Murphy SidingAlthough, to be honest, Gerald Ford's hair looks like a cartoon mustache drawn about 8" too high.
Well he did play football without a helmet!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Miningman Wow those are great pictures Wanswheel. Funny coincidence ...as I went down the halls Monday ( yesterday) morning at my college someone had put up a blown up grad picture of myself, at 21 years old with the caption..." WHO " and a prize for finding out. Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson and Ford are quite recognizable but I'm afraid I don't look much like I did at 21 any longer.
Wow those are great pictures Wanswheel. Funny coincidence ...as I went down the halls Monday ( yesterday) morning at my college someone had put up a blown up grad picture of myself, at 21 years old with the caption..." WHO " and a prize for finding out. Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson and Ford are quite recognizable but I'm afraid I don't look much like I did at 21 any longer.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Public highways are seriously decaying. Inland navigation structures are eroding. When will this government infrastructure failure to invest shift traffic to rail?
Rail will need to make investments to handle a large shift in traffic. That will take capital. Will the rate of return and risk make rail a smart investment?
Never know what congressman might be president someday.
BaltACD wrrsends1 BaltACD We all have heard the Campaign brags that Trump announced. What will actually get enacted going through Congress? Talk is cheap. Congress can't be fired. BaltACD - yes it can; to do it you and I and thousands of others like us only have to VOTE!!wrrsends The problem is - we KNOW 434 of the 435 members of the House are crooks and theives. But OUR GUY brings home the pork to OUR district, so he is the ONLY good guy there - FIRE the other 434. One small catch, I can only vote for or against 'MY' guy - I can't fire the other 434. I used to be against term limits; however, it has become obvious that we now have a caste of Professional Politicians with individuals staying in office 20-30-40-50 years and longer. The time has come for term limits. 6 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate - 12 years TOTAL in national offices. If 8 years of the Presidency is enough, 12 in the other elected braches is more than enough.
wrrsends1 BaltACD We all have heard the Campaign brags that Trump announced. What will actually get enacted going through Congress? Talk is cheap. Congress can't be fired. BaltACD - yes it can; to do it you and I and thousands of others like us only have to VOTE!!wrrsends
BaltACD We all have heard the Campaign brags that Trump announced. What will actually get enacted going through Congress? Talk is cheap. Congress can't be fired.
We all have heard the Campaign brags that Trump announced.
What will actually get enacted going through Congress?
Talk is cheap. Congress can't be fired.
BaltACD - yes it can; to do it you and I and thousands of others like us only have to VOTE!!wrrsends
The problem is - we KNOW 434 of the 435 members of the House are crooks and theives. But OUR GUY brings home the pork to OUR district, so he is the ONLY good guy there - FIRE the other 434.
One small catch, I can only vote for or against 'MY' guy - I can't fire the other 434.
I used to be against term limits; however, it has become obvious that we now have a caste of Professional Politicians with individuals staying in office 20-30-40-50 years and longer. The time has come for term limits. 6 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate - 12 years TOTAL in national offices. If 8 years of the Presidency is enough, 12 in the other elected braches is more than enough.
BaltACDThe problem is - we KNOW 434 of the 435 members of the House are crooks and thieves...
Hey - that's my line! But I agree. I recall hearing about a congressman from PA who was re-elected shortly after having been convicted of some significant crime that had to do with his position.
The same thing happens in the state houses...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
jeffhergert BaltACD wrrsends1 BaltACD We all have heard the Campaign brags that Trump announced. What will actually get enacted going through Congress? Talk is cheap. Congress can't be fired. BaltACD - yes it can; to do it you and I and thousands of others like us only have to VOTE!!wrrsends The problem is - we KNOW 434 of the 435 members of the House are crooks and theives. But OUR GUY brings home the pork to OUR district, so he is the ONLY good guy there - FIRE the other 434. One small catch, I can only vote for or against 'MY' guy - I can't fire the other 434. I used to be against term limits; however, it has become obvious that we now have a caste of Professional Politicians with individuals staying in office 20-30-40-50 years and longer. The time has come for term limits. 6 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate - 12 years TOTAL in national offices. If 8 years of the Presidency is enough, 12 in the other elected braches is more than enough. I can't say that my guy is a crook or thief, but I did try to fire him. Unfortunately I was in the minority in that respect. Tried to get rid of one Senator, too. No luck there either. Trouble is, we seem to replace them with more of the same. Even if they start out good, too many of them seem to adapt to being career politicians. Start forgetting why they were sent there in the first place. Jeff
I can't say that my guy is a crook or thief, but I did try to fire him. Unfortunately I was in the minority in that respect. Tried to get rid of one Senator, too. No luck there either.
