The Clean air and water act was a knee jerk reaction to a problem that could have easily been solved with just the court system. It continues to cause many business to hire teams of lawyers just to insure they meet the letter of the law. It does very little to actually prevent pollution and cost tax payers and businesses far too much.
It is one thing to require businesses to not pollute beyond a certain level. It is a completely different thing to dictate how they will accomplish that process.
Also, using Beijing as anecdotal evidence is a bit of a straw man. They do not and never have had a capitalist society.
Please don't confuse regulations with government provided service. Reual electrification was nothing more that the government paying for the rural communities to have electricity. It was not a regulation of private business.
Susana Martinez has been cleaning up the corruption that was the Bill Richardson legacy. Hardly what I would call shortsighted or dumb. My guess is that she cut some entitlement program that you were sucking at the teat of.
"Bush and Obama do with the banking sector" sigh, No. THAT was do to lack of regulations and then needing to save the economy.
Sadly, this tends to be the on going idea popular with the mainstream media. It is, however, incorrect. It was the regulations of the banking sector that caused the banks to look for new ways to make money. ie. sub prime loans. Had the government not regulated banks they would have used the standard model of intrest rates and fees to make money. Instead, the government decided that part of the population that is high risk, needed to be given loans to purchase a home. It was the action of forcing banks to provide those loans that removed the risk to banks and placed it on the tax payers. It wasn't the lack of regulation, but rather the added regulation that put us into the situation that then required a bailout.
Perhaps you should not get your information from Michael Moore, et al.
Regulation applied to capitalism has always made things worse. The capitalist have always had to figure out how to work around various regulations. Many times with very bad unintended consiquences. The great depression comes to mind. The ression of 2007 being another.
But I am willing to give you a chance... go ahead and name a regulation applied to capitalism that made things better. I will prove you wrong in every case.
Whether they sign or don't sign isn't the problem: It's that the signature wouldn't mean anything anyway. But I can't blame you guys for having such terminally short memories... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already?:/
Wasn't aware that Julian Assange was charged with breaking international treaty law. At least not yet anyway.
We should let congress drive over the fiscal cliff so that democrats take the blame for thier inability to see that the Bush tax cuts don't even come close to paying for the deficit, current or projected.
How about instead of killing the economy with the uncertanty of this on again - off again tax cut, why don't we simplify the tax code completey and permanently.
Here in my state, it was the Democrats who passed the seat belt laws, but otherwise correct. Unfortunately, there are nanny state leaders on both sides.
If you work for a company that treats its employees badly and or doesn't follow the law, then it's time to look for a new company to work for. Companies that don't do the right thing, don't last long. You have more power acting on your own behalf than you ever will following a union.
Um... hate to bust your bubble here, but the article you use for reference, clearly states that 47% of the population of the USA doesn't pay federal income tax. It goes on to say is that there are other taxes that people pay that equate to a smaller number. For instance, when you include payroll taxes, then only 10% of the population pay no taxes.
Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.
The irony is palpable. Romney's camp is accusing his opponents of misquoting him, but the centerpiece of Romney's campaign against Obama is a misquote of Obama saying "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" where they cut out the first part so it says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" - something very different.
The sad part here is that you fell for the liberal media view that Romney's campaign pulled the statement out of context, when no such thing happend. Yes, there were a few pundits who did just that, but not the official capaign. In fact, Romney even made an alalogy to the event that sums it up nicely. (paraphrasing here) You don't give the school bus driver credit for the honour student's success. Yes, the school bus driver got the kid to school, but it was the hard work of the student that is celebrated.
In my mind, the full context of President Obama's words are just as bad. He continually denigrates successfull buisnesses, this just being one example.
An American journalist, for example, might say that Obama has better foreign policy experience, and that without him the economy might have done slightly worse. A European might say that Romney is clueless about foreign affairs, adding that Republicans completely trashed the economy and Obama reversed much of their damage.
