Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by classical_hero, Aug 6, 2011.
That'd probably work, but would basically destroy both parties, so it would never get approved.
Hasn't destroyed any of our parties in Canadaland.
Better than being in bed with the unions.
I can think of a few reasons.
#1: Subsidize agriculture so it stays here. The food supply is more important than just about anything else in life. If that goes, we end up like <insert starving Third World country here>.
#2: Subsidize oil. Suppose the Deepwater Horizon oil well had been in Nigeria instead of off the U.S. coast? BP would have been even slower dealing with the oil spill than they were. Next, Google the Nigerian oil industry real quick and take a look at the abominable conditions Nigerian oil workers deal with. So there's a second reason: because an oil company over here is going to treat the workers a lot better.
#3: In the end, the only thing a company cares about is the final profit margin, and they don't care how they get it. Subsidies? Lower corporate taxes? Lower environmental standards? Pick one and implement it, or the company will wave bye-bye and move to China. Given the choice, politicians will give subsidies instead of tax cuts--because, right here on CFC, there's lots of comments about corporate taxes being too low, but next to none about subsidies. Subsidies are more palatable to the public. The government has no choice but to give corporations a good bottom line--what's the most palatable way to do it?
There are many possible reasons.
Also better than being ravaged by plague, but there exists no dichotomy in either case.
Subsidizing oil can be dangerous, if you do it wrong, companies can still turn a profit where they expend more energy to extract oil than the oil actually provides, so you're in effect subsidizing a wastage of energy.
It's about as close as you can get to a dichotomy.
See my previous posts, a Conservative government in Canada banned donations from both corporations and unions, and has been pretty union unfriendly - recently legislating the Canada Post union back to work from their strike, for lower wages than were offered to the union in negotiations.
And, from your viewpoint, that might still be better than allowing an oil company to exploit poor workers in Nigeria and cause massive oil spills that get ignored.
I'm not voicing my opinion here, I'm jumping into the brain of your average Democrat and talking from theirs. Standard liberals don't want oil spills or exploited workers. And standard liberals are generally willing to pony up a fairly hefty sum to prevent both from ever happening.
How did you get your parties to make a bill that would not be in their personal interests?
That's like me as a boss of a company firing myself for misconduct. I don't see how it happened there. There is sure as hell now way our own politicians would shoot themselves in the foot for the moral good of our government.
What? I have no idea which of my posts you're getting ideas about my ideology from, but I think you're mistaken about my political views.
And really, I'm not sure where you're going with this line anyway.
Extracting oil at a net energy loss is generally going to be worse than not extracting any oil at all, and I guess extracting oil from Nigeria is going to be better than not extracting any oil at all.
Conservative Party in power realized that banning corporate donations would hurt the other parties more than it would hurt them and made it part of their election platform.
Face it, US farmers wouldn't be able to compete with, say Latin American farmers. There is more than enough food to be brought from elsewhere against much lower costs. On the other hand, it would give aspiring agricultural nations like Argentina very strong political leverage over the World. Whoever controls food controls the people the saying goes (still, whoever controls money controls all).
The US gov't isn't exactly a charity...
That is a good one though.
The government is a golddigger who'll do anyone with money.
Goes? Where's it going to go? There's a finite amount of fertile soil and American farmers aren't going to move overseas and try and take their piddly dollars and compete for those lands. American agriculture flourished before subsidies and it'll do fine after subsidies.
In your other point, you are concerned about losing necessary natural resources in the event of an emergency. Oil is absolutely necessary and you're willing to have the government endorse depleting our reserves rather than buy it from abroad while the going is still good. So in your future doomsday scenario, we'll have all the farmers we need, but no gas to run the farm machinery or deliver the crops to market.
The United States has much of the best farmland in the world. Without subsidies we might reduce our production slightly, but not enough to endanger our self sufficiency in feeding ourselves. We would just stop undercutting the prices of food in third world countries who are starving mostly because their local farmers were driven out of business by our subsidies.
Most of the subsidies we give oil companies are allowing them to deduct the taxes they pay to other countries from the taxes they pay to us. We really aren't doing much to discourage driving in other countries instead of here.
Imagine if it happened in the UK, oh wait such a thing won't happen because of their tighter regulations on oil rigs. Using even laxer regulations is note a cause for celebration. You have a situation here in America where regulations are in favour of big business to the detriment of everyone else. We have a situation in the Gulf called the "dead zone" because we have been caving into the lies that there is a food shortage so America is turning to biotechnology as the solution to the problem when it has not been proven to be a solution.
Ooooookay. Looks like there's a disagreement, and I'm in the middle of it. Gonna have to hit the bench while you two work it out.
Lots of people (generally liberals) expect it to be.
Oil drilling outside the United States is already a detriment to everybody else. That's why I mentioned Nigeria; apparently the ongoing environmental damage over there is worse than the Deepwater Horizon accident. Generally because the regulations over there are even more in favor of big biz. Hence my question: would you rather have the wells over there? Where nobody gives a damn what goes wrong? Or over here? Where, as you said yourself, the regulations are a lot tighter, and would still be even if they were loosened up?
You mean internally: I wouldn't call that charity, (corporate) welfare is just the gov't working for the interests of the ones that decide what the gov't should do, just like shareholders want their businesses to profit.
Banning political commercials are also an excellent way to limit the ability of corporate-back lobbyists from extending their grubbing hands into the public mindset.
Wasn't the Tories. The steep limits placed on personal and corporate donations, and the per-vote subsidy were works of Jean Chretien (or the Liberal Party for non-Canadians), and was final acts as PM, basically to spite Paul Martin for forcing him out. And boy did it work.
The Tories now want to eliminate the per-vote subsidy as well (thus pushing parties back towards corporate/individual donator dependence), which would be absolutely amazing for the CPC really.
There are a few countries where such an accident could happen and it is not a good thing for America to be claiming that because of someone's much worse regulations as it means it still is shocking that it happened in America. I know a similar incident happened in Australia, but that is unfortunate because we seem to follow America with a lot of it's "regulations".
Separate names with a comma.