Do you support Enriching Corporations through Legislation

[theDoctorisIn]

Well if government were to get out of the way lettuce wouldn't cost 5x more. The market naturally leads to lower prices.

That's patently false. The natural price of a head of lettuce is based on a very slim profit margin - plant food costs money, land costs money, labor costs money. Without farm subsidies, we'd either have to pay $5 for a tomato, or not grow any commercially, ever again.

In fact, in many ways, it is cheaper for people to grow their own vegetables then buy them from the local grocer unless they have a farmers market nearby. And the vegetables are much fresher.

I agree. Over the summer I grew a variety of baby lettuces and vegetables in my backyard. Managed to grow some delicious food straight from the soil of Brooklyn.

 

[Darkwind]

That's patently false. The natural price of a head of lettuce is based on a very slim profit margin - plant food costs money, land costs money, labor costs money. Without farm subsidies, we'd either have to pay $5 for a tomato, or not grow any commercially, ever again.

In fact, in many ways, it is cheaper for people to grow their own vegetables then buy them from the local grocer unless they have a farmers market nearby. And the vegetables are much fresher.

I agree. Over the summer I grew a variety of baby lettuces and vegetables in my backyard. Managed to grow some delicious food straight from the soil of Brooklyn.

Aye. All of My in-laws have gardens. They haven't purchased grocery store produce in decades.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What does "at taxpayer expense" mean? Does that mean that tax monies are being given to corporations? For no benefit to the people? I mean, military contractors get taxpayer money all the time. That hardly seems unfair. It would be more unfair to demand their goods and services and not pay for them.

I am in favor of having government get out of the way of corporations honestly trying to make money for their shareholders. In the process they make money to pay their workers and pay taxes as well. If they get rich, that's even better because poor companies don't increase wages of their workers.

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

 

[Darkwind]

What does "at taxpayer expense" mean? Does that mean that tax monies are being given to corporations? For no benefit to the people? I mean, military contractors get taxpayer money all the time. That hardly seems unfair. It would be more unfair to demand their goods and services and not pay for them.

I am in favor of having government get out of the way of corporations honestly trying to make money for their shareholders. In the process they make money to pay their workers and pay taxes as well. If they get rich, that's even better because poor companies don't increase wages of their workers.

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

I would be 1,000 percent against any such legislation.

It is not the responsibility of government to ensure a business survives.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What does "at taxpayer expense" mean? Does that mean that tax monies are being given to corporations? For no benefit to the people? I mean, military contractors get taxpayer money all the time. That hardly seems unfair. It would be more unfair to demand their goods and services and not pay for them.

I am in favor of having government get out of the way of corporations honestly trying to make money for their shareholders. In the process they make money to pay their workers and pay taxes as well. If they get rich, that's even better because poor companies don't increase wages of their workers.

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

And by that you mean every single piece of legislation this country has passed in the last 60 years?

 

[The Rabbi]

The government has no right to give businesses taxpayer money.

I agree. I would rather pay 5x as much for a head of lettuce than subsidize farmers.

I don't agree with many farm subsidies, but you're missing the other side of this - there are millions of people in this country who can't afford to spend 5x the price for a head of lettuce. Which means people just won't buy lettuce. Which means farms will go out of business. Which will destroy what's left of our agrarian economy, making millions more poor people.

So this country is made up of millions of people who cannot afford a head of lettuce? Take away the subsidies and no one will ever sell a head of lettuce again? Gimmeabreak.

What is destroying our agriculture is restrictions on migratory labor that make it impossible to plant and harvest crops economically, driving our agriculture south of the border.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What does "at taxpayer expense" mean? Does that mean that tax monies are being given to corporations? For no benefit to the people? I mean, military contractors get taxpayer money all the time. That hardly seems unfair. It would be more unfair to demand their goods and services and not pay for them.

I am in favor of having government get out of the way of corporations honestly trying to make money for their shareholders. In the process they make money to pay their workers and pay taxes as well. If they get rich, that's even better because poor companies don't increase wages of their workers.

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

And by that you mean every single piece of legislation this country has passed in the last 60 years?

Have things been this fucked up for that long? No wonder my parents are numb to the health care bill.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I agree. I would rather pay 5x as much for a head of lettuce than subsidize farmers.

I don't agree with many farm subsidies, but you're missing the other side of this - there are millions of people in this country who can't afford to spend 5x the price for a head of lettuce. Which means people just won't buy lettuce. Which means farms will go out of business. Which will destroy what's left of our agrarian economy, making millions more poor people.

So this country is made up of millions of people who cannot afford a head of lettuce? Take away the subsidies and no one will ever sell a head of lettuce again? Gimmeabreak.

What is destroying our agriculture is restrictions on migratory labor that make it impossible to plant and harvest crops economically, driving our agriculture south of the border.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you advocating allowing migrant workers that could be paid less than minimum wage to come in and take jobs from American citizens?

 

[The T]

What does "at taxpayer expense" mean? Does that mean that tax monies are being given to corporations? For no benefit to the people? I mean, military contractors get taxpayer money all the time. That hardly seems unfair. It would be more unfair to demand their goods and services and not pay for them.

I am in favor of having government get out of the way of corporations honestly trying to make money for their shareholders. In the process they make money to pay their workers and pay taxes as well. If they get rich, that's even better because poor companies don't increase wages of their workers.

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

I would be 1,000 percent against any such legislation.

It is not the responsibility of government to ensure a business survives.

The only thing Government is to do is to ensure that Business have the liberty to survive in this country on the terms of the business, and NOT that of Government.

