Cuts from 20% to 30%

[Devil's Advocate]

Simple question-are you better off now, after two years of all Democratic control, worse off, or the same? I can say worse off. Things are not improving for us. Most of my family members are much worse off.

You just seem to be all over the map here. Are you trying to say that balancing the federal budget and paying off our national debt is going to improve the lives of your family members? If so, how?

 

[jb64]

It's always interesting to read these dispatches from fantasy land! And kind of appalling how many out and out lies keep circulating as gospel truth. Combine slashing federal income with huge expenses for not one but two meaningless and un-winnable wars, AND deregulate the financial system to the point where it can be looted. And now to say that deregulation and tax cuts are the solution is like a drunk saying "Whiskey got me into this mess, whiskey will get me out!".

Indeed. When the Democrats aren't able magically to fix everything in 2 years (in no small part due to the Republicans having a stranglehold on the Senate), we instead decide to invite the same group of crooks back in to "fix" everything.

I love how rabid democratic supporters manipulate the numbers to hide their ineffectiveness. It hasn't been two years, Ryan, they(democrats) have been in control of the congress for four years and as Sunchaser has pointed out, most are worse off. The quote "in no small part due to the Republicans having a stranglehold on the Senate" cracks me up. What stranglehold? How many actual filibusters were there? Not many, only the threat of filibuster. Read any progressive blog ( I do) and you will see that a lot of democrat and left-leaning voters are disgusted with the so-called democrats who have exhibited no leadership, no spine, and have managed to only achieve those things that voters across the nation, according to polls, uniformly opposed (Obama-care or Affordable Care Act, anyone?)

Again, politicians, whether they be followed by an R or D, are a suspect group and generally behave the same way once they get to Washington. Just look at Obama's record versus his campaign rhetoric.

 

[Ryan]

That's what I have read. Look here.

And here.

None of that says anything about 20% pay increases.

Simple question-are you better off now, after two years of all Democratic control, worse off, or the same?I can say worse off. Things are not improving for us. Most of my family members are much worse off.

I'm sorry for you an your family, then. Things are certainly looking up for my family and I.

How many actual filibusters were there? Not many, only the threat of filibuster.

Not many? I suggest that you look at the numbers again:

Not shown are the number of judicial holds and the like, which prevented many posts in the Judicial and Executive branch from being filled in a timely fashion.

I agree that the Democrats could have done a heck of a lot better. They had the votes for a middle class only tax cut, but "compromised" the store away to extend the cuts to millionaires and billionaires as well. They also refused to fight on the Public Option, when there seemed to be a real path towards success for it.

 

[jb64]

That's what I have read. Look here.

And here.

None of that says anything about 20% pay increases.

Simple question-are you better off now, after two years of all Democratic control, worse off, or the same?I can say worse off. Things are not improving for us. Most of my family members are much worse off.

I'm sorry for you an your family, then. Things are certainly looking up for my family and I.

How many actual filibusters were there? Not many, only the threat of filibuster.

Not many? I suggest that you look at the numbers again:

Not shown are the number of judicial holds and the like, which prevented many posts in the Judicial and Executive branch from being filled in a timely fashion.

I agree that the Democrats could have done a heck of a lot better. They had the votes for a middle class only tax cut, but "compromised" the store away to extend the cuts to millionaires and billionaires as well. They also refused to fight on the Public Option, when there seemed to be a real path towards success for it.

Just like to point out two things: 1) you work and reside in the DC/Beltway area and have not felt the same effects of the economy as the rest of the country. 2) the graph you posted was for cloture, not filibuster and not quite the same thing.

That being said, this is supposed to be a forum about trains and I suppose we should all get back on topic. Just would like to add that today, as we watch coverage of the shift of power in the house, is an example of how great this country is as we have a peaceful transfer of power occuring, regardless of your political affiliation. Let us all hope that the Rs and Ds can work together and do the things this country needs.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Both Senators from Maine are Republican and both as warm to Amtrak, having never voted to cut it-- and advocating it in their home state.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What stranglehold?

This Stranglehold...

