McGowan, how come I get the sense that you're debating everything I say just cause you have some time to fill ?
I don't have that kind of time, so I'm going to respond to these exagerrations and leave it at that.
>>>The way the world works
So you've found a system that works better? Which is it? China? Iran? Iraq? Sweden? Uganda?
What other system provides as much freedom and as high a standard of living for its people?
And before you pick one of the European socialist paradises, take a look at (a) their tax rates, (b) their unemployment rate, and (c) how fast they're backing out of socialism.
----Why is it that everytime we try to improve a reasonably good system that can too easily be manipulated towards those who have the need to flex their financial and political muscles to try to gather up every last shred for themselves (i.e. Republicans) the old red herring of "if you don't like it here why don't you go somewhere else" nonsense comes out of their mouths ? Patriotism is the last refuge ........ There are many features of European countries that are preferable to ours, but it ain't all or nothing. We'd do well to emulate them more in some ways, as they'd do well to emulate us in others.
I don't particularly like government intervention in some areas, but history has shown time and again that left to their own devices, the powerful in big business gravitate towards the corrupt, the self serving, and that which enhances only their own positions at the expense of all else. Privatize the gains, and socialize all the externalities and losses. This doesn't always happen, but even they will often admit it's in their nature.
Regulations, in measured and intelligent applications, are necessary to provide a semblance of balance against the few who would willingly abuse the system, given free reign. It's the only thing the little guy has, when he doesn't have market power. Otherwise, chaos, rebellion, and revolution result. The old Republicans a la T. Roosevelt had a sense of this, which is why they placed importance on trust busting and conservation of natural resources. Too bad the party degenerated from there. The corporate scene has gotten completely obscene, with boards stacked with CEO's buddies giving them huge raises and bonuses no matter the performance, with accounting tricks to stack the stock options to the insiders and screw the bagholding publics, and with the sense of civic responsibility being exercised mainly only when it's clearly in their self interest.
>>>And how DO you propose to finance campaigns? By picking my pocket at gunpoint again (AKA taxes)? I've yet to hear a campaign finance reform advocate answer that. They've
been very good at dodging it, though.
---I don't have all the answers, as the topic rather nauseates me.
1. But I would start by limiting what any individuals and entities can contribute in a way that will limit their undue access or influence. The tax contribution on the 1040 is not an additional tax, but just comes out of what you pay anyway.
2. Limit the time of the campaign, and grant a degree of free or cheap media access. The airwaves are owned by the public, but private entities profit from them. They foam at the mouth over any mention of giving away free air time -- WHO CARES ? Tough shit. Part of the price of doing business.
3. I've heard it said that if you limit contributions, special interest groups will buy their own ads. That's a tougher one - but what you do is then require full disclosure on their ads of WHO they are, or are representing, WHICH party they are supporting with their ads, and HOW they can be reached by anyone for further discussion or questioning. Require it. Period.
4. Convert the election system to an instant runoff to enable third parties to run without being spoilers, and to let them slowly gather support as they earn it. Yet not at the immediate expense of the major candidate that they hose (a la Nader and maybe Perot too).
That's off the top of my head, and I do not intend to spend more time on it -- the pros out there should be doing that.
>>> Of course small businessmen fight regulations, and I'm saying there may need to be a more moderate approach to applying them on the small companies than on the large
companies - not elimination of critical regulations, but easing on the less critical ones that won't have huge negative implications if not applied.
Why, pray tell, are they entitled to preferential treatment. Why are 200,000 small businessmen breaking the rules preferable to one corporation with 200,000 employees?
Gimme a break!
---Since when are all rules applied totally equally in all instances (progressive taxes, scholarships, etc etc) ? Why is it all or nothing ? Who says they're all breaking the rules ? I'm talking about making the rules better and more reasonable where necessary.
Clearly you can look at the gamut of regulations and review them in an intelligent way that accounts for the fact that corp's have the market power to hire endless attorneys while small businesses may not - as just one of hundreds of examples - and structure the regulations more cogently based on their impacts.
>>> Are you a small businessman?
--- No, why - are you a robber baron ? Though I have had the misfortune of working for 2 large corporations, where I saw first hand what snakes they can be. I made this comment originally because I felt it is one area that needs to be addressed, and could be good for both the small companies and society generally if done wisely.
>>> The large companies cannot only afford compliance more easily in most cases, but their non-compliance tends to negatively affect a lot more people
They can afford it buy increasing prices and passing the cost on to you and I. Somehow I think that may be precisely what you have in mind. Do you think money magically
appears in the corporate treasury?
and they have the resources to bully those who oppose their abuses.
Small businesses are notoriously successful at doing just that at the local and state levels. And, through trade organizations, they don't do badly nationally, either.
---I have heard some of these horror stories of businesses pushing around their weight, usually in smaller, more backward states. That's again where campaign reform and intelligent regulations can help - though of course it's not going to eliminate all of it. Betcha that the big banking or oil corporation still pulls a lot more underhanded tricks at the state level than a bunch of small businesses though. Texass comes to mind.
OK, that's it for this week. I must say though that I'm not surprised by, but somewhat pleased at, the unfolding of the Bush fiasco -- the guy tricked many (not me) with his moderate talk -- reactionary walk b.s., and the murmurs of discontent among the formerly naive are growing. Today I heard a funny one on the train -- about the "Devil in the White House" -- but the young women saying it were not amused. I just hope this LIAR who claimed to be a uniter and moderate blah blah blah is unable to effect much damage before he gets tossed out. I guess the right wing of the party is genetically incapable of understanding viewpoints other than their own, and will always be surprised when the reaction to their greed, lies, and corruption is more virulent than they expected. |
