US Politics Mega-thread - Page 903

On February 27 2014 04:05 Wolfstan wrote:
I'm a fan of subsidies. 95% of the time, I'd rather have the risk socialized while the 1% turn those subsidies into successful businesses and collect the profits. The worst option is usually having the government enter that space directly and having that industry turn into an expensive government program with a unqualified, crony, civil servant at the head.

On February 27 2014 04:05 Wolfstan wrote:
I'm a fan of subsidies. 95% of the time, I'd rather have the risk socialized while the 1% turn those subsidies into successful businesses and collect the profits. The worst option is usually having the government enter that space directly and having that industry turn into an expensive government program with a unqualified, crony, civil servant at the head.

On February 27 2014 02:57 Roe wrote:


can you cite that happening, and can you equate fracking with windmills?

On February 27 2014 04:07 Sub40APM wrote:

just out of curiosity, how old are you?

But a new report from advocacy group Good Jobs First makes clear the problem with these arrangements: For local governments and taxpayers, the cost of these subsidies is often vast compared to the number and kind of jobs they generate. In some cases, a community could hire a bunch of CEOs and vice-presidents for the price that clerical, warehouse, assembly and technician jobs fetch on the subsidy market.

On February 27 2014 04:28 nunez wrote:
their (GoodJobsFirst) earlier study addresses this too, so might be worthy a peep.

source

On February 27 2014 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Their point isn't to increase economic efficiency, it's to help a disadvantaged community. Ideally to provide it with a jump-start to a future where they don't need the subsidies anymore.

On February 27 2014 05:06 Wolfstan wrote:


Or to provide infrastructure to a private economy (roads, ports, power and even though I oppose them parks and stadiums).
As well even though I strongly opposed the bailouts 5 years ago I have been convinced that they were a great use of taxpayer dollars for the banks and automakers.

On February 27 2014 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Yep, and development incentives do sometimes include infrastructure development.

Ex. a business says that they'll open up a new plant and the state / local govt offers to support that with a new road / bridge / on ramp / whatever, which is really sensible.

On February 27 2014 06:10 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I like the idea of privatizing highway expansion and implementing privately-operated tollways. It works pretty damn well in Texas, and Colorado is getting ready to do something similar in the Denver metro area.

On February 27 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

So... capitalism ftw?

Edit: I mean, what I'm taking from your posts is that capitalism is great, but myth-making around it isn't. I'm fine with that.

On February 27 2014 09:34 IgnE wrote:


You always take what you want jonny. That's why you never learn anything. Jonny loves subsidies except when they go to Solyndra.

Saying that some subsidies are virtuous incentives for business to settle in "disadvantaged communities" while others are improper interference of government is a distinction without a difference. As oneofthem pointed out, when government hands out a subsidy of any kind it gives the business community resources that provide no return on investment to the community. The company itself takes whatever profits there are. Your argument is that, well, it will trickle down because successful businesses in an area will create jobs and attract other businesses. This is bullshit. It's a direct reallocation of wealth, with only a hope that somehow the community will be happy trading their alienated labor for an infinitesimal chunk of the surplus in the form of wages and the freedom to buy more things.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Edward J. Markey (D-MA) today introduced the Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act to prohibit the marketing of e-cigarettes to children and teens.

“We cannot risk undoing decades of progress in reducing youth smoking by allowing e-cigarette makers to target our kids,” Senator Boxer said. “This bill will help protect our children from an industry that profits from addiction.”

Senator Durbin said, “E-cigarette makers are adopting the deplorable marketing tactics once used by tobacco companies to entice children and teenagers into using their addictive product. With fruit and candy flavors and glossy celebrity ads, e-cigarettes makers are undeniably targeting young people. Unfortunately, it’s working. We must take action now to prevent a new generation from walking down the dangerous path towards nicotine addiction.”

“When it comes to the marketing of e-cigarettes to children and teens, it’s ‘Joe Camel’ all over again. It is troubling that manufacturers of e-cigarettes – some of whom also make traditional cigarettes – are attempting to establish a new generation of nicotine addicts through aggressive marketing that often uses cartoons and sponsorship of music festivals and sporting events,” said Senator Harkin, who is chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “This bill will take strong action to prohibit the advertising of e-cigarettes directed at young people and ensure that the FTC can take action against those who violate the law. While FDA regulation of these products remains critical, this legislation would complement oversight and regulation by the FDA, and ultimately help prevent e-cigarette manufacturers from targeting our children.”