This is what socialism will make people become


Charles Cooper said:
In that case, we need to raise taxes by $850 billion to cover the cost of our military. What major budget item do we consider next?
Click to expand...

EPA, Departments of Education, Health & Human Services,and Energy can all be cut 100% as can Social Security.
 

Charles Cooper said:
In that case, we need to raise taxes by $850 billion to cover the cost of our military. What major budget item do we consider next?
Click to expand...

If we brought our military home and concentrated on a strong national defense instead of trying to be the policemen of the world we could save a lot. Then we might actually be able to secure or borders. Will this ever happen. Probably not. Those that want a socialistic NWO have got to much of a strangle hold on our country but those of us that love freedom and believe in the America that once was should never stop fighting.
 
I regret not having the citation or the actual numbers for this, but I heard that if we stopped all federal entitlements and military paychecks for one year, we would still be in the red regarding the budget deficit, but only by billions, not trillions.
 
Charles Cooper said:
If we do away with the the EPA, who's going to clean up all that crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico and figure out why there are increased levels of E. coli after recent rains in Kansas City area streams?
Click to expand...

Hold the industries responsible. Instead of regulating environmental requirements, and handing out fines, make actual clean up costs part of doing business, that way developing methods to prevent releases and to reduce the effect of a release, and implementing "greener" processes will actually be incentives and part of 6 Sigma or Lean Green Belt/ Red Belt processes.
 
wolfhunter said:
Hold the industries responsible...Instead of regulating... make actual clean up costs part of doing business
Click to expand...
How do you propose we hold the industries responsible and make clean up costs part of doing business without imposing regulations making clean up costs part of doing business? What happens if the cost of a clean up is more than the polluter can pay without going bankrupt? Who's going the foot the bill if the polluter goes bankrupt?
 
I love it... 1 against the many... Kinda how it's gonna be come election time...
Regulate and restrict.. cries of the liberal socialist... Keep 'em coming cooper, the arguments are becoming laughable.
I'm beginning to enjoy the show..:biggrin:

Link Removed

Peace...
 
6shootercarry said:
I love it... 1 against the many... Kinda how it's gonna be come election time...
Regulate and restrict.. cries of the liberal socialist... Keep 'em coming cooper, the arguments are becoming laughable.
I'm beginning to enjoy the show..:biggrin:

Link Removed

Peace...
Click to expand...

I like it.:biggrin:
 
6shootercarry said:
I love it... 1 against the many... Kinda how it's gonna be come election time...
Regulate and restrict.. cries of the liberal socialist... Keep 'em coming cooper, the arguments are becoming laughable.
I'm beginning to enjoy the show..:biggrin:

Link Removed

Peace...
Click to expand...

Suh...weet!!
 
Charles Cooper said:
How do you propose we hold the industries responsible and make clean up costs part of doing business without imposing regulations making clean up costs part of doing business? What happens if the cost of a clean up is more than the polluter can pay without going bankrupt? Who's going the foot the bill if the polluter goes bankrupt?
Click to expand...
I'm all for reinstituting debtor's prisons, but only for members of the board of directors and other corporate officers of corporations. If your company pollutes and pays all you feel is appropriate for the clean up, and it's insufficient, then your company goes into receivership.

Government corporate lawyers and forensic accountants go over your books with a fine toothed comb to cut all remaining fat to recover the remaining costs. If need be, they will declare the corporation insolvent and sell off all necessary assets needed to recover remaining costs. If all of the business assets are gone and there are still cleanup costs, then it starts the same processes with the BoD and officers' personal assets. If all of the corporate wonks' assets are gone and their families rendered destitute moving forward, then the individual officers and directors get to spend time in prison commensurate with the costs remaining.

If there was just a little bit, you know, a few tens of thousands of dollars, of clean up left, then the amount of time each individual wonk will have to spend in prison to equal that will be short. If long, say a couple of billion, life in prison will be a foregone conclusion. These debtor's prison sentences would be individual, not collective, so you can't spread a large debt over a large herd of corporate wonks to reduce everybody's sentences to a month or two.

I know this is just turning a remaining cleanup debt into more incarceration debt, but that's the nature of any incarceration, whether criminal or debt based. It makes all corporate wonks interested parties in their company's pollution footprint and ethical behaviour. If they see something, say something, and nothing happens, then they have the option of resigning before the damage occurs, but after the damage occurs, all wonks associated with it are on the hook for it.

If the corporation itself can afford the clean up, then it will be forced to do so. If the corporation itself cannot afford the clean up, then it will be forced to do so anyway and all its assets sold off to other businesses to make up the difference. If the corporation itself cannot afford the clean up and its assets are insufficient to raise the remaining funds, then the assets of the corporation's leaders get to make up the difference. If the corporation itself cannot afford the clean up and its assets and the assets of its leaders are insufficient to raise the remaining funds, then the corporate leaders get to rot in prison for the amount they were unable to cover.

This would be entirely sufficient motivation for any corporation to either keep its operations small, or keep its operations clean. If the polluting businesses move off shore, then at least they're not polluting America.

I favour the disbanding of the EPA as it stands now because it's not using funds from the corporations exclusively, it's largely funded by tax dollars. Reverse that and step up the unafraid scientific investigations into the origins of various pollutants in the environment (industrial hog farm effluent leaching into area streams and rivers = shut down hog farms), etc. and I'm all for the EPA.

If you can keep your pollution on your own property, fine, but when you sell it, you can only sell to the government and price will be free, and the sale will be linked to the same criteria as above, as if the pollution got off the property. This would effectively remove the real estate value from corporate books and require them to retain ownership of polluted land after that land was useful to the corporation and the attachment of personal assets would still go back as far as the original pollution of the land.

