Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47

Thread: Corporate Welfare

  1. #26
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    To post such a book title is crossing the line into the politcal areana and going into propaganda territory.
    Again DD must try to walk a 'dotted line' such that the economic side of politico-economic issues remains the dominant point of the discussion. I have to say that both articles make use of political catch phrases (in the former case 'corporate welfare', in the latter case 'the left'). However, this does not alter the validity of the economic points attempting to be made in either article. Therefore, from an economic and fairness standpoint, I could either allow both sides of the argument and discuss the economic aspects, or delete both sides of the argument and render it a 'taboo subject' due to excessive political content. But I cannot in good conscience allow one political-economic argument to stand while the opposing political-economic argument must be banned, because that WOULD politicize DD.

    Without getting into political bullshit, it's pretty obvious that corporations such as Exxon, Dupont, Union Carbide, GM are very real--and wield a tremendous amount of real power and political clout. In fact I would venture to say that I believe they exert far more influence than the average citizen is aware of--how could they not, considering the millions they spend lobbying Congress, and that's just what is public information.
    Along the above lines, I would also point out that Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Citicorp, Genentech etc. also spend a large amount of money lobbying, as do various advocacy groups ranging from Greenpeace to the NRA, as do various industry groups from the Trial Lawyer's association to the Teamster's Union. In American lawmaking, 'money talks and bullshit walks' has been in effect since the 'modern' congress was formed in 1789. However it has only been in the last few years that campaign finance reform has driven the money battle squarely into the public eye i.e. the 529 groups of the last election cycle.

  2. #27
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Along the above lines, I would also point out that Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Citicorp, Genentech etc. also spend a large amount of money lobbying, as do various advocacy groups ranging from Greenpeace to the NRA, as do various industry groups from the Trial Lawyer's association to the Teamster's Union. In American lawmaking, 'money talks and bullshit walks' has been in effect since the 'modern' congress was formed in 1789. However it has only been in the last few years that campaign finance reform has driven the money battle squarely into the public eye i.e. the 529 groups of the last election cycle.
    I would be very interested to see how much money is spent by which organizations, on a comparative scale.

    And even more interested to see what kind of deals are made 'under the table', by lobbyists of all political persuasion. We all know this goes on, it's as old as written history, if not older.

    'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

    This is a phrase that is more telling today than it ever was.


    Vamp, I want to thank you for starting this thread. Your intelligence and judgement in presenting your case are most welcome. All too often the viewpoints of those who don't wish to believe the PR put out by large corporations and their adherents are flawed by a lack of statistical evidence and poor rhetoric, and they are shot down by those with a better grip on both means of presenting a case.

    But statistics and rhetoric do not prove one viewpoint to be correct, if there are valid statistics and rhetoric available to make a case for opposing viewpoints.

    We can spout statistics and rhetoric all day, and achieve nothing but a smug feeling of having 'shown them up', which is pointless and petty. One reason Political Poo was closed with good reason.

    When the person seeking to 'show up' those with opposing viewpoints employs snide, sarcastic rhetoric, it becomes more tiresome and petty than ever. Not that I was always an angel in PP, lol--but we sure saw a lot of snotty put downs there from all the various factions. Nothing destroys an intelligent argument in my mind quicker than this.

    I dislike reading political/economic literature, since most of it is pretty boring to me--I much prefer reading history (understandably boring to many others). History shows that greed and corruption have done as much (if not more) to destroy many empires as barbarians and pestilence.

    Something those in power today in this 'American Empire' ought to ponder...
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  3. #28
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    I would be very interested to see how much money is spent by which organizations, on a comparative scale.

    And even more interested to see what kind of deals are made 'under the table', by lobbyists of all political persuasion. We all know this goes on, it's as old as written history, if not older.
    In the first area, nowhere near as much as corporations used to spend, since campaign finance laws now limit DIRECT contributions to candidates/officeholders. Of course this gave birth to the new angle of INDIRECT contributions i.e. the 529 groups - which from a financial standpoint gave the loudest voice to whoever had the most money to purchase the most media air time.

