Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rob]

Please prepare for me a five page, 10-point, double-spaced paper comparing and contrasting government subsidy of the more efficient passenger rail vs. 100% government funded highways upon which less efficient, more dangerous, and more eco-hostile transportation is carried out.  You will be graded for speling and, puntuation.

Highways work.  Autos may be more dangerous and less efficient but the end result is better customer service.

The current Amtrac business plan does not work.  If it is going to be a government program, get the private sector out entirely.  Otherwise, let it succeed or fail on its own merit. 

Anything else I said would just be fluff.  Let's not waste our time with that.

Rob, while i have read your diatribe about government and America, and where government doesn't need to be, do you think the government should be keeping us overseas in Iraq for "as long as we need to be there", pushing us further into debt for "war funding", while many soldiers fighting overseas see probably 1/10th of what our government "claims" is going towards the War on Terrorism?

because if you do, then that sounds kind of hypocritical. all that up there.

I will have to be very McCain in my response.  While it might not have been the best idea to go over there in the first place, it would be a disaster to retreat prematurely.  Remember, we still have troops in Korea, Germany, Cuba.  Why don't we bring them all back home too.

We should bring our troops home from Iraq, as soon as the climate is right.

[caddy]

the comment i dislike is that we should keep them over there for as LONG as possible. the comments i want to hear is that we will have a plan that helps us withdraw slowly and steadily, without creating another Afghanistan. i don't want us out immediately, because that would be brutal, considering what we have done to their economy. i don't think there is a right answer for how to get out, because we've mucked up the situation so much, that there is no right answer.

i don't want to pull out immediately, but i don't want to stay for the next hundred years. societies run better when they develop their own free market, and then a government that works with the people. i wouldn't mind seeing a Federal government that worked properly in Iraq. i wouldn't mind seeing that in many places that have people who need the help.

my god. you've voting for McCain. i would rather you pencil in Ron Paul.

[Rob]

We should keep them there no longer than necessary.

Ron Paul it is.

[$ethie]

We should keep them there no longer than necessary.

Ron Paul it is.

Didn't he drop out?

Besides, libertarians are just conservatives that like to smoke pot.

[caddy]

you can write in who ever you want, really. i believe. i could be dead wrong. besides, i would prefer a pot-smoking libertarian.


in other news, Olbermann had this to say about Senator McCain,


Part 1,
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch/v/vHcu1-3zteQ" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://youtube.com/watch/v/vHcu1-3zteQ</a>


Part 2,
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch/v/ISmaTyKjx3U" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://youtube.com/watch/v/ISmaTyKjx3U</a>

[CeeGBee]

Highways work.  Autos may be more dangerous and less efficient but the end result is better customer service.

So, they work, except that they cost more to operate, pollute the atmosphere more, and kill more people?
The only benefit is a nominal convenience factor that we're all gonna have to get over as we're forced to
look at how much it costs us to drive each individual mile.

The current Amtrac business plan does not work.  If it is going to be a government program, get the private sector out entirely.  Otherwise, let it succeed or fail on its own merit. 

So you'd endorse a fully-nationalized rail system, rather than making the adjustments necessary to
make a private or part-private system profitable?  It's actually a faily simple fix.  Adding additional
track parallel with existing routes would require some initial investment, but under the current system,
the freight lines own all the track, and Amtrak has to fit passenger schedules to the whims of
freight carriers.  Devoted long-distance passenger track would allow more customer-friendly scheduling,
which, combined with the rapidly rising costs to drive or fly pretty much anywhere, would lead to more
riders, creating...  ta-da! Profitability!  At the same time, the additional land required would be relatively
little, analogous to adding traffic lanes to the interstate.


