BF2S Forums Big government, do we need it? [USA]

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Maybe our airlines coulda been in better shape and prepared for days like 911 if our airlines were already being sponsored by our govt. in the first place. Like Air Lingus! Sorry Cam, one of the top feeders of the food chain in an economy is the airlines, becasue the airlines require so many support companies and sub-contractors that if the airline Industry collapsed it could wipe out an economy. Also lets not forget the major manufacturers and the the companies that do business  with them and how they would be affected, trickling all the way down to the little shop owners closing businesses because no one has money to spend. Sorry Cam, loosing an entire transportation system in America is not the same as closing a Wal-Mart store, regardless as how hard you try to paint it as such.

It wouldn't wipe out the economy. You guys take far bigger hits from downsizing in the manufacturing sector (most likely from relocating to more profitable locations worldwide) year after year that the airline industry consititutes a drop in the ocean. You imply that the entire industry would hit the deck which is ludicrous: there would have been a dip followed by a rebound and, as in Europe, probably a maximum of about one or two airlines would have bit the dust: not every last one as you seem to imply and upon which the basis of your argument relies.

lowing wrote:

The victims of Katrina have long rebuilt their lives Cam, tell me the difference between a flood in the midwest and a flood in N.O. to an individual.

It is literally impossible to rebuild your life to the same level as one had built it to before in the space of three years when an 'act of god' washed away several decades of your toil and hard work. IMPOSSIBLE. If it was possible then I'd advise the US government to preiodically flood cities to improve productivity!!!!! For me people like this should be rewarded by their fellow countrymen for their endeavours and have it seen to that they are placed back where their toil and effort got them in the first place.

PS Are you seriously likening a flood in the midwest to the inundation of a city built in a subsea-level trough? Are you seriously saying the damage to road, power and water infrastructure would be the same in both cases???????

lowing wrote:

I can not think of a time (other than Katrina and only N.O.) where the taxpayers were EXPECTED to cover the bills of life for a victim for over 3 years, can you?

The taxpayers are expected to cover the bills of life - or should I say, cover a helping hand in the productiveness enablement process - for many people lowing as you well know - and that's without disasters. 

lowing wrote:

I am not now, or ever have talked, bout the people that had shit in N.O. and left it behind in order to save their lives. I am talking about the "VICTIMS" that stayed behind for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the chaos and empty streets. I think you know that though, you just refuse to acknowledge it because these leeches and tics and their behavior and gimme gimme gimme attitude, is indefensible. Even by you........Well, probably not by you.

There are people who did have nothing and who are trying to cheat the system. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about who I was referring to in my posts, the infrastructure for whose businesses has been ravaged seemingly never to be restored.

1. Uhhhhh, yeah Cam, an nation the size of the US with NO major airlines will be devestated by that void. You simply do not understand or appreciate the magnitude the airline industry affects an economy, especially when that economy is all of a sudden void of that industry. It would have global affects

2. It is called insurance Cam, get some, ya might need it some day. OS why are we night cutting checks for a decadew of free living to everyone whoes house burns down?

3. So tell me what is "productive" IN GIVING FREE MONEY AND FREE HOUSING to people who are making no efforts to anything except extend the handouts with their sob stories?

4. I guess you fail to understand that, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE I AM TALKING ABOUT. Or are you honestly implying that a middle class family who lost their house, just can not get on their feet after 3 years AND COUNTING of free aid? That is udder bullshit. Anyone with marketable skills has long moved on, and if they were smart moved out of that shit hole and leech field called N. O. ( and that is as good as it was before the hurricane)

usmarine2005 wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are trying to critize the US govt. for bailing out ALL the airlines

Has he said that?  I am not reading all 7 pages.  But if he did say that, he is beyond incorrect.  Now sure some of the big guys have been bailed out, but that is a good thing in a way.  Think of the jobs that would be lost if they let Delta or Northwest collapse.  Now in fairness, the airlines did that to themselves, but it does not compare to the support euro airlines get.

Now I could be wrong, but back in the 90's I believe Quantas was owned by the government.  I believe they sold it to the airline in the early 90's.  Not sure if they still get government help.

Even Air Canada got help after 9/11.

