Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a company makes profit, the profit belongs to those that own the company. Everything else is an expense to be paid in pursuit of more profit.
Why do people complain about record profits and not enough jobs. Jobs are part of the expenses and expenses should be kept as low as possible. If the jobs are outsourced to another country, so be it. Why should the owners of wealth be loyal to anything other than wealth? They should be free to do what they want as long as they do not destroy the property of others.
If a company makes profit, the profit belongs to those that own the company. Everything else is an expense to be paid in pursuit of more profit.
Why do people complain about record profits and not enough jobs. Jobs are part of the expenses and expenses should be kept as low as possible. If the jobs are outsourced to another country, so be it. Why should the owners of wealth be loyal to anything other than wealth? They should be free to do what they want as long as they do not destroy the property of others.
I don't care how much someobne owns, or how much profit is made. What I care about is the corporate welfare they get. Profits are fine, they keep a corporation alive, just don't make me subsidize it.
I have just as much problem with corporate welfare as some others have with social welfare.
I'm not against the accumulation of wealth in general principle. I am against the accumulation of wealth by means of corruption, con games, and conflict of interest. If an entrepreneur honestly runs a successful business enterprise, he should reap the rewards of his ingenuity and labor. But a politician who is also the owner or signficant stakeholder in a large business interest who legislates for his own benefit and that of his cronies is a parasite upon society. And thus I have become highly suspicious of the motivations of "Big" anything, as I personally believe that Big-business, -government, -media, -pharma, -military, -ag, -finance, and etc are all one vast incestuous tangle of shysters bilking the populace for profit regardless of the cost to humanity and the well being of the earth. They are accountable ultimately to no one.
I'm not against the accumulation of wealth in general principle. I am against the accumulation of wealth by means of corruption, con games, and conflict of interest. If an entrepreneur honestly runs a successful business enterprise, he should reap the rewards of his ingenuity and labor. But a politician who is also the owner or signficant stakeholder in a large business interest who legislates for his own benefit and that of his cronies is a parasite upon society. And thus I have become highly suspicious of the motivations of "Big" anything, as I personally believe that Big-business, -government, -media, -pharma, -military, -ag, -finance, and etc are all one vast incestuous tangle of shysters bilking the populace for profit regardless of the cost to humanity and the well being of the earth. They are accountable ultimately to no one.
If an entrepreneur becomes successful and makes $250. At this level these are not the big bad corporations but Obama came after these small business owners and you applauded it. This is a level that even everyday Americans can achieve. Do you consider that big corrupt business?
I don't care how much someobne owns, or how much profit is made. What I care about is the corporate welfare they get. Profits are fine, they keep a corporation alive, just don't make me subsidize it.
I have just as much problem with corporate welfare as some others have with social welfare.
Most of the complaints about corporate profits are companeis that get huge amounts of corporate welfare.
If you make those profits by buddying up with the government to put you at the head of the line above everyone else, then you don't deserve it.
There is one such glaring example of the Billionaires at 740 Park Avenue in New York City.
Bush and Romney both paid a visit to some of these billionaires personally for campaign donations.
In return, legislation is written to benefit them. That is not free market capitalism at work.
I notice many on this board spout about Capitalism and Free Markets, but yet then turn around and support the buying of politicians to rig the game in their favor.
It is all lies and propaganda. They don't really support it.
Most of the complaints about corporate profits are companeis that get huge amounts of corporate welfare.
Is that really true? Exxon - yes. But Exxon alone doesn't get a huge amount of corporate welfare (shouldn't get any).
What about Apple? Obscene profits, no corporate welfare per se. But they use offshore labor, keep their cash in foreign banks, funnel cash outside of CA to avoid corporate income tax, etc. They are almost never criticized for their corporate practices.
The most offensive thing by the way should be companies that receive corporate welfare and lose money.
If an entrepreneur becomes successful and makes $250. At this level these are not the big bad corporations but Obama came after these small business owners and youapplauded it. This is a level that even everyday Americans can achieve. Do you consider that big corrupt business?
No one leads with their best offer.
Makes no sense to me that someone earning $400K is taxed at the same rate as someone making $4 MM or $40MM. The tax codes gives the ultra wealthy substantially more opportunities to shelter their income and reduce their effective rate than it does for someone earning $250K.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.