On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "I want to see government keep private industry in check and vice-versa." > > The government has some responsibility to keep private industry in check. I > do NOT want private industry keeping the government in check. That is > lobbying by another name and lobbying is one thing that is weakening the > political integrity of the country. > > I want citizens to keep the government in check (hello tea parties) and for > politicians to have some integrity.
I think we have a misunderstanding there. I mean that I want private industry to try and do the things that government does better and cheaper. If they can, great, private industry should do it. I want both industry and government to be as efficient, cost-effective, responsive and responsible as possible. I think that happens best when everyone is held accountable and the playing field is leveled as much as possible. > "...and that includes giving governments (local, state and national) > opportunities to compete as there are some things they do really well. " > > > No. No. No. No. Private companies cannot compete with the government when > the government can run deficits and undercut the competition. This just > gives government another means of controlling the people. The example now > is health care. If the public option is ever implemented, the government > can keep the price so low that no insurance company would not want to > compete. Hello single payer. Private companies run deficits and undercut the competition all the time. Remember Amazon.com? Bezos had a strategy to run in the red for 10 years to grow, grow, grow and get to a size where they suck all the oxygen out of their chosen marketplace and are large enough to dissuade potential competition. Runs deficits to destroy competition and then rake in the profits after you've taken out the competitors. Walmart sells at a loss when it moves into a new area until they've driven other competitors out of business, then they raise prices. If you were one of the people that says "I want government run like a business" then that's exactly what they'd do. Personally, I don't want government to do that. And we can set up rules to level the playing field between government and private industry. That doesn't always happen, of course, but it is possible and something I think we need to work towards. The Public Option, as proposed, would have been funded entirely by premiums, just like private health plans. Not by special accounting rules that allowed it to run massive deficits or draw from the general fund. I'm in favor of programs that are run like that. > "Right now we have a tendency to shove all the nasty bits onto the > government, take anything potentially successful and hand it off to private > industry and then bemoan that government doesn't do anything." > > I don't that want the government to do anything except what it was designed > for: Provide for a common defense and regulate interstate trade. You forgot Promote The General Welfare. > "Government is ours, we own it." > > Do we? Then why don't representative listen to their constituents. I'd say > government is owned by the lobbyist and big business. That government and > big business are some entwined that it's hard to say where one begins and > the other ends. > > > "I can't say that about Welpoint or Halliburton or Enron." > > I'd say the opposite. Shareholders own the company. It's up to them to > police the company and punish the company by selling stock and investing > elsewhere. Those who don't do their job lose money when the company fail. You are applying reality to government and theory to companies. I agree that government is not as responsive to citizens as it ought to be. I think that lobbying and money in the election system is a horrible problem. If you think that shareholders have any great influence over big business though you are massively delusional. How many big CEOs have you seen in the last couple years receiving multi-million dollar bonuses while driving their company into the ground? Big business and big government are both unresponsive to the mechanisms that were originally set up to regulate them. They are both in dire need of reform. All I can say is that at this point in history, I feel like I have slightly more input and control over government than I do big business. Not saying a huge amount, but it is something. > "Instead of demonizing what you own and handing off all power to an entity > over which you have no control and who has no compulsion to do anything to > your benefit, why don't you try improving what you do have and try and make > it something in which you have pride?" > > I do not demonize our country. I love our country and would proudly die for > it. I demonize those who are corrupting it and destroying it. Those who say > we are no longer great and we should take a back seat to global community. > I demonize those who are stepping on personal freedoms and those who think > they know better than the people. I demonize policies that are weakening > what made our country great. That is certainly an attitude I respect and with which I agree. We seem to differ, however, on the details what policies are weakening our country and what we can do to improve our situation. I appreciate you laying things out for me though Jerry, I see your point of view more clearly and I can respect where you're coming from. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:326822 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
