but actual representative governance that follows the will of the people rather than leads/programs it.
So, does the opposite of following the vision of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, all of whom thought that the people needed to led?
but actual representative governance that follows the will of the people rather than leads/programs it.
Thought this was interesting. Fare evasion is skyrocketing in NYC costing the transit authority hundreds of millions of dollars each year. This is clearly linked with the DA's decision to no prosecute fare evaders because they don't want to "criminalize poverty".
This is an example of an extremely liberal state thinking with the heart instead of the brain. The transit authority can't sustain itself. Fare evaders are stealing from taxpayers. What's next? Is the DA's office going to not prosecute shoplifting because it "criminalizes poverty?"
Just to clarify, I would have no problem with discounted or reduced fares for the poor. Declining to prosecute a specific illegal activity just encourages more of it.
True, but does it need to be? Why can't the government franchise public transportation systems (when possible) to a private business? The reason the costs are so high is because it's a government run operation. From my understanding, the UK franchises out it's transportation systems. Also, with this, the Gov could still offer vouchers or discounted rides for poor users of public transportation.I'm not aware of any public transportation system that is not tax-payer subsidized. In NYC, something like less than half the expenses are covered by fares.
I agree that we don't want the legal system bogged down with a bunch of fare evaders. However, at least the threat of getting into trouble would have to encourage some to just pay the fee to ride.Would a concerted effort to prosecute the offenders cost more or less than just ignoring them? I honestly don't know.
True, but does it need to be? Why can't the government franchise public transportation systems (when possible) to a private business?
The reason the costs are so high is because it's a government run operation.
From my understanding, the UK franchises out it's transportation systems. Also, with this, the Gov could still offer vouchers or discounted rides for poor users of public transportation.
I agree that we don't want the legal system bogged down with a bunch of fare evaders. However, at least the threat of getting into trouble would have to encourage some to just pay the fee to ride.
I agree here, too. I don't where the curve hits the minimum expense value. Maybe it's at no enforcement, or sporadic enforcement, or complete crackdown.
Why is that? Uber and Lyft are completely disrupting the public transportation system and are extremely "usable". They also make money. I don't understand your hatred of capitalism.Because a truly usable pubic transportation system doesn't make money.
I work for a private CPA firm and my area of expertise is auditing government entities. I audit local municipalities, departments of transportation, etc. This is all I do. I realize everyone's perspective is different, but there is zero question in my mind that privately run and profit seeking entities, on average, are extremely more efficient than government entities. There is so much waste that I see it's frightening. It's a variety of factors, but the biggest is purely incentive. When the entity has incentive to make a profit, it's forced to try and be more efficient. When a private business is unable to be efficient, it closes it's doors (or gets bailed out by the government, lol). When the Federal Government fails to be efficient, it just raises taxes. If you need proof that the federal government is inefficient, just look at the Nation Debt. Each person's share of the Federal debt is about $67,000. No private business in history could do this much damage through inefficiency.I've worked for 2 different Fortune 500s, and they were not any more efficient than the government.
Why is that? Uber and Lyft are completely disrupting the public transportation system and are extremely "usable". They also make money. I don't understand your hatred of capitalism.
Why is that? Uber and Lyft are completely disrupting the public transportation system and are extremely "usable". They also make money. I don't understand your hatred of capitalism.
Why is that? Uber and Lyft are completely disrupting the public transportation system and are extremely "usable". They also make money. I don't understand your hatred of capitalism.
I work for a private CPA firm and my area of expertise is auditing government entities. I audit local municipalities, departments of transportation, etc. This is all I do. I realize everyone's perspective is different, but there is zero question in my mind that privately run and profit seeking entities, on average, are extremely more efficient than government entities. There is so much waste that I see it's frightening.
It's a variety of factors, but the biggest is purely incentive. When the entity has incentive to make a profit, it's forced to try and be more efficient. When a private business is unable to be efficient, it closes it's doors (or gets bailed out by the government, lol). When the Federal Government fails to be efficient, it just raises taxes. If you need proof that the federal government is inefficient, just look at the Nation Debt. Each person's share of the Federal debt is about $67,000. No private business in history could do this much damage through inefficiency.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but to pay for govt expenses, we borrow from the Fed at the prime interest rate, and that loan adds to the national debt. The Fed is composed of the nation's leading banks and some foreign banks who are creating the money out of nothing and loaning the worthless money to the government which increases the banks' assets. So overspending and waste is a good thing for the banks that comprise the Fed. And now we are so much in debt, we can never repay it. What then would happen if that debt was forgiven. If we didn't borrow could the govt continue to operate? So, help me out here and tell what I have wrong with this picture.Why is that? Uber and Lyft are completely disrupting the public transportation system and are extremely "usable". They also make money. I don't understand your hatred of capitalism.