Again, politicians, whether they be followed by an R or D, are a suspect group and generally behave the same way once they get to Washington.

When I see one party electing officials who call for the defending of Amtrak and another party electing officials calling for the defunding of Amtrak I don't consider that to be identical behavior, but maybe that's just me.

 

[PennCentralFan]

The tea party rhetoric is very unfriendly toward amtrak. I think it's fair to say that more Republicans are against amtrak than Democrats. I thank God Joe Biden who loves amtrak and Obama from Chicago are in the White house. The Bush administration wanted to kill amtrak. They didn't want to give any money to amtrak. John McCain hates amtrak and wants to destroy it.

Let's get real. Republicans are more anti-amtrak than Democrats. If you truly value train travel you must acknowledge that reality. If you are a Republican and like amtrak it's your duty to write and call and talk to your Republican leaders and elected officials about the need for amtrak. You can be a Republican and like amtrak, but you have a duty to re-educate those in the GOP who hate amtrak.

 

[sunchaser]

Simple question-are you better off now, after two years of all Democratic control, worse off, or the same? I can say worse off. Things are not improving for us. Most of my family members are much worse off.

You just seem to be all over the map here. Are you trying to say that balancing the federal budget and paying off our national debt is going to improve the lives of your family members? If so, how?

I'm not trying to be all over the map.

If we reduce our debt, it should bring down inflation. It certainly won't hurt us to reduce it. As inflation continues to rise, all of us pay more for everything we use. That means we have less to spend. If inflation is low, you have more to spend, more purchasing power.

As prices go up, we are spending more money for less items, including food.

That means there is less money for other things, clothing, gas, travel, etc.

This also works for your Employer. They have to figure inflation into things, too.

 

[Ryan]

the graph you posted was for cloture, not filibuster and not quite the same thing.

It's a meaningless distinction without a difference. It still means that the Senate was sitting on bills and not acting on them.

If we reduce our debt, it should bring down inflation. It certainly won't hurt us to reduce it. As inflation continues to rise, all of us pay more for everything we use. That means we have less to spend. If inflation is low, you have more to spend, more purchasing power.

I don't think that those two factors have the correlation that you think that they do:

Are you ready to agree that you were wrong on the 20% raise bit?

 

[henryj]

Ryan, all I can say is if you think all those graphs have any meaning and that inflation will not occur after the enormous amount of money the fed has thrown into the system, just hide and watch dude.

 

[Ryan]

I have for the last 2 years, and look what it brought us.

I'll take facts and history over hype and hand waving any day.

 

[sunchaser]

the graph you posted was for cloture, not filibuster and not quite the same thing.

It's a meaningless distinction without a difference. It still means that the Senate was sitting on bills and not acting on them.

If we reduce our debt, it should bring down inflation. It certainly won't hurt us to reduce it. As inflation continues to rise, all of us pay more for everything we use. That means we have less to spend. If inflation is low, you have more to spend, more purchasing power.

I don't think that those two factors have the correlation that you think that they do:

Are you ready to agree that you were wrong on the 20% raise bit?

No. I'll just have to locate the info again. Back to trains...

 

[AlanB]

What I might suggest, for the moment, is adding up the US Senate first.

That's fine with me. I also wonder if we're simply reinventing the wheel here. As in, maybe NARP has already done a quick gut check on each senator and congressperson which we could use as a jumping off point for further discussion.

I am really disappointed at the general attitude expressed here. Why did the Republicans win the House? The answer is here.

It seems to me that if Americans were truly concerned about the deficit they would not have voted for Democrats or Republicans as those are the two parties responsible for our national debt.

Will Amtrak be de-funded or shut down? Unlikely. The Senate is still controlled by Democrats, & the President can still use his Veto power. Do I think the Republicans would try? No, the funding for Amtrak is very small.

I don't think funding levels has much of anything to do with it. As per the GOP House members themselves the only funding that's off limits are military operations and homeland security (such as the universally beloved TSA) along with socialized medicine and other benefits for veterans. In other words they've ensured that some of the largest expenses in our budget will be left completely untouched when all is said and done. That likely means that any non-military programs will be forced to deal with an even larger hit to help make up for the shortfall. That's not based on a partisan outlook so much as simple mathematics.

