Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, there is a difference between privatization and contracting out work.
The Federal Government for example contracts out the repair of Interstate Highways all of the time (rather the state governments who receive 90% of the funding from the Federal Government to repair the interstate highways in their state contract out the work all of the time). That doesn't mean the highways are privatized.
True, and to my knowledge, E-470 is privately owned, just like parts of OC, CA where I grew up have toll roads that are private held and well maintained. Highway 36 to Boulder used to be toll, and then went public when it was paid off, I was informed.
It really comes down to balance, when one side gets to much power whether it be Democrat, Repulican, Haliburton you got a problem. I just get so disguisted with the partisan politics in this country. I realize my desire for people to be more objective, like myself, isn't feasible because people in the end vote in their own self interest.
Used to be, the majority of money went to medium and small businesses, and we had effective anti-trust and walled garden laws. Then regulation started to be dismantled with Reagan and was all but completed by Bush Jr, causing companies to merge and merge, until now we have only a few oligopolists. The reasonable mathematical conclusion is that someday we'll have to turn to one megalith for all our food, cars, employment, healthcare, everything. P1ss off , SearsExxonGoogleFluorGEMicrosoftATTWalmartKrogerSa msungMcDonaldsChaseGM and you instantly lose everything in your life!
This is the value in having many smaller businesses, all running around coming to different conclusions and spreading the wealth around, rather than a few megacorporations making one or two decisions about $trillions. No one even realizes this, much less are making moves to fix it.
And so $trillions are locked up in bonds, not circulating and creating jobs. The money is -there-, it's just tied up for the top 1%. Interest rates are at unprecedented lows because there is SO MUCH money to lend, although jobs are so scarce that people can't qualify for those loans. We are in a liquidity trap. There is not enough money circulating to lubricate the economy.
People in the workforce work to generate more wealth, and that's the only way money will begin to circulate in the economy again. That's the only hope for more jobs.
Used to be, the majority of money went to medium and small businesses, and we had effective anti-trust and walled garden laws. Then regulation started to be dismantled with Reagan and was all but completed by Bush Jr, causing companies to merge and merge, until now we have only a few oligopolists. The reasonable mathematical conclusion is that someday we'll have to turn to one megalith for all our food, cars, employment, healthcare, everything. P1ss off , SearsExxonGoogleFluorGEMicrosoftATTWalmartKrogerSa msungMcDonaldsChaseGM and you instantly lose everything in your life!
This is the value in having many smaller businesses, all running around coming to different conclusions and spreading the wealth around, rather than a few megacorporations making one or two decisions about $trillions. No one even realizes this, much less are making moves to fix it.
And so $trillions are locked up in bonds, not circulating and creating jobs. The money is -there-, it's just tied up for the top 1%. Interest rates are at unprecedented lows because there is SO MUCH money to lend, although jobs are so scarce that people can't qualify for those loans. We are in a liquidity trap. There is not enough money circulating to lubricate the economy.
People in the workforce work to generate more wealth, and that's the only way money will begin to circulate in the economy again. That's the only hope for more jobs.
Oh we agree I check the St. Louis Federal Reserve site from time to time just to see the velocity of money supply. Until it moves nothing is going to be moving.
Now that I read that will you stop your 10 speed pilgrimidege to my house with your propoganda and ask me for a 50 cent donation when is reluctantly take your pamplet in disguist and close the door.
Used to be, the majority of money went to medium and small businesses, and we had effective anti-trust and walled garden laws. Then regulation started to be dismantled with Reagan and was all but completed by Bush Jr, causing companies to merge and merge, until now we have only a few oligopolists .
Oh, pllleeeeaaaassseee.While I agree on thse two, Clinton & Obama, the 2 Dems in between have continued going wink-wink, nod-nod, smile-smile..at any proposed merger.
Two parties equally and totally in bed with America's biggest remaining enemy..Wall St.
When the big banks wanted Glass Steagle gone, Sandy Weill's point man masquerading as a Clinton appointee for US, Robert Rubin, made sure it happened. Just a coincedence Citigroup paid him $109 mill thereafter before, during his tenure, it imploded.
And also your (incorrect) assumption is that I am advocating Democrats. Although they are not as rapacious as Republicans, they are still plutocratists.
Oh, pllleeeeaaaassseee.While I agree on thse two, Clinton & Obama, the 2 Dems in between have continued going wink-wink, nod-nod, smile-smile..at any proposed merger.
Two parties equally and totally in bed with America's biggest remaining enemy..Wall St.
When the big banks wanted Glass Steagle gone, Sandy Weill's point man masquerading as a Clinton appointee for US, Robert Rubin, made sure it happened. Just a coincedence Citigroup paid him $109 mill thereafter before, during his tenure, it imploded.
You are correct about the present-day biggest enemy (other than the Supreme Court), but the parties are not equally in bed with Wall Street. Progressive democrats and libertarians(?) are not.
Democracy has always been at risk from people who believe the country would be better off if only "certain people" (themselves - with a certain level of prosperity) were allowed to vote. Plenty of people of the "republican" persuasion have never liked the lower-class vote (you can still have a "republic" with a small modicum of democracy). It's a matter of focus - a strong (militarily), prosperous (for a wealthy upper class) country can be a strong, dominating world power - and a republic. Sound familiar?
So jobs? Why would such a country care about jobs for its lower classes since they wouldn't have a vote anyway! Such a country would freely outsource jobs - for the "good" of the people who really count.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet, it's no surprise...