quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

She been saying in alot of her interviews and in this debate, that the more government gets involved in everything, rich wins and the poor loses.

Her logic is, as government gets bigger, corporations like banks and insurers merge together to also get bigger, to match the government strength. And when that happens, every goes up in price, big companies crushes smaller companies, many job losses, and the poor and the middle class suffers, only the rich gets to prosper from this, as no matter what happen, it does not affect them.

So she's basically saying democratic policies are advantages towards to the rich.

It sounds like to me, she's seriously proposing as little government intervention as possible for everything.

And she claims this will help small businesses rise.

Any objection to her theory?

And why she's wrong?

I'm still trying to figure if she makes any sense. Technically, my government in my country interferes in EVERYTHING. But as a result, good things happen, but it's the way that they interfere. They don't give hands out. They take over building homes, so that homes can be affordable to the masses. That's why we have 80% home ownership for example, mostly living in government built homes.

They run their own personal medical insurance plan, and it's not paid out of your taxes, you must contribute a compulsory 10% to this medisave account, separate from taxes, which the funds can be used for your medical care and health insurance.

So now, everyone is covered up to 60% in medical views, although in non- airconditioned ward. In our horrible heat, air conditioned ward is kinda important. If they want better cover, they can use the money in this account to buy a government regulated private insurance. So for example, they even price freezed the private insurers. They are heavy handed in regulation to make things affordable.

But alot of these things are not choices. So I guess our government is pretty big, but they just don't believe in welfare or hand out, we pay for everything by compulsory deduction, but I guess there is very clear transparency as to, what goes to where. That's why income tax is only 5.5% for most people. 10% into your medical account is 100% your money to spend on anything medical and the government still gives you 4% interest on it. And then there is a the forced retirement account, which 20% of your money goes into it, also earn 4%. And you have the choice to use the money into investments to increase it's growth. But you can't cash it out until retirement age. Unless you give up your citizenship. It's all segregated and transparent. What happens to every single cent.

It's like a world of big government, with zero hand outs, we pay for every little thing. And it works for us.

So, I am unsure if Fiorina is correct in saying smaller government interference is the best. In the US, it seems to be only two ways. Big Government equals big expenses. Small Government equals small expenses. We have Big Government, 300 billions in surpluses and super low expenses, or else we couldn't reach surplus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Greta,

The problem with the US Government controlling as much as it does, is that we are a nation of back-stabbers, hoarders, and selfish pricks. The people who run for office aren't saints or any better than the general masses. In some cases, they are much, much worse (just look at all the elected Federal representatives that have been taken to task for breaking the law lately).

My Government is one that uses handouts like it bribes and sops. We just finished building a nat-gas refueling station in Afghanistan, to prove that it can be a good way for Afghani's to fuel their vehicles. Unfortunately, to get the vehicles ready to use it, it's going to cost around $700 per vehicle, which is nearly a year's wages there. Oh, and then there's this little bit about having paid a little too much for the station. With other stations in the same general area costing nearly $500K to build, the US dropped $43M building one where few are actually going to be able to use it anyway. Someone got paid US tax dollars for the work. No one can come up with justifications for the incredible price tag, though. Someone might get fired, but it's not really going to change anything.

The Obama Administration paid off Big Pharma to get them to go along with Obamacare. The Big Banks that are "too big to fail," have only gotten bigger.

A far more limited government would have to rely on the Market (that is, individual consumers and businesses) to get things accomplished. Big Business can't use a limited government to beat down small businesses, and must compete for market share, rather than regulating the safety of their current share.

Regulations, at times, are welcomed by Big Business because they know they can absorb the increased costs, but that their competitors (at least those that are small businesses) don't have the same efficiencies to absorb the increases, so they leave the Market. While there are definitely good reasons for some regulations, too much regulation will end up strangling the economy.

It comes down to who we are in the US. We are consumers and consumption is king. We've been bred that way, and it's not getting any better, generation after generation. The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans - as it pertains to Big Business - is that some (and it might not even be a majority) of the supported businesses are different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Look, the problem is the whole culture of money and profits. It's permeates business and politics.

quote:

Regulations have been and always will be the ruse that they cripple business and yet lobbyists are working overtime for those regulations that either reduce costs, or lower taxes or ruin their competition.
Big business has for 40 years and will continue to wipe out small businesses because the have buying power and get their employees to do more...for less.

quote:

Obama did nothing for big pharma or the medical industrial complex that wasn't and hadn't already been done by Bush, except to pass the same mandate the repubs pushed for in 92-93 and one in which service and drugs were going to be consumed as insured by the healthy that wouldn't buy a service or drug otherwise...except in an emergency, on other rate payer's tabs.

quote:

The big banks that were too big to fail were that big for 40 years and their bailouts and subsequent consolidation all happened under Bush II before Obama took office.

quote:

The difference between repubs and dems where it concerns big business is the repubs overweening and consummate willingness to be their water carriers in law, tax credits and subsidies that a consistent repub majority vote for and irrespective of the budget implications.