The Age of Corporate Treason

[Redfish]

That you have deemed harmful to this country, you mean.

No, things that actually do harm to average Americans. Like corporations not paying their fair share in taxes; that puts the burden on the middle class and people suffer because of it. That's harm!

People who support BP and argued against fining those basturds for the gulf oil spill are traitors to this country. What BP did to fishing in the gulf, harmed this country.

People who vote for right (or left) wing corporate whores are traitors to this country. Because of them, we've lost our representation in government. And that is harmful to this country.

Not paying taxes harms the government, not the country. If corporations don't pay taxes, which is dubious, then I'd say the answer is making it so nobody else has to pay taxes either, not making corporations pay more.

I'd say that BP should have paid reparations to anybody whose property was damaged by the spill, but since nobody owns the water who should they have paid reparations to? That's the problem with so-called "public property," since nobody actually owns it nobody has standing to make a claim.

We have no representation in government, and never have, regardless of who is elected. That's simply the nature of government.

BP is paying out 20 billion to people and businesses that were hurt by the spill. they are also paying to restore the marsh that was damaged. They have taken responsibility for the accident.

As to taxes, who do you think makes the most profit from every barrel of oil that is extracted on US territory? Answer: the US government. Not from corporate income taxes--from taxes at every stage of recovery from drilling to pumping into your tank. While the oil companies risk billions to make their profits, the US govt risks nothing and reaps huge profits at OUR expense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, things that actually do harm to average Americans. Like corporations not paying their fair share in taxes; that puts the burden on the middle class and people suffer because of it. That's harm!

People who support BP and argued against fining those basturds for the gulf oil spill are traitors to this country. What BP did to fishing in the gulf, harmed this country.

People who vote for right (or left) wing corporate whores are traitors to this country. Because of them, we've lost our representation in government. And that is harmful to this country.

Not paying taxes harms the government, not the country. If corporations don't pay taxes, which is dubious, then I'd say the answer is making it so nobody else has to pay taxes either, not making corporations pay more.

I'd say that BP should have paid reparations to anybody whose property was damaged by the spill, but since nobody owns the water who should they have paid reparations to? That's the problem with so-called "public property," since nobody actually owns it nobody has standing to make a claim.

We have no representation in government, and never have, regardless of who is elected. That's simply the nature of government.

BP is paying out 20 billion to people and businesses that were hurt by the spill. they are also paying to restore the marsh that was damaged. They have taken responsibility for the accident.

As to taxes, who do you think makes the most profit from every barrel of oil that is extracted on US territory? Answer: the US government. Not from corporate income taxes--from taxes at every stage of recovery from drilling to pumping into your tank. While the oil companies risk billions to make their profits, the US govt risks nothing and reaps huge profits at OUR expense.

I'm aware, my point was not many people had an actual claim against BP. The people who simply fish in the Gulf had no claim because they don't have any ownership stake in the Gulf.

 

[Redfish]

Not paying taxes harms the government, not the country. If corporations don't pay taxes, which is dubious, then I'd say the answer is making it so nobody else has to pay taxes either, not making corporations pay more.

I'd say that BP should have paid reparations to anybody whose property was damaged by the spill, but since nobody owns the water who should they have paid reparations to? That's the problem with so-called "public property," since nobody actually owns it nobody has standing to make a claim.

We have no representation in government, and never have, regardless of who is elected. That's simply the nature of government.

BP is paying out 20 billion to people and businesses that were hurt by the spill. they are also paying to restore the marsh that was damaged. They have taken responsibility for the accident.

As to taxes, who do you think makes the most profit from every barrel of oil that is extracted on US territory? Answer: the US government. Not from corporate income taxes--from taxes at every stage of recovery from drilling to pumping into your tank. While the oil companies risk billions to make their profits, the US govt risks nothing and reaps huge profits at OUR expense.

I'm aware, my point was not many people had an actual claim against BP. The people who simply fish in the Gulf had no claim because they don't have any ownership stake in the Gulf.

