evil corporations and rich people

[washamericom]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

"government employment up ten %... private secter down 7 %" thomas jefferson

 

[uscitizen]

China?

 

[washamericom]

China?

i eat off of china... i think it's made right here in america though.. seriously, corporations are comprised of us (we the people) anyway, how can a U.S. president condemn corporations... even his government is a great big fat pig of a corporation... not a successful one though. find someone who just got hired by a corporation, see how much they hate it. if obama wasn't such a social iberalist lunatic, he could do a few things, and switch the economy back on like a lightbulb, but that's a bright idea, doesn't jive with his tremendous and compelling ego, or his vision of utopia.

 

[uptownlivin90]

China?

i eat off of china... i think it's made right here in america though.. seriously, corporations are comprised of us (we the people) anyway, how can a U.S. president condemn corporations... even his government is a great big fat pig of a corporation... not a successful one though. find someone who just got hired by a corporation, see how much they hate it. if obama wasn't such a social iberalist lunatic, he could do a few things, and switch the economy back on like a lightbulb, but that's a bright idea, doesn't jive with his tremendous and compelling ego, or his vision of utopia.

So are the evil unions. Hence, your argument is useless, and worth nothing.

Arguing that because corporations are comprised of people they can't be "evil" is faulty.

In matter of fact, your right a corporate can't be "evil" as much as a union can't be "evil". They both however can do "evil" things as a unit because the people that make decisions for them can be "evil".

I see that there is a reasonable balance of law and liberty that should be enforced by the people upon the people.

Traffic laws for example.

Criminal activities that HAVE VICTIMS (that eliminates the need for laws trying to keep people from doing drugs and selling their own bodies).

If the corporation is run by people, the same applies about a reasonable amount of regulation and law.

Taxation is a whole other issue.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

"government employment up ten %... private secter down 7 %" thomas jefferson

I've never been able to understand why people use such ridiculous talking points, like claiming that "liberals" hate "the rich".

It's retarded. I'm a liberal, and I have nothing against rich people. In fact, I hope to become one soon. What the fuck is the point of using such retarded rhetoric?

 

[washamericom]

China?

i eat off of china... i think it's made right here in america though.. seriously, corporations are comprised of us (we the people) anyway, how can a U.S. president condemn corporations... even his government is a great big fat pig of a corporation... not a successful one though. find someone who just got hired by a corporation, see how much they hate it. if obama wasn't such a social iberalist lunatic, he could do a few things, and switch the economy back on like a lightbulb, but that's a bright idea, doesn't jive with his tremendous and compelling ego, or his vision of utopia.

So are the evil unions. Hence, your argument is useless, and worth nothing.

Arguing that because corporations are comprised of people they can't be "evil" is faulty.

In matter of fact, your right a corporate can't be "evil" as much as a union can't be "evil". They both however can do "evil" things as a unit because the people that make decisions for them can be "evil".

I see that there is a reasonable balance of law and liberty that should be enforced by the people upon the people.

Traffic laws for example.

Criminal activities that HAVE VICTIMS (that eliminates the need for laws trying to keep people from doing drugs and selling their own bodies).

If the corporation is run by people, the same applies about a reasonable amount of regulation and law.

Taxation is a whole other issue.

did you get cross threaded somehow? start your own thread on unions.. and you spelled plato wrong dogshitflag

 

[washamericom]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

"government employment up ten %... private secter down 7 %" thomas jefferson

I've never been able to understand why people use such ridiculous talking points, like claiming that "liberals" hate "the rich".

It's retarded. I'm a liberal, and I have nothing against rich people. In fact, I hope to become one soon. What the fuck is the point of using such retarded rhetoric?

that sort of proves my point. libs hate walmart, but they like the prices. i never siad libs hate the rich. if you check the script, you will find that it's your president that was railing on corps and millionaires, do you watch tv at all?, he's on constantly you know. maybe the problem is we have no common language or comprehension. tell me obama doesn't favor the middle class. why do we have to even have a class system, when we could be one happy classless country. maybe you're not a lib and just don't know it, obmamam is a socialist and he doesn't know it...gak

 

[shintao]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

Hmm, Why do you assume ONLY libs think corporations are the enemy? What do you think the farmers thought when they were forced out by mega agriculture? How about all the small community businesses forced out by megacorporations? How about all the people who died and lost their health to megacorporations? How about all the workers who lost good paying jobs to megacorporations? You see, your logic is flawed to think only libs make that claim.

I am not sure who thinks successful people are the enemy. Gates & many others donate large fortunes to worthy projects. Other rich people subvert the US government & buy out your representatives. Some become presidents and go on murderous crusades of torture, murder & rape of women and children who are detained & chained. So logic fails you again, because all rich people cannot be lumped together & stamped enemy.

