Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Are you calling Lizzie mommy now? What is wrong with you people? Need the Gov to take of you.

Are you calling Lizzie mommy now? What is wrong with you people? Need the Gov to take of you.

Why do you people feel the need of take it up the ass from Wall Street?

 

[Yarddog]

Everything she says involves big govt.
She is the arch nemesis of our constitution.
Fucking totalitarian.

She's read the Constitution.
Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter.

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

 

[georgephillip]

You and your hard-working family, along with all other Americans, are about 5% of global population. Your lifestyles and mine are paid for in places like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Capitalism has murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings across the past five hundred years so that greedy, ignorant Americans can prosper. If that's something you celebrate, it's not hard to understand why you hold the political views you do.

You are an idiot now. If you really believe that, then you have condemned yourself with your own statement.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

Starvation has come to countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Honduras because of greedy, self-absorbed "patriots" like you who believe their level of consumption justifies starvation and worse elsewhere,

Moving won't change anything,

Only cowards offer that as a solution.

Impossible. All the greedy self-absorbed 'patriots' like me..... left Venezuela. All the greedy evil corporations, and the elite wealthy people.... left.

How is it that you try and blame the people who are no longer there, for the problems that are there? They all left. No one is being greedy in Venezuela, because all the people you claim were greedy are no longer in Venezuela.

Try again...

How is it that you try and blame the people who are no longer there, for the problems that are there? They all left. No one is being greedy in Venezuela, because all the people you claim were greedy are no longer in Venezuela.

Greedy people who have never set foot in Venezuela are responsible for what's happening there.

Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017

You are full of crap sir.

You are full of crap sir.

You are a partisan hack

Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017

"Rodriguez is well-known as an outspoken critic of the Maduro government, but in his recent article he recognizes that Washington’s “misguided” sanctions are exacerbating falling oil production in Venezuela and as such, pejoratively affecting general living standards.

"The resulting loss of access to credit appears to have helped precipitate the collapse in oil output, driving the resulting economic contraction.

"Our point is that the spilling over of this political crisis into the arena of finance had consequences for the country’s economy and for the living standards of Venezuelans,"

 

[georgephillip]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

What Elizabeth Warren Is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

"As Ms. Warren steadily rises in the polls she is working diligently to protect her left flank, lining up with progressives on nearly every issue and trying to defuse potential attacks from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. 'I’m with Bernie,' she responds when asked about what is perhaps the most contentious issue of the primary race: 'Medicare for all.'

"Yet publicly, and even more in private, she is signaling to party leaders that, far from wanting to stage a 'political revolution' in the fashion of Mr. Sanders, she wants to revive the beleaguered Democratic National Committee and help recapture the Senate while retaining the House in 2020."

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

The government is going to fix capitalist corruption......Hilarious!!!

I like how you post "money corrupts"..... Government collected $3.3 Trillion dollars. If the phrase is "Money Corrupts", then you should be the most skeptical of government.

I like how you post "money corrupts"..... Government collected $3.3 Trillion dollars. If the phrase is "Money Corrupts", then you should be the most skeptical of government.

Do you vote?
If so, you have input over how much money government collects.
How much input do you have over Wall Street corruption that doesn't require government?

 

[Andylusion]

Or.... people that commit violence crimes end up prison?

People who commit non-violent crimes end up in prison too. And that's the problem. The regulatory state might seem invisible to people with a regular income. It's just an expense of life that they write off. But when you're dead broke, it's damned hard to stay legal. The system pushes the poor into state dependency by regulating away their right to look out for themselves.

I've been poor most of my life. I have never found it 'hard to stay legal'. If you want to buy something you don't have money for.... Wendy's is hiring. Work. Earn money, and buy what you want.

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

So what is the point?

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

What's the caseload of your (alleged) acquaintance?

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

"The United States criminal justice system is the largest in the world. At yearend 2015, over 6.7 million individuals1) were under some form of correctional control in the United States, including 2.2 million incarcerated in federal, state, or local prisons and jails.2)

"The U.S. is a world leader in its rate of incarceration, dwarfing the rate of nearly every other nation.3)

"Such broad statistics mask the racial disparity that pervades the U.S. criminal justice system, and for African Americans in particular.

"African Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, and they are more likely to experience lengthy prison sentences.

"African-American adults are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated than whites and Hispanics are 3.1 times as likely.4)

"As of 2001, one of every three black boys born in that year could expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as could one of every six Latinos—compared to one of every seventeen white boys.5)

"Racial and ethnic disparities among women are less substantial than among men but remain prevalent."

In a country founded by white supremacists, why would any thinking adult doubt the existence of racial discrimination in its criminal justice system?

I'm sorry but "why would any thinking adult doubt".... is not proof. That's assumption.

Further, statistics that show one person of any group, is less or more likely to be incarcerated proves nothing.

