"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."
I have no problem with this. "Private companies run deficits and undercut the competition all the time" Yes. To some extent. However, they cannot do it year in and year out like the Federal Government can. At some point, the bank comes calling. As an aside, did you realize that most monopoly cases that were ruled on involved companies that undercut the competition. They were selling products and services at such a low price that competitors could not compete. "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." Read the Walmart Effect. An excellent book. The author tries to fbe air. In the long run, he shades to the anti Walmart spectrum. What you describe is not how Walmart runs. Competitors do go out of business, which is documented in the book, but it's not because Walmart is targeting them. Basically, Walmart doesn't give a damn about the competitors. Their prices are so much lower without temporary reductions that competitors cannot compete. The competitors have too much overhead without the buying power of Walmart. They cannot lower their prices enough. However, Walmarts usually cause new businesses to be born. Restaurants, shoe stores, phone store, more upscale clothing shops, and such are built around a new Walmart. Overall, the numbers showed that more businesses close than open, but that it is not as many as Walmart bashers would have you believe. "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." See the following: The End of Private Health Insurance: When government 'competes,' guess who always wins?<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958544583612437.html> "You forgot Promote The General Welfare." No, I didn't. Did you mean the line from the preamble or the reference in the Taxing and Spending clause? If the first case, then so what? It's the preamble. If the second case, I'll go with the founding fathers: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798 "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." - James Madison Besides, the general welfare clause has nothing to do with health care. President Obama said that health care deform was not a tax<http://www.youtubevideos1.com/obama-goes-toe-to-toe-with-stephanopoulos-on-tax-increases/>, so the general welfare clause does not have any bearing on it. That is, unless President Obama sat in front of a camera and intentionally lied to millions of people. "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." Good "If you think that shareholders have any great influence over big business though you are massively delusional. " They have the potential for influence. It is like kinetic energy. Too many shareholders have turned full responsibility of their holding to brokers who invest in mutual funds, dividing the potential power into fractional pieces. "How many big CEOs have you seen in the last couple years receiving multi-million dollar bonuses while driving their company into the ground?" Way too many. "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. " No doubt. "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." At this point, all I can say is that government and big business are in bed together so influencing one can't be done without effecting the other. J - No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. - Mark Twain The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy. - Thomas Jefferson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:326880 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
