how-to block ads
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pnh102
Re: Why Favor a Rate Hike?
And why should business be allowed to underpay, skip taxes, or offshore accounts to hide their assets. They should pay their fair share like everyone else. I don't care where you live. They should be held accountable. I don't even agree with the tax break given to them. Not only are many of these companies given said tax breaks, but are highly subsidized with tax payer money to even build in these areas. RIDICULOUS. Private business needs to be privately funded. I don't see how their profitable capital venture should fall onto tax payers. As per the tax being passed to consumers, competition usually stifles and limits the cost one can charge, pending there is some in the area. We're back to issue one in many cases of states cherry picking and giving these businesses prime deals that let them stay on top. That's not one else's fault but the governments. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by jc100  :And why should business be allowed to underpay, skip taxes, or offshore accounts to hide their assets. They should pay their fair share like everyone else. Because the cost of any tax to a business is just more overhead that will get passed on down to th consumer in the form of higher prices.
said by jc100 :I don't care where you live. They should be held accountable. You can hold any business you like accountable... just don't buy from them.
said by jc100 :I don't even agree with the tax break given to them. Not only are many of these companies given said tax breaks, but are highly subsidized with tax payer money to even build in these areas. A tax break is not the same as a subsidy. I am all for tax breaks to encourage broadband deployment to unserved areas. We always hear people here whining and whining about how XYZ company doesn't serve a particular area but now we hear whining that they are serving a particular area. What is it going to be?
said by jc100 :We're back to issue one in many cases of states cherry picking and giving these businesses prime deals that let them stay on top. That's not one else's fault but the governments. There's nothing wrong with cherry picking. Why should businesses be compelled to serve areas that are not profitable? These tax breaks are one way to make more unprofitable areas profitable, and thus, have at least one broadband provider. It is a win-win for everyone involved.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
amarryat
Verizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to jc100
You make no sense.
I incorporated. That means that in addition to my fed, state, fica tax, I also have to pay more tax for the privilege of being a business. Businesses provide jobs, and all these people with jobs pay tons of taxes. Why should you penalize businesses. That stifles business. | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pnh102
I suck at HTML so ill just pate you line to line. Sorry
B.S. Companies can only pass the buck so much and then consumers go elsewhere. That's just an excuse for giving companies the world and expecting nothing for it. That's the same excuse these companies always use and give to their lobbyists to compel politicians to sit down and hand everything to them.
How does not buying from them hold them accountable for states giving them the world? That doesn't solve anything. Is your rationale they will then just bow down and close shop? Hah, they'll just demand more tax breaks and subsidies to stick around. Yes, states are GIVING them money FROM TAX PAYERS... IE PENNSYLVANIA and others for Verizon I think where they didnt even do the build out and kept it.
Sure it is. You are EXEMPTING them from paying their share of income to the state, which reduces the revenue they have to spend. Companies should be encouraged to enter areas but not at the expense of the community / state they are servicing. Sure one argument goes that the jobs they create will offset the tax break by having the workers pay taxes.
Yet, why should the burden ONLY fall on the workers. We're back to the same argument of the bottom percent paying the most taxes while the top 10 percent don't. How is that any bit fair? So more or less, you think that you should be covering everything in your community while the local businesses get a free ride? Is that what you're telling me? As per the subsidies, read up. They are given money directly and hand outs at tax payers expenses. You can google many times over how companies are given land, buildings, assets to come to a place beyond simple tax breaks. Hell, they are building a company where I live and the city paid for half the building.
