Socialism, Tyranny, Venezuela... proven right again.

And then there's Obama's signature HC law and its individual mandate, which was built on the authoritarian and unconstitutional premise that the Commerce Clause granted him and his neo-socialist co-travelers the authority to force people to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

No one needs to convince me that Obama has nothing but contempt for individual freedom, the Constitution and the rule of written law. His words and deeds speak for themselves.

 

Amtrak's short-haul routes, like the Northeast Corridor, is entirely profitable. What is causing their losses are the long-distance heritage routes such as the Southwest Chief, the Empire Builder, Capitol Limited, and the Cardinal. Those routes are successors to routes from the golden age of passenger rail before the advent of air travel, when the rails were the fastest connection between distant cities. Ideally, the routes would not be entirely abandoned, but reduced to once-a-week roundtrips for those who wish to experience the romance of riding the rails, like myself.

Japan's high-speed rail system is a vital part of their national infrastructure that contributes considerably to their economic fortunes. Without Japan's HSR, they would have needed a more costly highway network, or an even costlier expansion to their number of airports. Western Europe's HSR systems are gaining in importance as the network expands with time.

Europeans have a different way of doing things, wow, go figure, not everyone has to do everything the way America does.

Line-drying clothing is more energy-efficient and thus cheaper.

Europeans don't need big, flashy, American cars, again, because they are a people that are more environmentally conscious and constrained by space. Not to mention the obvious fact that most European cities were laid out in the days of horse-drawn carriages.

European homes are smaller because they have a higher population density. If you think European homes are small, some Japanese live in homes scarcely bigger than some American prison cells.

As for the lack of air-conditioning systems, that is also an economic concession. Air Conditioning systems may be needed very little in most European summers, thus not justifying their added cost in year-round maintenance when fans can do an adequate job for less cost.

Every one of those cases more than likely, the President is acting within the scope of the laws as passed by Congress which enabled the behavior.

The Commerce Clause is too broad, just like every other clause of the Constitution, since it was written for a simpler time when stagecoaches were "mass transit", firearms were single-shot and had a rate of fire in the single-digits, and when they figured that the learned, and not the most economically powerful, would rise to the top of the leadership hierarchy. The lasting legacy from the Miracle in Philadelphia is that it can so easily be perverted and still be narrowly within the Constitution.

 

I'm 100% certain that if Obama could become dictator he would. Sure, he isn't now although he's trying as hard as he can with only the constraints of the nearly gutted Constitution standing in his way.

 

When it comes to government it doesn't matter so much the ideology if the people in that society lack morals. If a society turns out corrupt people then the government, companies, etc....will be corrupt and fail. In a more socialist/commie society governments get power hungry. In a free market excessive greed will destroy it.

 

The problem wasn't that the Commerce Clause is "too broad". The problem is the arrogant, authoritarian impulses of the neo-socialists who made that unsuccessful argument.

 

I agree - he possesses all the character and behavioral traits one usually finds in a dictator.

 

This make no logical sense.

Socialism.
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

If the government has more control, that by definition, means there is less economic freedom. If government dictates how you use your money, there is no possible way you can claim you have more economic freedom now.

Great claim. Not practically true.

Not true. I just posted a Forbes Article, which showed that the total wealth of the worlds Billionaires declined by $2 Trillion.

Now it is true that the wealth tend to end up more wealthy. This is because the time to buy assets, is when they are on sale. People who borrowed money, and ended up screwed by the recession, must sell off. People who prudently have savings (instead of crushing debt), are able to wisely purchase bargain investments during a down time.

Ironically, government generally gave incentives to people to borrow money, instead of saving money. Last I checked, 100% of all foreclosures happened to people who had a mortgage. Yet people are often told to get a mortgage for the tax deduction.

What example of this would you cite?

 

No, Japan's system is does not contribute anything. Before the system existed, Japan had far more growth, than now that they do. Further, the bullet trains have been money losers for ages now, just as rail service throughout Europe. Worse, as the growth of government funded rail service increased, the market share of transportation, has actually decreased in favor of the automobile. Rail service plays a smaller role in transportation today, than at any time in rail history, despite over half a trillion in investment initially, and multiple trillions later.

