Is this not what you are too, Bob?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Printable View
Is this not what you are too, Bob?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Are you aware of the history of the competing rail operators in the UK between the wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
What I naively call "safe and sound lending policies"? No, I quoted verbatim from the document. Clearly you didn't bother to read it. It appears on page 3/23 at the end of the first paragraph on that page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
It's also frightfully expensive to pay banks billions of dollars because they didn't employ said "safe and sound lending policies".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Who's life?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I do not try to tell you how politics work in the U.K. but you are trying to tell us how U.S. politics work.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You figure it out.
If you dealt with U.S. politics first hand, as we do from local to federal, you would realize over here words are cheap, and often worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
It was the Feds. who cut off their noses to spite their faces. Many, but not all, private concerns came out of it very well.
Whether you like it or not, Democrats in Washington caused the collapse, and no one else.
People, over here, who have first hand knowledge of how Washington operates, have said so, and for you to say they are wrong because you want it to be so- que sera, sera.
http://activitypit.ning.com/video/vi...ideo%3A2252256
I suppose that the banks were just victims then? Poor Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Lehmann Brothers, awwww. Bless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Again, if the G20 leaders are reading this, here you have your solution to the world's problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Speaking of U.S. politics: I have understood that you're from Minnesota. That reminded me that the communist leader Gus Hall was also from Minnesota:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Gus Hall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is the US Communist Party still alive?
You are still misunderstanding this document. The prosecution would be under Discrimination laws, 14th Amendment, Equal Rights Act, etc. This document is just clarifying what basis/criteria the DoJ will use to seek such prosecutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Let's take an example here. I own a bank. My bank sees a risk in lending on houses worth $60,000 or less. That is what my bank has decided is a safe and sound operating policy. Now 100 people come in seeking loans for $60,000 or less. My bank denies them all. But 70 of those people just happen to be minorities, 30 of them white. Well the DoJ has just defined my practice as having a "disparate impact". Therefore they can, and probably will according to this document, prosecute me for discrimination. Safe and sound operating policies be damned.
You are right, I don't really like the public sector doing things. But I can see the necessity in some cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I believe my influence over enourmous bureaucracies to be minimal. However I am FORCED to pay into them. You are not FORCED to buy anything from any corporation. Do you see the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You seriously want to argue that since I do not believe murder to be a choice that I am not for free choice? And almost in the same breath you are arguing for governments forcing people to pay into a system which is loosing money, as some sort of "choice".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No and I stated as such. But between the wars is not the start of the rail industry either.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The unborn child's life. Does that have no value to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
With this statement, I'm afraid you lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. It is no exaggeration to say I find your opinion on abortion repellant.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The privatisation of railways actually came from EU policy, so it happened all over Europe at the same time. Everywhere in Europe the infrastructure is split from the railway operators to allow competition on the railways. Most countries then made their railway operator a publicly owned private company. Only in the UK they attempted a full privatisation. Even though free market competition is possible now all over Europe, you hardly see it.Quote:
And I believe this to be totally wrong — an extremely sweeping statement. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject would cite many other reasons, such as the manner of privatisation, the sort of companies that took over, etc, etc, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most railway companies in the UK still receive large subsidies? If you could operate a railway in a profitable manner without any sort of financial support of the government, why does it rarely happen anywhere in Europe?? It is because we as a society require a certain transportation network at our disposal, for a certain affordable price. And that is impossible for the private sector to provide for completely. The private sector cannot be made to operate non-viable lines, even if these are socially desirable. That is why full privatisation of the railways is impossible.
My position on abortion is repellant? I find human life to be worth preserving, and that is repellant? I believe there to be a right to life, and that is repellant?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
How do you defend a mother murdering her child?
Not my recollection at all — and nor do any of the books written by genuine experts on the matter cite this as a reason behind the privatisation in Britain. Privatisation could have occurred earlier had the government desired it, but it didn't. It was a political decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
Not in Germany, to my knowledge, where the infrastructure is still in the hands of Deutsche Bahn, which remains the main (state-owned) rail operator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
The railways in Britain cost the taxpayer more now than ever they did before privatisation. At the point of its demise, British Rail was well on the way to genuine profitability, and an increasingly excellent example of a state-owned company adopting certain free market principles to positive ends. Then it was all ruined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
It is statements like these which make me somewhat glad to be European, where such over-emotional views are thankfully confined to the lunatic fringe.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Full privatisation as done in the UK was not required by the EU, no. The EU wanted to break open the railway monopolies, the way the individual states implemented this was open to themselves. As I said, the UK was the only one that attempted full privatisation, with the chaotic consequenses you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
But it is possible for other railway operators to drive on Deutsche Bahn infrastructure, which is the point.Quote:
Not in Germany, to my knowledge, where the infrastructure is still in the hands of Deutsche Bahn, which remains the main (state-owned) rail operator.
Which was exactly my point.Quote:
The railways in Britain cost the taxpayer more now than ever they did before privatisation. At the point of its demise, British Rail was well on the way to genuine profitability, and an increasingly excellent example of a state-owned company adopting certain free market principles to positive ends. Then it was all ruined.