If blue people are 5 times more likely to commit a serious crime, then it is logical that blue people are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated.

In order to prove you prior claim, you need to prove that people who are not committing serious crimes that have been sent to prison on a vast scale.

Isolated cases of false convictions that are over turned, do not prove a system injustice. And nor do random statistics.

Prove the claim you made before. Nothing in this post did.

 

[Andylusion]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

Hypothetical.....

You are in a company with declining market share. You need to focus research and design on a new product to save the company.

The law requires you pay out profits to employees.

Result, you don't have the resources to fund the R&D, and the company falls into obscurity and closes.

I'm all for profit sharing.... But the above, is the reason I'm against a 'one size fits all' solution. You don't know what a company is going through. You can look at a profit number in the moment, but you don't know if that profit is based on existing products that are going obsolete, or not.

I'll give you a perfect example. I worked for a company that focused on industrial printers. While the company was pulling down multiple millions a year in profit.... what you did not know looking at the profit numbers, was the company was losing ground year over years. The companies biggest selling product, was a printer designed in the 1980s, and quickly becoming obsolete.

The company was desperately trying to use those profits to create a new product, to generate new income.

If you had put in place a profit sharing requirement, that could have been devastating to the company.

Profit sharing is based on net profits, not gross profits.

Profit sharing has been working for a very long time...but it's only offered to a select few.

Like I said, I'm all for profit sharing.

I understand the difference between net profit, and gross profit. R&D budgets come out of net profits.

Money that is paid out in profit sharing, can't be used to fund R&D. It can't be used to open a new facility, or buy new equipment, or be used to grow the business, marketing, or purchase out a competitor that will grow the companies market.

Again... I am most certainly not against profit sharing. I am not. I am all for it.

I am just saying, you don't know what a business might be going through. Just looking at a profit statement, may not tell you whether or not a company is struggling. It might be pulling down a million dollars off of legacy products, while facing a very uncertain future.

That's why I'm against a one-size-fits-all solution. It's pretty easy for people on the outside, to claim they can just give out their millions in profit sharing. Then when the company closes because it never had the resources to make a new product, now everyone is unemployed. Well done.

 

[Andylusion]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

 

[Andylusion]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

Because if you don't save up.... then you end up poor. That's how life works.

You don't want to have to work when you are old? Save money.

Don't want to save money? Want to blow everything? That's fine.... but then you get to stand on your feet 40-hours a week when you are old.

I don't get where you have this idea that if you do our job, then you are entitled to never work again. That's not any contract I've ever seen.

You get a job somewhere, you know what you are entitled to? Exactly what you signed up for. If you work for $20/hour... then you are entitled $20/hour. There is no "$20/hour plus never work again after 40 years". Never seen that anywhere, except perhaps in Washington DC, and that's only because they dupe people like you, into thinking they are "for the people".

But anywhere else... no. If you hired me to mow your lawn, and I worked for you mowing your lawn for the next 40 years.... can I just retire, and you are required to keep paying me for mowing your lawn, when I don't mow it anymore?

If that was the case, you would refuse to hire me to begin with, and you know it. You would never pay people to not work, if you had to pull the money out of your own pocket.

Funny how you think it should work that way for everyone but you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

So you now openly admit you support fascism and anyone else that supports it?

 

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Are you calling Lizzie mommy now? What is wrong with you people? Need the Gov to take of you.

Are you calling Lizzie mommy now? What is wrong with you people? Need the Gov to take of you.

Why do you people feel the need of take it up the ass from Wall Street?

Who is taking it from Wall St? Who? Name the person that had a paid for house, and a full time job, and a middle class life... and then...... Wall St... and suddenly they are impoverished sleeping on a park bench?

No one. No one has had this happen. No one went to sleep with a 2019 Chevy Camero, and woke up the next morning with a 2000 Kia Sportage, and screamed 'damn you Wall St! damn you!'.

The truth is, most workers benefit from Wall St. You want to know what most Union Pensions are invested in? Wall St. You want to know where most 401Ks are invested in? Wall St. You want to know where Insurance companies invest annuities that people retire on? Wall St.

You people are idiots.

 

[Andylusion]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

What Elizabeth Warren Is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

"As Ms. Warren steadily rises in the polls she is working diligently to protect her left flank, lining up with progressives on nearly every issue and trying to defuse potential attacks from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. 'I’m with Bernie,' she responds when asked about what is perhaps the most contentious issue of the primary race: 'Medicare for all.'

"Yet publicly, and even more in private, she is signaling to party leaders that, far from wanting to stage a 'political revolution' in the fashion of Mr. Sanders, she wants to revive the beleaguered Democratic National Committee and help recapture the Senate while retaining the House in 2020."

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

The government is going to fix capitalist corruption......Hilarious!!!

