what do you think about this idea?
we can vote to cut spending on particulars to let congress know what we think
well, if they were sure to listen to us.
anymore, i'm not able to say i trust the government to honor the wishes and needs of "we the people".
however, my idea for decreasing government spending would probably get not only file 13'd but probably be burnt at the stake.
i say we should quit war.
and defense and so-called homeland security and nuclear weapons development and the war on terror and the war on drugs.
i say we should feed the hungry with the money that we save.
The only way to cut spending is to limit the ways Congress can tax us. Otherwise they'll just keep spending on pork-barrel projects that are designed to buy votes.
I'm with you babalon!!
And make sure that every kid has enough food and a place to live and an education and plenty of fun.
And no more homeles and poor people.
And free energy for all. No worries abput paying rent or heat or water.
Work cause you want to. Stop making money the be all and end all.
Turn this whole world upside down!! Just like they already did......
Chris, none of that is possible. We tried getting the houseless homes and we got the sub-prime mess for our troubles. CA tried to keep costs low for power without thinking about what it cost to provide power. The result was rolling blackouts. How exactly are people going to keep water flowing to their houses if there is no money to pay for, you know, things like upkeep of the pipes, pumping stations, etc.?
Maybe if you could get a start on answering some of those questions, you'd have a point.
How could anyone think the sub-prome mess was the result of homes for the homeless or rolling blackouts came from low power rates?
Oh, Rush Limbaugh and FOX news. Yep, that would do it.
If you are going to address real problems, you have to enter reality, There are facts about what caused the sub-prime and CA electric shortage. Facts are a good place to start. FOX and Limbaugh are not.
It could have something to do with studying economics, something I find is sorely lacking in the Progressive left. The reason CA had rolling blackouts is because when the state supposedly "deregulated" the industry they put a cap on how much an electric company could charge, but didn't put a cap on the costs to provide that electricity. So guess what happened? Turns out an electric company will only provide power until it's costs reach the price ceiling that was imposed by the government. What happens after that? Well the power company unsurprisingly stops generating power. Why? Well it's this little thing about business that might confound someone like you. Turns out if your costs exceed your revenue, you go out of business. In the case of power companies, nobody would get power then. It's a very simple intellectual exercise, I wonder why you can't seem to understand something as easy as supply and demand.
As for the housing issue. Same sort of problem. A bank only stays in business by originating loans. It's hard enough to stay in business if you make a mistake and loan someone money who can't pay it back. Make too many of those mistakes and guess what happens? You go out of business. The real cause of the subprime mess was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. That Act forced banks to issue loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. So immediately banks had a lot of loans they knew were going to go bad. Since the government forced them to make the loans, they couldn't very well say no. So what did they do? Perpetuated a fraud, one which would have never happened had the CRA never been used against the banks.
As for facts I can find many to support those ideas. What can you bring to the table except to moan and complain about Fox News? I have yet to see you bring any sort of real explanation to any argument. But then again, that's what I expect from Progressives. Just say the right wing is evil or racist and people will immediate shut up and sit down. Never mind that you can't bring any real facts to the table.
I'm going to point you at a Harvard Study whic totaly debunks the myth about the CRA causing the subprime mess. One FACT is that 91% of the subprime loans were made outside the requirements and oversight of the CRA. The loan industry - not the government - not the CRA - fed the subprime bubble. You are repeating a lie from the right-wing noise machine that has no FACTUAL basis. Bankers created the bubble in a time that the GOP had control of the Congress and the White House.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publication … 2_park.pdf
Sure the industry ran away with the subprime thing. They supposedly kept their risk under control with high interest payments, but their real ace in the hole was Freddie and Fannie. With the government standing surety over those loans, banks had little incentive to manage risk. In short the CRA started banks down that path, Freddie and Fannie accelerated the process. The government caused the flood of credit. Why else do you think the Fed set interest rates at almost 0%
You also didn't say anything about CA I noticed.
As for your contention that Republicans were in office, you're right. I never said the Republicans weren't to blame, they were the government after all. But I suppose such a self evident thing like that is lost on an extremist party partisan like yourself.
Guys the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) began with President Carter, and was propelled to current levels during the Clinton Adminstration and the expansion of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and federal regulations that required ALL lending institions to have a rather large percentage of LOW INCOME, HIGH RISK loans on their books.
