BigRob- Bear with me for a moment please. Tonight on Charlie Rose he had Jim Reed on and Charlie asked Reed if he would support the bail out of Bear-Stearns. Reed's answer was right on the money IMO. He said that when he started out CEO salaries were 20 times what his bottom worker earned. And he said that now CEO salaries are 400 times what his bottom worker earned. He said that if Bear-Stearns is to be supported by a government bailout then Reed thought that it would be quite reasonable for CEO's to also be willing to bear some of the responsibility for the problems and that their salaries needed to become a part of the bailout equation. Does it seem reasonable to you that the average American should shoulder all the pain which these huge bailouts are going to place on him/her and his children and grandchildren?
I am against all of these bailouts, I think they set a terrible precedent for the market. Companies will be more likely to go off and do something stupid because they know that the government will rush in to save them should anything go wrong. If a company cannot compete, it does not need to be in business.
This is dealt with in Will Hutton's book, ['A Declaration of Interdependence' which I mentioned earlier. And this is a simple example of how the US has become corrupt with extremist capatalism. It's an example of how the US must change and it doesn't mean that government should apply controls to private individual's salaries. Would any reasonable conservative balk at that? Is it going to be the individual's business until the sh-t hits the fan and then you will rely of socialist policy only then? Now to 'your' questions:
I think controlling executive salaries is just the beginning. Where does it end? It sets another precedent that we then can not go back on. After we cap executive pay do we then decide that doctors earn to much money as well? People will always go where the money is. I think that is evidenced by many Canadian doctors choosing to come practice in the United States so that they can earn more money. I think capping salaries sets a precedent for a brain drain.
True enough but if you are unfortunate and encounter expenses because of poor health your system will destroy many more people than would be destroyed in another country with social platforms. But you mention free schools and that is contrary to most conservatives' views I believe. Are you saying that every American has a right to a free quality education? If so then why can't you carry it a bit further to include what we in Canada consider other necessities?
Everyone in this country can attend high school for free. I think that is a good thing. I think however, that after that you are not entitled to a job. It is up to you to then go out and earn a job. Most conservatives today are not opposed to free public schools, but they also support vouchers and other programs for private schools.
As for your healthcare system being just fine, the WHO doesn't agree and it places you at #37. It's worth mentioning that all the presidential hopefuls addressed the situation and had plans to fix it, albeit some of them were lying. The reason why they felt a need to address the problem is because it was a political hot issue for the people. You can debate the 47 million number if you like but the American people consider it to be an issue. Fix it with socialist reform or fix it some other way, the people think it needs to be fixed. And then let's face it, Michael Moore did blow the whistle on the situation didn't he, even though there were flaws in his movie which were jumped all over by the right when they should have been more capable of accepting some of the stinging truths.
Reconcile all that for me.
The WHO can say what they please. They place access to healthcare as a high priority, but disregard free ER visits and other programs that do indeed give people access to healthcare.
People still come to the United States from the UK and Canada to get procedures done because they do not want to get caught up in all the bureaucracy and just want to get an operation. I think that the entire "problem" with the healthcare system is government created as is.
The HMO was a government mandate in this country. After that, the government then decided to focus tax breaks for buying healthcare solely for employers and not for the individual. This destroyed the individual market for healthcare, and I think played a role in rising prices (as monopolies always do). I do not find the solution to a government mandated problem to be more government. If we look at the costs of spending as is for Medicare for about the same amount of people as in Canada, it is outrageous. That said there are another 300,000,000 people after to then pay for as well. Where is all of this money going to come from? I think the solution is to give tax breaks to individuals to buy their own insurance and restore the private market, and let the market dictate the price, not the government. Economics 101 says price caps do not work.
In fact a study of income quintiles will show that there isn't more money in the hands of the middle class since the beginning of Bush's two terms. In fact Bush has been faithful to the Supply side mentality and has given tax breaks to the rich. That hasn't succeeded in stimulating the economy but has shown that Supply side economics is a fraud. Now that your country is nearing financial ruin it's time for Mr. Change to have a go at taxing the rich to pay the bills and giving the middle class a break. It appears to be a hugely popular idea.
Since Bush has been in office the rich actually shoulder more of the tax burden. Let me explain:
While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income house*holds pay so little in income taxes in the first place. In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.
First, lawmakers low*ered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit, reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.
Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 per*cent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent. That means that the top group then had to cover an expanded percent of the tax burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 per*cent to 5.4 percent"
And the standard of living in your country has declined, people are losing their homes enmass, huge corporations are dropping like flies, and people are unhappy.
People are over-reacting to the mortgage problem. First, it is not like everyone is losing their house. I think it is something like 1 in every 5000 houses is in danger maybe. Added to that, in my mind this is simply a market correction. Many of these people who are now getting foreclosed on had no business taking out a large mortgage and buying a house, and the companies had no business giving them these loans. Many of these people now losing their housing could not afford them to begin with, but tried on the hope that housing prices would continue to rise. They took a risk and lost, its not the governments fault, or responsibility to save them. Same with these companies, they took a risk and lost.
Is it sustainable with high oil prices? T. Boone Pickens thinks that high oil is going to destroy the economy of your country. An invasion of Iran is expected to put oil at $12/gallon and that is forecast to destroy your economy. Are you actually trying to paint a bright and rosy picture and think you will get away with it?
Gas is over ten dollars a gallon is Europe and they are not in financial ruin. Why does $12 gas here ruin us, and $10 gas there for years mean nothing? We can shoulder $12 gas if we must, it will just speed the process to alternatives. I do not know where you are getting the idea that $12 gas is going to kill the economy. As for Iran, I do not think we will invade.
