(V): "The pollutants pumped out into the air never disappear into thin air, as we might like to believe."

I said pollutants dissipate. I did not say they disappear.

(V): Iamon lyme: "...fitting hydrogen converters to their cars, which are powered by water."

Clean efficient energy, and the only by product is water. Sounds great, but it takes energy to take the water molecule apart to get the hydrogen so we can then combine it with oxygen to make energy for powering the car. This can get a bit expensive, seeing as how we must first use energy to get something that can make energy.

(V): "No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that you think is wrong with the USA."


I wasn't talking about "everything". They are responsible for most of the goofy ideas we Americans are treated to on an almost daily basis. I was also talking about the game liberals play when it comes to oil...

They approach it from an environmental angle. This gives them their excuse for limiting oil production and refining. They push for "energy alternatives" for two reasons. They say it's better for the environment. And it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil... which is a crock, because if they hadn't been working so diligently to limit our production of oil, which includes not allowing the Alaskan pipeline to be finished, then dependence on foreign oil wouldn't be an issue. But if oil production has been rising all this time (according to you and the New York times) then apparently liberals have been lying about our dependence on foreign oil.

Whenever the US goes to war in a country that has oil, they automatically assume the reason for that war is to get control of their oil. This is also a crock, and for the same reason liberals push for energy alternatives. They claim it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and then we wouldn't have to invade other countries to get their oil... I think some of them have been smoking weed for so long anything they dream up seems reasonable to them.

Anyway, solar panels and windmills and electric cars aren't enough to replace everything we get from oil. But even if I assume liberals are correct about the US going to war for oil, they can't avoid the obvious... they are the ones who created the conditions that led to those wars. It's fascinating how their reasoning process works... they see themselves as blameless, but even in their fantasies they can't avoid pointing the same finger back at themselves.

The claim that wars are fought over oil is not related to their efforts to limit our oil production, it just happens to be a convenient complaint they are able to tie to our lack of adequate domestic oil... and who can we thank for that?

(V): The Chinese pollution problem is easy enough to fix, we'll just send our presently unoccupied occupy wall street protesters over to disrupt operations in China. And I will personally sent a strongly worded letter of protest. That alone should be enough to get results, but we should still send the protesters. The Chinese and the US manufacturers in China will have no choice but to shut down their manufacturing operations... permanently.

(V): By the time that pollution reaches the west coast most of it is gone... dissipated in the air and washed from the sky into the pacific ocean. The only "pollution" we've had to deal with lately is debris from last years Japanese tsunami.

I saw something in the news about dust from a Chinese dust storm reaching the west coast... which is pretty remarkable, since dust from our own dust bowl disaster (before I was born) only made it as far as a few miles past the atlantic coastline.

(V): "Seriously, that was just an avoidance answer."

Look who's talking. Avoid this... who is in control of air/water standards in China? The US, or China?

(V): "You didn't at the time."

"at the time" we had enough. Now we have more than enough. As we find more oil, our dependence on foreign oil increases... any thoughts as to why?


"It is true."

No it isn't.

"Are they?"

Yes they are.


"The US has one of the best if not the best records for clean air and water standards of any other nation."

[ Do you? Including or excluding pollution from China based firms manufacturing goods for American companies to sell to the world?? ]

Yeah, and the US is also responsible for everything that happens in the UK. Seriously, grow up.

(V): "I think you guys need to stop arguing about religion so much in the USA."

Who's arguing about religion?

A boy was suspended from school for nibbling a pop tart in the shape of a gun. The size of soft drinks have been limited in New York because the mayor is concerned about how much sugar people get. Football players won't be allowed to drop their heads anymore when rushing down the field, because they might hurt someone... with their heads. Apparently it's better if their heads are vulnerable when rushing down the field. Can't play dodge ball anymore??? I played dodge ball when I was a kid, it was a blast. How can you get hurt by a soft rubber ball? I think schools should ban pencils, and compasses with their sharp metal points... no one can stab you with a soft rubber ball.

The list goes on and on and on. Liberals take all of their silly ideas very seriously, including what we should and shouldn't say. We shouldn't say Merry Christmas, we should say Happy Holidays. AD pointed out that the word holiday (probably the origin of the word) means Holy day, so we shouldn't be surprised if one day liberals decide we must stop saying 'holiday'.