Unfortunately you are repeating a lie. Check the fafcts - less than 10% of the subprime loans were withing the oversight of tne CRA. There's not ONE bank - not ONE who has ever said that CRA forced them to issue loans. This is pure bull from the noise machine
Here's the conclusion of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision. The problem was MARKET MANIPULATION by Enron - who jacked up the cost for purchased power 800% - and criminally manipulated the market in a variety of ways - including shutting down power plants they controlled.
"After extensive investigation The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) substantially agreed in 2003:
"...supply-demand imbalance, flawed market design and inconsistent rules made possible significant market manipulation as delineated in final investigation report. Without underlying market dysfunction, attempts to manipulate the market would not be successful."
"...many trading strategies employed by Enron and other companies violated the anti-gaming provisions..."
"Electricity prices in California’s spot markets were affected by economic withholding and inflated price bidding, in violation of tariff anti-gaming provisions."
Also from the Wkiipedia article -
"Drought and delays in approval of new power plants decreased supply and forced up wholesale prices, which increased over 800% from April 2000 to December 2000. This rise was exacerbated by market manipulation, with Enron accused of deliberately shutting down power plants.."
There were a combination of factors - read the whole article. A drought combined with delays gettig plants on-line made it possible for Enron to manipulate the energy market and jack up the cost of power sold to the power companies by 800%.
I will take a study by Harvard and the conclusions of the FERC over that loudmouth Limbaugh and the liars at FOX news. Don't EVEN tell me that I don't have the FACTS on my side.
Duh. Because the supposed deregulation was incomplete. Even the author of the bill said so. You just made my point. Because the state fell down on the job and expected the FERC to do something, which it neglected to do. Shortages is what you get when you cap price. Remember the 1979 gas shortages? What cause it? Price caps. Turns out gas companies would only sell until their costs hit the price cap. If they would continue to sell, then they'd go out of business and you'd then see unemployment really go up.
No you have facts, but your conclusions are erroneous. Probably because of your inherent bias against business. The fact is that because the legislators left the job half done, they left people at the mercy of companies like Enron. It was the legislators that failed.
You missed this part by the way: "When the electricity demand in California rose, utilities had no financial incentive to expand production, as long term prices were capped. Instead, wholesalers such as Enron manipulated the market to force utility companies into daily spot markets for short term gain."
man, if a company "controlled" the energy so much, and then they jacked prices up by 800%...
... I could make a fortune if I started an energy company and only charged 750% of the real price!!
... I wonder why no body did so... .... ....
A good start would be to quit electing people who think the solution to getting out of a financial hole is to dig another 50 billion dollar hole.
How do we find these people?
We can start by not being blinded by the coolest guy running and actually look at their past voting record or stance.
It really isn't hard.
Look at teh voting record?
Or look at the (R) next to the name. That's generally an indication he's a fully owned subsidiary of Wall Street. It means he voted for tax breaks for the rich which created the deficit. There was a budget surplus under Clinton. The (R) next to name is an indication he voted for welfare - not for the poor. I'm talking about corporate welfare - like subsidies for oil companies to drill in the Gulf. The (R) means he's probaly with the team that made it possible for the ultra-wealthy to pay taxes at HALF the rate of affluent working Americans.
It's all about the Benjamins - keeping the green stuff in the pockets of the top 1% - that't the crowd who owns one-third of this country - and owns ALL the GOP and an unfortuanately large chunk of democrats.
But check theri voting record and see if they voted for Americans - or just RICH Americans.
We elect people to manage our money responsibly and in accordance with the constitution, so why should they rely on us to do what they were elected to do? Why do they lack the courage to do what's right?
If they really need me to tell them what should be cut, then maybe they can explain to me why I need them! I think all of those cuts are worth doing, and I'd be more than willing to cut defense spending in half, since much of that goes to foreign countries.
You're making the assumption that you can elect people to be good stewards of other people's money. For the most part, that doesn't happen. Are there people who would make good stewards of public money? Sure. But they're as rare as hen's teeth. Better to not put the temptation in front of people in the first place.
Oh, I think there are plenty of good people that could do the job however, they are led astray by first lobbyists, and secondly by voters themselves that demand that government assume more responsibility for their care. I've experienced this first hand from my neighbors that constantly expect the Home Owners Assoc to take responsibility for things that our clearly the responsibility of the home owner.
