billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote>You might also be interested to know that Walmarts subsidies
>mainly come from local and state governments, not the Feds.QuoteOf course - just as much of the money for environmental improvement in California comes from California via CARB. The EPA operates across all states, which makes sense since air and water do not respect state boundaries.
Nor do they respect International boundaries.
>Please explain why you think the choice is between Walmart
>subsidies and EPA budget cuts.QuoteBecause money is basically money.
I've heard several people claim "the government isn't subsidizing Wal-Mart, they're just giving them a break on taxes/loans/labor enforcement!" That money comes from somewhere. If you tax Wal-Mart less, you have to tax someone else more to pay for the war/the DHS/the pork project du jour.
Since your view is that money is money, wouldn't it also follow that giving Walmart money (ie. tax breaks) encourages them to open more stores, creating more jobs, and that money flowing back into the economy as a stimulus to be used to support environmental projects?QuoteNor is it just Wal-Mart. The oil industry gets about $2 billion a year in subsidies (not including various wars to ensure the supply.) One bill alone in 2001 provided 13.5 billion in tax cuts over 10 years to oil companies - and that does not include land basically given to fossil oil companies for mineral rights and pipelines.
What do you think the companies that recieved those tax breaks did with the money? Do you think they have it in a big vault inside a cave where they sit on top of it and laugh maniacally? You may also note that the money to support hydrogen fuel research was increased as well as money to expand solar energy was tripled.
Ron 10
QuoteI've heard several people claim "the government isn't subsidizing Wal-Mart, they're just giving them a break on taxes/loans/labor enforcement!" That money comes from somewhere. If you tax Wal-Mart less, you have to tax someone else more to pay for the war/the DHS/the pork project du jour.
Or by giving WalMart a break you allow people with less money to buy more products.
QuoteOne bill alone in 2001 provided 13.5 billion in tax cuts over 10 years to oil companies - and that does not include land basically given to fossil oil companies for mineral rights and pipelines.
And by doing so you allow lower prices that if you charged them double to run the business.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Or are you merely enlarging Walmart's shareholder gains?
And lower prices from the oil concerns- that's fucking hilarious. With the gas price spikes lately leading to calls for investigation of price fixing, the oil cos say that the price reflects costs, yet they simulateously report record profits. It's clear that their prices are based on optimizing the demand curve, not on costs of production.
And lower prices from the oil concerns- that's fucking hilarious. With the gas price spikes lately leading to calls for investigation of price fixing, the oil cos say that the price reflects costs, yet they simulateously report record profits. It's clear that their prices are based on optimizing the demand curve, not on costs of production.
billvon 3,120
>Or by giving WalMart a break you allow people with less money to buy more products.
Actually, you support the Chinese economy and the US employer with the worst history of employee mistreatment out there. They encourage their employees to apply for welfare. So those low prices are going to come with higher taxes - you have to not only pay for the salad bowl, but pay for the clerk's welfare check too. You really want to pay more in taxes to support that?
>And by doing so you allow lower prices that if you charged them double to run the business.
Never thought I'd see the day you became a socialist! Personally I prefer capitalism. Tax everyone equally and let the forces of capitalism work, rather than have the government control which industry succeeds through their taxation system.
Actually, you support the Chinese economy and the US employer with the worst history of employee mistreatment out there. They encourage their employees to apply for welfare. So those low prices are going to come with higher taxes - you have to not only pay for the salad bowl, but pay for the clerk's welfare check too. You really want to pay more in taxes to support that?
>And by doing so you allow lower prices that if you charged them double to run the business.
Never thought I'd see the day you became a socialist! Personally I prefer capitalism. Tax everyone equally and let the forces of capitalism work, rather than have the government control which industry succeeds through their taxation system.
Ron 10
QuoteActually, you support the Chinese economy and the US employer with the worst history of employee mistreatment out there.
You also buy good products fairly cheaply. As a consumer I tend to try and get the most for my money.
QuoteThey encourage their employees to apply for welfare.
I would think you would like that. But whats wrong with people who NEED welfare to get welfare? Of course I would rather see people get a job that supports them, or get a second job (in my company over half of the EEs are part time and have other jobs)...I am surprized you don't think people who are quailified for welfare shoud apply for it...Are you gonna become a Republican soon?
QuoteNever thought I'd see the day you became a socialist! Personally I prefer capitalism. Tax everyone equally and let the forces of capitalism work, rather than have the government control which industry succeeds through their taxation system.
Not a socialist. However some programs are needed to be almost socialist...Think Welfare, not even I am willing to not help anyone if they are trying.