And therein lies the biggest problem. There was a reporter a while back who asked one of the leading Republican's who was just elected/reelected, what they were going to cut to reduce the deficit. The reporter mentioned 4 major programs including the military. Each time the Congressman said, "no, we won't cut that."

When the reporter then pointed out that even if Congress cut every other remaining program to zero that the deficit would still increase unless those 4 major programs were touched, the Congressman had no answer.

Unless we're willing to take cuts in all programs and willing to accept a tax increase, no one be it Republican's, Democrats, Independants, Tea Party, or any other group that might come along is going to be able to actually start cutting the deficit. And I don't see the public as being willing to accept both cuts and an increase in taxes at the same time.

 

[AlanB]

the graph you posted was for cloture, not filibuster and not quite the same thing.

It's a meaningless distinction without a difference. It still means that the Senate was sitting on bills and not acting on them.

One only invokes cloture to overcome a filibuster. If there is no filibuster ongoing, then one does not invoke cloture.

Put another way, cloture is the method by which the US Senate stops or overcomes a filibuster.

Therefore that graph represents the minimum number of filibusters within the Senate. And I say minimum, because there are times when a filibuster is started and the party in control either realizes that they don't have votes to overcome it or they decide that it's simply not worth the effort to try and overcome the filibuster. So the number of filibusters could actually be higher than the number of times cloture was invoked, but the number of filibusters can never be lower than the number of times that cloture was invoked.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Disclaimer: The last thing I want in the world is to see Amtrak's budget cut a single damned penny. If anyone responds to my post by stating "but you want to cut Amtrak's budget...", I swear to god I will hunt you down and shove a P42 all the way up your alimentary canal.

Now then, the argument that "cutting Amtrak's budget will do nothing to help our deficit" is a load of utter crap. Every penny helps. If we cut every single budget 20%, it will cut our costs by 20%, whether the individual agency or fiefdom spends $5 or $5 trillion.

"We can just end the war and we'll be fine." Hogwash. First of all, it will cost billions of dollars to end the war, it will cost us, I'd guess, 2 years worth of war spending to suddenly drop everything and leave. Is the war fiscally responsible? No, but stop clinging to ridiculous false ideas about the simplicity involved in changing the complex.

"Cutting 'x' will save us tons of money!" No, cutting x will save you whatever you cut from x.

Observe what is placed below:

T - P = D

Taxes - Cost of Programs = Deficit/Surplus. Period. End of discussion.

We have about 2 million different programs going in the government, and every single one of them is laughably inefficient. Every single one of them pays too much damned money for what they get.

To whit: I sell work gloves, and I sell really good quality work gloves, at very reasonable prices. I sell a really good quality dozen-set of brown Jerseys (simple gardening gloves) for about $5. My town currently pays $12.75 for a dozen of them, and from what I can tell they are lower quality than mine. I put in a bid for this year, and lost. They don't know my company well enough, you see.

We have a load of programs, most of which make no sense because they cost five times as much to run as they need to. We have a military, just as an example, beefing itself up with technology useful almost exclusively for fighting another large-scale enemy (read: another government) even while all the countries that could even put a dent in our current military scales down. Do we need this? I would tend to think not.

Privatizing everything wouldn't help, as the private sector would just become less efficient because they make more money that way.

No politician you elect is going to help. All things they are going to do in the coming two years are going to be for show, because tackling the real problem is actually a hard job. Spouting puffery is much easier, thanks.

The problem with our system, in summation? We have a stupid governmental design staffed by arrogant, self serving nincompoops, elected by the only thing in the world stupider than they are.

We have had this in place for over 200 years. We have gummed up the works so much so that the easier job, quite frankly, would be to dismantle the entire thing and start all the hell over again.

We want a self-less government staffed for self-less reasons, to do things for the betterment of everybody but itself. Name me 955 people (the absolute minimum number of people to run our constitutionally required government) that fit into that category. I can think of about five, and three of those are dead.

 

[Pastor Dave]

?

