mspart

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3857172-five-lingering-questions-over-ohio-train-derailment-toxic-spill/ Did lax regulations help cause the crash? Railroad safety experts and union members have reiterated calls for more stringent federal oversight of the rail industry following the derailment. One area of constant tension has been brakes. Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) received reports that crews of the Norfolk Southern train pulled the emergency brake, and a mechanical issue with one of the railcar axles was discovered, CNN reported. The possibility of a brake failure points to a behind-the-scenes battle in American railroad regulation — and a place where critics say that both parties have resisted reforms that would make Americans safer. Most trains run on a system where wheels stop one at a time using a compression system, left-leaning news outlet The Lever reported. By contrast, electronically controlled pneumatic brake technology halts all the cars simultaneously — dramatically reducing stopping time. While Norfolk Southern initially touted these advances, it was also part of a coalition of rail companies that successfully fought the regulations, winning a reprieve from the Obama administration and a repeal under the Trump administration, according to The Lever. The outlet reported that the Norfolk Southern train wasn’t regulated as a “high-hazard flammable train” even though its crash triggered a fireball. “Railroads should not use their lobbyists to block or weaken commonsense safety measures that protect workers and communities,” Brown told The Lever. In his statement to The Hill, the Ohio senator called on the NTSB, which is investigating the derailment, to tell Congress and the Department of Transportation what can be done “to avert future derailments involving hazardous materials.” One such measure is before the agency now. Members of multiple railroad unions are fighting a potential rule that would allow trains using the new electronic brakes to travel 2,500 miles — up from 1,500 — without stopping to have their brakes tested. While these trains would have electronic logs, such a ledger “cannot justify reducing the frequency of inspections and repairs to train brakes in the field,” Rich Johnson of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen said in a statement. “Such changes will almost certainly reduce the overall safety of trains operating across the country,” Johnson added. There is still no explanation of why ECP brakes would have prevented an axle or bearing to break. But the Obama admin exempted this kind of thing anyway, and Trump admin got rid of it. Either way, the ECP issue was not being enforced ever for this situation. mspart

NTSB says: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20230214.aspx NTSB investigators have identified and examined the rail car that initiated the derailment. Surveillance video from a residence showed what appears to be a wheel bearing in the final stage of overheat failure moments before the derailment. The wheelset from the suspected railcar has been collected as evidence for metallurgical examination. The suspected overheated wheel bearing has been collected and will be examined by engineers from the NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington, D.C. So it appears the bearing overheated. I guess we'll find out more when they examine it. mspart

I really hate to ask these questions, but how would ECP brakes have helped in this derailment over the brakes that were fitted on the train? What are ECP brakes and how are they different from other brakes? It takes the same energy to stop a train no matter what. Braking energy is converted to heat energy by friction. That is the nature of brakes. That heat energy will warm up the wheels but most is dissipated at the rim, not at the center where the bearing is. What was the nature of the wheel bearing failure? Probably too early for that assessment. Fatigue? Tensile loading? Heat/cold shock? No grease? I can see the no grease being a potential reason. Missed its maintenance window. Doesn't happen often in a highly regulated industry like trains but it does happen from time to time I'm sure. NTSB will put out their report and that should tell us all we need to know. Unfortunately, that usually takes a year or more. mspart

I read on Yahoo, that the recession will come later in the year. But today was not a good day, that's for sure. mspart

I never went to state. I have excuses for that. Wrestled from 7th to 12 grade. I was a volunteer wrestling throwing dummy coach for many many years and enjoyed that. I love wrestling as a sport but was never really all that good at it as a competitor. mspart

I don't have access to UWW right now. So thank you for that. Sorry for the misdirect. mspart

What are the percentages of TDs in MMA legs and no legs? mspart

I guess you are ok then. mspart

I figured Intermat was posting the UWW rankings. If this is intermat's rankings, I should delete this thread. If someone can tell me how to do it, I will. mspart

True! mspart

First, if you wanted to ignore, you would have long ago. This question of mine, that you still have not answered, has been going on for pages in this thread. I asked a very simple question and I will ask it again: Which R in Congress, other than Rick Scott, has proposed altering SS or MC in 2023? That is a really simple question with a really simple answer. The answer is either: a) none or b) name the folks and cite the legislation they have proposed. Very simple. There doesn't need to be a lot of conversation on this. Just answer the question. If you don't want to support your claim, then by all means begin the ignoring. But if you want to support your claim, which you have not yet done and that is really ludicrous in my opinion, support it with facts and data. It is not hard to do, but liberals generally will not put up when asked, they just keep deflecting. That is what is going on here. I have no personal animosity towards you Mike. I love your posts on the international board. You provide good insight there. But on this board, you say things and don't back them up when I've asked. That's what I find curious. Opinions are good, but rather than deflecting you could just say you don't have anything concrete to back up your opinion. Opinions are not necessarily grounded in facts and data. But when you present them as facts, then when called upon, it is not unreasonable to provide the data to support those 'facts'. mspart

