Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of these link to the same bogus version of the document which is not the original, it is a fake.
It is hosted by "barefootsworld.net/war" LOL not the federal government.
In fact this "barefoot" guy is out in the middle of nowhere in Idaho and even COPYRIGHTED his bogs document:
"This HTML presentation is copyright by Barefoot, December 1996 " (Look at the bottom of the document!)
Do you think you can copyright something that is a government report??
The Ron Paul web site links to the same bogus fake from Barefoot.
There has been lots of discussion over the years of presidential power and emergency acts, I don't deny that. That is why Congress passed a law requiring emergencies to expire or be renewed after two years in 1976: National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651)
Since then there have dozens of national emergenices declared including "Prohibiting New
Investment in Burma" (Hardly threatening the core of our republic) and they have been revoked by statute.
Which seems to present a reasonable discussion of the issue. Invoking this in support of the idea that these emergency powers secretly converted the US into a socialist state, however, is way beyond the pale. There is no point to even discuss that sort of argument which goes into the deep pools of conspiracy.
Freight rail? Really? We already have that and from what I have seen, most of the tracks are abandoned.
Freight is great.
If you could ever find a president who has the guts to stand up to the Teamsters Union, then a $5.00/gallon tax on diesel is all you need.
Take that tax money and start expanding freight rail. You won't lose a single job. In fact, you'll create jobs, and that doesn't even take into consideration the jobs created when inner city and rural areas are revitalized.
85% of your freight should be on rail, not interstate. The cost-savings you gain would be immeasurable. Less congestion on roads and interstates, reduces your travel time, spares the roads and interstates from damage, eliminates the need for constant repairs that create congestion (and accidents), reduces the need to waste tax payer money to expand interstates, reduces the need to waste tax payer money on eminent domain legal battles to acquire right-of-way to expand interstates and roads, etc etc etc.
Invoking this in support of the idea that these emergency powers secretly converted the US into a socialist state, however, is way beyond the pale. There is no point to even discuss that sort of argument which goes into the deep pools of conspiracy.
Of course, asserting that the idea was a "secret" allows for dismissal.
But no one said it was "secret". It's in the public record.
Feel free to argue that the U.S. is not a socialist country. But what kind of government takes your property (and your liberty) if you fail to pay your "socialist" taxes?
What kind of government takes property without paying just compensation?
If the property was private property, the government could not take it without paying just compensation. (See: fifth amendment, uscon)
Read your state's constitution, find the section on the delegation of power to tax. See if it mentions private property.
Go ask a judge to rule that a "Dollar bill" is a dollar.
Write a polite letter to your congressman and ask for a copy of the law that requires all Americans to enroll in FICA before they can work in their own country. Also ask for a copy of the law that punishes any American who does NOT enroll nor participate. (I stipulate that we're suffering from "voluntary" socialism. But most Americans believe that the LAW requires them to enroll and participate.)
Don't believe me - you're too smart for that.
Go look it up.
Ask questions.
Then tell us how the U.S. is not a socialist country. Tell us how one can "pay debt" pursuant to the U.S. Constitution when there is no lawful money in circulation.
And perhaps you might connect the dots between the declaration of emergency in 1933 and today.
If you could ever find a president who has the guts to stand up to the Teamsters Union, then a $5.00/gallon tax on diesel is all you need.
Take that tax money and start expanding freight rail. You won't lose a single job. In fact, you'll create jobs, and that doesn't even take into consideration the jobs created when inner city and rural areas are revitalized.
85% of your freight should be on rail, not interstate. The cost-savings you gain would be immeasurable. Less congestion on roads and interstates, reduces your travel time, spares the roads and interstates from damage, eliminates the need for constant repairs that create congestion (and accidents), reduces the need to waste tax payer money to expand interstates, reduces the need to waste tax payer money on eminent domain legal battles to acquire right-of-way to expand interstates and roads, etc etc etc.
Why on Earth would the government want to expand freight rail? It is supposedly so cheap that shippers practically get their stuff from one end of the country to another for free. Ask any rail advocate. So it should be plenty profitable by private ownership. The government? Tax dollars? I pray for the future.
If you could ever find a president who has the guts to stand up to the Teamsters Union, then a $5.00/gallon tax on diesel is all you need.
Take that tax money and start expanding freight rail. You won't lose a single job. In fact, you'll create jobs, and that doesn't even take into consideration the jobs created when inner city and rural areas are revitalized.
85% of your freight should be on rail, not interstate. The cost-savings you gain would be immeasurable. Less congestion on roads and interstates, reduces your travel time, spares the roads and interstates from damage, eliminates the need for constant repairs that create congestion (and accidents), reduces the need to waste tax payer money to expand interstates, reduces the need to waste tax payer money on eminent domain legal battles to acquire right-of-way to expand interstates and roads, etc etc etc.
While I agree that an upgrade to our intermodal infrastructure would be a good thing, I'm not sure there's a way to dramatcally reduce our dependence on trucking. Regardles of what you move by rail, the largest percentage of our nation's freight must be moved the "last mile' by road. Unless you want to run rail lines everywhere. (If you think that a slow-moving truck on an on-ramp will delay you...) Besides, who's going to pay for this upgrade to the rail infrastructure???