Yeah, but the difference between a homeowners association and the government is that if you don't listen to the government, they can throw you in jail or in extreme cases kill you.
RTE, it would be nice to have someone who used, I don't know, reason instead of rhetoric around here.
As to where we should cut spending, well for one we should start cutting the benefits for Medicare and Social Security by 2-4% a year. Unfortunately we can't start cutting the tax yet. Because Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes, to cut the taxes would hurt people already on Medicare and Social Security and leave them unable to live. It would be, in effect a death sentence. So immediately cutting the tax is out, although that doesn't mean we couldn't reduce the tax burden as baby boomers die and stop using the system. That should take about 20-40 years or so. Heck I'm willing to do that because I'm not going to see any of that money anyway. I'm willing to take one for the team and not pass that unholy mess on to our children.
Secondly, cut all welfare programs. The graft and corruption associated with those programs are legendary. Instead if you have a problem with poverty in your community, it should be the job of the community to deal with it. Heck for that matter we have organizations like the Red Cross and Salvation Army who could do a better job taking care of people than the federal government.
There you go, two areas to cut spending that don't include basic services like police, fire or military.
I don’t know maybe it’s just me but I think most of the US is a pretty good place to live.
But lets just go ahead and eliminate the Military, Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA, the police & fire departments and all the infrastructure systems.
This will save lots of money, then we can all live like they do in say Bangladesh or Somalia.
Lets just open the borders to whoever wants to come, I mean really, aren’t we are all capable of taking a crap in the street. I mean it won’t be that bad, how much crap be really be on the streets when the population only eats, oh I don’t know, maybe once a week, besides the rain will wash it away, we need drinking water you know.
Perhaps, some constructive observations and comments,
Oh…. that might have been a bit snippy
Snippy is what's needed!!
It's just disgusting the way they have turned America into some awful place with a "gangster" government that wants to throw everybody in FEMA camps, or kill your grandmother.
Yet, they all failed to see the real crimes that took place between 2000-2008.....it's a strange phenomenon....
And it's making me lose faith in this country. If these propaganda smears really work, we will truly go back to a horrible 2-tiered society, instead of working towards a more balanced and shared prosperity that most of us want and elected.
What has happened to the heart and soul of America? I don't feel it anymore...it's all selfish and nasty.
If it disgusts you that much there are plenty of places that are more ideologically compatible with your way of thinking. Perhaps a move is in order?
Isn’t it funny that all the problems that this nation has ever incurred or endured apparently only happened during the Bush Administration?
I find that assertion also almost hysterically funny as the “ more balanced and shared prosperity” comment. Who is sharing? And balanced with what?
Balance indicates equal weight on either side, please define which law of physics or philosophy that generates such a vigorous opinion of inaccuracy.
I do however have to agree with the loss of faith, not in the country or it’s founding principles, but with the selfish, misguided opinions that appear to run rampant in liberalism.
Ok here is what I mean...s l o w l y.
A bank investor makes 3 million a year. He pays tax at a 15% rate.
A school teacher earns $65,000. She is taxed at a 35% rate.......
I say we b a l a n c e it out by making the investor pay more, or the teacher pay less.
You also, under Bush, had rampant examples of big money types paying NO taxes at all!!!
I do believe Halliburton fell under this example.
Off-shoring, Off-sourcing, Off Off and away!!!
No loyalty to America, yet allowed to live here and prosper.
Then you have the middle class that had top make up for all that lost revenue.
Middle class paid FICA, Fed and State....income after $120,000 was excempt from FICA.
FICA was more than the Fed and State COMBINED.
Hopefully, the Obama admninistration has evened out this unfairness....I know I got a 400 tax break, after being in the same job and having basically the sane income for 10 years.....
Am I the only one here who earns less than $250,000????
A bank investor makes 3 million a year. He pays tax at a 15% rate.
That is $45,000 paid in taxes
A school teacher earns $65,000. She is taxed at a 35% rate....
That is $22,750 paid in taxes
By your Mathematics reasoning 22 is larger than 45,
Thereby the Bank investor paid less in tax,
Liberal Academia at work again, is that what they call new Math?
Okay I get it…
Then why are the Democrats, clambering to keep the hated Bush Tax cuts?
One more question, when was the last time you worked for a poor person that did not own a business and actually paid your wages?