Also, last time I checked Emirates was completely owned by the government.  That may have changed, but I am not sure.

The domestic service - Australian Airlines, was sold to Qantas in 92, next year the whole airline was privatised.

As you're in the airline business you probably know more than I do though. Doubt they get government help, but there are strict laws regarding foreign ownership.

Spark wrote:

2. It is called insurance Cam, get some, ya might need it some day. OS why are we night cutting checks for a decadew of free living to everyone whoes house burns down?

You do know that no insurer covers flood? Right?

Ever hear of flood insurance? If you were smart you would own some if you lived below sea level next to the fuckin' ocean.

Spark wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are trying to critize the US govt. for bailing out ALL the airlines

Has he said that?  I am not reading all 7 pages.  But if he did say that, he is beyond incorrect.  Now sure some of the big guys have been bailed out, but that is a good thing in a way.  Think of the jobs that would be lost if they let Delta or Northwest collapse.  Now in fairness, the airlines did that to themselves, but it does not compare to the support euro airlines get.

Now I could be wrong, but back in the 90's I believe Quantas was owned by the government.  I believe they sold it to the airline in the early 90's.  Not sure if they still get government help.

Even Air Canada got help after 9/11.

Also, last time I checked Emirates was completely owned by the government.  That may have changed, but I am not sure.

The domestic service - Australian Airlines, was sold to Qantas in 92, next year the whole airline was privatised.

As you're in the airline business you probably know more than I do though. Doubt they get government help, but there are strict laws regarding foreign ownership.

A foreign owner can not own more that 50% of a US airline. THere are no govt. subsadises usually with US carriers. Who do you think we are Europe?

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-17 15:44:09)

lowing wrote:

1. The Europ airlines weathered the storm because the Euro govts. were ALREADY dumoping money into their national carriers. US airlines were deregualted almost 30 years ago, yo guys are just now getting around to it. I also do not think you know how massive even 1 major carrier is and its impact on an economy Cam. P{lease stop talking about govt bail outs of airlines when European carriers are and HAVE BEEN in the hip pockets of their govts.

You just don't get it do you? Subsidisation of airlines in the EU: ILLEGAL. Part ownership of something does not entail dumping money into it - you just siphon off some of the profits - to dump money into it under EU law would be ILLEGAL (as clarified umpteen times) because to do so would harm private operators such as the hugely successful Ryanair. The operation is just like any other business - you need to earn profits to continue to function. Why can you not understand these incredibly simple concepts? Why didn't Ryanair go under (wholly private)? Why didn't Easyjet go under (wholly private)? Why didn't Cityjet go under (wholly private)? Why didn't one of the behemoths - Lufthansa - go under (wholly private as far as I can tell, surprisingly)? Do you need many more examples?

lowing wrote:

2. Show me. It is called flood insurance.

If you buy a Ferrari they generally only insure it if you keep it in a secure garage and guarantee you will store it there. You pay far more for less secure storage/patterns of use. There are many types of flood insurance and many types of clauses. A reasonable person would have gone for a cheaper option on insurance that expected the levees to hold through trust in their benevolent and efficient central government. Insurance also generally recompenses someone with the money to repair their property, etc. What's the point when lowing et al have ditched New Orleans and left it for dead? Where's the 'Let's rebuild New Orleans!' American fervour that came spewing out of the governments mouth the weeks and months after Katrina? Anyone who did get compensation will have to go back to square one: start-up business in a town where the services they provide have probably long existed. How does insurance recompense you for that?

lowing wrote:

3. Cam, I have never ever talked about ignoring anyones needs that contribute to a society and damn well know it. I am now and have always talked about the leeches and tics of a society, and you damn well know that. S ostart acknowledging it. Or is it too hard to defend a leech or tic of a society so you just ignore what is posted about them and claim I am talking about everyone?