    As to the second area, we Americans only get to hear about this stuff when an elected officials' involvement in such things is blatant enough to be covered by the news media, i.e. indibtments and trials, a freezer full of cold cash being removed from a flooded New Orleans house during hurricane Katrina, etc. In order to try and avoid the political side of this issue, I'll simply ask that you think hard about the concept of candidates spending many millions of dollars in order to campaign for an office which pays around $100,000 per year !

  4. #29
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Well there's other ways of spending money on lobbying, too--paying the lobby personnel, of course (lol), being one. I was thinking also of entertainment--providing the liquor and food at expensive banquets and restaurants being but one small method of spending money to schmoozle congressmen into going your way on a crucial vote. No doubt paying beautiful women to sleep with your target congressman would be a perfect way to get voting going your way--much of the time this would not be publicly accessible accounting, lol...

    That's another interesting question--what's the breakdown on the ways money is spent lobbying, and who spends more on which methods?

    And I am glad you brought up two more very important issues. First the enormous amounts of money spent influencing impressionable, pliable TV viewers with political propaganda (we all know that's exactly what it is). Of course both parties do this.

    But far more important is the related question of why a candidate would spend his own, and others' money via contributions and spots bought by 'independent' organizations, to the extent of dwarfing his/her salary?

    It reminds me very much of Julius Caesar borrowing vast sums of money to bribe voters, and certainly not for a salary, lol--but to gradually acquire greater and greater power.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  5. #30
    God/dess DancerWealth's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    2,336
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 65 Times in 45 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoser
    But statistics and rhetoric do not prove one viewpoint to be correct, if there are valid statistics and rhetoric available to make a case for opposing viewpoints.
    Agreed. I think Melonie is doing a really good job at pointing this out too. You can post charts and graphs all day, but also understand that often they support different arguments on the different sides of the political spectrum. For example, much of this Corporate Welfare argument started back in the 80s under Reagan. He came under a lot of heat because he was paying a lot of farmers in the midwest not to grow crops. It made for great headlines for months and the Dems had a field day with it. Left-wing websites still promote it as being a joke and it makes for great "corporate welfare" arguments in spite of the fact that the science to wihch it is based on has always been very sound.

    While it sounds like "corporate welfare" it actually isn't. The Department of Agrigulture has proven countless times that in this country, we have a SURPUS of food. In other words, for certain crops, we grow more than we need or can sell outside the country. And also those farms which grow those crops cannot be diverted into growing other items due to climate, soil conditions, etc. So if we were to grow more corn than can be consumed by our population or be sold elsewhere, we have a surplus that winds up driving the price of corn way down and eventually gets destroyed because it can't be sold. Then everyone screams about how the farmers can't make a living because the corn prices are so low. The challege is that those corn-growers cannot just start growing wheat or watermelons, etc. because their farms and crops and equipment are all designed to grow corn.

    More importantly, scientists have shown that every time you grow a crop and harvest it, you remove nutrients in the soil that may harm it making the next year's crop even more difficult to grow and harvest. So the SCIENCE has proven that by paying a farmer not to grow their crop, they benefit the industry, they benefit the community, and more importantly, they preserve the soil for another year to where they can get better crops the year after. This is why Farm A may be growing this year and Farm B may be paid not to grow where next year they switch which benefits the soil.

    While this argument of paying farmers not to grow has been proven to be scientifically and ecconomically sound for years, it still makes sensationalistic headlines all the time as being pork-barrel. Why? Because it's a LOT more sexier to say "I'm going to end this corporate welfare pork barrel program once and for all" rather than say, "I'm going to give money to people not to do their job because it benefits society, the ecconomy, and the science supports it."