We weren't arguing about religion... we were laughing at liberals.

(V): I don't get this "for the sake of oil" argument. If liberals are so distraught over what they say is US effort to grab oil from other countries, then why do they resist US efforts to access it's own oil?

This is a contradiction for which I have never heard a reasonable explanation. How can anyone justify saying we want someone elses oil when we have more than enough of our own?

We don't want control over 'their' oil, we want control over OUR oil. The most recent estimates show our own sources at least matches (and might exceed) how much middle eastern oil is available.

We don't go to war to gain control over someone elses oil, but just for the sake of argument let's assume this is true... what is the liberal's explanation for effectively making us dependent on foreign oil? Liberals in this country are responsible for stopping oil companies from drilling, and have resisted the building of new refineries, so if anyone is responsible for what they call a 'war for oil' it would be be them.

If they think the US goes to war just to get control over someone elses oil, then I can't think of a better way to solve that problem than by allowing the US to access it's own oil. Liberals may be able to have it both ways (restrict drilling and claim war for oil) but they can't adequately explain any of this away with so called environmental concerns... that's BS. The US has one of the best if not the best records for clean air and water standards of any other nation. So if a clean environment is what they are really concerned about, they should go grip about it to countries who don't care how much pollutant they pile into the air.

__ __
( o) ( 0)


<><<

Artful Dodger: shhhhhhh, don't tell them what it means! Big brother might be watching.

<><<

(V): "Meaningless."

LOL

(V): Why stop with Reagan and Bush? Lincoln trampled over the rights of law abiding slave owners, and Washington defied the king when he fought against British troops. It all started in 1,000,000 BC when Ogg took Ugh as his mate from a neighboring clan, thinking it would end strife between the two clans. But the plan backfired, and it only worked to create more resentment and greater animosity between the two clans. So Ogg took Pew as another mate from a smaller third clan, to shore up his strength if the two major clans ever came to blows. This too was a mistake, because the third lesser clan decided to align itself with Oggs enemy.

Ogg traveled many days to reach the largest clan in recorded prehistoric history, and took Ick as a mate after striking a deal with that clans leader... Icks father. But Ogg never received any support from him after Ogg came home with Ick... he called and left messages, but Icks father never got back to him. Before it was all over the political landscape was a mess, and Ogg had seven mates fighting among themselves for his attention...
Oh well, pooka happens.

(V): Yes.

Obama takes first prize. Carter and Clinton combined did less damage than Obama can take credit for, and he's not done yet.

Artful Dodger: []_ [[]] []_

Sounds like something I would make up, just to be funny... what is even funnier is that it could all be true! I can't tell the difference anymore. Whenever I think something is just made up nonsense it often turns out to be true... LOL

(V): "How many presidents do you think we have?"

[ One at a time. ]

So which one do you think I was talking about?


[ Bush was quite willing to have demonstrators against the Iraq invasion 'escorted' to zones away from the eye of the 'press''. Isn't that a breach of your rights in the USA? When Raygun and other US governments supported terrorists isn't that a breach of American Law? ]

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the current president. I always know when I've scored points when you decide to take a walk down memory lane.

[ Them being responsible rather than need 'government' to tell them. I thought you were for that!! ]

Sure, but no one needs to make self serving and essentially meaningless proclamations in order to do that. In a perfect world, everyone would behave responsibly whether there were acts and statutes or not.

[ People having bought off the 'councils', I mentioned it earlier. That building projects now tend to be more 'general' not 'projects'. ]

You mean corruption still exists? Oh well... so much for the power of wishing a perfect world into existence, eh?

What happened to the occupy wall street crowd?

Good news, the fraudulent prediction charges were subsequently dropped.

(V): [ Including the mix that happens? As 'estates' as such are disappearing. ]

The mix? Disappearing 'estates'? Well, I can't argue with that...

What the #@&% are you talking about?


"Over here we have a president, fully supported by his party, who has been ignoring our constitutional rights from the day he stepped into office."

[ And you think the Republicans don't? ]

How many presidents do you think we have?


