Oh, btw, Roundup probably kills bees and government probably covers it up.

- I agree. 50% of population only pays 3% of the income taxes, to have a more fair system they shouldn't be getting tax cuts, they should be getting tax increases.

If they can raise the money and do it themselves, then who would object? At any moment in time whoever wants to run a project can ask for donations or release token bonds to be bought and advertise this and if there are enough people who want to see a moonbase and they pay for it, then it wouldn't be a problem for anybody who doesn't want to see gov't spend money this way.

As to voting: those who don't pay taxes to government shouldn't be able to vote. Those who pay more taxes than others should get extra votes.

Your daughter is not anybody else's problem, it is your problem, not mine, never was, never will be. Same thing in reverse - my daughter is only my problem, has nothing to do with you and caring about her should never be forced upon you by the threat of violence.

USA used to be the country that 'welcomed self-centered blowhards', that's how it became the wealthiest producer, creditor nation on the planet.

Others will welcome the 'self-centered blowhards' today, it's going to be USA's loss.

Well, out of your 70K, paying 50% would be 35K.

Clearly, to you it makes sense to pay 35K if every single thing you wanted was covered by whatever government program and all of your charges would be covered in that 35K.

I was fixing my teeth in Germany this year cost 12K (Euro), nearly all of it paid out of pocket though I carry private insurance of-course. That was just one of the things that I had to spend on this year.

However if I had to pay 50% of income in taxes for things I spend on out of pocket, I would overpay by 99% and would still get a shittier service, because I'd have to wait in line and I'd have worse results. Not only I'd be overcharged, there would have been no competition for my money from the sellers, they wouldn't be competing for my money, they'd be getting paid by gov't, so I wouldn't be a client in the first place, just another checkmark in a log book.

No, thank you, but no thank you. It absolutely doesn't make sense to pay 50% in taxes the more money you make. Income taxes are both morally and economically wrong, but progressive income taxes are even worse. At least with regressive income taxes, those who make more money would have been charged less percentage wise, and since they are already buying all of their stuff privately, they'd be robbed less, while those, who are relying on gov't to provide for them with all those programs, would have been paying for it with half of their earnings.

You want fairness? Regressive income taxes are more fair than the progressive type.

Nonsense. If you want the government to do something right, you shut the government down, all of it, then decide what bare minimum of the 'right' things it should do and tell it to do only those things at a very specifically calculated budget and then apportion the taxes to that budget from the States.

- I find it curious that you find it curious.

- are you aware that all of the regulations into financial industry and all other industries were passed in the 20th century?

I know that you are unaware that you are wrong.

1. Before 1923 there were much fewer regulations than any time after it.

2. Deregulation is a myth. About 15000 new financial regulations were created during the Bush era. In total there are over 100,000 various financial regulations concerning banks, investment companies, brokerages, exchanges, etc.

3. Real deregulation would have increased competition in banking. In reality there is more an more regulation and the competition in banking and finance is non-existent. There are no new banks, there are no new investment brokers, there is nothing new happening in the business. In fact there are much FEWER banks and much FEWER investment brokers in USA. Hell, USA even lost an exchange.

- maybe you should read my journal and go over my comments before offering your suggestions.

The current crisis is indeed nothing new, it is a logical continuation of the same thing that has been in the works since the Federal reserve was established and especially since Nixon defaulted on the dollar.

Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the credit bubble of the last decade and the current one and the one before and the one before and the one before and the one before.

Glass-Steagall was actually put in place to counteract the moral hazard created by the FDIC, but Glass Steagall is not the culprit in the credit bubbles, the culprit is Federal reserve bank, Treasury and Congress, which pushed forward various credit expanding agenda.

- Federal regulations have nothing to do with local zoning bylaws, however taken to the logical conclusion, should I not want a firework factory or a nuclear waste treatment plant near my house?

The regulations and laws that are created by the government, allow private property rights to be dismantled at the whim of the politicians and their most connected business bodies. The only thing that is necessary to prevent any problem of pollution is to adhere to very strict private property laws and abolish all publicly owned assets, because again, they are the moral hazard.

The gov't doesn't have a problem with a company destroying a resource near you, the government provides liability protection for companies doing it.

Abolishing government from regulating the market would heal the economy.

The problem with IPOs is that the idea of what it is was perverted by government regulations. Without government regulations small companies, new companies would be able to go IPO without having to go through all the hoops that government sets in front of the companies - there wouldn't be a need for a company to reach a point where it is already making money in the first place. There wouldn't be a need to wait until the company is overvalued without any real upside.

What's the upside in buying FB stock in this IPO? There is no upside, FB is overvalued, just like many other companies before it. The upside is eaten by the banks - underwriters, but this is the problem CREATED by the government.

A company cannot go IPO without a lengthy and a very expensive legal process and this is the problem. If companies weren't prevented from going IPO in the very early stages, then their stock could be bought by small, by tiny investors and there would've been actual possibility for growth.

The government comes in and sets all these nonsense rules that are supposedly there to prevent risk to investors, and in doing so the government destroys the very reason to invest into companies. Taking risk IS what investors have to do, in some cases they would lose money and in some cases they would make money and in a few cases they'd lose all the invested money and in a few cases they would make it really big.

It would be totally up to investors to decide where to take the risk, companies wouldn't have to exist for years before going IPO, the VERY REASON to go IPO would actually become a healthy one again - going IPO with the government rules and regulations means that it is just a way for early investors and founders to cash out.

Going IPO was MADE by the government into a way to cash out of the company! Going IPO shouldn't be about allowing early investors and founders to cash out, it should be about growing the company - providing the company with the necessary funding to allow it to grow.

Going IPO should be about the market deciding whether it wants the company to have the resources needed to attempt and build that business, not about having a company with no risk to investors and thus basically insuring the exact opposite. Because of government rules and regulations IPOs have NO upside to the small investors, it all goes to the underwriters and early founders.

It makes no sense at all, and the public is made so absolutely categorically blind to the fact that it is the government rules and regulations that destroyed the ability of small investors to take risks in investing and manage their own risk, hedge their bets and actually have a real possibility to invest into a company with real upsides.

A little investor with just hundreds or thousands of dollars is NOT allowed to participate in a company's success from early stages of formation.

You want more regulations? Really, you so believe that what is needed here is more regulations? You believe that the current amount of regulations surrounding IPO makes your investment opportunities better? Less risky? Safer?

The government removes the only one risk: the risk that you can actually buy good investments with plenty of upside and participate in building a successful business.

The government protects you from one thing: from making money.