Aug 14th 2011, 7:06:40
I don't blame the tea party for creating these problems, I blame them for the US not being able to solve them.
Obviously, you didn't even read the last column you even quoted: if companies do not get bailed out, who would you think suffers more when one goes down? The "all-lawyered-up" CEOs with bonuses and retirement packages and millions of income before. Or the employees, who might have some small savings but need their job quite desperately.
"Electricity would not be nearly as expensive because regulations on energy wouldn't block new power plants, they would only make sure they were safe."
I really loled at that. If there was free competition among energy suppliers, they would start shaving costs whereever they could, so that they can offer cheaper energy and thus be the one to sell it. Now where can you shave off a lot of your costs? Oh yes, I know: Safety measures.
As for taxes:
-How do you want to pay for schools? Should only rich people be able to get an education? I guess for you, poor people are citizens 2nd class anyways. Same goes for healthcare. Should only the rich be entitled to be healthy?
-How do you want to pay for your infrastructure/clean streets/police/firemen/any other kind of public service?
And it is not as easy to earn decent money from scratch, as you imagine. You start out piss poor -> you cant get a decent education -> you'll be stuck in underpayed jobs(because your employers, again, are trying the best for themselves, too) -> you can't save up for your children -> circle starts again for those children.
Now let's look at the other side of this coin: a rich CEO(who was even smart and really had his comany growing) has a dumb as fluff son. That one gets a decent education. But because schools depend on the payments of his rich father, they won't do anything to endanger those payments and call out the sons stupidity. And this goes on and on, until the father retires and leaves the company to the son. Sadly now the company goes down the drain and many jobs are lost.
Obviously, you didn't even read the last column you even quoted: if companies do not get bailed out, who would you think suffers more when one goes down? The "all-lawyered-up" CEOs with bonuses and retirement packages and millions of income before. Or the employees, who might have some small savings but need their job quite desperately.
"Electricity would not be nearly as expensive because regulations on energy wouldn't block new power plants, they would only make sure they were safe."
I really loled at that. If there was free competition among energy suppliers, they would start shaving costs whereever they could, so that they can offer cheaper energy and thus be the one to sell it. Now where can you shave off a lot of your costs? Oh yes, I know: Safety measures.
As for taxes:
-How do you want to pay for schools? Should only rich people be able to get an education? I guess for you, poor people are citizens 2nd class anyways. Same goes for healthcare. Should only the rich be entitled to be healthy?
-How do you want to pay for your infrastructure/clean streets/police/firemen/any other kind of public service?
And it is not as easy to earn decent money from scratch, as you imagine. You start out piss poor -> you cant get a decent education -> you'll be stuck in underpayed jobs(because your employers, again, are trying the best for themselves, too) -> you can't save up for your children -> circle starts again for those children.
Now let's look at the other side of this coin: a rich CEO(who was even smart and really had his comany growing) has a dumb as fluff son. That one gets a decent education. But because schools depend on the payments of his rich father, they won't do anything to endanger those payments and call out the sons stupidity. And this goes on and on, until the father retires and leaves the company to the son. Sadly now the company goes down the drain and many jobs are lost.