While the first statement here is debateable, the second would be outright wrong. There are many factors that trashed the economy from both side of the isle. One of the major factors was when President Clinton pushed for all Americans to own a home. Banks at the time were not lending to those they thought coundn't afford a home as they didn't want the risk. President Clinton removed that risk thereby allowing banks to loan high risk people money. The fact that the economy crashed on Bush's watch is irrelivent as it would have happended no matter who was in office. To Bush's credit, he did try to reverse this, but failed with the Democraticaly controled Congress. Unfortunately, very few news orginizations will tell this side of the story. Both parties have thier faults, but by all means, go ahead and join the herd in only blaming Rebuplicans.
The argument isn't about whether Romney is correct or not, it's about whether he's fit to be the President of the United States of America. A crazy moron really shouldn't be in that position (again) so it's not an ad hominem attack in the context of the political debate. In the context of a discussion about aircraft design it is an ad hominem.
If you are suggesting that Romney's statement about airplane windows makes him a complete moron, then it is an ad hominem attack as it has been shown that he was joking.
If you are suggesting that Romney's religion makes him a complete moron, then I would remind you that President Obama also believes in a magic ghost in the sky.
Newton didn't peddle his science as part of his religion. A rather important difference.
Actually, quite the opposite it true. Much of his writings center around the notion that a monotheistic God is the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. --plagiarizer from the Wikipedia on Newton's views of religion.
universal healthcare will result in longer lives and less healthcare spending in the usa. just like every other goddamn country with it
but, much like gun control, there is a certain feverish moron in my country that will never listen to reason on the subject, and he enabled by special interest groups in washington: the NRA and the healthcare insurers
maybe the feverish morons will shoot themselves and die waiting in the emergency room
Actually wether or not we have universal healthcare or free market health care really doesn't change life expectancy. On the other hand, how much junk food a country eats, does. Our problem is that we have neither universal healthcare or the free market. Instead we have some bastardization of the two. Personally I think we need to bring back a pure free market. The only regulation from the government needs to be that the doctor has a medical license from an accredited school. After that, let the insurance companies and doctors do what they do and it will become cheaper for all.
Sadly this notion does have historical precedence. And does work to deter crime in those who have a bit of conscience left. However, for those who would feed their grandmother to the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal...
The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people....
It might be one in a hundred or one in ten thousand,..
I have never seen a good study of the actual proved innocent after death penalty administered, but I imagine the numbers will be very low. Mostly we just see circumstantial stories about somebodies innocence. If it turned out to be one in a hundred, then we would need to take a serious look at the processes involved. However, I have no problem with an error rate of one in ten thousand death penalty convictions being wrong.
Whenever I talk to pro-death penalty people, I ask them if they would still support the death penalty if they or one of their loved ones was one of those one in a thousand cases where an innocent person was wrongly convicted, I have yet to hear a convincing 'yes'. Are you so strong in your belief of the value of capitol punishment that you would be willing to die to support it? Would you stand outside the prison when your child was executed with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard', when you knew they were only guilty of not having a good alibi and a good lawyer?
This little strawman is always a fun one. Let me turn it around on you. If I knew for a fact that my child committed a crime that merited the death penalty, heck, even if I am the one who turned him in, I still wouldn't stand outside the prison with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard.'
No the system isn't perfect, but it is functional. The simple fact that innocent people are removed from death row at all shows that the system is working. I would agree with the idea that those wrongly accused should be compensated for the mental anguish inflicted by the ordeal, but we should have faith that the innocent people will be weeded out eventually.
The free market might have it's place, but it's not the ultimate answer to mankind's happiness. Widen your view.
Having widened my view, I came the conclusion that in every place that has a free market education system, (even in the poorest nations) the education is better than what can be supplied by government sponsored education. In fact, the free market applied to all aspects of life creates a better life for all involved. What most people have a problem with (and I suspect you as well) isn't the free market, it is crony capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
The Glass-Steagal Act... really.
I offter this for your viewing pleasure, as Yaron Brook explains it far better than I ever could.
The Clean air and water act was a knee jerk reaction to a problem that could have easily been solved with just the court system. It continues to cause many business to hire teams of lawyers just to insure they meet the letter of the law. It does very little to actually prevent pollution and cost tax payers and businesses far too much.
