State Of The Union

[DuncanONeil]

It's funny how people are quick to call one side a liar over several statements they make and then respond with lies of their own.

Explain!!!

As for government control, at least it gives the possibility of selling off assets at a later date. The last thing you want is a country that is trillions of dollars in debt to start giving handouts for private run infrastructure.

That is nothing short of nationalization! And what gives rise to the cry of leading us to socialism.

I agree that the US education system (K-12) is in shambles and won't be fixed by the Obama bills which also violate the 10th amendment.

Much of what Obama wants to can be said to viloate that amendment!

I also agree that the US college costs are absurd, and the financing is terrible.

But is more Government handouts the solution. First insurance companies, banks, auto, and now universities???

And actually the reason oil is exported in such large countries is that governments have made things called free trade agreements so companies sell wherever they make the most profit. The US government as an organization is not taking oil from the US strategic reserve exporting it to other countries and then buying oil from elsewhere to replenish it. Companies like Exxon are selling oil to the highest bidder, which is often abroad.

Therefore, by your estimation the US would be exporting every drop of oil it can produce. Well such is not the case. Exports only account for about 12.5% of production!

As for statewide mass transit its a much harder problem in Canada where provinces are bigger, yet some achievements have been made on that front. The fact is taxpayers are a diverse bunch, I'm sure people who live in downtown cores and don't drive would be willing to express just as much outrage at your idea that their tax dollars should pay for your roads. The fact is taxes come from a diverse group of people with diverse interests, and that diversity means there will be government programs you don't approve of.

Does not address the question raised. By this argument nobody should give a rats ... and let NAMBLA do as it sees fit!

As for 'punishing' the banks, it is an established fact that the interest on government loans was well below market value and it is also clearly shown on financial statements for Q3 from major banks that the vast majority of banks relent the money at a sizable profit. Why should the government not charge fees for organizations that exaggerated and caused a crisis, demanded a government bailout, then used it to pad profits. I actually think the government should be looking into criminal charges relating to negligence in causing the recession. I'm fairly sure that many of these companies failed their own risk management checks frequently, and then promptly modified the formulas so they'd pass. Instead of using the academic standard, they are all using variants that don't actually mitigate risk but claim to. If that's not criminal negligence and fraud I don't know what is.

Most all of the banks have already paid back the Government for the monies, that many were forced to take and pay for the privilege. A fee is to be assessed to the banks on top of this to recover funds that other entities are not paying, and likely never will. This is a punishment. There is adequate evidence that the entity that caused the "crisis" was in fact Congress. Therefore all the remedies you espouse are do to Congress more than the banks. Kind of hard to stay within a risk management level when the Government demands that you engage in activities that such programs were say are ill considered.