Typical righty response......but it's your side that is talking secession, not me.
I live here too, that's what you all forget...you have had your way for so long, you think it's god-given.
Well, geuss what? Other people live here too.
How have people who believe in the Founders had it our way for too long? Last time I checked the Progressives have been in power since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Like I said, there is nothing keeping you from going somewhere else. It would appear that a majority of Americans don't side with you or your precious Anointed One, so what are you going to do when his party falls from power and all the problems they've left us with are undone?
"It would appear that a majority of Americans don't side with you or your precious Anointed One"
I already told you...I did not vote for Bush.
You really are clueless aren't you? The self-appointed Anointed One is Obama. So tell me, 20 years from now are you still going to be blaming 2000-2008 for all of your problems? Grow up.
No, I saw exactly what went on from 2000-2008. The end of America as we know it, that's what. And Bush was the Anointed One.
And the right cheered it on with loud bells ringing and flag waving and endless insults hurled at anyone daring to ask questions.
It is really quite a lot of nerve for the Right to come around now and act like they know something.
They know nothing but contempt for the honest working man and woman and contempt for anyone not just like them. I feel it right here in these forums.
Wow you make so many assumptions. I suppose that those of us who disagree with you are heirs to great fortunes and that all we want to do is hoard our ill-gotten gains like some dragon out of myth. Like those people don't have anything better to do than sit here and argue with empty-headed people on these forums.
You have made quite a lot of personal insults in these discussions led. Do you think it makes you a better arguer?
you really think Bush is solely responsible for the demise of America?
let's see... He's a coke-head puppet who can't even run a company, let alone a country. and... didn't we have a democratic congress for many of his years? I mean, I know the democrats and republicans are the same, but you seem to think they aren't....
So ... he really CAN'T be responsible.
Let's follow the money ... all money is generated from the Federal Reserve... So i'm gonna have to go with Bernanke and Greenspan being the end of the country. if your economy suddenly has 5 times the amount of money in it (compared to 1990, we now how 5 times as much money) economic chaos MUST ensue.
Obama was elected by the people. I'm not sure why you're telling her to grow up when you are referring to a duly elected President of the United States as the "Anointed One."
I'm still shocked he got a Nobel PEACE prize while he never ended a single war that he has complete authority to do!!!
Ron Paul had the right message: "We just marched in, we can just march out".
... Obama just said "yes we can"... and I just saw a bumper sticker on a car for him that said "Got Hope?"... he HAS almost taken on messiah-like status.
Typical righty response?
Its a response to your "And it's making me lose faith in this country." statement.
If you don't have faith in it move to one that best fits your ideology.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
This is not the answer!
How about we start cutting the unreasonable exuberant amounts of money we pay the politicians? say a 10% paycut across the board for every congressman and senator.
Right on, sistah!...
... but, why stop at 10%?
Cut taxes to 1% their current amounts... then outlaw government borrowing and investing... then outlaw inflation!!!
... Oh wait, those last two ALREADY ARE OUTLAWED BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT!!!!
... i still stand by it!
How about an investor who makes 3 million a year pays a 35% tax rate like the teacher who makes $65,000?
Or better yet, let's reverse it!
Labor is taxed at a much higher rate than invested or inherited income....let's flip it!
if you reversed it, then no one would invest.
The real solution is to make taxes 0% for everyone.
I do not mean to sound like a smart a$$ but at 0% taxes how are you paying for infrastructure. Police, firemen, etc? Could they all be privatized? If they were wouldn't that lead to even grater corruption of law enforcement?
It's entirely possible to have the private production of things like fire protection and security services. Heck ADT and Broadview probably do more to keep your home safe, not to mention do it yourself security, than any police force. Come to think of it, private investigators do plenty of business too. At least in those cases you can be sure those companies work for you. How many police forces are corrupted by drugs and drug trafficking? How can you really be sure they're working for you?
Something to think about.
holy crap, someone else linking to mises.org
I would very much enjoy it if you would check out my "evan's easy economics" hub series i have -- please see what you think / make any corrections you might discover!
ADT and Vector type agencies do a wonderful job at monitoring what they get paid to monitor. Exactly who would pay for them to walk me home from work at midnight?
As to corruption within these agencies why bother they have no real authority. If you give them the authority then they become corruptible and worthy of the effort by outsiders to corrupt.