Trouble is, we seem to replace them with more of the same. Even if they start out good, too many of them seem to adapt to being career politicians. Start forgetting why they were sent there in the first place.
Jeff
and political donor's bribes would only last 12 yrs. STEVEL
CMStPnP Yes both Wisconsin and Ohio just dug themselves out of multi-Billion dollar deficit budgets before the decision was made. I am not sure what Michigan's Finances are but HSR can also be viewed as a Real Estate development program and at least one city on the Chicago to Detroit corridor needs heavy real estate development and ability to attract real estate developers. ...
Yes both Wisconsin and Ohio just dug themselves out of multi-Billion dollar deficit budgets before the decision was made. I am not sure what Michigan's Finances are but HSR can also be viewed as a Real Estate development program and at least one city on the Chicago to Detroit corridor needs heavy real estate development and ability to attract real estate developers.
...
Th Michigan economy and State finances have been stressed for years with the auto industry problems. They just could not turn down a $100 million investment in the Wolverine corridor. There actually is much ongoing real estate development on the Woodward Ave./light rail corridor between the new Amtrak station and downtown.
Stocks tanked today..
MidlandMikeWell Michigan republicans did make one consession to infrastructure-- they gladly took the federal money that Wis and Ohio turned down, and bought 100+ miles from NS, and are currently rebuilding it toward 110 mph operation on the Wolverine corridor. I guess they did not see the problems that you say the other states feared.
Illinios never met a spending program it didn't like and just routinely raises taxes each time to cover shortfalls. I'm not sure why they keep doing that but it has hurt them competitively in the Midwest versus surrounding states and they are hurting now for saying "yes" too many times in the past.
CMStPnP MidlandMike That's not the way it is in Michigan. I am guessing you have some interest in Wisconsin. As I recall Gov. Walker (R) ran on a platform to kill the passenger rail service expansion to Madison, which was already approved by the previous gov (D). Republican govs in Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois did similar things. Infrastructure was part of Clinton's and the DNC's platform. While it was also included of Trump's platform, there is where he parted ways with the RNC. Ah yes the frequently misrepresented Midwestern Governors position on the HSR package that Ray LaHood was attempting to sell. It was not the HSR package itself they were opposed to, it was the strict terms that bound each state to a very high Capital Spending program or else they would be forced to pay back the original grant to the Feds and be stuck with the incomplete mess as a result if they could not finish the project. California had nothing to lose in that it already committed to a high expense HSR package so thats why a large chunk of the money was dropped there. Wisconsin and Ohio made the correct choice on the proposal. Illinois is suffering greatly for signing onto the proposal and I might add..........still not seeing HSR in that state yet as it was envisioned. It is interesting though, how many multiple billions of taxpayer money has been spent so far on HSR and still no new systems are up and running?
MidlandMike That's not the way it is in Michigan. I am guessing you have some interest in Wisconsin. As I recall Gov. Walker (R) ran on a platform to kill the passenger rail service expansion to Madison, which was already approved by the previous gov (D). Republican govs in Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois did similar things. Infrastructure was part of Clinton's and the DNC's platform. While it was also included of Trump's platform, there is where he parted ways with the RNC.
Ah yes the frequently misrepresented Midwestern Governors position on the HSR package that Ray LaHood was attempting to sell. It was not the HSR package itself they were opposed to, it was the strict terms that bound each state to a very high Capital Spending program or else they would be forced to pay back the original grant to the Feds and be stuck with the incomplete mess as a result if they could not finish the project.
California had nothing to lose in that it already committed to a high expense HSR package so thats why a large chunk of the money was dropped there.
Wisconsin and Ohio made the correct choice on the proposal. Illinois is suffering greatly for signing onto the proposal and I might add..........still not seeing HSR in that state yet as it was envisioned.