Cherry picking is good for no one. It usually comes at the cost of the consumer who sees one company giving said service at an over inflated price. There by, they own that market and set their rate without competition. I'd rather let the natural rule of business take over where companies have to compete for a market. There's no win win about it. Trust me, companies will come in and service areas if there is a demand. While yes, some areas do get overlooked, that usually gets solved once again via the natural process. Sure it doesn't work every time. Then yes, that's when you offer help but make sure you get what you paid for and not have some company offer years of excuses as to why it cant be done. | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
"There's nothing wrong with cherry picking. Why should businesses be compelled to serve areas that are not profitable? "
That is fine as Long as they don't try to stifle someone that comes in a tries too. Can we say "Lafayette" LA
Peace
--
BlooMe | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by woody7 :That is fine as Long as they don't try to stifle someone that comes in a tries too. Can we say "Lafayette" LA I hope they succeed in stopping Lafayette or any other city from developing a taxpayer-financed broadband solution. As we've seen before, these are nothing but money pits which will end up bankrupting taxpayers.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Lafayette was not being served, and the people VOTED for it full well knowing the consequences. So far there has been nothing negative. My point being that you stated there is nothing wrong with cherry picking, which I agreed with, but also stated that when the municipal government wanted to do so, the "cherry" picking companies should get out of the way, and not try and stop it, nothing more, nothing less.My god if you don't want to serve them, then get out of the way of someone that wants to try.Peace
--
BlooMe | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by woody7 :Lafayette was not being served, and the people VOTED for it full well knowing the consequences. The fact that people voted for it does not make it any less of a dumb thing to do. Any politician who runs on a platform of giving people everything they want "for free" is guaranteed to win on that issue.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10 | waiting on my reply =). | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :I suck at HTML so ill just pate you line to line. Sorry It really is not too hard to learn.
said by jc100 :B.S. Companies can only pass the buck so much and then consumers go elsewhere. So these consumers are holding companies accountable as you wanted, what is the problem with that?
said by jc100 : That's just an excuse for giving companies the world and expecting nothing for it. That's the same excuse these companies always use and give to their lobbyists to compel politicians to sit down and hand everything to them. Government tends to be very hostile to business. It only makes sense that business lobbies government to promote its concerns.
said by jc100 :How does not buying from them hold them accountable for states giving them the world? That doesn't solve anything. Huh?
said by jc100 :Is your rationale they will then just bow down and close shop? Hah, they'll just demand more tax breaks and subsidies to stick around. I demand tax breaks too. It'd be nice if I got some.
said by jc100 : Yes, states are GIVING them money FROM TAX PAYERS... IE PENNSYLVANIA and others for Verizon I think where they didnt even do the build out and kept it. Even though the situation in Penna. did not happen the way you describe, I would never advocate for a direct government subsidy of any business.
said by jc100 :Sure it is. You are EXEMPTING them from paying their share of income to the state, which reduces the revenue they have to spend. You only think this because you believe that the government is by definition entitled to a piece of your income. If I make less this year than I did last year, I pay less tax, but I certainly do not owe the government the same amount this year that I paid last year.
said by jc100 : Companies should be encouraged to enter areas but not at the expense of the community / state they are servicing. And that's exactly what tax breaks can do. But what I don't understand is how can the community be "losing" if a company isn't yet doing business there?
said by jc100 : Sure one argument goes that the jobs they create will offset the tax break by having the workers pay taxes. And that's correct.
said by jc100 :Yet, why should the burden ONLY fall on the workers. Because it is ultimately people who pay all the taxes, business or otherwise.
said by jc100 : We're back to the same argument of the bottom percent paying the most taxes while the top 10 percent don't. Which is incorrect. If you believe the IRS, the top 5% of wage earners pay 50% of all taxes. Is that fair?
said by jc100 :Cherry picking is good for no one. Except for the shareholders of the company doing the picking.
said by jc100 :It usually comes at the cost of the consumer who sees one company giving said service at an over inflated price. But these places currently have no service. How can they be overcharged for something they don't have?
said by jc100 :There by, they own that market and set their rate without competition. Why is it Verizon's fault if other companies don't take the opportunity to serve these communities?
said by jc100 :I'd rather let the natural rule of business take over where companies have to compete for a market. And the result of that is these towns have no broadband.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
May 4th, @11:38AM
| So these consumers are holding companies accountable as you wanted, what is the problem with that?
Wrong. What happens if said consumer doesn't have the option to go elsewhere? I know in my area I had no options. My price kept going way up and way up. I called to complain and was told it was the price of them doing business basically and keeping up with costs. Suddenly, when another provider came in the area and undersold their lines, this magic price of doing business went down.... Hummm.... It's called price fixing buddy and as long as you are the top dog in the roost, you can set your price at whatever you like. So that
argument falls out the door. Not everyone has the option of holding companies accountable. What's the alternative, go back to dial up?