Oh, also, there are things like market forces, supply & demand, but a huge piece of the current $4
gallon of gas is Dick Cheney's "energy task force", the members of which he still refuses to name.
The operative terms here are market manipulation, collusion, price-fixing, and conspiracy.
The short supply rationalization would fly better if any of the major oil companies were running
their refineries at full capacity, or even close, but as long as they have an agreement not to undercut
each other, there's no need.  Government regulation is supposed to protect us from this sort of thing,
but clearly our current executive branch is unconcerned with the good of commoners.

  You will be graded for speling and, puntuation.

did you mean to misspell "spelling and punctuation"?

I also meant to put the comma after "and".
I'm taking points off for failing to catch that.

(...but I'll give 'em back for the Olbermann post.  Ouch!
I don't have cable, so I'd have missed that.)

[Rob]

All of McCain's comments that were cited in the Olberman piece are easily reconcilable if one uses just a bit of common sence.

There is not a person here who would disagree that it is the fact that are troops are in harms way that we are concerned with.  Where is the outrage that our troops are in Germany, that our troops are in Korea, that our troops are in Japan?  It doesn't exist, because the risk level is so low as to be nonexistant. 

That is the point McCain was making when he said that when they came home was not important...that eliminating U.S. casualties was important.  Not too many people would have a problem with leaving them there if they weren't in harms way.  It is The Senators goal to remove the threat of violence, so that we might pull out a majority of our soldiers by 2013, and leave a small support and traing contingent.  That's not really all that hard to understand, is it?

So you'd endorse a fully-nationalized rail system, rather than making the adjustments necessary to
make a private or part-private system profitable?  It's actually a faily simple fix.  Adding additional
track parallel with existing routes would require some initial investment, but under the current system,
the freight lines own all the track, and Amtrak has to fit passenger schedules to the whims of
freight carriers.  Devoted long-distance passenger track would allow more customer-friendly scheduling,
which, combined with the rapidly rising costs to drive or fly pretty much anywhere, would lead to more
riders, creating...  ta-da! Profitability!  At the same time, the additional land required would be relatively
little, analogous to adding traffic lanes to the interstate.

38 years is more than enough adjustment time.  Let's face it, it won't work.

Many municiple rail systems appear to be doing fine right now.  There must be a way to make it work.

Start your commuter rail installation company.  I will be first in line at the I.P.O.  If it is what the people want and need, you can't lose.  Then, passengers won't have to deal with those flighty freight companies.

[Rob]

Oh, also, there are things like market forces, supply & demand, but a huge piece of the current $4
gallon of gas is Dick Cheney's "energy task force", the members of which he still refuses to name.
The operative terms here are market manipulation, collusion, price-fixing, and conspiracy.
The short supply rationalization would fly better if any of the major oil companies were running
their refineries at full capacity, or even close, but as long as they have an agreement not to undercut
each other, there's no need.  Government regulation is supposed to protect us from this sort of thing,
but clearly our current executive branch is unconcerned with the good of commoners

Oil refineries pollute the air and ground water.  Surely, your not suggesting we pollute our environment in the name of cheper fuel.

[85283-071]

The fact that a local tax might be preferable to a federal tax does not change the fact that federal tax cuts are fallacious and a con job when used as a campaign strategy. If we are turning things local, which I agree should be done in many cases, there will have to be accompanying restructurin of responsibilities and jurisdictions. No tax cut campaign promise I have ever heard has addressed that.

As far as curbing interest rates, my concern is over greater things than 'hurting a little". The Great Depression did more than hurt a little, and it could have been prevented with the proper regulation. Some government oversight is needed or the market (orlabor) can be manipulated in a way that consumers cannot realistically correct. Here's an example of an advantage that would be had through market force corrections. Trains versus road traffic. The amount of pollution prevented, and the highway congestion reduction (a public safety issue) is made possible by railroad subsidies. The advantage would be seen in even greater fashion if freight rail was also subsidised. Of course, mergers would help with the latter as well, but that's another discussion. Interstate transportation is a national concern. So is pollution. For that matter, so is the real estate market and fuel cost. There are places for government intervention. The world has become dense, and the concerns of one community are the concerns of others. History has shown that laissez faire is detrimental to a society. In a small community, the disparity between those with power and those without is smaller and more manageable, but in a population of hundreds of millions, that measure become the stuff of absolute devastation of communities. When this economic entropy starts to spread, there is a scarmble by those with the advantage to cover their own asses. They leave the rest... the majority of us to deal with the wreckage.

