Iceland allows crooked banks to fail, and received a faster economic recovery. Who'd a thunk... Perhaps the free market does work. I doubt many are taking notes though.

People who request large increases in minimum wage fail to realize the money must initially, and continually come from somewhere. Cause, and effect.

This is where you are incorrect. Smaller businesses can't afford to increase wages from $7 to $12. Increasing this will cause an increase in overhead, thereby increasing prices. You will find that no upper administration will take the pay cut from their wages in the bigger corporations either, so the result will be a cut in staff or an increase in prices. Cause and effect. The money for increased wages must come from somewhere.

However I do agree that wages should coincide with cost of living.

I believe there is a lot of truth to your statement. However the upper class pays the majority of our taxes. The comments you hear about the upper class paying only 15% are false. They are under the same tax bracket system. The mystical 15% number comes from dividends. So if you increase those taxes, you are now increasing everyone's taxes on things like stocks, which many middle class have retirements attached to. We also have the highest corporate tax in the world.

The true manipulation comes from international corporations and how they crunch their numbers writing off expenses in the U.S. and income in countries with little to no corporate taxes. Then you have a small fraction of the upper 1% who are hording the saving directly into their own pockets instead of putting this wealth back into their company.

Perhaps this should be our focus then. Instead of increasing minimum wage to a living wage or $12 or so dollars an hour, which would undoubtedly double the price of everything thereby defeating its own purpose. Not saying that's what you are advocating, but it seems many want minimum wage to increase as a solution to our current financial problems.

Maybe we need to focus on why good paying jobs are leaving, and why education and training cost so much money...

I do believe it is important to realize that "minimum wages was never, nor should it ever be, intended to be a living, sustainable, wage. Basically it's intended for high school students who are looking to gain some work experience, and make a little play money.

To become successful from having nothing takes a tremendous amount of hard work and risk taking. Generally speaking. Most people I have ever spoken to are not willing to sacrifice and risk as much as those whom I've seen make it "big". MOST don't want, or feel comfortable with the responsibility involved. This is where income gaps are initially created. This is the fair, free market at work. Many (i will even say "most") times poverty does, in fact, stem from poor life choices and irresponsibility. Perhaps some just have not been shown the way.

But then there are those who are born into the life of big money. And there are a few (much fewer than the infamous 1%), that horde money like its air. Cutting positions and wages while simultaneously expecting more productivity, then writing the extra income into bonus checks for him/herself. I agree that this is an issue.

Depends on the business. Depends on what you are trying to do with the business. Depends on a lot of things. I know several who cannot or could not take vacations for a long time (several years). When building a business you're often considered "married" to your job. Almost all your profits go back into said business, and many times you are working 80 hours a week to manage everything and keep things afloat. Many times it would be considered irresponsible to take a vacation. And even those that do, often can't for longer than 3 or 4 days, unless they are big and profitable enough to hire someone to manage the issues that occur when the owner is away.

I know this may be off topic, but i think if you read about the civil war, you will find the south fought to keep the majority of government power at the state level. It wasn't really about slavery to the south. To some, perhaps, but not to many. This is a common misconception.

Anyhow, i agree with the inevitability of taxes. When talking about a large entity as the U.S. Federal government, people see a LARGE portion of their contribution get wasted on inefficiency, and the rest does not get used in the manner intended. Welfare, for instance, starts as being a selfless act. Everyone wants everyone else to have the essentials (food, shelter, medical care, etc) when said person comes on rough times. What happens is the monthly stipend is some cases ends up paying for beer, cigarettes, and junk food. Sometimes people end up milking the system, not searching for higher work, or not willing to take a job "flipping burgers" because A- "its beneath them" or B- because as soon as they start making money they will lose benefits. This is a system whose intent was pure, but the blanket policies resulting from shear volume have created inefficiency.

Things would be much easier if it were kept on a smaller, more individualized scale, where people have more say in exactly how their contributions are spent, and who get to see their money help. That would instill its own motivation i would think.

The notion of federalizing and centralizing everything is very illogical fiscally.

A nifty thing happens when doctors, who are self employed, only accept direct payment from clients. Cost are kept low. Same day doctor visit only costs around $40. Medication is affordable. A shot that would cost $35 increases to $140 when you get it from a large facility that accepts private and government insurance.

That tragedy is that this Obamacare is going to make these smaller, sliding payscale and free clinics extinct. Its essentially forcing higher costs.

This would help immensely as it weeds out the extra costs of using insurance.