    So some politiican whips out a chart and a graph showing that millions of "Your tax dollars" are going to "Unnecessary corporate welfare programs" without ever understanding the science behind it. Or worse yet, they ignore the science and take a stand on the opposite issue anyway because it gets them votes.

    The ORIGINAL Stripper Sales School
    -
    Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle. ~Abraham Lincoln

  6. #31
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    That's a good point, DW, but the impression I'm getting is that the dominant politicians aren't opposed to 'Corporate Welfare', but are pro big business.

    What do you know about the decrease in the number of family owned farms? I'm not up on the latest statistics, but I have heard that farming is increasingly dominated by large conglomerates. Who gets more payments to not grow certain crops?

    Sure there's plenty of noise out there from the liberal front, but it's largely ineffectual--the way I see it, little is being done to curtail the potential abuse of power by corrupt CEOs, etc. The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing, according to what I've seen--and this isn't a good thing, for political stability alone. The majority of wealth in this country is held by a shrinking, tiny minority, isn't this the case?

    Be prepared if I don't automatically accept supplied statistics, though, lol--but I won't tell you you are full of shit or get snotty about it. That doesn't help win over anyone to an opposing point of view.

    I'll go look and see if there are other statistics which might indicate the converse. And if I find them, I might tell you, but since we have mutual respect I'll do it in the same fashion you just did.

    Also, it seems to me as though it's generally considered much 'sexier' to be pro big business these days, lol--but this is yet another example of how perceptions can vary.

    I'm glad we are disagreeing with mutual respect, here--that's the important thing. Nothing is less sexy than insulting people who disagree with you, I think we can all agree on that.

    Later--Melonie, if this post seems too 'pooish' for you, feel free to delete it--I like DW and we have laughed about both having friends with completely different viewpoints, so I wasn't as restrained in replying to him as far as political matters.

    He knows I have no intention of getting into any real argument with him, since we have always had mutual respect--but others might not understand this when they reply.
    Last edited by Djoser; 05-09-2006 at 09:03 AM.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  7. #32
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Oh, yeah--I forgot to mention that I had an uncle--since deceased--who had a farm, and got subsidies. He sure wasn't part of any corporation, he was too cantankerous for that!

    But he just loved telling people how he got paid to NOT grow corn, lol...
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  8. #33
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    What do you know about the decrease in the number of family owned farms? I'm not up on the latest statistics, but I have heard that farming is increasingly dominated by large conglomerates. Who gets more payments to not grow certain crops?
    Subsidies to farms are based on acreage, so it depends on the relative size of the private versus corporate farms involved. Also, much of the decline in family owned farms has happened for two related reasons ... death (inheritance) tax when the farm parents die that the farm children can't afford to pay, plus property tax assessments on the farm acreage being increased as a means of financing increased spending by local govt's (and I won't dredge up the issue of what the additional moneys are being spent on in the sake of political neutrality).

    Agreed that an intelligent farm subsidy program makes economic sense overall ... as I suppose do import tariffs and quotas for offshore agricultural products (like for instance Brazilian sugar cane Ethanol which can be produced for 50 cents a gallon less cost than US corn Ethanol).

    As to the 'Pooishness' of particular topics, we all have to face the fact that many of the economic issues we face, and particularly so for dancers, have a political element as well as an economic component. As long as 'both sides' of the argument can be presented, and as long as there is some direct connection between economics and politics, then I consider the overall discussion 'neutral' and 'relevant' (even when it is I rather than another poster who plays 'devil's advocate' in posting points from the 'other side'). I don't want to see DD 'sanitized' to the point where no economic topics with a political component can be discussed. On the other hand, I can't permit the political discussion for its own sake in absence of a direct link to an underlying economic issue.

  9. #34
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    much of the decline in family owned farms has happened for two related reasons ... tax.... plus .... tax....
    I've run across more than my share of farm bankruptcies, and I just have to offer my perspective on the prime reasons for family farms going *poof*.

