Why do the Left Wing Liberals Hate Corporations?

[Iowa10000]

you pick one small item and disreguard the rest.

The truth is most people just want to live their lifes and support their families and be able to keep them safe. I'm guessing your belief is that people who chase the almighty dollar and get to a place where they can make their money work for them is what everyone should do. But we all know this isn't possible and that even if you try 90% will fail.
But lets look at the cost of the america we live in who benefits from it the most.
Is it the guy who is just an ordinary person who goes through the process of just living the american dream that owes so much back or is it the person who uses everything this country has to be used in the process of becomming all he can be and get as rich as he can?
(95% of the cost of govt is centered around two things, providing the resources so those who choose to chase the dream can do it and succeed, and the other is the govt making sure that in your quest that you don't do things that will hurt the rest of us{"accountability"}).
But somewhere along the line those who have gained so much have come to believe that it's not fair that they, being one person and reguardless of what happens should be any more responsible for paying for the cost of our govt than a guy working as a janitor and trying to make ends meet.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh I'm in a position and do so when appropriate.

But I again need to point out.....if there were no free trade dictating salary, then ALL would be earning minimum wage....and I noticed you did not address that.

That sentence makes no logical sense for multiple reasons. First of all, as I've already pointed out but you keep evading...the government sets up multiple controls, regulations, and laws that restrict business in a gigantic amount of ways that to call trade "free" just doesnt work as a premise. Your economy, right now, while we're typing, is being controlled. Even before BO, the guy you all keep calling socialist (incorrectly I might add) was elected, your economy was, in part, centrally planned.

Now let's move to this "if there were no free market everyone would be getting minimum wage"...that's not true at all either. People would get the wages that the value of their work and bargaining power dictated...within the confines of what the government, duly elected by the people, allows.

If I'm a worker with a skilled trade in rocket propulsion tech, assuming there's demand for rocket propulsion tech, I'm going to make whatever the value of my work and my bargaining power can demand. The government may regulate rocket propulsion labs in a lot of different ways that effect that industry, creating or lessening demand that effects that job.

See? insult free.

 

[Jarhead]

Oh I'm in a position and do so when appropriate.

But I again need to point out.....if there were no free trade dictating salary, then ALL would be earning minimum wage....and I noticed you did not address that.

That sentence makes no logical sense for multiple reasons. First of all, as I've already pointed out but you keep evading...the government sets up multiple controls, regulations, and laws that restrict business in a gigantic amount of ways that to call trade "free" just doesnt work as a premise. Your economy, right now, while we're typing, is being controlled. Even before BO, the guy you all keep calling socialist (incorrectly I might add) was elected, your economy was, in part, centrally planned.

Now let's move to this "if there were no free market everyone would be getting minimum wage"...that's not true at all either. People would get the wages that the value of their work and bargaining power dictated...within the confines of what the government, duly elected by the people, allows.

If I'm a worker with a skilled trade in rocket propulsion tech, assuming there's demand for rocket propulsion tech, I'm going to make whatever the value of my work and my bargaining power can demand. The government may regulate rocket propulsion labs in a lot of different ways that effect that industry, creating or lessening demand that effects that job.

See? insult free.

What I bolded...

That is free trade at work.

The "within the confines of what the government, duly elected by the people, allows" is an empty non factual statement.

As a matter of fact...isnt it the government that is out there complaining about how much money manby people make? Yet they cant do a dam thing about it...unless, of course, said company borrowed money from the government.

And for the record...I never referred to Obama as a socialist. He is not a socialist. Anyone who refers to him as a socilaist does not understand what a socialist is.

 

[Vanquish]

It's not empty and non-factual at all. Unless you think the laws of your country have no effect on trade and business.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you.

1. The economy, before religion and government existed, was a free market.
2. Laws restrict and change business, trade, and finance.
3. Governments enforce laws on business trade and finance.

Therefore, my dear chum, there is no "free" market. It's always dictated by the government to varying degrees.