 

[washamericom]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

Hmm, Why do you assume ONLY libs think corporations are the enemy? What do you think the farmers thought when they were forced out by mega agriculture? How about all the small community businesses forced out by megacorporations? How about all the people who died and lost their health to megacorporations? How about all the workers who lost good paying jobs to megacorporations? You see, your logic is flawed to think only libs make that claim.

I am not sure who thinks successful people are the enemy. Gates & many others donate large fortunes to worthy projects. Other rich people subvert the US government & buy out your representatives. Some become presidents and go on murderous crusades of torture, murder & rape of women and children who are detained & chained. So logic fails you again, because all rich people cannot be lumped together & stamped enemy.

those are all examples... should they have seperate but uneaqual laws, or is what's good for the goose is good for the gander? how about special funding to prop up mom and pop and their next generations, no matter what? you are speaking of a double standard, my logic's flawed? is a job a right or a privilege, cause if it's a gauranteed right, the government won't be getting smaller anytime soon. conversely, should the biggest taxpayers be forced to work, do they have the right to walk away? what about inventions and patents, should the good ones be taken by the government to benifit all of society? who's the pig who's the farmer?

 

[shintao]

those are all examples...

Yes they are, of why not just libs dislike corporations.

should they have seperate but uneaqual laws, or is what's good for the goose is good for the gander? how about special funding to prop up mom and pop and their next generations, no matter what? you are speaking of a double standard, my logic's flawed? is a job a right or a privilege, cause if it's a gauranteed right, the government won't be getting smaller anytime soon. conversely, should the biggest taxpayers be forced to work, do they have the right to walk away? what about inventions and patents, should the good ones be taken by the government to benifit all of society? who's the pig who's the farmer?

The answer seems to be, corporations are illegal and a degree of a Monopoly, a threat to National Security and the American society, and should be banned.

 

[MaggieMae]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

"government employment up ten %... private secter down 7 %" thomas jefferson

Here's a good analysis of why. If company CEOs made decisions based less on their own expansion of their own private bank accounts and more on the strength of their staff (you know, the wigetmakers), maybe company loyalty would return.

...the average American CEO earned 319 times the salary of the average U.S. worker in 2008. As hard as it is to believe, this pay ratio has dropped over the past decade -- in 2000, the average CEO earned 525 times the average worker's salary.
Until executive pay falls in line with historical levels (in 1980, the ratio sat at a reasonable 42 times), index investors should expect anemic returns while government spending grows at the expense of private job creation.

Consider the following:

1. A reduction in the CEO pay multiple to the 1980 level would allow the average U.S. company to hire an additional 277 workers. This reduction, applied across the Wilshire 5000 index, would create nearly 1.4 million jobs.

2. Executive compensation paid in salary and bonuses is taxed at the highest possible rate. These tax receipts, paid to the federal government, are being used to fund unemployment benefits and stimulus spending.

Think about that for a minute. Instead of hiring prospective workers, executives are (indirectly) paying the same people to stay at home -- unemployed. Alternatively, if an executive is compensated with a massive stock award (rather than salary), long-term shareholders (including 401(k) investors and pensioned employees) are "pickpocketed" by the equity dilution.

Above from a rather length article, here, but if the subject concerns you, I suggest you read it:

10 CEOs Who Earned a Year's Salary in an Hour - TheStreet

 

[shintao]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

"government employment up ten %... private secter down 7 %" thomas jefferson

Here's a good analysis of why. If company CEOs made decisions based less on their own expansion of their own private bank accounts and more on the strength of their staff (you know, the wigetmakers), maybe company loyalty would return.

...the average American CEO earned 319 times the salary of the average U.S. worker in 2008. As hard as it is to believe, this pay ratio has dropped over the past decade -- in 2000, the average CEO earned 525 times the average worker's salary.
Until executive pay falls in line with historical levels (in 1980, the ratio sat at a reasonable 42 times), index investors should expect anemic returns while government spending grows at the expense of private job creation.

Consider the following:

1. A reduction in the CEO pay multiple to the 1980 level would allow the average U.S. company to hire an additional 277 workers. This reduction, applied across the Wilshire 5000 index, would create nearly 1.4 million jobs.

2. Executive compensation paid in salary and bonuses is taxed at the highest possible rate. These tax receipts, paid to the federal government, are being used to fund unemployment benefits and stimulus spending.

Think about that for a minute. Instead of hiring prospective workers, executives are (indirectly) paying the same people to stay at home -- unemployed. Alternatively, if an executive is compensated with a massive stock award (rather than salary), long-term shareholders (including 401(k) investors and pensioned employees) are "pickpocketed" by the equity dilution.

Above from a rather length article, here, but if the subject concerns you, I suggest you read it:

10 CEOs Who Earned a Year's Salary in an Hour - TheStreet

That is a good point maggie. Of course I believe a corporation should be able to pay whatever they choose, by whatever standard they chose, as long as it is a living wage. With that said, I would make the stock market illegal and force corporations to pay fair wages and benefits to employees.

 

[MaggieMae]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

"government employment up ten %... private secter down 7 %" thomas jefferson

Here's a good analysis of why. If company CEOs made decisions based less on their own expansion of their own private bank accounts and more on the strength of their staff (you know, the wigetmakers), maybe company loyalty would return.

...the average American CEO earned 319 times the salary of the average U.S. worker in 2008. As hard as it is to believe, this pay ratio has dropped over the past decade -- in 2000, the average CEO earned 525 times the average worker's salary.
Until executive pay falls in line with historical levels (in 1980, the ratio sat at a reasonable 42 times), index investors should expect anemic returns while government spending grows at the expense of private job creation.

Consider the following:

1. A reduction in the CEO pay multiple to the 1980 level would allow the average U.S. company to hire an additional 277 workers. This reduction, applied across the Wilshire 5000 index, would create nearly 1.4 million jobs.

2. Executive compensation paid in salary and bonuses is taxed at the highest possible rate. These tax receipts, paid to the federal government, are being used to fund unemployment benefits and stimulus spending.

Think about that for a minute. Instead of hiring prospective workers, executives are (indirectly) paying the same people to stay at home -- unemployed. Alternatively, if an executive is compensated with a massive stock award (rather than salary), long-term shareholders (including 401(k) investors and pensioned employees) are "pickpocketed" by the equity dilution.

Above from a rather length article, here, but if the subject concerns you, I suggest you read it:

10 CEOs Who Earned a Year's Salary in an Hour - TheStreet

That is a good point maggie. Of course I believe a corporation should be able to pay whatever they choose, by whatever standard they chose, as long as it is a living wage. With that said, I would make the stock market illegal and force corporations to pay fair wages and benefits to employees.

I'd just like to know whatever happened to company pride? Corporations shouldn't have to be "forced" to do anything. There was a time when they rewarded their employees for good work, and those employees gave back by working harder for the company.

 

[rdean]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

"government employment up ten %... private secter down 7 %" thomas jefferson

If rich people and corporations loved this country, they would "invest" and not "squeeze out the last drop".

How many rich people served in Iraq?

 

[asterism]

i've never been able to ubderstand why libs think that corporations and successful people are the enemy. who do you think pays the bills, makes the products and hires people in this country? elfs make wigets in fantasyland?

"government employment up ten %... private secter down 7 %" thomas jefferson

If rich people and corporations loved this country, they would "invest" and not "squeeze out the last drop".

How many rich people served in Iraq?

Define "rich."

 

[uscitizen]

Here's a good analysis of why. If company CEOs made decisions based less on their own expansion of their own private bank accounts and more on the strength of their staff (you know, the wigetmakers), maybe company loyalty would return.



Above from a rather length article, here, but if the subject concerns you, I suggest you read it:

10 CEOs Who Earned a Year's Salary in an Hour - TheStreet

That is a good point maggie. Of course I believe a corporation should be able to pay whatever they choose, by whatever standard they chose, as long as it is a living wage. With that said, I would make the stock market illegal and force corporations to pay fair wages and benefits to employees.

I'd just like to know whatever happened to company pride? Corporations shouldn't have to be "forced" to do anything. There was a time when they rewarded their employees for good work, and those employees gave back by working harder for the company.

Then came the endless reorgs and annual layoffs to increase efficiencies and appeal to the stock prices. the decreases in benefits as well.

We are that mobile workforce of the 21st century!

 

[shintao]

I'd just like to know whatever happened to company pride? Corporations shouldn't have to be "forced" to do anything. There was a time when they rewarded their employees for good work, and those employees gave back by working harder for the company.

I think you would have to look at the Reagan era for company pride slipping away.

 

[uptownlivin90]

i eat off of china... i think it's made right here in america though.. seriously, corporations are comprised of us (we the people) anyway, how can a U.S. president condemn corporations... even his government is a great big fat pig of a corporation... not a successful one though. find someone who just got hired by a corporation, see how much they hate it. if obama wasn't such a social iberalist lunatic, he could do a few things, and switch the economy back on like a lightbulb, but that's a bright idea, doesn't jive with his tremendous and compelling ego, or his vision of utopia.

So are the evil unions. Hence, your argument is useless, and worth nothing.

Arguing that because corporations are comprised of people they can't be "evil" is faulty.

In matter of fact, your right a corporate can't be "evil" as much as a union can't be "evil". They both however can do "evil" things as a unit because the people that make decisions for them can be "evil".

I see that there is a reasonable balance of law and liberty that should be enforced by the people upon the people.

Traffic laws for example.

Criminal activities that HAVE VICTIMS (that eliminates the need for laws trying to keep people from doing drugs and selling their own bodies).

If the corporation is run by people, the same applies about a reasonable amount of regulation and law.

Taxation is a whole other issue.

did you get cross threaded somehow? start your own thread on unions.. and you spelled plato wrong dogshitflag

Clearly, you just didn't read the post at all. And clearly there's no use in trying to have a civilized conversation with you.