robert broere
Active Member
i work for poland spring.so i can tell you we won't be making as much money anymore.
NY bottled water... new law & who profits?
- Thread starter gary s
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
gary s
Well-Known Member
in our township on long isle there is a curbside recycling program in place. based on the recycling cans i see curbside on the pick up day, it appears that 75% are doing it. it is the office and sporting areana's that should follow and enforce it.
what is disturbing is that unclaimed deposits will go to ny state with no explanation of what the funds are going to used for !!
what is disturbing is that unclaimed deposits will go to ny state with no explanation of what the funds are going to used for !!
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Mark K said:
Most NY communities recycle I would expect (every I lived in did). The issue isn't that there isn't recycling. The issue is that in NY state, and many other states, you get charged a nickel deposit per can when you buy your soda/beer (and now water bottles). The nickel refund is really just giving you back money you already spent.
You could put the refundable containers in your recycle blue bin. Folks will gladly pick through looking for them in most neighborhoods. Especially now since BHO is doing such a great job.
TJR
Most NY communities recycle I would expect (every I lived in did). The issue isn't that there isn't recycling. The issue is that in NY state, and many other states, you get charged a nickel deposit per can when you buy your soda/beer (and now water bottles). The nickel refund is really just giving you back money you already spent.
You could put the refundable containers in your recycle blue bin. Folks will gladly pick through looking for them in most neighborhoods. Especially now since BHO is doing such a great job.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do you say that?
Tom
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Because Caymen, Penn and Teller are libertarians.
They are against government intervention in the workplace, which means no "right to a job" and no "unjust termination" that you can sue for, no unemployment money, and no unions with any real power, which all seem to be things that you're pushing for.
Libertarianism also opposes most all of the Michael Moore spew, and you seem to be tuned into that as well.
Penn and Teller are right about most things, or often come to a stance that isn't quite right, but is far better than what we have now, or at least presented in a way that I can respect their reasoning, even though I do not agree. All things considered, I'm surprised you can watch their show without revulsion
How can you be a devout believer in the power of the firearm and then turn around and support Michael Moore's socialist views? The right to bear arms is always the first to go under socialism, so I'd think you would have a conflict of interest. Moore himself, while a NRA life member, is no fan of the personal firearm
They are against government intervention in the workplace, which means no "right to a job" and no "unjust termination" that you can sue for, no unemployment money, and no unions with any real power, which all seem to be things that you're pushing for.
Libertarianism also opposes most all of the Michael Moore spew, and you seem to be tuned into that as well.
Penn and Teller are right about most things, or often come to a stance that isn't quite right, but is far better than what we have now, or at least presented in a way that I can respect their reasoning, even though I do not agree. All things considered, I'm surprised you can watch their show without revulsion
How can you be a devout believer in the power of the firearm and then turn around and support Michael Moore's socialist views? The right to bear arms is always the first to go under socialism, so I'd think you would have a conflict of interest. Moore himself, while a NRA life member, is no fan of the personal firearm
Michael Moore is a life member of the NRA. I watched "Bowling for Columbine" and surprisingly enough, it was NOT an anti-gun movie.
I am not a socialist by any means. My political views are almost dead nut in the center and I lean towards a Libertarian.
I am against gun control.
I support unions even though I work as a supervisor in a union shop.
I am against abortion, but realize that legal or not, it is going to happen so we might as well make it safe.
I am against prostetution, but know it is going to happen anyways, so give the girls a safe place to do it.
I believe trade should be fair and not free. Reciprocity is the key. You want to enter the US market, we get to enter yours. Don't like it, stay the hell out.
I am against government intervention in the workplace. Get the government out and put the union in. Problem solved.
Unlike most people, I listen to more than just those that support my point of view 100% and damn all others.
Michael Moore is just as right as Penn & Teller is. The same goes for Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
Tom
p.s. While in Las Vegas, I went to see Penn & Teller. Great show.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Michael Moore is right on something? When did this happen?
So, does their live show still have the "flag burning" trick?
So you're saying that you are non-unionized and you see union workers slacking off and/or committing other atrocities, all facilitated by the union?
Unless you're saying that you see bad behavior from a union from a union and still support it, your statement is rather meaningless. Unless your union is vastly different than the Teamsters', I don't see how you can support them.