If you can't admit that, we need go no further.

 

[Bern80]

I said mandating "Buy American" for government contracts. I know you can't march into Wal*Mart and rid the inventory of Chinese made crap, as that's all Wal*Mart sells!

And I don't believe that society owes me something. I believe Conservative policies have stacked the deck squarely against the American worker. And that's hard to deny. So, in the vein that society owes something to anyone, it only follows that a Conservative 'free' trade policy does nothing at all to help the American worker, unless those workers specialize in boxing up the means of production for shipment overseas.

What policies? Be specific.

 

[Jarhead]

It's not empty and non-factual at all. Unless you think the laws of your country have no effect on trade and business.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you.

1. The economy, before religion and government existed, was a free market.
2. Laws restrict and change business, trade, and finance.
3. Governments enforce laws on business trade and finance.

Therefore, my dear chum, there is no "free" market. It's always dictated by the government to varying degrees.

If you can't admit that, we need go no further.

OK...fair enough...I see the point you are making.

No...free market today is not the same as free market before government regulations.

But I see it as all relative...but I see your point.

But I guess it is semantics.....but the bottom line...taking the term "free market" out of the formula...

It is the demand for labor that dictates salary in our employment marketplace.

The better your differential, the greater demand for your labor...the higher your salary.

Otherwise, all would be earning minimum wage.

 

[Bern80]

Oh I'm in a position and do so when appropriate.

But I again need to point out.....if there were no free trade dictating salary, then ALL would be earning minimum wage....and I noticed you did not address that.

That sentence makes no logical sense for multiple reasons. First of all, as I've already pointed out but you keep evading...the government sets up multiple controls, regulations, and laws that restrict business in a gigantic amount of ways that to call trade "free" just doesnt work as a premise. Your economy, right now, while we're typing, is being controlled. Even before BO, the guy you all keep calling socialist (incorrectly I might add) was elected, your economy was, in part, centrally planned.

Now let's move to this "if there were no free market everyone would be getting minimum wage"...that's not true at all either. People would get the wages that the value of their work and bargaining power dictated...within the confines of what the government, duly elected by the people, allows.

If I'm a worker with a skilled trade in rocket propulsion tech, assuming there's demand for rocket propulsion tech, I'm going to make whatever the value of my work and my bargaining power can demand. The government may regulate rocket propulsion labs in a lot of different ways that effect that industry, creating or lessening demand that effects that job.

See? insult free.

So why exactly do you continue to claim that businesses are evil and will do whatever they can to screw people? You said you run a business. Are YOU evil? Or are so naive you think your the loan exception to your opinion?

 

[Vanquish]

If you'd scroll back, you'd see I didn't say ALL businesses were evil. Seems I remember saying something about "bad apples"? Surely you've used that analogy yourself?

Not all businesses are bad and evil. But consumer and citizen protections from the government are vital, else SOME un-self-regulating businesses would screw people right and left.

 

[Jarhead]

If you'd scroll back, you'd see I didn't say ALL businesses were evil. Seems I remember saying something about "bad apples"? Surely you've used that analogy yourself?

Not all businesses are bad and evil. But consumer and citizen protections from the government are vital, else SOME un-self-regulating businesses would screw people right and left.

True....

Just as some people would screw people right and left if there were no laws.
Some cops would screw people right and left if there were no rules to follow
Some teachers would as well without rules to follow


The key word being .....some....

And the key premise being....it occiurs in all walks of life, all groups, all entities....some are going to be bad apples.

 

[Bern80]

If you'd scroll back, you'd see I didn't say ALL businesses were evil. Seems I remember saying something about "bad apples"? Surely you've used that analogy yourself?

Not all businesses are bad and evil. But consumer and citizen protections from the government are vital, else SOME un-self-regulating businesses would screw people right and left.

......and they would go out of business rather quickly as a result either because, as you noted, we're talking about the few bad apples, meaning there are many better options, or because they treat their customers poorly. The free market has a method for handling poor business if you would just let it.