Well you are here and now telling me that, 3 years on, the good men who built New Orleans can go fuck themselves even though they're probably a shadow of their former selves. It's a case of 'Thanks but tough shit'. And on the other hand you're like 'throw as much money as we can at the airlines - they're paramount to the well-being of the country as a whole!!!!' despite the fact that most of them shed thousands of jobs anyway despite your measures?

lowing wrote:

4. We have social programs in place Cam for temporary assistance......T.E.M.P.O.R.A.R.Y.  a decade of welfare is a life style Cam, it isn't a helping hand. and again see item 3. I have not ignore your points Cam, I just do not agree with the

You do not agree with the fact that decentralised government, where states have more tax money to play with and more options as regards what to do with it, will do as good/efficient a job or better when it comes to job protection of the 'subsidy' type you speak of than a gigantic bureaucracy-rich central government largely ignorant of very local issues (e.g., unemployment blackspots such as Flint, Michigan)? That seems rather odd.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-17 16:22:22)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. The Europ airlines weathered the storm because the Euro govts. were ALREADY dumping money into their national carriers. US airlines were deregulated almost 30 years ago, yo guys are just now getting around to it. I also do not think you know how massive even 1 major carrier is and its impact on an economy Cam. P{lease stop talking about govt bail outs of airlines when European carriers are and HAVE BEEN in the hip pockets of their govts.

You just don't get it do you? Subsidisation of airlines in the EU: ILLEGAL. Part ownership of something does not entail dumping money into it - you just siphon off some of the profits - to dump money into it under EU law would be ILLEGAL (as clarified umpteen times) because to do so would harm private operators such as the hugely successful Ryanair. The operation is just like any other business - you need to earn profits to continue to function. Why can you not understand these incredibly simple concepts? Why didn't Ryanair go under (wholly private)? Why didn't Easyjet go under (wholly private)? Why didn't Cityjet go under (wholly private)? Why didn't one of the behemoths - Lufthansa - go under (wholly private as far as I can tell, surprisingly)? Do you need many more examples?

lowing wrote:

2. Show me. It is called flood insurance.

If you buy a Ferrari they generally only insure it if you keep it in a secure garage and guarantee you will store it there. There are many types of flood insurance and many types of clauses. A reasonable person would have gone for a cheaper option on insurance that expected the levees to hold through trust in their benevolent and efficient central government. Insurance also generally recompenses someone with the money to repair their property, etc. What's the point when lowing et al have ditched New Orleans and left it for dead? Where's the 'Let's rebuild New Orleans!' American fervour that came spewing out of the governments mouth the weeks and months after Katrina? Anyone who did get compensation will have to go back to square one: start-up business in a town where the services they provide have probably long existed. How does insurance recompense you for that?

lowing wrote:

3. Cam, I have never ever talked about ignoring anyones needs that contribute to a society and damn well know it. I am now and have always talked about the leeches and tics of a society, and you damn well know that. S ostart acknowledging it. Or is it too hard to defend a leech or tic of a society so you just ignore what is posted about them and claim I am talking about everyone?

Well you are here and now telling me that, 3 years on, the good men who built New Orleans can go fuck themselves even though they're probably a shadow of their former selves. It's a case of 'Thanks but tough shit'. And on the other hand you're like 'throw as much money as we can at the airlines - they're paramount to the well-being of the country as a whole!!!!' despite the fact that most of them shed thousands of jobs anyway despite your measures?

lowing wrote:

4. We have social programs in place Cam for temporary assistance......T.E.M.P.O.R.A.R.Y.  a decade of welfare is a life style Cam, it isn't a helping hand. and again see item 3. I have not ignore your points Cam, I just do not agree with the

You do not agree with the fact that decentralised government where states have more tax money to play with and more options as regards what to do with it will do as good/efficient a job or better when it comes to job protection of the 'subsidy' type you speak of than a gigantic bureaucracy-rich central government largely ignorant of very local issues (e.g., unemployment blackspots such as Flint, Michigan)? That seems rather odd.

Ok Cam, you are right, you can not subsidize something you are a part owner in, then it is called investing, but the bottom line is European airlines are operated in part from GOVT. money. If you wanna call it investing or subsisting it is the same damn thing. YOUR GOVT.DUMPS (invests) money into THEIR airlines. get over yourself with your nit picky attempts to debunk the fact that European GOVTS. INSURE the survival of its national carriers and that it is shameful for the US govt. do essentially d othe same fuckin thing, insuring the survival of our nations transportation system.

2. Florida gets hit by fuckin hurricanes 4 times a fuckin year, guess we need open our check books to everyone that wants to take advantage of that fact.