Government tends to be very hostile to business. It only makes sense that business lobbies government to promote its concerns.
Show me proof of that assumption? A matter of fact, the government is VERY GENEROUS to companies. How many times does our government WASTE TENS OF BILLIONS on no bid contracts to said companies? How many times does the government overpay companies to do work and never demand a refund? Better yet, if the government is so hostile, how come few companies are ever perused for offshoring their finances and hiding their assets? I'd really like to know how this is the least bit hostile. A hostile government would go after said companies and make them pay their fair share, no matter where or how they choose to hide their money. Better yet, said government would then tack on penalties for the cost associated with discovering said assets. I don't see any of this happening.
I demand tax breaks too. It'd be nice if I got some.
Hate to burst your bubble bud, but tax breaks are a scam in a nutshell. While we see more money in our pocket, we ultimately see less value for it. Tax breaks (as Republican party loves to give) come at a high price. As you have seen during this current administration, OVER FIVE TRILLION has been borrowed / added to the national deficit. All this serves to do is devalue our dollar and make said tax breaks cost us more in the long run. Someone has to pay for the cost of overspending and wasteful management. Both parties are guilty of it. However, these tax breaks do little in the way of making things better. Both parties need to cap their spending and do a way better job. Either way, companies STILL NEED TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. SIMPLE.
Even though the situation in Penna. did not happen the way you describe, I would never advocate for a direct government subsidy of any business.
Sort of like Republicans giving farmers BILLIONS in subsidies to A) Not farm parts of their land B) pay for limited cultivation of certain foods? Those subsidies ay? As for pennsylvania, try again.
»Pennsylvania Showdown
DSLREPORTS to prove you wrong? Don't you get sick of always being wrong man?
As per responding to the rest, I'll save you the long winding reading. This is sufficient enough to make you look plenty disillusioned as usual. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by jc100 :Wrong. What happens if said consumer doesn't have the option to go elsewhere? I know in my area I had no options. Sucks to be you. Next time you move, I suggest you find an area that has competition. You have no one but yourself to blame for that.
said by jc100 :Show me proof of that assumption? A matter of fact, the government is VERY GENEROUS to companies. And why do you think it is? You think that has nothing to do with lobbying?
said by jc100 : How many times does our government WASTE TENS OF BILLIONS on no bid contracts to said companies? There are situations in which no bid contracts are justified. More often than not they are used when emergency work is required, or when only one company can provide the service requested.
said by jc100 :How many times does the government overpay companies to do work and never demand a refund? And how many times does government sanction businesses for not completing work on time or to specification? It happens more often than you think.
said by jc100 : Better yet, if the government is so hostile, how come few companies are ever perused for offshoring their finances and hiding their assets? I'd really like to know how this is the least bit hostile. A hostile government would go after said companies and make them pay their fair share, no matter where or how they choose to hide their money. You don't think government being so hostile to business is a driving thrust behind offshoring?
said by jc100 : Better yet, said government would then tack on penalties for the cost associated with discovering said assets. I don't see any of this happening. And when they do they just offshore even faster.
said by jc100 :Hate to burst your bubble bud, but tax breaks are a scam in a nutshell. While we see more money in our pocket, we ultimately see less value for it. Of course. Do you personally overpay your taxes so that you get more value for your money?
said by jc100 : Tax breaks (as Republican party loves to give) come at a high price. As you have seen during this current administration, OVER FIVE TRILLION has been borrowed / added to the national deficit. You confuse taxation and spending. They are 2 different things. While I agree that spending has gone off the deep end in the past 7 years, there was a time when the budget was balanced. There's no reason why the current budget cannot be cut.
said by jc100 :Either way, companies STILL NEED TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. SIMPLE. And the costs of everything you buy will go up to pay for the cost of the fair share. Simple indeed.
said by jc100 :Sort of like Republicans giving farmers BILLIONS in subsidies to A) Not farm parts of their land B) pay for limited cultivation of certain foods? Those subsidies ay? Yes, that's right, farm subsidies only came into existence in 2001. Ok.
said by jc100 :DSLREPORTS to prove you wrong? Don't you get sick of always being wrong man? Yawn, I don't even have to click the link to know it is incorrect.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| So wait, when you move to an area your main concern is internet and competitive pricing? Are you seriously telling me that? Either you have a very cushy life and few worries or have too much time on your hands. Most people move to areas because of the neighborhood, travel time to work, and the schools. I don't think internet and phone competition rank as a number one priority. Maybe for you but not many others. Therefore, while it is their fault for not checking, the company still takes blame for upping the price unreasonably. How come X company charges one price in a competitive market, but 20 or 30 percent markup down the road? I highly doubt the cost of business justifies that. It's simply they are a monopoly and do as they please.