"You have much more important issues to fight and moan over."

[ ??? ]

Errant banks and phone hacking scandals and rich people with offshore accounts.


"It appears he has given himself permission to ignore any of those acts or statutes if he so chooses."

[ You don't get it. If people were not ignoring common law, none of these statutes would be needed...]

And if those people decided they too will no longer stand under any acts or statutes... do you see where I'm going with this? If those acts and statutes were not needed, there wouldn't be any acts or statutes. And if one person says he only recognizes common law and does not stand under any acts or statutes, what's to stop everyone else from making the same claim? He is fantasizing about a perfect world where everyone respects "common law", making any other rule or act or statute or law unnecessary. Either that or he's doing it for his allotted 15 minutes of fame.

Artful Dodger: "Why is it government never learns? They keep making the same mistakes over and over."

It's not easy to come up with a short answer to that. When government is made up of too many individuals who only work for personal political gain, then anything can happen. A lot of time and effort goes into securing votes and gaining control... so there's not a lot of time left over for actually doing their jobs.

There are short term political strategies, like pressuring banks into making risky home loans to curry favor (i.e., votes) among poorer working class people. We all know how well that worked out.

And then there are long term strategies, like rejecting tort reform so that problems with the health care industry would lead to a government take over... we will know before too long how well that works out.

The gorgeous mens farting board welcomes your comments and opinions.

Iamon lyme: A few corrections:

If our media misrepresents anything, it usually falls on the side of favoring governmental actions and covering UP as best it can government misdeeds.


"By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free."

I see, so he wanted to remind the government he was free... just in case they forgot or were tempted to ignore that little detail. (?)



One other point I failed to mention... you said: "One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes... "

It appears he has given himself permission to ignore any of those acts or statutes if he so chooses.

(V): "From what I've seen...... a big difference. Maybe just your media misrepresents your 'projects' :/ Standards tend to be better here."

If our media misrepresents anything, it usually falls on the side of favoring governmental actions and covering as best it can government misdeeds. But this is only temporary, and the media will reverse itself when the other party is in power... they always do.

As for misrepresenting low income housing, what would be the point of doing that? I can google low income housing and find information nearly identical to your social housing.

"Some people seem to think their freedom can be taken... sorry, but to me that is a big lie."

I see, so it's your belief that once you have a freedom it can never be taken away. That must feel very reassuring.

"One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes and is therefore operating as a 'free' man of the land and bound by only common law."

We have guys like that over here too. But they tend to keep to themselves and collect weapons.

"By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free."

I see, so he wanted to remind the government of those rights in case they forgot or were tempted to ignore them.

"But you are bound to not harm, defraud or cause loss or damage to anyone or their property under common law."

That's reasonable.

"Hence the reference to common law. Inalienable rights like you state your constitution provides..."

Over here we have a president, fully supported by his party, who has been ignoring our constitutional rights from the day he stepped into office.

"but we don't need to fight and moan."

You have much more important issues to fight and moan over.

(V): Okay, I should know better by now... all I had to do was google "social housing in england", and here is what I got:

"A key function of social housing is to provide accommodation that is affordable to people on low incomes. Rents in the social housing sector are kept low through state subsidy. The social housing sector is currently governed by a strictly defined system of rent control to ensure that rents are kept affordable."

"Social housing is allocated on the basis of need
Unlike the private rental sector, in which tenancies are offered according to the free choice of the landlord or existing household in question, social housing is allocated according to need."

"Each social landlord operates an allocations policy, stating in advance what factors will be taken into account when deciding who gets preference for the limited amount of social housing on offer. These policies must include 'reasonable preference criteria' that are set out in law, but beyond this, allocations policies can be drawn up at the discretion of the social landlord."


This is what we in the U.S. call "low income housing". The only difference I can make out is that your social landlords have more latitude in drawing up allocations policies... other than that, there is no real difference.

(V): Subject: "... I stand by common law more than statutes and acts. The power on consent is then mine... as we are policed by consent. .... If you are not breaking common law than what is the worry?"