How is what ADT and Vector do that's any different than what cops do patrolling the streets? In fact ADT and Vector don't have to bother with patrolling because with current technology they can monitor your home or business. With cameras they can keep an eye on the exterior, with motion sensors they can keep track of what goes on inside the home. Of course as a paying customer, you decide how much information you give them, so if you don't want them in your private affairs, then they don't get in your private affairs.
If, for some strange reason, the company makes demands you don't feel comfortable with, you're free to pick a different provider. That's what keeps private companies in check, they need your money. Unlike a public enterprise, which is funded no matter how well or how poorly they perform.
Yes for my home and or business that makes sense but my question is who is keeping me from being mugged on the street?
You are. How many people right now, have to file a report with the police after being mugged? Now you're right, without a public police department there would have to be something out there for you to utilize if you were mugged. In that case I'd imagine there would be investigatory agencies that would, for a fee, investigate the crime and find the mugger. The same thing would hold true for a murder, rape, etc. How would that work exactly? I'm not sure, although I do have several ideas on how to make a viable business from it. The real proof would lie in the doing, which won't happen because there is a "public option" so to speak when it comes to personal security.
I usually agree with you and you have helped me to understand a good many things but this response then takes us back to the level of authority and corruption.
Will these private agencies have the right and authority to detain suspects during the investigation? will they have the right to incarcerate offenders? Will they also be judge and jury? If this is the case then it sound to me like it would quickly become a vigilante society where the company with the biggest and meanest detectives would end up with all the power, ie:corruption.
Apprehend and question? Yea. You have to understand that if some private company did illegally hold someone, they would be liable for damages. Unlike City Hall you can fight business. Since nobody would want the liability of holding someone for questioning unjustly, there would be a huge incentive to get it right.
Courts and jails would be a community affair I think. I'm thinking about the old Anglo-Saxon common law and how it was done back then. Most offenses would probably have a fine associated with it, which would be paid to the wronged party. In the case of murder or other capital crimes, well I think each town, city, group would have their own ideas on how to proceed in those cases. It's a local matter, so it should be left up to the locals on how to deal with it. But again, with the liability issue for executing someone innocent, I think that the evidence would have to be pretty compelling to get an execution. This would give people who are totally against capital punishment the ability to live somewhere there is no capital punishment and vice versa. I do think that over time, you'd see the adoption of more and more places that accept capital punishment, but I'd have to think about this some more.
MM, I stand by my assertion that you got a bad deal when you paid for your education. The very fact that you can't wrap your mind around an intellectual exercise like this is proof positive you were not educated but indoctrinated. Still your smart attitude is always welcome.
Which brings us back to elected or appointed officials. ie: government personnel who would require compensation for their work, ie:the need for taxes even if in a limited sense.
Not really. By making judicial appointments local, each locality would decide who would make a good justice. In some cases that would be a paid position, in other cases it would be a prestige position. I think you'd see both and all things in between, at least at the start. Over time, as we gain more experience with the system, we'd find the best way to administer the law. When you consider the insane complexity of the law and it's administration in this country, almost anything would be a welcome change.
Chris I have no interest in arguing with someone who can't bring anything to the table. If the best you can do is make facile, playground style arguments, then expect people to blow you off.
While I agree that there is currently to much corruption and not enough public service inside of our current system. I think the whole idea of a privatized legal system is one of those things that we will have to agree to disagree on.
Among other issues, there are to many things currently being addressed by the judicial system that are subject to interpretation and like anything else to many variables in how they are interpreted would cause worse problems than what we currently have.
You make the assumption, I think, that in the case of private courts you'd get a mishmash of opinions and distortion of the law. What do you think we have now? For each and every legal decision, there is an equal and opposite decision. It's basically a craps shoot. That's why we have so may lawsuits in this country. Lawyers sue like publishers publish books. The one or two big cases they win pay for the dozens they take that pay little or nothing. It's kind of like cooking spaghetti. Throw something against the wall and see if it sticks.
Originally the jury was meant to keep the law from getting too unwieldy. In fact, it's a bit of a violation for judges to give instructions to the jury. The jury is supposed to be the final check on the law. What happened is that in the 1930's judges and prosecutors begin instructing juries on how they should deliberate. Why? Prosecutors were tired of losing court cases because juries would throw out cases they felt had no merit. Since prosecutors need to try successful cases, they started limiting the "facts" of cases to make the charges stick.