 

[sunchaser]

Disclaimer: The last thing I want in the world is to see Amtrak's budget cut a single damned penny. If anyone responds to my post by stating "but you want to cut Amtrak's budget...", I swear to god I will hunt you down and shove a P42 all the way up your alimentary canal.

Now then, the argument that "cutting Amtrak's budget will do nothing to help our deficit" is a load of utter crap. Every penny helps. If we cut every single budget 20%, it will cut our costs by 20%, whether the individual agency or fiefdom spends $5 or $5 trillion.

"We can just end the war and we'll be fine." Hogwash. First of all, it will cost billions of dollars to end the war, it will cost us, I'd guess, 2 years worth of war spending to suddenly drop everything and leave. Is the war fiscally responsible? No, but stop clinging to ridiculous false ideas about the simplicity involved in changing the complex.

"Cutting 'x' will save us tons of money!" No, cutting x will save you whatever you cut from x.

Observe what is placed below:

T - P = D

Taxes - Cost of Programs = Deficit/Surplus. Period. End of discussion.

We have about 2 million different programs going in the government, and every single one of them is laughably inefficient. Every single one of them pays too much damned money for what they get.

To whit: I sell work gloves, and I sell really good quality work gloves, at very reasonable prices. I sell a really good quality dozen-set of brown Jerseys (simple gardening gloves) for about $5. My town currently pays $12.75 for a dozen of them, and from what I can tell they are lower quality than mine. I put in a bid for this year, and lost. They don't know my company well enough, you see.

We have a load of programs, most of which make no sense because they cost five times as much to run as they need to. We have a military, just as an example, beefing itself up with technology useful almost exclusively for fighting another large-scale enemy (read: another government) even while all the countries that could even put a dent in our current military scales down. Do we need this? I would tend to think not.

Privatizing everything wouldn't help, as the private sector would just become less efficient because they make more money that way.

No politician you elect is going to help. All things they are going to do in the coming two years are going to be for show, because tackling the real problem is actually a hard job. Spouting puffery is much easier, thanks.

The problem with our system, in summation? We have a stupid governmental design staffed by arrogant, self serving nincompoops, elected by the only thing in the world stupider than they are.

We have had this in place for over 200 years. We have gummed up the works so much so that the easier job, quite frankly, would be to dismantle the entire thing and start all the hell over again.

We want a self-less government staffed for self-less reasons, to do things for the betterment of everybody but itself. Name me 955 people (the absolute minimum number of people to run our constitutionally required government) that fit into that category. I can think of about five, and three of those are dead.

Green Maned Lion!

Wow! I'm agreeing with you again! Will wonders never cease! Not totally, of course, but no worries. I do hope that nothing bad happens to Amtrak, but I'm not going to worry about it.

There are far too many other things that need fixing too & soon.

 

[monorailfan]

GML - very well said.

I love Amtrak - but frankly, we should be so lucky that they are talking CUTS and not outright ELIMINATION.

We simply cannot keep printing money for all these programs, and that includes Amtrak.

Everything needs cuts - Military, SS, Medicare, NASA (that should just be shut down, and I LOVE NASA), and yes, Amtrak.

I have a fine job, but my benefits were just cut. As was stated elsewhere, we can no longer afford these programs nor the 'Benefits Apartheid' between government workers and everyone else who pays for the gov't workers. It's an ugly generalized term, but its true.

The good thing about this country is I can keep trying to get these cuts by my vote - throw the bums out enough times and sooner or later (might take a decade) they will get the message. And that is my hope- that the politians realize they can either do these cuts in a controlled manner, or wait until the world no longer buys our debt and the cuts are forced upon this country - and that will not be fun.

 

[Larry H.]

What would happen if Amtrak gave the existing equipment and stations to the railroads who provide the rails they run on, and mandate that they continue the service as in pre amtrak days with a government over site similar to what used to exist. That would put it back in the hands of the people who should have been providing the service in the first place and once again give some competition and perhaps even better service to some of the long distance routes. I doubt that most railroads would be overly burdened by providing passenger service again what with the greatly increased fare structure and tax right offs any loses my incur. It would be better than loosing the service altogether.

