More Candidates Favoring State-Owned Banks
-
http://www.truthout.org/more-candidates-favoring-state-owned-banks57106[^] Honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm for or against this kind of idea. On one hand, it brings more power to the state as opposed to the federal government. On the other hand, it's going to cause more paper money into the system, and it's Unconstitutional (for reasons already outlined in debates with Ian.) So Ian, what would you say to something like this? I'm curious.
So you can have 50 bankrupt states instead of a bankrupt country ? I'm not sure it will make that much difference.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So you can have 50 bankrupt states instead of a bankrupt country ? I'm not sure it will make that much difference.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
You could be right in your assumption. But had the banks and other financial institutions arguably behaved in a more responsible manner, perhaps the housing crisis in the United States may not have occurred. However, that is now history. Yet, it looks as though the next Round of homeowner foreclosures could be about to start, according to this http://www.marketwatch.com/story/113-million-homeowners-underwater-on-mortgage-2010-02-23?siteid=rss&rss=1[^] and that is not good news for anybody
-
You could be right in your assumption. But had the banks and other financial institutions arguably behaved in a more responsible manner, perhaps the housing crisis in the United States may not have occurred. However, that is now history. Yet, it looks as though the next Round of homeowner foreclosures could be about to start, according to this http://www.marketwatch.com/story/113-million-homeowners-underwater-on-mortgage-2010-02-23?siteid=rss&rss=1[^] and that is not good news for anybody
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But had the banks and other financial institutions arguably behaved in a more responsible manner, perhaps the housing crisis in the United States may not have occurred.
I thought the government pushed them towards lending to people who could not afford it ?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yet, it looks as though the next Round of homeowner foreclosures could be about to start,
Yes, I am expecting something similar here. We had government payments for first home buyers, and a lot of people used those to buy houses they could only afford because of unreasonably low interest rates. I've wondered how this is going to affect markets, and if I should put my money into the bank, and wait to buy some bargain housing.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
http://www.truthout.org/more-candidates-favoring-state-owned-banks57106[^] Honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm for or against this kind of idea. On one hand, it brings more power to the state as opposed to the federal government. On the other hand, it's going to cause more paper money into the system, and it's Unconstitutional (for reasons already outlined in debates with Ian.) So Ian, what would you say to something like this? I'm curious.
-
ROTFL !!! Thanks for chiming in. Next time, try knowing what you're talking about.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
http://www.truthout.org/more-candidates-favoring-state-owned-banks57106[^] Honestly, I'm not sure whether I'm for or against this kind of idea. On one hand, it brings more power to the state as opposed to the federal government. On the other hand, it's going to cause more paper money into the system, and it's Unconstitutional (for reasons already outlined in debates with Ian.) So Ian, what would you say to something like this? I'm curious.
josda1000 wrote:
On one hand, it brings more power to the state as opposed to the federal government
Why do you guys see the federal government as more of a threat that a state government? Is it a question of size? Some of your states' governments much be huge
-
josda1000 wrote:
On one hand, it brings more power to the state as opposed to the federal government
Why do you guys see the federal government as more of a threat that a state government? Is it a question of size? Some of your states' governments much be huge
Josh Gray wrote:
Why do you guys see the federal government as more of a threat that a state government? Is it a question of size?
Have you seen the debt lately? Have you seen the CIA and NSA's actions, ever? State governments listen a lot more to its people than the federal government. Municipal governments listen much more to its people than a state government does. It may not be a matter of "threat", but it's at least a matter of respect and accountability.
-
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Why do you guys see the federal government as more of a threat that a state government? Is it a question of size?
Have you seen the debt lately? Have you seen the CIA and NSA's actions, ever? State governments listen a lot more to its people than the federal government. Municipal governments listen much more to its people than a state government does. It may not be a matter of "threat", but it's at least a matter of respect and accountability.
josda1000 wrote:
Have you seen the debt lately? Have you seen the CIA and NSA's actions, ever?
Not really. You'll find that most people are far more interested in their own politics. Did you know the state government of NSW has just canceled a major transport infrastructure project and will be forced to spend millions compensating private industry for the work they had done so far?
josda1000 wrote:
State governments listen a lot more to its people than the federal government. Municipal governments listen much more to its people than a state government does.
Why do you think that is? Do you think state politicians generally have different motivations than federal politicians?
-
josda1000 wrote:
On one hand, it brings more power to the state as opposed to the federal government
Why do you guys see the federal government as more of a threat that a state government? Is it a question of size? Some of your states' governments much be huge
The US in general is still paranoid about federal government existing at all, because of the level of independence the states had to start with, and insisted on, in order for them to become a country. HEnce the name 'united states'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I can understand your position on it, for it being a plank of the communist manifesto. But other than a two "sentence" answer, with it being five words, can you explain your position a little more clearly?
We must stick to core fundamental principles. PROPERTY RIGHTS PERSONAL LIBERTY Those who control the money, outright control property and undermine personal liberty on a universal scale. Money is the "Higgs boson" of human civilization.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Why do you guys see the federal government as more of a threat that a state government? Is it a question of size?
Have you seen the debt lately? Have you seen the CIA and NSA's actions, ever? State governments listen a lot more to its people than the federal government. Municipal governments listen much more to its people than a state government does. It may not be a matter of "threat", but it's at least a matter of respect and accountability.
You've not met the Australian state govt's, for a non 3rd world country we have an amazing level of corruption and incompetence in our state govt's. As for local govt, they are regularly sacked on mass and replaced by administrators when the levels of corruption are exposed. If you want to see the epitome of incompetence study the NSW State Rail Authority. They are only matched by the half dozen inquiries made into them in the last decade!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
We must stick to core fundamental principles. PROPERTY RIGHTS PERSONAL LIBERTY Those who control the money, outright control property and undermine personal liberty on a universal scale. Money is the "Higgs boson" of human civilization.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Do you have a solution to propose ? Or just parroting stuff you heard on you tube ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The US in general is still paranoid about federal government existing at all, because of the level of independence the states had to start with, and insisted on, in order for them to become a country. HEnce the name 'united states'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US in general is still paranoid about federal government existing at all
That is a bit of an overstatement. Yes, there are many conservative thinkers such as myself that would agree that the federal government may be overstepping its original boundaries, but there is one indisputable fact: we were made a country, and that's probably not changing anytime soon. Most people in this country don't think about this at all, and would rather see it flourish than to systematically destroy it in any way.
Christian Graus wrote:
the level of independence the states had to start with, and insisted on, in order for them to become a country. HEnce the name 'united states'.
Yes, obviously that's where the name comes from, from the very foundation of where the states had come from: thirteen colonies became nation-states, and then formed a nation between each other, a union. And yes, they retained their powers that were not enumerated and given to the Congress under the Bill of Rights. Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-
Do you have a solution to propose ? Or just parroting stuff you heard on you tube ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So if someone proposed state-owned banks that use gold-backed currency, would your head explode?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
The US in general is still paranoid about federal government existing at all, because of the level of independence the states had to start with, and insisted on, in order for them to become a country. HEnce the name 'united states'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US in general is still paranoid about federal government existing at all
Yeah I was just interested to see if he could provide a rational explanation or discussion rather that the same old rhetoric. Cant say I'm surprised that he ignored me.