It is one thing to require businesses to not pollute beyond a certain level. It is a completely different thing to dictate how they will accomplish that process.
Also, using Beijing as anecdotal evidence is a bit of a straw man. They do not and never have had a capitalist society.
I will actually give this one to you, but understand that this was a regulation across the entire population and not against a specific industry.
Please don't confuse regulations with government provided service. Reual electrification was nothing more that the government paying for the rural communities to have electricity. It was not a regulation of private business.
Susana Martinez has been cleaning up the corruption that was the Bill Richardson legacy. Hardly what I would call shortsighted or dumb. My guess is that she cut some entitlement program that you were sucking at the teat of.
"Bush and Obama do with the banking sector"
sigh, No. THAT was do to lack of regulations and then needing to save the economy.
Sadly, this tends to be the on going idea popular with the mainstream media. It is, however, incorrect. It was the regulations of the banking sector that caused the banks to look for new ways to make money. ie. sub prime loans. Had the government not regulated banks they would have used the standard model of intrest rates and fees to make money. Instead, the government decided that part of the population that is high risk, needed to be given loans to purchase a home. It was the action of forcing banks to provide those loans that removed the risk to banks and placed it on the tax payers. It wasn't the lack of regulation, but rather the added regulation that put us into the situation that then required a bailout.
Nice revitionist theory you have there.
Perhaps you should not get your information from Michael Moore, et al.
Regulation applied to capitalism has always made things worse. The capitalist have always had to figure out how to work around various regulations. Many times with very bad unintended consiquences. The great depression comes to mind. The ression of 2007 being another.
But I am willing to give you a chance... go ahead and name a regulation applied to capitalism that made things better. I will prove you wrong in every case.
Whether they sign or don't sign isn't the problem: It's that the signature wouldn't mean anything anyway. But I can't blame you guys for having such terminally short memories... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already? :/
Wasn't aware that Julian Assange was charged with breaking international treaty law. At least not yet anyway.
Some would say, this has already happened.
Never underestimate the tenacity of lawyers.
We should let congress drive over the fiscal cliff so that democrats take the blame for thier inability to see that the Bush tax cuts don't even come close to paying for the deficit, current or projected.
How about instead of killing the economy with the uncertanty of this on again - off again tax cut, why don't we simplify the tax code completey and permanently.
there's more money and power riding on proving AGW is an urgent problem
Where is this money, and how can I get some?
Add the words "The effects of AGW in relation to (subject)" to any dissertation and watch the government funding roll in.
Here in my state, it was the Democrats who passed the seat belt laws, but otherwise correct. Unfortunately, there are nanny state leaders on both sides.
If you work for a company that treats its employees badly and or doesn't follow the law, then it's time to look for a new company to work for. Companies that don't do the right thing, don't last long. You have more power acting on your own behalf than you ever will following a union.
The simple fact that you seem to miss in understanding his statement, tells all.
Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.
Um... hate to bust your bubble here, but the article you use for reference, clearly states that 47% of the population of the USA doesn't pay federal income tax. It goes on to say is that there are other taxes that people pay that equate to a smaller number. For instance, when you include payroll taxes, then only 10% of the population pay no taxes.
Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.
That because you don't watch Fox news.
The irony is palpable. Romney's camp is accusing his opponents of misquoting him, but the centerpiece of Romney's campaign against Obama is a misquote of Obama saying "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" where they cut out the first part so it says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" - something very different.
The sad part here is that you fell for the liberal media view that Romney's campaign pulled the statement out of context, when no such thing happend. Yes, there were a few pundits who did just that, but not the official capaign. In fact, Romney even made an alalogy to the event that sums it up nicely. (paraphrasing here) You don't give the school bus driver credit for the honour student's success. Yes, the school bus driver got the kid to school, but it was the hard work of the student that is celebrated.
In my mind, the full context of President Obama's words are just as bad. He continually denigrates successfull buisnesses, this just being one example.
An American journalist, for example, might say that Obama has better foreign policy experience, and that without him the economy might have done slightly worse. A European might say that Romney is clueless about foreign affairs, adding that Republicans completely trashed the economy and Obama reversed much of their damage.