    1. Hard work that the kids don't want to take over. So parents sell out, or the kids when they inherit, to either a farming conglomerate or a local developer who wants to subdivide.

    2. Depending on location, land value is much higher for development than it is for farming. "Hey, John, we can subdivide your farm, leave you your house to live in, and you can retire, or you can keep working like a dog." Hmmmm........

    3. Bad choices in bad economics. A lot of farmers are good with dirt and seeds and mechanics, but not with money. So they're mortgaged up to the hilt for their tractors, threshers, balers, planters, irrigators, for next year's seed, and so on. Then you have a hail, or too much rain, or too little, and the crop insurance, if you have it, doesn't cover the losses.

    That results in bad cash flow. So when the first bill comes through that doesn't get paid, it's invariably property tax. It's not that there's a higher assessment - it's that the property tax is the first to get ignored when money is tight. The government then demands its property tax, that kicks out the first strut of the financial house of cards, and pretty soon all these people want their money.


    The way to be sustainable in a family farm is to own your friggin land, don't mortgage it up, have kids who actually want to take it over, and make smart equipment purchases. Then you can survive the bad times. Maybe.

    Did you hear about the farmer who won the lotto? You know what he did with the money? Just kept farming till it was gone.
    Last edited by Jay Zeno; 05-10-2006 at 09:31 AM.

  10. #35
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    A most excellent and informative post, JZ! Not that I'm surprised to see it from you.

    And a good example of how to explain a problem to someone with doubts as to the ethical situation arising from the disappearance of smaller farms, and the rise of gigantic farming conglomerates. I might still be opposed to the idea of the latter, but it is easier to accept the condition knowing there are mitigating (if regrettable) circumstances for the disappearance of the former.

    Having worked with large developers of both commercial and residential projects, I know very well how much more land is worth with a Super Target on it, or a Shady Oak Hollow Lane gated community.

    And God help me if I ever decided to try farming--I don't think so. 4:30 AM to go milk cows and till the soil until sundown? Then go to bed an hour or two later? Naaaah!

    Is it true that McDonald's owns the most cattle farmland in the US (or maybe the world)? Now there's a scary thought, I can't stand those guys--even if they were the Most Benevolent Corporation Ever, their advertising alone makes me want to vomit.

    So if what you are saying is true, Melonie, then the big farm conglomerates are getting the most money not to grow food on their land, correct? Can we find out? Why the hell am I asking, I should go look right now myself, lol...

    Sorry, I'm in a strange mood, haven't been sleeping well at all.

    Anyway, this has been a very enjoyable and thought-provoking discussion--thanks to all.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  11. #36
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Your most welcome Djoser

    All I really try to achieve is to get people thinking. There are many views to every problem. I stay away from name calling, snide comments, and rude judgements of others ideas. At the end of the day we all want the same thing. The question is how to get there. If we just think about all the differant sides of a problem or issue the chances of coming to a fair and positive solution is much greater. I post stats and commentaries from sites because usually it develops a picture clearer than I could. I dont expect others to take my word for anything. I want others to look things up for themselves. Asking the question is the start. In them doing so I have achieved my goal.

    Thank you for joining the discussions.

  12. #37
    Featured Member scorpio's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    868
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Don't forget that corporations "don't pay taxes"

    any time a corporation is taxed, they just pass on the expense to consumers!

  13. #38
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    It is interesting to see the breakdown on how much of what you are paying for a product is actually for the product itself--sometimes a very small percentage, indeed.

    Taxes--yes, a great point, Scorpio--they aren't just going to say "Well we paid 50,000$ dollars in tax, who cares?" They will find a way to keep the acceptable profit margin intact, and if that means adding 50,000$ to the cost of goods sold, I have no doubt they will do so. Of course the tax paid would be on the year before the price was balanced to compensate--but it is all considered in the price fixing process, I'm sure.

    Then there is packaging, distribution, acquisition and maintainence of manufacturing and warehouse space, salaries, insurance, and a very important big one--advertising.

