|
|
Post by Higgs on Apr 24, 2016 17:21:40 GMT
It's like our rail system, once British Rail, now in private hands, it is not affordable without state subsidy. The private sector is skimming money off the tax payer and also paying its dividends out to shareholders. And, its customers are no longer stakeholders. Not quite... I believe the infrastructure is publicly owned and operated and the train operating companies are privately owned and pay for a franchise and need to meet reliability targets in return. Not ideal I know but how far do you take it?
Network Rail is the public side that controls the infrastructure. They get the subsidy that keeps the private operators' bill to Network Rail down. The subsidy to the private operators is indirect, but it counts in lower bills for the private companies. In the past it has been worth a saving of something like £240 million to Virgin Rail, in a year. (towards the upkeep of the track it uses).
And Virgin still pays a massive amount out to its shareholders. Beat that, for an example of eating your cake and having it.
Network Rail have targets to meet, and the franchised companies want the infrastructure. Modernisation has to be paid for. If it benefits the rail outfits, there's no reason to think they shouldn't also pay for the modernisation. The rail outfits want faster and more modern trains that the old infrastructure would be hard pressed to accommodate. There's no problem if the rail companies pay the full wack, but it would increase the rail fares.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Apr 24, 2016 17:41:27 GMT
"America, and the world would be much better places without people like your friend." (said PaulG2) I disagree - she's a very nice person, I have seen her charitable side and have an understanding of her views. I have probably written it all down wrong, or you are one of those people who just like to interprete things to fit your way of thinking and see a loose thread and give it a tug so you can unravel the mat. I agree with her 'mainly Capitalist' (and realistic) bent - and I have tried to temper it with my appreciation of 'Socialist' values. A couple of simple issues: 1. I have told her about what an amazing railway system 'socialist' Europe has. The USA is way down in the prehistoric swamp as far as decent public transport is concerned (railways, anyway). Yes, I've heard the stuff about railways not being economically viable as everyone lives so far apart in the USA. She has heard from me what I think of 'socialist' concepts such as a National Health system, sewerage and clean water for all, etc. 2. She did once say, in a rhetorical thought: "Why should I pay for others' kids' education? But, then, if I didn't, and everyone was uneducated, what kind of a place would this be?" Yes, she knows what taxes are supposed to be for. In her opinion, and mine, they are not so people can get loans so they can buy flashy cars with furry dice and 'bling' all over the place and then go crying to the Government when they ain't got the money to pay up. I am all for 'Socialist Values' to a certain level - a good basic standard for all - but for those who want Furry Dice, fuck off and buy your own. First off, let me say that I read a lot of your posts and I usually concur with general philosophy about many things. I'm not having a go at you here, I just don't think you understand the political realities here. Your friend may very well be a nice person to hang with, but that doesn't mean that her politics don't suck. The lines that she repeated to you about how people foolishly squandered their refi money is straight from Rush Limbaugh and right-wing hate radio. It is meant to further discredit all liberals in the minds of the rabid right wing. Right wingers need someone to hate, the right-wing propaganda machine provides that for them. A few facts about the refi settlements: Whilst is was a government mandated program that forced recalcitrant lenders to modify their loans, the actual "real money" involved (e.g. loan principle reduction) came from the fines that financial institutions had to pay for misleading and fraudulent loan practices with their borrowers. The bailout of the financial sector, to the tune of about $850 Billion, was enacted during the George W. Bush republican administration. The Obama administration did encourage the Federal Reserve Bank's policy of "Quantitative Easing", wherein the Fed printed about $16 Trillion and loaned it to the financial sector interest free. Those "Titans of Industry" and "Financial Wizards" managed to turn substantial profits on that free $16 Trillion, as could just about any moderately domesticated chimpanzee. Republicans were the primary legislative sponsors of this gift to the 1%. Wages for the vast majority of republican voters have been in decline for the last 30 years, and yet, republicans reliably vote for politicians that are beholden to the oligarchs. The whole fluffy-dice/bling thing is more urban legend than anything else. Sure, there were some eejits that were using their homes like a credit card, but those people were by no means a majority of borrowers. The vast majority of those people who refinanced their homes, initially did so because interest rates were dropping and it made sense to refinance. What happened, though, is that unscrupulous lenders convinced borrowers to pay off their credit cards and other high interest debt and roll it on into the house refinance. The rest is history. With cheap money and easy credit, refinancing became a craze. However, at no time did the government just bail out people who had over extended themselves. The problem with your friend is that people like her tend to view almost any social program that does not directly benefit them as a waste of taxpayer money. People like her a happy to use the socialist roads, and they love those socialist crop subsidies. But try to give a single mother a helping hand and all you'll get from them is a lecture on how abstinence would have prevented being a single mom. I can't explain the whole right-wing psych, but I assure that, if you were to really climb inside your friend's head, you would find that she is coming from a very dark place. |
|
|
|
Post by ammodels on Apr 24, 2016 17:57:11 GMT
Does calling people Flag waving pickaninnies make him racist? Hm - two days since the post and eight years since the inappropriate comment. Are you trolling the archives to find something to argue about? Can you find a way to make his equally inappropriate Liverpool comment a racist comment too? Liverpool isnt a race Bill do keep up, its a city. How about him saying africans had watermelon smiles? Do you think he has changed in that time or just got better at PR, luvable buffoon type PR. |
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Apr 24, 2016 18:43:45 GMT
My friend in the USA is angry about the relief for those who took 2nd-mortgages and blew it on fancy cars and luxury goods a few years back. When the crunch came and it was time for them to get kicked out of their houses - as they should have been - the Government stepped in and paid up. Well, the money that was used was from the taxes that hard-working people (my friend, for instance) who DIDN'T hock their dwelling to buy glittery bling-endowed flashy wheels. The conscientious earners supporting the laid-back lifestyle of the squanderers. As far as I know the govt didn't bail out individuals like that, just the institutions. Here's a link that's worth a look for your friend, regarding the $180B bailout of AIG: hbr.org/2009/11/aig-the-secret-bailoutNow if the bailed out institutions were performing proper risk management, these 100%+ or 'NINJA' type mortgages would never have been offered in the first place.  |
|
