Presidential Address 9/8/2011 7:00 p.m.

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by JohnnyRedStorm

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

It makes me laugh when people bring up Ron Paul and his "backbone." We have a damn near CENTER RIGHT President in office right now and HE can't get anything done. You think electing someone with such extreme ideas is going to get anything done? Do you think any of Paul's policies will make it through Congress? The Republican party barely supports Paul. Any self respecting Democrat should be afraid of his policies because of how destructive they could be. Yet HE could get things done? 

Dude's love him on here but fail to realize there's a reason why he'll never be elected, and it's not because he has the potential to be "too powerful."

Exactly.  Ron Paul and all his supporters are just wasting their time.  I mean with Ron Paul you have a guy that said the airlines companies themselves should be in charge of checking bags and luggage on airplanes and wanted to eliminate TSA. 

Honestly, don't you think the airlines have a huge incentive to make sure that their planes get their paying customers to their destinations safely? What incentive does the government have? It isn't their planes, the people don't pay them.

 

[ac4three]

Originally Posted by whyhellothere

just give the man a chance damn, he said there will be change and he will deliver.

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by JohnnyRedStorm



Dude's love him on here but fail to realize there's a reason why he'll never be elected, and it's not because he has the potential to be "too powerful."

Exactly.  Ron Paul and all his supporters are just wasting their time.  I mean with Ron Paul you have a guy that said the airlines companies themselves should be in charge of checking bags and luggage on airplanes and wanted to eliminate TSA. 

Honestly, don't you think the airlines have a huge incentive to make sure that their planes get their paying customers to their destinations safely? What incentive does the government have? It isn't their planes, the people don't pay them.

   If that's the case, can't the same be said for all government regulation??  Do you want to end all goverment regulation across the board??

 

[epidemik the great]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

not sure if anyone caught it but michelle obama looked disappointed with the speech at the end.

Their buddy Jeffrey Immelt was sitting next to her,  she should have asked him what GE plans to do about that moving jobs to China thing...

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2...usiness-to-china-what-message-is-sent-to-u-s/

this has to be one of the biggest slaps to the face i've seen recently...
so what country we all moving to NT??? 

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Deuce King


Exactly.  Ron Paul and all his supporters are just wasting their time.  I mean with Ron Paul you have a guy that said the airlines companies themselves should be in charge of checking bags and luggage on airplanes and wanted to eliminate TSA. 

Honestly, don't you think the airlines have a huge incentive to make sure that their planes get their paying customers to their destinations safely? What incentive does the government have? It isn't their planes, the people don't pay them.

   If that's the case, can't the same be said for all government regulation??  Do you want to end all goverment regulation across the board??

Of course and that's my point. What incentive does the government have in making sure our food is "safe"? The FDA allows the use of GMO's in food, which have been proven to have adverse affects on your DNA and increases cancer risk. President Obama even has a lobbyist from Monsanto (YouTube them) as a Food Czar and is in big with the FDA. Look at the FDA website, it tells you the food and drugs that are being recalled. Aren't they suppose to be preventing that from happening in the first place? Why would a food company knowingly "poison" there food? They would lose customers, right?

There should be regulation, but not government regulation. There are already numerous food certification companies. Look at the back labels of organic food, they are certified by certification body i.e. Quality Assurance International, International Organic Accreditation Services. These are very credibly agencies and have good reputations, if they didn't there would be another company competing to have a better quality assurance. These people have an incentive to make sure the quality of food is always top tier. The government doesn't. The regulations actually protect bad companies believe it or not.

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by rashi



Honestly, don't you think the airlines have a huge incentive to make sure that their planes get their paying customers to their destinations safely? What incentive does the government have? It isn't their planes, the people don't pay them.

   If that's the case, can't the same be said for all government regulation??  Do you want to end all goverment regulation across the board??

Of course and that's my point. What incentive does the government have in making sure our food is "safe"? The FDA allows the use of GMO's in food, which have been proven to have adverse affects on your DNA and increases cancer risk. President Obama even has a lobbyist from Monsanto (YouTube them) as a Food Czar and is in big with the FDA. Look at the FDA website, it tells you the food and drugs that are being recalled. Aren't they suppose to be preventing that from happening in the first place? Why would a food company knowingly "poison" there food? They would lose customers, right?

There should be regulation, but not government regulation. There are already numerous food certification companies. Look at the back labels of organic food, they are certified by certification body i.e. Quality Assurance International, International Organic Accreditation Services. These are very credibly agencies and have good reputations, if they didn't there would be another company competing to have a better quality assurance. These people have an incentive to make sure the quality of food is always top tier. The government doesn't. The regulations actually protect bad companies believe it or not.

The fact that the government doesn't or isn't suppose to have an incentive is the point or the purpose of having some government regulation and oversight generally speaking.  Most people believe that government has the best interest of the people in mind, and that the government can be trusted and held accountable on some level.  That doesn't mean that the government can't lie or misled the public on certain situation like "weapons of mass destruction in foreign countries" or something like that.  I do agree that there is a possibility that certain government regulations can be cut back which could allow the opportunity for private companies to flow more freely and invest more which can help create more jobs.  Your FDA example was a good one.  That being said, I believe we still would need an agency like TSA for example in place since the government holds the "no fly list" of individuals and there could be a greater chance of lag-time between communication if that information were passed along to a company outside of the government if there were a security scare. 
  

 

[rashi]

The fact that the government doesn't or isn't suppose to have an incentive is the point or the purpose of having some government regulation and oversight generally speaking.  Most people believe that government has the best interest of the people in mind, and that the government can be trusted and held accountable on some level.