3. Sorry, I stopped reading when I read, " the good men of New Orleans", because of the tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.  Ok now that I have dried my eyes.........Let me turn the tables on you a bit, why are you endorsing more state control and weaker federal control yet sit there and type that the feds need to rebuild N. O. and not the state of Louisiana? Why are you telling me it should be the feds job to support all of the dead beats and not the states?

I never said the govt. is throwing money at the airlines, I said they gave the airlines money after 911. It is not a common practice like it is in Europe. I sorry I mean invest. If you want to look at it this way you can: The govt. INVESTED into its nations transportation system in hopes of getting a dividend of a viable intact transportation system. JUST LIKE EUROPE, except we don't continue the payouts.

50 strong govts all pulling in different directions with their state agendas as top priority is not better than 1 govt. running the show.

How can you look at our 2 party system, a republican administration and a democrat congress and tell me that 50 govts will get along and work together when 2 can not!! Get real.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok Cam, you are right, you can not subsidize something you are a part owner in, then it is called investing, but the bottom line is European airlines are operated in part from GOVT. money. If you wanna call it investing or subsisting it is the same damn thing. YOUR GOVT.DUMPS (invests) money into THEIR airlines. get over yourself with your nit picky attempts to debunk the fact that European GOVTS. INSURE the survival of its national carriers and that it is shameful for the US govt. do essentially d othe same fuckin thing, insuring the survival of our nations transportation system.

Lowing. It started out way back when that they owned the airlines. Deregulation came in and all states must necessarily divest as much of what they once owned to private companies. The share that governments once had in airlines is continuously SHRINKING. They CANNOT ENSURE THE SURVIVAL OF THE AIRLINE. If it does not make a profit for too long a period of time - IT GOES UNDER, END OF STORY. Subsidies are not allowed so IT GOES UNDER. How can it be so hard to understand????? The government have no role in the performance of the company, especially since most don't have enough of a stake nowadays to make any kind of decision at board level!!!!

lowing wrote:

2. Florida gets hit by fuckin hurricanes 4 times a fuckin year, guess we need open our check books to everyone that wants to take advantage of that fact.

I'm pretty sure most Floridians expect 4 hurricanes a year. I'm pretty sure most New Orleans folk thought their government funded and looked after levees would do the job the government said they would do.

lowing wrote:

3. Sorry, I stopped reading when I read, " the good men of New Orleans", because of the tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.  Ok now that I have dried my eyes.........Let me turn the tables on you a bit, why are you endorsing more state control and weaker federal control yet sit there and type that the feds need to rebuild N. O. and not the state of Louisiana? Why are you telling me it should be the feds job to support all of the dead beats and not the states?

Natural disasters can be handled by a state but this is an instance where you're correct the federal goverment would be more adept at dealing with (as one would need to draw on the help of all American brethren to overcome). Given the low frequency of natural disasters of such a magnitude I hardly think it will necessitate iron-fisted rule of the nation from the Washington Kremlin. It would be one of the small roles the stripped down federal government would be tasked with - same thing happens in Europe. EU funds are 'made available' when say half of Greece burns to a cinder in forest fires.

lowing wrote:

I never said the govt. is throwing money at the airlines, I said they gave the airlines money after 911. It is not a common practice like it is in Europe. I sorry I mean invest. If you want to look at it this way you can: The govt. INVESTED into its nations transportation system in hopes of getting a dividend of a viable intact transportation system. JUST LIKE EUROPE, except we don't continue the payouts.

50 strong govts all pulling in different directions with their state agendas as top priority is not better than 1 govt. running the show.

How can you look at our 2 party system, a republican administration and a democrat congress and tell me that 50 govts will get along and work together when 2 can not!! Get real.

a) It works just fine in Europe.

b) Heavily centralised government stamps all over diversity of opinion. You're '50 states pulling in different directions' diatribe sounds like 'It's my way or the highway and you can like it or lump it!!' - very 'Moscow'! Basically your system allows for no diversity of opinion or any kind of balance. Two parties - one way or the other way. Only two ways. Life AIN'T THAT SIMPLIFIED. Over here we have things like proportional representation and multi-party government - compromises have to be hammered out - you know: democratic representative government... These days you have government that is representative of about 50% of the nation!