I don't know what ownership has to do with it. the fisherman, shrimpers, crabbers, and oystermen lost their livelihood for a few years because of the spill. BP is compensating them. They are even compensating recreational fisherman for the loss of their hobby. What exactly is your issue with that?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

BP is paying out 20 billion to people and businesses that were hurt by the spill. they are also paying to restore the marsh that was damaged. They have taken responsibility for the accident.

As to taxes, who do you think makes the most profit from every barrel of oil that is extracted on US territory? Answer: the US government. Not from corporate income taxes--from taxes at every stage of recovery from drilling to pumping into your tank. While the oil companies risk billions to make their profits, the US govt risks nothing and reaps huge profits at OUR expense.

I'm aware, my point was not many people had an actual claim against BP. The people who simply fish in the Gulf had no claim because they don't have any ownership stake in the Gulf.

I don't know what ownership has to do with it. the fisherman, shrimpers, crabbers, and oystermen lost their livelihood for a few years because of the spill. BP is compensating them. They are even compensating recreational fisherman for the loss of their hobby. What exactly is your issue with that?

Property ownership is the basis of society, basically. Nobody owns the Gulf, so when the spill happened nobody's property in the gulf was injured. So the fishermen, who do not own the Gulf, had no actual claim against BP, because their property wasn't damaged. Now, I have no problem with BP compensating them, but that's more or less a donation as far I can see.

 

[Redfish]

I'm aware, my point was not many people had an actual claim against BP. The people who simply fish in the Gulf had no claim because they don't have any ownership stake in the Gulf.

I don't know what ownership has to do with it. the fisherman, shrimpers, crabbers, and oystermen lost their livelihood for a few years because of the spill. BP is compensating them. They are even compensating recreational fisherman for the loss of their hobby. What exactly is your issue with that?

Property ownership is the basis of society, basically. Nobody owns the Gulf, so when the spill happened nobody's property in the gulf was injured. So the fishermen, who do not own the Gulf, had no actual claim against BP, because their property wasn't damaged. Now, I have no problem with BP compensating them, but that's more or less a donation as far I can see.

splitting hairs.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm aware, my point was not many people had an actual claim against BP. The people who simply fish in the Gulf had no claim because they don't have any ownership stake in the Gulf.

I don't know what ownership has to do with it. the fisherman, shrimpers, crabbers, and oystermen lost their livelihood for a few years because of the spill. BP is compensating them. They are even compensating recreational fisherman for the loss of their hobby. What exactly is your issue with that?

Property ownership is the basis of society, basically. Nobody owns the Gulf, so when the spill happened nobody's property in the gulf was injured. So the fishermen, who do not own the Gulf, had no actual claim against BP, because their property wasn't damaged. Now, I have no problem with BP compensating them, but that's more or less a donation as far I can see.

That's nonsense. The fishermen owned their businesses, which were damaged by the spill. They were right to get compensation for the losses they suffered.

 

[editec]

Just throwing some proposed definitions of GREED, here

Greed --wanting more than one could possible EVER need.

Greed --the confused state of mind where one believes that one's worth as a person is based on what one owns.

Greed - the state of being where one would take from those whose need causes them to suffer, where the spoils of the taking really does not significantly matter to the well being of the taker.

GREED, contrary to what Randians will try to tell you, is NOT a virtue.

GREED is a mental condition.

GREED is NOT a healthy appetite, it is a neurotic behavior stemming (probably) from fear or a sense of inadaquacy.

GREED is self interest on STERIODS.

if you think that Ayn Rand was about greed then you either have poor reading comprehension skills or you never read any of her books.

I read Atlas Shrugged in 65 lad.

I was young enough and unworldly enough, back then, that I was totally impressed by it, too. You see 15 years old is about the perfect time to be an OBJECTIVE LIBERTARIAN.

Young kids ALL think they're something special, so when they read someone like Rand, who panders to their selfish instincts, it is VERY appealing.