 

[Ryan]

the 'Benefits Apartheid' between government workers and everyone else who pays for the gov't workers. It's an ugly generalized term, but its true.

What exactly are you talking about here?

What would happen if Amtrak gave the existing equipment and stations to the railroads who provide the rails they run on, and mandate that they continue the service as in pre amtrak days with a government over site similar to what used to exist. That would put it back in the hands of the people who should have been providing the service in the first place and once again give some competition and perhaps even better service to some of the long distance routes. I doubt that most railroads would be overly burdened by providing passenger service again what with the greatly increased fare structure and tax right offs any loses my incur. It would be better than loosing the service altogether.

I wasn't alive pre-Amtrak, but based on what I understand about passenger railroading pre-Amtrak, I would doubt that "better service" would be one of the results. What exactly has changed that makes you think that the conditions that brought about the creation of Amtrak no longer exist and that the freight RR's could do a better job? If there were really money to be made in doing it, there's nothing stopping them from trying it now, but I don't see a huge desire on the part of any of them to start hauling people around again. Turning things over to the free market isn't some magical cure that'll mysteriously make things better.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Are you trying to say that balancing the federal budget and paying off our national debt is going to improve the lives of your family members? If so, how?

If we reduce our debt, it should bring down inflation. It certainly won't hurt us to reduce it. As inflation continues to rise, all of us pay more for everything we use. That means we have less to spend. If inflation is low, you have more to spend, more purchasing power. As prices go up, we are spending more money for less items, including food. That means there is less money for other things, clothing, gas, travel, etc. This also works for your Employer. They have to figure inflation into things, too.

Sunchaser, I think it's only prudent to stop you here and ask just what exactly you think the current inflation rate is?

Wow! I'm agreeing with you again! Will wonders never cease! Not totally, of course, but no worries. I do hope that nothing bad happens to Amtrak, but I'm not going to worry about it. There are far too many other things that need fixing too & soon.

Wait, I thought we were going to hear about this 20% raise for government workers thing you said you were going to explain to us?

 

[Ryan]

Wow! I'm agreeing with you again! Will wonders never cease! Not totally, of course, but no worries. I do hope that nothing bad happens to Amtrak, but I'm not going to worry about it. There are far too many other things that need fixing too & soon.

Wait, I thought we were going to hear about this 20% raise for government workers thing you said you were going to explain to us?

I'm holding my breath while she locates the source that says it exists. I'm really wildly curious who got it, because none of the government workers that I know (including my wife) sure as heck didn't get it.

 

[Larry H.]

the 'Benefits Apartheid' between government workers and everyone else who pays for the gov't workers. It's an ugly generalized term, but its true.

What exactly are you talking about here?

What would happen if Amtrak gave the existing equipment and stations to the railroads who provide the rails they run on, and mandate that they continue the service as in pre amtrak days with a government over site similar to what used to exist. That would put it back in the hands of the people who should have been providing the service in the first place and once again give some competition and perhaps even better service to some of the long distance routes. I doubt that most railroads would be overly burdened by providing passenger service again what with the greatly increased fare structure and tax right offs any loses my incur. It would be better than loosing the service altogether.

I wasn't alive pre-Amtrak, but based on what I understand about passenger railroading pre-Amtrak, I would doubt that "better service" would be one of the results. What exactly has changed that makes you think that the conditions that brought about the creation of Amtrak no longer exist and that the freight RR's could do a better job? If there were really money to be made in doing it, there's nothing stopping them from trying it now, but I don't see a huge desire on the part of any of them to start hauling people around again. Turning things over to the free market isn't some magical cure that'll mysteriously make things better.

Hey Ryan, Nice to see your still here and busy..

What I am basically thinking is that if Republicans do indeed try to eliminate services or long distance trains that instead of leaving towns all over america in the lurch of no service, perhaps we should rethink the whole concept of the government saying they would provide passenger service. I realize your never going to relate to things pre amtrak and your basic assumptions are from todays operational standards, but there is a reason that the Santa Fe Railroad made amtrak stop using the Super Chief Name. The service and equipment no longer was up to their standards. I would say that was perhaps an exception, but most railroads in the west were still running trains that put any new consist amtrak has to shame in both service and quality of equipment. ( I know your going to rage on about the difference in times). So amtrak as you know it is as often said, a way to move people from here to there. But one of the first things they did was cut the already meager routes structure in half. To this day those links so important to passengers outside the east coast have never returned.

