Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why is there a large tariff currently on Brazilian Sugar imports? Hmmm?Wrong....Tariffs are punitive actions meant to punish foreign competitors and reward people who've priced themselves out of the domestic market.You, like the rest of the right wing ilk on this board, have been seriously misinformed.
In fact much of the development of the US industrial base and economy was as a DIRECT RESULT of government imposing TARIFFS on imported goods.
In fact, the US government practically ran on no other source of revenue for the fist 150 years of operations
Doubt me?
THEN DO SOME READING ON THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, and after you're done, report back to us on what you found, okay?
Because the last thing in the world, I'd want you to think is that what I i'm informing you about is some kind of LIBERAL DELUSION.
You who have been misformed, and by experts in the DISINFORMATION BUSINESS, too.
Wake up and smell the conspiracy, lad.
YOU are its victim and YOU sir, and your clueless right wing cranks, are suffering from a collective and terrible case of STOCKHOLM SYNDROME
The feds ran on imposts, duties and excises for the first 150 years....Those are specific one-time charges, on specific products and commodities, in order to pay for specifically enumerated federal powers and duties....One such example us the fuel tax to pay for roads and bridges....Don't use fuel, you don't pay the tax.
If anyone is terribly short on American economic history, it's you, sport.
Really Odd-Dude? Would you mind providing some supporting documentation as evidence your expressed opinion is nothing more then that which emits from the rear end of a bull after eating?
You are full of digested bull feed, but very short on documentation, facts, evidence and creditiblity.
All for a piece of the action. There is a second law of economic thermodynamics it seems. Every set of hands something passes through, the cost goes up or funds available shrinks.The teacher who trains the architects and engineers of tomorrow, the fireman or policemen who save the business, the employee at the SBA who helps a small businessman get a loan, and hundreds of thousands of other government jobs are increasing our economic productivity. Wall Street bankers who ship jobs overseas, increasing the profits of foreign owned corporations are certainly not increasing economic productivity in this country. Just as in government there are many jobs in the private sector that are totally unproductive. I know have had a couple of them.Jobs "created" by expanding bureaucracy don't increase economic production....They are, in fact, a net drain upon it.If I create a job position and hire someone to fill that position, I have created a job. Whether it's working for the government or a construction company it's still a job.
You flunk econ 101.
I cannot think of any of those vocations that cannot be served by the private sector...
I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.The teacher who trains the architects and engineers of tomorrow, the fireman or policemen who save the business, the employee at the SBA who helps a small businessman get a loan, and hundreds of thousands of other government jobs are increasing our economic productivity. Wall Street bankers who ship jobs overseas, increasing the profits of foreign owned corporations are certainly not increasing economic productivity in this country. Just as in government there are many jobs in the private sector that are totally unproductive. I know have had a couple of them.Jobs "created" by expanding bureaucracy don't increase economic production....They are, in fact, a net drain upon it.
You flunk econ 101.
I cannot think of any of those vocations that cannot be served by the private sector...
I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.The teacher who trains the architects and engineers of tomorrow, the fireman or policemen who save the business, the employee at the SBA who helps a small businessman get a loan, and hundreds of thousands of other government jobs are increasing our economic productivity. Wall Street bankers who ship jobs overseas, increasing the profits of foreign owned corporations are certainly not increasing economic productivity in this country. Just as in government there are many jobs in the private sector that are totally unproductive. I know have had a couple of them.
I cannot think of any of those vocations that cannot be served by the private sector...
I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.I cannot think of any of those vocations that cannot be served by the private sector...
How do you assume that "profits are the highest" in wealthy areas?
Why wouldn't profitability be directly proportional to, say, fewer fires, or fewer murders, or fewer drop-outs?
Let's say that you, as the Gotham City Manager, awards the contract for policing Gotham to two companies: Batman Security Inc, and Robin Protective Service Co. Then you divide the city into two halves representing approximately equal crime zones, and give one to BSI and the other to RPSC. Whichever decreases the murder rate more after a year receives a 20% bonus.
I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.
How do you assume that "profits are the highest" in wealthy areas?
Why wouldn't profitability be directly proportional to, say, fewer fires, or fewer murders, or fewer drop-outs?
Let's say that you, as the Gotham City Manager, awards the contract for policing Gotham to two companies: Batman Security Inc, and Robin Protective Service Co. Then you divide the city into two halves representing approximately equal crime zones, and give one to BSI and the other to RPSC. Whichever decreases the murder rate more after a year receives a 20% bonus.
apparently thats the way his minds works.*shrugs*...I agree with your view.
Police alone have very little impact on murder rates. Arrest rate might be more appropriate in your example.I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.I cannot think of any of those vocations that cannot be served by the private sector...
How do you assume that "profits are the highest" in wealthy areas?
Why wouldn't profitability be directly proportional to, say, fewer fires, or fewer murders, or fewer drop-outs?
