
on the internet the historical data on the presidential budget or even the
annual Congressional appropriations (I see from your references, those are
on paper only). I am a retired electronics engineer and naval aviator, so
am not well equipped to deal with questions of the national budget,
clearly a complex subject. But since I went to some trouble to see what I
could find in the OMB data, here is what I came up with (the first
column--Reagan's Budget--gives poster Joe's numbers as I could not confirm
those data independently). All $ billions:
Fiscal REAGAN's Outlays Budget Off-Budget On-Budget
Year Budget Authority BA BA
1982 695.3 745.8 809.9 143.5 666.4
1983 773.3 808.4 888.1 159.8 728.3
1984 862.5 851.8 950.0 166.1 783.9
1985 940.3 946.4 1074.1 184.3 889.8
1986 973.7 990.3 1072.9 189.6 883.3
1987 994.0 1003.9 1100.0 213.4 886.6
1988 1024.3 1064.1 1185.6 241.5 944.1
1989 1094.2 1144.2 1310.0 265.3 1044.7
It became clear as soon as I looked at the OMB historical data that what
the poster called "Congress passes" was actually total outlays. Budget
Authority is what the law authorizes (but is typically more than actual
appropriations). It is clear from the above that what Congress
"authorized" was indeed much more than what Reagan proposed (if the
off-budget authorizations are included). But if I understand things
correctly, authorizations are often made for 5-year periods and actual
appropriations often never reach what was authorized. For example, I know
Amtrak was only appropriated about 55% of the amount authorized by
Congress for the 5-year period of FY98 through FY02.
Merritt
Philip Nasadowski
James Robinson <was...@mailcircuit.com> wrote:
> Sorry, wrong again. DC traction has a lower maintenance cost.
You do realize that what your saying is contray to what virtually any
textbook, or any industrial engineer who even remotely deals with motors
and drives says? You do realize you're the sole person who I ever hear
say this?
Do you yet realize why I think you're full of it?
> Who cares what they think? In the first place they likely aren't
> dealing with a DC drive that is anything like what's on a locomotive.
A drive is a drive is a drive. There's switched resoistance, there's
phase angle control, there's PWM, there's ward-leonard. There's not
many ways to control a motor, AC or DC, and they're all used in various
applications.
There's zero about a locomotive that's unique to them.
> In the second, they aren't operating in the railroad environment, which
> is substantially more severe than pretty well anything else.
Which is all the more reason why you'd want to avoid exposed brushes,
contactors, and mechanical devices in general.
> Who says they are? I don't disagree that AC traction is a better
> technology, but I don't see people being desperate to get rid of what
> they have. The initial cost is quite a hurdle to overcome.
You must live in a vacuum. Most of industry is converting even existing
equipment to AC drives because DC is such a headache. I've seen 20 year
old CNC machines get retrofitted with AC VFDs. This is existing
equipment that's in existing service. Likewise, plenty of elevator
modernizations dump the old MG set for an AC VFD because it's less of a
headache and a boatload more reliable.
Throughout industry, DC drive technology is *dead*. Nobody's even
bothering to seriously develop it anymore because the market doesn't
want it.
> Why? Because it's cost-effective,
> and the more expensive roller bearings aren't necessary.
Oh, that's so wrong I don't even know where to begin. First off, the
forces involved on the crankshaft tend to in general argue against
roller bearings. Friction bearings allow much tighter tolerances to be
achived, allow oil transfer to the piston to be achived much easier, and
allow much simpler changeout of a failed conecting rod, etc. Further,
there's really no such thing as a 'friction' bearing, since there's
little contact going on in a running condition - the oil film sepperates
the two surfaces, and running friction is low.
AFAIK, the only ones who use rollers in their motors to any extent is
Harley-Davidson, unless Lawn-Boy still uses them in their little 2
stroke buzzbomb motors.
> Gone from commuter? Hardly. There are lots of commuter operators that
> still run DC traction, and will continue to do so for quite a while.