I don't pretend to know the complications or legalities of this idea. I am simply wondering out loud if anything along this line might work. For one thing you would be eliminating government bureaucrats from everyday operational decisions that hamper the quality of equipment and service. You would eliminate the congress from complaining about what kinds of service the roads offered. You would hopefully end the boring cookie cutter sameness of every long distance train. You might actually get some new ideas for services in order for the roads to encourage ridership.

I think I am envisioning a way to transfer what the government said it would run and never seems able to so without constant problems to people that probably know a lot more about it. I really wondered if a major percentage of the cost en cured by the railroads couldn't be a tax break for them to offset the cost instead of the tax payers paying it directly to the government with its inherent problems. I have no doubt that some sort of railroad regulation board would have to be put back in place to provide basic guide lines for operations of the services in a way that would prevent the railroads from repeating the "unfriendly" policies many did adopt when they wanted out of the service in the first place. That seems a stretch, but as you all say, times have and are changing. Gas on its way to 5.00 a gallon (partly thanks to our administration) is changing the publics perception of passenger rail and its option in getting places. It might be the right time for some competition if properly run and hopefully expanded might not have a chance of providing better service with better equipment at some point and keeping the cost lower than in the end days of privatized service.

 

[Larry H.]

Wow! I'm agreeing with you again! Will wonders never cease! Not totally, of course, but no worries. I do hope that nothing bad happens to Amtrak, but I'm not going to worry about it. There are far too many other things that need fixing too & soon.

Wait, I thought we were going to hear about this 20% raise for government workers thing you said you were going to explain to us?

I'm holding my breath while she locates the source that says it exists. I'm really wildly curious who got it, because none of the government workers that I know (including my wife) sure as heck didn't get it.

I think the issues with nearly all government workers is that over time they have been promised things that the people who pay for them never come near approaching as a benefit. I retired with a fraction of my weekly pay as a pension. My mom on the other hand retired over 35 years ago now and makes more today than she did when she worked. Those are hard to duplicate in the private sector. At least among regular workers, who are not CEO's or lawyers or bankers. The worst part of the government systems I now see is the unwilling attitude when it comes to sharing in the downturn as if the unions have total control of the decision, not us the employers.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I realize [you're] never going to relate to things [pre-Amtrak] and your basic assumptions are from [today's] operational standards, but there is a reason that the Santa Fe Railroad made [Amtrak] stop using the Super Chief Name. The service and equipment no longer was up to their standards.

I'd say the Amtrak service with slow and generic but actually functioning trains is a far better standard than a ghost train that never runs anymore. You seem to be confusing private vs. government operation with the massive changes in options and demographics that occurred during the demise of the golden age of passenger rail. I don't want Amtrak to become a tiny sliver of a railroad that only runs in the North East. Nor do I want Amtrak to become a nostalgic tourist railroad that runs ridiculously opulent trains for the wealthy anywhere they care to go. I want Amtrak to evolve into a world-class passenger network capable of competing with the best that other nations have already built. Maybe you miss the long forgotten Super Chief but I miss the fast and efficient trains that run today in places like Japan and Germany. I don't see Super Chief levels of customer service coming from any national network today. Nor do I see old world service and luxury oozing out of today's enormous freight conglomerates here in America. Which is just as well I suppose since I see no interest from them for restarting nationwide passenger service, tax funded or otherwise.

So, to recap...

+ Super Chief style service isn't coming back. It was a product of a completely different age.

+ Rather than focusing on opulence and variety we should focus on speed and efficiency.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a return to old world service and charm from several different lines all doing their best to stand out from the crowd. But that day is done. No other country of any size or significance seems to have pulled off what you're suggesting and I don't see a huge cry for it from current or potential customers either.