I don't think it's as cozy as you imply. The EPA just limited emissions of mercury from power plants for instance. They do a lot of good things that could not be replicated by lawsuits.
But lots of poor kids don't get enough to eat, which is pretty important if you want them to pay attention in class. The fact that we supported farmers while feeding poor children was an added benefit.
Nice rant. Too bad you take a tiny kernal of truth and build a great honking pile of manure out of it. I work for a large corporation that also happens to make several times more money than our nearest competitor. Efficiencies of scale mean we can accomplish far more than anyone else. Bureaucracy is not by definition a bad thing, it's necessary to administer anything large. I'm sorry but I don't have the power to stop a company that's polluting in my backyard. They have resources and teams of lawyers and I just have my small income and no time, especially if I become disabled by that same pollution.
I'm pulling your chain a little bit, of course they should all be covered, but it's the GOP's decision, not mine, not the media's.
And they have to strike a balance in doing so, because there is more then just "Pollution is bad, mmkay" to consider. I mean, if it were that easy...
Maybe this is where I've not been so clear. I didn't mean YOU have to go out and hire a team of lawyers - not you personally, but at the State and Local level. So, you would still pay tax, only instead of it going off to Washington where corrupt politicians who demagogue the electorate can use legalese-loopholes to squeeze polluters for for donation, it'll be at the State and local level. A local official is much more likely to meet the environmental needs of his immediate electorate as pretty evident if they're doing their job and that will either get them elected or not. I mean, where I grew up everyone personally knew their elected representatives in the district, town, etc... They don't really campaign for those positions. You pretty much have to want to do it, get 10 people to sign up for you, you're on the ballot. See, the only problem is the worry that a BIG wealthy polluter will come in an push the people around. BUT, they can only get away with doing that because we've divested Washington with so much authority over our lives. So much so that now it's even illegal to sell unpasteurized milk??? If the local community has the last say, then that would BE the last say. I know in my community the US government forced people to sell their homes and to have a huge gas pipe put through from Canada. Everyone just bent over and took it in the arse and let the government do what it wanted to do. Also, it was found out some people from New York had made small fortunes buying up cheap farm land where this pipe went through. Again, if the local citizens had their way there'd of been no pipe and some people in New York would still own some cheap farm land in MI. The EPA didn't do anything. The government wasn't helping people who didn't want this pipe running through their yard. The government was FORCING them to have this massive pipe run through their yard (it's still there). AND, surprise surprise, enriching some well connected douche bags in New York - no different than today really. NOTE: You didn't find it (adjective) that the Government was PROPPING up food prices and giving the lowest quality to the poorest kids??? That was a big give away to the farmers. OK, so, imagine if the farmer was not given free tax money. The price stays low. Imagine the people were not taxed - now they can afford to buy a healthy cheaper food to make a healthy lunch for their kids.
Farm subsidies keep food prices low, that's the purpose of them. So, in your fantasy world, what would happen is that a corporation acting badly would just use up your state and go on to the next one. Additionally, many states don't have the money to clean up so-called superfund sites.