As for it being profitable, that's only partially true. Yes, operationally speaking, the short-haul routes pay for themselves.... barely. The problem is you are looking only at operational costs.

The proponents of rail service, intentionally hide the capital costs. When you consider the massive costs of building the tracks, the power systems, the trains, the rail stations, all paid for by the tax payers, or through government borrowing.... the small amount of profit, doesn't cover any of those costs.

Yes, it's cheaper. It has to be, because they can't afford to actually have a drier, that dries clothes. I'm not against you choosing to line dry your clothes. But if you have to line dry your clothes, because you can't afford anything else.... that's a lower standard of living.

I had a friend who came here from Japan, and the first thing he did was buy a V-8 Mustang. It's not that they don't want big nice cars. It's that they can't afford them. We can. Had a co-worker from Laos, and she and her husband, bought a Ford Excursion. People like big cars. They like being able to feel comfortable, in a large vehicle. They like packing up the dog and kids, and all their luggage for a vacation.

The reason they don't have such things elsewhere in the world, is not because there's no demand. It's because they simply can't afford it. Our system allows us to afford it. It's specifically because we don't waste multiple trillions on crappy rail, that we can afford a nice large comfortable car.

I highly doubt that. The problem with population density numbers of the US, is that it treats the US uniformly. That's not true at all. We have vast vast amounts of land throughout the west and mid-west that is darn near empty. If you look at individual states, and compare to Europe, it's not nearly as clear cut as your argument would assume.

For example.... I live in Ohio.

Population per Sq Mile in Ohio is 282.

Compared to Europe....

Finland 46 per Sq.Mile
Norway 40 per Sq.Mile
Spain 241 per Sq.Mile
France 300 per Sq.Mile
Greece 212 per Sq.Mile
Sweden 61 per Sq.Mile
Austria 262 per Sq.Mile

And yet, the home I live in here in Ohio, compared to many of those places, is like a palace. So it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound.

Back in 2003, I paid $200 to have my AC fixed. Haven't spent a dime on it since. Yes, it is an economic concession. They can't afford it. That's a lower standard of living.

 

Wow, dismiss the entire turn of events why don't you?

From 1876ish until the mid-1930s-ish, the Japanese Industrial Revolution was underway, their economy was expanding because they were able to take advantage of the West's already-established expertise. The Japanese Industrial Revolution took, arguably, half the time of the West's Industrial revolution, because following a path is easier than blazing it in the first place. From about 1920 on, the Japanese were on par with the West, and were advancing at such a pace that the Western powers were wary. Indeed, the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty included provisions should Japanese naval technology exceed that of the United States and the UK.

In the 1930s and 1940s, two little events slowed down the pace of Japanese progress further, the Sino-Japanese War and World War II. In the postwar decade, Japan's economy boomed again, but only because of the massive amount of reconstruction that was required after the devastation.

Even losing money, Shinkansen infrastructure has saved the Japanese immeasurable amounts of money that they would have lost had they invested in highways or airports. The denser-packed a region becomes, the more economically viable rail service becomes.

Hey, if I'm going to have to cite my own sources, I demand others do the same. I do enough educating of the uninformed on this site without having to do your own research for you.

In many countries, the rails are shared by both freight and passenger systems, defraying some of their costs. Rolling stock is not nearly that back-breaking an expense. Power systems are often taken straight from the main grid and only transformed in small ways. Rail stations can get utility by having multiuse buildings. In Milwaukee, the main Amtrak station is also the hub for the municipal bus system, as well as the Greyhound station.

I will give you that the electricity prices in Europe are higher, but is it REALLY that bad to have to air-dry your clothing? Is it that big an inconvenience? Hell, I had planned to install a system in my apartment to be able to save on drying many of my clothes. Once I put it in, I will only be drying my jeans and bedclothes. Everything else will be air-dried, saving me close to half of my monthly laundry expense.

Rail proponents aren't the only one who hide costs to suit their own goals, as you just proved. Gasoline in Japan is much more costlier than in the United States, hence why the Japanese tendency towards smaller-engined vehicles. Furthermore, Japan has a bit of a protectionist streak when it comes to vehicle importation. I believe you are mistaking practicality for inability to afford the vehicles.

Wow, as they say in the South, bless your heart.