    You are often paying a significant portion of the purchase price to foot the bill for commercial propaganda--the purpose of which is to ensure you buy the product, lol...

    Those Superbowl spots are expensive.

    To be sure not all corporations are out to screw everyone, I do believe there are ethical people in the corporate world--my grandfather was one of them. But to think that every CEO of every gigantic corporation behaves like a character from an Ayn Rand novel is to live in an Utopian fantasyland, in my opinion--not a supposition I can accept.

    I remember quite well seeing a few years back the cover of a business magazine, with 5-6 grinning people on the cover--the headline "These people paid NO TAXES last year! Here's how they did it..."

    I thought, well goody for them, if we all followed their example, where would this country be?
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  14. #39
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    DancerWealth,

    There are other ways to keep nutrients in the soil. It is called crop rotation.

    http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/NEWS/2001/Jan/croprotate.htm
    If you are curious here is a link with basic information.

    Hopefully with the increase use in ethanol, i have hard of cars that run on vegtable oil alone, and other developments these types of subsidies can be scaled back.

  15. #40
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Djoser I agree with you

    There is a fine line that we need to question. The line between companies getting assistance to remain profitable and all out corporate greed enabled by the government. Question is how do we determine where one ends and the other begins.

  16. #41
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Vamp
    The line between companies getting assistance to remain profitable and all out corporate greed enabled by the government. Question is how do we determine where one ends and the other begins.
    That really is the question, too...

    Especially when the lobbying (and 'advertisement paid for by XXX organization"--who knows where XXX gets it's money from--for those multi-million dollar political propaganda spots we see) by corporations is considered, to get the kind of government that will allow abusive measures.

    And to further validate your point about crop rotation, a 'science' practiced long before modern corporations existed--my uncle, who I'm sure had a good grip on that science, quite clearly believed he was being given 'money for nothing'--it was the reason he always got that big, shit-eating grin on his face when he told people about it.

    Any surplus food produced could easily be bought by the government, using the same money being spent to not grow food--and sent overseas where people are dying of malnutrition by the millions, in lieu of less effective means of Foreign Aid. This would do much to improve our currently abysmal reputation abroad. Prices remain stable.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  17. #42
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Any surplus food produced could easily be bought by the government, using the same money being spent to not grow food--and sent overseas where people are dying of malnutrition by the millions, in lieu of less effective means of Foreign Aid. This would do much to improve our currently abysmal reputation abroad. Prices remain stable.
    Actually, doing this bankrupts the small farmers in the countries receiving this Foreign Aid ! Then next year if the US doesn't send the same amount of food as Foreign Aid, the country potentially faces famine since most of its own farmers gave up and are now doing something else besides farming ! Gotta think global these days.

  18. #43
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Why aren't even the small farmers prosperous in countries where most of the population is starving to death?

    One would think the laws of supply and demand would mean even a few productive acres could mean great wealth...

    Even if the population were brought out of a state of general malnutrition, and up to the level of being really hungry all the time, any food produced ought to have a high value--and therefore small farmers should be busting their asses because they could still prosper regardless of aid.

    What are some good unbiased sources for information concerning the barriers to fighting starvation?

    We have all heard the stories of food sent as aid rotting in warehouses due to poor distribution, or the refusal of those in charge to allow this distribution. I wonder how much of this is true, and how much is meant to assuage any possible guilty feelings for not doing more.

    Not that I disbelieve it, but it would seem that there must be at least some countries which would welcome aid in the form of non-perishable food, and whose leaders would welcome the chance to raise their population out of misery, and would therefore allow and seek to cooperate with distribution methods.

    This reminds me very much of the story of the guy who came up with the idea for Federal Express, I believe in Business School. His professors scoffed at the idea and he either flunked or received a poor grade on the project, I forget the details.

    Supposedly well informed, intelligent people told him it could never work. We all know the truth--he went on and did it, applying will, imagination, and perseverance to a problem no one believed was soluble.