I fail to see where this would be much better. More streamlined, yes. But the best solution? No. Medicare and Medicaid programs are a huge part of our healthcare crisis. They are billing nightmares, often falling behind in payments by YEARS, and many times failing to pay their bill altogether. In little old maine, alone, these two programs failed to pay hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars. Both programs also have a ton of red tape attached.

I feel that when dealing with U.S. healthcare our goals have shifted from providing everyone access to healthcare, and gravitated towards just increasing the number of insured citizens. First goal was productive, 2nd goal is not. We must also remind ourselves, that insurance is another big part of our issue.

I know i will get flak from this, but maybe we should looking into expanding our free clinics, or the clinics in which payments are income-based. Start small (one or two hospitals), then expand. Start directing medicaid money into the system. Then start directing medicare money into the system. Allow private facilities to remain untouched. This would weed out MOUNTAINS of red tape. Perhaps the free market may actually play the role of quality control for both systems (The government and private). No forced insurance, and if done right, in increments, there shouldn't be tax hikes. Just a thought... (Note: I realize the government rarely does things correctly)

Actually Jefferson attempted to start a movement to abolish slavery. Didn't believe in it. But this is where is hypocritical side has shown through as he was not willing to be in the minority in giving up his slaves. He was more of a "talker" than "do'er", and pretty much decided that people would not yet hear this new ideal. He had the brains, and the beliefs, just not the guts.

This would be unlike Washington, whom I'm pretty sure gave up his slaves, and a great deal of his own wealth to pay down the national debt we collected from our revolution.

Jefferson was still a very intelligent man, who had seen much, and who we could learn much from.

I feel that Mr. Paine, and most of the forefathers, saw this clear as day, from their time. All governments get purchased, this is not new. This is why they have tried to instill balance in our government powers. It seems that even this is being surpassed.

This is why Mr. Jefferson believe that revolution was a healthy thing, and should be exercised on a regular basis.

Not sure if my point was understood. I am not condoning what our government is teaching in schools or how they are teaching it. I am merely reflecting on the willingness of the people to turn responsibility over to their government, who, by design, cannot make better choices for everyone.

I believe the above statement to be 100% true. Seems many today don't want responsibility, and therefore won't take it. With that push comes the natural step of any government to intervene and take over that responsibility. This is the clockwork behind society today.

As any government steps in, it does so with blanket policies that may work in some cases, and don't in others. I have seen where many new policies hurt the education of the general student body (even traumatize them in some instances), in an attempt to help one troubled student. Truth is, the government lacks the ability to effectively raise a child, and so does the parent who wants to leave responsibility to someone else.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine

Not sure what constitutes and "illegal" gun in their minds. I personally would like to see fewer guns in the hands of criminals, but people like Bloomberg just pass blanket policies that seem to effect more honest people than criminals. To remove a cancerous tumor one would want to use scalpel. Seems that Bloomberg would prefer a broadsword for the same job.

Again, what constitutes and "illegal" weapon is a perfectly reasonable question. As is questioning the methods in which one would attempt to go after these weapons.

I understand your viewpoint, I can agree that people who are a danger to themselves and others should not be carrying. Legally, they can't. In fact it's against the law for them to own a firearm, or even be in the same household as one if; they've had a violent history, have committed a felony, or been deemed a potential danger to him/herself or others by a psychiatrist.

I must respectfully disagree about carrying firearms not providing security. Here in Lewiston, Maine (a neighboring town), we had a huge influx of Somali immigrants. Most of whom have made every effort to become a functioning part of society, and are leading productive lives. However, a few formed a small gang who pick people at random, flog them senselessly and take their possessions. I have a friend who works in that area. He was walking to his car that night and he saw two dark figures approach him, one seemed to be carrying an object he thought looked like a pipe. My friend then said "That's close enough", and they proceeded to approach him. Then he reached back to pull out his sidearm (exaggerating his movements so they could see what he was doing), and said "I said stop, that's close enough". The two figures paused, then turned and walked away. Again, the guns aren't what saves the day the majority of time. It's the possibility of being armed, that serves as a deterrent. The unknown is hard to calculate, and as a result, makes a career criminal's life a bit tougher.

That all being said, I cannot see where would be helpful in our security. In fact, anything we make illegal creates a black market, which funds cartels. I point to you our history with Prohibition.

This is a moot point. Job of police is to protect and serve, not just do what they are told. Time gets taken from the pursuit of real criminals and given to this new demographic whose only crime is offending another demographic. Don't see how this can be productive, nor helpful for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...