Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
But the laws on murder are still being enforced. I guess the question I'm asking is if people aren't following the constitution, and not being held to account then what is the point of it?
|
It still affords us some protections. Additionally, you don't throw a good law out because people ignore it, you start arresting, prosecuting, and harshly punishing those who break it. And you do this until people are too afraid to break the law, or they legally change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
What's another trillion? But it is surely better than letting the economy collapse, letting inflation go through the roof, and having employment go up massively. Letting the Country go into depression is not helping anyone. The people that caused the problem have still got their millions. What will stop it happening again anyway? With a free economy, people make short term decisions to create profit. This won't go away if you let the banks go out of business. It'll still be rinse and repeat without the rinse. So you get a whole lot dirtier.
Letting Lehmans go under was a mistake. Confidence is the key and that made it a whole lot worse.
|
I'd rather do this once, painfully, and get it out of the way than have a repeat of it again in another ten years. Instead, insolvent businesses will be bailed out, government will expand its control over the market, and the people and businesses who participated in bad business practices don't suffer for what they've done. If you spend more than you bring in and can't keep your head above water, stupid should hurt. If you give loans out to people who have no ability to pay it back, stupid should hurt. If you force a business to give people loans when those people can't pay it back, stupid should hurt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I was goading you with that one on the back of the 'Obama is a Socialist' argument.
|
If BHO nationalizes the health care or banking industry, then I will call him a socialist. If he institutes regulations such that government may as well own them, I will call him a socialist. Now I just call him a redistributionist and a handful of unprintable names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I think if you do that, then the lowest standard of school would go down dramatically with some people choosing to pay peanuts and get really crap education. Maybe you could state that the $10k has to be spent on schooling which might help resolve this so effectively you keep the money and give the pupil a choice of school, with all schools run privately.
|
Like I said, compulsory schooling won't go away. Make them use that on private schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I'm not sure if you could have a flat rate of $10k either. The good ones are going to cost a lot more while you'll have bargain schools for those people trying to pay for their mortage? And the good teachers will always end up at the more highly paid schools. So you could actually widen the education gap.
Interesting thought though.
|
I have every faith the the market that gives us better and better cellphones, computers, TV, and a wide variety of foods would have no problem producing an array of quality schools for much cheaper than the federal government does currently. And like I said, public school isn't going away, but we need to find some way to use the private sector to improve the educational system.
Adrian