I work for a private CPA firm and my area of expertise is auditing government entities. I audit local municipalities, departments of transportation, etc. This is all I do. I realize everyone's perspective is different, but there is zero question in my mind that privately run and profit seeking entities, on average, are extremely more efficient than government entities. There is so much waste that I see it's frightening. It's a variety of factors, but the biggest is purely incentive. When the entity has incentive to make a profit, it's forced to try and be more efficient. When a private business is unable to be efficient, it closes it's doors (or gets bailed out by the government, lol). When the Federal Government fails to be efficient, it just raises taxes. If you need proof that the federal government is inefficient, just look at the Nation Debt. Each person's share of the Federal debt is about $67,000. No private business in history could do this much damage through inefficiency.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but to pay for govt expenses, we borrow from the Fed at the prime interest rate, and that loan adds to the national debt. The Fed is composed of the nation's leading banks and some foreign banks who are creating the money out of nothing and loaning the worthless money to the government which increases the banks' assets.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but to pay for govt expenses, we borrow from the Fed at the prime interest rate, and that loan adds to the national debt. The Fed is composed of the nation's leading banks and some foreign banks who are creating the money out of nothing and loaning the worthless money to the government which increases the banks' assets. So overspending and waste is a good thing for the banks that comprise the Fed. And now we are so much in debt, we can never repay it. What then would happen if that debt was forgiven. If we didn't borrow could the govt continue to operate? So, help me out here and tell what I have wrong with this picture.
Why wouldn't I care to know? I'm no expert on this subject, which is why I framed my response like I did. The idea I summarized comes from a film that I saw, The Secret of Oz, and some other things I have read. So far as QE, or quantitative easing, I will need to watch a YouTube video to get an understanding of how that works. So, the banks in the Fed don't benefit from our debt, then?I've read just about every conspiracy theory about the Fed and this is the most common, and simplest myth.
I doubt you actually care to know, all interest collected by assets held as the Fed's balance sheet is paid to the US Treasury. The massive balance sheet expansion under QEs doubled revenue from the Fed to UST. Fed operations are funded by their check clearing services. Trump was absolutely correct that we can extinguish the portion of US debt held by the Fed at any time we want with the stroke of a computer key. Federal debt actually went down during Obama thanks to QE.
Dont tell the Ron Paul crowd, they're fun to have around.
Why wouldn't I care to know? I'm no expert on this subject, which is why I framed my response like I did. The idea I summarized comes from a film that I saw, The Secret of Oz, and some other things I have read. So far as QE, or quantitative easing, I will need to watch a YouTube video to get an understanding of how that works. So, the banks in the Fed don't benefit from our debt, then?
Why wouldn't I care to know? I'm no expert on this subject, which is why I framed my response like I did. The idea I summarized comes from a film that I saw, The Secret of Oz, and some other things I have read. So far as QE, or quantitative easing, I will need to watch a YouTube video to get an understanding of how that works. So, the banks in the Fed don't benefit from our debt, then?
Since when is being supportive of a public benefit = anti-capitalism? If I'm against a publicly provided benefit for reasons x,y, z am I some favorite leftist pejorative?
Also, aside from the money losing side that Kick pointed out, as someone who has chosen to commute on public transit for over 10 years (thank you, taxpayers ), no, Uber and Lyft are not alternatives. Nowhere close.
Yes, YouTube shapeshifters while you're at it. Bernanke, Obama, all of them. Clear, indisputable video evidence.
As another person who uses public transport, yes they are alternatives. Just far more expensive ones. Cost wise the bus is exceedingly more attractive.
As another person who uses public transport, yes they are alternatives. Just far more expensive ones. Cost wise the bus is exceedingly more attractive.
If you're going to be a stickler then so is renting a limo, or sleeping under an overpass so I can walk to work.