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm talking about an increasing role of government in our lives, beyond what is necessary or appropriate. I can understand how someone might not be alarmed by this, because everyone has a different idea as to what level of government involvement is appropriate or not. Some people would happily give up many of their freedoms in exchange for being cared for, and others wouldn't like it at all.

(V): "Low income would be the slum owning private landlords renting places out that are 10 years overdue for an extreme makeover!!"

In the US, what we call "low income" housing is government subsidized housing. Sometimes they are called housing developments or "the projects".

"With some areas (eg London) being very expensive many middle class folk do live in social housing... The properties are better maintained than private landlords tend to can be bothered with."

Maintained by whom? If not by private landlords, then who is in charge of those properties? I'm not familiar with the term "social housing"... what exactly is it?

(V): I assume what you call social housing is what we call low income (affordable) housing.

(V): I wasn't saying they are exactly the same things, but both entail similar risks that can affect prospective homeowners... that much I think we can agree on.

What they do have in common is government involvement in private enterprises and concerns. Some people are concerned about governments encroachment on our private lives and personal business dealings. They see it as the government becoming a nanny state... gradually taking over personal responsibilites to make life easier for us, but at the same time making us more and more dependent on the government. Increased government involvement may be good for government workers (whose salaries are drawn from taxes) but not always so good for the private citizen (who works to pay those taxes).

What you're talking about is government inserting itself into the housing market by offering to underwrite loans. I can see you are okay with that, and your complaint is actually about something else... socially funded housing.

(V): "From what Lamon has posted of it's operating nature... no."

But if it has the same result... then yes.

"...the government will effectively underwrite mortgages. It's right the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned there are risks."

We were warned too.

"Some borrowers might be far less conservative in what they aim to buy, some may default rather than tighten their belts."

Yep, that could happen. It happened over here.

"And in no way would such be allowed by the UK people."

So, are you saying "The Government has released a new scheme to help people buy homes" and it WILL be allowed, because its "operating nature" is not the same as mae or mac... even though it essentially does the same thing?

Artful Dodger: Close enough (for government work)

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-credit-crisis.asp

When the housing bubble of 2001-2007 burst, it caused a mortgage security meltdown. This contributed to a general credit crisis, which evolved into a worldwide financial crisis. Many critics have held the United States Congress - and its unwillingness to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - responsible for the credit crisis. In this article, we'll examine the extent to which Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and their allies in Congress contributed to the largest financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.


A Brief History of Mortgage Markets

For most of the twentieth century, mortgage lending took place mostly at banks, thrifts, credit unions, and savings and loans. The most common type of mortgage was a fixed-rate mortgage and most of the financial institutions originating mortgages held the mortgages that they originated on their books. Starting in 1968, when Fannie Mae was chartered by the U.S. Congress as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), and two years later when Freddie Mac was chartered as the same, things began to change quickly. (Fannie Mae was originally created in 1938, but until its privatization in 1968 it was a part of the U.S. government). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a liquid secondary market for mortgages. This meant that financial institutions no longer had to hold onto the mortgages they originated, but could sell them into the secondary market shortly after origination. This in turn freed up their funds such that they could then make additional mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a positive influence on the mortgage market by increasing home ownership rates in the United States; however, as history has proved, allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to function as implied government-backed monopolies had major repercussions that far outweighed the benefits these organizations provided.

The Privileges of GSE Status

According to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's congressional charters, which gave them GSE status, they operated with certain ties to the United States federal government and, as of September 6, 2008, were placed under the direct supervision of the federal government. According to their congressional charters:

•The president of the United States appoints five of the 18 members of the organizations' boards of directors.

•To support their liquidity, the secretary of the Treasury is authorized, but not required, to purchase up to $2.25 billion of securities from each company.

•Both companies are exempt from state and local taxes.

•Both companies are regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The FHFA regulates the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including implementing, enforcing and monitoring their capital standards, and limiting the size of their mortgage investment portfolios; HUD is responsible for Fannie and Freddie's general housing missions.

Fannie and Freddie's GSE status created certain perceptions in the marketplace, the first of which was that the federal government would step in and bail these organizations out if either firm ever ran into financial trouble. This was known as an "implicit guarantee".