I think it could happen. I think other things could happen as well. These high earners are in the upper realms of their companies if not the owners. There are lots of options to show low W2 earnings and still make a lot under the table. Who makes 400k? Certainly not me. Those are reserved for the top guys and they can do things us schlubbs can't. I just was giving one idea of how they might skirt the rules. I'm sure, when properly motivated, CPAs will figure out how to do whatever it takes to shield income from taxation. They already do. mspart

Are you saying that Mike Pence is in Congress and has floated this as a bill? Oh, I thought not. Nice try. It is timely but not on topic. mspart mspart

I think I did and maybe you didn't catch it. The extrapolation depends on everything staying the same. You don't extrapolate on changing conditions throughout the extrapolation. If things change as i suggested that salaries decrease but remuneration is given in other ways to maintain the overall earnings package, then that would be a change the extrapolation couldn't account for. It would be nice if it were linear. If life were linear, things would be so much simpler. mspart

If you would discuss this in any manner, civilly or not, that would be a nice change. I'm only trying to point out that you say things and do not back them up. And when finally pushed to do so, your stuff doesn't back up anything you have said. That really is not so much snide as what I am observing here. If you feel it is snide, that is on you. Moving the goalposts? Not really. I'll restate the question I have repeated over and over and over and over that you have not actually responded to: Which R, other than Rick Scott, has proposed altering SS or MC in 2023? That is a really simple question with a really simple answer. The answer is either none, or these folks and cite the legislation they have proposed. Very simple. mspart

Extrapolation must be used in many cases. But extrapolation doesn't prove your point. Extrapolation, in this case, assumes things will remain as they are today with only one change. But it doesn't take into account that as one thing changes, so may many others. mspart

Finally, something that kind of looks like something. From the TIME article: But Scott wasn’t alone among Republicans in floating ideas that could lead to the paring back of federal entitlements. The Republican Study Committee, a quasi in-house think tank for the House GOP conference, unveiled a 2023 budget blueprint last year that would raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and the Social Security eligibility age from 65 to 69. Thank you for finally providing something that supports your position. The question is, are they acting on this plan? Not to my knowledge. mspart

Are you sure you want to use that one. Where does this document say 100% fixed? mspart

That's a tough bracket for sure!! 3 champs! Wow! mspart

https://intermatwrestle.com/articles/26509 97KG How did he get ranked at #5? He has not wrestled at 97 yet at a ranking tourney as far as I know. I'm curious how this can be. Also curious how all those Russians are listed? 11 of 20 are RUS. Seems a bit odd also. mspart

The CNBC link doesn't say anything about getting rid of the shortfall 100%. Quote: Increasing the level of income at which Social Security payroll taxes are reapplied to income of more than $400,000 would eliminate 61% of the shortfall, researchers estimate. The proposal is popular with the public, having earned its own slogan, “Scrap the Cap.” So please provide something that provides some kind of evidence to support your claim. This is becoming a habit with you. You never directly answer a question, provide a link, it doesn't answer the question, and you keep dodging. I'm just asking you to support your perspective. That should be easy but apparently is not. mspart

Granted we will not agree on this idea. But you again did not respond to the question: Which current Rs have stated in 2023 they want to get rid of SS and are offering legislation to do that other than Rick Scott? mspart

The Actuary.org link says nothing about dumping the salary cap. mspart

OK, you should not type and slurp ramen at the same time, agreed! I'll take a look at those. mspart

You shared a whitehouse screed. Did you read it? If you had, you wouldn't have put it up. I quoted from it. It was talking about in the past Rs wanted to change SS. And that is true. But we are not talking about the past. We are talking about right now. You intimated that you would share data that showed lots of Rs are trying to get rid of or otherwise change SS. You have not provided that. Now Rick Scott has a bill he offered to sunset any programs after 5 years for re-upping this year. That would include SS. It is not a bad idea in general for most programs to be reconsidered, but when the Rs figured out it meant SS and MC, they roundly criticized him and rejected the idea. Are you saying that puts them on record to want to change SS? Which current Rs have stated in 2023 they want to get rid of SS and are offering legislation to do that other than Rick Scott? mspart