Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Promise Broken

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 12:44pm
http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=7244

Quote In a document outlining his 2010 budget plans, President Obama proposed limiting the value of the tax break for itemized deductions, including donations to charity, to 28 percent for families making more than $250,000.


How many people really give 28% of their income away to charity?  I'm willing to take the chance that the big donors stop giving some money, because they can (and probably will) continue giving 28% if they're already giving more than that.

Although regulation of dust may seem insignificant, it certainly does have an effect on the environment.  I will admit that more research should be done on the amount and effect of dust from farms in particular, but it is clear that mines, for example, release a large amount of harmful particulate matter.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:01pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=7244

Quote In a document outlining his 2010 budget plans, President Obama proposed limiting the value of the tax break for itemized deductions, including donations to charity, to 28 percent for families making more than $250,000.


How many people really give 28% of their income away to charity?  I'm willing to take the chance that the big donors stop giving some money, because they can (and probably will) continue giving 28% if they're already giving more than that.

Although regulation of dust may seem insignificant, it certainly does have an effect on the environment.  I will admit that more research should be done on the amount and effect of dust from farms in particular, but it is clear that mines, for example, release a large amount of harmful particulate matter.
 
yup, just give them more, one piece at a time... Pretty soon you are left with nothing.
 
I wonder if the EPA will fine God next time there is a windstorm in Arizona? The particulate levels will be extremely high...
 
Actually, they don't need to research it more... Its already law...
 
 
So lets ban farms, and energy plants, and every other business, and live in "liberal" utopia...
 
Where did common sense go?
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:05pm
Who are you referring to when you say "give them more"?

Yes, clearly regulation = banning.

Your logic reigns supreme FE.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:29pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Who are you referring to when you say "give them more"?

Yes, clearly regulation = banning.

Your logic reigns supreme FE.
 
Them refers to the government
 
 
if you regulate a business that is on the edge of failing due to market conditions (typical small farm in america, look at the stats if you don't believe it...), then yes, in that case the government regulations and fines would cause it to fail.
 
Most regulations are just power grabs. Taking from one group to give to another.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:35pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Most regulations are just power grabs. Taking from one group to give to another.


Really? LOL
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:43pm
Frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with letting small farms fail.  Why? Because they are an economic failure.  They can't, and shouldn't, be standing up to large farming cooperatives.

I'm not entirely sure I have given up anything to the government in this case.

Personally, I like this analogy (not my own, it is, in fact, my mother's):

The government is like a big dog, and we have to keep it on a leash.

Frankly, GWB was getting pretty close to severing the leash.  I'm far less worried about Obama's misuse of power, at least so far in his term, even after the clear abuses the Bush administration made.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30746
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Who are you referring to when you say "give them more"?Yes, clearly regulation = banning.Your logic reigns supreme FE.


Them refers to the government



if you regulate a business that is on the edge of failing due to market conditions (typical small farm in america, look at the stats if you don't believe it...), then yes, in that case the government regulations and fines would cause it to fail.


Most regulations are just power grabs. Taking from one group to give to another.


I'd like some proof please. Especially that most regulations are just power grabs. Please and thank you.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 3:53pm
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 5:01pm
I would just like to point out that phaseouts of itemized deductions for high earners is the law now and has been for a long time.  What Obama is proposing is an adjustment, not a new idea.  More specifically, it is a continuation with modification of current law.  My recollection is that the current deduction phaseout was set to expire in 2010.  This is basically a renewal/extension, although I believe the new proposal also has some tweaks.
 
The issue of deduction capping has been knocked around for decades.  Sometimes it is a political hot potato(e), other times everybody is on board.
 
 
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 5:26pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with letting small farms fail.  Why? Because they are an economic failure.  They can't, and shouldn't, be standing up to large farming cooperatives.
 
I am sure most of my wifes family would be pretty sorry to hear that statement. Most of them in these parts own what would be considered small farms, as are most of the farms here, and doubt they would like to hear that people don't care if they fail. If such regulations were imposed it would truly hurt small and big farms alike. As for hurting, a lot of them have been hit recently by the drop in corn prices due to the drop in demand for ethanol. A lot of small farms signed long term contracts to provide corn to ethanol plants and when the bottom dropped out, so did demand. A lot of farmers have been sitting on corn that they now have to sell at a loss before it is completely worthless. I would hardly call any failure in this sense their fault.
 
You say you don't care if they fail, but when you are paying $10.00 for a box of Cheerios, I'll bet you'll feel differently about it.


Edited by oldpbnoob - 12 March 2009 at 5:28pm
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9821
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 6:18pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with letting small farms fail.  Why? Because they are an economic failure.  They can't, and shouldn't, be standing up to large farming cooperatives.


How do you feel about big oil? I only ask this because allowing the small farms to fail risks us ending up with "big food" controlling another product we all need.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 6:26pm
I also have no problems allowing small farms to fail. Generally speaking, everybody should be allowed to fail. There are some exceptions, but I don't see how family farms fit any of them.