It is interesting though, how many multiple billions of taxpayer money has been spent so far on HSR and still no new systems are up and running?
Well Michigan republicans did make one consession to infrastructure-- they gladly took the federal money that Wis and Ohio turned down, and bought 100+ miles from NS, and are currently rebuilding it toward 110 mph operation on the Wolverine corridor. I guess they did not see the problems that you say the other states feared. Illinois is also incrementally increasing HrSR to 110 mph on CHI-STL.
But we are getting away from my original point, that the republican Congress considers infrastructure so low on the priority list, that after they captured the House in 2010, it took them 5 years to get out their first new "annual" transportation bill.
BaltACD While I have no fear the elements of the Infrastructure Spending Machine exist. I also know that the Interstate Highway system was begun in 1956, with a signifigent percentage of its mileage constructed between 1956 & 1966. In the interests of 'economy' the Interstate was constructed to a '50 year' standard level of construction. Well boys and girls 1966 was 50 years ago and the 'repairs' that have been applied over the years have, for the most part, been stop gap efforts to keep the roads 'going' , rarely going to the base levels of the constructions - sub grades deteriorate - bridges deteriorate, both with their steel and their concrete. Nothing lasts 'forever' especially when it was constructed to a 50 year standard.
While I have no fear the elements of the Infrastructure Spending Machine exist. I also know that the Interstate Highway system was begun in 1956, with a signifigent percentage of its mileage constructed between 1956 & 1966. In the interests of 'economy' the Interstate was constructed to a '50 year' standard level of construction. Well boys and girls 1966 was 50 years ago and the 'repairs' that have been applied over the years have, for the most part, been stop gap efforts to keep the roads 'going' , rarely going to the base levels of the constructions - sub grades deteriorate - bridges deteriorate, both with their steel and their concrete. Nothing lasts 'forever' especially when it was constructed to a 50 year standard.
Wow, interesting I was just about to post the same about Railroad Bridges constructed to a 100 year standard back around the turn of the century. A lot of those need replacing now.
Noticed UP RR is replacing the former C&NW steel span across I-94 in Wauwatosa or Milwaukee for their Belt line, a few years ago CN replaced the ex-C&NW span across the Fox River in Oshkosh. I think I read also that BNSF added a span across the Missouri River for regular frieghts retaining the old span for lighter weight frieghts (seriously, IMV they should replace the old span and quit being so cheap by trying to extend it's life).
EuclidThe notion that our infrastructure is in need of complete repair is propaganda put out by the Infrastructure Spending Machine.
Its also supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers. While they may have a certain vested interest, they also have the technical expertise to evaluate the conditions of bridges, levees, canals, water and sewer systems, etc. I believe the last rating I heard them give was a D-. While not saying a "complete" repair, they certainly had a concern about a lot of the infrastructure. Probably its not the interstate system that is in the most jeopardy, its probably the state, county or municipal systems that are in the worst shape.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
BaltACDWell boys and girls 1966 was 50 years ago...
This is especially manifested in bridges. A stretch of road with a stable base can last a long time with occasional resurfacing. Bridges, not so much. Here in the north country, steel bridges and salt haven't been the best of friends...
The notion that our infrastructure is in need of complete repair is propaganda put out by the Infrastructure Spending Machine. You put money in one end and nothing comes out the other end.
Everybody can relate to the problem of traffic jams, poorly maintained farm/ranch-to-market roads, airport and airline delays and crowded subways; so the idea that we can fix the problem sells.
In my opinion, we need to revive the economy by punishing it less and reducing public spending. The “Need to fix our crumbling infrastructure” has become the battle cry of big government spending. It is exactly the wrong thing to do now. Unfortunately, it resonates with Trump because he is a builder of big ideas, and fixing the infrastructure is the biggest building idea of all.
The way to maintain the infrastructure is to carefully pour a little money into the Infrastructure Spending Machine and get a little improvement. Prudence is the key. Putting out a package of $550-billion to suddenly fix all of the infrastructure problems once and for will merely feed the beast. The money will get consumed before anything gets fixed. There will be cost overrun in just deciding what gets fixed. All it will accomplish is stimulating the Infrastructure Spending Machine to demand another $550-billion.