Don't believe it? Why do you think we have so many people being exonerated by DNA evidence? Thank God for the Innocence Project is all I can say.
you don't even really need a local government to provide for a court system. Who would arrange teh localities? who would arrange the courts systems? how would they get paid?
It would make much much more sense to have a system of property insurance through private competing companies. --- You agree to pay X per month, they agree to investigate crimes committed against you. They would find people to prosecute, then bring it before a private court system - likely filled with a jury (paid for by the private courts systems --- imagine it: ads on tv "we judge our plaintiffs using juries! so use JusticeMax, America's leading Court system").
You might even argue that "oh man, there'd be like 50 companies claiming the right to prosecute someone"... well, not really... My current apartment only gets 2 providers of internet and cable.... so... I'd imagine it'd be similar to that.
You don't need ANY government. at all. It can ALL be worked out through private contracts.
Perhaps it's the way our current insurance industry runs, but I'm leery of trusting insurance companies to do what they should. Of course many of the problems we have with insurance is exacerbated by the preferential treatment they get from government, but I have a hard time trusting them.
I can see, for example, an insurance company quibbling over paying a claim if you get assaulted by claiming you didn't take precautions like walking in a darkened area in the evening, for example.
I expect that contract law would take precedence in those cases however, so maybe I'm just worrying about nothing.
There could easily be a system of private courts that parties agree to use ahead of time.
The streets SHOULD be owned by private investors (the same way parking lots are owned by someone) and they could -- if demand existed -- pay for private security, the same way a mall hires mall cops.
If someone misbehaves on their property, that person is breaking a contract between consenting adults and thus can be ejected from the premise. If someone mugs someone else, they are violating the victims rights, and thus would be subject to a private courts system.
well, the streets SHOULD be privately owned, and they'd have private security operating on them
who walks you home at midnight? I ain't NEVER seen a cop do that!
Evan the question was geared more to having the question of protection in public areas addressed rather than intended to be taken quite so literally.
But yes it is nice to see law enforcement on the street when I have to walk home at night and yes them being there is quite common where I live.
Right - but whenever the situation of "private protection" comes up, everyone starts assuming that the Public Police have been heavenly angels of protection.
This is nonsense.
I've had stuff stolen from me, and they WOULDN'T EVEN LISTEN TO ME because it wasn't worth $3k!!!! They plugged their ears!!! And I'm paying their salaries!!! That was their 3rd question to me: "how much was it worth?", i answered and they said they weren't interested! IMAGINE if a private company did that to you! --- "Oh, sorry, you're internet has only been out for 2 days? sorry, not gonna fix it yet - call us back when it's been a month"--- FIRED! Hire a competitor who gives a rat's ass.
I've pointed out, in a few posts here, that there isn't really anything called "public property" - you either own the land and materials, or you don't. The government has stolen our money from us and has used it to pay for things like streets, and then it has neglected to keep them safe.
Under a more logical system - the one that me and ledefensetech are advocating - the roads would be owned by the people who paid for them. Then they would -- if the need arises -- hire private protection to monitor them; the same way that you find mall cops at a mall, or mickey mouse police officers at disney land.
imagine if you had the power to choose who would be your property protector: the government, who 1- won't bother to even take your complaint if the sum of the amount stolen is less than $3k. (i found this out the hard way when some punk stole my ipod), and 2- gets their money via threatening you at the point of a gun with jail time...
... or a private company who actually needs to convince you that their service is WORTH your money?
who would you pick?
Oh, that's rich.
Let's blame the sub-prime mortgage fiasco on Carter and Clinton.
Oh I don't know, because it would happen to be factual. I don't see you bringing anything to the table except for a smart-alek attitude. Not that I don't sympathize with that sort of attitude, mind you, but you really should bring more to the table than just that.
You have a point Mighty Mom.
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are just as responsible.
I sure am glad you have a Bipartisan side.
Research the beginnings and life of the CRA, don't spout
The CRA was originally passed in 1977, following the Fair Housing Act of 1968 & the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974
Let's talk for a minute about private sector home security providers.
When we researched companies to protect our house we selected
Brinks. We did not like the offers we got from ADT.
It took the first 2 years to get the billing straight with them.