The United States has the longest rail network of any country, over 220K kilometers of track, for an average of under 1400 people per kilometer of track. Japan has 23K kilometers of track, for an average of almost 5500 Japanese per kilometer of track, making our rail network in the United States larger by far in both length and on a comparison scale based on population.

The vast majority of the rail network in the United States is owned and operated by the freight railroad common carriers for the sole purpose of freight operations. Very few miles of trackage within the United States are owned by companies with a focus on passenger operations.

If you compare higher density regions of the United States to areas in Europe or Asia with similar density, you will see a higher usage of rail-based mass transit. Railroads, for example, only require, on average ten feet of width for its right of way for a single track, while a comparable road would require at least a twenty-five foot width. The United States took to the air much more rapidly, thanks to the expansive open spaces you cited, which afforded us ample space to build the numerous airports we have. Our greater distances between major cities also diminishes the profitability of rail routes when compared with air routes between the same two cities.

Furthermore, the land in the Midwest is not "empty", much of it is devoted to farmland, which is a significant contributor to the American economy, and is a major driving force behind how we achieved such a stature on the world stage.

Good for you, you aren't living in a city that was founded thousands of years ago....

First off, I was referring to a commercial air-conditioning system, which makes any single-family residential AC system look as complex as a Japanese folding fan...

Second off, there is more utility in having an air-conditioning system in a place like Ohio, because the warm season in Ohio is considerably longer than that of much of Europe.

Third off, your insinuations that Europeans aren't able to afford things like this are getting quite old, quite ridiculous, and frankly, making you seem quite uninformed.

 

Then move if you hate it here, simple huh?

 

True democracy? Does that mean if the population decides to rape women and behead homosexuals, you are ok with that? Because that is what true democracy would be. (oops, I perfectly described islamic countries)

I can not for the life of me understand anyone so upset and hateful of the United States, why would you want to stay here?

 

I suspect the average European would love to have the amenities of the average American.

 

Ahh, a simple solution...bless your heart for what would we be without such simplicity here? Oh, that's right, a forum where the complexity of issues is understood.

Then again "Durr, If you don't love 'Murica, get out of 'Murica" is the rallying cry of a person too naive to realize the shortcomings of the document to which he worships.

See, I was born and raised here, and if I were to leave the country of my birth, I would see it taken over by idiots. I would sooner lick the nuts of a pissed-off bull than leave my homeland to a bunch of festering buffoons.

I have every right to criticize my government as guaranteed to me in the Bill of Rights.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you can't figure out that I do not hate this country, but wish it to be a better system of governance. Thomas Jefferson, one of my personal heroes, believed that not only should criticism of government never cease, but that such criticism was an essential part of bettering the government.

In fact, Jefferson said that each generation should determine the laws for themselves in a letter to Madison.

 

Yeah, I'm sure you support the Tea Party's right of expression. Most of you liberals call them terrorists.

Yep you have the absolute right to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) all you want, and I personally wouldn't want to waste my life in such torment. Please do me a favor and not move to Idaho, I'm just looking out for your safety.

You should run for office if you want to make those changes, just look how Obama has (*)(*)(*)(*)ed it up in such a short time. The truth is, you will be dust in the wind, and America will persevere as a capitalist society and stay a representative republic.

 

That's your...fourth? mistake....look at the siggy, chump... I'm a centrist. Thanks for trying, we have some wonderful consolation prizes for you, though.

For all the morons in the Tea Party, I'd love to see the Tea Party become big enough to split off from the GOP, then the American public would realize just how inequitable the system is.

Wouldn't want to live in Idaho, I'm not much for potatoes or bullsh*t.

A system such as ours cannot be changed from within, only from without. I'd never run for office under the current Constitution anyway, as a third-party candidate, I'd stand little chance of succeeding, and even if I did, the establishment would shout me down as a heretical blasphemer.

 

No you would lose because the vast majority of Americans love our nation and your ideological differences would be harshly rejected, but I'm sure you already know that. So keep huffing and puffing because you will never blow our house down. At least you can come to this forum and bounce that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on these pages to incite a reaction

 

You know nothing of my ideology. I support every principle within the Constitution, and wish only, that it be modernized in a more democratic way. Calling me un-American is, in fact, an ad hominem statement ignorant of the teachings of Jefferson.