Besides you seem to be forgetting that this thread is about a 5% cut in the EPA's funding.
5% mean they will not be able to have Hot Krispy Kream Donuts at the meetings...they will have to settle for Dunkin Donuts from the store.
5% is nothing. I find it funny that you complain about the economy, bitch about spending being out of control...right up until the point that one of your pet programs gets cut...then its wrong.
Just like how you bitch about the trade deficit, but drive a Honda.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
jumper03 0
Quote[5% is nothing. I find it funny that you complain about the economy, bitch about spending being out of control...right up until the point that one of your pet programs gets cut...then its wrong.
I still hold my position that the administration and their supporters are missing an important conceptual point here. Do I believe the federal government is too big? Hell yes. Its a bloated dinosaur that costs more to run than anything. Do programs need to be cut? Hell yes. But how about we start with the FAA, DHS, DOD etc. We don't have to fly. We HAVE to breath. The environment encompasses everyone equally. The EPA should be the last agency messed with.
Quote
Just like how you bitch about the trade deficit, but drive a Honda.
I drive a chevy.
Scars remind us that the past is real
billvon 3,120
>As a consumer I tend to try and get the most for my money.
So the almighty dollar is everything, eh? You'd buy your food from a store that had a "WE APPLAUD THE 9/11 MARTYRS" sign in the window if their bread was ten cents cheaper?
>But whats wrong with people who NEED welfare to get welfare?
A company that uses the welfare system so they can pay their employees less is taking my tax money and using it for their profit. I am suprised you support such an expansion of the welfare system.
>5% mean they will not be able to have Hot Krispy Kream Donuts at the
>meetings...they will have to settle for Dunkin Donuts from the store.
Then cut the military budget by 5%. That's a much bigger chunk of money, and if all it means is that they won't be able to have Krispy Kreme donuts - heck, soldiers will live longer and be healthier! Everyone wins.
>Just like how you bitch about the trade deficit, but drive a Honda.
Our oil dependency is a bigger issue than our automotive imports. One gets us into wars, one doesn't.
So the almighty dollar is everything, eh? You'd buy your food from a store that had a "WE APPLAUD THE 9/11 MARTYRS" sign in the window if their bread was ten cents cheaper?
>But whats wrong with people who NEED welfare to get welfare?
A company that uses the welfare system so they can pay their employees less is taking my tax money and using it for their profit. I am suprised you support such an expansion of the welfare system.
>5% mean they will not be able to have Hot Krispy Kream Donuts at the
>meetings...they will have to settle for Dunkin Donuts from the store.
Then cut the military budget by 5%. That's a much bigger chunk of money, and if all it means is that they won't be able to have Krispy Kreme donuts - heck, soldiers will live longer and be healthier! Everyone wins.
>Just like how you bitch about the trade deficit, but drive a Honda.
Our oil dependency is a bigger issue than our automotive imports. One gets us into wars, one doesn't.
rehmwa 2
QuoteTax everyone equally
Yay!! Do you mean flat tax rate percentage or divide the total tab by the number of people and charge everyone the same dollar amount?
Kallend would be disappointed in you.
NO, I am not being contentious.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Ron 10
QuoteI still hold my position that the administration and their supporters are missing an important conceptual point here. Do I believe the federal government is too big? Hell yes. Its a bloated dinosaur that costs more to run than anything. Do programs need to be cut? Hell yes. But how about we start with the FAA, DHS, DOD etc. We don't have to fly.
People have to fly to continue to earn a living. Others have to travel for work.
See the funny thing is you claim that the Government is to big and poorly run, but when YOUR program gets cut its the wrong one.
If you cut the FAA someone would think it was the wrong plan to cut.
Everyone has plans they want cut...And no one wants their favorite plan cut.
QuoteWe HAVE to breath. The environment encompasses everyone equally. The EPA should be the last agency messed with.
Your opinion. I think the DOD is a big deal, Bob thinks the FAA is the sacred cow.
You seem to thinka 5% reduction in budget is going to do more than make them buy recycled paper and not cater the staff meetings.
The important programs will survive since they are important...The dumb programs will be cut.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
billvon 3,120
>Yay!! Do you mean flat tax rate percentage or divide the total tab by
>the number of people and charge everyone the same dollar amount?
I was actually talking about corporate taxes. Tax everyone on their profits by a fixed percentage, and ensure they are responsible for their own messes.
In terms of personal income taxes (which I assume you're talking about) I'd go for a flat sales tax first, with exemptions on basics (food, clothing) for the poor.
>the number of people and charge everyone the same dollar amount?
