In reading the rest of the thread, I forgot what snippet I wanted to respond to, specifically, in this exchange, but this will do too. 1) Your use of words continues to betray you. "The rich" aren't "getting" money from The Government for anything. They're being allowed to keep money that they earned. You're arguing that they should be allowed to keep less of the money they earned because they aren't spreading it around to your liking; spending it in the way you deem proper. 2) Now I remember the bit I wanted to address. I think I edited it out. You were bitching about how The Rich "get" all this money at the expense of The Rest of Us and then they don't Spread It Around; they hire 8 year old Vietnamese kids instead of 58 year old union employees to make products. Well that's a whole other discussion, but the thing is, you're completely and utterly wrong because you're far too shortsighted. Unless a Rich Person is signing a paycheck to someone, you act like he just piles his money in this Scrooge McDuck Money Vault that you liberals all seem to envision whenever you think of The Rich and then swims around in it. Do The Rich not go out to eat? Do they not see plays and basketball games? Don't they give to charities? If they don't go out to eat, do you think they cook for themselves? Heck, assuming they don't have a private chef (or a housekeeper, or accountants, lawyers, landscapers, mechanics and all the other people you need on payroll) they still need to buy groceries somewhere. They still need to buy clothes somewhere. They still need to buy their boats somewhere. All of this directly employs a whole bunch of people. It secondarily employs all the people who get these goods to locations for The Rich to buy. The Rich have cars that run on gasoline (or electricity) just like the rest of us. Hell, even if you think The Rich hop on their private jet to fly to Paris or Milan to pick up their groceries (and you seem to--if you've even thought that far out) you're still employing a shit ton of people that fuel, store, fly, and maintain their private jets. You're employing air traffic controllers and other airport workers and parking attendants who keep an eye on their diamond encrusted gold Rolls Royces that their 8 year old Vietnamese chauffeur drives them to the airport in. Instead of acknowledging all these methods of "spreading the wealth" that The Rich do in the course of just being Rich, you focus on how somehow need to penalize them for not cutting their own throats by making their businesses uncompetitive. So you close loopholes for private yachts and private jets. Well, I guess that way The Rich will hit Safeway the next time they need a Diet Coke and a bag of chips, instead of jetting off to Milan. But they'll also buy their yachts in Australia so they don't have to pay taxes on them. Just ask that evil Conservative, John Kerry.
Really? Do those recieving farm subsidies pay more in taxes? And do the competitive advantages that it gives them against those not getting such subsidies not matter at all?
A conservative that disagrees with that little supreme court ruling that says they're the same thing? Fascinating.
Hmm. So you think corporations have a vote? Who casts that vote? You think they die? Does the government collect estate taxes from them? Sure, they have some of the same characteristics of a person, but saying that a corporation is a person is just stupid. For instance, you can't restrict a person's free speech by claiming that they're doing so on behalf of a corporation (or a trade union which was the way the ruling went) because you'd be restricting free speech. Period. If it makes you happy to twist that meaning into "a corporation is a person" then I'm glad for you. You're wrong, but I hope you sleep better at night for it.
Your side's the one that twists it. Say it. "Corporations are not people." We want to be able to quote you next time one of your side starts for the "victims."
Corporations making money hand over fist and receiving money from the government in subsidies is ok, but the independent farmer barely getting by (because he's being squeezed out his livelihood because corporate farms are getting subsidies) and having to subsidize his own income with welfare is not? This kind of thinking is what is wrong with this world and this country specifically. Pull your head out of the sand take a look at what is going on around you.
That independent farmer is not as capable of following FDA directives as a multi-billion dollar corporation. They simply do not have the resources to do so. Why do you want to poison babies?
What does any of that have to do with allowing the people who run corporations an influx of money to do with as they will, but a family farmer can't feed his family?
I'd rather the farmer join up with a corporation than than babies dying from poison. Hell, they could always sell the farm outright and make a million dollars. Rich motherfuckers.
Oh, and if a farmer and his family are starving, maybe they weren't cut out for farming in the first place.
It's the corporate farms that are poisoning people. And the only reason a family farmer can't feed his family is because corporate farms get subsidies to sell their crops so low that the family farmer can't feed his family. What about this are you not understanding?
Only sometimes, but we have a government to keep them in check. A small time farmer can sell his produce using the roadside loophole and poison the local children. It's an incentive to not poison babies. Well worth it, imo. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and people are dying everyday because of the kind of ignorance your spouting from you ass. For fucks sake LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!!!!!
You have no fucking clue. Hell, if you don't believe me, as evenflow. And, btw, you're now supporting big government intervention. How does it feel to be a filthy whore getting fucked in the ass while being told it's for your own good?
Evenflow isn't a big corporate farmer, thus his answers would obviously be biased. Besides, like I'm going to believe the rambling of a potential baby poisoner! Look, people are stupid, so maybe it's not a bad idea that they be taken care of from time to time. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the government taking over the farming operations in the country. Then there would be no doubt that the food we are eating would not poison babies, which I believe is what we were talking about in the first place.
Old people are taking up all the social security and when they retire, pay virtually no taxes compared to younger people. I don't see what's so wrong with taking out the useless elderly in favor or feeding a strong, taxpaying base of the young. So, consider me changing my mind about the whole government healthcare thing.
You're either insane or trolling. Either of which tells me you're not interested in discussion. kthxbye
You're the one who will carelessly ignore small farmers poisoning babies. Just keep on living with your head above the clouds while babies die, then. That's crazy. That's insane.
You obviously ignore the part where government also subsidizes food for the cities on the back of rural areas. Ditch the subsidies to corporations and *your* food prices go up. Let the free market work for a change.
While you're at it, let the free market work for telecom companies as well. It costs a whole lot more to provide service in Podunk than it does in New York or L.A. The only thing stopping telecom companies from screwing their rural customers is - wait for it - Gubmint Regulation. What Ramen was saying was the usual WF meme "Gubmint should do what *I* want it to do and otherwise fuck off." Do yourself a favor: Don't start borrowing Volpone's Stupid Pills again.
No, it's a horrible fucking idea, Mr. Soup. The more you take care of people, the more generations grow up unable to take care of themselves.