Amen to the above, especially in Ohio, where I have some first-hand knowledge of where rail passenger was going pre-Amtrak. Revival of Cleveland-Cincinnati service on schedules slower than NYC's of 50 years ago would have been DOA in Ohio, and was recognized as such.
Iowa's governor was also too smart. Illinois can't get even Chicago-Quad Cities started; an extension to Iowa City would have been the money pit it was, again, pre-Amtrak.
MidlandMikeThat's not the way it is in Michigan. I am guessing you have some interest in Wisconsin. As I recall Gov. Walker (R) ran on a platform to kill the passenger rail service expansion to Madison, which was already approved by the previous gov (D). Republican govs in Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois did similar things. Infrastructure was part of Clinton's and the DNC's platform. While it was also included of Trump's platform, there is where he parted ways with the RNC.
CMStPnP MidlandMike Did the skepticism of the second stimulus package have something to do with the Republicans retaking the House in the 2010 mid-term election? In any case, they have not been fans of infrastructure spending for some time now. You mention private business spending now, which seems to be the way the Trump transition team is going. In today's paper I see his new transportation person is big on public-private partnerships, but mainly on toll roads where investors see a surer return. Not sure what states you have lived in but the states I have lived in the Infrastruture programs are bi-partisian. At the Federal Level I have not seen it be partisan either. I see them attempting to mix private and public funds on some projects and guaranteeing a return. What structure exists after that is anyones guess, does the toll road revert to a freeway or is a buyout of bonds required, not sure. On Trumps web page it says $500 Billion Infrstructure spending program but on the campaign trail he said $1 Trillion. So I am not sure if the $500 Billion is the taxpayer portion or the whole program.
MidlandMike Did the skepticism of the second stimulus package have something to do with the Republicans retaking the House in the 2010 mid-term election? In any case, they have not been fans of infrastructure spending for some time now. You mention private business spending now, which seems to be the way the Trump transition team is going. In today's paper I see his new transportation person is big on public-private partnerships, but mainly on toll roads where investors see a surer return.
Not sure what states you have lived in but the states I have lived in the Infrastruture programs are bi-partisian. At the Federal Level I have not seen it be partisan either.
I see them attempting to mix private and public funds on some projects and guaranteeing a return. What structure exists after that is anyones guess, does the toll road revert to a freeway or is a buyout of bonds required, not sure. On Trumps web page it says $500 Billion Infrstructure spending program but on the campaign trail he said $1 Trillion. So I am not sure if the $500 Billion is the taxpayer portion or the whole program.
That's not the way it is in Michigan. I am guessing you have some interest in Wisconsin. As I recall Gov. Walker (R) ran on a platform to kill the passenger rail service expansion to Madison, which was already approved by the previous gov (D). Republican govs in Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois did similar things.
Infrastructure was part of Clinton's and the DNC's platform. While it was also included of Trump's platform, there is where he parted ways with the RNC.
MidlandMikeDid the skepticism of the second stimulus package have something to do with the Republicans retaking the House in the 2010 mid-term election? In any case, they have not been fans of infrastructure spending for some time now. You mention private business spending now, which seems to be the way the Trump transition team is going. In today's paper I see his new transportation person is big on public-private partnerships, but mainly on toll roads where investors see a surer return.
MidlandMike Euclid Is it the low cost of natural gas or the high cost of coal that is killing coal? Regulations generally increase the cost of production. Easing regualtions lowers the cost of production. Oil & gas production is also highly regulated. It's a wash, as to whether they or coal is more highly regulated. All other things being equal, the utilities just prefer natural gas. Edit: one utility exec said that they would like to keep some coal in the mix (IIRC 30%) so they did not have to rely too much on any particular fuel. Some other utilities want to get totally out of coal.
Euclid Is it the low cost of natural gas or the high cost of coal that is killing coal? Regulations generally increase the cost of production. Easing regualtions lowers the cost of production.
Is it the low cost of natural gas or the high cost of coal that is killing coal? Regulations generally increase the cost of production. Easing regualtions lowers the cost of production.
Oil & gas production is also highly regulated. It's a wash, as to whether they or coal is more highly regulated. All other things being equal, the utilities just prefer natural gas.