With the Consumer making or breaking the business.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does "at taxpayer expense" mean? Does that mean that tax monies are being given to corporations? For no benefit to the people? I mean, military contractors get taxpayer money all the time. That hardly seems unfair. It would be more unfair to demand their goods and services and not pay for them.

I am in favor of having government get out of the way of corporations honestly trying to make money for their shareholders. In the process they make money to pay their workers and pay taxes as well. If they get rich, that's even better because poor companies don't increase wages of their workers.

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

OK. Who in his right fucking mind is going to support that?
Oh yeah, the Democrats in Congress and Obama support that. Forgot. They're the party of the rich now.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Managed to grow some delicious food straight from the soil of Brooklyn.

Hey, I'm in Brooklyn too! What's your 'hood?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

And by that you mean every single piece of legislation this country has passed in the last 60 years?

Have things been this fucked up for that long? No wonder my parents are numb to the health care bill.

Longer than that, really. Corruption has always existed - in constantly changing forms. As soon as we find a way to fight back, they find a brand new way to steal. In the 1800s in New York, it was Tamminy Hall and Boss Tweed. Now its Halliburton and KBR.
During WWII, soldiers cooked their own food, cleaned their own barracks, did their own laundry. Now we contract all of that out to KBR with no-bid contracts.

 

[Darkwind]

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

I would be 1,000 percent against any such legislation.

It is not the responsibility of government to ensure a business survives.

The only thing Government is to do is to ensure that Business have the liberty to survive in this country on the terms of the business, and NOT that of Government.

With the Consumer making or breaking the business.

Yep....I think there is a word that describes just that....what was it again??......

Hmm...Oh, yeah.

Capitalism.......

Now of course, the left will pull out the bogeymen and all the bad things a few bad men have done and then paint all of capitalism with that brush and claim that we need benevolent government to curb the excesses of these horrible corporations who are all full of evil men just working so hard at making profits.....


As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now...."The horror........the horror....."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Managed to grow some delicious food straight from the soil of Brooklyn.

Hey, I'm in Brooklyn too! What's your 'hood?

Wilson Ave on the L train. The farthest part of Bushwick from Williamsburg. (And the least trendiest)

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I would be 1,000 percent against any such legislation.

It is not the responsibility of government to ensure a business survives.

The only thing Government is to do is to ensure that Business have the liberty to survive in this country on the terms of the business, and NOT that of Government.

With the Consumer making or breaking the business.

Yep....I think there is a word that describes just that....what was it again??......

Hmm...Oh, yeah.

Capitalism.......

Now of course, the left will pull out the bogeymen and all the bad things a few bad men have done and then paint all of capitalism with that brush and claim that we need benevolent government to curb the excesses of these horrible corporations who are all full of evil men just working so hard at making profits.....


As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now...."The horror........the horror....."

I don't blame Capitalism. I blame people.

It's a human nature thing. There's always going to be those few bad apples who spoil it for everyone.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

You basically just explained the actual "reasons" for invading Iraq. I wish people had been more outraged...

 

[Darkwind]

The only thing Government is to do is to ensure that Business have the liberty to survive in this country on the terms of the business, and NOT that of Government.

With the Consumer making or breaking the business.

Yep....I think there is a word that describes just that....what was it again??......

Hmm...Oh, yeah.

Capitalism.......

Now of course, the left will pull out the bogeymen and all the bad things a few bad men have done and then paint all of capitalism with that brush and claim that we need benevolent government to curb the excesses of these horrible corporations who are all full of evil men just working so hard at making profits.....


As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now...."The horror........the horror....."

I don't blame Capitalism. I blame people.

It's a human nature thing. There's always going to be those few bad apples who spoil it for everyone.

Absolutely.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What I mean by "at taxpayer expense" is legislation that either takes tax money from the people and transfers it to corporations or legislation that mandates people give their money to a corporation.

You basically just explained the actual "reasons" for invading Iraq. I wish people had been more outraged...

Yup and many other things our government has done, and plans to do.

Imagine if the government told you "Mr.Peepers, you must buy health insurance from one of these 3 government approved companies (Blue Cross, Harvard Pilgrim, or Aetna). If you do not purchase a qualifying plan from them you will face stiff penalties and possibly jail time"

To me that just sounds wrong but thats what we have going between the house and senate right now with the latest version of "reform" for health care.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Do you support legislation that makes big companies rich at the expense of the taxpayer?

Please vote in the poll and discuss.

Feel free to ask me anything.

It depends on the legislation. There are some forms of very legitimate and necessary legislation that winds up putting money into the cofers of private businesses. Defense contracts immediately come to mind.

Requiring auto insurance, requiring graduation from a private cosemetology school before issuing a license to cut hair, etc ... some are necessary measures to protect a legitimate interest of society and some are dubious imho.

In terms of forcing people to purchase health insurance, I think that is a legitmate interest of society.

For whatever reason we have determined that we do not want to be the type of society that allows people to go untreated no matter what. So forcing those who CAN contribute to their own healthcare instead of relying solely on the rest of us to pick up the tab for them, is OK by me. Would it be better to have the government underwrite the care to keep the money out of the hands of private businesses? Is it better to create cooperatives that would have a competitive advantage over their for-profit competition? Or is it better to just funnel the business to the existing economic machines?

I was a co-op supporter myself.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Do you support legislation that makes big companies rich at the expense of the taxpayer?

Please vote in the poll and discuss.

Feel free to ask me anything.

It depends on the legislation. There are some forms of very legitimate and necessary legislation that winds up putting money into the cofers of private businesses. Defense contracts immediately come to mind.

Requiring auto insurance, requiring graduation from a private cosemetology school before issuing a license to cut hair, etc ... some are necessary measures to protect a legitimate interest of society and some are dubious imho.

Thanks for your viewpoint.