B) Lobbying is legal bribery. I am sure lobbying helps line the pockets and help create conducive laws towards business. Sadly, most of these laws come at the consumers expense. Let's face it, lobbying isn't usually done in the customers best interest . Most times, its to stifle competition and give lucrative deals to X company for doing a half ass job. You know, for someone who spouts a lot, you'd think you'd support the free market. What happened to letting companies compete for areas? O yes, that would mean actual price wars and pro consumer policies. I forgot.
C) No bid contracts are a joke. You seriously think the likes of Haliburton or the companies that rip off billions from the government are justified? I know first hand that our government often hands out bids before checking. A family friend worked for the Pentagon and now subcontracts out on this vary issue. He is literally being hired right now to find ways to help the government save money. Basically, our government is so wasteful, they have to pay people to scout for better products to save them some cash. Really, its quite disturbing. I am sure you've read the stories of people rubber stamping payments. Hell, there was one where I lived that a company charged the government 100,000 for nuts and screws. It was only caught accidentally when someone was reviewing some paperwork by chance. This is a real and major issue. No bid contracts don't help anyone, emergencies or not. Look at Katrina for that matter.
C) Offshoring has nothing to do with the government. It has everything to do with companies not wanting to live up to their responsibilities and end of the bargain for doing business in the U.S. If they don't want to pay taxes, they are free to not have a company here. Everyone else has to pay their share. Obviously, they are some kind of special where the community should pay for all, and these guys get a free ride? I don't think so.
D) Of course. Do you personally overpay your taxes so that you get more value for your money? - NO. However, I do pay my fair share. It's your civic duty to pay taxes. Taxes, when used properly, go for building roads, schools, hospitals etc. It's unfortunate that spending has gone off the wall and most times this money is squandered in large droves. Still, without taxes, we'd have a very archaic society. Someone has to pay for the above....
E) Paying my fair share .. See above.. as per holding companies responsible, let them raise their prices. People can shop around for MOST ITEMS. The free market will usually limit how much a company can offset prices to consumers. There will always be someone willing to undercut the price and keep competition going. Some stuff can't be (phone service, ISPS, etc) but most products can fit into this mold.
F) As for farm subsidies, they've been around for a long time. However, if you look at who usually gives them out, it smells of those big business people. Go look that one up. Hence, I think that proved your wrong that we dont subsidize.
G) HAH don't click the link. You hate being wrong. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by jc100 :So wait, when you move to an area your main concern is internet and competitive pricing? Are you seriously telling me that? As a matter of fact, it was.
said by jc100 :Either you have a very cushy life and few worries or have too much time on your hands. Most people move to areas because of the neighborhood, travel time to work, and the schools. I don't think internet and phone competition rank as a number one priority. Which is probably why you don't hear many people outside of this website complaining.
said by jc100 : Maybe for you but not many others. Therefore, while it is their fault for not checking, the company still takes blame for upping the price unreasonably. Again, how can a company that isn't offering a product for sale at any price be "upping the price unreasonably?"
said by jc100 :Let's face it, lobbying isn't usually done in the customers best interest . Yes, I have already firmly established this.
said by jc100 :You know, for someone who spouts a lot, you'd think you'd support the free market. I do. That's why I am glad to see Verizon setting up shop in these areas. If other companies see that there is a market for broadband in the middle of nowhere, perhaps they may follow suit.
said by jc100 : What happened to letting companies compete for areas? O yes, that would mean actual price wars and pro consumer policies. I forgot. No one was stopping Verizon from setting up shop in rural areas. They simply chose not to do it until now.