That doesn't make sense. You tax the public to give the money to the farms who then can sell the public food cheaper. Well, how about you let the public keep their tax money - then they can afford to buy their food. See, the only difference when you tax and subsidize is you let the Government decide which foods the people are going to buy cheaper instead of letting the people keep their money and buy the food they want. Of course politicians then use this as leverage to get reelected. They call up the farmers union and say, hey buddy, we're really going to need a big push to keep those fructose subsidizes coming your way - we're really going to need your support on this again. We'll see you for our $10,000 a plate brunch on Thursday. What ultimately happens is the farmer would have invested in creating products the public wanted to buy - we'll just say blueberries. INSTEAD in order to keep getting the subsidies they've invested in corn to make fructose. Now we have f*cking fructose in EVERYTHING and it's killing the public with obesity and diabetes.... which, get this, cost way more than we'd ever reap with those farm subsidies! This creates a distortions in the market (which would have had blueberries in this example). Which is why we need to spend so much money on advertising - you have to convince the Cattle they didn't really want blueberries at all. What they really wanted was blue colored artificial blueberry flavored fructose balls. This is made possible because of Federal Reserve. This isn't turning a molehill into a mountain - it's actually happening right now as we speak. As an aside, for Gods sake, don't drink Coke or Pepsi or any of those soda's that don't use sugarcane. I know Bunderburg (Australian made) uses cane sugar and their soda's are the same price. You MAY have the biochemistry to effectively process massively huge amounts of fructose, but, if you have the average biochemistry - you'll probably end up with type-II diabetes. Ahhh, we don't have the money? Well, that's odd. Money is, afterall, something we can print any amount we need of. So, we actually DO have more than enough money. It was there when the Banks (and more importantly wealthy New York families) needed bailed out. There was $13 Trillion of it. There was more than enough when the military needs to buy a new plane with a 500 million dollar price tag. Believe me, there's enough money. What we may want to think about is WHY there's not enough money under the current monetary system. Don't be cattle. Don't live in a pen. Money is an illusion WE create. No different from The Gods. We've lost control over money. Just as we once lost control of our Gods. We need to regain that control again. If the environment needs cleaned, we should pay people to clean it. WE create money - it's really as simple as that.
To me, saying: 'We can't clean up the environment. We don't have the money!' is really no different when than when people said: 'We can't drink coffee, it's a Sin!' Along came Pope Clement VIII and he "blessed" coffee and suddenly, what wasn't possible, became possible. WoW, magic Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What I find interesting is people really couldn't drink coffee. They were living in a mental pen - Catholic Cattle. Back then, much like today, The Farmer decided what the Cattle did and did not think. He opened one paddock and let them into another. Or he closed one off forever. Because Cattle are so safe and happy in their pen, it's really really hard to budge them! If we change the monetary system, there WILL be the money to clean the environment. There WILL be money to buy food. There will be JOBS for Americans. The cities, towns, bridges, infrastructure.... all CAN be rebuilt. Money CAN be invested in new technologies. That's the whole point.
Have you ever seen when the gate opens up and the Cattle stand there not really knowing what to do? Then one or two start to walk through out into freedom. I wonder why those ones do while the Herd just stand there staring at that open gate. Why? Are they scared? Are they just THAT used to being milked that they can't really see any other life? That's where we're at now. It's too early to say whether the whole herd starts moving towards freedom OR do they prefer to live in their pen (licking their Farmers hand for a little pat on the head). About 23% in New Hampshire went to Paul - he's in a solid second. A few more Cattle just walked through the gate. And you know what, once you walk out, you don't walk back in. It takes generation to Breed up a new Domesticated herd.
I REALLY love reading the comments of the articles in the write ups on Ron Paul's Second Place victory. Yeah sure, w/e to all of you out there that say he is unelectable. I say Romney is unelectable. Why? Because his policies and donors are indistinguishable from Obama. Dr. Paul is gunning for Romney now. . . And really, he doesn't need a different playbook after that, b/c Romney and Obama are really just two versions of the same politician. Ron Paul after New Hampshire second-place finish: 'We’re nibbling at his heels' Ron Paul Finishes Second in NH, Says ‘I Didn’t Know You Were Out There’ My favorite comment on this one was,
Can you give any support for this claim? I note that part of the farm subsidies program is payments for NOT planting and quotas. This helps keep prices higher than if there were no limits on production. Also only the most efficient producers with the lowest cost of production would survive if there were no government payments to everyone who has a farm. Thus I think you have your facts completely wrong. The US, like Brazil, is blessed with large fertile flat land which is farmed by corporations with machines on a huge scale.* Thus the US does enjoy lower cost food than many others DESPITE government regulations and controls that limits production to keep prices higher. The purpose of farm subsidies, like many other government activities, is to give more profits to the very rich (like the Cargill family, controllers of the world's largest privately held corporation)** who give millions in campaign contributions. The US government is not longer "Of the people, by the people, & for the people." It is of the rich, by their lobbyists, and for their corporations. Why they get most of their income as capital gains and pay about half as high a fraction of their income in taxes as a salaried worker does. ----------------- * In both countries, it is not unusual to see 21 or more large air conditioned machines in a V formation with the lead machine under GPS guidance advancing across a field so large that GPS is required as there is nothing to see all the way to the horizon but the field of crops. Each machine may cost half a million dollars; but of course, the farm subsidies are promoted as protection for the "family farmers" despite the fact that large corporations farm efficiency has caused the "family farmer" to be only animal not on the "endangered species list" that should be. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 23 or more machines. (See grey top of one in lower left of photo.) ** Read more on the Cargill's 108 BILLION DOLLARS in 2010 sales here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2844623&postcount=91 which is up-dating more detailed post 83 PS You may be "Mad as hell" about being taxed to give higher profits to the already very rich especially when doing so keeps your food cost higher too, but get uses to it. If you are not part of the "1%," you no longer have any control over the government. Elections cost billions now, so only corporations and the very rich have control.
