1 - 10 Next
Please, do tell, how it would be possible to prove voter fraud (except for going down the results, vote by vote, person by person and asking them if or how they voted) in a system that does not require ID or proof of identification to vote? It would be practically impossible to prove that someone showed up, said they were someone else, and voted multiple times, unless of course there is a clear cut way to identify the person who actually voted. This is exactly the reason why voter ID laws are needed. We need IDs for everything else in the REAL WORLD, WHY DON'T WE NEED ID TO VOTE??? (Note: other laws would still be needed to prove absentee ballot fraud)
In response to:

The Roberts Opinion: It's Not All Bad

Eli17 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 4:45 PM
He didn't do it explicitly. It is implied within his written opinion. It's not like he said, "hmm..if I let this monstrosity stand based on Congressional power to tax then Obama can't blame the court AND he'll have to admit it was a tax increase. Brilliant!" His logic alone for letting the law stand means that Obama will have to admit it is a huge tax increase on the middle class (although I doubt he'll actually admit that).
In response to:

Keeping Business Honest

Eli17 Wrote: May 23, 2012 12:33 PM
inkling, this is what niles never answers. He says fraud is an example of businesses not regulating themselves and that Stossel statement that fraud needs to be punished destroys his whole theory that they do not need to be regulated. That would be like saying because we have murderer's that we need more laws against murdering. Criminals will always find a way. What the regulations crowd never answers is 1)if the act is already illegal, why do we need more laws and 2)what proof is there that regulation works better than the market at policing businesses?
In response to:

Keeping Business Honest

Eli17 Wrote: May 23, 2012 12:22 PM
My question is where you think Stossel is wrong? In his article he states fraud needs to be punished and fraud (with help from the gov't) led to the current recession. By the way, you brought up the financial markets not me. And this is an example of a crooked business, not of business not regulating itself. That would be like saying that Al Capone would have been a saint had their been more government regulation (which is just INSANE).
In response to:

Keeping Business Honest

Eli17 Wrote: May 23, 2012 12:21 PM
Ok, but you haven't proved that government regulations actually stop fraud (i.e. the Countrywide and Bernie Madoff's of the world)???
In response to:

Keeping Business Honest

Eli17 Wrote: May 23, 2012 12:17 PM
My question is where you think Stossel is wrong? In his article he states fraud needs to be punished and fraud (with help from the gov't) led to the current recession.
In response to:

Keeping Business Honest

Eli17 Wrote: May 23, 2012 12:15 PM
Also please explain to me how if government regulation is the answer, we still have problems. We also seem to hear that we need more of it. There's never enough. The FED was supposed to prevent financial panic yet it oversaw the greatest panic(s) our country and the world has ever seen. How much regulation is enough and when does the economic cost of regulation overcome the perceived benefit of it? And in light of all the issues that still arise, does it actually work?
In response to:

Keeping Business Honest

Eli17 Wrote: May 23, 2012 12:11 PM
Stossel says clearly in the article that you're never going to get rid of bad people in business (or crooked politicians for that matter) and that the three things that need to be punished are fraud, theft, and physical assault. I believe that government policy along with financial institutions misrepresenting lender's credentials what securities they were selling (btw, this is also known as fraud) led to the current recession. So, in this context, how exactly does your argument disprove what the article states? I think you just want a utopia where everyone is moral and that is never going to happen. Stossel's point is that the profit motive regulates business better than the government can. Not that there will never be another scam.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

Eli17 Wrote: May 16, 2012 1:05 PM
How much does a drug cost to research and develop? How much testing does a drug go through (including the FDA) before it is approved to go on the market? I believe patents are given for 20 year periods on drugs. Could it be possible that in order to recooperate the money spent in R&D and testing required to bring the drug to market, that drugs have a value set by the market and not simply just picked out of the air by the drug companies. And where do those profits go? Back into more research and development? How many drugs fail? Yes, drug companies make money. They are a business. And in the process, they provide a service to their customers. If the price is too high, go develop your own drugs or find someone who will provide them cheaper.
In response to:

Good Economists

Eli17 Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 12:14 PM
WWII didn't end the Great Depression. Polio did.
1 - 10 Next