Then we got notification that Brinks had become Broadview.
Ok then. Whatever.
Now Broadview has been "merged with" (the polite business term for swallowed up by) ADT.
Sounds an awful lot like what has gone on in the telecomms industry, doesn't it?
Sure, but the demand isn't there for home security because there is a "public option". Why should people get private security when they get it through tax funded entities? Much like public schools, however, public security services leave much to be desired. Not the least of which being the enforcement of ridiculous laws and ludicrous fines in order to make up revenue lost by the current economic crisis.
Sorry, I have nothing else to bring to the table.
It was you yourself who suggested -- months ago -- that I ought to demand a refund on my college education.
Luckily for me, a smart-aleky attitude comes freely and naturally.
At least I'll always have that
Boy, he's full of insults isn't he?
Can't have a discussion without it, I guess.
And he tells me to grow up, and you to refund your education?
Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.
Must bow down. Must grovel at feet. oooooo, Must remember to get that pedicure!!!
If my car is broken I do not go buy a new one. I fix it. If it is broken beyond repair then yes but I do not think our current system is broken beyond repair.
If nothing else the federal government is a prime example of what power and authority do to private citizens.
It is in my opinion unrealistic to believe that every city or town across the world could handle the task of law enforcement effectively without the structure of the hierarchy currently in place. Instead of nations fighting boarder wars it would be towns and the foot soldiers would be the private agency officers fighting for territory. Perhaps years ago when it took days to travel between towns and there was little economic value in the expansion because of the cost to deliver it might have been a feasible idea. Not so much so today.
I don't think so. Read the link I provided. Would you support a private company that got involved in a war with another private company. If that's how business is run, then why don't we live in a world like Shadowrun? Wars are bad for business. Bad for countries too. Sun Tzu said it millenia ago. Since a private company can't hope to marshal the resources of a nation-state, the chance of them going to war is minuscule compared to that of a nation.
Besides what do you think other providers would do? Let it happen? What would the customers do? Let is happen? The very fact that they might have their house attacked by some other company would be enough to cause them to drop their support of the rogue private security company.
If you look at why wars are fought, it's usually for money, land or political power. In what way would a private security company gain from trying to gain any of that?
And this is exactly my point.
Money-we need a larger customer base
Land-we need greater coverage in our neighboring towns.
Political Power-Your customer violated the rights of my customer therefore I am going to hold him in my town jail but since you are being payed to protect him it would be your responsibility to assure that that doesn't happen, if you and your town have interpreted the applicable law differently than it was in my town.
There exists the very real possibility that the actions of one agency acting in defense of their client could be viewed as hostile toward the others client.
The ensuing battle would not cost nearly so much as say the war in Iraq if you just look at the dollars but the cost in lives I think would be very much like the civil war.
Yes and no. You haven't considered one fact. If I have a client who assaulted the client of another business, then it is in my best interest to cooperate with the other security agency. If I try to unlawfully protect my client then I open myself up to massive liability. Same thing goes for your warfare scenario. Any private company which tries to wage war will find themselves under assault from a battalion of lawyers. Do you really think those lawyers won't find a way to freeze the assets of the offending business and keeping them from accessing their cash flow? How long do you think said business will be able to run without access to its cash? Not only that, would you continue to pay for services from a company which waged war against another? So the company would be hemorrhaging customers too.
This stuff wouldn't be happening in a vacuum. If a company violated the rights of a person or another company there wild be hell to pay.
You are making the assumption that millions of different company officials could agree on the laws. It has been my experience that you usually have a difficult time getting hundreds of people to agree on what a particular law means.
And whose laws would apply?
I figure here on HP there are probably 100 or so regular posters in the forums and at any given time 75 of them are in disagreement with one another over a book or law or bill that they have all obviously read. They call each other names and swap insults but never come to an agreement. Just imagine if those 100 posters had any real authority. Money and the desire to accumulate wealth is not the only thing that drives people. Emotion and the perfectly natural human desire to be right will play a large part in the equation that you suggest. Discounting that is likely to create a lot of untidy little messes for everyone.
Again, not really. Look at something like the 801.11 protocol for wireless controllers. You have many companies all competing against one another, but they've set up a protocol that they all adhere to in order to make it easier to offer wireless tech to their customers.
