Re: Spall/This one should...
Actually we agree on most things. The one disagreement is your insistence that the poor and otherwise needy be left to fend for themselves. The only reason I argue against cutting taxes is that your intention is to save money by cutting these social programs, otherwise I'm certainly not against smaller taxes or smaller government (which I have stated MANY times). I have always been for legalizing drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., since they are all personal choices that the government should have no say in. I have always supported the Second Amendment, though I think that a more streamlined set of clearer, more enforcable, gun laws is needed (and perhaps a training course, like for your drivers license, but that is negotiable). I also feel that no matter how well intentioned your philosophy is, it will just not work, when you throw human nature into the equation. We're not that civilized yet. It would be nice if everyon would control themselves, and obey the rules, but since they don't NOW, why would they with fewer restrictions? I also disagree that big business will either regulate itself, or be regulated by your conception of the "free market economy", mainly because your forgetting about mergers, takeovers, price-fixing, collusion, etc., etc., etc. If there's a buck to be made someone's going to make it, and they're not going to care who gets hurt along the way (firestone? Yeah I know they're paying NOW, but that doesn't bring back the dead and injured, nor does it diminish the fact that they did this with full knowledge, and thought they could get away with it, knowing that people were going to die). Imagine a corporate America with LESS restrictions, how many would die then? One of the governments jobs is to insure that each citizen has a fair OPPORTUNITY to acheive. If they are discriminated against, uneducated, killed by faulty products, foods, medicines, etc., not helped when help is needed and deserved, then they are denying that opportunity. AND it wouldn't cost that much if we could trim down that beauracracy you are so upset about. I understand you think you shouldn't be FORCED to pay for some of these things, but some pay for other things that they think we don't need. Some think we don't need defense (idiots, but they're there). Some think we should not pay for gunshot victims (I guess we're just let them lay there {until we have to pay to bury them}), or overweight people. Some think there should be no national parks, or manuments, or museums, etc. If no one had to pay for anything that they didn't want to, how would we fund ANYTHING, since by your standards, payment would be by choice only. Or, is it all right to force those who don't see the need for a military to pay since YOU want it (etc.)? Can you, at all, see what I mean on this?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