Let's say that you, as the Gotham City Manager, awards the contract for policing Gotham to two companies: Batman Security Inc, and Robin Protective Service Co. Then you divide the city into two halves representing approximately equal crime zones, and give one to BSI and the other to RPSC. Whichever decreases the murder rate more after a year receives a 20% bonus.
I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.
How do you assume that "profits are the highest" in wealthy areas?
Why wouldn't profitability be directly proportional to, say, fewer fires, or fewer murders, or fewer drop-outs?
Let's say that you, as the Gotham City Manager, awards the contract for policing Gotham to two companies: Batman Security Inc, and Robin Protective Service Co. Then you divide the city into two halves representing approximately equal crime zones, and give one to BSI and the other to RPSC. Whichever decreases the murder rate more after a year receives a 20% bonus.
Police alone have very little impact on murder rates. Arrest rate might be more appropriate in your example.
.....
Of the possible government services that could be privatized, the police department should be at the bottom of the list.
Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service.
I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.The teacher who trains the architects and engineers of tomorrow, the fireman or policemen who save the business, the employee at the SBA who helps a small businessman get a loan, and hundreds of thousands of other government jobs are increasing our economic productivity. Wall Street bankers who ship jobs overseas, increasing the profits of foreign owned corporations are certainly not increasing economic productivity in this country. Just as in government there are many jobs in the private sector that are totally unproductive. I know have had a couple of them.
I cannot think of any of those vocations that cannot be served by the private sector...
The teacher who trains the architects and engineers of tomorrow, the fireman or policemen who save the business, the employee at the SBA who helps a small businessman get a loan, and hundreds of thousands of other government jobs are increasing our economic productivity. Wall Street bankers who ship jobs overseas, increasing the profits of foreign owned corporations are certainly not increasing economic productivity in this country. Just as in government there are many jobs in the private sector that are totally unproductive. I know have had a couple of them.Jobs "created" by expanding bureaucracy don't increase economic production....They are, in fact, a net drain upon it.If I create a job position and hire someone to fill that position, I have created a job. Whether it's working for the government or a construction company it's still a job.
You flunk econ 101.
Should be in the POLITICS forum!!!
Police alone have very little impact on murder rates. Arrest rate might be more appropriate in your example.I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.
How do you assume that "profits are the highest" in wealthy areas?
Why wouldn't profitability be directly proportional to, say, fewer fires, or fewer murders, or fewer drop-outs?
Let's say that you, as the Gotham City Manager, awards the contract for policing Gotham to two companies: Batman Security Inc, and Robin Protective Service Co. Then you divide the city into two halves representing approximately equal crime zones, and give one to BSI and the other to RPSC. Whichever decreases the murder rate more after a year receives a 20% bonus.
The biggest problem with a private police force is the agenda. Public police forces are charged with protecting the citizens of the cities and towns over which they have jurisdiction. Private police officers are different. They don't work for us; they work for corporations. They're focused on the priorities of their employers that hire them. They're less concerned with due process, public safety and civil rights. In short, they serve a corporation whose mission is to maximize profits and minimize costs which is not always synonymous with good police work. The public police are sworn to serve and protect the people, not the corporation.
Also, many of the laws that protect us from police abuse do not apply to the private sector. Constitutional safeguards that regulate police conduct, interrogation and evidence collection do not apply to private individuals.
Of the possible government services that could be privatized, the police department should be at the bottom of the list.
Actually, next to teachers, it could be one of the first to privatize. Same with public utilities since much of that work is already done by private contractors to begin with.Police alone have very little impact on murder rates. Arrest rate might be more appropriate in your example.I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion. Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service. Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest. Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business. If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.
How do you assume that "profits are the highest" in wealthy areas?
Why wouldn't profitability be directly proportional to, say, fewer fires, or fewer murders, or fewer drop-outs?
Let's say that you, as the Gotham City Manager, awards the contract for policing Gotham to two companies: Batman Security Inc, and Robin Protective Service Co. Then you divide the city into two halves representing approximately equal crime zones, and give one to BSI and the other to RPSC. Whichever decreases the murder rate more after a year receives a 20% bonus.
The biggest problem with a private police force is the agenda. Public police forces are charged with protecting the citizens of the cities and towns over which they have jurisdiction. Private police officers are different. They don't work for us; they work for corporations. They're focused on the priorities of their employers that hire them. They're less concerned with due process, public safety and civil rights. In short, they serve a corporation whose mission is to maximize profits and minimize costs which is not always synonymous with good police work. The public police are sworn to serve and protect the people, not the corporation.
Also, many of the laws that protect us from police abuse do not apply to the private sector. Constitutional safeguards that regulate police conduct, interrogation and evidence collection do not apply to private individuals.
Of the possible government services that could be privatized, the police department should be at the bottom of the list.