Good to see you don't let the FACTs get in the way of your rant Billy. As to Corn Subsidies to the Cargills. Nope This lists who the subsidies go to and who the owners are. http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn&yr=2010®ionname=theUnitedStates And to put the subsidies in PERSPECTIVE, the amount of subsidies is ~25c per bushel of corn and corn goes for ~$6 per bushel. More to the point, there were 887 farms that got subsidies and the largest subsidy was only $59,000 and it wasn't to the Cargills, the second largest was only $28,000 and also not to the Cargills, nor are they in any of them over $20,000, so the question is, how do these relatively, and highly distributed small subsidies support your claim?
Well things are different from when you grew up. There are 80 members in the California State Assembly, which is the lower house of the California State Legislature. Each member represents approximately the same number of people, but each district has a population of at least 420,000. So NO, everyone can't personally know their representative. Oh, we could increase the size of the Assembly. If we doubled it to 160 members then they would only represent 210,000 people. Still too big for your home town feel though. Maybe if we quadrupled the numbers to 320 members? Then they would only be accountable to 105,000 people. Still way too many to know each adult individually, but hey, we tried right? Of course adding another 240 legislators doesn't seem like it is helping make your case that it is more efficient.
LOL, Paul is unelectable because he won't get the nomination. He will come in 4th in the next primary.
You would be better served by researching your topic, using credible sources, than running off at the fingers making unfounded accusations leveled at Billy T. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States "Some proponents view farm subsidies as appropriate for "family" or small farmers, but inappropriate for "corporate" or large farms. Many subsidy programs have limits on the size of the farm that can receive subsidies. Critics also argue that agricultural subsidies go mostly to the biggest farms who need subsidization the least. Research from Brian M. Riedl at The Heritage Foundation showed that nearly three quarters of subsidy money goes to the top 10% of recipients.[33] Thus, the large farms, which are the most profitable because they have economies of scale, receive the most money. Between 1990 and 2001, payments to large farms have nearly tripled, while payments to small farms have remained constant.[34] Brian M. Riedl argues that the subsidy money is helping large farms buy out small farms. "Specifically, large farms are using their massive federal subsidies to purchase small farms and consolidate the agriculture industry. As they buy up smaller farms, not only are these large farms able to capitalize further on economies of scale and become more profitable, but they also become eligible for even more federal subsidies—which they can use to buy even more small farms."[33] Critics also note that, in America, over 90% of money goes to staple crops of corn, wheat, soybeans, and rice while growers of other crops get shut out completely. In Europe, for instance the Common Agricultural Policy has provisions that encourage local varieties and pays out subsidies based upon total area and not production. Other points aside, research has shown that small farms receive more payments in relation to value of their crops than big farms.[35] The tariffs on sugar have also forced most large candymakers in the USA to Canada and Mexico where sugar is often half to a third the price.[36]" - Wikipedia
He specifically said it went to the Cargills (follow his link to his other posts) http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2844623&postcount=91 The data doesn't support his assertion. Of course the largest farms get the largest subsides. Duh!
Because that's what the polls suggest. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ey-looks-strong-in-south-carolina-and-beyond/ So? By the way, you're BS that "we can just print more money" shows you have no clue about how our Monetary system works.