Actually, the largest amount of America's goods (and virtually ALL of the truckload freight) is moved by non-union drivers. The Teamsters, for the most part organize the less-than-truckload carriers which wouldn't translate to railcar loads, anyway.
We can't afford $5/ gallon fuel...
Last edited by Crew Chief; 12-18-2010 at 08:29 PM..
Reason: More better speling!
We've managed to develop a pretty solid system for handling modular shipping containers that go boat -> train -> truck, or boat -> truck for delivering goods from overseas. There's no reason this can't be expanded to include a truck -> train -> truck arrangement for domestic shipping. Trucks are perfect for the last mile deliveries where necessary, but that doesn't mean they have to traverse the entire country themselves for point-to-point shipments. Also, while there are industrial parks that aren't connected to railroads, there's still quite a few that are, and they only need the line reactivated or a new siding installed or rebuilt. The trouble is, the longer we wait the more difficult that's going to be to do.
But why would you inject Tax payer $$$ into Private companies , states should leave Freight companies be. A friend told me he read an article saying they don't want public $$$ to enhance there networks. Freight companies want to be more free and open , alot of them would jump back into the passenger business but the feds say different. Tax payer $$$ should go into publicly owned infastrature like Highways , Amtrak , Transit agencies.....
Freight rail is the only transportation mode that's not heavily subsidized by the government. Unlike everything else, they have to pay to maintain not only their vehicles but also the tracks as well. They also have to pay taxes on the land their rails are on too. I think it's an odd situation at the very least, and it has also created some problems of its own. Namely, the valuation and taxation of those railroads has made it more economical for the railroad owners to remove extra tracks or electrification systems to reduce the value and thus their tax burden. This is worse in some states than in others, but it's had a detrimental effect on the robustness of the system.
I don't see how the current freight companies want to be more free and open, especially as it comes to running passenger trains. The situation appears quite the opposite to me. I got to ride with the owner of the Cincinnati Dinner Train, along with the Midwest Regional Vice President of RailAmerica and the General Manager of the Indiana & Ohio Railway a few months ago, and they have a horrible time planning lengthy excursions. The ownership of rail lines is so fragmented that a cross-country journey can be scuttled just by a few hundred feet of track owned by an uncooperative railroad. Many freight railroads don't want to assume the liability issues of hosting passengers, so they effectively become a broken link in the chain. Even companies that are interested might not have the correct trackage rights or can be encumbered by onerous franchise agreements or leasing terms. It's really quite a mess.
What's the solution? To them it's tort reform, but that's a whole other can of worms. To allow existing railroad companies a level playing field to compete with long distance buses and trucks would probably require nationalization of the rail infrastructure itself. This would mean state or federally owned tracks and rights-of-way, but private ownership of the rolling stock and yards, maintenance facilities, etc. This would be like the current situation with roads, where anyone can use them for their own profit-seeking activities, but they pay the government who owns and maintains them a fee for their use. The FRA would probably have to take over coordination of the train movements in much the same way that the FAA oversees air traffic control. Is that a radical idea? Yes, but it's no less radical than the government sponsored interstate highways, airports, seaports, or inland waterways.
The other end of the spectrum, rather than saying all transportation should be subsidized, is that none of them should be subsidized. After all, if everyone uses them and they're all necessary, then they should all be paid for directly rather than out of the tax pool. Subsidies make sense for things that are alternatives the government wants to encourage. But when all those alternatives are subsidized, then there's no point anymore, and it causes market distortions and inefficiencies when one mode is favored for political or corporate reasons over others. To achieve this wouldn't be easy either. Privatizing interstate highways would be relatively easy, and the land they occupy can be taxed similar to the way railroads are. The same is true for most transit operations as well. The same can't be said for rivers or the surface road network though, and then we're back to using taxes again. A vehicle mile tax indexed to the weight of the vehicle is probably the most fair situation, with credits for the use of toll roads and on private property (how the latter would be calculated I don't know). This still leaves the local road network as a government-owned system, but it at least wouldn't be a completely free ride like it is now, since local roads aren't funded by gas taxes.
Either way, freight rail is a strange anomaly in our country's transportation hierarchy in that it's the only one that's mostly privately owned and is not subsidized much. So while many countries in the world laugh at our terrible passenger rail system, they also envy the freight system. In much of Europe for example, while passenger rail services are mostly profitable, though in many cases government owned, freight rail in those countries is highly subsidized, just the opposite of here. Why is that? I'm not exactly sure, but I think part of it is that freight trains need to be shorter and faster in order to not interfere with the passenger trains. This means somewhat higher energy/fuel costs from the faster operation, but also higher personnel costs due to the short length and thus the lower freight per employee ratio. It's probably also related to having more separate tracks and sidings as well.
All that said, the freight railroad companies know how to be profitable, and by using more intermodal facilities, which will become more necessary as gas and diesel prices increase, they should be able to handle a lot more of the country's shipping needs. If the tax subsidies for truck freight were also reduced or eliminated entirely, it would allow even more to be handled by the railroads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