Funny, the LIRR's DE/DMs are AC, the P-32s MN uses are AC, NJT's new
locomotives are ALL AC. That's the three largest, most experienced
poperators in the US all going AC. The M-7s are AC, all of the NYCTA's
orders beyond R-68 were AC, and there's talk of retrofitting the R-68
and R-62 to AC when they come up for a GOH in a few years. The NJ
Arrows are AC, the new Silverliners will be, the AEM-7s were rebuilt
into AC units.
None of them see any economics in DC traction.
> Not whatever, reality. You are arguing lower maintenance cost for AC
> motors, but want to dismiss exactly the same benefit for cast truck
> frames, plus it's a safety benefit to boot.
What safety benifit? Sudden failure of a casting?
In any case, the LIRR was so unhappy with the fabricated trucks on their
last two equipment orders that they went ahead and ordered them for the
M-7s. The NYCTA is dumping cast trucks, too.
> Note that GE's Genesis are
> monocoque, though not particularly light.
Of course not. They're hauling an acient, low speed, high weight prime
mover. Put a modern engine in there and you'd shave an easy 10,000 lbs.
> Not true for long hauls.
Bullshit.
> Otherwise there wouldn't be several hundred
> trains each day from the west coast to the midwest and east hauling full
> loads of containers.
That's great for containers. But if I'm not shipping a few hundred
containers or a few million tons of coal, trucking gets my business
because the RRs don't want it.
> Truckers are nowhere near competitive with that
> business.
Yet they survive doing it anyway.
> For short hauls, the railroads will never be competitive with
> the time and prices the truckers can charge, because of the extra
> handling the railroads have to do.
Years ago they were quite competitive, and today a number of short lines
have manged to survive.
> Yes, they used to be that way, since they overbuilt everything, and were
> slow to bring new products to the marketplace.
Funny, they were using microwave links quite soon after WWII, laying
fiber before anyone heard of it, and using transistors back before
anyone even knew how to make them cheaply and reliably.
What AT&T did was bring stuff to the market when it was actually ready
for the market, not years beforehand and let the first generation or two
of customers be the test case. The result was a somewhat slower moving
but MUCH more reliable system.
> It was only after the
> longline monopoly was broken that real progress started happening.
Real progress?
Oh, yes, the utopia of less reliable service, cheap long distance,
expensive local, and nobody respnsible for anything.
> IBM mainframes are dead except in areas where large amounts of data have
> to be handled.
Actually, they're far from dead. In fact, IBM's still making them and
selling them.
> That's exactly what I've been trying to get you to do with the analysis
> of locomotive value, but you are letting your emotions drive your
> opinions rather than looking at the reality of how locomotives are
> purchased and used.
No, I'm letting what I've seen elsewhere in industry re: DC drives and
what posters from Europe have said re: US RR operations drive my
opinons. Your statement that a DC drive can be cheaper than an AC drive
has gathered quite a few remarks from design engineers who deal with
these things in the real world. The more polite ones asked what planet
you were from, the most blunt reply I got was "That guy's a fucking
moron if he thinks that". Sorry, but if I ask 5 guys who actually deal
with these things on a daily basis and they're all saying you're full of
it, it's gonna be awefully hard to convince me you're not.
> In the case of the phone company, AT&T was a dinosaur.
Huh? I don't think anyone but MCI regarded AT&T as a dinosaur in the
70's.
> Let's see, I can make that same call for $0.15, which is less than one
> percent of the cost 50 years ago. That's what competition gave us.
That's wonderful. It also gave us much higher local rates, lousey
customer service, an explosion of area codes, wireless standards that
aren't, local phone companies who change names, merge, split up, and
merge again about as often as most people change their underwear, and
brought the end consumer a lot of baffling and expensive 'surcharges'.
So far, your one and only metric for judging the worth of breaking AT&T
up has been cheap long distance. Not surprising, since virtually
everything else about phone service has gotten worse.
> The other thing competition gave us was a whole bunch of new features
> that businesses could take advantage of.
Stuff that was likely invented by AT&T.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
I don't follow. I know the ACLU has defended American neo-Nazis, but I
don't think you are saying ACLU lawyers actually favor Nazism, are you?
To keep this on topic, I understand Hitler has some grand ideas for the
German railroads, and, like Mussolini, kept the trains running on time.
Merritt