Dukakis on CNN - McCain threw him out over Amtrak

[Guest_George Harris_*]

Michael Dukakis, responding to a question regarding if he ever saw McCain's temper.. My transcript.
MD: "I've experienced it."

MD: "Well ... we went to see Senator McCain and he effectively threw us out of his office."

LK: "He literally threw you out of the office?"

MD:"Well, he certainly invited us to leave."

When you skip the fillers, you find this is just overblown nonsense. "He asked us to leave” does not equal "He threw us out."

Remember, Amtrak is and always has been primarily a creature of congress. I would not consider the stand of either candidate concerning Amtrak to be a deciding factor. After all, it was said that Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy. I am doubtful that anyone there would think that was worth all the other things he brought down on Italy. There are many things more important.

Also, remember that Dukakis is promoting the other guy, so anything he can say negative about McCain, he will say.

 

[sky12065]

Michael Dukakis, responding to a question regarding if he ever saw McCain's temper.. My transcript.
MD: "I've experienced it."

MD: "Well ... we went to see Senator McCain and he effectively threw us out of his office."

LK: "He literally threw you out of the office?"

MD:"Well, he certainly invited us to leave."

When you skip the fillers, you find this is just overblown nonsense. "He asked us to leave" does not equal "He threw us out."

Remember, Amtrak is and always has been primarily a creature of congress. I would not consider the stand of either candidate concerning Amtrak to be a deciding factor. After all, it was said that Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy. I am doubtful that anyone there would think that was worth all the other things he brought down on Italy. There are many things more important.

Also, remember that Dukakis is promoting the other guy, so anything he can say negative about McCain, he will say.

You're absolutely 100% correct; no spin, no fill, no bull! Imagine if all the candidates themselves did the same, Red Foxx's charactor Fred Sanford would be gripping his chest and belting out his famous line... "It's da big one lizabit, it's da big one!"

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

Railways in most industrialized countries were nationalized before the 20th century because of their economic and military significance. The last part of the 20th century saw a return to privatization for railways around the world. Railways in the U.S. have always been private, with the exception of Amtrak. For these kinds of private companies high-volume, long-distance freight traffic remains the primary source of revenue, but passenger service in the U.S. was widely used from the inception of railroads until the 1950s when the growth of interstate highways and later the airlines began to cut sharply into the use of passenger rail. All forms of transportation tend to be capital-intensive and yield low profits. In the United States, this fact is masked and distorted by immense government subsidies for highways and air transport. Nearly all roads and airports in the U.S. are constructed and maintained with public funding. The railways are entirely private, as they have always been in the U.S. The post-war era began this trend of huge public subsidies for air and road travel in the U.S. as American industry (especially automakers and aircraft) achieved worldwide supremacy. Since the Republicans are all about industrial supremacy (but have lost the ability to encourage it) and the exercise of the free market, we should expect McCain to do all he can to get rid of Amtrak and return it to the private sphere. That the so-called "free market" isn't free at all has nothing to do with Republican impulses; it's all in the non-logical realm of human motivations: convictions, philosophies, religion, and, indeed, magic.

 

[Dan O]

Privatizing social security is generally a good idea. Social security operates on the assumption that people are not competent with setting up their own retirement funds,

People did not provide well for their own retirement and that was one reason it was set up back in the 30s. Many people do set aside money for retirement and those are the ones that do not rely soley on Social Security to get by when they retire now. But many have not and will not set aside anything and those are the ones that are now relying totally on Social Security to live on in their later years.

Social Security is not just a retirement plan. It provides survivor benefits to young children and widows/widowers. A typical worker that may die young (30ish) with some kids is not going to have enough put away to provide income for his children until they are adults and for his widow while she may be raising the children and later when she turns 60.

Social Security also has a disability program. Privatizing Social Security would also have to provide some relief for those folks and their dependents as well.

It's not just a matter of doing a better job saving for retirement. It's a social insurance system that is much like those set up in many other western countries.

Dan

 

[HP_Lovecraft]

we should expect McCain to do all he can to get rid of Amtrak and return it to the private sphere

We should expect that, since he has not said that is a goal for his presidency, nor does he have the power to do so. Oh, you were just fearmongering. Sorry, my mistake.

And we will all be eating catfood if SS is privatized as well

 

[JayPea]

John McCain's social security privatization plan would be voluntary. Unless I need to brush up on my grammar, I thought "voluntary" meant you don't have to if you don't want to.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Privatizing social security is generally a good idea. Social security operates on the assumption that people are not competent with setting up their own retirement funds,

People did not provide well for their own retirement and that was one reason it was set up back in the 30s. Many people do set aside money for retirement and those are the ones that do not rely soley on Social Security to get by when they retire now. But many have not and will not set aside anything and those are the ones that are now relying totally on Social Security to live on in their later years.