No one agrees with any other person 100%. If two people do agree 100%, one is a tool for the other, and is the worst type of person, the sort of person who will let the NY government instate this new bottled water tax and not blink an eye, and accept that income taxes are as integral to life as breathing, because the government is doing it, and they are infallible Tools belong in a box, not the real world.
To illustrate, I agree with your points 1, 4, 5, and half of 6.
Without their clout with the government, how do you expect Unions to do anything? They could call in strikes and such, but will a strike really work in a bad economy in a time where illegal immigrants grow on trees and work for pocket money? And then the question arises of will the unions abuse their power to strike to get concessions? Extortion is something they've developed.
True capitalism eliminates the need for unions. A company that wants a good product will demand excellence from employees and pay accordingly. Said company's employees will take pride in their work, and revel in the paycheck that their work gives them. Bad companies would die. The only problem is that the death of bad companies puts people out of a job, but new opportunity will come along and fix this. Capitalism requires less taxes, no Heinous union dues, no mandatory union membership with the hazing and "seniority" that such entails, and requires no government oversight...
But it is logical, and it doesn't just make sense, it makes dollars, therefore it'll never happen
So, does their live show still have the "flag burning" trick?
So you're saying that you are non-unionized and you see union workers slacking off and/or committing other atrocities, all facilitated by the union?
Unless you're saying that you see bad behavior from a union from a union and still support it, your statement is rather meaningless. Unless your union is vastly different than the Teamsters', I don't see how you can support them.
No one agrees with any other person 100%. If two people do agree 100%, one is a tool for the other, and is the worst type of person, the sort of person who will let the NY government instate this new bottled water tax and not blink an eye, and accept that income taxes are as integral to life as breathing, because the government is doing it, and they are infallible
Tools belong in a box, not the real world. To illustrate, I agree with your points 1, 4, 5, and half of 6.
Without their clout with the government, how do you expect Unions to do anything? They could call in strikes and such, but will a strike really work in a bad economy in a time where illegal immigrants grow on trees and work for pocket money? And then the question arises of will the unions abuse their power to strike to get concessions? Extortion is something they've developed.
True capitalism eliminates the need for unions. A company that wants a good product will demand excellence from employees and pay accordingly. Said company's employees will take pride in their work, and revel in the paycheck that their work gives them. Bad companies would die. The only problem is that the death of bad companies puts people out of a job, but new opportunity will come along and fix this. Capitalism requires less taxes, no Heinous union dues, no mandatory union membership with the hazing and "seniority" that such entails, and requires no government oversight...
But it is logical, and it doesn't just make sense, it makes dollars, therefore it'll never happen
Yippers...
Nope. The guys that work for me put 100% into their job. I like knowing I have the best of the best working for me. Makes my job easier. They can refuse to work the weekend or stay over. When that happens, I must work that time. When they see that, they stand up and work the weekend anyways to keep me from having to.
Since when did a deposit become a tax? Is it a tax when we are too lazy to return the bottle? Is it when we dont care enough to pick up a thrown bottle off the ground and make a few cants is a tax?
If so, sign me up. I will do my part to lessen my tax burdon and place it on the backs of whom are too buisy, or lazy, to get their refund.
This is why we need government intervention.
Sorry, I don't but the "nasty union" crap you and other people spew. Been there, done that. I have been screwed by my employers more times than I care to remember. Even when I left the union to become a supervisor, it was my former brothers that supported me in my decision. They are the ones that put in 110% every day. They are the ones that work together to make the best product we can build. There is no room for error in the product we build. We, as a country, can not afford to have our product fail.
Tom
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Didn't you just say that we need to keep the government out?
I'm confused.
If you're nice and poor, or have good accountants, Uncle will give you back all or part of your income tax, so that's a tax that becomes a deposit, and if the most heinous of all taxes can become a deposit, why can't a deposit become a tax? The government is also getting a free loan on your deposit money, and if my money is going to be taken away from me in a forced loan, I demand interest, and I'm not getting it. I'll get my 5 cents back when I return the bottle, sure, but by then that 5 cents is worth more than 5 cents, so my money is being withheld by the government's actions, which is pretty synonymous with a tax.
Sure, the fraction of a cent interest that I am denied is infinitesimal, but it's the principle of the matter, and that infinitesimal fraction of a cent multiplied by all the hundreds of thousands of plastic bottles becomes fairly substantial.