That said, FE raised a good point with one of his links - the farm subsidy program is circumventing market forces to put small farms at a disadvantage. Frankly, I think virtually every farm subsidy we have in this country needs to go. They create perverse incentives that go far beyond their intended purpose.

On the other hand, there is something afoot that has greatly aided family farms for years now, and will continue to do so for at least the next eight years: wind energy.

The unspoken beneficiary of wind energy is the small midwestern farmer. Wind farms provide significant additional revenue to farms, and family farms are getting their share. So if you want to support small farms, support wind energy.


Edited by Peter Parker - 12 March 2009 at 6:27pm

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 6:32pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

How do you feel about big oil? I only ask this because allowing the small farms to fail risks us ending up with "big food" controlling another product we all need.


I don't know about Pariel, but I am in favor of "big oil."

The oil/gas/gasoline business is incredibly capital-intensive, and requires large companies. Artificially forcing smaller oil companies into the mix would only introduce market inefficiencies that would result in higher cost to the consumer. The current oil market is plenty competitive.

And the same goes for farming. There are significant economies of scale here. The rustic farmer on his tractor is a festive Rockwell-esque image, but it is also hopelessly outdated. Personally I don't see why farming isn't almost completely automated, at least in this country. Progress has been made, but not very fast. I blame the farm subsidies.

Of course, small farms should be allowed to compete, and we should remove the subsidies to allow them to do so. But my prediction is that the family farm is headed the way of the Dodo. I will not mourn its loss.


Edited by Peter Parker - 13 March 2009 at 3:30am

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 7:54pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

How do you feel about big oil? I only ask this because allowing the small farms to fail risks us ending up with "big food" controlling another product we all need.


I don't know about Pariel, but I am in favor of "big oil."


I'm not entirely sure I'd phrase it that way, but...

Quote The oil/gas/gasoline business is incredibly capital-intensive, and requires large companies. Artificially forcing smaller oil companies into the mix would only introduce market inefficiencies that would result in higher cost to the consumer. The current oil market is plenty competitive.


...exactly.  There's no way a family sized operation could make money -- or for that matter, afford -- doing commercial drilling.  The analogy is just wrong.

Quote And the same goes for farming. There are significant economies of scale here. The rustic farmer on his tractor is a festive Rockwell-esque image, but it is also hopelessly outdated. Personally I don't see why farming isn't almost completely automated, at least in this country. Progress has been made, but not very fast. I blame the farm subsidies.


Mexicans are cheaper than machines.

Quote Of course, small farms should be allowed to compete, and we should remove the subsidies to allow them to do so. But my prediction is that the family farm is headed the way of the Dodo. I will not mourn its loss.


That's exactly the point: human labor in this country, if we intend to compete in future and developing markets, cannot be just manual labor.  Increased education, technical knowledge and development, and more effective use of human resources are going to be key in the next generation (as they are pretty much all the time).  People complain that American manufacturing and such are slipping, yet they're unwilling to fix key ingredients that are holding us back.  I will have no problem seeing small farms disappearing, because they offer nothing to us in this day and age.  Now, this isn't to say that I wouldn't mind seeing better food; I support buying local, and my family buys extensively from the farm near my home from early spring through late fall, and I think that's something it's hard to find at many grocery stores.  But at places like Wegman's and Whole Foods (note: my sister's friends call this place Whole Paycheck), you can get very high quality food.  So, in essence, I am not worried about "Big Food", and I am not worried about Big Oil either, mainly because I expect them to be gone in 20 years, if any sort of intelligent alternative fuels are actually put into use, as they should be.


Edited by ParielIsBack - 12 March 2009 at 7:55pm
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 8:19pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

I also have no problems allowing small farms to fail. Generally speaking, everybody should be allowed to fail. There are some exceptions, but I don't see how family farms fit any of them.

 
I believe the argument was based on causing small farms to fail due to ridiculous dust regulations. Are you  freaking serious? DUST? I guess the EPA needs to come out and fine my wife, because apparently, she is putting my family and I at risk. I obviously disagree with you on some issues, but if you are sincerely arguing the case for such regulations, I think are off your rocker. 
 
I agree that farms failing to make ends meet is one thing, but forcing them to fail by burdening them with assinine regulations about kicking up some dust  is going a bit far.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9821
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 8:41pm
I took Peter to mean that he was in favor of a fair playing field without undue regulation that unfairly affected any participant.  (But I could be wrong.)
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 8:58pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

I took Peter to mean that he was in favor of a fair playing field without undue regulation that unfairly affected any participant.  (But I could be wrong.)


I think that's a pretty good way to phase it.

My personal take on subsidies is that we need to find a politician to shoot for that hairbrained idea.  But that doesn't mean that small farmers are any more effective as an economic option.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 9:08pm
Never mind.

Edited by Rofl_Mao - 12 March 2009 at 9:11pm
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 9:09pm
That Rush quote doesn't even make any sense.

I just read it like 4 times trying to make sense out of it, but couldn't
Que pasa?


Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 March 2009 at 9:10pm
it was funnier when he said it.... :P I don't really remember the exact words...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.