How does this provide an analog to private security services. Simple. In order to keep the overhead down as much as possible, I believe such companies would limit themselves to crimes against person and property. Also a company would, in it's sales literature, inform people about the sorts of things it covered. The limiting factor on coverage would be the need to appeal to as broad a base of people as possible, so the chances of victimless crimes being persecuted are slim to none.
Your Hubpages argument has merit, but how many of those people would act the same way if we met in person? When talking about security services, there will be a need to collaborate somewhat insetting standards. Or it could be that some independent company rates security services, something like Consumer Reports or Underwriter's Laboratory.
one last response and then I must go to bed.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The technologies protocol is only in every companies best interest because there is no authority attached to it. It is sound business for them to make their product as interactive with other providers as possible because freedom and jeopardy can not be attached.
why do you think that a company can't provide protection to a certain area, but you -- without thinking at all -- believe that you can buy food at your supermarket, get upwards of 4+ competitors on car, health, life, and any other insurance, and get just about anything you could ever want right now as we speak?
Why do you assume that the free-market can't provide protection and law... but you know it can provide you with EVERYTHING ELSE?
The people at the super market have no authority to detain or incarcerate me if I chose to shop elsewhere. giving private companies the authority level that you are suggesting would result in the Mobster mentality that was so prevalent in Chicago and New York and a lot of other places, I am sure, not so very long ago.
So, if a company randomly arrested the wrong people over and over...
... would ANYONE hire them?
also, you wouldn't really have much to worry about - there would be a TRULY separate third party involved with deciding the fate of the accused: a private court system.
Unlike today's "three branches of war" - where the executive goes to war without congress' approval, writes their own laws, randomly erases parts of laws he doesn't like, and where the legislative branch just bends over and takes whatever comes their way, and where the Judicial branch has overstepped everything -- and they've all worked together to kill the Constitution....
... we'd have TRULY separate entities dealing out justice.
LE, Evan, this has been a very thought provoking conversation and truly a pleasurable one but if I intend to make my 6 a.m. wake up call I must retire. I look forward to sharing more ideas with both of you on this or any other subject.
Enron, Halliburton, Blackwater...this is what happens when you give companies free reign.
The big blow-out here happened because the banks could do anything they wanted and get away with it.
How in the world can you trust a business, whose motive is profit, with the precious lives of human beings?
How can you trust government with those same lives, whose only motive is power and enrichment of themselves, the ruling elite. Look at Iran, North Korea, and China, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the African countries, Cuba, Venezuela and on and on. Do you think people are better off trusting the corrupt dictators of those countries?
how is "receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and having an entire army invade a country unconstitutionally for you" free reign?
I'm still missing this logical step...
1- the government gives you billions of dollars
2- the government ignores its own laws and invades a country for you
3- the government wastes everyone's money and lives for what-will-be more than 10 years...
conclusion: The companies are to blame!
Now to address the second mistake you've made: "How in the world can you trust a business, whose motive is profit, with the precious lives of human beings?"
profits are a good thing. they let people know that something isn't being provided to the population that they want sufficiently. Profits in cars go up? Well, i'll start a car company! Profits in Orange Juice going up? I'll plant an orange tree!
in fact, the other day, I went to the most greediest, profit-driven restaurant in my entire life... EVERYONE working there JUST wanted their money!!! And those bastards knew DAMN well that the only way to get it was to sell me something. So they tried very very hard to get my money...
........ and I got a great sandwich for my money! $6 ?! you gotta be kiddin' me! it was delicious!
by Deborah Dugger7 years ago
Well folks, here we are with well over a dozen of crack pots running our government. Trying to push on us their health care plans that they themself will not accept.But yet- their so called concern for WE THE PEOPLE, is...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security...
by lady_love1585 years ago
Do we really want to cut defense spending? Consider that already much of the military function has been outsourced to private companies that a making huge profits off the wars, one of the left's source of angry...
by Siotosh7 years ago
Can anyone list three positive things Bush did in his two terms in the White House
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
George Will - "Steady 5 percent growth probably won't happen. Also, his pledge to get federal spending down to 18 percent of GDP is very hard to do with an aging population and a welfare state that exists to...
by Barbara Badder6 years ago
I'm curious what everyone thinks of the cuts planned to lower the deficit. In my opinion they are aiming them all at the elderly and poor. What does everyone else think?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.