[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?
[/quote]
What’s your answer to this question?[/quote]
Throwing stones while living in a glass house is a poor strategy; if you’re invisible, throwing stones becomes far safer.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?
[/quote]
What’s your answer to this question?[/quote]
Tons of stuff, as you well know. Aspects of the national economy must have some regulation (including credit and money supply (which has been the case since founding), commerce (prevention of fraud, mandatory disclosures for consumer and investor protection, efforts to restrict monopoly, as well as others), and environmental protections. These are just examples.
But, importantly, I am not an anti-government type claiming the whole thing needs to be burned down. For those that are, well, to Beans’ point - what stays and what goes in the real world?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?
[/quote]
What’s your answer to this question?[/quote]
Tons of stuff, as you well know. Aspects of the national economy must have some regulation (including credit and money supply (which has been the case since founding), commerce (prevention of fraud, mandatory disclosures for consumer and investor protection, efforts to restrict monopoly, as well as others), and environmental protections. These are just examples.
[/quote]
Yes, examples of what stays. What are examples of what goes?
[/quote]
Export-import bank. A ton of regulations on small and mid-sized businesses. Parts and chunks of social insurance (not because I disagree with them in principle, but because they are fiscally unsustainable and have moved beyond their proper scope). Just a few examples.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I think we can agree so far.
I would “burn to the ground” the following:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Labor
and downsize the hell out of several other cabinet departments.[/quote]
Why? Is it because those departments are inefficient/not something you think is best left to the state for whatever reason/something else entirely?
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Yes, at least that is my understanding. I’m not sure what point you are disagreeing with, the fact that supplement companies can make exaggerated claims or that people can learn what is best for them.[/quote]
That people can learn what is best for them.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
In regards to people being able to filter the noise from the supplement companies…The lack of regulation in market has created companies like Examine.com to get good third party research or use experts they trust to help get good advice and know what is propaganda vs. what works.[/quote]
If this was the case then people wouldn’t be obese and incapable of losing weight.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?
[/quote]
What’s your answer to this question?[/quote]
Tons of stuff, as you well know. Aspects of the national economy must have some regulation (including credit and money supply (which has been the case since founding), commerce (prevention of fraud, mandatory disclosures for consumer and investor protection, efforts to restrict monopoly, as well as others), and environmental protections. These are just examples.
[/quote]
Yes, examples of what stays. What are examples of what goes?
[/quote]
Export-import bank. A ton of regulations on small and mid-sized businesses. Parts and chunks of social insurance (not because I disagree with them in principle, but because they are fiscally unsustainable and have moved beyond their proper scope). Just a few examples.
[/quote]
I think we can agree so far.
I would “burn to the ground” the following:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Labor
and downsize the hell out of several other cabinet departments.[/quote]
The problem with this slash-and-burn approach to executive departments is it fails to appreciate that the departments carry out federal law and that is what they are designed to do. The Labor Department alone is in charge of implementing over 180 federal laws. Without the Labor Department, there’s no enforcement of those federal laws.
And you may want to get rid of those federal laws, and that’s fine, but you get rid of the laws first, then the department becomes obsolete. Getting rid of the executive department while laws on the books are required to be enforced makes no sense.
So which laws that these executive departments enforce would you get rid to make them obsolete?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?
[/quote]
What’s your answer to this question?[/quote]
Tons of stuff, as you well know. Aspects of the national economy must have some regulation (including credit and money supply (which has been the case since founding), commerce (prevention of fraud, mandatory disclosures for consumer and investor protection, efforts to restrict monopoly, as well as others), and environmental protections. These are just examples.
[/quote]
Yes, examples of what stays. What are examples of what goes?
[/quote]
Export-import bank. A ton of regulations on small and mid-sized businesses. Parts and chunks of social insurance (not because I disagree with them in principle, but because they are fiscally unsustainable and have moved beyond their proper scope). Just a few examples.
[/quote]
I think we can agree so far.
I would “burn to the ground” the following:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Labor
and downsize the hell out of several other cabinet departments.[/quote]
The problem with this slash-and-burn approach to executive departments is it fails to appreciate that the departments carry out federal law and that is what they are designed to do. The Labor Department alone is in charge of implementing over 180 federal laws. Without the Labor Department, there’s no enforcement of those federal laws.
And you may want to get rid of those federal laws, and that’s fine, but you get rid of the laws first, then the department becomes obsolete. Getting rid of the executive department while laws on the books are required to be enforced makes no sense.
So which laws that these executive departments enforce would you get rid to make them obsolete?