The fact that the market believed in this implicit guarantee allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. The yields on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's corporate debt, known as agency debt, was historically about 35 basis points (.35%) higher than U.S. Treasury bonds, while 'AAA-rated' financial firms' debt was historically about 70 basis points (.7%) higher than U.S. Treasury bonds. A 35-basis-point difference might not seem like a lot, but on borrowings measured in trillions of dollars, it adds up to huge sums of money.

With a funding advantage over their Wall Street rivals, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made large profits for more than two decades. Over this time period, there was frequent debate and analysis among financial and housing market professionals, government officials, members of Congress and the executive branch about whether Fannie and Freddie's implied government backing was working mostly to benefit the companies, their management and their investors, or U.S. homeowners (particularly low-income homeowners) as was part of these firms' HUD-administered housing mission.

One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market. It is this monopoly, combined with the government's implicit guarantee to keep these firms afloat, that would later contribute to the mortgage market's collapse.

From the Low Information Pet Owners Guide:

If your dog has been scratching the furniture and coughing up hairballs, then he is probably a cat.

Artful Dodger: LOL Yeah, me too! Why not, he's managed to slip and slide his way around the constitution, queening around the country like he was royalty, and spending record amounts of money on himself and his family. Who wouldn't want to vote him in for a third term?

Artful Dodger: Those are our choices?!?! Obama or Biden? I need an aspirin.

What about some other comedy team, like Martin and Lewis, or Abbott and Costello, or...

Oh yeah, I forgot... politics board.

Artful Dodger: "...let's bash Obama and his incompetency as Salamander in Chief."

What's the point? Obama is not bashful of his incompetency, and his supporters are pleased with themselves as well. These are strange times we are living in... it would be entertaining to watch if we weren't actually affected by any of it. The way I see it, I can either laugh about it or take medication to relieve depression.

Correction: It wasn't Buck Rogers who saved earth from Mings Economic Death Ray apparatus. It was Flash Gordon.

It was an honest mistake... I wasn't trying to *cough* rewrite history.

I a monly me: The Raygun years

I am only me: oops again (oopsie poopsie)

That should read "We have the right to ask for any amount IN damages..." (not OF damages)



But now that I think about it, the amount CAN be damaging, so I was right the first time...


... never mind

(V): "Lobbyists"

I was wondering about that... I don't know if there are or have been lobbyists persuading lawmakers to reject tort reform. It seems odd to me that people would be running around telling lawmakers "We have the right to ask for any amount of damages we want. It's not our fault the judges rule in our favor." Yeah, right... it's always someone elses fault.

But just because it seems odd to me, that doesn't mean it isn't true. In fact, it probably means it is true.

I am on lyme: "Believing lies can also cause inefficiencies"

I should have just left it at that. I've been trying to avoid saying anything too inflammatory...

Inflammatory, maybe... but not TOO inflammatory.

(V): "I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry."

[ No, that's paranoid. ]

Then what is your explanation for why those same politicians have always resisted tort reform?


"No. When Raygun started off dropping taxes the US debt started rising. Nice cuts for the rich, but no way for the economy to absorb it, this was left untreated for decades."

Ohhhh, I get it now! That explains why our country suffered under Rayguns administration, until Buck Rogers saved us all from Emperor Mings Economic Death Ray apparatus. So where was Dr Who when all this was happening?

"Who profits from the current tort laws.... lawyers, insurance firms and the middle men. Each wanting to take their piece of any payouts. One gets a million.. the other has to get 1.5 million, because it has to be bigger or better."

Exactly, so you can add them to the list of people whose interests would be (negatively) affected by tort reform. But as I indicated before, they are not the ones who institute law... it's the lawmakers (politicians) who do that. And as I've already pointed out the law does not MAKE them do it, the law ALLOWS them to do it.


"We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage."

[ You have been for years already. ]

According to the same politicians who have resisted any effort to reform healthcare... in other words, the same liars who have claimed that if they are in control there will be greater accessibility and better health coverage. If you believe that, then I guess I should believe it too... (?)


"Small problem with one bank in particular failing. It'd caused a domino effect in the rest of the industry.... With the amount of lending done interbank."

