SkyDekker

If you dont have an overage in your income, decreasing your income without decreasing your expenses will most certainly increase your debt. If you cannot grasp that basic math, then any discussion about financial matters really is pointless.

Why? Why would an American not be allowed to buy a fully automatic rifle and play with it on a firing range, or in his backyard?

In US dollars, but not for the rest of the world. You would have to fix the US dollar against an ounce of gold. But on the free market, the price of gold in Euros or yen etc will continue to fluctuate. The US government will continually have to manipulate the exchange rates to equalize everything, specially when it comes to interest rate changes. Remember that the gold standard was in place when the price of gold was very stable, something that certainly isn't the case anymore.

No it didn't. Actually it is one of the contributing factors to the Great Depression in the 30's, some even argue that it is pretty much the only reason behind the great depression. To maintain the gold standard while the relative price of gold increases requires you to deflate the price of other goods in dollars. The French made a lot of money off your gold standard though....

Higher education Breakfast before school expanded health care housing Phsychiatric care

Examples of what? Empires or taxes?

And which real asset would you like to use for that. Are you willing to stop the free trade in that asset?

This discussion is utterly useless without a working definition of free.

You can call it that if that makes you feel better. Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote though. But with the incredible spending spree that the USA has been on for the last lustrum or so the taxes will have to soar at some point. Either that or go bankrupt as a country and slip into the history books, like many empires before it.

Off course it has. Have you ever wondered why? Could it be because most other western countries have government organizations looking after issues that are left to charities in the USA?

I'm sure he'll do that right after mnealtx answer the question he asked him. Why is it you are not accusing mnealtx of being a troll?

Right, like the fees some of the banks are charging when welfare customers overdraw their accounts eventhough the bank has the ability to not allow the account to be overdrawn. Right, and the account information is what the software usesto set the parameters. Same account information can be used to allow the software to ensure the account cannot be overdrawn. No cost associated with that, there is a loss of fees though, specially since those with very limited income are much more prone to overdraw their account. They are without any doubt praying on these people. Now, the USA is a major capitalist country, so there shouldn't be an objection to a company making money off stupid people. There is no doubt that is exactly what they are doing though.

Why would I want to do that? I agree with you that there should not be a ban. As a matter of fact, there should be absolutely no restriction on any weapons one can purchase in the USA.

Nice rant, but you aren't answering his question. Are YOU ok with self-certification?

Now that is the logical reasoning you'd like to see from a cop.

Those lazy fuckers should get a job, why are they just sitting there lookin for handouts? And....animal shelters? Survival of the fittest baby, that's how God intended the world to be.....

And without the Federal Bank or a version of it we would be reliving the panic of 1907 right now. So, what is your solution?

In the US, no. In Canada, yes.

The software has to be set with any new account. The banks give different overdraft privelidges to all their customers. Hence, when the account is set up for a welfare customer, they can simply specify not to allow overdraft. Vinny, there is no sense having a conversation with you since you refuse to answer questions. Typical response when there is no substance. Kelp, how many phone calls are the welfare customers making?

To me that contradicts eachother. If one person is to blame for spending more than they can afford, then millions of people should be to blame too.

No change in accounting software necessary. The software already is set to a certain limit when it comes to overdraft. Just set that limit to $0 for those accounts.

So what happened to personal responsibility. Isn't that what, specially republicans and conservatives, matters? If VISA decides to lower their standards and raises my credit limit from the current $24,500 to $75,000 on my credit card. And I then go and spend it all, can I blame VISA for increasing my credit limit and blame them when I make stupid decisions? Doesn't the same hold true for Fannie and Freddy. Yes, I agree that they lowered the lending standards (which I think was a big mistake). However, it was still the banks and mortgage brokers that decided to approve mortgages. Nobody forced banks and financial institutions to invest in ABCP or engage in default swaps. To me, this whole crisis proves that pure capitalism doesn't work. People will not make decisions based in their own self interest and forms of regulations and protections have to be in place. (Before people start screaming, I also don't believe that communism works, funny enough for the same reason.....greed) The mantra that we should not stand in the way of companies making money is simply not valid. That is exactly what has lead to this recession. Solely blaming Freddy and Fannie is like me blaming VISA for my credit card debt. It's silly.

Nope and we weren't talking about that, so why bring a seperate issue into it? I do expect the bank to not charge an overdraft fee to a welfare customer. They have the ability to just not let the payment go through. I expect them not to charge a fee for a phone call. As pointed out earlier in this thread, I don't believe there is an incremental cost to them.

Ahh okay, that clears it up Of course you are contradicting yourself. If it is the responsibility of the parent to educate and teach little johnny. Don't you think it is the parents responsibility to teach little johnny not to kill people? Their responsibility to ensure johnny doesn't have access to guns, specially when not trained? Their responsibility to ensure they don't leave their un and ammunition lying around little johnny? If it is the parents responsibility, then why do you propose to not punish the parent, but punish the child when it is obviously the parents who have not lived up to their responsibility?

Anvil, you do a lot of swearing and yelling at liberals, but very little answering of questions. Its exactly what politicians do when they know they have lost an argument. If the banks are already making money off the program without charging fees for it, then your argument that the banks should not be expected to work for free falls completely by the wayside.