mrstickball said:
Easier said than done. I know about what you're saying, and it's not something we can just say "let's stop wars!" to.
People elected Obama on the "No wars" stance, yet he's gone into Libya, Syria, and kept Afghanistan going.
I see what you're saying. However, your explanation needs some work. It's still kind of unclear. Also, that kind of flat tax would mean income tax is cut? Unless this flat tax is high.
A flat tax replaces our current structure. The flat tax would need to be high (20-25%), but could be reduced as needed. The advantage is that there are no loopholes - no way for a person to offset his tax bill.
Honestly, I don't know too much about Social Security. What I do know is that a lot of money is spent on it, and I think we're kind of stuck on it. Not much I can say.
We're only stuck on it as long as we want to be.
The statement on its own was fallicious. They don't just print money to print money as the original statement was saying. Printing money does create inflation, yes. However, I don't think this is our prime suspect. I would consider this one of the smaller issues (which is still an issue) that we're facing.
The problem is that they are printing money, and recklessly. That is what quantitative easing is. Please read up on it. They create money out of nowhere, and use it to buy bonds and assets. So instead of creating something in which money is needed as a medium, they instead create the money which is inflationary.
The government does have a large role in what we do, there are a lot of regulations, but a lot of what you just said aren't directed towards us but the suppliers itself. There are a lot of other things that the government doesn't regulate. Regulation is also a good thing on very many levels as it is also a way to protect us from others and from ourselves. I'm in agreement with most government regulations.
Regulation is good, as an idea. However, when you have too many regulations, it causes smaller competitors in a marketplace to die, or be prevented from jumping in. Again, the car analogy is apt. There are so many regulations that no new companies can enter the space, unless they're a major foreign company like Toyota or Nissan.
How would you feel if the government decided to regulate what video games you could buy? Or how fast your computer could be? They essentially do the same thing with many fields and areas of life. We're just "used" to it, and don't notice it.
So you want a laissez faire economy? It's not really a monopoly unless there's actually just one. Who are "they" in the last two sentences? Without regulations, the industry would control us moreso than anyone else. The industry really does have more power than the government, whether you want to believe it or not. They have a lot of power over us as consumers of a mainly capitalist (market) society.
This is totally wrong. Corporatism is at an all-time high, not a low. When the government is given unilateral power to make and create laws, it creates lobbyists. Do you think lobbying is more or less prevalent today than it was 30 years ago?
The reason for the lobbyists is that they know they can influence and effect government policy for their benefit. That is because of too much government and regulation, and not too little. Consider the case of UPS and Fed Ex. UPS has been trying to lobby the government to change how packaging/transport unions work. Why? Because UPS has a union, and Fed Ex does not. If they lobbied the government for these new regulations, it would likely make Fed Ex go bankrupt. That is a result of more regulations, not less.
When you have less regulations, you remove barriers to entry. That is the key. It actually hurts corporations, because new people can get into an industry with a device or service. When you have more regulations, it becomes far more difficult for an average person (or group of people) to break into an industry.
Actually, there's really just an initial cost with this. It will cost us for a while, but a reform has to cost something to get it started. The numbers show that after some time, we'll actually be gaining more money than we spend with the PPACA. If you get rid of government mandates and requirements, you get some really sketchy things going on with insurance. Companies usually like to do what's best for them, not for the customer. The PPACA also is a gradual thing. We're not seeing the full impact of the PPACA right now. You seem to think competition is what makes things get cheaper. No, what insurance companies are doing now are over-charging the customers as it is. Competition isn't always the answer. Plus, competition will still exist under PPACA.
Can you tell me when the costs are supposed to go down with the PPACA?
And actually, you don't get sketchy things when you remove government regulation of health care. Do you know what government regulations are involved with your pets? There are none. There is no FDA that requires testing for pet meds. No AMA that acts as a cartel for regulating veterinary doctors. No government requirements for medicare. Do you know what the result is? Pet insurance doesn't even exist, because care is too cheap and affordable. Go look at what it costs for a major, live-saving surgery for your pet vs. you. The likelihood that your pet is to recieve negligent care is as likely as a human, yet the pet surgery is a fraction of the price. Why? Because its much cheaper to become a vet and run a clinic than it is a hospital.
Also, Steve Jobs as an example isn't really a good way to help your case. There are risks for lessening regulations, and just because people say regulations are killing jobs in America doesn't mean that's what will happen. Regulations prevent poorer work conditions. Regulations also prevent the sweat shops from forming within the USA. The USA used to run on lower regulations, but a lot of horrible things happened as a result.
Not all regulations prevent poorer working conditions. Why is it that when I go to major events in San Francisco, that I have to pay $10 for a sandwich and chips? Government regulations. Why is it that I have to pay $50 for a taxi from LAX to downtown LA for E3? Because the government decides the rates for taxis in the county.
Go look at regulatory practice in the 1960s. The regulations were much less stringent. Do you know what the result was? Economic disparity was at an all-time low. Today, its worse than ever, and part of it is because the government has provided huge discentitives for running a factory in the US.
|