said by jc100 :You seriously think the likes of Haliburton or the companies that rip off billions from the government are justified? What other company provides the same sort of services that Halliburton does?
said by jc100 :No bid contracts don't help anyone, emergencies or not. Look at Katrina for that matter. I see. So when the levees collapse and the government needs someone to come pump the water out before the entire city is washed way, we'll do a long and drawn out competitive bid process. Ok.
said by jc100 :Offshoring has nothing to do with the government. Sure it does. When governments raise the cost of doing business, it only makes financial sense to set up shop in cheaper areas.
said by jc100 :It has everything to do with companies not wanting to live up to their responsibilities and end of the bargain for doing business in the U.S. The only responsibility a company has is to make money for those who own the company.
said by jc100 :If they don't want to pay taxes, they are free to not have a company here. As we've already established, companies don't pay taxes. Their customers do.
said by jc100 :D) Of course. Do you personally overpay your taxes so that you get more value for your money? - NO. However, I do pay my fair share. I think your fair share should be 100x what you pay now. Until you pay that, then you can't insist anyone else pays their "fair share" either.
said by jc100 :E) Paying my fair share .. See above.. as per holding companies responsible, let them raise their prices. People can shop around for MOST ITEMS. Which is exactly what I've been saying all along.
said by jc100 :As for farm subsidies, they've been around for a long time. However, if you look at who usually gives them out, it smells of those big business people. Last time I checked, only government can hand out subsidies.
said by jc100 : Go look that one up. Hence, I think that proved your wrong that we dont subsidize. When did I claim we didn't subsidize farming?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Pnh, you're inevitably wrong.
So lets see... We've established
1) you live a sheltered life as your only worry was internet when selecting an area.
2) People outside of this place complain all the time a bout their utilities and pricing. Its just most aren't tech savvy enough to get on here and voice their concerns. However, I guarantee you if asked around, you'd hear people complain about the high cost of cable and related services.
3) A company coming into an area is great. However, a company coming into an area with the expectation of gouging is not. It leaves people with little alternatives. Let's say you live in a small town 50 miles away from a big city. Gas is 5 dollars a gallon for you and 3 dollars in the big city. Does it make economic sense to drive a 100 miles round trip to save maybe 20 dollars? I'd say no. Its the case of a company looking to profit off people with few alternatives. While the internet is not a necessity, it's far from just a luxury. There are many things families get out of having said access, especially those with children. The internet is a powerful research tool and allows access to worlds of knowledge and data.
4) LOL you didn't establish anything about lobbying. You'd let the company sell the customer junk if it had it's way. Your idea of business is to let it go without any checks. Then, if you get a lemon, it's your fault the company didn't have product checks in place. Eat it.
5) Ive got no issue with Verizon setting up shop, as long as the price fits their surrounding markets. If Verizon is going to come in and tack on a large premium, then I say to hell with them. See above for that logic.
6)..... No no... Verizon is after subsidies and hand outs. See previous article which you REFUSED TO READ. Ah yes, PNH loves to ignore something known as facts....As per this case, I bet someone greased their wheels all the same.
7) What other company provides the same sort of services that Halliburton does?
I'd venture to guess plenty. There is always competition big or small. As per heckling during a national disaster, hate to burst your bubble, but these companies aren't the first responders. It doesn't take but a very short window to take bids and look at who can provide the service for X cost. IE... We need this service. All companies have 2 days to put together a plan on how they can meet them. We make a decision in 3-4 days. Until said time, the red cross and National guard will provide relief. Simple. That's usually how it works. As per Iraq, it's no one elses fault but the moron who got us there in the first place. Halliburton stealing from the government is the least of our worries. Hell, it's cost us 1 trillion dollars on top of the extra 4 or 5 bush has added to our debt. I imagine billions stolen is a drop in the bucket. Still, it doesnt change the fact that money was ILLEGALLY TAKEN.
8) Fine let companies offshore. The government can make it up by charging them HIGH DUTIES to do business here. Play ball fairly or play ball another way. If these companies want to stick the burden on others, then by all means, they can be sought after in alternative ways. Why should you and I pay for said company's building, expenses. They are private. If i want to start a business, I don't expect the government to subsidize me. Yet, they seem to love to do it in forms of tax breaks and turning a blind eye to them not paying their share. Taxes are a responsibility. Someone has to paid for the roads that lead to the business, the power plants used to supply electricity, etc.