 

[Nosmo King]

If you'd scroll back, you'd see I didn't say ALL businesses were evil. Seems I remember saying something about "bad apples"? Surely you've used that analogy yourself?

Not all businesses are bad and evil. But consumer and citizen protections from the government are vital, else SOME un-self-regulating businesses would screw people right and left.

True....

Just as some people would screw people right and left if there were no laws.
Some cops would screw people right and left if there were no rules to follow
Some teachers would as well without rules to follow


The key word being .....some....

And the key premise being....it occiurs in all walks of life, all groups, all entities....some are going to be bad apples.

Jarhead, I have read your one man crusade to rehab the image of corporations. We all understand that not ALL corporations are evil. The way we all understand that not all criminals are dangerous. We would not expect law enforcement to devote all their manpower to capturing every litterbug. But, we do expect manpower to crack down on the criminals who commit the greatest mayhem.

Some corporations are doing the right thing by their employees and neighborhoods. But there are corporations who actively seek to displace workers, move the means of production overseas, dump hazardous waste and toxic chemicals into our air, water and soil.

So long as these corporations enjoy tax breaks for actions like these, as long as the lobbyists from these corporations continue to hold unfair influence over legislators and governors and regulators, we all might agree that the situation is egregious at best, criminal at worst.

 

[Jarhead]

If you'd scroll back, you'd see I didn't say ALL businesses were evil. Seems I remember saying something about "bad apples"? Surely you've used that analogy yourself?

Not all businesses are bad and evil. But consumer and citizen protections from the government are vital, else SOME un-self-regulating businesses would screw people right and left.

True....

Just as some people would screw people right and left if there were no laws.
Some cops would screw people right and left if there were no rules to follow
Some teachers would as well without rules to follow


The key word being .....some....

And the key premise being....it occiurs in all walks of life, all groups, all entities....some are going to be bad apples.

Jarhead, I have read your one man crusade to rehab the image of corporations. We all understand that not ALL corporations are evil. The way we all understand that not all criminals are dangerous. We would not expect law enforcement to devote all their manpower to capturing every litterbug. But, we do expect manpower to crack down on the criminals who commit the greatest mayhem.

Some corporations are doing the right thing by their employees and neighborhoods. But there are corporations who actively seek to displace workers, move the means of production overseas, dump hazardous waste and toxic chemicals into our air, water and soil.

So long as these corporations enjoy tax breaks for actions like these, as long as the lobbyists from these corporations continue to hold unfair influence over legislators and governors and regulators, we all might agree that the situation is egregious at best, criminal at worst.

What irks me Nosmo and the reason I seem to be on this one man crusade is your refusal to use the word "most" and instead continually use the word "some".

No Nosmo...not some...MOST corporations are innocent of what youy claim.

And why is this important?

For the same reason that we dont have stricter civil laws. Sure, there are some people that drive drunk...and to stop it we can simply make alcohol illegal....but to take away the freedoms of all to stop the actions of a few? Not appropriate.

Sure....a few corporations are bad and game the game. But most dont. NMOst capitalize on the tax credits and use them as they should...which is to invest and helpo communities at the same time.

SO to elimninate these to prevent the few from gaming the game?

Would it be wise to outlaw all competative sports to eliminate the few that illegally bet on them?

 

[Nosmo King]

True....

Just as some people would screw people right and left if there were no laws.
Some cops would screw people right and left if there were no rules to follow
Some teachers would as well without rules to follow


The key word being .....some....

And the key premise being....it occiurs in all walks of life, all groups, all entities....some are going to be bad apples.

Jarhead, I have read your one man crusade to rehab the image of corporations. We all understand that not ALL corporations are evil. The way we all understand that not all criminals are dangerous. We would not expect law enforcement to devote all their manpower to capturing every litterbug. But, we do expect manpower to crack down on the criminals who commit the greatest mayhem.