[/quote]
I understand that federal laws would need to be repealed and don’t intend for the following to sound as argumentative as it may but your minimalist approach of eliminating the Export-import bank, some regulations on small and mid-sized businesses, and parts and chunks of social insurance is certainly welcome but would do very little in the big scheme of things to put the federal government back in its constitutional cage where it belongs – we’re talking the proverbial drop in the bucket unless you’d like to expand on your suggestions.[/quote]
You may a faulty assumption that you and I agree as to the size of “constitutional cage”. My policy recommendations are not necessarily aiming to reduce the federal government to a size that you think appropriate.
So what do you think should be done to reduce the government down to your preferred sizing of the “constitutional cage”? You want to get rid of the Labor Department - do you you want to get rid of all federal labor statutes?
Yep.
[/quote]
How does eliminating all federal labor statutes not make us like China? Without those statutes, then companies have free reign to pay whatever wages they so choose (many cases, as little as humanly possible), push the labor force to work however many hours the company deems necessary, and removes all assurances the employees have for healthcare, disability, and other benefits. I can’t help but feel like that’s not a great situation for the American workforce, and reason why our society has worked so hard to build these very statutes to protect.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?
[/quote]
What’s your answer to this question?[/quote]
Tons of stuff, as you well know. Aspects of the national economy must have some regulation (including credit and money supply (which has been the case since founding), commerce (prevention of fraud, mandatory disclosures for consumer and investor protection, efforts to restrict monopoly, as well as others), and environmental protections. These are just examples.
[/quote]
Yes, examples of what stays. What are examples of what goes?
[/quote]
Export-import bank. A ton of regulations on small and mid-sized businesses. Parts and chunks of social insurance (not because I disagree with them in principle, but because they are fiscally unsustainable and have moved beyond their proper scope). Just a few examples.
[/quote]
I think we can agree so far.
I would “burn to the ground” the following:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Labor
and downsize the hell out of several other cabinet departments.[/quote]
Love it, but you forgot one: The IRS.
We don’t need it. Americans can pay taxes in a far simpler manner.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?
[/quote]
What’s your answer to this question?[/quote]
Tons of stuff, as you well know. Aspects of the national economy must have some regulation (including credit and money supply (which has been the case since founding), commerce (prevention of fraud, mandatory disclosures for consumer and investor protection, efforts to restrict monopoly, as well as others), and environmental protections. These are just examples.
[/quote]
Yes, examples of what stays. What are examples of what goes?
[/quote]
Export-import bank. A ton of regulations on small and mid-sized businesses. Parts and chunks of social insurance (not because I disagree with them in principle, but because they are fiscally unsustainable and have moved beyond their proper scope). Just a few examples.
[/quote]
I think we can agree so far.
I would “burn to the ground” the following:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Labor
and downsize the hell out of several other cabinet departments.[/quote]
Love it, but you forgot one: The IRS.
We don’t need it. Americans can pay taxes in a far simpler manner.
[/quote]
I’m none much pleased with the workings of the IRS either, but how would the alternative work? What would that look like?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Companies should have free reign to pay whatever wages they so choose. They can attempt to “force” employees to work long hours but would have to compete in the marketplace with other companies for employees. Same goes for assurances, healthcare, etc.[/quote]
I assume you support monopolies.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I understand the history behind the labor movement and the reasons why the government was compelled (unconstitutionally) to become the referee but those days are long gone and the facilitator has become the inhibitor to a smoothly functioning labor market.[/quote]
Gone BECAUSE of government intervention.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I say this as the owner/operator of a small business who is required to pay Davis Bacon wages at times and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that having to pay $33 - $45 hr for common unskilled labor in the Rocky Mountain West is a complete joke and forces me to scale back my number of employees. I know more what my employees are worth than some faceless D.C. monstrosity. Yeah, I really do.[/quote]
I’m assuming you’re being hyperbolic though, but 33-45 USD for unskilled labor? Really?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Remember, many times consequences…are unintended. Empowering the federal government to manipulate the mechanisms to effect those consequences has proven to be tricky proposition, full of failure – a cancer that always demands more as you continue to feed it more.
[/quote]
Indeed.
What do you think will happen if Obama and Congress chose to get rid of all the departments you want gone tomorrow?
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Without those statutes, then companies have free reign to pay whatever wages they so choose (many cases, as little as humanly possible), push the labor force to work however many hours the company deems necessary, and removes all assurances the employees have for healthcare, disability, and other benefits. [/quote]