Social Security is not just a retirement plan. It provides survivor benefits to young children and widows/widowers. A typical worker that may die young (30ish) with some kids is not going to have enough put away to provide income for his children until they are adults and for his widow while she may be raising the children and later when she turns 60.

Social Security also has a disability program. Privatizing Social Security would also have to provide some relief for those folks and their dependents as well.

It's not just a matter of doing a better job saving for retirement. It's a social insurance system that is much like those set up in many other western countries.

Dan

I believe I said that its other various functions besides providing for retirement should continue. *looks* Yep, I did.

Providing for retirement is a responsibility of the old or their children. If they have no children and don't provide for their own retirement, they can starve. Then maybe people will think twice about buying various forms of garbage they don't actually have a stitch of use for. We aren't providing for people's retirement- we are providing for their current wasteful spending on junk, most of which is chinese and imported.

They wouldn't buy new cars every 3-5 years. They'd keep their old car running like they should so they can save money. They'd buy goods meant to last so they wouldn't spend money replacing the Chinese made garbage they buy now. They can spend on quality American-made goods instead, and keep jobs here. Since people would then have to pay more for a durable product, they can afford to pay for American labor.

we should expect McCain to do all he can to get rid of Amtrak and return it to the private sphere

We should expect that, since he has not said that is a goal for his presidency, nor does he have the power to do so. Oh, you were just fearmongering. Sorry, my mistake.

And we will all be eating catfood if SS is privatized as well

Mother of god. I am going to pretend you didn't just use the word "fearmongering". But don't let it happen again, or I am going to have to lock you in a room with a tape of my lecture on overused cliché words used by people who don't know their meaning. You'll have used it twice by that point, so you'd be required to listen to it 200 times. Its about 2 hours long and, I am told, terminally boring. (I'm being facetious, by the way.)

What he is doing is being an overzealous, and possibly justifiably fearful, political advocate of something you don't believe in. That is not fearmongering. Nobody here can since they are not in sufficient position to do so.

I'm expecting McCain to do all he can to get rid of Amtrak. Why? Because that's what he's been doing for the past 20 years.

 

[Mark]

Privatizing social security is generally a good idea. Social security operates on the assumption that people are not competent with setting up their own retirement funds,

People did not provide well for their own retirement and that was one reason it was set up back in the 30s. Many people do set aside money for retirement and those are the ones that do not rely soley on Social Security to get by when they retire now. But many have not and will not set aside anything and those are the ones that are now relying totally on Social Security to live on in their later years.

Social Security is not just a retirement plan. It provides survivor benefits to young children and widows/widowers. A typical worker that may die young (30ish) with some kids is not going to have enough put away to provide income for his children until they are adults and for his widow while she may be raising the children and later when she turns 60.

Social Security also has a disability program. Privatizing Social Security would also have to provide some relief for those folks and their dependents as well.

It's not just a matter of doing a better job saving for retirement. It's a social insurance system that is much like those set up in many other western countries.

Dan

I believe I said that its other various functions besides providing for retirement should continue. *looks* Yep, I did.

Providing for retirement is a responsibility of the old or their children. If they have no children and don't provide for their own retirement, they can starve. Then maybe people will think twice about buying various forms of garbage they don't actually have a stitch of use for. We aren't providing for people's retirement- we are providing for their current wasteful spending on junk, most of which is chinese and imported.

They wouldn't buy new cars every 3-5 years. They'd keep their old car running like they should so they can save money. They'd buy goods meant to last so they wouldn't spend money replacing the Chinese made garbage they buy now. They can spend on quality American-made goods instead, and keep jobs here. Since people would then have to pay more for a durable product, they can afford to pay for American labor.

we should expect McCain to do all he can to get rid of Amtrak and return it to the private sphere

We should expect that, since he has not said that is a goal for his presidency, nor does he have the power to do so. Oh, you were just fearmongering. Sorry, my mistake.

And we will all be eating catfood if SS is privatized as well

Mother of god. I am going to pretend you didn't just use the word "fearmongering". But don't let it happen again, or I am going to have to lock you in a room with a tape of my lecture on overused cliché words used by people who don't know their meaning. You'll have used it twice by that point, so you'd be required to listen to it 200 times. Its about 2 hours long and, I am told, terminally boring. (I'm being facetious, by the way.)

What he is doing is being an overzealous, and possibly justifiably fearful, political advocate of something you don't believe in. That is not fearmongering. Nobody here can since they are not in sufficient position to do so.

I'm expecting McCain to do all he can to get rid of Amtrak. Why? Because that's what he's been doing for the past 20 years.

