30 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote
Really? I wasn't paying attention? Well I'm glad you were.
IMO it was government influence on the behest of big corp and the wealthy that leveraged weak regulations to gain advantage. Those that failed got bailouts. So the solution is to reduce regulations? That would sure cut down on the need for campaign contributions by big corp but would also create chaos as big corp would leverage our economy into the ground. Gone are the days when big corp and the wealthy understood that their has to be a balance, that they just can't loot everything. With the S&L scandal of the 90's, Enron, and now the most recent financial meltdown reduction in regulation will only create more of these meltdowns more frequently. Sure you get big money out of politics but you end up with an economic disaster.
Re: S&L: Moral hazard is a %^#(&%#... and was enabled by the Feds.
Whats that? They doubled down in the 90's and on into the 2000's... which in large part lead to where we are today?
I could go on... but it'd be a waste.
So no lock on the door is better than a defective lock? If "eliminating the incentive" means "no regulation" than that's exactly what you mean.
Actually... yes... because depending on the defectiveness of the lock, you are creating a false illusion of security which can result not only in what you were trying to prevent... but wider spread issues as well.
Example... some I've talked to claim that had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban still been in effect... then friday's shooting wouldn't have happened. What they fail to realize that the AWB was largely a pretty hollow law... and that the definition of an 'assault weapon' in the law was so vague that it was easy to make cosmetic changes and to be able to sell functionally the same firearm, even under the ban.
- Can't have a pistol grip or telescoping stock? Use a thumbhole stock.
- Can't have a bayonet mount? Doesn't apply to AR variants, and a quick tweak to the AK design makes it compliant.
- Can't have a flash suppresser? So use a muzzle break instead.
Know what the actual result of the AWB was? Higher prices on pre-ban firearms and magazines... and no actual related reduction in related crime... and consistent sales.
Rather than try to write a perfect regulation or law (which assumes such a thing is possible without creating a minefield for those trying to comply with the law)... why not be very narrow in ones focus to try to focus on specific things... and only act when necessary, proper, and possible?
LOL. It's the Regan era that ushered in this whole era of "trickle-down economics". His followers were the ones who at every economic meltdown, recessions, or other excuse would cry for breaks for big corp. Decade after decade they whittled down effective taxes (including loopholes) for big corp and the wealthy to all-time lows. These "job creators" have had 30 years to show us how trickle-down economics are supposed to benefit us but instead has proven that the divide between the rich & poor will only get larger and the middle class will continue to diminish. And if you believe them it's all because of lazy people looking for handouts.
You must be pretty young... or generally naive as the Reagan ushered in one of the greatest periods of economic growth (affecting all people) that this nation has ever seen... a wave not only ridden by Bush-41 but also Clinton-42... however as pointed to above, some steps were taken to undermine what had been previously done.
Given you are so keen on continuing this class warfare line of reasoning... I see no reason to continue to waste my time on someone who is beyond hope or help.