Originally posted by Anon404
I want to add a separate post that's more concrete. Here are the areas that I feel the US needs the most work:
Criminal defense. Fact over 90% of all criminals in the US never see trial. While the US states pump tons of money to prosecutors public defenders get
hardly any attention. Many public defenders don't even know who their clients are since the state overloads them with so many so they tell most to
just plea bargain...
This could be fixed somewhat by: 1) Getting rid of the DEA and the ridiculous "War on Drugs" which, as we should have learned from the Prohibition
experiment, does nothing but supply career criminals with money and power...and 2) Getting rid of the BATFE, or ATF. "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms"
should be a convenience store, not a government agency. These guys started out as a small crew of IRS agents--friggin' tax guys!!--charged with
tracking down moonshiners. When prohibition was dropped, they didn't want to be shut down and lose their Gov't jobbies, so the Admins told them to
start chasing down illegal weapons dealers/owners. That seemed pretty dangerous to these IRS accountant boys, so they got around it by entrapping
private collectors at Gun Shows. Very annoying.
Housing. US housing has become too high. Buying a home should not cost much more than a years wage. These prices also trickle down to those who
pay rent. Soon homelessness will be rife if these prices cannot fall. Homes should be homes not money market speculative investments.
Not sure what you mean by homes being "money market speculative investments" unless you are talking about investments in the company or lender corp
itself. Private assets like homes are not available for purchase as stock in the exchange, but sometimes stock in a lending company specializing in
homeowner loans may be purchased.
But it seems to me that excessive government subsidies, funneled through the Fannie and Freddie Fraudhouses to lending corporations in return for
large bundles of sub-prime loans issued by the lending corps as per gov't regs, was pretty much the reason for the entire housing market thing. It
was way too easy to get loans, so lots and lots of people got 'em and bought houses, which drove the prices up because that's how markets operate.
The "Affordable Housing" crap legislation, in a beautiful display of so-called "unintended consequences", launched the price of housing way into the
stratosphere. So much for "affordable". When Fan and Fred finally failed, the bubble popped, lending corps were stuck with stacks of sub-prime paper
issued at government orders but which Fan and Fred could not purchase, leaving the lending corps with less-than-empty funding accounts. So the pop of
that bubble started bringing the whole house of cards down. The politickers got "emergency" legislation passed which allowed them to use public
funding to keep afloat anything they had a financial connection with("too big to fail" means "politicians own stock here"), everything else that was
going down was blamed, CEOs perpwalked, etc. And here we are. Yay for government intervention.
Corporatism. Corporations have far too much power. I do not mean the small corp. I am talking the multi million corporations. These entities
strangle small businesses, pervert political discourse, and move our jobs overseas while minimizing job growth domestically.
I agree with this too...but usually the reason a company can get so creaking huge is through supportive legislation. This would be one of the reasons
for being wary of "industrial/military" type companies; the government has a vested interest in making sure that company has a clear path to work,
which can result in some nasty entanglements of corporations and governments, resulting in an entity structured to compete for profits but with the
power to enact laws in its favor. No fun. Keeping the government out of this would keep corps on an even playing field, where they would effectively
keep each other down to a manageable size.
Finally using the tax code to effect policy. While I do not believe in a flat tax per se, a simple progressive taxation % on net income needs
to be established so we can know how much everyone pays in taxes.
Yah, the tax code sucks. No one understands it, and I'm sure you've all heard how three different IRS agents, given the same account documents, will
produce three different answers to what that account owes in taxes. Retarded.
I would really like a consumption rather than income based tax. That, it seems to me, would be the most fair. All taxes an individual pays is
dependent upon how much that person spends. Rich folks, naturally, would pay a lot more per capita than poor folks or "middle class". And since the
tax number--a percentage--would be the same for everyone, we would not have situations where one group is trying to raise the taxes of the others. If
the tax got too high, everyone would stand up and give the Gov't a unified stare-down.
The problem is, none of this is any good for padding pockets of public officials! They must, after all, think about their livelihoods!!
on 5/5/2011 by Tsurugi because: Typos