I like how you post "money corrupts"..... Government collected $3.3 Trillion dollars. If the phrase is "Money Corrupts", then you should be the most skeptical of government.

I like how you post "money corrupts"..... Government collected $3.3 Trillion dollars. If the phrase is "Money Corrupts", then you should be the most skeptical of government.

Do you vote?
If so, you have input over how much money government collects.
How much input do you have over Wall Street corruption that doesn't require government?

So you vote for corruption. Wall Street people have been sent to prison. Enron exec Jeff Skillings went to prison. Bernie Madoff went to prison. When they find something illegal, they send them to prison.

Tell me... when Franklin Raines was caught completely fabricating numbers at Fannie Mae, and paid off half the government with donations.... which Democrats, and which executives at Fannie Mae went to prison?

And you tell me... did you vote for those democrats that defended the endless fraud committed at Freddie and Fannie? I would bet you did. Regardless, even if you didn't vote.... the fact is, fraud is committed by people in government with connections to business all the time.

The people on Wall St, go to prison if they are caught.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

/——/ Bad life decisions, intellectual laziness, lack of planning, being stupid with money, not pursuing an education or vocational skills, eating take out every night while sitting on the front porch with a 12 pack smoking cigarettes and complaining that the rich are holding you down. There’s more but you get the idea.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

/——-/ Such twisted logic. The gubmint gets their share of the company revenue, CEO pay and employees paycheck. They Gubmint takes a bite out of every sale, and every drop of gas the delivery trucks use. Did you know companies also pay the Gubmint Sales and Use taxes? And how many of you socialists are leaving America to escape capitalism? The answer is ZERO.

 

[georgephillip]

Everything she says involves big govt.
She is the arch nemesis of our constitution.
Fucking totalitarian.

She's read the Constitution.
Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter.

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

 

[georgephillip]

People who commit non-violent crimes end up in prison too. And that's the problem. The regulatory state might seem invisible to people with a regular income. It's just an expense of life that they write off. But when you're dead broke, it's damned hard to stay legal. The system pushes the poor into state dependency by regulating away their right to look out for themselves.

I've been poor most of my life. I have never found it 'hard to stay legal'. If you want to buy something you don't have money for.... Wendy's is hiring. Work. Earn money, and buy what you want.

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

So what is the point?

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

What's the caseload of your (alleged) acquaintance?

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

"The United States criminal justice system is the largest in the world. At yearend 2015, over 6.7 million individuals1) were under some form of correctional control in the United States, including 2.2 million incarcerated in federal, state, or local prisons and jails.2)

"The U.S. is a world leader in its rate of incarceration, dwarfing the rate of nearly every other nation.3)

"Such broad statistics mask the racial disparity that pervades the U.S. criminal justice system, and for African Americans in particular.

"African Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, and they are more likely to experience lengthy prison sentences.

"African-American adults are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated than whites and Hispanics are 3.1 times as likely.4)

"As of 2001, one of every three black boys born in that year could expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as could one of every six Latinos—compared to one of every seventeen white boys.5)

"Racial and ethnic disparities among women are less substantial than among men but remain prevalent."

In a country founded by white supremacists, why would any thinking adult doubt the existence of racial discrimination in its criminal justice system?

I'm sorry but "why would any thinking adult doubt".... is not proof. That's assumption.

Further, statistics that show one person of any group, is less or more likely to be incarcerated proves nothing.

If blue people are 5 times more likely to commit a serious crime, then it is logical that blue people are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated.

In order to prove you prior claim, you need to prove that people who are not committing serious crimes that have been sent to prison on a vast scale.

Isolated cases of false convictions that are over turned, do not prove a system injustice. And nor do random statistics.

Prove the claim you made before. Nothing in this post did.

If blue people are 5 times more likely to commit a serious crime, then it is logical that blue people are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated.

Which factors are driving Blue people to commit more crime, racial or economic?

Shadow Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

"One contributing factor to the disparity in arrest rates is that racial minorities commit certain crimes at higher rates.

"Specifically, data suggests that black Americans—particularly males—tend to commit violent and property crimes at higher rates than other racial groups.9)

"Other studies, however, demonstrate that higher crime rates are better explained by socioeconomic factors than race: extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods experience higher rates of crime regardless of racial composition."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

in order to avoid living in poverty

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everything she says involves big govt.
She is the arch nemesis of our constitution.
Fucking totalitarian.

She's read the Constitution.
Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter.

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation.

Exactly! Once new money goes into a firm, you must never be allowed to buy or sell your investment in the secondary market!!!!

Why? Because Commies feel speculation is a bad word. We must protect people from speculation!

No speculation in communism, eh?

How's that Trabant?

 

[Cellblock2429]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

in order to avoid living in poverty

/—-/ I love it when someone includes the answer in the very question they ask.

 

[georgephillip]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

Corporations are created by government.
Really.

Corporation - Wikipedia