Most people in this country can't understand my position because just the notion of "Hey, maybe we should revise the Constitution, it was written over two centuries ago and it's lost most of its former international prestige, not to mention the overly broad language was meant for a government that was much smaller than our current one" automatically has been conditioned to mean that I want to overthrow the government and install some sort of Islamic Marxist state. When, in fact, I seek only to take the principles as they have been instilled within the Constitution as well as the entire body of American jurisprudence and legislation and incorporate them into a document that is as modern today as the original document was in 1787.

Being too readily married to a document will not end well, we, as Americans should be wed to the principles of the Constitution, not to the text on the parchment. Text on a parchment fades with time, as does the meaning with which the ink was applied to said parchment. Ideally, when, in the 1950s, people began noticing that the text of the Constitution was fading, instead of spending all the money to preserve the document, we, as a nation, should have said, "the words are fading, that is a signal that the Constitution itself is saying it is getting tired and needs to be revitalized." If we are to trace over the text of the Constitution to preserve it for future generations, we would do them a great disservice if we did not pay as much scrutiny, if not more, to the words as they were first penned.

The fact stands that the United States Constitution has fallen in international prominence in the past sixty-six years. From 1787 to 1947, the document the Framers produced at the Miracle in Philadelphia was the single-most influential document for the democratization of the world. In 1947, India became the last country to largely use the United States Constitution as a framework for a national basic law. Since then, other documents have been used more frequently than our own. Quite a shame, considering that in that same sixty-six years, we've fought at least eight wars in an attempt to instill democracy.

 

The Chicago Boys began their violent and bloody free market experiment in South America and they did not seem too concerned about tyranny or authoritarianism for all of their talk of "freedom" and "liberty" until there was nothing left to privatize/deregulate. Imagine if they were controlling America in the 1970s...the entire country would be a third-world hellhole instead of 2/3 of it. But yeah I get it, re-ghoul-ation is all evil no matter what and the government should never get involved in stuff that is the proper domain of the private sector, like public utilities, roads, and prisons. In fact, it's an outrage if those ideas are even intimated.

 

Socialism is an economic term and is just one of the 12 possible ways an economy can function.

But Feminism is the force behind a socialistic movement, a cultural change, which then gives momentum to the politically forces to change the economy into a socialistic system of distribution of goods and service.
The Feminism expresses a demand for fairness and care of the people which is really an expression of the maternal instinct.

But, the strong belief of feminists, (that money grows on trees), requires that other peoples' money be taken and used in this process.
At some point there must appear a strong man, a father figure (long absent from this society), who puts his foot down because of the irrational and ultimately impossible fulfillment of the demands for a utopia, as if the society is one big family.

 

Just not true. The investment into roads and highways has drastically increased, while use of rail has fallen. And it's fallen in absolute terms. The population of Japan has shrunk, while the number of those owning and driving automobiles has increased.

Sorry. I would have assumed that a supporter of rail already knew that, because it's common knowledge. Even the Rail Passenger Association of California & Nevada, admits this openly.
http://www.railpac.org/2013/10/12/how-to-operate-passenger-trains-at-a-profit/

You'll find that buried about 5 paragraphs down the page. Of course they deny that is important.
Of course they falsely claim that most passenger rail is operated profitably, which is a joke.

Well of course they are. But the Bus system is also subsidized, and that includes greyhound. You are looking at a multi-use building, as dividing up the cost, when all three of the uses, are government subsidized.
http://www.greyhound.com/en/newsroom/viewrelease.aspx?id=529&year=2013
Greyhound themselves, showed that their own subsidies for intra-state travel, was lower than rail subsidies.
http://bobmccarty.com/2010/03/08/stimulus-dollars-buy-greyhound-buses-in-missouri/
Bob McCarty found that about a million dollars of Obama's Stimulus money went to buy Greyhound two buses for it's fleet.

As for passenger and freight sharing the same rails, my understanding is that this is not very common. Some rails will ship freight during the night when passenger trains are not running, but I haven't seen much to show that there is extensive common use. Do you have anything to support that claim?