For those who say that this is anti-Capitalism, that this is going to drive business and jobs off shore, I say NAY. It's not anti-Capitalist. It's anti-Corporatist. Corporatism is not the same as Capitalism, as much as media wonks today like to paint corporations with a Capitalist brush. And it would only really hit the big businesses, more so than the large businesses. The BPs of the world are far less numerous and employ far fewer people than the Buddy's Oil Change, LLCs of the world. Small businesses and light industry employ far more people, both in percentage of corporate profits and in absolute numbers, than BIG business.
 
Well articulated Cathy...

Hold those that do responsible. A novel idea that no liberal would or could conceive... Not my fault.

Peace...
 
CathyInBlue said:
I'm all for reinstituting debtor's prisons, but only for members of the board of directors and other corporate officers of corporations. If your company pollutes and pays all you feel is appropriate for the clean up, and it's insufficient, then your company goes into receivership.

Government corporate lawyers and forensic accountants go over your books with a fine toothed comb to cut all remaining fat to recover the remaining costs. If need be, they will declare the corporation insolvent and sell off all necessary assets needed to recover remaining costs. If all of the business assets are gone and there are still cleanup costs, then it starts the same processes with the BoD and officers' personal assets. If all of the corporate wonks' assets are gone and their families rendered destitute moving forward, then the individual officers and directors get to spend time in prison commensurate with the costs remaining.

If there was just a little bit, you know, a few tens of thousands of dollars, of clean up left, then the amount of time each individual wonk will have to spend in prison to equal that will be short. If long, say a couple of billion, life in prison will be a foregone conclusion. These debtor's prison sentences would be individual, not collective, so you can't spread a large debt over a large herd of corporate wonks to reduce everybody's sentences to a month or two.

I know this is just turning a remaining cleanup debt into more incarceration debt, but that's the nature of any incarceration, whether criminal or debt based. It makes all corporate wonks interested parties in their company's pollution footprint and ethical behaviour. If they see something, say something, and nothing happens, then they have the option of resigning before the damage occurs, but after the damage occurs, all wonks associated with it are on the hook for it.

If the corporation itself can afford the clean up, then it will be forced to do so. If the corporation itself cannot afford the clean up, then it will be forced to do so anyway and all its assets sold off to other businesses to make up the difference. If the corporation itself cannot afford the clean up and its assets are insufficient to raise the remaining funds, then the assets of the corporation's leaders get to make up the difference. If the corporation itself cannot afford the clean up and its assets and the assets of its leaders are insufficient to raise the remaining funds, then the corporate leaders get to rot in prison for the amount they were unable to cover.

This would be entirely sufficient motivation for any corporation to either keep its operations small, or keep its operations clean. If the polluting businesses move off shore, then at least they're not polluting America.

I favour the disbanding of the EPA as it stands now because it's not using funds from the corporations exclusively, it's largely funded by tax dollars. Reverse that and step up the unafraid scientific investigations into the origins of various pollutants in the environment (industrial hog farm effluent leaching into area streams and rivers = shut down hog farms), etc. and I'm all for the EPA.

If you can keep your pollution on your own property, fine, but when you sell it, you can only sell to the government and price will be free, and the sale will be linked to the same criteria as above, as if the pollution got off the property. This would effectively remove the real estate value from corporate books and require them to retain ownership of polluted land after that land was useful to the corporation and the attachment of personal assets would still go back as far as the original pollution of the land.

For those who say that this is anti-Capitalism, that this is going to drive business and jobs off shore, I say NAY. It's not anti-Capitalist. It's anti-Corporatist. Corporatism is not the same as Capitalism, as much as media wonks today like to paint corporations with a Capitalist brush. And it would only really hit the big businesses, more so than the large businesses. The BPs of the world are far less numerous and employ far fewer people than the Buddy's Oil Change, LLCs of the world. Small businesses and light industry employ far more people, both in percentage of corporate profits and in absolute numbers, than BIG business.
Click to expand...

With respect to offshore drilling, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
 
ist2_2890967_spoon.jpg


Peace...
 
With respect to offshore drilling, it was Liberal Environmental Nature Worshippers who forced the DeepWater Horizon so far off shore. I'd rather have such operations on-shore, on land where the same oil pockets can be accessed easier, for less cost, and when blow outs like this happen, A) they're farther away from the pocket and so the "head" of the well needed to naturally form a geyser is greater and it's easier to access to recap when there is a blow out, and B) the costs of extraction are significantly lower, hence the costs of fuel are siginificantly lower.

But NO, the Tree Huggers just see a petrochemical eyesore polluting land, so they shoved them off shore, then they saw petrochemical eyesores from shore, so they shoved them miles and miles offshore. So, we now have a gusher a mile from the surface. Congratufuckinlations.

6shooter: There is no spoon.
 
CathyInBlue said:
With respect to offshore drilling, it was Liberal Environmental Nature Worshippers who forced the DeepWater Horizon so far off shore. I'd rather have such operations on-shore, on land where the same oil pockets can be accessed easier, for less cost, and when blow outs like this happen, A) they're farther away from the pocket and so the "head" of the well needed to naturally form a geyser is greater and it's easier to access to recap when there is a blow out, and B) the costs of extraction are significantly lower, hence the costs of fuel are siginificantly lower.

But NO, the Tree Huggers just see a petrochemical eyesore polluting land, so they shoved them off shore, then they saw petrochemical eyesores from shore, so they shoved them miles and miles offshore. So, we now have a gusher a mile from the surface. Congratufuckinlations.

6shooter: There is no spoon.
Click to expand...

PM me with regards to the Spoon.:biggrin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 209 (members: 0, guests: 209)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top