In theory, but they don't. The government is paid off by lobbyists, you know that. So their interest is to keep corporations happy. The government is never held accountable, look at 9/11, Katrina, the financial crisis, ect. When things like this happen, and when clearly the government is at fault or neglect, what is the legal resolution? Sue the government? Never happen. With private companies, atleast you have a legal recourse via insurance or litigation.

 That being said, I believe we still would need an agency like TSA for example in place since the government holds the "no fly list" of individuals and there could be a greater chance of lag-time between communication if that information were passed along to a company outside of the government if there were a security scare.


I do a lot of traveling, mostly to NYC and San Fran. Most of these TSA people are 25-40 years of age, possibly with high school diplomas and they have 40 hours of classroom training and 60 on the field training. That's 100 hours of training, are these people sufficiently trained to notice an explosive substance? I would think you would need a lot more time and experience in the law enforcement field to know stuff like this. Not only that, they are paid poorly (because they don't have the sufficient training), an experience law enforcement expert is working for $10 an hour.


These planes are millions of dollars and people pay a lot of money to fly. It would not be good for business if planes are falling out of the sky.

 

[deuce king]

In theory, but they don't. The government is paid off by lobbyists, you know that. So their interest is to keep corporations happy. The government is never held accountable, look at 9/11, Katrina, the financial crisis, ect. When things like this happen, and when clearly the government is at fault or neglect, what is the legal resolution? Sue the government? Never happen. With private companies, atleast you have a legal recourse via insurance or litigation
 
As it stands now corporations help fund campaigns which in return get officials elected who then pass, create or even vote down laws that will help the corporations.  There's really no way to fix that so lobbyists are here to stay at it appears unfortunately.  As far as my comment of the government being held accountable I'm speaking on the action that takes place during something or beforehand.  For example, with 9/11 who would actually go after or track down the terrorists either before or after something happens, in regards to Katrina what system or people would help rescue or support people once a natural disaster occurred, with the financial crisis who going to help ensure oversight.  If not government for these examples I provided then who??  Again, that's not to say government is perfect because obviously it's not.

These planes are millions of dollars and people pay a lot of money to fly. It would not be good for business if planes are falling out of the sky.


Okay, so for my point regarding the "no fly list" how do you expect that to be handled as far as either putting people on that list or helping to enforce it and everything else in between??

 

[crcballer55]

Rashi:
These planes are millions of dollars and people pay a lot of money to fly. It would not be good for business if planes are falling out of the sky.


I agree with the premise of your statement.  However, airlines assume that they will lose a certain number of aircraft each year either due to accidents or otherwise.  As such, I'm sure they take out insurance policies for these types of things.  The same thing the banks did when they took out insurance for their bad mortgages and took down AIG with them.

The real incentive would be for airlines to implement sufficient security to make people believe that they are safe.  Sure, some people would forego the security to either avoid cost, or as a personal policy.  However, once you had one or two planes hijacked and had to face the public scrutiny, they would then put in place policies to keep people sufficiently safe like they do in Israel.  It's not the amount of security that is implemented, it's how smart the security is.

 

[rashi]

As it stands now corporations help fund campaigns which in return get officials elected who then pass, create or even vote down laws that will help the corporations.


It's always been like this. Who do you think helped write the Constitution? Northeastern industrialists and bankers.

For example, with 9/11 who would actually go after or track down the terrorists either before or after something happens


Let me ask you this, why do you think these terrorists attacked?

in regards to Katrina what system or people would help rescue or support people once a natural disaster occurred


Local charities, local municipalities. FEMA and other federal agencies are heavely funded, but still do not have the efficiency to take care of these people. American Red Cross, Doctor's without borders, ect are way more equipt to handle these situations. I went to Haiti to help out with medical care, we were handling things efficiently and smoothly because we did not have to handle beuarocratic red tape. The money, food, and care got directly to the people. There wasn't a "middle man".

As far as money is concerned, insurance companies could handle this better than FEMA. FEMA was giving checks to people who weren't even affected by Katrina, and a lot of people didn't even get assistance though they were directly affected. Like I said before, there is no incentive for FEMA to be efficient.

with the financial crisis who going to help ensure oversight.


To the contrary, markets regulate themselves. The crisis happened because the government enabled it to happen. People in Congress got paid, people in Executive cabinet (who worked for Goldman) got paid, everyone made money off of this. Ron Paul predicted the crisis 10 years ago, but the nobody listens to kooky, looney, old man Ron Paul.

The market wouldn't have allowed the crisis to happen (assuming there wasn't a Federal Reserve), the Federal Reserve flooded the market with cheap credit and money. Along with that, the banks had a promise of a bailout if all else fails. In the Free Market, businesses fail. Only selected companies were granted a bailout (notice Lehman Bros. went belly up, Paulson worked for Goldman Sachs, so did Bernanke)

Okay, so for my point regarding the "no fly list" how do you expect that to be handled as far as either putting people on that list or helping to enforce it and everything else in between??


What are these "no fly lists" based on? Because people have a middle eastern name? How do these "no fly lists" work? They had 6 year old kids on these lists.

I agree with the premise of your statement.  However, airlines assume that they will lose a certain number of aircraft each year either due to accidents or otherwise.  As such, I'm sure they take out insurance policies for these types of things.  The same thing the banks did when they took out insurance for their bad mortgages and took down AIG with them.


Dude really? This is such a flawed argument. AIG got bailed out because of they're friends of the government. If AIG playted by the same rules as everyone else, they would've went out of business and gotten sued by all the investors. AIG, BOA, Goldman, ect. are all "too big too fail" remember? These companies are protected by the FDIC and SEC.

However, once you had one or two planes hijacked and had to face the public scrutiny, they would then put in place policies to keep people sufficiently safe like they do in Israel.


El Al is a private company that employs their own security, it isn't Israel. They employ former military personnel who are experienced. They aren't high school graduates.