Wrong....Tariffs are punitive actions meant to punish foreign competitors and reward people who've priced themselves out of the domestic market.Those "unproven truths" brought America from literally nothing to the point of being the world's economic powerhouse in a scant 150 years....All with a central government that largely stayed the hell out of the way and let people solve their own problems, created by men you'd hold in utter contempt were they alive today.
You, like the rest of the right wing ilk on this board, have been seriously misinformed.
In fact much of the development of the US industrial base and economy was as a DIRECT RESULT of government imposing TARIFFS on imported goods.
In fact, the US government practically ran on no other source of revenue for the fist 150 years of operations
Doubt me?
THEN DO SOME READING ON THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, and after you're done, report back to us on what you found, okay?
Because the last thing in the world, I'd want you to think is that what I i'm informing you about is some kind of LIBERAL DELUSION.
You who have been misformed, and by experts in the DISINFORMATION BUSINESS, too.
Wake up and smell the conspiracy, lad.
YOU are its victim and YOU sir, and your clueless right wing cranks, are suffering from a collective and terrible case of STOCKHOLM SYNDROME
The feds ran on imposts, duties and excises for the first 150 years....Those are specific one-time charges, on specific products and commodities, in order to pay for specifically enumerated federal powers and duties....One such example us the fuel tax to pay for roads and bridges....Don't use fuel, you don't pay the tax.
If anyone is terribly short on American economic history, it's you, sport.
I've read books, sport, lots of them.Wrong....Tariffs are punitive actions meant to punish foreign competitors and reward people who've priced themselves out of the domestic market.You, like the rest of the right wing ilk on this board, have been seriously misinformed.
In fact much of the development of the US industrial base and economy was as a DIRECT RESULT of government imposing TARIFFS on imported goods.
In fact, the US government practically ran on no other source of revenue for the fist 150 years of operations
Doubt me?
THEN DO SOME READING ON THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, and after you're done, report back to us on what you found, okay?
Because the last thing in the world, I'd want you to think is that what I i'm informing you about is some kind of LIBERAL DELUSION.
You who have been misformed, and by experts in the DISINFORMATION BUSINESS, too.
Wake up and smell the conspiracy, lad.
YOU are its victim and YOU sir, and your clueless right wing cranks, are suffering from a collective and terrible case of STOCKHOLM SYNDROME
The feds ran on imposts, duties and excises for the first 150 years....Those are specific one-time charges, on specific products and commodities, in order to pay for specifically enumerated federal powers and duties....One such example us the fuel tax to pay for roads and bridges....Don't use fuel, you don't pay the tax.
If anyone is terribly short on American economic history, it's you, sport.
Try reading a book, lad.
I know you think you can just make it up as you go along, but in the world of intelligent debate facts trump opinion.
No, I said, Teachers that train our architects and engineers are contributing to our economic productivity. I made no distinction between private or public schools. As it happens 90% of the population are educated in public schools. I certainly made no judgment as to which provided the better education, however both promote economic productivity.The teacher who trains the architects and engineers of tomorrow, the fireman or policemen who save the business, the employee at the SBA who helps a small businessman get a loan, and hundreds of thousands of other government jobs are increasing our economic productivity. Wall Street bankers who ship jobs overseas, increasing the profits of foreign owned corporations are certainly not increasing economic productivity in this country. Just as in government there are many jobs in the private sector that are totally unproductive. I know have had a couple of them.Jobs "created" by expanding bureaucracy don't increase economic production....They are, in fact, a net drain upon it.
You flunk econ 101.
Your thesis is that the best professionals come from public education and NOT from private education?
As far as the government not producing competitive business ventures, if you think that a non-competitive environment produces better products than a competitive one, you are willfully ignorant, woefully young or the steward of your local government employee union.
I don't know why I still get mail 6 days a week at my home. What 's the point? Every other day for 3 deliveries per week would be sufficient and cut the payroll in half. This is not rocket science.
Garbage pick up, building maintenance, groundskeeping, security, foodservices, and almost any other thing you can name are all more efficient when run privately. Why? Because the guy who wants the business will figure out a way to do the same for less money or do more for the same money.
This is how the free market works. The Free market produces things like the Toyota fleet, the Apple computer and the self check out lane at the grocery store.
The Government produces things like a toll road that cannot show a profit, the DMV and the Post office which is bleeding red ink.
By the by, the toll road I'm talking about lost money for years in Indiana, had maintenance projects not completed due to lack of funds, was sold to private interests and now has more lanes, fewer pot holes and shows a profit. The governor mused that he had taken a lump sum payment to dump a loss leader from his balance sheet.
That lump sum was used to finance other projects that were not being done due in part to the monies wasted on maintaining the toll road poorly.
A private firm took this over and is making a profit doing the job better than the government did it and spending less and producing more.
Reason Foundation - Bottom-Line on Indiana Toll Road Deal