Over-emotional? Give me a break. You somehow think that murder equals choice. And you call me over-emotional.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
And then to state that since I find murder to be repellant, that that somehow means that my views on the free-market are invalid, is just silly. Especially in light of the fact that you are arguing for people to be FORCED into paying for your transportation.
I want to give poeple free-market choices, as long as those choices don't infrige upon one's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness (or my prefered term, property). You want to FORCE people into paying for things they may not use. And I am the one against choice? Boy oh boy the Ministry of Truth would be proud of that logic.
:up: The same applies in other areas as well, noteably healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
That you do not physically use public transport, doesn't mean you do not benefit from it. Smaller trafficjams and less pollution for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
That very well could be. But why does that mean that I should be forced to pay for it? Shouldn't that be my choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
Might I suggest that the whole abortion debate goes into another thread if it is to be continued.
I would be fine with that, as I don't believe that abortion has a thing to do with the free-market. But Ben apparently thinks that if you are ant-abortion that somehow you are anti-free-market. Go figure that one? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Yeah we call them Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
It is still around but that is all, although nne member of Congress is/was an avowed Communist.
As an odd aside, I just read yesterday in the local paper, one reason parts of Minn. became Democrats for life, was because Roosevelt killed prohibition.
God and God alone decides if a soul enters a body. Till that point it is chunk of tissue; whereas if it is murder then God murders children with every spontaneous abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I do agree the decision should be made by the end of the first trimester after which it should be illegal with exceptions for special circumstances.
Not my position at all. I continue to think that pointing out how those who espouse the merits of choice in one area of life do not do so in others are being inconsistent, proving that there are limits to their expression of freedom of choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I might not take advantage of the street lighting on a particular road. Should I receive a small rebate on my tax bill? One could compartmentalise it endlessly. I simply don't care whether I might be paying a tiny amount for something I will never use.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Was it not always possible for this to happen, for example with privately-operated heritage trains doing so along British Rail lines? As far as I am aware, it was not illegal, let's put it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
One more time, then I won't comment on this matter again, as it relates to abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I am for freedom of choice as long as one's choice does not infringe upon anothers rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness (or my prefered wording property). Abortion clearly deprives one's right to life.
As to Bob's point ... Since we do not know when a soul enters into a "chunk of tissue", I believe it prudent, and the only viable option, to treat that "chunk of tissue" as a life with a soul at all times.
What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece. See the massive ratio of debt to GDP that the US currently has. Many, many rationalizations such as you just made went into adding up those crushing debts. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for street lights. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for welfare programs. Oh I don't ming paying a little bit for unemployment insurance. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for public transportation. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for this. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for that. Well those "little bits" have all added up to crush the economies of more than on nation. Do you mind now? Do the Greeks mind now? Will the OWS people mind if all their demands are met and the debt forces default of the US government, and then those demands can no longer be met?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I seem to have allowed myself to be backed into arguing against all forms of public services. I am not against them at all, and have tried to say that many times in the past. I do think there is a case to be made for things such as street lights, some public transportation, and other things. All I am saying is that there should be a concious decision made as to costs vs benefits.
How come, then, the Scandinavian economies didn't collapse years ago under the weight of their expensive social programmes? How come Germany enjoyed years of economic growth while also providing high-quality public services? You are ignoring the underlying factors in favour of again stressing your own ideological bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Well in most countries direct competition on the railways was impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The picture of numerous trains run by different companies turning up at my local station and waiting in line for comsumers to make their choice does rather make me chuckle :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
If you paid for all that you wouldn't be in debt. The US and Greece have such massive debts because they want to receive all those things but at the same time not pay for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Yet John Major's false sense of nostalgia involved virtually that picture in his mind. Had people known that it appeared there alongside one of a naked Edwina Currie, maybe there would have been more opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Did I ever say that having social programs would lead to zero economic growth? No. I would propose that growth can exist with massive tax burdens. But I would also propose that there is a greater potential for greater economic growth with less burdensom taxes (less government programs, more free-market principals).Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Look at the US in the past. We had less economic programs, and our economy grew at a faster rate than it is now, or than it is currently in Scandinavian economies.
You clearly suggested that the underlying problem in Greece was with the government spending too much on the public services. How else is this statement to be taken: 'What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece'.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
So your idea is that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
In 1999 the US took in 1.827 Trillion dollars, and had a surplus (on paper at least). In 2010 the US took in 2.163 Trilion dollars, and has a deficit of ~1.293 Billion dollars (I've seen different numbers around there). We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Just tax those "millionaires and billionaires" you say.
There Aren
Quote:
Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000.
Quote:
You want to tax Club 1 (Club 1: the million-dollar-a-year club. Not the millionaires’ club — lots of the people earning $1 million in any given year do not have $1 million in assets — but, still, a million a year, even in rapidly depreciating U.S. dollars, is not too shabby) to get rid of the deficit, you have to hit each of those 200,000 households with an average tax hike — not an average tax bill, but tax increase — of $6 million. And a lot of those Club 1 households don’t have $6 million in income to start with, much less $6 million left after the taxes they’re already paying.