As I've already said "Banks and other types of businesses have failed due to stupidity before, and fraud has always existed. Why do you think people are aways being cautioned to be careful in their business dealings?"

When the government here forced banks into making bad home loans it created a bubble that was ready to break at any time. Banks and other businesses have failed before without government intervention, but in this case government intervention was the catalyst.


" Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue."

[ Really... It can cause a great deal of inefficiency in the business world. Especially if you end up with a deal worth far less because of the lying. Or, like in the case of the Madoff investors.... screwed.]

I didn't say lying doesn't cause inefficiency. I said they are not the same things. Just because one thing can cause another doesn't mean they are the same.

Believing lies can also cause inefficiencies, but being a fool who believes everything he hears is not the same thing either.

(V): "who's interests are affected if tort reform is made?"

Politicians interested in seeing healthcare nationalized would have been negatively affected by tort reform. Their argument was based on some made up ethereal morality that says everyone has a right to healthcare. The way it will work now is if you don't get health care a fine can be levied against you. So apparently this "right" to healthcare will be mandatory. But if the problems with healthcare were actually fixed, they would have had no reason to say it needed fixing... this is why some politicians have always opposed tort reform. Their eyes were on the prize of gaining control of that industry.

The average citizen on the other hand would have been positively affected, because competition would cause prices to fall after the need to insure against exorbitant claims is no longer a concern. Availability has never been an issue, but it probably soon will be.

I say "would have been" because now that government controled healthcare has been made law, the point is moot. We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage. And on top of that, health insurance probably won't cost any less than it did before. So what exactly have we gained? We've taken a relatively small problem and made it much worse.

(V): "The UK is a registered corporate entity."


You pointed out the difference between England and the UK, but as far as taxation is concerned it may be a difference without a distinction...

Where does the UK get it's money? Does it earn it engaging in private enterprise or from taxation?

(V): "It's not enough to tell them. If the law says you can file frivolous lawsuits and sue for exorbitant claims then why wouldn't they?"

[ The law doesn't make them do it though does it. ]

No, the law doesn't make them do it. The law allows them to do it.


"It's not just McDonalds that can be forced to pay someone for spilling coffee on themselves. Doctors and hospitals are also forced to pay out more than they should have to, and so the cost of health care naturally rises to cover those costs."

[ That is just one of the factors, an easy one to use to distract you from the rest of the ways health care providers and others in the health care business inflate prices. ]

That's the sort of jibberish politicians use to confuse people. If prices are inflated it's because doctors and hospitals need to cover their costs, and those costs include lawsuits demanding inflated damages. Inflated damage awards, inflated prices. Tort reform would put a cap on awards, and bring them more in line with reality.


"it's the fault of lawmakers who have steadfastly refused to fix this problem."

[ Why... who's interests are affected if tort reform is made? ]

Who do you think! I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry. That's why they won't allow tort reform, because they want the government to be in control of it. It's not about prices or availability with them, it's about control.


"and your government knows better than the banking industry how they should be doing business."

[ lol... we've had to bail out the banks here. ]

lol... no, you didn't have to do that.

[ Our government owns substantial shares in a number of UK based banks. ]

I'm not surprised by that.

[ .......... The reason, stupidity by the banks, fraud resulting in billions of refunds to business and private customers. ]

Banks and other types of businesses have failed due to stupidity before, and fraud has always existed. Why do you think people are aways being cautioned to be careful in their business dealings?


[ Seemingly common sense principles and morals have no part of modern 'merchant' banking. ]

Well no kidding! So who needs to have common sense these days if the government can be made to pick up the tab?


"You are proving my point. The key statement in your reply was "The UK contracted out to a private company...""

[ Am I...... That private companies are more efficient.... except when they are liars?? ]

That doesn't make sense. Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue. Stupidity is also a moral issue, so how do you figure the UK rates morally when it makes bad business decisions?

~ You want to try that again? ~


"Competition forces businesses to offer better deals than someone else, and what better way to drum up business than to charge less for the same thing?"

[ The UK is a registered corporate entity. I (as is every UK citizen) am a share holder in such as stated on my Birth Certificate... I think the same applies to US citizens. My name as registered on my birth certificate is crown copyrighted, not to be used as identification and as such, a legal fiction. All acts and statutes passed as 'legal' laws are by consent in the UK. If we do not consent, they cannot enforce. To show you do not consent is a process in some cases. But even the police cannot enforce consent in many cases. ]

?


"My point was that anyone who understands how lowering a profit per item can translate into more overall profit in a business should also be able to understand how lowering taxes can have the effect of generating more taxable income."

[ I understand the principle easily. But in reality we do not have a taxation system where it could be said to be true. ]

Both times Reagan did it (as governor of California and as president of the US) it worked just fine.

[ While blatant fraud and evasion happens, your point is pointless. Not because taxes are high, but because they just like to not pay tax period. ]

Apples and oranges. There would undoubtedly be less evasion and fraud under a fair tax system, because fewer people would feel the need to protect themselves. So how do you feel about moral equality? In other words, the government stops stealing and the citizen pays his taxes... and then we can all stop worrying about it and frolic with the unicorns, or whatever else floats our boats.

Artful Dodger: Oh yeah, that was definitely worth waiting for. The police sketch goes a long way toward identifying the man, they shouldn't have any trouble finding him with that tool in their arsenal... no pun intended.

Iamon lyme: Woah!! WAY too much information... this time it should work.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/215359.php

Artful Dodger: couldn't get the page, me thinks too much information... <(:op

<a href="http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/215359.php">http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/215359.php</a>

(V): "Grocery stores understand how low price / high volume will net greater profits than simply charging as much as they can get away with."

[ Right..... lol... ... ... No. In theory, yes... in reality... it depends. If the store knows it can charge more due to the likes of position... it will. Now adays loss leaders are more used. ]


Loss leaders can spice up the deal, but I think most people consider what the total cost of buying groceries will come to. It's all driven by competition, which btw is something governments don't have to contend with... they don't spend their own money, they spend yours.

Competition forces businesses to offer better deals than someone else, and what better way to drum up business than to charge less for the same thing? The higher volume comes into play when more people choose to buy from you instead of someone else. A lower profit per item can add up to the point where you end up with more overall profit than if you were to charge more per item. I'm not sure what you mean by "In theory, yes"... it's done all the time, and has been going on for a long time. Some people weren't happy about losing mom and pop stores to the larger chains, but so what? I don't know anyone who intentionally pays more for the same product they could get for a lot less somewhere else. Do you know anyone like that?

That wasn't my point though, I assumed it was a given how that works. My point was that anyone who understands how lowering a profit per item can translate into more overall profit in a business should also be able to understand how lowering taxes can have the effect of generating more taxable income.

(V): "If government can defer its greed for a few years and stop interfering with our lives and businesses, reduce the tax burdon instead of increasing it"

[ Same with private enterprises. The UK contracted out to a private company the roll of getting people back to work who've been out of work for a long time because of health problems....... The company made several promises, but it turned out that they were just interested in making a profit. In the end it's gonna cost the UK more. ]


You are proving my point. The key statement in your reply was "The UK contracted out to a private company..."

Most private companies aren't so gullible when contracting out to other companies, and will take great pains to insure they won't get screwed. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to stay in business very long. On the other hand, a governing body such as the UK can afford to make mistakes with money collected from taxes. It's the same over here... our beloved president can make bone headed business decisions without suffering any long term consequences for himself or his beloved political party.

(V): "Empower the politicians (all of them) to reject government funded health care,"

[ Then empower the people to have good access, not just high cost ER. ]


The people are already empowered, but maybe many of them don't know that. Real reform hasn't happened for a few reasons... lack of awareness of the problem, push back from legislators who would rather take over health care for themselves to control, and not enough people who know they are already empowered to pressure reluctant lawmakers. What I meant by "empower the politicians" is by putting pressure on the reluctant ones and encourage those who have been trying to get tort reform off the ground and passed into law. In spite of this being the most practical way to lower costs and increase availability, it never gets enough traction in either house of representatives to come to a vote... there are too many who either don't understand the need for it, or want there to be problems with healthcare so they will have an excuse to step in and take over.

And like it or not access to healthcare is not a God given right, even though we are constantly being led to believe that it is. Do you believe access to healthcare is a God given right?