It's not one or the other. We don't need to bring everything under one umbrella, but the cry of socialism at every hint of federal involvement in a community problem has created an absolutist rejection, by a certain range of the political spectrum, of federal action. Every time we get rid of someone causing that sort of damage (Reagan, for instance) we make some progress, but the right starts crying about communism.

I think the Republican Party is beyond restoring credibility, and I think the current idea of conservatism is incompatible with the cooperative needs of this shrinking world.

[virtual~mary]

hi, rob.

i respect your viewpoint and would find it difficult to adjust and refine mine without your particular input on subjects like this.

that said, i'm compelled to add my voice to nyyorksky..whatever-the-fuck-his-name-is-today's. taking responsibility for one’s financial well-being is certainly a hallmark of adulthood, but the adult playing field is not equal. predatory lending practices DO exist and legislation to address them (state and federal) is in everyone’s best interest.

continuing to polarize by party affiliation around this and other issues slows down our collective progress.

ex-subprime brokers help troubled homeowners

the great seduction

[85283-071]

That second article is a great one. A household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, $645 a year on lottery tickets? Nine percent of their income? Holy shit. I hadn't even thought about payday lenders. Very, very good link.

[Rob]

That second article is a great one. A household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, $645 a year on lottery tickets? Nine percent of their income? Holy shit.

Don't worry, the food stamps make up for it.  Maybe my tax money should just go to quick picks for the homeless.

I spent...let's see...exactly $0.00 last year on the lottery.  How terribly irresponsible of me.

[CeeGBee]

That second article is a great one. A household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, $645 a year on lottery tickets? Nine percent of their income? Holy shit.

Don't worry, the food stamps make up for it.  Maybe my tax money should just go to quick picks for the homeless.

Kinda like telling 'em, "If you don't want to have more kids, stop having sex"...

While I'm not particularly sympathetic to people who spend their food money on lotto tickets,
the tickets are marketed that way, making the lottery in effect a regressive tax:  nobody's
making you play, and the better-off you are, the less likely to pay you are; if your money's
tight, hey, the [fill in amount] "TOP PRIZE PAYOUT" sure would make life easier, wouldn't it?
The legislation that first enabled the VA government to create a lottery specifically described
what could and could not be included in advertising.  Basic stats, in...  "enticements", out....
Now the PAYOUT AMOUNT (a statistic) is presented as an enticement with music,
jugglers, dancing poodles and the like,and the actual odds on winning (another statistic) are included in the fast-talk at the end of the ad.


Recently, the state's been sued for continuing to advertise various games after all of the top
amount prizes have been claimed.


To argue further in no particular direction:  How do ya fix the problem?  Maybe if you declare
people receiving Public Assistance ineligible to win the lottery?  For their own good, that would
be a good idea, but it'd never fly...

[85283-071]

Part of the reason there is no outrage over troops in Germany, Japan, Italy and England, inaddition to their not being in harm's way, is that there tours of duty are not regularly extended, and they number less than half of the total number of troops deployed in regions to "curb terrorism".

[CeeGBee]

Part of the reason there is no outrage over troops in Germany, Japan, Italy and England, inaddition to their not being in harm's way, is that there tours of duty are not regularly extended, and they number less than half of the total number of troops deployed in regions to "curb terrorism".

...and in Germany, England etc an American serviceman (or -woman) isn't literally risking his/her
life by leaving the base alone, unarmed, and/or in uniform.  It might be something to do with the
locals not all despising the American occupation presence.