She does not advocate greed, what she advocates is individual responsibility, accountability, and freedom. plus non intrusive government and free market capitalism.

Yes, I am aware of that Ayn thought all government was an affront to human freedom, lad. I just happen to completely disagree with her POV.

Additionally, apparently I am much more aware of Rand's philosophy than you are because CLEARLY you never read this book.

.​

Still think Ayn didn't believe GREED is a virtue, Lad?

Will you at least acknowledge that you do NOT have a fucking clue who I am, what I think why I think it?

I am NOT your straw man, lad.

If you want to fault me fault me for what I write...not what you WISH I'd written.

Like my Great-grandmother Blitz used to say to me when I foolishly tried to correct her?

Never try to teach your grandfather to such eggs, lad.

 

[KGB]

When the taxes get so large they are confiscatory and harmful, it is not treason to oppose them or avoid them.

At one time it was treason to deny the King first night rights in a marriage.

Taxes aside, you don't think that American corporations have an obligation to keep their workforce in America?

I believe the government has an obligation to quit creating an environment that is hostile enough to business that they seek safer harbors elsewhere...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't know what ownership has to do with it. the fisherman, shrimpers, crabbers, and oystermen lost their livelihood for a few years because of the spill. BP is compensating them. They are even compensating recreational fisherman for the loss of their hobby. What exactly is your issue with that?

Property ownership is the basis of society, basically. Nobody owns the Gulf, so when the spill happened nobody's property in the gulf was injured. So the fishermen, who do not own the Gulf, had no actual claim against BP, because their property wasn't damaged. Now, I have no problem with BP compensating them, but that's more or less a donation as far I can see.

That's nonsense. The fishermen owned their businesses, which were damaged by the spill. They were right to get compensation for the losses they suffered.

Well it would be like if you owned a business, but conducted your business in a building which you did not own, or rent from the actual owner. If the building burnt down you'd have no cause for compensation, even though you used that building to conduct your business.

 

[PMZ]

The most important fact of business is that each one is a very narrow special interest driven by one rule only.

Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

There is only one reason why the means of production being owned by a few, rather than all, works. Competition.

As long as a strong government can regulate all of those narrow special interests to maintain robust competition, capitalism will work, and may well offer the benefit of maximizing innovation, the driver of growth.

Because regulation conflicts with make more money regardless of the cost to others, capitalistic organizations congenitally resist it, and therefore stong capable government.

Republicans have been trained to be pro business by being anti strong capable government.

Hence the current political environment.

Business would like to rid the country of what makes them collectively successful in order to allow some to be overwhelmingly powerful.

Our politics is defined by those who've fallen for that vs those who haven't.

 

[Redfish]

Just throwing some proposed definitions of GREED, here




GREED, contrary to what Randians will try to tell you, is NOT a virtue.

GREED is a mental condition.

GREED is NOT a healthy appetite, it is a neurotic behavior stemming (probably) from fear or a sense of inadaquacy.

GREED is self interest on STERIODS.

I read Atlas Shrugged in 65 lad.

I was young enough and unworldly enough, back then, that I was totally impressed by it, too. You see 15 years old is about the perfect time to be an OBJECTIVE LIBERTARIAN.

Young kids ALL think they're something special, so when they read someone like Rand, who panders to their selfish instincts, it is VERY appealing.

She does not advocate greed, what she advocates is individual responsibility, accountability, and freedom. plus non intrusive government and free market capitalism.

Yes, I am aware of that Ayn thought all government was an affront to human freedom, lad. I just happen to completely disagree with her POV.

Additionally, apparently I am much more aware of Rand's philosophy than you are because CLEARLY you never read this book.

.​

Still think Ayn didn't believe GREED is a virtue, Lad?

Will you at least acknowledge that you do NOT have a fucking clue who I am, what I think why I think it?

I am NOT your straw man, lad.

If you want to fault me fault me for what I write...not what you WISH I'd written.