    Necessity is the mother of invention, it has been shown time and time again.

    History is replete with examples like these. "Oh, it can't be done." "They already tried that and it failed miserably." And so forth. Military history is one endless tale of the established authorities telling anyone with a creative impulse that 'it could never work'.

    Imagination and will is needed. Discouragement and pessimism won't get anyone anywhere. The situation is getting worse with regard to energy sources as well as food. Soon we could all be reduced to Third World status, if creativity isn't applied, and a willingness to look beyond past failure.
    Last edited by Djoser; 05-11-2006 at 08:20 AM.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  19. #44
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Once again I agree with you Djoser lol It is becoming a trend lol

    I have thought the same thing about sending food to starving nations instead of paying people here not to grow. Africa gets millions if not billions of dollars in foreign aid. Most of the countries receiving this aid cant grow food. Either because of climate or wars. I have heard about how the leaders of these countries who are warlords basically pocket the cash if it is not sent thru other charities. It is a vicious circle that ends with no one getting the help they need.

    I agree again that we need to think out side of box. If we do not shoot for the ultimate goal we will become slaves to mediocre solutions.

  20. #45
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    I dunno, the military is pretty creative when it comes to killing and staying alive - at all levels.

    Part of the problem in Africa is the efficiency of the farming methods. Pulling a single blade plow behind a yak isn't going to maximize the amount of food coming out of the ground. Plus, there are a LOT of people in Africa - it is not as rural as you may think (except for the deserts.)

    There is a fella in India who borrows out miniscule amounts of money - like 50 bucks or so - to poor people who use it to create additional value at a faster rate (aka a sewing machine - a water pump for the fields, etc.) Doing this opens up so much time in their lives (imagine watering your fields with two buckets and a shoulder harness?) They also are able to pay it back (which they do amazingly - especially if the money was given to women.)

    And - like it was mentioned - the goods do rot in the warehoueses - or are "redirected" at order of the government (ala Sri Lanka authorities riding around in brand new Range Rovers after the flood while not handing out a dime to the people who really needed it.)

    Of course, if we send the food and material over - simply to rot or be stolen - it keeps the dirty unwashed hippies off the working people's backs.

    The hippies and breast thumpers got loud about Somalia and so the protection was added by our troops. Then they ended up in small fire fights and stare contests with the local warlords. Then we decided to eliminate the threat. Then we were in a massive shoot out with dead naked americans being dragged through the streets.

    The sad thing of it is... the common people end up dead anyway. They might as well be dying fighting corruption and for freedom - but they end up dying because of corruption and slavery.

    We can't blame them - a great part of the US is falling into this mindset - refusing to vote - keeping their heads down - hiding in the shadows - not saying a thing. And take a look around to what is happening in this country!

    Kind of reminds me of a couple of friends I had who refused to vote in city elections and refused to voice their opinion in a public way about their jobs.

  21. #46
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol
    I dunno, the military is pretty creative when it comes to killing and staying alive - at all levels.
    True enough--and a good post--but what I was referring to was the near universal resistance of those in control of the military to stifle innovative ideas--such as the resistance of the 'Battleship Admirals' to the development of naval aviation, and their initial reluctance to use it even after it was pushed through by its proponents..
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  22. #47
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Corporate Welfare

    What are some good unbiased sources for information concerning the barriers to fighting starvation?
    Here's one from the Mises institute about the true reasons behind Zimbabwe's famine



    and some of the peripheral economic causes and effects


    .
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-13-2006 at 08:31 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. The Welfare State Quiz
    By Eric Stoner in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 06-16-2011, 12:21 PM
  2. Welfare and Tips
    By britney45317 in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-19-2010, 10:51 AM
  3. Animal welfare/puppy mills
    By loveandluxury in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-04-2008, 12:29 AM
  4. Asking about Welfare on Job App?!
    By AudreyLeigh in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 07:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •