"producers just stop(ping)" is a near impossible event. Producers still have to eat, maintain shelter and stay clothed. Producers will have assets that will need protecting. Add the fact that one producer stopping creates opportunity for the next producer...so if you want to stop, go ahead. Nobody is irreplaceable.
There is a large shared cost to providing profitable markets from which producers profit. Somebody had to pay to build the roads and provide the infrastructure upon which business is built. Pay to keep the shipping lines open and safe for commerce. Somebody has to pay to educate the people that businesses hire. There are medical costs to treat people who are poisoned by industrial by-products. There are costs to the unintended consequences of things like industrial pollution, over-prescribed opioids, and antibiotics and other drugs, etc.
We can all debate just how those costs should be divvied up...but they are all real.
Interesting that you use free market principles in an attempt to justify socialism. Youre one of a small number of people hypocritical enough to attempt such a move. Well done.
Working and free markets are only viable because of the self reward in terms of money. One works to better themselves via money. As taxation continues to increase, the self reward of money will continue to decrease. Therefore the reward no longer exists, and the individual no longer has motivation to produce.
Need money? No worries. The dems are more than ready to let you sign up on multiple benefits in an attempt to shift more and more power from the individual to the state; and locking up a generational voter all at the same time. So money wont be an issue.
So eventually, the producer will be faced with a scenario where they can work or not work; and the financial results are the same. We're nearing that point now.
The bigger question is, why is there a need for the bills?
Who's job is it to check someone's plumbing before entering said bathrooms?
Does some pervert cop now hang out and police the local restroom? Sorry mam, you can't enter unless you can prove that you're a female...
Not surprisingly, many people dont want to share bathrooms with the opposite sex. Theres never been police at the doors, because there hasnt been a need. Its been self policed.
Of course in a perfect world, there would be no problem allowing transgender people in bathrooms. But this is anything but. Any pervert can throw on a wig, and enter a womans dressing room, claiming to be transgendered. Whos to decide if hes truly transgendered enough to not be prosecuted? If you tell him no, whats the standard for who is told yes?
Unwittingly, your police example actually proved my point. Theres no way to decide whos transgendered enough, unless its examined on a case by case basis. This would take ridiculous amounts of time and resources and provides no way of uniformity. The same person can be granted access in one place, and denied in the next. The only way to ensure consistent enforcement is to require the individual to go with their current sex organs.
I don't think she's just indicated either, but wonder if a republican gets in, does she then?
One can surely hope. Shes escaped justice for far too long.
Can't Obama just issue a blanket pardon if a R wins?
That seems like the most underhanded and corrupt way of handling things, and therefore the most likely.
And would be the most Clinton thing of all time.
