It seems to be for you. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
|
It seems to be for you. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And that's why I ask if you're 12.
Because I echoed exactly what you said? LOL. It's OK for you but not for others? Do as I say not as I do? I think you know what that's called.
At least it isn't called puerile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you say so I am happy to take your word for it.
It's just that you are wrong in your assessment of fairness and how I can and should be applied.
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think they are an exception going on the wikipedia article. I wouldn't go as far as to say they are a rare exception.
Tut
I don't know what Speech said about fairness . What I think whenever I hear it used in a political context is someone picking someone else's pocket (when their pocket is empty ,fairness is achieved ) ;or bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator . When it comes to free speech it means suppressing opposition ability to express their view. When it comes to fairness for immigrants in means favoring the illegal over the ones who played by the rules . When it comes to a fair 'choice' it means a mother has a right to choose to kill her baby ;but not to choose where the kid gets an education .
But you have made an important observation. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder . That gives the Levithian the power to define fairness if you are one who favors such forms of government .
But that is the example you presented .Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Hi Tom,
Do you mean like the availability of certain types of medicines when there is no market for them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Sorry a misunderstanding here.
I mean they are an exception. Not doubting that. By rare exception I was referring to other possible exceptions such as the impact market forces might have on the cost of health insurance. Just as an example.
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, this is rather a cynical view. Perhaps you should come and visit the Leviathan down under.
Tut
Oh ; you did say medicines . As for heath insurance ;I've already addressed that I think the more an insurance company has to compete for the consumer ,that pricing should reduce. There are many innovations in services that they aren't permitted by law to implement . We are generally restricted to purchasing state approved minimum coverage plans that employers provide. We are not permitted to shop around to get the best deal possible . That to me is a weakness in the system that keeps prices high.
yes Tom vested interests have been very successful in gaming the market, obviously your theory has too few variables and you have imperfect competition or is it monopolistic competition
I've said it before. We have state approved cartels. Part of the unintended consequences of over regulation is that it's designed to stifle competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
No, I know what fairness is, "free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness."
There is nothing "fair" about taking from one person to give to someone else. All the things tom mentioned are a part of this country's left wing concept of "fairness" and it's anything but. Fairness to them is just one more deceptive cliché. And I know I'm right, thank you very much.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, you're wrong. But, your position IS representative of how far off the cliff the right wing has gone. You used to be a regular conservative. Now, it looks like you drank the koolaid.
There was a time when even conservatives thought that building roads and bridges was good for ALL of us... Now you think it's thievery.
excon
You know, buddy, we could discuss this if you'd base your arguments in reality. I have no need to defend myself against your manufactured nonsense. My definition of fair is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution did not make road building a federal function. I'm all for roads and bridges ;but they should be properly funded by the proper authority .That is why the Erie Canal was built with State and private funds and not Federal funds. There was no doubt that it would benefit the economy and commerce of the nation when it was built. But James Madison properly vetoed Federal funding for the project .
His veto is worth reading in total
James Madison: Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817
Dear excon:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Aren't interstates federally funded? Or should each state be responsible for its section of an interstate? (Heaven help us all!)
Carol
Just like the 47% that pay no federal taxes feeling its FAIR they aren't paying them flapping their gums about how the 53% of us thatactually ARE aren't giving THEM enough free stuff or paying enough... from what WE actually earn...Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What's fair is everyone paying an equal percentage of their income... whatever that ammounts to. Without deductions.. without breaks... but then THEY would have to pay something themselves so they don't like that idea.
The Interstate system was justified as a national defense expense. It was originally called " .National Defense Highways"Ike wanted a national road system wide enough to transport the military . During the cold war ,that was enough of an argument to grant it on very shaky constitutional rationale .There is also clauses in the Constitution about Congress having the authority to authorize "Post Roads" .
Today Federal Funding for the roads is a massive earmark boondoggle. More money goes into special interest pockets than asphalt.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Kind of like the cash that's going into Chris Kristy's friends pocket from his privately run half way houses..
excon
I have no idea how that connects to Federal funding of roads . I get it that the Interstate has been funded through Federal taxes and administered through the Federal Highway Administration ;and it's too late to put the horse back in the barn. But the problem is that every authorization expands the bureaucracies power and mandate. Now highway funds is the answer for such boondoggles as high speed rail systems . Already 1/4 of the highway funds are spent on non highway programs. And if Obama has his way, the program will double in size.
And that only addresses the Interstate system . The Federal government has no business funding or authorizing State and local systems . Too often they have been lured by federal funds to do unwise infrastructure projects . When the gravy train stops ,they have no means to complete them or to maintain them. If Boston wants a tunnel ;or California wants high speed rail ,let them fund it .
What if Illinois wants a high-speed-rail system to the eastern states? All involved states--except for Indiana--agree such a system would be good and will pay their share of building one. Then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have never seen a federal truck working on our interstates but I see TXDOT trucks every day. Likewise in every other state I've traveled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Oh well, C'est la vie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Ok I'll address the hypothetical . I don't think Indiana should be forced to have that high speed rail if it doesn't want it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
They get together with each of the states it goes through... and they all make plans and agreements and pay their share of the design... and everything that happens inside their borders. Federal involvement isn't needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Indiana says no, no money for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Then it doesn't happen... because Florida shouldn't be forced to pay for it because Indiana doesn't want to find the money to build, maintain or operate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I left out one part in my answer that an Authority be set up with representatives from each state to run it. Not unlike how The Metro works as its in parts of DC MD and the District of Columbia.
Is there some market demand for high speed rail?
Then think interstate. What if Indiana didn't want one to go through their state?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No ,rail is a loser in this country . Amtrak loses $32 per passenger on average .
Those are customer service and marketing problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Don't think so... their service is actually quite good, I've used it a few times... there just isn't enough people that need to travel on it to be profitable.
I don't think so. Does that also explain why LA has the best subway system in the world that Nobody uses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
can't find a link to this proposal . Which states are involved ?Quote:
What if Illinois wants a high-speed-rail system to the eastern states?
Even the NE corridor of AMTRAK barely pulls it's weight ;and that is the heaviest travelled corridor... and that is only because the price of the Acela express fare is in line with market pricing. .
It's hypothetical -- suggested when everyone claimed it should be a state's-rights issue, not federal.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Oh I see . Because there are real proposals between Michigan ,Illinois ,and Indiana where the states are doing something similar to what Smoothy suggest correctly is the proper way to handle it . Here in NY there are frequent examples of intrastate systems (the Port Authority being the most famous) .
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Sorry Steve, this is not right. It is my assessment of fairness that is
Spot on. On the other hand, it could be that we experience a difference type of fairness here.
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:42 AM. |