Like my Great-grandmother Blitz used to say to me when I foolishly tried to correct her?

Never try to teach your grandfather to such eggs, lad.

screw you, you pompous asshole. I read Rand in the early 60s, and then reread her in the last few years, her viewpoints were valid then and remain valid today. And its really stupid to refer to your superiors as "lad" asshole

 

[Katzndogz]

The country will learn a valuable lesson if companies and corporations simply left the country to stew in its own poverty.

When taxes get confiscatory, the best thing about them is that the entity taxed leaves. The country not only doesn't get the confiscatory taxes, they don't get any taxes at all! They don't even get what they would have gotten without the confiscation.

Manny Pacquiao understood this when he took his fight to China. Not only does the US lose the increase in taxes they tried to steal. Now they don't get anything.

 

[PMZ]

That free markets are mythical was a point that Ayn Rand handled by writing fiction that can assume any world it wants. Many of her readers fell for that literary trick and assumed that she was writing of our world.

 

[PMZ]

Can anybody point out a successful country defined by poverty and successful businesses?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The most important fact of business is that each one is a very narrow special interest driven by one rule only.

Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

There is only one reason why the means of production being owned by a few, rather than all, works. Competition.

As long as a strong government can regulate all of those narrow special interests to maintain robust competition, capitalism will work, and may well offer the benefit of maximizing innovation, the driver of growth.

Because regulation conflicts with make more money regardless of the cost to others, capitalistic organizations congenitally resist it, and therefore stong capable government.

Republicans have been trained to be pro business by being anti strong capable government.

Hence the current political environment.

Business would like to rid the country of what makes them collectively successful in order to allow some to be overwhelmingly powerful.

Our politics is defined by those who've fallen for that vs those who haven't.

Government curbs competition, and big business loves regulations that keep out competition from smaller upstarts.

 

[bripat9643]

That free markets are mythical was a point that Ayn Rand handled by writing fiction that can assume any world it wants. Many of her readers fell for that literary trick and assumed that she was writing of our world.

Turds like you have to lie about what Ayn Rand wrote because you have no arguments against the truth. Everything you have posted about her is a lie.

Atlas shrugged is stunning as a prediction about how American politics is playing out.

 

[bripat9643]

Can anybody point out a successful country defined by poverty and successful businesses?

Why would anyone waste their time doing that?

 

[MikeK]

When the taxes get so large they are confiscatory and harmful, it is not treason to oppose them or avoid them.

At one time it was treason to deny the King first night rights in a marriage.

Taxes aside, you don't think that American corporations have an obligation to keep their workforce in America?

I believe the government has an obligation to quit creating an environment that is hostile enough to business that they seek safer harbors elsewhere...

That is a plainly un-American position.

Inasmuch as American corporations achieved their success by exploiting this Nation's natural, material, administrative, and human resources, it is fitting that a substantial exit (expatriation) tax is imposed on them if they wish to abandon the Country that enabled them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Taxes aside, you don't think that American corporations have an obligation to keep their workforce in America?

I believe the government has an obligation to quit creating an environment that is hostile enough to business that they seek safer harbors elsewhere...

That is a plainly un-American position.

Inasmuch as American corporations achieved their success by exploiting this Nation's natural, material, administrative, and human resources, it is fitting that a substantial exit (expatriation) tax is imposed on them if they wish to abandon the Country that enabled them.

Again, they can't "exploit" their own property, and their property does not belong to the "nation."

 

[MikeK]

Well it would be like if you owned a business, but conducted your business in a building which you did not own, or rent from the actual owner. If the building burnt down you'd have no cause for compensation, even though you used that building to conduct your business.

Having the unauthorized use (squatting) of a constructed (unnatural) property ruined does not in the litigious sense compare with having the legitimate use of a natural resource exploitively ruined by some for-profit entity. BP's action is analogous to building an engine in a place where it poisons the air in a shopping district or a public beach.