Some corporations are doing the right thing by their employees and neighborhoods. But there are corporations who actively seek to displace workers, move the means of production overseas, dump hazardous waste and toxic chemicals into our air, water and soil.

So long as these corporations enjoy tax breaks for actions like these, as long as the lobbyists from these corporations continue to hold unfair influence over legislators and governors and regulators, we all might agree that the situation is egregious at best, criminal at worst.

What irks me Nosmo and the reason I seem to be on this one man crusade is your refusal to use the word "most" and instead continually use the word "some".

No Nosmo...not some...MOST corporations are innocent of what youy claim.

And why is this important?

For the same reason that we dont have stricter civil laws. Sure, there are some people that drive drunk...and to stop it we can simply make alcohol illegal....but to take away the freedoms of all to stop the actions of a few? Not appropriate.

Sure....a few corporations are bad and game the game. But most dont. NMOst capitalize on the tax credits and use them as they should...which is to invest and helpo communities at the same time.

SO to elimninate these to prevent the few from gaming the game?

Would it be wise to outlaw all competative sports to eliminate the few that illegally bet on them?

In this arena, I consistently read of unions as obsolete and union members described as "thugs". Unions are called everything from communist fronts to active arms of the Democrat party.

 

[Jarhead]

Jarhead, I have read your one man crusade to rehab the image of corporations. We all understand that not ALL corporations are evil. The way we all understand that not all criminals are dangerous. We would not expect law enforcement to devote all their manpower to capturing every litterbug. But, we do expect manpower to crack down on the criminals who commit the greatest mayhem.

Some corporations are doing the right thing by their employees and neighborhoods. But there are corporations who actively seek to displace workers, move the means of production overseas, dump hazardous waste and toxic chemicals into our air, water and soil.

So long as these corporations enjoy tax breaks for actions like these, as long as the lobbyists from these corporations continue to hold unfair influence over legislators and governors and regulators, we all might agree that the situation is egregious at best, criminal at worst.

What irks me Nosmo and the reason I seem to be on this one man crusade is your refusal to use the word "most" and instead continually use the word "some".

No Nosmo...not some...MOST corporations are innocent of what youy claim.

And why is this important?

For the same reason that we dont have stricter civil laws. Sure, there are some people that drive drunk...and to stop it we can simply make alcohol illegal....but to take away the freedoms of all to stop the actions of a few? Not appropriate.

Sure....a few corporations are bad and game the game. But most dont. NMOst capitalize on the tax credits and use them as they should...which is to invest and helpo communities at the same time.

SO to elimninate these to prevent the few from gaming the game?

Would it be wise to outlaw all competative sports to eliminate the few that illegally bet on them?

In this arena, I consistently read of unions as obsolete and union members described as "thugs". Unions are called everything from communist fronts to active arms of the Democrat party.

Perhaps...but you wont see that from me.
However....my debate has to do with whether or not I agree with you regarding the tax credits corporations receive.
Yes, some...a small percentage.....abuse them for personal gain.
But most use them appropriately.
To eliminate them would be the wrong thing to do. Enforce them better...maybe.....but I do not agree with doing becuase of the few at the cost of the many.

 

[Nosmo King]

What irks me Nosmo and the reason I seem to be on this one man crusade is your refusal to use the word "most" and instead continually use the word "some".

No Nosmo...not some...MOST corporations are innocent of what youy claim.

And why is this important?

For the same reason that we dont have stricter civil laws. Sure, there are some people that drive drunk...and to stop it we can simply make alcohol illegal....but to take away the freedoms of all to stop the actions of a few? Not appropriate.

Sure....a few corporations are bad and game the game. But most dont. NMOst capitalize on the tax credits and use them as they should...which is to invest and helpo communities at the same time.

SO to elimninate these to prevent the few from gaming the game?

Would it be wise to outlaw all competative sports to eliminate the few that illegally bet on them?

In this arena, I consistently read of unions as obsolete and union members described as "thugs". Unions are called everything from communist fronts to active arms of the Democrat party.