Agreed- should JM become president expect to see zero funding proposed annually. Why? Because he has always seen Amtrak as being an unneccessary waste of the taxpayers dollars. Like him or not, vote for him or not, he, (and his VP from the state w/no Amtrak service), is BAD for Amtrak.

 

[julieandrews]

The number of internal flights in France has seriously diminished due to their excellent train service. When you factor in the time taken to check in at an airport, time to get through security, the whole messy boarding process and balance that against just turning up at your train station and hoping on a train, train travel wins hands down if it's fast and well run.

The Eurostar from Paris/Brussels to London is the popular way to travel now instead of flying because you're direct from city centre to city centre, you don't have to transfer in and out of an airport thats 30 mins outside of town. Yes you do have to do passport and security checks as your'e travelling to a different country, but you're only expected to turn up to the station 40 mins before departure time rather than the standard 2 hour airport time

A fast frequent train service in the US between major cities could cut air travel no end and brings passangers right to the heart of the cities where they need to be. It's usually cheaper too. It also beats road travel as when have you seen a train stuck in a traffic jam? And you can relax and read a book, listen to music, sleep while everybody on the road is sweating it out with road rage

America is actually a perfect country for rail travel to nearby cities, it could be amazing!!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Railways in the U.S. have always been private, with the exception of Amtrak.

You're saying that Metro-North and LIRR are private?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The number of internal flights in France has seriously diminished due to their excellent train service. When you factor in the time taken to check in at an airport, time to get through security, the whole messy boarding process and balance that against just turning up at your train station and hoping on a train, train travel wins hands down if it's fast and well run. The Eurostar from Paris/Brussels to London is the popular way to travel now instead of flying because you're direct from city centre to city centre, you don't have to transfer in and out of an airport thats 30 mins outside of town. Yes you do have to do passport and security checks as your'e travelling to a different country, but you're only expected to turn up to the station 40 mins before departure time rather than the standard 2 hour airport time

A fast frequent train service in the US between major cities could cut air travel no end and brings passangers right to the heart of the cities where they need to be. It's usually cheaper too. It also beats road travel as when have you seen a train stuck in a traffic jam? And you can relax and read a book, listen to music, sleep while everybody on the road is sweating it out with road rage

America is actually a perfect country for rail travel to nearby cities, it could be amazing!!

There are plenty of times when trains get stuck in traffic jams on busy freight railroads.

However, we do have plenty of city pairs in the US where both cities in the pair have 1.5+ million populations (if you're going by the population of the primary census area) and the two cities could easily be within three hours by train from downtown to downtown, in many cases even if the top speed of the train were limited to 186 MPH (the speed the French have been using for decades). Building the track and catenary to make that work would create American jobs, and improve the US trade balance by reducing our need for foreign oil.

 

[Dan O]

I believe I said that its other various functions besides providing for retirement should continue. *looks* Yep, I did.

You did. But there is a question re funding those programs since the funds for survivor benefits come from the same tax that goes to pay retirement benefits. Disability is a different fund. Ditto for Medicare.

Providing for retirement is a responsibility of the old or their children. If they have no children and don't provide for their own retirement, they can starve.

Generally, industrial countries do not allow a large percentage of their populations to starve, even if the people could have made better choices earlier. I don't think you will find many folks that would sign on for that kind of plan.

They wouldn't buy new cars every 3-5 years. They'd keep their old car running like they should so they can save money. They'd buy goods meant to last so they wouldn't spend money replacing the Chinese made garbage they buy now. They can spend on quality American-made goods instead, and keep jobs here. Since people would then have to pay more for a durable product, they can afford to pay for American labor.

Social Security is the reason people buy new cars every 3-5 years. I know several people on Social Security and precious few buy new cars ever. Maybe the ones I know are not the norm. I might add that some goods that used to be produced here no longer are. You are perhaps too young to remember when Americans made TVs. I don't know if any make them now or not.

Dan

 

[julieandrews]

The number of internal flights in France has seriously diminished due to their excellent train service. When you factor in the time taken to check in at an airport, time to get through security, the whole messy boarding process and balance that against just turning up at your train station and hoping on a train, train travel wins hands down if it's fast and well run. The Eurostar from Paris/Brussels to London is the popular way to travel now instead of flying because you're direct from city centre to city centre, you don't have to transfer in and out of an airport thats 30 mins outside of town. Yes you do have to do passport and security checks as your'e travelling to a different country, but you're only expected to turn up to the station 40 mins before departure time rather than the standard 2 hour airport time

A fast frequent train service in the US between major cities could cut air travel no end and brings passangers right to the heart of the cities where they need to be. It's usually cheaper too. It also beats road travel as when have you seen a train stuck in a traffic jam? And you can relax and read a book, listen to music, sleep while everybody on the road is sweating it out with road rage

America is actually a perfect country for rail travel to nearby cities, it could be amazing!!