[aside] It is approaching / well past my beddy-byes time.

1. France will never let Air France die, Iraland will never let Air Lingus die, Holland will never let KLM die, Germany will never let Luftanza die, Australia will never let Quantas die.

Why is Katrina a national disaster worthy of FEDERAL govt. aid, and 911 was not?

Please do not tell me how great European govts work well together, not unitl the WW2 veterans at least all die out. You fail to add the reality of greed and corruption into the mix of your perfect 50 govt. society.

NOt sure where you get the notion that centralized govt. stamps out diversity. the US with its centalized govt. INVENTED the diverse society. Europe is simply playing catch up with this idea.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. France will never let Air France die, Iraland will never let Air Lingus die, Holland will never let KLM die, Germany will never let Luftanza die, Australia will never let Quantas die.
Why is Katrina a national disaster worthy of FEDERAL govt. aid, and 911 was not?

As to the first point: untrue. The Irish people would not stand for the government haemorraging money through an airline that has trouble competing in a free market. That government would fall faster than the speed of light. It would be a case of 'Goodbye Aer Lingus'.

As to the federal aid - I never said I had a problem with federal aid, I was concerned about your selective attitude towards who deserves (your inconsistency so to speak). Commiserations on your airlines dumping upwards of 10,000 jobs in 2005 I must add.

lowing wrote:

Please do not tell me how great European govts work well together, not unitl the WW2 veterans at least all die out. You fail to add the reality of greed and corruption into the mix of your perfect 50 govt. society.

Afraid not lowing I'm tellin you now and YOU can like it or lump it. Europeans are trading freely, people and capital are moving freely and we're moving forward together freely. We have it just fine: enough independence to safeguard our own cultures and deal with our own highly specific local issues, enough of an affiliation with one another to help each other out and organise mutually beneficial, enough separation from one another to increase the competitiveness of Europe through internal drivers (member states competing with each other economically).

Having said all that, I will be voting no to the Lisbon Treaty because I want no further integration and no further dilution of my influence over those who govern me. Ireland is the only nation who can stop this from happening and by god I'll make sure I get as many No votes to the polls as possible when the time comes.

lowing wrote:

NOt sure where you get the notion that centralized govt. stamps out diversity. the US with its centalized govt. INVENTED the diverse society. Europe is simply playing catch up with this idea.

That is about as retarded a thing as I've ever heard you say. Concentrating MORE power in the hands of FEWER people is supposed to be representative of MORE people? I've heard it all now. I really have. In the US an 'in-between' view cannot be accommodated - there are only two views to choose from and those who are in the minority will not be effectively represented, in fact everything diametrically opposed to their desires is what probably awaits them out of congress.

To put this in context - the ruling Irish government is currently comprised of a coalition of three parties and a number of independent TDs (equivalent of congressman). Fianna Fáil (centre right), Progressive Democrats (right wing), Green Party (enviros) and the independents. That seems more representative than having the views of but one single party rule over all.

1. Great Cam, I will be curious to see how your countrymen react when their is no Aer Lingus around to help fly you off of that island. I was in the industry for a long time before getting caught uo in the very lay-offs you mentioned. There is nothing that pisses off the people than inconvinence and the price of a jacked up air fare when an airline industry does not have enough seats for the people who want them.

2. I sincerely hope you guys over there Do, do well, I do not want to see another American soldier die for the likes of one of you when we are called to help put out one of your inevitable fires.

3. The people are represented state by state Cam, as part of the federal govt. with our congress, on paper at least. but after all, all your high ideals about non-corrupt govts. and non-greedy power hungry politiams is also, only on paper. At least my argument is cloaked in the realms of reality.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I sincerely hope you guys over there Do, do well, I do not want to see another American soldier die for the likes of one of you when we are called to help put out one of your inevitable fires.

lol. Always living in the past. If anything, with the vitriolic, polarised, divisive, partisan politics currently at play in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if we had to militarily intervene to restore order in a few years! Of course, as a non-interventionist, I'll be arguing against...

LOL, intervene?! yeah,........that would be kinda cute wouldn't it??..........In a midget wrestling sorta way.

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-18 14:06:13)