Like how the lottery survives off of all the people who play and loose, the government is banking on people not returning the bottles, and for those people, this deposit truly is a tax.
I just hope New York doesn't become like Maryland with these wonky programs and do as we did and use the money from cigarette taxes to pay for a) General Funds and b) To get people to *stop smoking*
...and then they have to hike other taxes when they realize that their revenue from cig tax is going down, and they were banking on income that they were working to abolish.
The thread has already said the truth, that more people will stop buying water due to this, which will decrease revenue, so they're already going down this tragic path.
My comment was about illegals working for pocket change. We eliminate the illegals, then we eliminate the need for government intervention. We allow the illegals, we need the government involved.
Tom
Tom
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
The government prohibiting illegals directly in the workplace requires government intervention in the workplace, as clearly their border patrols do not work.
Capitalism taken to an extreme does allow for hiring illegals who will produce at the same quality of work for less (yeah, personal experience shows that they produce inferior quality work for less, but that aside...)
However, the Government shouldn't be facilitating this by placing signs in Spanish and providing interpreters and dual-language phone service and free handouts, whether by law or directly. The government doing this is the government in the workplace. I will not go to the heart of Mexico and demand that every sign be presented in English, and I expect reciprocation.
So if the government would work to protect our country as it is supposed to, it could stay out of the workplace and indirectly keep illegals out by increasing the costs to hire them. Sure, there will still be illegals in the workplace, but so there would be with government inspections, and more id checks (which are a bad thing anyhow), and to borrow from your format "It's going to happen anyhow", so let's reduce the damage it does, especially the free handouts stolen from our wallets
"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country,"
"We must Americanize in every way, in speech, in political ideas and principles, and in their way of looking at relations between church and state. We welcome the German and the Irishman who becomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such... He must revere only our flag, not only must it come first, but no other flag should even come second."
Update that last one a bit, and you have the solution to our problems.
While we're on this,
We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.
So there is no such thing as a Mexican-America, a Hispanic-American, or (most egregiously used) an African-American.
These are all Theodore Roosevelt quotes. If only the government still believed this, as it once did.
Capitalism taken to an extreme does allow for hiring illegals who will produce at the same quality of work for less (yeah, personal experience shows that they produce inferior quality work for less, but that aside...)
However, the Government shouldn't be facilitating this by placing signs in Spanish and providing interpreters and dual-language phone service and free handouts, whether by law or directly. The government doing this is the government in the workplace. I will not go to the heart of Mexico and demand that every sign be presented in English, and I expect reciprocation.
So if the government would work to protect our country as it is supposed to, it could stay out of the workplace and indirectly keep illegals out by increasing the costs to hire them. Sure, there will still be illegals in the workplace, but so there would be with government inspections, and more id checks (which are a bad thing anyhow), and to borrow from your format "It's going to happen anyhow", so let's reduce the damage it does, especially the free handouts stolen from our wallets
"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country,"
"We must Americanize in every way, in speech, in political ideas and principles, and in their way of looking at relations between church and state. We welcome the German and the Irishman who becomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such... He must revere only our flag, not only must it come first, but no other flag should even come second."
Update that last one a bit, and you have the solution to our problems.
While we're on this,
We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.
So there is no such thing as a Mexican-America, a Hispanic-American, or (most egregiously used) an African-American.
These are all Theodore Roosevelt quotes. If only the government still believed this, as it once did.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
Once again, I'm not following you. You seem to be implying that if we got rid of the illegals then we wouldn't need government involvement. I understand that assertion. But it begs the question: How can we get rid of the illegals WITHOUT government involvement?
TJR
Once again, I'm not following you. You seem to be implying that if we got rid of the illegals then we wouldn't need government involvement. I understand that assertion. But it begs the question: How can we get rid of the illegals WITHOUT government involvement?
TJR
David Ponder
Well-Known Member
Are we off track here?
[Broken External Image]:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
[Broken External Image]:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Dave, off-topic is as off-topic does!
TJR
TJR
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Nah, we're not off-topic, I'm trying to understand Caymen's apparent reversal of position which is a sort of "catch-22" per his explanation as TJR mentions.
The Mister Bill "Oh Noooooooooo" face on Thomas in that picture is funny though.
The Mister Bill "Oh Noooooooooo" face on Thomas in that picture is funny though.