There are plenty of times when trains get stuck in traffic jams on busy freight railroads.

However, we do have plenty of city pairs in the US where both cities in the pair have 1.5+ million populations (if you're going by the population of the primary census area) and the two cities could easily be within three hours by train from downtown to downtown, in many cases even if the top speed of the train were limited to 186 MPH (the speed the French have been using for decades). Building the track and catenary to make that work would create American jobs, and improve the US trade balance by reducing our need for foreign oil.

Ok sorry, wasn't aware of how freight runs in the US, I'm more used to the UK system where passanger trains run from about 5/6am to 1am and freight mostly runs at night, they don't impact each other very much. But obviously with some of the massively long routes in the US the day/night thing isn't on

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Ok sorry, wasn't aware of how freight runs in the US, I'm more used to the UK system where passanger trains run from about 5/6am to 1am and freight mostly runs at night, they don't impact each other very much. But obviously with some of the massively long routes in the US the day/night thing isn't on

I think day/night isn't really the entire reasoning behind it, though. Most Amtrak routes operate over tracks that are owned and maintained by private freight companies. Because the Interstate highways are a viable way of moving cargo (even if they're labor intensive and oil intensive when compared to trains and make the highways wear out faster), and the freight railroads are afraid of investing large amounts of capital, the freight railroads carry as much freight as the tracks they happen to have can handle, and let the rest overflow to the highways.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Social Security is the reason people buy new cars every 3-5 years. I know several people on Social Security and precious few buy new cars ever. Maybe the ones I know are not the norm. I might add that some goods that used to be produced here no longer are. You are perhaps too young to remember when Americans made TVs. I don't know if any make them now or not.

First off, you are talking to a collector of antique/vintage/whatever you want to call it- junk/furniture/electronics/toys/misc. I have an old RCA wooden-cased TV not 15 feet from me. Trust me, I may not have been alive for it, but I know it.

Social security lulls people into the fallacy of believing saving for retirement is not all that important. So they wantonly spend their money on things that a more, uh, concerned person would not purchase. They would choose to be more frugal with their money because they have no expectation of the future being covered by a government program never intended to completely cover people's life after work.

I'm not talking about social security dependents when I mention this. I am talking about people in general, the fools that feel leasing a car for three years, at a cost of about $10k a year including various things like the collision insurance you eventually get rid of as your car ages. They do this instead of paying about 50% more per month for the payments those three years, owning the thing afterward, and running it into the ground, like a sane person. So you can do it for an average of $12,000 a year for the first three years, then about $4-5k a year for the next, say, 10.

So for those 13 years, you spend $6,200 a year. A savings of $48k for those 13 years, which can go into a nice retirement account. Or more pointedly, if you work for 40 years, a total of $144,000. This money is wasted. Pointlessly. And just about any decent car can last for 13 years at an average mileage load of 20,000 a year- which is more than most people drive.

This is just one area someone could save a crapload of money. I'm a collector of old things, as I mentioned. One place I find them is a rather simple one- curbsides. I find tons of things that I end up loading into my trunk and lugging home. That old RCA TV I mentioned, for instance (A friend helped me with his pickup for that one!). The vast majority of electronics I find work. They often work perfectly. Why are they being thrown away? Couldn't tell you, but I bet it is to make room for the newest, greatest electronic boondoggle.

I am in awe of how much money people simply waste. Pointless junk they don't need and never use. New electronic devices when the old one is performing flawless service. Food. Food is a big one. I can't tell you how much spoiled and completely unused food items get thrown out. One of many things that provide for this cycle of idiocy is social security. Since people are generally comfortable with their retirement, they tend to buy things impulsively.

Look on TV. You'll find ads that sell garbage that really is a sociological study in why people buy things. The "Magic Bullet" is one that struck me as particularly stupid. I dunno if they still run these- its been 10 years since I watched TV on a frequent basis- my RCA does VCR duty. Only watch the blasted thing if a 9-11 magnitude event is going on.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I no longer have any color CRTs, and modern LCDs tend to provide better image quality than CRTs.

There's also some value in being careful about what ``junk'' you collect. In some jurisdictions, you can't just throw away a CRT for free. And in the area where I live, rent for a square foot for a few years tends to end up being more expensive than the value of whatever junk one might store in that square foot. There's also the cost of moving that stuff from one home to another if you ever do so.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Audrey, who is a digital artist, would disagree with you about the CRTs. I tend to disagree with her. However, most VCR tapes can't really take advantage of the LCDs better picture,

I don't throw things away. One day I am probably gonna need a warehouse to store my collection of assorted old stuff. Maybe I'll turn it into a museum and make some money off of it. Or start up an antique shop. Or something.

 

[gswager]

CDs will be worthless after 5 years due to "self-destruct".