I see what you mean. So leave it up to the people to realize what's important to them. I can agree there.

I just feel like I'm sure someone is out there who can foresee these negatives and work to minimize them early. I would think that's the governments job, but as I'm becoming increasingly aware, government isn't a highly conspiratorial all knowing entity, but more of just a system that's really bad at its job. :D

Or at the least you could argue for "Progressive Reuglations" that ramp up the bigger you get.

Then again... it's not like the regulations made to fix stuff even tend to adress it.

Like Dodd Frank... which... the GFC would of happened with Dodd Frank anyway.

Same with those banks... "Living Wills".

They're written as what would happen if one bank fails that is too big to fail... rather then what would happen during a GFC.

Yeah, basically. The more government does, the less people feel like they have to care or even know what's going on for just that reason. There's always a feeling that the experts must have a handle on things, even when judging from the results they very clearly do not, or at least that if those smart guys can't figure it out, there's no way that the average person can, so why bother trying?

And naturally as things become so big and complex, it becomes easier for politicians to feed at the trough because it's hard for most people to see just what's going on - and real, positive changes become harder to enact because of all the inertia built into the system.

Yeah, at the very least. The only problem I see with it is that regulations are always sold as "sticking it to the fat cats" anyway when the fat cats can always afford to comply (especially when they help write the damn things), and since they're always going to be sold as being progressive even if they're extremely regressive, you'll never know unless you look into just what the regulations do. And even though people seem to know that politicians are always full of shit, they also seem to always buy into this idea that a given regulation is just there to stop Evil Guys, Inc. from dumping AIDS in the water supply and could in no way hurt the small business owner if a pol tells them so. But there is no real substitute for people being informed, I guess, and when they're not... well, we end up here.

Yep.  It's sad that there isn't some sort of miraculous database that gives people access to information in seconds in which it previously would of took hours and sometimes weeks of grueling research to look up itself.

Eh, then again if it did exist it'd probably have porn that would distract everyone anyway.

A miraculous database with as enough lies as truths so to render itself no more efficient nor easy than weeks of grueling research.

If only some based realist informed you of this before you decided to acquiesce to sarcasm. Such tradgedy.

This is the first time I see eye to eye with badge. But for example, when I see someone like Mitt doing all these things historically that seem, well, extremely harmful economically but good for personal fortune, what am I supposed to think? It's not a problem that's as easily understood in the way you paint it. He's the one who is right? His history was taking companies, shipping the jobs, and liquidating national companies that provided jobs. That didn't increase our economy, or our tax revenue, or our middle class. But, he's the one who is right?

As another example, you say national health is bad for economy. In MA, where I live, sure prices went up, but then costs plummeted and are now a fifth of what they were pre-mandate. Yet Mitt is right that it is bad...when he was the one who did it in the first place and it worked? I'm supposed to just accept when you say it's bad?

How am I supposed to think when you're against something that I've seen work, and then act as if these solutions of yours are so common and basic that THE INTERNET of all places, is a reliable source.

That rationale is completely backwards to me, counterintuitive and unforgiving.

II don't know.  Maybe it's just me, but I find it pretty easy to sort the lies from the truth, you just need to employ your critical thinking skills.

Which, you don't seem to be doing... because you probably haven't actually read his position on Healthcare.  As for what he says about Mass?

"When I was governor of Massachusetts, we instituted a plan that got our citizens insured without raising taxes and without a government takeover. Other states will choose to go in different directions. It is the genius of federalism that it encourages experimentation, with each state pursuing what works best for them. ObamaCare's disregard for this core aspect of U.S. tradition is one of its most egregious failings."

http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/content/romney-why-id-repeal-obamacare

Also... no Mitt Romney's buisness record DID help the US.  You should know that enough based on your own counter arguments to your arguements.   Mitt Romney at Bain capital was trying to make broken companies work.

What's worse for the US economy?   Shipping most of a companies manufacturing jobs overseas?   Or having all that companies jobs lost because it went bankrupt?  If the failing companies fail... then they get liquidated.

Your problem with Mitt Romney's way of doing buisness seems to be largely based on ignorance on what companies like Bain Capital do.

Companies like Bain Capital are essentially the Doctors of the Buisness world.

I mean, would you complain about a Doctor who took did lifesaving surgery that made a patients body not work as well?  Or that had patients die but still charged the relatives?

Keep in mind.  Doctors get paid too.

The difference between a company like Bain Capital and a Doctor is...  the Doctor gets the same amount of money no matter whether he succeeds or not.

Bain Capital makes more money if it saves it's patient and then resells the successful company.

I mean sure, you might see the occasional attack video, which oddly all were after Romney left Bain... where some average employee says "Things were fine before Bain came in."

They mean fine for them.  They aren't buisness experts.

It's why a LOT of demcorats have broken ranks from Obama on such attacks.  Hell, even Bill Clinton, whose wife is secretary of state spoke out against the Obama attacks!

Even he felt the need to come out and say what Bain Captial did was good work.

I just wanted to expand upon this ...

On this forum we regularly hear people talk about what companies should do, or suggest that a company's management is holding it back, and firms like Bain Capital put their money where their mouth is; and are (usually) only profitable when they're right. Usually when a company is bought, even if it ends up being run better, many employees will be upset because of the changes that were made.

Hypothetically speaking, suppose a company like Bane Capital took over Sony, split it into multiple companies and had the console gaming buisness run by a seperate company. To ensure consistent profitability the game development plans were re-structrued so that 2 big buget, 4 medium budget, 8 low budget and 16 micro budget games were produced for a console a year; and game hardware would no longer be sold as a loss leader. While the new Playstation company may have more reliable revenues, higher profits, and be far more likely to survive many of the employees (and consumers) would still think the "good old days" were far better.

Regardless of what employees and consumers thought about the changes to a company like this, Bain Capital would only make money if the resulting companies were worth more to investors than Sony currently is.

In the same way I strongly disagreed last year with Elizabeth Warren when she said something similiar, I also disagree with Obama and his team on this.

Obama and Warren say you need government to have roads and bridges, wireless internet, schools, etc...But who is the government? The government created nothing. All they can do is rob you with a gun, and forcibly transfer wealth from one person to another. The government can come and take money from you, and use it to build a road, that incidentally you can use because you don't have any other choices. But the money had to come from productive effort. Everything the government has done has been by transferring wealth, not by creating it. Governments are always destructive in the creation of wealth.

KAsz what sort of critical thinking should I employ when Romney says, "this [mandate] can absolutely be done on a national level", several years ago?


Also check the olympic standings;
1 United States 10 8 7 25
2 China 13 6 4 23
3 Japan 1 4 8 13
4 France 4 3 4 11
5 Germany 3 5 1 9

Now check GDP
1 United States 14,447,100
2 China, People's Republic of 5,739,358
3 Japan 5,458,873
4 Germany 3,280,334
5 France 2,559,850