Perhaps...but you wont see that from me.
However....my debate has to do with whether or not I agree with you regarding the tax credits corporations receive.
Yes, some...a small percentage.....abuse them for personal gain.
But most use them appropriately.
To eliminate them would be the wrong thing to do. Enforce them better...maybe.....but I do not agree with doing becuase of the few at the cost of the many.

Then let's write into the tax code that corporations who outsource their labor overseas, employ illegal immigrants, move their means of production outside the United States no long will enjoy tax breaks. Null and void.

Who will be the Republican Governor to introduce such reform? Who will be the Republican senator to include such language in a tax bill?

 

[8537]

Name one thing invented by Government that helped boost our GDP or created an industry and thus jobs.

Is this post a joke posted on arpa...eh, I mean the internet?

 

[8537]

Sure, there are some people that drive drunk...and to stop it we can simply make alcohol illegal.

Shut your damn mouth! What kinda crazy talk is that? Why does Jarhead hate baseball and apple pie?

 

[Jarhead]

Sure, there are some people that drive drunk...and to stop it we can simply make alcohol illegal.

Shut your damn mouth! What kinda crazy talk is that? Why does Jarhead hate baseball and apple pie?

I dont hate baseball and apple pie.
I just dont think the poor should be allowed to enjoy them cause I hate the poor.
I am not a fan of blacks and asians either.
And Obama is not a citizen.

And as for women? They are all bisexual.

 

[Nosmo King]

Name one thing invented by Government that helped boost our GDP or created an industry and thus jobs.

The G.I. Bill of Rights. The Interstate Highway Act. Every piece of civil rights legislation. FDRs programs during the Depression (TVA, CCC, WPA). NASA.

And you could always ask Halliburton the same question. Wonder what they would tell you?

 

[Bern80]

Jarhead, I have read your one man crusade to rehab the image of corporations. We all understand that not ALL corporations are evil. The way we all understand that not all criminals are dangerous. We would not expect law enforcement to devote all their manpower to capturing every litterbug. But, we do expect manpower to crack down on the criminals who commit the greatest mayhem.

Some corporations are doing the right thing by their employees and neighborhoods. But there are corporations who actively seek to displace workers, move the means of production overseas, dump hazardous waste and toxic chemicals into our air, water and soil.

So long as these corporations enjoy tax breaks for actions like these, as long as the lobbyists from these corporations continue to hold unfair influence over legislators and governors and regulators, we all might agree that the situation is egregious at best, criminal at worst.

What irks me Nosmo and the reason I seem to be on this one man crusade is your refusal to use the word "most" and instead continually use the word "some".

No Nosmo...not some...MOST corporations are innocent of what youy claim.

And why is this important?

For the same reason that we dont have stricter civil laws. Sure, there are some people that drive drunk...and to stop it we can simply make alcohol illegal....but to take away the freedoms of all to stop the actions of a few? Not appropriate.

Sure....a few corporations are bad and game the game. But most dont. NMOst capitalize on the tax credits and use them as they should...which is to invest and helpo communities at the same time.

SO to elimninate these to prevent the few from gaming the game?

Would it be wise to outlaw all competative sports to eliminate the few that illegally bet on them?

In this arena, I consistently read of unions as obsolete and union members described as "thugs". Unions are called everything from communist fronts to active arms of the Democrat party.

Frankly that's pretty accurate. There's nothing wrong with unions as a concept. Many have more bargainiing power than one. So if your in a little PA steel town where most of the community works for the mill and the mill has little alternative in terms of geographical labor supply, it would be in the best interest of the community to band together and say 'hey, none of us are going to work for you without conditions a, b, c, etc. being met.' People ought to be free to do that and that is the true purpose of a union. Problem is that's not what a union does anymore. Union bosses are in the business of making money off their members. Especially in the case of teacher's unions they make it extremely difficult for the employer to hold teachers accountable.