9) The only responsibility a company has is to make money for those who own the company.
Yes but they must also follow the law when doing so.
10) Last time I checked, only government can hand out subsidies.
Big business people was a reference to the Republican party NOTORIOUS for giving out said subsidies. As per you being wrong here, you stated when did we subsidize private business. Well, paying farmers NOT to grow or telling them what to grow and handing them large barrels of money, IS SUBSIDIZING. Let them do as they wish. It's their land. The tax payer doesn't get to eat their food for free. This isn't communism. Therefore, I say we should have NO PART IN FARM SUBSIDIES>
Last, where's your reply about that article for internet subsidizing. You didn't chose to read it for obvious reasons. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by jc100 :Pnh, you're inevitably wrong. Do you have any idea what the word "inevitable" means?
said by jc100 :1) you live a sheltered life as your only worry was internet when selecting an area. Yes, I cannot help that I kinda knew to move to an area that had broadband, since I, um, use it and all. I also made sure my house had running water and working sewer service as well. Maybe those things are important too.
said by jc100 :2) People outside of this place complain all the time a bout their utilities and pricing. If price is an issue for broadband, then they can either do without it or get a job that pays enough to cover the cost of it. I'd love to have a Bugati Veyron but I don't see them dropping in price to what I can afford either.
said by jc100 :Its just most aren't tech savvy enough to get on here and voice their concerns. That's their fault. Nothing stops anyone from learning about a subject.
said by jc100 : However, I guarantee you if asked around, you'd hear people complain about the high cost of cable and related services. Again, cable TV and Internet are luxury items. No one is going to die without cable TV or Internet.
said by jc100 :3) A company coming into an area is great. However, a company coming into an area with the expectation of gouging is not. And people can chose to not do business with said company if they feel the company is gouging. Besides, they lived without that service before, so they can continue to do without it if they do not agree on the price.
said by jc100 :4) LOL you didn't establish anything about lobbying. You'd let the company sell the customer junk if it had it's way. When it comes to luxury items, absolutely. Customers are always free to not do business with a company. I can support reasonable safety regulations for things like food or medical supplies, but for anything else, the buyer is perfectly able to determine the quality of the merchandise if he/she chooses to do so.
said by jc100 :5) Ive got no issue with Verizon setting up shop, as long as the price fits their surrounding markets. Who are you to tell Verizon what they can and cannot charge?
said by jc100 :If Verizon is going to come in and tack on a large premium, then I say to hell with them. And other potential customers who have issues with costs would do the same thing. What exactly is the problem with that?
said by jc100 :See previous article which you REFUSED TO READ. Ah yes, PNH loves to ignore something known as facts.... Because they are wrong. I can read the fairy tales to my children though.
said by jc100 :7) What other company provides the same sort of services that Halliburton does? I'd venture to guess plenty. Bad guess.
said by jc100 :As per heckling during a national disaster, hate to burst your bubble, but these companies aren't the first responders. When did I mention first responders? You're confusing the type of service only a government can provide in a disaster and they type of service that a government needs from the private sector to restore government-provided services in case of an emergency.
said by jc100 : It doesn't take but a very short window to take bids and look at who can provide the service for X cost. Meanwhile... the city continues to flood. Perhaps we should tell God to stop the flooding for a few months while we get this bidding process sorted out.
said by jc100 :9) The only responsibility a company has is to make money for those who own the company. Yes but they must also follow the law when doing so. Well, yeah.
said by jc100 :Big business people was a reference to the Republican party NOTORIOUS for giving out said subsidies. That's right, only the evil Republican party gives out subsidies.
But wait... only Congress can authorize federal spending. Isn't Congress controlled by the Democrat party? Granted, Bush would have to sign off, but the last I checked, the subsidy train is still flowing even with those wascally Republicans out of power. How can this be if only Republicans give out subsidies?
said by jc100 : As per you being wrong here, you stated when did we subsidize private business. Well, paying farmers NOT to grow or telling them what to grow and handing them large barrels of money, IS SUBSIDIZING. Actually it is welfare.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