While the first statement here is debateable, the second would be outright wrong. There are many factors that trashed the economy from both side of the isle. One of the major factors was when President Clinton pushed for all Americans to own a home. Banks at the time were not lending to those they thought coundn't afford a home as they didn't want the risk. President Clinton removed that risk thereby allowing banks to loan high risk people money. The fact that the economy crashed on Bush's watch is irrelivent as it would have happended no matter who was in office. To Bush's credit, he did try to reverse this, but failed with the Democraticaly controled Congress. Unfortunately, very few news orginizations will tell this side of the story. Both parties have thier faults, but by all means, go ahead and join the herd in only blaming Rebuplicans.
The argument isn't about whether Romney is correct or not, it's about whether he's fit to be the President of the United States of America. A crazy moron really shouldn't be in that position (again) so it's not an ad hominem attack in the context of the political debate. In the context of a discussion about aircraft design it is an ad hominem.
If you are suggesting that Romney's statement about airplane windows makes him a complete moron, then it is an ad hominem attack as it has been shown that he was joking.
If you are suggesting that Romney's religion makes him a complete moron, then I would remind you that President Obama also believes in a magic ghost in the sky.
Newton didn't peddle his science as part of his religion. A rather important difference.
Actually, quite the opposite it true. Much of his writings center around the notion that a monotheistic God is the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. --plagiarizer from the Wikipedia on Newton's views of religion.
universal healthcare will result in longer lives and less healthcare spending in the usa. just like every other goddamn country with it
but, much like gun control, there is a certain feverish moron in my country that will never listen to reason on the subject, and he enabled by special interest groups in washington: the NRA and the healthcare insurers
maybe the feverish morons will shoot themselves and die waiting in the emergency room
Actually wether or not we have universal healthcare or free market health care really doesn't change life expectancy. On the other hand, how much junk food a country eats, does. Our problem is that we have neither universal healthcare or the free market. Instead we have some bastardization of the two. Personally I think we need to bring back a pure free market. The only regulation from the government needs to be that the doctor has a medical license from an accredited school. After that, let the insurance companies and doctors do what they do and it will become cheaper for all.
Sadly this notion does have historical precedence. And does work to deter crime in those who have a bit of conscience left. However, for those who would feed their grandmother to the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal...
The reason the death penalty is flat out wrong is quite simple. It isn't just that you are being hypocritical about the morality of killing, it is also that you are murdering innocent people....
It might be one in a hundred or one in ten thousand,..
I have never seen a good study of the actual proved innocent after death penalty administered, but I imagine the numbers will be very low. Mostly we just see circumstantial stories about somebodies innocence. If it turned out to be one in a hundred, then we would need to take a serious look at the processes involved. However, I have no problem with an error rate of one in ten thousand death penalty convictions being wrong.
Whenever I talk to pro-death penalty people, I ask them if they would still support the death penalty if they or one of their loved ones was one of those one in a thousand cases where an innocent person was wrongly convicted, I have yet to hear a convincing 'yes'. Are you so strong in your belief of the value of capitol punishment that you would be willing to die to support it? Would you stand outside the prison when your child was executed with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard', when you knew they were only guilty of not having a good alibi and a good lawyer?
This little strawman is always a fun one. Let me turn it around on you. If I knew for a fact that my child committed a crime that merited the death penalty, heck, even if I am the one who turned him in, I still wouldn't stand outside the prison with a sign that says, 'Fry the bastard.'
No the system isn't perfect, but it is functional. The simple fact that innocent people are removed from death row at all shows that the system is working. I would agree with the idea that those wrongly accused should be compensated for the mental anguish inflicted by the ordeal, but we should have faith that the innocent people will be weeded out eventually.
The free market might have it's place, but it's not the ultimate answer to mankind's happiness. Widen your view.
Having widened my view, I came the conclusion that in every place that has a free market education system, (even in the poorest nations) the education is better than what can be supplied by government sponsored education. In fact, the free market applied to all aspects of life creates a better life for all involved. What most people have a problem with (and I suspect you as well) isn't the free market, it is crony capitalism.