I was actually talking about corporate taxes. Tax everyone on their profits by a fixed percentage, and ensure they are responsible for their own messes.
In terms of personal income taxes (which I assume you're talking about) I'd go for a flat sales tax first, with exemptions on basics (food, clothing) for the poor.
jumper03 0
QuoteSee the funny thing is you claim that the Government is to big and poorly run, but when YOUR program gets cut its the wrong one.
So you saying you don't breathe???????
Scars remind us that the past is real
rehmwa 2
QuoteThe important programs will survice since they are important...The dumb programs will be cut.
Here I disagree, they cut the important stuff first to teach everyone a 'lesson'
This will be just like local elections where communities threaten to cut police and fire in order to save the local art center or schools threaten to cut math in order to keep (comped vacations) seminar/training programs for administrators.
The Federal departments will threaten to cut the important ones as leverage to argue that "they are special" and threaten dire consequences if they aren't exempted from cuts expected from everyone. Expect the EPA reps to start showing "The Day After Tomorrow" in congressional meetings.
{Ditto - expect the DOD to show "Red Dawn", expect the DoE to film footage of northern California brown outs, Expect the DOI to show pictures of fires and roadkill, etc.}
They'll keep their Krispy Kreams and just eliminate inspectors. That way they can bitch about enviro impact and unemployment at the same time.
It's a very clever trick.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rehmwa 2
Quote>Yay!! Do you mean flat tax rate percentage or divide the total tab by
>the number of people and charge everyone the same dollar amount?
I was actually talking about corporate taxes. Tax everyone on their profits by a fixed percentage, and ensure they are responsible for their own messes.
In terms of personal income taxes (which I assume you're talking about) I'd go for a flat sales tax first, with exemptions on basics (food, clothing) for the poor.
What about exemptions for basics for the "poor" corporations?...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Ron 10
QuoteSo the almighty dollar is everything, eh? You'd buy your food from a store that had a "WE APPLAUD THE 9/11 MARTYRS" sign in the window if their bread was ten cents cheaper?
No, but I would spend the 10 cents more at a store that I respected....But then again, I have the 10 cents to spare. Someone who does not have the extra income I would hope would try to save the 10 cents.
But then again I am for the free market economy...If you want to support such a store that applauds the terrorists...Then thats your right...Cool thing about a free country huh?...I'll shop elsewhere since I can.
QuoteA company that uses the welfare system so they can pay their employees less is taking my tax money and using it for their profit. I am suprised you support such an expansion of the welfare system.
The company is not having a "jobshare" with the welfare system. They pay a wage. If that wage is not enough to support a family, then the family needs to do something about it. It would be wrong and stupid to expect the company to rase the wage just to "be nice". If you don't make enough at Walmart and Kmart pays more...go work at Kmart. Only a Socialist expects the company to pay a higer wage than the market can bear. What a stupid way to run a company, pay a high wage and go out of business.
I guess you wish more companies ran themselves like the airlines seem to do?
QuoteThen cut the military budget by 5%. That's a much bigger chunk of money, and if all it means is that they won't be able to have Krispy Kreme donuts - heck, soldiers will live longer and be healthier! Everyone wins.
Again your lack of knowledge about the military is quite clear.
But Im OK with not having KK Donuts in the mess hall...I didn't eat them often when I was in....Have you ever even been in a mess?
Quote>Just like how you bitch about the trade deficit, but drive a Honda.
Our oil dependency is a bigger issue than our automotive imports. One gets us into wars, one doesn't.
Nice way to try and cover your hypocrisy. Again you demand budget cuts until your sacred cow is on the table.
You clearly have no idea how to run a business. A 5% budget cut is not something that should cause you to run around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
>mainly come from local and state governments, not the Feds.
Of course - just as much of the money for environmental improvement in California comes from California via CARB. The EPA operates across all states, which makes sense since air and water do not respect state boundaries.
>Please explain why you think the choice is between Walmart
>subsidies and EPA budget cuts.
Because money is basically money.
I've heard several people claim "the government isn't subsidizing Wal-Mart, they're just giving them a break on taxes/loans/labor enforcement!" That money comes from somewhere. If you tax Wal-Mart less, you have to tax someone else more to pay for the war/the DHS/the pork project du jour.
Nor is it just Wal-Mart. The oil industry gets about $2 billion a year in subsidies (not including various wars to ensure the supply.) One bill alone in 2001 provided 13.5 billion in tax cuts over 10 years to oil companies - and that does not include land basically given to fossil oil companies for mineral rights and pipelines.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites