DRSmith Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Does anyone get tired of all these so called citizen groups advertising on tv acting like they are not just a front for coporate interests? I just saw the ad for Americans Against Food Taxes So I check them out and guess what Its Web site states that Americans Against Food Taxes is a "coalition of concerned citizens – responsible individuals, financially strapped families, small and large businesses in communities across the country" who opposed a government-proposed tax on food and beverages, including soda, juice drinks, and flavored milks. But its extensive membership consists mainly of lobbying groups for packaged food and soda companies, chain restaurant corporations and the world's large food and soft drink manufacturers and distributors, including the Coca-Cola Company, Dr. Pepper-Royal Crown Bottling Co., PepsiCo, Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York, the Can Manufacturers Institute, 7-Eleven Convenience Stores, and Yum! Brands. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_Against_Food_Taxes I am not sure how taxing a behaviour that is costing the government money is a bad thing, since it forces those who are costing the most money to the system to pay the most in. If you only drink the occasional pop it is not that big a deal but if you live off a gallon a day then yes you will pay more but you health care costs will be more also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Hey, lobbiests are citizens too! or as conservatives would say... Corporations are citizens too. Even moreso than individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Does anyone get tired of all these so called citizen groups advertising on tv acting like they are not just a front for coporate interests? I get tired of so-called citizen groups harping on "don't tax me bro" while acting like they aren't a front for corporate-friendly party interests. One additional difference: the majority of people joining AAFT probably know that its grassroots operational posturing is a ruse. The good news is, thanks to the Supreme Court you'll see theoretically unlimited amounts of corporate money being spent directly in support of political campaigns. So there will be plenty of even bigger lies distracting you from those of AAFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 What I think is sadder is people who sign up for these groups like the mentioned in the OP or Americans For Prosperity do not believe they doing the bidding of corporate interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Don't like what people do? Bust 'em with taxes. I don't like people espousing liberal values. And I can make the argument that they cost us all more in expanded government programs, welfare, healthcare mandates, etc. Tax the hell out of those ****ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 Don't like what people do? Bust 'em with taxes.I don't like people espousing liberal values. And I can make the argument that they cost us all more in expanded government programs, welfare, healthcare mandates, etc. Tax the hell out of those ****ers. Special interests period are a bad idea no matter what side they are all laws should be fair and protect the majority and not benefit the minority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Special interests period are a bad idea no matter what side they are all laws should be fair and protect the majority and not benefit the minority You know you're not getting any argument here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 You know you're not getting any argument here. I think things will get worse though between the citizens united decision and the repeal of public financing of campaigns you will have more special interest problems, more rhetoric and less real issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I think things will get worse though between the citizens united decision and the repeal of public financing of campaigns you will have more special interest problems, more rhetoric and less real issues I agree with that. But I have to admit, I have a hard time getting upset if there are corporations involved in keeping the prices of the products I buy lower. Maybe I should get upset, but I just can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Special interests period are a bad idea no matter what side they are all laws should be fair and protect the majority and not benefit the minority This really isn't true. For example, are you really arguing that buildings shouldn't have handicap access? Are you really arguing that emergency exits shouldn't also be marked with braile? Special Interest Advocasy like with all things can be very important and beneficial. It gives groups without power a voice. As with all things though it can be abused, but fair is not always equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 I agree with that. But I have to admit, I have a hard time getting upset if there are corporations involved in keeping the prices of the products I buy lower. Maybe I should get upset, but I just can't. But are products really costing us less if they are resulting in less jobs? I see two things happening from the corporate influence on people I want less enviromental laws (from those who harm the enviroment) I want less social programs ( from those do not provide healthcare and ship jobs over seas) it seems they do not want to pay the costs of their decisions ---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 06:22 PM ---------- This really isn't true. For example, are you really arguing that buildings shouldn't have handicap access? Are you really arguing that emergency exits shouldn't also be marked with braile?Special Interest Advocasy like with all things can be very important and beneficial. It gives groups without power a voice. As with all things though it can be abused, but fair is not always equal. Is it an unfair law? Can not the able use a ramp? Special interest having a voice would be okay if it was not dressing itself up as something else or buying politicians If say you had nothing but public funded elections and no lobby money going to people then it may not seem so bad. There may no longer be kings and queens in the US but there is a corporate ruling class now that controls the pols and the shapes the message that gets out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 When I was a special educator I heard many times from certain families how unfair it was that children with disabilities got adaptations like untimed tests or the use of a calculator. They considered it giving these kids an unfair advantage when the truth is it was leveling the playing field. In the world of disabilities every attempt to provide that population has been met with resistance or controversy. Whether it's the expense of hiring a sign interpereter that would benefit just one or two children or even allowing a hyperactive child the ability to jog in place during class to burn off energy. More, business owners would have told you that forcing them to build ramps and make elevators wide enough to accomodate elevators was very unfair because it was unduly expensive. Fairness, I find almost always comes down to money or another group actually wanting to keep its advantage. (I can't believe you guys are making me argue in favor of lobbiests. I feel so slimey) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 When I was a special educator I heard many times from certain families how unfair it was that children with disabilities got adaptations like untimed tests or the use of a calculator. They considered it giving these kids an unfair advantage when the truth is it was leveling the playing field. In the world of disabilities every attempt to provide that population has been met with resistance or controversy. Whether it's the expense of hiring a sign interpereter that would benefit just one or two children or even allowing a hyperactive child the ability to jog in place during class to burn off energy.More, business owners would have told you that forcing them to build ramps and make elevators wide enough to accomodate elevators was very unfair because it was unduly expensive. Fairness, I find almost always comes down to money or another group actually wanting to keep its advantage. (I can't believe you guys are making me argue in favor of lobbiests. I feel so slimey) I was speaking specifically to special interest which seek laws that benefit one group while harming another, or in some cases push for people to govern based on one issue. In making ramps and elevators wider that does not harm anyone else as the able bodied can use them too. Why have one kid jog when all kids could get exercise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Even worse are the "family valyes" groups. Any group with family or values in their name=bigoted ultra-fundamentalist douchehats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Burgold, Why have timed tests at all ? Why allow some to use calculators ? Why not all ? Timing a test for even the smarter children that fully understand yet they are such perfectionists that the process takes a little longer should not be essentially ignored. Understanding math is one thing, but real life applications as far as business or science are pretty much always allowed tools for less margin of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 Even worse are the "family valyes" groups. Any group with family or values in their name=bigoted ultra-fundamentalist douchehats. I always find it interesting that many on the right talk about liberals and their nany state laws like when it comes to gun control but what laws controlling abortion and drugs. Sames the two sides of the same coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I always find it interesting that many on the right talk about liberals and their nany state laws like when it comes to gun control but what laws controlling abortion and drugs.Sames the two sides of the same coin. :yes: Libertarianism FTW!Although both sides are bad about the war on drugs, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 :yes: Libertarianism FTW!Although both sides are bad about the war on drugs, I think that the drugs need to be made legal and handled like alcohol and perscription drugs and the fines, loss of privilages and imprisonment accordingly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Special interests period are a bad idea no matter what side they are all laws should be fair and protect the majority and not benefit the minority You know you're not getting any argument here. So, y'all are opposed to extending those tax cuts for the top 1%? Never would have expected that. ---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 01:54 PM ---------- I agree with that. But I have to admit, I have a hard time getting upset if there are corporations involved in keeping the prices of the products I buy lower. Maybe I should get upset, but I just can't. So, your assertion is that when a group of citizens attempt to petition the government concerning their viewpoint, then they're an evil special interest who should shut up and let the majority decide, but if a group of corporations do it, then they're "involved in keeping the prices of the products I buy lower", and you're cool with that? I suspect that somewhere, there may be a better example of "Republican reasoning". But I'm having trouble thinking of one, right now. ---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 02:08 PM ---------- In making ramps and elevators wider that does not harm anyone else as the able bodied can use them too. Although I can think of examples. Back when people still used pay phones, there was a phase where pay phones all had to be lowered to wheelchair height. Problem was, they were also making the handset cords on the phones really short, because they got vandalized less. The result was a phone where a person in a wheelchair could reach the coin slot, but a phone where a person who's over 6 feet tall can't stand up while using the phone. And somehow, I suspect that there are a lot more people over six feet than there are in wheelchairs. ---------- Or, guys, how many times do you see this? Public restroom, in a restaurant or store or something. Only one sit-down toilet. In order to accommodate people in wheelchairs, the one toilet is in a room that's big enough for a pool table. Therefore, there's only room in the bathroom for one toilet. Not only does this mean that, if you need to do number two, and somebody else is reading a newspaper (or, somebody who's pissing, but prefers pissing on the toilet seat instead of using the two, vacant, urinals), then you have to wait. But there's a sink in there, too. (Meaning that when the person is done, he stays in there and uses the sink instead of coming out.) And, to accommodate people in wheelchairs, the mirror above that sink is angled down. Meaning that I can't use it to see anything above my crotch. ---------- Yeah, some of the accommodations do make things tougher for others. (Now, does that make them wrong? If the effect of a law is that, for person X, it makes something possible that was impossible, but for person Y, it makes something inconvenient that was convenient, a bad law? Judgment call.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 Never understood cutting taxes during a war, really do not understand fiving tax breaks to millionaires when the country is drowning in debt. In all you examples though I can see ways to do things so as to balance the interest of all. Sometimes it seems laws have to be made because people are just to stupid to see the need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.