Edit: one utility exec said that they would like to keep some coal in the mix (IIRC 30%) so they did not have to rely too much on any particular fuel. Some other utilities want to get totally out of coal.
Every electric utility planning group wants a balanced fuel portfolio. It does not want to be overly dependent on one fuel in case it suddenly becomes price prohibitive. This is why the major utilities in the U.S. have coal plants, natural gas plants, and nuclear plants, as well as hydro plants where they are feasible, and an increasing reliance on wind and solar generation facilities.
In 2015 Texas generated nearly 10 per cent of its power with wind. Although it is hard to think of it as a fuel, wind is a fuel substitute. And more wind and solar is in the works.
The EIA estimates that wind power in the U.S. will grow at a rate of 2.4 per cent a year through 2040, which means that as much as 50 to 60 per cent of the power in the U.S. could come from wind. This strikes me as a bit optimistic, but wind and solar will replace a signficant portion of the coal fired generation.
Coal will be around for many more years. But it will, I believe, eventually be replaced by renewables, natural gas, and perhaps a resurgent nuclear energy industry. And that will give us the fuel mix that utility planners want for optimization.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/transportation-infrastructure.html
CMStPnP MidlandMike The Congress will work with the incoming Pres. Trump on any conservative agenda items, but will not be any more receptive to infrastructure spending than they were with Pres. Obama. They consider government infrastructure spending a democrat program, and they largely consider Trump an outsider. They passed everything Obama asked for in regards to infrastructure spending in the first Tranche. Problem was the first Tranche 85%-90% was increases to social programs and only 10-15% was Infrastructure spending. His second stimulus attempt was met with skepticism because his first had almost no lasting stimulus effect on the Economy........as soon as the money ran out.... so did most of the positive effects. That impact turned the Congress and Public off to further stimulus programs because the perception was after the first flop that we were wasting money. Had he reversed his approach he would have done a lot better, in my view. If it was me having had the second tranche rejected in large part. I personally would have moved on to deregulation in areas that would stimulate the economy but President Obama made no such move. Absent of any money to spend, his thinking was that his hands were tied so he just sat pat and watched the economy struggle. Your going to see an effective stimulus program in the next two years and the philosophy used will be to apply stimulus in all areas at once. Government spending, Government deregulation, Private Business spending and investment, as well as individual spending. Sit back and watch how much more effective it is than just focusing on government spending alone.
MidlandMike The Congress will work with the incoming Pres. Trump on any conservative agenda items, but will not be any more receptive to infrastructure spending than they were with Pres. Obama. They consider government infrastructure spending a democrat program, and they largely consider Trump an outsider.
The Congress will work with the incoming Pres. Trump on any conservative agenda items, but will not be any more receptive to infrastructure spending than they were with Pres. Obama. They consider government infrastructure spending a democrat program, and they largely consider Trump an outsider.
They passed everything Obama asked for in regards to infrastructure spending in the first Tranche. Problem was the first Tranche 85%-90% was increases to social programs and only 10-15% was Infrastructure spending. His second stimulus attempt was met with skepticism because his first had almost no lasting stimulus effect on the Economy........as soon as the money ran out.... so did most of the positive effects. That impact turned the Congress and Public off to further stimulus programs because the perception was after the first flop that we were wasting money. Had he reversed his approach he would have done a lot better, in my view.
If it was me having had the second tranche rejected in large part. I personally would have moved on to deregulation in areas that would stimulate the economy but President Obama made no such move. Absent of any money to spend, his thinking was that his hands were tied so he just sat pat and watched the economy struggle.
Your going to see an effective stimulus program in the next two years and the philosophy used will be to apply stimulus in all areas at once. Government spending, Government deregulation, Private Business spending and investment, as well as individual spending. Sit back and watch how much more effective it is than just focusing on government spending alone.
Did the skepticism of the second stimulus package have something to do with the Republicans retaking the House in the 2010 mid-term election? In any case, they have not been fans of infrastructure spending for some time now. You mention private business spending now, which seems to be the way the Trump transition team is going. In today's paper I see his new transportation person is big on public-private partnerships, but mainly on toll roads where investors see a surer return.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.