It's not a matter of "bad" or "good". It's a matter of ability. Does your standard of living allow you the ability to choose? In the UK, the answer is no. Bad or good, they simply don't have the option.

I read story of a military wife, who moved to the UK, and paid to have a standard American drier shipped to the UK, and paid to have a 110 Volt outlet installed, simply so she didn't have to spend the entire day doing laundry. Of course the American soldiers were paid enough, and were exempt from UK insane taxes, so that they could afford the electricity.

The average UK citizen.... can't. Not bad or good... Can't. Lower standard of living.

The cost of oil is the same across countries. What makes the difference is taxes.

The current price in the UK, is about (roughly) 132.9pence per liter. That's about 505p for a US gallon, which is, $8.14 a gallon.

However, out of that $8.14, about $4.92 is all taxes. Without all those taxes, the price would actually be around $3.22 a gallon, fairly close to what it is here.
http://www.petrolprices.com/the-price-of-fuel.html

To my point. Yes, practicality drives people in Europe to drive tiny midget cars, with itty bitty weed whacker engines. But that practicality is driven by higher costing energy, which is driven by higher costly taxes, which is driven by expensive socialistic policies and programs that require more money.

The cost of government, is passed on to energy, which is passed on to consumers, which forces people to buy less. Those people in the UK would love to buy a really good American sized car. We know that, because when they come here, they do. But they can't. Because of socialism, their standard of living is lower. They can't afford an American car.

Thanks. You made my whole point. We are not subsidizing trillions of dollars for passenger rail, like the UK does, like Europe does, like Japan does. Thus our taxes are not as high as all of those places, thus even a guy like me, who earns $20K a year at best, can own a luxury Grand Marquis. That's how that works.

If we had to pay for all the infrastructure, and government programs, that Europeans do, and because of that we had the taxes on fuel, that Europeans do, and the cost of Gasoline was $8+ a gallon like it is in the UK..... then I would be unable to afford my Grand Marquis. I would be driving some crappy Geo Metro 3-cylindar 50 MPG car, just like the Europeans do. I would have no choice. I would have a lower standard of living.

Population wise, it's empty. Most have less than 50 people per sq mile. And to add to my prior correct point, Alaska has only 1 person per sq mile, and it's the size of half the mainland.

Yes, of course in areas of much higher density, there is much higher usage. That doesn't change the fact that very few run profitably, and ZERO of them pay for the multiple billions in capital costs.

You know, I was there in the summer. Walking around Europe in the heat. It was *HOT*. As in.... *HOT*. Meaning.... *HOT*. I've talked to the people there, who lived there. I was living there. I know people moved out of Europe, and talked to them. I have people I know that live there NOW.

I've been in the house in Europe, watching them spray themselves with water, drentched in sweat, with fans blowing on them from every angle.

Where people get this idea that Europe is 70 degrees year round, is beyond me. I just don't get that idea. It most certainly isn't true.

http://krisc.hubpages.com/hub/The-difference-between-European-flats-and-American-apartments
A nice blog from an American that lived throughout Europe, basically saying everything I just said. Additionally some comments from Europeans, echoing the same.

I can't help it if you are too ignorant to talk about this subject.

 

Don't forget the PIIGS, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain all of which are the tip of the failing iceberg, which is Western Europe.

 

You know... I never thought of that....

It reminds me of the days when most women did not work, and got money from their working husbands, and spent it like it was free.

So now we have a government that gets tax payer money without working for it, stolen from the working public, and spends it all like it is free.

I'll have to think about that some more.

 

Just another completely unsupportable mishmash of claims, wrapped up in socialist propaganda.

You failed to contradict, or even address a single claim I made. Nor are you on the topic of the thread. Nor does your post even make a substantial point itself.

Thanks for stopping by. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

Not true, your ideology is quite revealing, you have read a great deal of history, and cherry picked the issue of socialism to fit your narrative, but the fact remains, you are all hat and no cattle. Because if you really believed what you espouse, you would try and change it, and not pontificate on this forum as if you think it will change anything. There are some really intelligent people on this planet, and if your ideology had the merit you claim it does, then changes would occur, and that ain't happening anytime soon.

 

Thanks for the real information and by it confirming that Mr. Gerry's remarks are still on the mark even if his intent was not.